"The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything"

What is a human body? Allow me to answer that. It is a gigantic hub of individual cells, acting together in order to survive. They have been brought together under the force of self-preservation.
The very cells, however, are also consistent in this purpose. In the beginning, cells were not as complex as we see them today. Through the merger of cells, they have gotten more complex functions, which allowed them to adapt into the various lifeforms that walk, fly and swim on this earth.

That is what we hold in common with the animals. We are all composed out of cells. And, along with many other animals, our cells have specialised. They have lost their independence in order to preserve a larger being.
You see, when we are talking about self-preservation, we humans are bad. In a loop of seven years we refresh all cells, which means that after about seven years you are a completely new being.
But are we that bad? A single cell out there would die just as easily, and would probably not live 7 years. Because we are so impressive in our development of society, we have offered out cells the opportunity to live a nice and happy live, where they can enjoy the comfort of the various molecules found in caviar and champaign.
Thus, our bodies are succesful in their task. Each and every thing we do is in preservation of all of those cells. Rather amusing if you consider that you can't make out an individual cell when you look at your hand, but perhaps this is only for the best. This way, we do not loose sight of the whole, and do not become fixated on the one.

In essence, our body, as a working part is the perfect example of a utopian government. It is born out of neccesity. Without a body, the cells would not live as healthy and long as they would with it, but yet they have no individuality. No cell will ever rise up on your hand and demand to be a cell in your eyesocket because he is tired of masturbating. Nay, they are all happy with what they do and with the resources they gain in return to survive. The cell needs the government and the government needs all of the cells to operate.

The brain is believed by many to be where the body is 'controlled'. It it of course the central nervous system, which includes the spine and the brain that that controls the entire body. The spinal cord can not function without the brain, and the brain can not function without the spinal cord. Or at least, not properly. We can still function without a leg, but our survival rating (would we still be living in cruel nature) would rapidly decrease.
If the brain (meaning the whole CNS) is indeed the government that beholding it is wonderful. First of all, there is no government with that many members. So, one would expect it to be a mess. Instead however, the brain functions enormously well. You see, in the brain, there is no one minister, or no one prime minister. A whole lot of cells deal with a few functions at a time, and because of this, a group is responsible, not just one cell.
This also means that if one cell should get a nasty idea, that it is easy to replace him. Just send the guys in white (read white bloodcells) and they will remove it, hopefully.

The body viewed as a whole, however, is a totally different aspect. Suddenly, we are part of a society, and our views are completely changed. Instead of feeding to survive, we are tought that we need to work to survive, because without work, no money, and thus no food.
Now, I may be wrong, but cells do not use money. This has a clear and simple reason. Cells act from the basic understanding that all are equal. Even if a cell has survived three cancer growths, various viral attacks and a super-sized big Mac, that cell is just as important or insignificant as the next.

If one views communism as an ideal state, one will see an immediate difference. Here, there is a sense of equality, but it does not work. Why does it not work? There is a single person, a single cell calling the shots. Only if the government itself is acting commune, if there is no way for individual gain, than and only than can and will a utopia be created. If you see the body as a utopia. Remember however that each cell is taken care of, that each and every child cell will grow up with a purpose in it's life and that no single cell can get dependant on drugs.

Nevertheless, we have come quite close to the governmental system in our bodies. Why? Why have we, while we have only begun to understand the various functions of bodyparts in the last 300 years, have created a government similar to it before those inventions. Was it not Plato in his republic who shed light on a 'Utopia', which basically had the same principal as I presented above, a commune government, no individualism?

In essence, as we see it from plato as well, there is nothing wrong with heirarchy. There is no fundamental wrong behind individuality. The problem lies in responsibility. The problem lies in the corruption of power.

This is a much touched subject and has changed into a popular one-liner, but what does it mean? Well, it's meaning is simple and well understandable. People with power tend to use this power to increase their own state of being. They use their power for personal gain. The cause of this personal gain? Indeed, individualism.

