 sj |
||
|
||
Could stars be sentient beings?!?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 18 Nov 05 - 12:35 PM And on top of that some instability in this star, this controlled, self-sustaining nuclear explosion could wipe out me and/or everything that comes after me. I'm not sure if stars are sentient or not but, I repeat, they sure are scary! Here you go DB - take two readings, breathe deep and call me in the evening. :-) White Dwarf Welcome, welcome little star! I'm delighted that you are Up in heaven's vast extent No bigger than a continent. Relatively minuscule Spinning like a penny spoon Glinting like a polished spoon A kind of kindled demi-moon, You offer cheer to tiny Man 'Mid galaxies Gargantuan -- A little pill in endless night An antidote to cosmic fright. - John Updike |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: *daylia* Date: 18 Nov 05 - 10:04 AM That's really interesting, Foolestroupe! THis site sheds more light on those "dark places" that intrigued the Incas: Mathematics, Astronomy and Sacred Landscape in the Inkan Heartland The animals in the sky were not patterns formed connecting stars, but black regions of the Milky Way (dark clouds of interstellar matter, from the astronomer's viewpoint) whose contours were identified with contours of animals [Bauer and Dearborn 1995]. Urton was able to identify unambiguously the following dark cloud constellations (Fig. 5): 1. Serpent, between the star Adhara, in Canis Major, and the Southern Cross 2. Toad, near Southern Cross 3. Tinamou (partridge-like bird), "coal sack" below Southern Cross 4. Llama, between Southern Cross and epsilon-Scorpio 5. Baby Llama, "below" mother Llama 6. Fox, between tail of Scorpio and Sagittarius 7. a second Tinamou, in Scutum |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 18 Nov 05 - 08:59 AM The Incas were more interested in the dark patches in the sky (where the starlight is obscured by dust clouds) than the stars. They had names for them, and their astronomy/astrology was more interested in them than just the stars. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: freda underhill Date: 18 Nov 05 - 07:32 AM Yes! Yes! Yes! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,DB Date: 18 Nov 05 - 04:34 AM It was a clear, frosty day in Manchester yesterday. I walked down a wide road straight towards the rising morning sun. The light from this 'local star' was dazzling and I had to screw up my eyes. I had this sudden realisation that I really was in the presence of a star and this realisation was more than a bit scary! Here was this huge ball of incandescent gas just 8 light minutes away. The photons that were causing me discomfort had left that star 8 minutes ago and had crossed the void at 186,000 miles per second. Nevertheless, this scary thing had sustained me for all of my life and all of my ancestors (human and no-human), for countless generations, over billions of years. And on top of that some instability in this star, this controlled, self-sustaining nuclear explosion could wipe out me and/or everything that comes after me. I'm not sure if stars are sentient or not but, I repeat, they sure are scary! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Paul Burke Date: 18 Nov 05 - 03:53 AM the existance of a spiritual reality beyond the mere physical, and I think there is ample circumstantial evidence to at least give it a begrudging 'well, maybe I s'pose...' I think you'll find that you are using that slippery weasel word "spirit" in two different senses here. There IS a spititual reality, if by spiritual you mean art, morality, love, hate, and all other human emotions and aspirations. It is a reality no less real than a brick, but has the reality of a process rather than that of a thing. So, for example, a flow exists, and is not the same as the water, it's a description of a state of the water. But you can't tell us that a tsunami, a flow of water, isn't as real as a brick. However, "spirituality" in that sense does not mean that there has to be a "spirit", separate from the body and its mind processes, any more than there has to be a demon in the tsunami. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:43 PM Amos - You are obviously talking about The Blind Watchmaker. I googled The Blind Carpenter and got this. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 09:05 PM Galileo Galilei: The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes. Howard Nemerov: Religion and science both profess peace (and the sincerity of the professors is not being doubted), but each always turns out to have a dominant part in any war that is going or contemplated. Jacob Bronowski: No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power. Ralph Sockman: Christmas renews our youth by stirring our wonder. The capacity for wonder has been called our most pregnant human faculty, for in it are born our art, our science, our religion. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM Albert Einstein: Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM Science...means unresting endeavor and continually progressing development toward an aim which the poetic intuition may apprehend, but which the intellect can never fully grasp. --Max Planck, quoted in Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An overview of the new physics (New York: Bantam Books, 1986). |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:50 PM OK Amos, perhaps I was relying on old or unreliable information, but even so, none of the above disallows the existance of a spiritual reality beyond the mere physical, and I think there is ample circumstantial evidence to at least give it a begrudging 'well, maybe I s'pose...' As I said earlier, and I believe I have always maintained, I don't have issue with anything that has been presented here, except the refusal to allow for that possibility. