It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Truth About Consciousness. Based On Science.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Does anyone here understand what I'm trying to say? I'm having a hard time trying to convey my idea. I didn't want this thread to be a thread where everyone comes to share their own beliefs. I was trying to see if someone could see what I'm saying and tell me why they agree or disagree or that they just didn't understand what I was saying. But saying you don't believe in something because you already believe in something else doesn't really help me.




posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Does anyone here understand what I'm trying to say? I'm having a hard time trying to convey my idea. I didn't want this thread to be a thread where everyone comes to share their own beliefs. I was trying to see if someone could see what I'm saying and tell me why they agree or disagree or that they just didn't understand what I was saying. But saying you don't believe in something because you already believe in something else doesn't really help me.


I'm sorry, I am having a hard time trying to grasp the concept you are trying to explain.

Are you meaning like, everything is all made of up energy on the quantum level therefore we are all the same thing & can therefore go into other people/objects at any given time?



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
a reply to: xicor

If it weren't for a thing called delusions, people's personal experiences could be trusted. Unfortunately, sometimes our personal beliefs don't correspond to reality, especially when not based on a solid foundation of things proven, but based on a foundation of other personal experiences. Math is different. It never lies and it can be trusted. Science interprets data wrong sometimes, but the good thing is, as more data is gathered, the interpretations get corrected. So, it is progressing towards a destination of a complete truth that all can agree on. Whereas philosophies and metaphysics have been around for a long time and haven't changed much over time. They aren't going anywhere and they aren't progressing towards a destination of a complete version of truth that we can all agree on. So they can't really be classified as knowledge, as you can never really know. Only believe.


Well if there is truth in the subjective experiences that have metaphysical elements to them, then the objective understanding can't be a complete truth until it integrates and understands those elements. One of the troubles currently comes from the history of science overcoming dogmatic religion and still hasn't really gotten out of that phase. Because of this spiritual ideas are discarded as delusions and you have science that wants to gain an understanding purely based on material concepts. Ultimately science may be able to integrate the spiritual concepts that are true, however the metaphysics wouldn't necessarily be absorbed into the science. This is because knowledge based off subjective experiences such as consciousness have to be understood in terms of the experience which normally requires a disciplined practice such as meditation or yoga.

To state that you can derive the complete truth of consciousness purely from mathematics and science assumes that mathematics and science are compatible with metaphysics. This is just a faith towards that potential, however there is also a potential that science will never be able to integrate with metaphysics since metaphysics is based off higher thought forms and nonlinear thought that goes beyond the logic of mathematics and the rationale of science.
edit on 3-5-2014 by xicor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

So because I am me, makes it possible that I am someone else?
You are missing a premise here to connect the leap. You can be many in one (Multiple personality disorder)

So maybe we are all the multiple personalities of one?



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: g0dhims3lf
a reply to: smithjustinb

So because I am me, makes it possible that I am someone else?
You are missing a premise here to connect the leap. You can be many in one (Multiple personality disorder)


Right. I'm aware of the giant canyon here that needs to be leaped over. I'm seeing the landing being made, I just can't find the words to bridge the gap.

You can't see through others' eyes because you are already seeing through yours. But they are seeing through their's. There are trillions of individuals. Just because you don't see out of their eyes doesn't mean their eyes aren't being seen out of. There isn't a YOU (an identity) that is seeing. There is a material body that is seeing. Just like with everyone else. As long as there are individual entities, there will be seeing. Who does the seeing is irrelevant. There is individualized, corporeal seeing. That's the important part of the point I'm trying to make. And that's precisely what makes reincarnation and multiple, simultaneous existences possible.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoledgeispower

I'm sorry, I am having a hard time trying to grasp the concept you are trying to explain.

Are you meaning like, everything is all made of up energy on the quantum level therefore we are all the same thing & can therefore go into other people/objects at any given time?


No. I'm saying consciousness is corporeal. And due to this, anytime a baby is born, it gets a front seat in the world with the same likelihood that you got yours. Due to your corporeality, the answer to the question, "What were the chances that you came to exist here at this time and not anywhere else at any other time can only be understood by rationalizing it as you are, in fact, all at all times.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
Does anyone here understand what I'm trying to say? I'm having a hard time trying to convey my idea. I didn't want this thread to be a thread where everyone comes to share their own beliefs. I was trying to see if someone could see what I'm saying and tell me why they agree or disagree or that they just didn't understand what I was saying. But saying you don't believe in something because you already believe in something else doesn't really help me.