As said before, our body is much like the society we live in. We are part of it as a fairly insignificant being, acting in benefit of that society with the intent of surviving, with the idea in our back mind that we could no longer survive without the whole.

Before specialising, there is a stem cell. Basically, this cell is capable of becoming whatever the body wants it to become. Perhaps you feel that this is not the case in society, but are we not too forced into finding a job. You are forced to go to school with the ideal of the Freedom of Education. In many ways, school is the specialisation of a stem cell. Before this specialisation, the stem cell is capable of acting on it's own. If put alone (with food and stuff), it will develop into a new entity. The cell from an eyesocket can no longer do this.
So, before a cell is forced into life as a 'cell', he still holds the capability of starting his own society, of surviving on his own. Basically that stem cell still has the capability to adapting to a life without a society.

Imagine that you have been working as a desk clerk for 20 years. Do you believe you could be ripped from society and be put in some alien place, and supply yourself with food and shelter, and eventually begin a society of your own? No. You have become so dependant of the society you lived in that it is (almost) impossible to adapt your life to other circumstances of life. I agree that it much depends on what kind of society you live in, but without a doubt, you will have to change your life, and you function within that society to change.
Basically, you will have to revert to a state of stem-cell, and relearn your life in order to survive.

Now for an unexpected jump in the way of thinking. Back to the beginning. How do we differ from animals. Some people will mention a soul. If I may use the most basic mention of soul, it basically means there is something non-material, that influences our body, and controls our body.

Intermission: A man once dreamt that he was a butterfly, when he woke up he wondered whether he was a butterfly dreaming it was a man.
How can the man know he is a man, not a butterfly. How can the man know the world around him is real, and not a matrix?

I am sitting in a chair. Can I prove the chair is real, can I prove that it is no part of a matrix, or that I am dreaming that I am in a chair? No. I can not prove it to be real.
Can I prove than, that I am real? Can I prove that my own body is real? No. I could be a butterfly dreaming to be a man, or this could just be my residual self image, for you matrix freaks.

What I know for certain? I am thinking, and thus something is thinking, something is. Thus, we have proven that something exists, and that this something is thinking for us. Normally, I would put this in caps, but I'll save you that, yet this is crucially important. Thus, Descartes believes, this entity that thinks is outside of this material world.
However, this is untrue, there is no real reason why the entity that thinks could not exist in this world, even if we can not prove the existence of that body. Although there is a possibility that our entity exist in some non-material plane, there is no evidence to support it.

Thus, what we do know is that we can not prove the existence of ourselves, but that if we are ever to do anything we will have to take it for granted. In any case, saying that our conscience resides somewhere on a material plane remains unproven, factual, and logical. This disproves christianity, judaism, the islam, buddhism, and hinduism. Why does it disprove it? To me, if there is no proof to support it, and it can not be deducted from what we are certain or what we consider to be logically acceptable, it simply does not exist.

Previously I discussed how our society is much like a human body. If conscience is not something magical, not something extraplanar, it has to reside in the body, and thus in the CNS. Thus, it is controlled by individual cells.

All well, considered, if we follow this logic, our entire society is, in essence, self-conscience. Before you click the quick reply button for a nasty flame, hold up. Imagine a society of about a 100 beautiful specimen of the opposite sex. Imagine that you are of a higher hierarchy and that you are in charge of this society. In this society, you are aware of the society, and you are part of this society. Thus, as part of this society, and as aware of this society, this society has become self-aware.

What does this mean? Well, this forms the fundament of a society. It forms a new universal moral: responsibility. You, as a leader of these 100 others, and part of this group of 101, are responsible for the survival of the whole group.

What does this mean? Are we part of this planet? Before saying no, remember that (according to popular believe) we have originated here, and that each and every resource in our body comes from this planet. I presume you said yes. Are we aware of the existence of planet earth? Yes we are. With this knowledge, we gain responsibility of this earth, and with this earth, essentially the whole universe. We are all, as sentient beings, responsible for this earth and for the universe.