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Ebbie Date: 17 Nov 05 - 07:11 PM I don't have any expectation or even real notion of the sensibilities of stars or fragments thereof. However, enough odd things have happened in my life that I'm cautious of adamancy (word?). I bought a 64 Mustang from my brother in law after their daughter had gone off to school. Unbeknownst to me, my niece was mightily upset at the loss of her car. And in the first month that I had the car I, 1) put the car in a ditch 2) backed over a stump 3) scraped a fence I had never come close to doing any of those things with any other car I'd had (or since). Made me feel that the car just plain didn't like me. Which made no sense to me whatever, until it occurred to me that the molecules of which all things are made share a great many characteristics. So there! BTW we eventually became great friends. OK? |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:52 PM statistically it is regarded as a virtual impossibility in the short time it took. Not so. It is statistically impossible if you disregard the carefully bounded mechanisms of retained successful micro-changes, but it is not statistically impossible if you include that single piece of the Darwinian formulation. See Richard Dawkins' explanation of the math in The Blind Carpenter. A |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:30 PM Stars are all around us. Space exploration, by telescope or by however, has given us back far more than it's cost. That return might be physical or a boost to the spirits, but return it has. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:21 PM "...THAT is part of what makes being human special." - You said a mouthful there my friend. Joybell - But they've got more big black patches than us... |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Joybell Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:43 PM We've got more stars down here (well up there, down here)than you have in the Northern hemisphere. I ask you is that fair? Couldn't they have been shared out more evenly. A little sad for my friends. Joy |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:27 PM *smile*...good thing there is always stuff to be amazed at and in awe over, even when we can't connect it directly to certain fascinating ideas. We can always have poetry, imagination, fantasy, methphor and a melding of these into beauty and creativity....whether we ever prove anything concrete about them or not. THAT is part of what makes being human special. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 17 Nov 05 - 04:22 PM Bill - I am aware of how life can or could be brought about by chance, and I am also aware that statistically it is regarded as a virtual impossibility in the short time it took. I also understand that such statistics mean nothing if it just happens once. Nothing you say above has any bearing on the possibility or likelihood of the existance of a spiritual side to nature. I don't disagree with any of it. (Cousin Betsy's story aside.) Paul - Yes I am impressed with all those things. I am impressed that something of such magnitude can be of such precision. I am impressed that light centuries away there is a point in space & time from which our galaxy is racing away, and that same distance again further there is another galaxy racing away from us at the same speed. That there is a sphere of such galaxies, or clusters of galaxies, and that everything within all of them is made of sub-atomic particles which are nevertheless infinitely larger than the singularity from which it all issued. Yes I am impressed, but no it's not enough. To say life gives it purpose is glib and a cop-out. It puts the horse behind the cart. The purpose is there. Life is a part of the purpose. Sure there is no definitive proof that the spiritual world exists, but there never will be. It's the SPIRITUAL world for chrisssake. What kind of proof do you want? A signpost? It's a journey of discovery. (Glib perhaps, but true.) Be receptive. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:31 PM I know, Bill. *sigh* |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Peace Date: 17 Nov 05 - 02:31 PM Look for one that glows red then green. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:57 AM *daylia*...it is the middle of November! The Leonid meteors are in full swing. You OUGHT to see a 'shooting star' if you look up for awhile! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:50 AM Without you, there is nothing. (xT) |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:43 AM and folks...do realize how close we have come, on 3 or 4 occasions, to NOT existing at all! The Earth has been subjected to monumental mass extinctions several times in the past, and only chance kept the progression going in such a way as to bring about 'us'. There would no doubt have been other life...possibly more stuff like Opabinia regalis, or more dinosaurs...or even favoring Neanderthals, and not Homo Sapiens......the UNIVERSE doesn't care. WE care, because we are complex enough to care about our tiny place in the universe...as well we should! We have the ability to control 'some' of the factors that affect our continued being, but too many of us just shrug and abdicate that responsibility to some abstract power we can't even agree on! I love the old joke about how "Science has discovered the 'missing link' between apes and civilized man.......it is us!" |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:32 AM More directly, read "The Blind Watchmaker" which details out EXACTLY how complex systems arrive from small random inputs. A |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:31 AM Ooo thanks so much for the NASA link, Rapaire. It was posted on a Mudcat thread a couple years ago, but I lost the bookmark and I've missed it. Emboldened by the