Lit up a cigarette this morning and when I went to go flick it, I noticed a strange sight indeed.
There, hovering over the ashtray, was a mouse dropping. At least that's what my eyes told me it was. Naturally, I've never seen an antigravity mouse dropping or could even conceive of the physics behind it, cool scientific discovery though it would be, so I decided to investigate it further, without even thinking. So I stood up from the chair and immediately saw that the antigravity mouse dropping was actually nothing more than the expended tip of a match that got wedged between two cigarettes, and that my original vantage point offered me incorrect information. By changing my perspective on it, I was able to determine what it was. Problem solved.
I did what anyone else would do. Instead of sticking with the original assumption, I automatically satisfied my wtf? with closer scrutiny. Naturally, of course, this sort of thing would only be undertaken with something on such a small scale. It's when the assumptions become more complex, more rooted, more traditional, that people have a hard time looking at it in a different perspective. Applied to the AGMD, I could have concluded even still that a flying mouse saw fit to use the match to wipe its butt, or that it actually was a hovering turd that just happened to have a match attached to it, giving it the illusion of not hovering at all. Perhaps it's the match that kept the AGMD from floating up to the ceiling. But of course, it's still just a burnt out match, no matter what I happen to call it.
Or Kill Me.
The point is, if it had looked like Jesus, some people would have disagreed.
Quote from: Triple Zero on December 16, 2010, 12:03:21 AM
The point is, if it had looked like Jesus, some people would have disagreed.
But I don't know what Jesus looked like, other than a member of Generation X circa 1993.
Wrong.
The flying turd (probably a mutant) turned into a match because you didn't BELIEVE.
Murderer.
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 12:16:13 AM
Wrong.
The flying turd (probably a mutant) turned into a match because you didn't BELIEVE.
Murderer.
What I believe about it ultimately doesn't matter and doesn't change what it is. It's either a floating mouse turd (AGMD
TM), or it's a match, or it's a third thing I haven't thought of. what I think of it doesn't change its nature. It either means I'm right, I'm way off or, I don't have enough info to make a proper analysis. What's important is that if I think it's one thing that makes no sense, but it's definitely that from where I see it, it's only proper to see if from another perspective to get a better idea of what is actually going on.
Also I was hoping this would spark some discussion.
I guess my sticking point is that part of it's reality lives in your mind. Kinda like stuffed animals have personalities that live in the minds of the young..
that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 12:44:31 AM
I guess my sticking point is that part of it's reality lives in your mind. Kinda like stuffed animals have personalities that live in the minds of the young..
that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..
I guess what I'm getting at is that I saw something that didn't jive with the world as I understand it, so my automatic reaction was to take a closer look to see what it actually was. It didn't occur to me that it was a match, because I never really bothered to scrutinize used matches. Actually, I usually use lighters, so even more so something I wouldn't notice. But because my initial analysis made no sense, I unconsciously decided to solve what it was, rather than accept it was an AGMD or just say, "eh, it doesn't fucking matter what it is. I'm busy smoking." But these are exactly the reactions people have to similar conundrums in different contexts. Anyone else would have automatically changed their perspective to find out what the AGMD was. Why don't they apply that to other conundrums instead of coming up with an answer and sticking to it regardless of all other information and perspectives?
This obviously lends itself to the discussion of religion, but can really be applied to anything. Politics, economics, culture, whatever people dogmatically stick to.
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 12:44:31 AM
that's if you don't buy the whole inanimate having consciousness theory, if you you do, that's a whole nother kettle..
Also, as for this, I know an inanimate object is just that, but it doesn't stop me from having some sort of emotional attachment and relationship to it. I feel bad if it is broken, and I am happy when it is fulfilling its purpose. For example, I name all of my guitars, I ascribe personalities and quirks to them, and I would consider their individual destructions a death. That doesn't make them conscious living things, except to me, but even then, those consciousnesses are only an extension of my own.
I really did get your point.