If we are looking for a meaning of life, let it be that. Let us live our lives with responsibility towards fellow members of society. This is the ultimate, universal moral derived from science itself.

Mr U

An interesting, and very well written piece. 'Feels like Deus Ex! :D
I agree on your ultimate message, and how even logic bows to it. Some topics might be debatable, but for the most part the message is clear. The main problem though is that we are a long way from attaining responsibility on the species, ecological, global, and even universal scale. Still, our passage of learning ought to be very interesting. :)

made my day HU. thank you for sharing!

Feel free to add your own essays/pieces. Oh and Mac, I'm always open for debate, especially if it the subject is this interesting.

Now for another subject I have left relatively untouched. I said earlier that there is no soul, I made an attempt to prove that by disproving the logic Descartes used when he thought he was thinking of the theory on which most of the 'ghost/soul' ideas are based on. This does raise an interesting question, however. How do we differ from 'mere' animals?

Housing? Are we able to build houses and protect ourselves? Ants build advanced buildings. Beavers build them. And trust me, our housing is also quite unprotected if build in the territory of a grizzly bear.

Tools? Are we able to use tools to help ourselves in day to day task. Well, this requires a bit of logical thinking and a bit of knowledge from ancient languages. Before there were Homo Sapiens Sapiens (as we like to call ourselves), there were Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis. Now, Homo Habilis is able to use tools and craft weapons and such out of them. If it were craftmanship that got us to the top in the foodchain, the Homo Habilis could and would have been the dominant species.

Without a doubt, however, our brain is more advanced than that of the Homo Habilis. But what does this brain capacity give us? Does it allow us to build better homes or better tools? No. It allows us to communicate in an extremely powerful way: Speech. You see, an ant queen can not tell her servants that they should get blue flowers instead of yellow flowers because they are more comfortable.
We however, can. We can tell other people how we think things are done best. Along with an impressive memory that has made us what we are. From generation through generation, the way we build houses has improved and the way we craft has been improved, simply because we could relay that information to the next.

What is the implication? Well, first of all, we are animals, just like dogs, just like ants and just like beavers. We are however, smarter, better adapted creatures.

I bet you agreed to that, without even noticing the trap I laid. We are animals. We are aware of it, and we are animals. We have an obligation towards the entire group to ensure their survival for we are very much part of it, and we are the only group with the ability to see the answers to the questions they can not ask. We have to ensure that they survive. Laissez-faire can not and may not be put to use in a matter so vital to the survival of the 'animal kingdom'.

Now, I'm not saying we should revert to a state of hunters and gatherers. Hell no. What I am saying is that we should get a realistic view on nature today, and what we can do about it. Now, not environmentalist on this whole world does this. No putrifying company on this world does this. Nay, instead they tell you to deposit 5 dollars each month and they will take care of it.
Are they taking away our responsibility? NO! They are taking away our feeling of responsibility.

Does this help us. Sure, because if our children ask us, "Mom, are we going to die because of the oson layer?", we can say, "No, honey, because mommy gives 5 dollars a month to some people who buy forests in south-america."

Now, the child will probably stop asking at this point, since he believes he doesn't understand it, we are in fact ignorant to the facts. It is our responsibility to find out what is going on in the world, and I'm not saying you should travel to south-America with a camera to see what is going on, but try going to the site from WWF, and try finding what they actually do, or try emailing the main director and ask what his salary is.

No. Instead of doing the minimal to ease our hearts and that we can tell our children in honesty what we are doing with our responsibility we rather shove it to someone else so they can see what to do with it.

Mr U

You're touching on so many subjects here it's hard to keep up.