friendly, inspiring discourse on this thread, I'd like to share this bit of "background info", which may or may not have anything to do with that shooting star "answering" my declaration of love and appreciation the other night. I've been pondering dianavan's suggestion re stars being "souls" for the last few days. Didn't mention this before, because it means so much to me I didn't want to risk having it disrespected or ridiculed, but oh well here goes anyway .... Something very special happened to me last Sat, the afternoon before I had the experience which inspired this thread. My son had stopped by on his way home from the airport - he'd been in France last week. The highlight of his trip was a visit to the poor, tiny farming village of Domremy - Jeanne d'Arc's birthplace and hometown. He'd retraced her footsteps from there to Rouen, where she was burned alive in 1431. He had a few little gifts and mementos of her for me - a couple pebbles from the yard in front of her house (still standing), and another stone from the very spot the stake stood in Rouen; a roll of digital pictures; a little wood-and-metal statue of her in her armour carrying her banner; a bowl with a picture of her house and my name on it; some brochures and reading material about her ... St Joan has been my hero for a long, long time ... she is so very special to me (and a lot of other people too I imagine). I was just blown away, moved to tears by the gifts. Spent the rest of that day reading about her, reflecting, setting up a special place in my house for her statue, holding those stones and yes, even doing a quite a bit of thanking and praising (suppose it might be called 'praying') too. I'd gone outside to gaze at the stars before bed, so grateful for my day and all it's unexpected blessings. And then the cat woke me up at 3am, which brought me outside again ... and IT HAPPENED! Now I'd love to know if Jeanne had something to do with it ... because that's what I'm feeling, especially in light of dianavan's words. And I almost want to take back I said above about animals not being as "aware" as humans ... why IS it that my cat woke me up a minute before that shooting star streaked across the sky? Is that coincidence too? Or did she "know" something important (for me) was about to happen, compelling her to want out at that moment, and in so doing get my butt out that door too? As LH said, that shooting star was on it's way already, regardless - but was it carrying a very special energy, a Message of love and wisdom for me? Hmmmm ... There's a very, very old mossy and worn statue of Joan in Domremy. She's genuflecting (bowing on one knee), eyes gazing skyward, right hand outstretched as if in blessing. I zoomed in on that picture yesterday, wanting to see what that odd-looking lump on the hem at the bottom of her dress might be ... and lo and behold, it's a cat! A kitten, snuggled up to her leg. :-O I wish I could post that pic here! More coincidences. Or is it? Cats, after all, have been associated with "The Goddess" in many, many cultures, including ancient Europe ... and Joan has always been referred to as "La Pucelle" ("The Maiden"). I've had one other experience with a "star" that fell at a perfectly timed moment, as if to give me a "message". That was about 10 years ago. I'd been studying with a new-age type American religion called "Eckankar" for a couple years, attracted by their awesome teachings about dreams. They'd invited me to take an "initiation" and join as a full member, but I was very reluctant to do that. I REALLY don't like "religions", and I'm no "joiner" - so I decided to visit their one and only "Temple" in Chanhaussen, Minnesota to get a better "feel" of the organization before I made my final decision. It's quite the lovely temple ... take a look if you like. I walked up to it the first time at high noon on a beautiful sunny summer day. The temple wasn't open yet, so I stood there in the parking lot for a minute gazing up at that beautiful golden ziggarnaut roof .... and as I did, no word of a lie here, suddenly this HUGE bright "star" (or "star-like object") literally fell out of the clear blue sky and streaked downwards, "landing" and disappearing on the highest point of that Temple roof. Well, talk about blow me away again! What WAS that?!? Unfortunately I was alone, on a pilgrimage sort of, with no other witnesses. So I don't know if anyone else would have seen it or not. ANd no one, even the most airy-fairy of new-age spiritual types, has ever been able to concoct an explanation that I find satisfactory! But I do know this - it was a major factor in my decision to put aside my doubts and fears and join Eckankar. Didn't last long, though. Ecknakar is a religion, just like any other religion - and, well, I think Bing Crosby does a much better job of explaining the root of my difficulties with "organized religions" than I ever could ... DON'T FENCE ME IN Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above, Don't fence me in. Let me ride through the wide open country that I love, Don't fence me in. Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze, And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees, Send me off forever but I ask you please, Don't fence me in.... I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses Can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences Don't fence me in." Sorry this is so long, and thanks for listening daylia |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 17 Nov 05 - 11:11 AM John... " but I guess I'm in the camp that says life and all of its ramifications are too complex to be accidental" Isn't is just as rational and easy to say: "The universe and life are FAR too complex and convoluted and chaotic to attribute to an 'intelligent cause'? Anything this immense and confusing MUST be random happenings following some natural, but confusing, set of rules for unimaginable amounts of time?" To me, it's like looking at the aftermath of a hurricane or tornado, with cars sitting on rooftops and stuff strewn everywhere, and saying "wow, LOOK at all that mess! I'll bet some power we don't understand decided to put Cousin Betsy in that tree." It's just physics, following natural laws! If you read all the explanations of how life probably came about, it becomes obvious that certain molecules in certain places under certain temperature conditions WILL undergo changes and become more complex molecules...etc...etc... If you wish to REALLY understand this viewpoint, find a copy of "Wonderful Life- The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History" by Stephen Jay Gould, and plow your way thru it...or just read introductions and a few selections that show just how amazing things can BE when we examine them very carefully. Particularly, read pages 129-136, where Gould shows (or at least CLAIMS) how Harry Whittington's examination of Opabinia regalis, "a little 2 inch Cambrian oddball invertabrate" has "Taught us more about the nature of evolution" than any of the dinosaurs and "will stand as one of the great docuuments in the history of human knowlege" Kind of a heavy claim, huh? Well, it's hard to see why he says that without reading a bunch of the preceeding explanations, but it gives you an idea of the possibilities of expanding one's comprehension, even if you end up disagreeing with him! The more you read, the more "Intelligent Design" begins to seems like a pretty impossible task, and unless you have already decided that you simply LIKE the idea of some unimaginable intelligence planning all this, you can at least appreciate the efforts of those who are trying to unravel HOW it all happened...the long, hard way! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Rapparee Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:58 AM Look at the pictures stored here. Peek at ones like November 17, November 11. Realize that these places are real, they exist. And they exist whether or not we look at them, , for there are billions of other people who will never see them and who will never care. Did the surface of Mars exist before we landed there? Or did our landings define the surface? If the latter, why would it, since so very, very few humans were involved in the first place and very, very few humans actually care? Beauty, awe, shock, even fear -- I'm glad that these places exist and that our intelligence has made it possible for use to see them. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM "I can do science, me." Yes, the damn idiotic program has turned up on Aus TV now too.. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 17 Nov 05 - 08:14 AM but it is not 'for nothing' once we look at it! We give meaning and value to the things in our universe. There are no objective values of 'beauty' or 'useful'; they are values WE give things. We climb a mountain "because it is there"...we appreciate Autumn leaves and watrefalls because they affect us. There is no reason to have 'meaning' to a universe without us to concoct meaning! The universe just **IS**.....and will **BE** long after we are scattered to the atoms we came from. Bill, this is awesome. You're absolutely right - I doubt any other creature on Earth needs to attribute "meanings" of any kind to life or any of it's trappings. Animals can see the stars too - but do they wonder about what they're looking at? Does it give them a sense of humility? Do they make wishes upon them, or imagine them as "gods" and "goddesses" and weave enduring and alluring legends and stories around them, or devote their lives to discovering the truth about them from a scientific perspective? Now, I can't read the mind of an animal any better than the mind of a human, but I sincerely doubt it! I daresay Bill's point is the crux of the matter too, especially if taken in equal doses with I think the key is wonder. When we cease to do that we may as well cease, period. I love people who still have that sense. (thanks, Peace!) Y'know I think this is the first time since joining the Cat that I've ever wholeheartedly agreed with you, Bill. ANd this is a miracle of no small proportions in and of itself. HALLELUIAH!!! ;-) Amos, thanks for posting the definition of "religion". Unlike Einstein, I must have an "issue" (or several) around that word. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Paul Burke Date: 17 Nov 05 - 03:53 AM John, that's just the self- centred argument that "I must be really important, I just feel it!" There was a time when you weren't, before you were conscious (i.e. sometime between conception and now). So why should there not be a time when you aren't again? That's not to belittle intelligence- as Bill D said, we (life on earth) are the only known meaning in the universe. But doesn't it comfort you rather more to think that the materials of which you are constructed were once at the heart of a star, at a temperature of millions of degrees; were blown out by an unimaginable explosion into the darkness of space; travelled billions of miles in startlit darkness at temperatures approaching absolute zero; were gas, part of a tree, part of a worm, part of a rock, burnt in a furnace, floated in the air, and just now part of you. And that you can look out into the sky, and although you couldn't know it, perhaps that red dwarf in your telescope was once the white-hot forge in which those materials were made? |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:43 PM Having just apparently allied myself with what I regard as the most shameful form of fundamentalist I need to publish a few disclaimers: I do not believe in an all powerful creator who looks like me. I think I adhere more to the Gaia notion, applied not just to the earth but to the entire universe. That is, that it is a living self-regulating entity. I have no opinions on how it started, where it came from or why. I don't fully grasp the notion of eternity. It's too far out. