Whenever a person claims that âthe universeâ, existence, is based upon him/herself, then this immediately demonstrates solipsistic and infantile thinking. Good thing thatâs not what Iâm saying. As infants and young children, or any simpler organism with consciousness, yes it does seem that âthe universe revolves around meâ. This is a natural quality of consciousness and coming into conscious awareness. This is not how infants naturally see the world, but a rare view arrived at by certain philosophers after giving the matter extensive and quite elaborate thought (not that it makes them right butâŚ). It seems to simple creatures, simple intelligence, to be âat the center of everythingâ. Later however, with maturity, hopefully, organisms grow out of this phase and mature. Increased intelligence and wisdom leads to new conclusions and reevaluating the premises.
I donât think this is even true of animals as simple as dogs. Assuming the animal in question has similar neural hardware to that of humansânamely, a system in the brain whose function it is to simulate or compute its position in a 3D environmentâthen the simple act of moving through the animalâs environment should be enough to eliminate geocentrism from its brain. If the animal honestly believes at first that he is at the center of the universe, then the minute it moves away from that spot, it should be aware that it is no longer at the center of the universe. After a while, most animals get the idea that if there is a center to the universe at all, itâs not always going to be exactly at the spot where theyâre standing.
The universe, existence, does not in fact ârevolve around meâ. â Nice try, but I didnât say that. Existence is not Geocentric. It is not Heliocentric. Everything does not revolve around merely humans.
^ This is ironic because the view Iâm defendingâthe Big Bang and the expansion of the universeâdepends on a rejection of geocentrism. The idea is that everything is expanding relative to everything elseâthe Earth is not special, we are not special.
The later stages of development lead to intersubjectivity and objectivity. For example, there are other intelligences in existence. Consciousness is not necessarily unique, and can be common, among some environments (which are abundant with life). Furthermore, planets and their movements are not relative to (only) earth, and human perspective. Planets revolve around gravitational forces, many of which even the âbestâ scientists humanity has to offer, cannot predict or navigate.
This is a common fallacy made by objectivists. The idea that objectivity constitutes transcending subjectivity or your own consciousness is wrong. How do you arrive at objectivity in the first place if not by experience and thought, the products of consciousness? Objectivity is a culmination, a product, of subjective experiences. It is not the opposite.
Are you comparable to the top scientists in human history? No. If they can be wrong, and badly wrong, then why are your claims or beliefs any better? Iâm not saying they are. Iâm challenging you to qualify yours.
Also there is another key point lost. If humanity were stuck in deep space, then what about time, distance, and âlight-yearsâ? Isnât a light-year obviously relative to light on earth and a year on earth.
Youâre right. This point was lost⌠on you. I addressed it already.
Outside earth, outside humanity, obviously these premises are flawed.
I take it youâve transcended your own humanity?
I donât expect to convince anybody, really, â Oh yes you do. or even any significant number of people. Because historically, masses are not on the side of Philosophy. If 1000 years ago average humans believe in Geocentricism, the sun revolves around earth, and today people are still geocentric, believing humanity and earth are the center of the universe, then what hope is there really to convince masses and majorities of people of their errors? As-if they would benefit from accuracy or truth, regarding scopes and perspectives far beyond them? They wonât benefit, and, they wonât understand. Nor will they care to understand.
I canât believe all this is coming from me challenging you to offer your alternatives to the Big Bang theory.
Itâs clear to me now that despite all the progressions of the greatest scientists and philosophers of the ages, that still, the average human is as geocentric and human-centric as ever before. I doubt the average human is geocentric; most people probably know the Earth revolves around the Sun. Still believing that s/he/you are the center of existence. That the universe begins and ends with (your) consciousness. And that when you go to sleep at night, existence collapses with your consciousness. Nothing outside âmeâ.
Itâs extremely likely that this counts for only a tiny minority of people.
In understanding all this, I realize there is no battle to be won. The philosophers and intellectuals that did revolutionize before (what does ârevolutionâ mean by the way?) what did they achieve, when, none of their successes are known today, because the old errors are too easy and compulsive to let go of. AgainâŚthat average people and humanity as a whole, will take âitselfâ as the center of existence?
No, I donât need to convince anybody of anything. â So youâre just venting? But if youâre wrong then Iâll tell you anyway. And Iâll show you how, too. Still waiting. So show me how youâre right if you can. I first need you to simmer down and be rational.
Show me the beginning of the universe, if thatâs what you believe. If thatâs your Faith. If thatâs your God. Show me. Describe to me.