I was riffing off the fact that "recalibrate sensory apparatus and formulate new theory" while an interesting app is not the only one you could have used.
on a side not: I did like the post. :D
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
well, I guess it depends on how you describe consciousness. Say, I'm playing with Fuckin' A (so named because the A string is always the one to break). I consider it male, and it has its quirks which I would think of as a personality. But that is only expressed when I am playing it. When it's just in a case or on the holder, it's just a piece of wood with 6 strands of nickel and a couple of magnets. He is happy when he's hanging from my shoulders and plugged into my pedalboard (which also has a name and a personality even though it is a collective), and he laughs at me when that A string breaks and shout "Fuckin' A!!!!"
Fuckin' A is a red BC Rich Warlock Bronze series in case you were wondering.
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:05:19 AM
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:05:19 AM
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
Ok, this is an interesting point. Does Fuckin' A have an individual existence that when I am taken out of the equation, is still the same, or is it just, "That's one of Dok Blight's guitars." You could smash it, and that would piss me off and make me demand that you compensate me for the damage. But say it wasn't my guitar, or anyone else's and you determined that it was a piece of crap because the A string keeps breaking. What do you do with it? I keep changing the A string because it's my guitar and I like it despite its faults, and I have a lot of fond memories with it. But you just met him and find him wanting.
"it's "just" a piece of wood with 6 strands of nickel and a couple of magnets."
..yes
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Why are gods always about power and ruling for so many? that's not right..well not always ;)
Not only can you look at it those ways, but from your view(as I see it) You can actually uphold, interact with, modify(create) and insert information with these entities. (oldspeak:worship)
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:05:19 AM
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:05:19 AM
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
..yes, but it is interesting, complicated, enlightening and usueful "mental masturbation"
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Minor quibble from a fellow mythology nerd: the United States have a patron goddess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name))
ETA: \Also, I liked the OP, and I like where this discussion is headed even more. :)
"Does Fuckin' A have an individual existence that when I am taken out of the equation"
..yes..think gravity fields interacting.
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:28:36 AM
"it's "just" a piece of wood with 6 strands of nickel and a couple of magnets."
..yes
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Why are gods always about power and ruling for so many? that's not right..well not always ;)
Gods aren't always about power and ruling, but in these thought experiments, they are.
Quote
Not only can you look at it those ways, but from your view(as I see it) You can actually uphold, interact with, modify(create) and insert information with these entities. (oldspeak:worship)
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:05:19 AM
So sure?? really?
that's weird.
Objects retain information. affect reality individually.
they don't have nervous systems, true, so the natures of their "minds" are different, for sure. But to write them off as non-concious is a little..egocentric/species centric. From my egos view any way. No offense meant.
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
..yes, but it is interesting, complicated, enlightening and usueful "mental masturbation"
This is pretty enjoyable.
Of course this is opinion, all the same, we IMPRINT our possessions with our perceptions of them. ANd that includes any of their "personality" that we might have created.
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:35:38 AM
"Does Fuckin' A have an individual existence that when I am taken out of the equation"
..yes..think gravity fields interacting.
More appropriately, electromagnetic. But those fields aren't being activated unless I am activating them. Another interesting perspective is Fuckin' A in someone else's hands. They have the same fondness, but suddenly Fuckin' A has a different accent, since the other guitarist has a different playing style than I do. Fuckin' A remains Fuckin' A, but is he speaking they way he speaks, or even the same language? Let's say a jazz dude is playing him. That's a completely different language than my fingers articulate. Or even in the hands of another metalhead it would be different.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Minor quibble from a fellow mythology nerd: the United States have a patron goddess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name))
ETA: \Also, I liked the OP, and I like where this discussion is headed even more. :)
Wow. She has an outdated sense of dress and hairdo! :lulz:
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:41:43 AM
Of course this is opinion, all the same, we IMPRINT our possessions with our perceptions of them. ANd that includes any of their "personality" that we might have created.
Exactly. Fuckin' A is an extension of Dok Blight since those are my perceptions. If bequeathed to my great grandson post mortem, would it still have the sme personality, or would he invent a new one for him? Or do I live on somewhat through him, at least through expectation?
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
..yes, but it is interesting, complicated, enlightening and usueful "mental masturbation"
How is it useful? Will it accomplish work to think about the sentience or lack in objects? Will it solve problems? Explain to me the utility in this?