Cells are individual, and die individually. Each cell is it's own government, it's own civilization, and carries out complex manuevers to keep itself alive. Stem cells are indeed waiting to start their lives as a 'cell', but the map in them predetermines what type of cell they are going to be. Each cell is specialized to perform it's function, unless it developes into cancer (uncontrolled cell growth). This is like all people in life, they are specialized into what type of person they are, and look to join others like themselves. Every body of collective matter that is alive, has a purpose and an instinct built in. Governement can be compared to a living organism, or a cell, but ultimately the purposes vary. There are even more complex systems we haven't explored in our very own ocean, and in the solar system, which could just be a tiny spec of something bigger which we aren't able to study yet.

Cells are individual, and die individually. Each cell is it's own government, it's own civilization, and carries out complex manuevers to keep itself alive.
How does that differ from a person. Does a person not have his own ideas and ideals he lives by, and is not each person too driven by a instinct to survive?

That is why Communism in it's current state does not work. People do not feel compelled to work if they don't have to do so to survive. This is even more obvious with, for example, polish workers. If they are hired to do build a house, or something alike, they will build for a week, untill they get paid and they won't show up again unless they need more money. With these people the urge to survive, and the urge not to work if it is not immediately neccesary is even larger.

The only way a communistic society can work is if there is responsibility amongst the people; that there is a feelign that they are part of a whole and that without their work, they themselves can not survive.

Mr U

Hmmm. Well, when I said debatable, I wasn't actually saying I would debate them. It's more like you're using views some may not agree with; the soul for instance. Like religion, no matter how strong the proof will be, you're never gonna crack some guys. For the most part the message hardly has anything wrong with it.
What I focus on is the fact that while this view is actually very universally understood by all of us (I don't think anyone ever lives his life without feeling deep down that humanity has to work and want to work as a race), humanity by its chaotic nature will find it very hard to make what you suggest a reality.
In an analogy to the body, humanity very aptly fits it. What you may have missed out is that our individuality is its boon but also its downfall, the same as in the human body. While random genetic mutations cannot be prevented, they give rise many times to an improvement; a higher level in the Darwinian scale. Unfortunately, these mutations also form cancers, and eventually poison the rest of the system by means of its very uniqueness. This was why Communism failed. Not everyone could subscribe to the dream; nor were as willing to work as hard without incentive nor threat of punishment. Realistically speaking, its not likely to happen for a long time, too.

I'm perfectly willing to modify my beliefs if proof is presented to sponsor such a modification. I never made that post to encompass all religion and philosophy of all time of the human race. Of course people will disagree with me, but there are also people who say the world is still flat.

As UT states in her avatar, question your beliefs often. A religion that does not stimulate that very fundament of filosophy is, I believe, not worthy of existence, and hardly worth the debate. I do not wish to debate whether God exists, for example, as it is a matter of faith, not fact.

In any way, what I think is the core of my religion (hehe) is that people need to feel part of something. As a basic need of existence they need to be able to communicate and use these means of communication to 'fit in'.

Still, I'm always up for a good debate, and as you can see, practically everything falls under the title ;).