I see what you're saying. You're searching for a scientific answer
as to why and how your consciousness exists. I've been asking
these questions since I was able to think.

My problem, and yours I think, is that the language (and the science
for the moment) falls short.

There are many ways I ask this question. For instance, instead of
asking where do we go when we die?...I ask where did I come from?
I can see two possible, logical, and scientific answers. One is that
(I AM) a certain and specific set of criteria fulfilled. A blueprint
finally constructed. For this answer to be correct it would mean
that there is (and was) a very specific blueprint for me waiting
for chance, chaos, and infinity, to bring together the correct
material, in exactly the correct order, to construct (ME).

In that answer I did not exist until this construction took place,
and I will cease to exist when the matter that encapsulates me,
gives me mobility and freewill, deteriorates to the point that
it is no longer animate.

That is about as scientific an answer as the human resource of
knowledge (that we have at the moment) can deliver.

The other answer (not scientific because it is based on faith of
things I have no evidence for, and cannot understand), is that
the body that I reside in is much like a robot (or avatar) for my
awareness. (This is where language begins to fail me, and I begin
to fail science.) This (gizmo) that I am housed in gives me an
experiential existence on this planet. The animal part of me
comes equipped with instincts for self-preservation and procreation
(among many others) and this part of me is always at odds with the
controlling part of me that is my consciousness.

I see these as two different entities. When I look in the mirror
I see a robot that I am housed in. I do not see (ME), but rather
a representation of (ME). and when I look at you, I strive my best
to see you in the same manner. It is very easy to not be discriminatory
of race, or geographic location of birth, when one approaches life
in this way.

And for that reason, among many others, this is the way I choose
to see myself. I don't have a religion, except to say that (I believe)
I was something before I was (born). I also believe that every animate
thing in the universe falls under the same category as well.

My unscientific viewpoint is that there is an essence for life that exists
in the universe that is unknown as yet. That all life derives from this
energy. I think that energy was present before I realized consciousness
and that it will continue after I (am gone)...whatever that means.

Tough question...probably the best one ever asked...sorry for you
and me that there is no viable answer...



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: taoistguy

ha! I replied to you before seeing your response to me taoist guy, first response on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Of course what you say is so. Have a dream shape for a housing structure? A 3D printer can create it. Physical reality is then being shaped by your consciousness, by our dreams. Happens on a daily basis, nothing mysterious need apply, just common sense. Matter conforms to consciousness.

Waking up the the world to common sense, now that's a challenging issue.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: rival
There are many ways I ask this question. For instance, instead of
asking where do we go when we die?...I ask where did I come from?
I can see two possible, logical, and scientific answers. One is that
(I AM) a certain and specific set of criteria fulfilled. A blueprint
finally constructed. For this answer to be correct it would mean
that there is (and was) a very specific blueprint for me waiting
for chance, chaos, and infinity, to bring together the correct
material, in exactly the correct order, to construct (ME)


This is a central point I'm trying to address, although from a different approach. My argument is this:

Is it more likely that the stars aligned. Out of the trillions of possible entities that you could have incarnated as, you incarnated as you and youll never incarnate again as anything else and were never anything else. Or is it more likely that out of the infinite unlikelihood that you would emerge as a one time existence, you emerged because you emerge as everything all the time? And you don't see yourself as anything but you right now only because that's the design of each individual.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

I like the second option

...In my mind's eye I see the energy of life as being a teeming,
broiling chaos, like atoms at the center of the sun. I see bits of it being
ejected, or pulling away, then momentarily being sequestered, then
returning again, bring information back about where they've been, somehow
adding to the whole. Their momentary pauses are what we call life...

I postulate it probably occurs in the same way that DNA redefines itself
over time based on natural selection. DNA learns...the life energy learns.





edit on 3-5-2014 by rival because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


Ive considered that we are all the same and we just only experience the consciousness as an individual because we are in a body that makes us feel isolated and when your body goes you switch to another that's still "turned on."

Just snap from one part of the same consciousness in a different body. We are all the same and just feel individualistic bevause of the body.

Who knows though.



posted on May, 3 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: rival

originally posted by: smithjustinb
.

