Do animals share in this 'more' and 'beyond'?

[PaulS]

Just wondering of those who think there may be 'more' to this life and/or something 'beyond' our lives, if you think animals share in this?  Do you think they have any idea of a 'more' or if they are included in this 'beyond'.  If so, how does that speak to you - what experience do you think they may have?  What 'beyond' do you think they may participate in?

[romansh]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:38 PM, PaulS said:

Just wondering of those who think there may be 'more' to this life and/or something 'beyond' our lives, if you think animals share in this?  Do you think they have any idea of a 'more' or if they are included in this 'beyond'.  If so, how does that speak to you - what experience do you think they may have?  What 'beyond' do you think they may participate in?

Life for me is an illusion. When I die I fully expect it to be like before I was born. And here some clarification of it is required. If by it we the universe is continuing to unfold, then yes it will be the same. If by it we mean our consciousness, I don't hold any great expectations. Imagine we die in some dreamless sleep, why should I expect to wake up? We live in our actions and in the consequence expected and unexpected consequence. Somebody had a nice Alan Watt's animation about consequences.

Why would it be any different for animals? 

Here we are chasing some duality of mind and matter.

[thormas]

Not sure about cats but certainly all dogs go to heaven :+}

 

But I have no idea about animals. Do they eventually evolve, if there is reincarnation to self-consciousness? Do all eventually get to this level? Or are all dust to dust?  Are animals and all nature, 'for' us? To be revered and cared for but still also for us? No idea.

I have always allowed that 'heaven' is for humans (or higher self-conscious beings), so this would rule out most non-human life but not sure about all non-human life. And, by heaven, I am just using the traditional word. 

I don't think about this much as human being are enough to consider in life and a possible afterlife.

[JosephM]

On 5/4/2018 at 9:38 PM, PaulS said:

Just wondering of those who think there may be 'more' to this life and/or something 'beyond' our lives, if you think animals share in this?  Do you think they have any idea of a 'more' or if they are included in this 'beyond'.  If so, how does that speak to you - what experience do you think they may have?  What 'beyond' do you think they may participate in?

Paul,

Addressing for those who think there may be 'more to this life' part of your question, i would personally say definitely yes. Everything shares in this  'more' without exception as evidenced by by its presence as one. Is everyone consciously aware of this? In my experience,  No.

Joseph

[thormas]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

Addressing for those who think there may be 'more to this life' part of your question, i would personally say definitely yes. Everything shares in this  'more' without exception as evidenced by by its presence as one. Is everyone consciously aware of this? In my experience,  No.

Joseph

Well said and agreed. Then the question becomes what does this look like? Of course, we can never know but, in your speculation (if you have so speculated), 'in' the One and if we go with Spong's idea of 'entering' or sharing in a greater Consciousness (or a different idea that makes more sense to you), what do we say about the seeming present gulf among self-conscious beings, conscious beings and all else? 

 

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

Addressing for those who think there may be 'more to this life' part of your question, i would personally say definitely yes. Everything shares in this  'more' without exception as evidenced by by its presence as one. Is everyone consciously aware of this? In my experience,  No.

Joseph

So do you think animals have any idea of this 'more' or are they clueless do you think?  What experience do you think animals may have of any such 'more' to this life?  What kind of 'beyond' do you see them participating in?

[romansh]

I can't help thinking animals don't have complicated concepts like 'more' -  as opposed to more food or more stroking, more sleep in the case of my cat.

For me I go with the complicated concept of 'enough' at least when it comes to the experience of existence. 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

I can't help thinking animals don't have complicated concepts like 'more' -  as opposed to more food or more stroking, more sleep in the case of my cat.

Agreed.

[JosephM]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:49 AM, PaulS said:

So do you think animals have any idea of this 'more' or are they clueless do you think?  What experience do you think animals may have of any such 'more' to this life?  What kind of 'beyond' do you see them participating in?

I don't know but i suspect the word "idea" is not applicable as are the words "more or less" for there to be a comparison. I would speculate that the animal experiences life without the dichotomy of our mind and language. Having said that, from a human language standpoint as i have said all creation experiences the  'more'  howbeit not all are consciously aware or make the differentiation..

