• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Are We are a sympton of the solar system?

Migrated topic.
burnt said:
We are life forms that evolved on earth. The solar system could care less if our planet became unsuitable for life and we died out. The solar system doesn't have feelings.

I don't understand the question.
Click to expand...
Im with you on this one. And no the earth wasnt made from a seed it was made from a bunch of rocks and ice smashing into one another.
 
Just listened to the Alan Watts lecture, MV probably refers to that. Highly recommendable ;)

In the bigger picture I think it's YES. Scientists are finding more and more extrasolar planets in all imaginable variations. Stars without planets are probably rare.

Even in our own solar system, there are more water oceans with possible primitive life than thought possible a few decades ago, like Jupiter's moon Europa.

There are extremely large scale processes going on that promote the formation of heavy elements and planetary dust, like the collision of old exhausted galaxies... almost as if they are fertilizing each other! I'm not saying galaxies are intelligent but it happens...

Anyway: somehow, the solar system 'grew us' just like our galaxy grew the solar system.

There a huge collection of documentaries about space, the universe etc here:
 
burnt said:
We grew up in the solar system but that doesn't mean solar systems intentionally grow life.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd agree with me that the solar system can't "intentionally" do anything, because it's not a human-like agent with thoughts and goals and all. But I think there is something to what the OP suggests.

I think he's alluding to the fallacy that is our traditional, religious notion of the solar system's (and the planet's) role in the existence of life. The traditional view of which I speak is that the planet is nothing but a backdrop for life to exist on. That it's separate, unconnected, and dead, like a stage that has nothing to do with the play which unfolds upon it. The bible for example, has God creating the universe first; then, in a wholly different event (on a different day) he creates something totally new and unique: life. And even though we may outwardly reject this view, I think it still crepes in and has a huge influence on how we see ourselves and the world.

I bring it up because I see everything totally differently, and I think observation (science) is firmly on the side of my version. I see life as part of the same organic process (the laws of nature, perhaps) that allow for, and lead to, the creation and existence all things, on all scales, from galaxies, to solar systems, to planets, to ecosystems, to life, to individual life forms. So to me there's a very valid point that the OP was getting at. (And even if I'm misinterpreting, or reading to much into it, the above points still stand on their own.)

So even if the OP's quote is a little anthropomorphic, or heavy with religious/philosophical connotations and overtones, I can't see how you could disagree with (what I see as) the heart of the statement. Maybe you should look at it more as a form of poetic expression, than bone-dry literal truth. Then again, maybe I give people way too much credit. :lol:
 
I was trying to stir up some good replys with a somewhat vague question and indeed as usual there were interesting replys. I guess I could have said. Do you see/feel yourself as part of the universe? or as a by product of it? Or does anyone think we imagine the universe and its existence is dependent on our thinking of it. Perhaps also some may see it as all said and done the future already determined.

Curious to see what everyone thinks obviously this is not a scientific poll. :lol:

Thanks for the replys

PEACE
MV
 
earlier in this topic someone had mentioned to watch some of the guru's, lol Alan Watts, vids

i watched his one on the topic of Nothingness

It sheds some light onto what MV has reinstated as his intentional discussion. (Is the universe dependent upon our view of it?)

The things we see are products of our imagination, and i dont mean we made them up but yet that our idea of what we see is based on the figure that we see compared to the emptiness we dont. Meaning that the void of space leads to the instatement of the thing, and vice versa i guess (mayb just that thing takes up space in return). So then the movement (i.e. F = ma) of things is therefore the simply passage of time in the three spatial dimensions in which the space-occupiers interact with other space. And the action/reaction between two things is equality of the before and the after(maybe science is nothing, haha i know, but forreal think about that.....mayb i could explain it something like this: the interactions between two objects is the backround for our understanding of the passage of energy/time so therefore the actions of the scientific world are the backround for something that contains our ability to predict(forgetting the quanta probabilities) and our brains capacity for intention - otherwise known as time-space.....i think.

idk i lost track but very engaging question, keep searching brotha.

But to adequetly answer the question, no, our consciousness is dependent upon the fact that we see, or know, our surroundings to be, and therefore ourselves...but if we were unhuman but still with consciousness(possibly if our brain flipped inside out into a wave, lol im not sure at all but..) then yes, what we thought would then become true....(on another note: if this is our true future then im pretty damned psyched).............almost as if thought and things have an inverse *fractal* relationship, probably within the inverse fractal reactions we know to be space and time.........and that raises a point ive dwelled upon before that we already experience higher dimensions because our thought processes take up multiple dimensions of time.

try me.
 
Back
Top Bottom