[snip]

The other answer (not scientific because it is based on faith of
things I have no evidence for, and cannot understand), is that
the body that I reside in is much like a robot (or avatar) for my
awareness. (This is where language begins to fail me, and I begin
to fail science.) This (gizmo) that I am housed in gives me an
experiential existence on this planet. The animal part of me
comes equipped with instincts for self-preservation and procreation
(among many others) and this part of me is always at odds with the
controlling part of me that is my consciousness.

I see these as two different entities. When I look in the mirror
I see a robot that I am housed in. I do not see (ME), but rather
a representation of (ME). and when I look at you, I strive my best
to see you in the same manner. It is very easy to not be discriminatory
of race, or geographic location of birth, when one approaches life
in this way.

And for that reason, among many others, this is the way I choose
to see myself. I don't have a religion, except to say that (I believe)
I was something before I was (born). I also believe that every animate
thing in the universe falls under the same category as well.

My unscientific viewpoint is that there is an essence for life that exists
in the universe that is unknown as yet. That all life derives from this
energy. I think that energy was present before I realized consciousness
and that it will continue after I (am gone)...whatever that means.

Tough question...probably the best one ever asked...sorry for you
and me that there is no viable answer...


I agree with you in a way. I too believe that we are all made up of energy, as everything is made up of energy. For some reason, whether it is our soul that wants to achieve purity or the universe is actually playing out every possible scenario, we are temporarily in these human bodies. When we die, we might just go back to the energy form & exist as stars or planets (as a theory suggests that everything is made up of stars) or our souls go on to the next level of trying to achieve purity.

I am not of a religious faith either, I am agnostic. I believe there is a higher being that has put order to the chaos of the universe. For all I know, we, as souls, plan out our entire existence on Earth before we are born & we are living it out. There could be multiple universes where our soul plays out different paths, at the same time our soul is doing it's thing on Earth & then once we are finally finished, (our soul in different universes,) ((like our soul can be in smaller parts or as one big whole)) then we have all that collected knowledge from our soul living out different paths.

It is hard to explain it into words as you & the OP have stated.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

You can't see through others' eyes because you are already seeing through yours. But they are seeing through their's. There are trillions of individuals. Just because you don't see out of their eyes doesn't mean their eyes aren't being seen out of. There isn't a YOU (an identity) that is seeing. There is a material body that is seeing. Just like with everyone else. As long as there are individual entities, there will be seeing. Who does the seeing is irrelevant. There is individualized, corporeal seeing. That's the important part of the point I'm trying to make. And that's precisely what makes reincarnation and multiple, simultaneous existences possible.


It seems like what you are getting at in the first part is the subjective nature of consciousness. I know what it's like to be me. I can't know what it's like to be a bat. I can put myself in the bat's shoes and imagine what it would be like to be a bat based on my human experiences, but I can never know what it's like to have a bat's experiences. As a result of the subjective nature of consciousness, it is something we all have, but cannot prove anyone else has.

Now I'm not sure how you are making the jump that the subjective nature of consciousness entails that reincarnation and simultaneous existences is possible.

I am not aware of any scientific basis for reincarnation being possible. I do, however, know of a good scientific basis for the existence of parallel universes, if that is what you mean by "simultaneous existences." There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics called Many World Interpretation proposed by Hugh Everett, and it says that if we accept the premise that all possibilities are played out in parallel universes, it serves as an explanation for why quantum mechanics works. I would look into it... it has a fairly large following in the scientific community, second only to I think the Copenhagen Interpretation which is the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Out of the trillions of possible entities that you could have incarnated as, you incarnated as you and youll never incarnate again as anything else and were never anything else. Or is it more likely that out of the infinite unlikelihood that you would emerge as a one time existence, you emerged because you emerge as everything all the time? And you don't see yourself as anything but you right now only because that's the design of each individual.


While your position is fairly compelling, I would hesitate to label it scientific. It seems more mystical in nature.

Bertrand Russell's definition of Mysticism:
"Mysticism is, in essence, little more than a certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe." -"Mysticism and Logic"

Science is characterized by the scientific method which would take much more than a few lines to completely delineate, and I assume most of us have a decent idea as to what the scientific method is.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wang Tang

I didn't say it was science, I said it was "based on science".



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang

Now I'm not sure how you are making the jump that the subjective nature of consciousness entails that reincarnation and simultaneous existences is possible.