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:27 PM I think I see what you're saying Bill, but I find it hard to accept that once each individual life has passed the wheels will just continue turning until all the individual lives have been used up and still go on turning eternally without any more life. That's what I mean by 'for nothing'. I shudder to say it, but I guess I'm in the camp that says life and all of its ramifications are too complex to be accidental. (I don't think it should be taught in schools. Does that get me any credibility?) |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:09 PM "I consciously choose the alternative that gives hope of purpose over the one that says it's all for nothing." but it is not 'for nothing' once we look at it! We give meaning and value to the things in our universe. There are no objective values of 'beauty' or 'useful'; they are values WE give things. We climb a mountain "because it is there"...we appreciate Autumn leaves and watrefalls because they affect us. There is no reason to have 'meaning' to a universe without us to concoct meaning! The universe just **IS**.....and will **BE** long after we are scattered to the atoms we came from. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Rapparee Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:51 PM "God does not play dice with the universe," Einstein said, because he couldn't accept the statistical analyses of quantum mechanics. Personally, I don't see any problem with it, or with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or Dirac's ideas, or Feyneman's, or Bohr's, or Fermi's, or Hawking's, or Schroedinger's, or anyone else's. I realized long ago that it all touches. If we don't see it now, we will eventually. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Peace Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:51 PM "I consciously choose the alternative that gives hope of purpose over the one that says it's all for nothing." Therein is a great truth, IMO. Even if it WAS all for nothing, it is no longer for nothing, because from chaos we have the ability to see order in both the greatest and least of realities. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,DB Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:47 PM Actually, I think that starts are really, really scary!!! A star is a truly vast, very, very hot ball of plasma. It is one enormous thermonuclear explosion - often spanning billions of years and only held together by its own gravitational field. Unprotected by the atmosphere the Sun would fry a person in seconds and just to look at it with the naked eye would certainly blind such a person. One of the problems with space travel, within the Solar system, is the prodigious amount of radiation that the Sun, our local star, pours out. Without suitable protection astronauts would be severely irradiated and probably killed by a big solar flare. And the Sun is just a small to medium size star; there are some really awesome monsters out these - many, many times more massive and many millions of degrees hotter. I sort of hope that they're not sentient as well! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:19 PM I think everyone here has an appreciation of the majesty and awe of it all - I think that's why we have a problem with it. We have to decide if it was planned or unplanned - two equally unlikely scenarios, only one of which can be correct. I don't know. It seems that no-one knows. I consciously choose the alternative that gives hope of purpose over the one that says it's all for nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: MMario Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:10 AM the REAL mystery of the universe, the wonders of inanimate balls of gas of uncomprehendable size, that develop gravitational rhythms that interlock with each other, the dance of gravity that gathers the scattered atoms into dust, rocks, asteroids, planets, stars, the awesome power of fusion, the great epiphany of the supernova that scattered the carbon from which you are made, the mysterious collapse to a black hole so heavy that light can't escape, the weirdnesses of stretching and bending of time Enough to keep ones mind boggled for a few centuries - even without considering life... Zenna Henderson in one of her "people" stories had a phrase about science - something along the lines of a primitive person looks at a tree and sees a tree. A scientific person looks at a tree and see xylem, phloem, photosynthesis, materials transport, energy cycles, stress ratios, tissue compression etc. the advanced person looks at a tree and see a tree - realizing it is the sum of everything the scientific person sees - but uniquely a tree. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:57 AM "Would you prefer to take me to your leader, or take me to your trailer?" oh, wow...a folk music link! We can move this above the line now! but as to " the sentience has to come from somewhere-"...yes, Paul, I suspect that it is just a product of 'critical mass' of certain types of matter, organized in particular ways. That is a MUCH easier and simpler and Occam-friendly way to approach the issue. Positing 'thought' as a basic building block gets you into metaphysical labyrinths that Escher on LSD couldn't illustrate! |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:27 AM Daylia, religiosity as Einstein refers to it has ntohing to do with organizations. "Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious" Actually, I think, organized religion is a bit of an oxymoron, or at least a severe compromise. A |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:22 AM "What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" (Einstein) Hmm, on second thought, I beg to differ with the "genuinely religious" bit. Religions are social institutions, which may or may not have much to do with the "spiritual" at any given moment. To say that humility is "...a genuinely spiritual feeling", or even "... a genuinely LOGICAL feeling" (!!) works much better in this context, imo. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Paul Burke Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:19 AM Well the sentience has to come from somewhere- it seems safest as a starting point to assume it's "just" a property of matter, but perhaps better expressed as a process that can happen when matter is organised in certain ways (like life perhaps is). We have some inkling of one way, but must assume that there are Vastly (the V is Daniel Dennett's) more ways of being conscious than our own. Or, to put it another way, the UFO lands, They walk out in a beam of light; how do you know if They are sentient beings, or just a cleverly programmed robot? Is a cleverly programmed robot sentient in some sense? Does that make Thomas the Tank engine sentient? It's all wrapped in the Turing shroud. Would you prefer to take me to your leader, or take me to your trailer? |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Amos Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:12 AM The confusion inherent in this dialogue comes from not being clear about which universe is which. Physical universe mechanisms -- the kind that can be subjected to controlled and repeatable experimentation -- do not, as a rule, respond on the macro scale to individual reflections and thoughts in the way Daylia describes. But the universe of thought, which is a very different kettle of fish, does engage in all kinds of strange phenomena, acting non-local and instantaneous, responding to intensely felt decisions, and crisscrossing distance without intermediate points. The problem is that (a) life as we know it is a badly mashed up combination of physical mechanisms and thought, and it is easy to identify all material objects as thought-stuff, and just as easy to identify all thought as mere material patterns of electron-jumps or some such equally absurd notion. And (b) at some level thought gets larger than the material universe, subjectively -- seems to embrace it somehow -- and therefore in a perverse way it kinid of makes sense to believe that what the tides and stars do is a product of thought. The Big Question, IMHO, is whether the origins of matter are actually found in thought. I am pretty sure it is not the other way 'round, regardless of assertions about brain stems and such. A |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 16 Nov 05 - 09:56 AM I agree, Rapaire - and Paul, that last paragraph is quite the scientific Can't decide if Einstien's ideas below are more like Paul's, or Metchosin's, or (surprise of all surprises) Little Hawk's. Hey, maybe we are ALL "geniuses" in our own unique way! "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." (doesn't the bolded part sound like LH? :-) "The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity." "What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism" - Albert Einstein, sources and more quotes here |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Rapparee Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:58 AM Actually, Paul, eveything you listed and more continues to amaze and delight me just as it did when I first learned of it about a half-century ago now, and the more I learn the more amazed and delighted I become. I only wish I had the math background to REALLY understand the little we know. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Paul Burke Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:56 AM So it seems that a majority of Catters belongs to the don't bother us with hard facts, we'll do it the easy way and make it up school. If people won't accept "I feel it strongly, so it must be true", just invoke quantum mechanics and uncertainty, and you can get away with anything, after all, everything's relative isn't it? I think it's the shortcutters who are missing out on the REAL mystery of the universe, the wonders of inanimate balls of gas of uncomprehendable size, that develop gravitational rhythms that interlock with each other, the dance of gravity that gathers the scattered atoms into dust, rocks, asteroids, planets, stars, the awesome power of fusion, the great epiphany of the supernova that scattered the carbon from which you are made, the mysterious collapse to a black hole so heavy that light can't escape, the weirdnesses of stretching and bending of time. And that's before we get to the universe of living creatures. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: John O'L Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:20 AM To get a true result all the variables should be ignored altogether. Pick a time and do it regardless. While waiting for the perfect moment you will miss it. There is no perfect moment. The perfect moment is whenever it comes together. How sciencical is that? I can do science, me. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Metchosin Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:11 AM aha, speaking of unenlightened thought, I probably should have spent less time doodling in English too, because upon review that is a Bohr atom. |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: dianavan Date: 16 Nov 05 - 12:01 AM daylia - Only one problem with your experiment. Many Mudcatters live in places where they can't see the stars. This may account for the absence of enlightened thought. ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!? From: Bill D Date: 15 Nov 05 - 10:40 PM oh, NO, Rapaire! She is quite the scholar! |
| Share Thread: |