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:47:41 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
..yes, but it is interesting, complicated, enlightening and usueful "mental masturbation"
How is it useful? Will it accomplish work to think about the sentience or lack in objects? Will it solve problems? Explain to me the utility in this?
you can accomplish lots of things working on the conciousness of objects and other things "archetypes, gods, spirits of nations, of the local starbucks" and thinking about it gives you the basis of doing that.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:45:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Minor quibble from a fellow mythology nerd: the United States have a patron goddess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name))
ETA: \Also, I liked the OP, and I like where this discussion is headed even more. :)
Wow. She has an outdated sense of dress and hairdo! :lulz:
Well, you see, as a Christian Nation
TM, we don't like to acknowledge that we are actually personified in the form of a pagan goddess. All the new pictures of her are kept under strict lock and key by Pat Robertson.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:47:19 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:41:43 AM
Of course this is opinion, all the same, we IMPRINT our possessions with our perceptions of them. ANd that includes any of their "personality" that we might have created.
Exactly. Fuckin' A is an extension of Dok Blight since those are my perceptions. If bequeathed to my great grandson post mortem, would it still have the sme personality, or would he invent a new one for him? Or do I live on somewhat through him, at least through expectation?
In my experience, all of the above.
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:47:41 AM
Quote from: Ob_Portu on December 16, 2010, 01:28:36 AM
Quote from: TGB on December 16, 2010, 01:18:09 AM
The bigger question or more important one is, "will the fact that this non-living object has a consciousness change the way to I act towards it?" It's like arguing whether or not you and I and Dok Blight all see "green" the same way or not. As long as we all point to something and agree it is in fact "green" everything else is just mental masturbation.
..yes, but it is interesting, complicated, enlightening and usueful "mental masturbation"
How is it useful? Will it accomplish work to think about the sentience or lack in objects? Will it solve problems? Explain to me the utility in this?
Say we take it from the perspective of religion and we're talking about the totality of existence, and the observer is a Christian. The observer can then either describe the totality of existence as kind and forgiving or wrathful, petty, hates lobsters and incidentally finds lobster disgusting as food, though the observer will ignore that last bit. These things, while probably pretty useless in describing any actually deity that may or may not exist, says a lot about the observer, and therefore becomes useful in predicting the observer's thoughts and actions.
Taken politically, Voter A has a very specific idea of what America is, how America should behave, and what they will feel when America agrees or disagrees with them (consider constant threats from both aisles to leave the US for country B that agrees with them more, at least for the next 4 years). It says nothing about the country and more about the voter. But that could also be useful in predicting further electoral trends. Not necessarily the action of the government, but the "will of the voters" and their "mandates"
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:51:41 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:45:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Minor quibble from a fellow mythology nerd: the United States have a patron goddess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name))
ETA: \Also, I liked the OP, and I like where this discussion is headed even more. :)
Wow. She has an outdated sense of dress and hairdo! :lulz:
Well, you see, as a Christian Nation TM, we don't like to acknowledge that we are actually personified in the form of a pagan goddess. All the new pictures of her are kept under strict lock and key by Pat Robertson.
Naturally. She looks a whole lot like Snooki these days and Big Bad GOP Jesus doesn't like that.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:51:41 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:45:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on December 16, 2010, 01:32:38 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on December 16, 2010, 01:20:16 AM
To riff further, and go into the topic of religion and politics, a god is a personality that you ascribe to a part or a totality of existence. Say you worship the sun god. That's a consciousness you ascribe to the sun, and that personality is both real and superior to your own. Cool, but here you go. Say we're in the future and living on a colonized planet. Does the sun god rule over that star too, or is that a different sun god? Or, in the nearer future and you worship the planet you live on. Here that would be Gaea. But say you lived on Mars. Do you then worship Mars or a vaguer idea of an Earth deity. If you live on Titan, do you worship a moon deity or is it an Earth deity.
Politically speaking, you consider that a country has a personality (and they do). So is that Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty if you're an American? And what is that personality like? Does it change with administration, congress or both? DOes it really reflect the general mood of the people? And if so, is the government the personality after all or is it just the voters? Maybe it's just the media? Maybe you can look at Uncle Sam as the god of government and Lady Liberty as the goddess of the people, and a goddess of sovereignty who determines who gets the title of Uncle Sam.
