...fourth-dimensional framework, have we not created the physical structure capable of supporting a self-aware universe?
And if we look an animate matter (life), do we not see two common features shared by all life: self-preservation and the urge to reproduce?
And isn't self-preservation and the urge to reproduce the rudimentary features of what we call Love?
Could we not, then, argue in favour of a self-aware universe that manifests its conciousness through Love?
2006-09-29 07:18:58 · 15 answers · asked by bobkgins_sock_puppet_1 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
self-preservation = self-love. If we love ourselves, we wish to avoid pain/death.
2006-09-29 07:23:05 · update #1
"And isn't self-preservation and the urge to reproduce the rudimentary features of what we call Love?"
Urge to reproduce, possibly. But self-preservation? I fail to see the connection.
"Could we not, then, argue in favour of a self-aware universe that manifests its conciousness through Love?"
There's a logical leap here that I'm not seeing. Are you claiming that the universe has a sense of self-preservation and/or a reproductive drive? Also, I don't believe that all life is self-aware. I'd question the self-awareness of a tree or an amoeba.
2006-09-29 07:25:26 · answer #1 · answered by The Resurrectionist 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
actually... i am not ready to sign on your first thesis. why would interconnectedness create communication? unless that is what you mean... and if so, who says that just because we have a framework capable of supporting a self-aware universe, this framework has to be inhabited?
i will grant your second thesis, although i am pretty sure that with animate matter you mean something completely different than i do.:)
the third one is a bummer again... no it is NOT! what the hell has love to do with either of these? love is what happens when a selfconscious being elevates itself above those and finds other priorities. and ONLY a selfconscious being can feel love, and those are a pettily small portion if all animate matter.
the last one... yes, IF the first three are true. which two of them are not, as i just explained.
and there is an even bigger IF... the one you put on top of your question. you cannot just make an assumption out of the blue and then base your argument on that as if it was true. especially if it most likely is NOT.
there. sit. hush... next one.
2006-09-29 14:40:13 · answer #2 · answered by wolschou 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How is self preservation a rudimentary feature of the concept of love? The "self-aware Universe" concept is interesting, but I don't see the self preservation connection you draw.
Re: additional details
I see your point, although I would argue that there is an enormous difference betweeen self-love and reproduction. While self-love may be a basis for self preservation, reproduction does not necessitate any form of "love". An analysis based upon instinctive reproduction forming a basis for the concept of "love" would ignore the homosexuality found in most species, as well as (on a human level) the use of the act of "reproduction" as an act of non-love, or even cruelty.
2006-09-29 14:20:23 · answer #3 · answered by Blackacre 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to work on your logic.
There is no evidence that the universe is self-aware, no matter how interconnected elementary particles are.
That all life (we know about) has those two features does not mean that life cannot exist without them.
That we call those two features of life "love" is simply a social construct, and has nothing to do with either the nature of life or the structure of the universe.
Therefore your conclusion is a fallacy, not supported by the arguments.
2006-09-29 14:23:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Okay, big words, but simple question. " Does sex = love"? No. First, I have no desire to have children, so by your very definition, I don't exist. How ever, I am capable of love.
What is love? My definition: Love is when someone or something is more important to you than yourself.
Have you ever bought you significant other a nice present, even those there is some else you can got for yourself? Have you ever protected some one else from harm ( physical or otherwise ) while putting yourself at risk? These are just a few " yes " questions that define love. I tend to be very analytical about these things, but I hope this helps. best wishes.
2006-09-29 14:28:24 · answer #5 · answered by Odindmar 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You could, except that what you posit is merely biology, physicality, materiality. And we are more than that. We are living souls, and they are composed not of matter, not of energy which can become matter (e=mc2), but divinity. Understanding this isn't possible for our finite minds. That's where faith comes in. I have faith and I know that I am far more than the mere random accretion of sub-atomic particles.
2006-09-29 14:24:29 · answer #6 · answered by Granny Annie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Love is a word that is subjective and relies entirely on the viewpoint of the person using the word. :Love is not a scientific term and cannot correctly be applied to anything related to science.
It can not be measured. In other words, there is no such thing as an ounce of love, or any other quantifiable measurement.
2006-09-29 14:26:06 · answer #7 · answered by Left the building 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your getting dangerously close to word salad. especially when you equate the drives of self-preservation and self-replication the equivalent of love.
2006-09-29 14:21:55 · answer #8 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are several levels and names of love. What you project in your hypothesis is human love at a base level. Divine love reaches and serves so much more.
2006-09-29 14:20:52 · answer #9 · answered by jmmevolve 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read the Self Aware Universe actually, good book. Amit Gatswami.
Nice question and cannot argue anything here. Thanks friend.
2006-09-29 14:24:26 · answer #10 · answered by Corey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