Hi,
You mention that Langan fellow...
also there's Gustav Stromberg (or burg?)
whose book The Soul of the Universe was
endorsed by Albert Einstein.
In it he dealt with cellular irritability
as an example where mechanical structure follows on into life, but can be treated in the abstract by sentient beings.

Hinduism calls it "the illusion of separateness" but maybe that term is too broad. We really can't afford to moosh everything together. Discreteness makes creative work possible.

Paul, you wrot:
"Well, I think science might be getting close to answering that."

That is an admission we are not there yet, and either answer might yet be true.

Are you the same Paul before you have a plate of spagetti as the Paul after a plate of spagetti?
We are changed, and if we change, we are not the same as our former self. There's no use insisting there's only one consciousness FOR ALL PURPOSES but I agree there can be times when a concert is played well by big parts of the universe. The idea that it's all a big machine is just imprecision. Details make any generalization moot, mine or yours. It can't be summed up that simply. As Bucky fuller said, "There is never only one side. There are at minimum six." I hope this doesn't convince you that the day is spoiled.
Thank you for your patience with reading this.
Mike

• And the Swami says - yanniru - April 16, 2002 - 19:41 UTC