/lit/ - Literature

>>14213246
My question to you is how you observe consciousness. I will elaborate:

You claim to have learned "science" (as many preach in the same way as a religious fanatic, without being critical or analytic the supposed so called tenets of scientific thought, but this is a discussion for another time and place perhaps) and yet you are an egoist who puts human consciousness as the pinnacle of all conscious achievement. You insinuate that with humanity there is the "end of conscious growth", the ceiling so to speak.

"Science" has allowed us to observe life down to a microscopic level, and in each "tier" there is a greater portion of consciousness and physicality that is observable in many cases simply because we harness the ability to observe them. For example, a little carpenter ant has absolutely no conscious capacity to ever observe an amoeba and certainly has no conscious capacity to understand human activity. Their consciousness is simply low level and cannot be reasonably expected to ever "peak" beyond this level. When a human being destroys one of their colonies, do you think ants ponder the great beings that have appeared to annihilate their homes? Or is it far more probable that the ant is simply INCAPABLE of perceiving the fact that a living being has just appeared to destroy their home.

What I mean is this: The ant is not consciously appeal to even perceive life greater than its own. Human beings are just as "mystical" as great storms are to us. I hope you understand what I am trying to reach at here because it is important. For you would then postulate the claim that humanity, therefore, is the "end of all conscious growth" and yet I have just given you a scenario that proves consciousness works in a kind of scale with higher and lower forms of consciousness. Because ants are unable to consciously perceive and understand human existence, does it not logically follow that there are entities greater than the conscious ability of humans to perceive as existing? Does not being able to perceive something as it is REALLY (I reject existentialism wholeheartedly) mean that said something does not exist? Of course not, this is a word game one plays with children (e.g. "If a tree falls alone in the woods...").

>what does this have to do with "theism"
Everything, but more importantly it has to do with metaphysics.