Mr U

'Kindred'? Heh heh!
Now, modify your idea...that might be a mite tough, since all theories are based upon certain pillars of beliefs. If you modify those, you lose the whole theory. On the other hand, ideas that don't fit in need not mean they're akin to believing the world is flat. It's perfectly normal to believe in a God or religion, no matter the amount of proof one needs. As Truth very nicely put it in an earlier thread; 'I think' need not signify 'I am', but you've already considered that.
Also, there's very little to challenge about your theory's logic, like I said. It's very true, and something everyone deep down should know. If I do have a bone to pick with it, I think it would be the means to that end. For one thing, our ability to communicate is both a boon and curse. With the gift of articulation comes the burden of a widening array of vocabulary and their uses. Language, when used rightly, can touch a person's heart, when wrongly start a war. As we have seen over the past millennia; the gift of speech has brought its fair share of curses together with advantages. Language alone, even with the best intentions, cannot hope to solve the world's problems.
Speaking of world problems; we have the main barriers to effective responsibility and communication, all taught to me by the game (would you believe it?!) Deus Ex: IW...firstly, the world's perennial problems of the shortage of materials and space, plus the differences within all classes in all societies, whether or not these classes are apparent. When you worry about your next meal or whether or not you might find a job or have the skills needed for any job at all, you tend more to look after number one. How then can Man work together? Even in the most prosperous of countries there are differences: meritocracy, heredity, wealth, and most basically linked to them all: ability. I agree with you: if Man cannot destroy the differences within himself, he cannot be able to look outwards. Yet these differences are so very fundamental!
Here's a tidbit from IW that you can think about; its definitely cooked my brain. Nothing that might really happen of course, but its still interesting. One of the endings from IW, the one where you follow J.C. Denton, was to create a flood of nanites that would be infused into everyone in the world. All abilities would be equalized; no-one would be more well-off or worse off. Most importantly, the needs and views of not a country, not a community, not the few, but each and every person would be linked to Helios (not the MM member, but the A.I. J.C. bonded himself to :p), which would govern (but not dominate the minds of) the world according to its needs, and not the ones of those in power. And with their leader being as powerful yet impartial as Helios, there was no possibility of abuse. People would not become Borg: essentially life goes on as normal. However, the basis upon which all large-scale destruction and hatred are based on would be eliminated. Interesting, if far-fetched and imperfect. What do you think? ;)

Well, if you consider each cell a human, then what are you assuming is the entire body? The planet? A liver cell and a stomach cell put together will die, in fact most cells when put together by us will die. But on their own they reproduce and form an organ, the organs together allow the body to live. So are the organs a government, and the body is a world? The organs don't usually battle each other, so I don't see how it's comparible.

Vash, I think he means that basically on a global scale humanity is linked. Governments, no matter how they war, have to trade with each other, and they all work together to form a viable global economy/civilisation. Basically, safety in numbers. No real need to take the analogy totally.

Very interesting, Macleod, although I do not believe the Borg are being abused by their queen. But that's a whole different story ;).

I'm not saying the world society perfectly represents the human body, for if that were true, I believe, there would be Utopia. Indeed, Mac, linked. We are all human beings and we are all equal in that fact. We are no different.
Some people say that war is inevitable, that we will always wage war, but that is just plain cynical. Why do we wage war? Indeed, miscommunication, but also because people feel threatened.

How can you feel threatened if you know that the other person needs you to survive? You see, if you create a society, be this global, be this in some small island near Panama, where each member feels responsibility and with it an obligation to aid their fellow members of society in order to obtain aid themselves, you create Utopia.
And yes, I am aware that this is much like the Christian saying 'Giving is better than taking', but honestly, how many christians really care about the people around them? They are only set in the selfish goal of going to heaven and give money to some corrupt natural life society. If God exists I think he would be rather embarrassed.

But what is more noble than to live your life in servitude for the entire society, and know that everyone around you works just as hard at establishing that? There is no poverty if everyone is equal, if everyone is just a member of society, just a 'brother'. Instead however, we have created burgeouise. We have created people who are above the mere members of society, who have elevated themselves into a higher level where they need not work because they have others to do the work for them.

Responsibility is the only value that can exist in the future, and with it, come other moral values, equality, respect, freedom. Freedom to do as you please as long as you do not loose your responsibility.

Yet all of these ideals will never truly be established with governments like the ones that currently rule the world. These governments are self-preservational. Imagine you had the power to rule a nation, would you just relinguish is freely? No! You would say to yourself that it would be wrong to do so.
These governments lack responsibility. The responsibility to say that they are part of a society and that they need to look after society, not vice versa.