Joseph

[thormas]

31 minutes ago, JosephM said:

...... all creation experiences the  'more'  howbeit not all are consciously aware or make the differentiation..

I wonder: seems there has to be self-conscious mind and 'language' to not only make the differentiation but to experience it (i.e. the more). It seems animal experience is always the 'now,'

[Burl]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

I wonder: seems there has to be self-conscious mind and 'language' to not only make the differentiation but to experience it (i.e. the more). It seems animal experience is always the 'now,'

Not sure about this.  My dog has a definite daily routine.  Sleeps in specific places at different times of day, knows when the wife and daughter are due to come home, comes to me for pets about 8 P.M.  I think she has a cognitive continuity over time.

perhaps there cues other than time, but I can't identify any.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Not sure about this.  My dog has a definite daily routine.  Sleeps in specific places at different times of day, knows when the wife and daughter are due to come home, comes to me for pets about 8 P.M.  I think she has a cognitive continuity over time.

perhaps there cues other than time, but I can't identify any.

I agree with this, my dog has his routines also. Even the cognitive continuity over time makes sense - yet that time seems like it all has to do with his 'ongoing' now. Just like his constant fixation: ball, ball, where's the ball, play ball, ball, ball, ball.........

[Burl]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree with this, my dog has his routines also. Even the cognitive continuity over time makes sense - yet that time seems like it all has to do with his 'ongoing' now. Just like his constant fixation: ball, ball, where's the ball, play ball, ball, ball, ball.........

Dogs are special.  Large frontal lobes, they are the research animal of choice for sexuality.  Nice work if you can get it.  They are also the only animal that understands what you want when you point to it.  

So I will take the question a step further.  Does the existence of a circadian rhythm in any living thing positively disprove the notion of the existence of only 'the eternal now'?  Doesn't the development of any plant or animal demand that we accept the flow of time as a reality and not an illusion?

[thormas]

10 hours ago, Burl said:

Dogs are special.  Large frontal lobes, they are the research animal of choice for sexuality.  Nice work if you can get it.  They are also the only animal that understands what you want when you point to it.  

So I will take the question a step further.  Does the existence of a circadian rhythm in any living thing positively disprove the notion of the existence of only 'the eternal now'?  Doesn't the development of any plant or animal demand that we accept the flow of time as a reality and not an illusion?

Time is definitely reality - and not illusion. By 'ongoing now' for a dog, even though I agree they learn, dream, remember (or again is it learned behavior and instinct) I don't think they are conscious of self (self reflective) - as are we, and it is this self-consciousness that allows us to 'straddle' past, present and future.

But, again, this is not my expertise.........by a long shot.

[JosephM]

12 hours ago, Burl said:

Snip

 Doesn't the development of any plant or animal demand that we accept the flow of time as a reality and not an illusion?

No,  not at all. It is a highly controversial subject even among physicists. The flow of time doesn't prove reality as it is made up of human memories or a succession of snapshots that without we would have no notion of time. Its basic properties come from our mental state rather than the physical world. 

"We can portray our reality as either a three-dimensional place where stuff happens over time," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Max Tegmark, "or as a four-dimensional place where nothing happens [‘block universe’] — and if it really is the second picture, then change really is an illusion, because there's nothing that's changing; it's all just there — past, present, future.

It seems to me it remains an open view/opinion rather than demanding we accept time as reality and not illusion because a plant or animal appears to develop.

[thormas]

34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

No,  not at all. It is a highly controversial subject even among physicists. The flow of time doesn't prove reality as it is made up of human memories or a succession of snapshots that without we would have no notion of time. Its basic properties come from our mental state rather than the physical world. 

"We can portray our reality as either a three-dimensional place where stuff happens over time," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Max Tegmark, "or as a four-dimensional place where nothing happens [‘block universe’] — and if it really is the second picture, then change really is an illusion, because there's nothing that's changing; it's all just there — past, present, future.

It seems to me it remains an open view/opinion rather than demanding we accept time as reality and not illusion because a plant or animal appears to develop.

Isn't what you describe, above about the flow of time, more about how the human 'captures' time - as opposed to the reality that, for example, dinosaurs, not part of human memory or any individuals succession of snapshots, do not exist in 'this' time but did in a past 'time?' 