Minor quibble from a fellow mythology nerd: the United States have a patron goddess. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name))
ETA: \Also, I liked the OP, and I like where this discussion is headed even more. :)
Wow. She has an outdated sense of dress and hairdo! :lulz:
Well, you see, as a Christian Nation TM, we don't like to acknowledge that we are actually personified in the form of a pagan goddess. All the new pictures of her are kept under strict lock and key by Pat Robertson.
Naturally. She looks a whole lot like Snooki these days and Big Bad GOP Jesus doesn't like that.
Precisely. :lulz:
Maybe it was actually an oak tree.
I want to point out the obvious, so skip this post if you don't feel like hearing it.
Epistemology calls for a certain amount of honesty with oneself, which means accepting a small amount of "fuck it, I don't know" when it comes to the highest and lowest levels of reality, ultimate questions about why anything, et cetera. Some things can't be known by their very nature. But the important thing is that some things can be known. They really can. The problem I have with oak trees that look like glasses of water is that they turn a small amount of unknowability into a sensational mystery. The fact is that we can never KNOW that anything exists as we see it, but that hasn't stopped us yet. Every theory is a map that assumes a corresponding territory exists, but it only assumes that insofar as the map takes you where you think you're going. The territory need not exist if the map is demonstrably effective. Take quarks. We can NEVER, ever observe them directly, but our best theoretical models and observational data are best explained by their existence. It is possible to make a subatomic particle theory that explains observations without quarks, and if the theory sans quarks worked just as well as ours, it would be EQUALLY TRUE, because a theory is just a model that deals in observations. The oak tree/water glass theory is "not true" because it is conceptually dishonest, observably meaningless, and oh yeah, Fucking Stupid. Epistemologically, realism is far superior; the stance that the thing that looks like a glass of water is actually what it seems, and the shit exists in more than just your mind. "Mind", meaning brain? Maybe. But brains would not evolve to see glasses of water in place of oak trees. There is no evolutionary pressure not to see things as close to what they are as economically possible (the brain makes do with less information than you may think, and it does deceive itself, but mainly for sociocognitive reasons). But better than realism is model-dependent realism, the stance that since no one model can accurately describe reality at all levels, it is acceptable to use many independent theories to model and predict reality, and where they overlap, they agree. For instance, there is nothing about atoms that theoretically portend social psychology, yet theories of social psychology can accurately predict human behaviors. Realism doesn't account for this as well as model dependent realism. As long as your various theories overlap harmoniously, and are each "good" theories, the things in each theory can be said to "exist", to as much certainty as is afforded to us, lacking our god's eye view of things.
It is not enough to say that a thing only exists in your mind. It must exist within a model that sufficiently predicts observations.
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion and stuff, man.
The OP reminds me of a point put forth in Laboratory Life by Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar. They are sociologists which station themselves inside a hormone research facility to study the social factors which influence the creation of "facts".
One of their points is that when we slap a label on something and treat it as true, it negates any of the complexity contained under that label.
For example, the hormone lab had hypothesized this hormone called TRF, the existence of which would explain a number of things they were observing.
Lots of papers about TRF were written. There was a lot of debate about it. But at some point, it passed a threshold -- you can tell when it became "real". It was the point at which credible scientists started including TRF in their explanations about how things work. (there's a lot of very interesting talk about how a scientist gathers and spends credibility like a form of currency, but that's tangential to this point)
Years later, they were trying to synthesize TRF. Literally hundreds of goats were sacrificed to create a microscopic amount of TRF. And in the end, they didn't succeed!
Some more science took place.
And this was their eventual discover: this TRF hormone wasn't actually real! Their confidence was misplaced, it was a mistake the whole time.
When TRF became a "fact", all the cloudiness and confusion about TRF was just swept under the rug. Any of the methodological problems involved in TRF research became invisible -- until TRF was later discovered to be a fiction, and then those methods came into question.
So to me, this underscores a basic point about how we make reality - these labels we use are only a short hand, and they themselves contain a bit of complexity, a bit more of the story than we may be comfortable with. But we have to abbreviate these things - we can't communicate all that uncertainty otherwise we'd never get anything done.
food for thought, for me at least