Mr U

Hmmm. In other words; you describe the Star Trek dream. :)
That's my ideal as well, but as too many friends have argued strongly and rightly; man cannot, at least in this current state of evolution, achieve the responsibility possible for this to happen. You only need one lazy person to break the chain: this was summarized in an analogy in IW: Give a carpenter all he wants and he will stop working; losing his skills in time. Give him too little and he will not be able to perform as well. Although it is doubtless that today's governments are too flawed to help us, without the incentive only capitalism can give so far, mankind is doomed to such unwillingness to compete/perform. Sometimes it may also not be a matter of laziness but of aptitude: no matter how hard one tries one may not be good enough to contribute to the society/world as others do. Once that happens, jealousy will erupt both ways: to and from the aforementioned black sheep.
Also, like I've already said, there can never be equality among people. No matter the times or era, every system ran on and was torn down by this inequality: of race, of religion, of wealth, of education, of power, of ability. That is the chief reason why mankind cannot in its current and near forseeable state accomplish true Communism. And that is, sadly, why the stars will, for generations to come, be beyond our reach. :(

Well, I'm a teensy bit late here aren't I? Ah well, let's see hou much I can summarise :D

I agree of course with the final message of your first essay, but I'm disagreed on how to get there. When you say that responsibility is the "universal moral derived from science itself" you say that it is derived from self-preservation. I disagree. By self-presevation - or science - you derive that you must take care of yourself to the best of your abilities - i.e. get as much money or power as you can.
As an individual, mass responsibility - in the form of communism for instance - would not help self-preservation unless you were one of the weak, or lower classes if you like. But it is not the weak that need to be convinced that communism is a good thing - it is the powerful.
What it seems like to me is that you jumped straight from the true fact that communism (or responsibility) in its ideal form is better for a society's self-preservation than laissez-fair to the false understanding that for an individual this would be the case too.
The fact is, none of what you wrote here would convince an individual that "scientifically", he should take more responsibility for others. Caring about others is, and always has been, an illogical, moral action. I'm not sure how atheists explain morals, and I'll be thrilled to know, but the religious say it comes from the soul, it is a godly attribute that cares for the big picture rather than for itself.
I'm thinking you may have been saying something similar here but I'm not quite sure:
Previously I discussed how our society is much like a human body. If conscience is not something magical, not something extraplanar, it has to reside in the body, and thus in the CNS. Thus, it is controlled by individual cells.

All well, considered, if we follow this logic, our entire society is, in essence, self-conscience. Before you click the quick reply button for a nasty flame, hold up. Imagine a society of about a 100 beautiful specimen of the opposite sex. Imagine that you are of a higher hierarchy and that you are in charge of this society. In this society, you are aware of the society, and you are part of this society. Thus, as part of this society, and as aware of this society, this society has become self-aware.

I say soul, you say conscience? In anywhich way, I do believe conscience is something "magical", but we'll get there later.
Lemme see if I understand. You say conscience in the body, as responsibility in society, resides in the brain? Would that mean that the government is in charge or responsibility?

I'm not sure if when you write society is "self-conscience" it is a misspelling of self-conscious, because you go on to write later that the society is self-aware, but it seems a direct continuance to talking about the conscience... Anyway, I'm pretty confused about this whole paragraph, but here too I see that you say that "as part of this society, and as aware of this society, the society has become self aware". Again, you are confusing the society with the person inhabiting it, the body with the cell. I think the process of deduction is flawed that way.

If one views communism as an ideal state, one will see an immediate difference. Here, there is a sense of equality, but it does not work. Why does it not work? There is a single person, a single cell calling the shots. Only if the government itself is acting commune, if there is no way for individual gain, than and only than can and will a utopia be created. If you see the body as a utopia. Remember however that each cell is taken care of, that each and every child cell will grow up with a purpose in it's life and that no single cell can get dependant on drugs.
This isn't directly connected to my main point, but I wanted to touch on this too.
Have you ever heard of the kibbutzim? These were small communal settlements in Israel that functioned exactly like small communist states. Their governing bodies were headed by idealistic, caring people and the problem of corruption was virtually nonexistant.
Still, the movement had almost completely fallen apart. Why? Because of the laziness. When people know that they'll get paid no matter what they do they don't put as much effort into their work, which leads to both economical loss and to other, hardworking kibbutz members getting sick of other people getting equal with giving equal! It's not just corruption that disagrees with communism. It is human imperfection. I don't believe communism would work until human nature would change. Maybe it should be up to education, but that's a different story already...