This is a genuine question - again not something I dwell on much. 

So Max says we can portray either way - indicating we don't know, correct? So I go with 3 not 4 (especially since I don't understand the 4th dimension but it sounds sort of cool - except for the illusion stuff).

[romansh]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Time is definitely reality - and not illusion.

You are on a sticky wicket here Thormas. Regardless of whether time is real or not, it could be an illusion ... not as it seems.

In relativistic terms it could flow in either direction. It is our apparent increasing entropy that gives time an apparent flow, though at a quantum level its direction seems to be an average.

On a more pragmatic basis ... our feeling of now is at least a few tens of milliseconds in the past ... and this is in the common or garden sense you are using the word.

[Burl]

In the western theology view, God is real but not bound by time.  God acts sequentially, but the space between segments is not determinable.

[romansh]

44 minutes ago, Burl said:

In the western theology view, God is real but not bound by time.  God acts sequentially, but the space between segments is not determinable.

I am always amazed by how much we can deduce about God.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

You are on a sticky wicket here Thormas. Regardless of whether time is real or not, it could be an illusion ... not as it seems.

In relativistic terms it could flow in either direction. It is our apparent increasing entropy that gives time an apparent flow, though at a quantum level its direction seems to be an average.

On a more pragmatic basis ... our feeling of now is at least a few tens of milliseconds in the past ... and this is in the common or garden sense you are using the word.

Not so sticky for most in the history of the world who simply don't buy that all is illusion. Also, even the pragmatic basis seems to not suggest illusion, merely a 'time lag' that is so small, it is hardly worth mentioning but is a fun fact.

 

 

[romansh]

11 minutes ago, thormas said:

Not so sticky for most in the history of the world who simply don't buy that all is illusion.

Argumentum ad populum and Argument from incredulity

11 minutes ago, thormas said:

Also, even the pragmatic basis seems to not suggest illusion, merely a 'time lag' that is so small, it is hardly worth mentioning but is a fun fact.

OK so we are never in the "now". This to me suggests "now" is an illusion. 

Eckhart Tolle's The Power of the Very, Very Recent Past?

Edited May 10, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

24 minutes ago, romansh said:

Argumentum ad populum and Argument from incredulity

OK so we are never in the "now". This to me suggests "now" is an illusion. 

Eckhart Tolle's The Power of the Very, Very Recent Past?

There is no appeal to the divine or the alien in that statement??? It is a simple truth that most human beings over the course of forever do not accept that 'this' is an illusion. 

As for the now, we are in it always - and a few tens of milliseconds (really, tens of a millisecond) is still 'immediate' and therefore, now. 

[romansh]

8 minutes ago, thormas said:

There is no appeal to the divine or the alien in that statement??? It is a simple truth that most human beings over the course of forever do not accept that 'this' is an illusion. 

Please read the whole link

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

You are also conflating fallacies. What people believed over history is irrelevant. People [some] still believe the Earth is flat, so what?

 

8 minutes ago, thormas said:

As for the now, we are in it always - and a few tens of milliseconds (really, tens of a milliseconds) is still 'immediate' and therefore, now. 

Please read what I wrote not what you wrote.

The few tens of milliseconds is for high speed activities like catching a ball. For the rest "now" consists of an amalgam of the last two to three seconds. Fun fact.

Edited May 10, 2018 by romansh

[thormas]

5 minutes ago, romansh said:

Please read the whole link

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

You are also conflating fallacies. What people believed over history is irrelevant. People [some] still believe the Earth is flat, so what?

 

Please read what I wrote not what you wrote.

The few tens of milliseconds is for high speed activities like catching a ball. For the rest "now" consists of an amalgam of the last two to three seconds. Fun fact.

I and, again, most others, simply don't believe it's true, there is no imagining involved. And sure history is relevant - unless you think it is an illusion. Plus, I 'm not talking the few, relatively speaking, who believe the earth is flat - I am talking about the few (relatively speaking) who think - yet don't live like -  reality is an illusion? But we have been here before. 

You're still talking maybe few tens of milliseconds to 2 seconds: and for want of 2 seconds you think all is illusion? 

[romansh]

You continue to propagate your fallacy. What lots of people think and how they bought into a position is not evidence for that position.