Thus, what we do know is that we can not prove the existence of ourselves, but that if we are ever to do anything we will have to take it for granted. In any case, saying that our conscience resides somewhere on a material plane remains unproven, factual, and logical. This disproves christianity, judaism, the islam, buddhism, and hinduism. Why does it disprove it? To me, if there is no proof to support it, and it can not be deducted from what we are certain or what we consider to be logically acceptable, it simply does not exist.
Just a word or two to defend myself here, though we shouldn't make this the main argument :D
Unproven yes, illogical no - if conscience is looking at the big picture, then it differs from the rest of the body in that it isn't about self-preservation. I think it is logical (though, as you say, unproven) to say that it operates on a different plane. Whether it is factual or not we will only know when and if it is proven one way or another. To say it disproves those five religions is taking it a bit far... even if it is highly unlikely it is not disproven... for something to be disproven you need actual evidence to contradict it...


42

Very well done...I guess HU was waiting for you all along. ;)
I like your argument on almost everything, especially on religion....but I tend not to want to challenge HU's views on this because it's kinda like evolution: what you believe does not matter as long as your results are the same. Who cares if you believe or don't believe in God, as long as your workable facts are good? Still, see what I mean about views that might clash with a large number of people, HU? ;)
Also, all that about the world being self-conscious and all...to me its more an analogy or metaphor. Gaia, all that....essentially we work as a system, reliant on each other enough to seem to bring the world as a whole into some form of living existance...but to call it literal would seem to be pushing it. Again, I don't see the need to dwell on these minutiae, though.

I will try to explain myself, FYM, if you still fail to understand me after that, we'll do this in a MSN session ;).

Society. With this I mean a large group of individuals gathered under one shared property. For example, sharing a nation, or a language, or living on this planet.
In my examples I often tred beyond the standard view of society, as I also see the whole world, gaia, as Mac so truthfully stated, as a society.

Self-Conscience. Self-awareness. Conscience, awareness. To be self-conscious is to be aware of yourself, to know that you yourself exist, to be able to make the deducation, cogito ergo sum.

I believe that the human body, the whole mass of cells as a whole (not just the CNS (Central Nervous System)) is self-conscious. So, I believe that if I would create a human body, (living) cell by (living) cell, he would be alive and be able to think. I believe he would possess what you call a soul.

I view the human body as a society. A society of cells. A complex society of specialised cells. Some cells register light, some protect you from bacteria. This society (still talking about the human body) is ruled by a basic law of self-preservation.

Each and every cell has a small core (of which I forgot the biological name (I'm literally slapping my head here, I have three books about cells, lol)), in which information is stored. Information concerning on how it can specialise (registering light, protection from bacteria, et cetera). These cells are part of a society, not as parasites, but as symbiotes. They live so they may serve.

Our body knows no revolutions. Each and every cell is 'happy' in it's purpose. From this I conclude that the order in which the society that is our body is arranged is one of perfection.

Now, I'm not saying we should make a literal comparrison between a human being and a single cell, because humans are much more complex (even though I am an extreme reductionist). What I am saying is that we should look at the society of body and compare it to the society we currently have here in the world.

Anyway, the prime issue here is that if you agree with me that it is possible for a society to be self-conscious, as a human body is, than you will also agree that the world itself is self-conscious.

if we relate that back to our human body, where each and every cell acts for a greater purpose, with the 'responsibility' that without them, without their servitude to the society, the system will not work, we see that each and every member of Gaia has the responsibility to act in benefit of the whole community: to conservate gaia.

I love the movie Instinct, with Anthony Hopkins. If you haven't seen it, see it. It's not about a person going to the jungle, but about a person discovering the single fact I am trying to prove :).

It after all, shows that we do not longer serve planet earth, but that we have branched off from our almost divine purpose, that we no longer serve a greater 'thing', but rather ourself.

You talk about lazy people, I relate back to the human body. What does the human body do with cells who malfunction. Too bad we don't have an evil smiley here...

Now Mac, if you payed close attention, you will see the ideals of the Illuminati (fictional or not). They intend to destroy the poverty. They act as a hand of Gaia. Gaia is a female, mother earth. Female, Venus, bright morning star, "lucifer, the Supreme Illuminatus."
They intend, should they exist, to create a utopian society filled with people who are not lazy :).

Mr U

It's the nucleus, if I get what you're pointing at. I'm taking a course on it now, pretty light-hearted stuff though.
A thought came up to me, though, if we compare one more thing about the analogy. The individual cells alone cannot think much, but all of them as a cohesive unit give birth of a higher consciousness; a Collective, forgive the cliche. This is somewhat manifest in the idea of Gaia, but I wonder...is there something more tanglible to it? Society as a whole actually having a higher level of cohesive thought that each of us in our individuality cannot comprehend even now?
As for the Illuminati thing yeah I saw traces of it. I heard though that they're a long extinct society....and I thought the Illuminati (at least in Deus Ex) believed in all of mankind under the benevolent and wise rule of the gifted few? Communism was the last thing that came to my mind.
Ah, and as for the lazy people: equate 'lazy' to 'cancer', as my first reply here talked about. You'll see the grave threat posed by these indeed.

Majestic 12, Illuminati, call them what you will :D. The Grey Death is an excellent way of dealing with pesky, or rather lazy, people.

Hmmm.. Mac, perhaps there is already a higher conscience, a wordly conscience, of which we have no knowledge about. I doubt individual cells know anything about the conscience they drive. Hehe, gives a new perspective to God, doesn't it?

Mr U

Sorry to resurrect an old topic, but I believe there really are some signs of that 'higher consciousness'. Basically, anything that keeps the status quo; the balance of power - that could be 'Species Consciousness' acting. Fate, Morality, Good balancing Evil, Coincidence, Cosmic Design....even Religion itself. It's how our species balances between becoming spoiled and weak or completely annihilating ourselves.

I was wrong! How could I possibly measure myself with Nietzsche! Wille zur macht has everything to do with men and women attempting to fit alpha roles, and reproducing. It is, of course the very effect of Wille zur macht! Humanity, like everything else that lives is expansive.

The very earliest bacteria multiplied. It's a given in nature, the first form of behaviour! If there is truly a purpose to life, it is simple! It must be tied to expansive power. However, as I've shown, our expansive force does no longer reflect geologically, but rather intelectually. Indeed, the Übermensch! Indeed! Indeed! Indeed! Halleluja, heaven be praised! Or rather Nietzsche! The engine behind evolution, behind progress in human society is the abnormal, the different. The great minds have given us intelectual progress. And it is thus the responsibility, as I have 'proven' before, of man to create 'Great Men'. Unaware of Nietzsche, I came to the same conclusions! Although I am still embarrassed to say I came to the same conclusions as a great mind like him, I also can't help myself from shouting it out!

NIETZSCHE IS ALIVE! GOD IS DEAD!

Mr U

HU, just an off topic question, have you ever read the book Creature From Jekyll Island? I think you would really enjoy this. It would also help you bring some of your thoughts and theories together. Lots of good stuff in there about the Illuminati and the Fabian Society and world Socialism. Check it out if you can find it. You will have even more reasons to dislike America.

Reading this thread it was almost impossible to not read onto this last post before me. Being board I decided to help out and search the net for this book Creature From Jekyll Island and found it almost right away. So here you go http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html for that book.