My opinion that you are living countless simultaneous existences has little to do with consciousness really. It has more to do with the fact that there are countless bodies out there. Their nature is to be conscious, but its not the subjectivity of consciousness that provides a platform for simultaneous existences, it is the fact that there are simultaneous existences. Its not completely accurate to say that these other existences are "you", however, it is accurate to say that they exist by the same mechanics that you exist. For that reason, your consciousness and individual identity both, are being formed the same way in all others, but in different circumstances only. That which you call, "you", is represented the same way in you as it is in all other forms of existence. But these simultaneous existences are impersonal because that is the nature of the subjective body, to make it impersonal. Although they are impersonal, they are nonetheless equal. But they all deal with that equality on subjective terms and in a variety of circumstances, and that gives rise to the illusion of inequality and separation.

The universe that gave you life gave the same life to all others. You are one of many of the same.


I am not aware of any scientific basis for reincarnation being possible. I do, however, know of a good scientific basis for the existence of parallel universes, if that is what you mean by "simultaneous existences." There is an interpretation of quantum mechanics called Many World Interpretation proposed by Hugh Everett, and it says that if we accept the premise that all possibilities are played out in parallel universes, it serves as an explanation for why quantum mechanics works. I would look into it... it has a fairly large following in the scientific community, second only to I think the Copenhagen Interpretation which is the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics.



I am a follower of the copenhagen interpretation.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

My opinion that you are living countless simultaneous existences has little to do with consciousness really. It has more to do with the fact that there are countless bodies out there. Their nature is to be conscious, but its not the subjectivity of consciousness that provides a platform for simultaneous existences, it is the fact that there are simultaneous existences. Its not completely accurate to say that these other existences are "you", however, it is accurate to say that they exist by the same mechanics that you exist. For that reason, your consciousness and individual identity both, are being formed the same way in all others, but in different circumstances only. That which you call, "you", is represented the same way in you as it is in all other forms of existence. But these simultaneous existences are impersonal because that is the nature of the subjective body, to make it impersonal. Although they are impersonal, they are nonetheless equal. But they all deal with that equality on subjective terms and in a variety of circumstances, and that gives rise to the illusion of inequality and separation.

The universe that gave you life gave the same life to all others. You are one of many of the same.


Correct me if I'm wrong, this is your argument as I interpret it.
Argument: You are living countless simultaneous existences because there are many other conscious bodies out there.

Again, I won't deny that what you are saying is compelling. It sounds like you are saying at our most fundamental level, be it our mind, soul, consciousness, or any other non-physical entity of your choosing, we are all the same... and we are only superficially different because of the constraints placed on us in the physical world.

It is a compelling mystical view, but not based on science as you originally claim. Science does not deal with non-physical entities because science is based only on what we can know about the physical world. Once you bring in the non-physical to explain science, you have already departed from the realm of science and are now conducting metaphysical speculation.

Maybe I am missing what science you base it on? I will confess, I have not been too diligent about going through all of the posts, I have just picked out the ones that seemed important.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wang Tang

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is your argument as I interpret it.
Argument: You are living countless simultaneous existences because there are many other conscious bodies out there.

Again, I won't deny that what you are saying is compelling. It sounds like you are saying at our most fundamental level, be it our mind, soul, consciousness, or any other non-physical entity of your choosing, we are all the same... and we are only superficially different because of the constraints placed on us in the physical world.

It is a compelling mystical view, but not based on science as you originally claim. Science does not deal with non-physical entities because science is based only on what we can know about the physical world. Once you bring in the non-physical to explain science, you have already departed from the realm of science and are now conducting metaphysical speculation.

Maybe I am missing what science you base it on? I will confess, I have not been too diligent about going through all of the posts, I have just picked out the ones that seemed important.



It sounds like you understand what I'm trying to say.

When I say, "based on science", I mean it is a speculative idea based on a foundation of basic, known facts as opposed to based on a foundation of other speculative ideas. In other words, I'm not saying "there is an afterlife because Jesus...", I'm saying, "there is an afterlife because the earth is the way it is".



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb
The truth about consciousness is that you were born through natural processes known to science. The human was born as a thinking individual prone to set up an identity through individualized awareness.


I'm not sure what truth about consciousness these "natural processes known to science" reveal. Through science we know biologically how we are created, and how our brain and other physical body parts develop. However, we have no scientific explanation for how we develop consciousness. All we know is we start to develop a sense of self-consciousness around the age of 2, but we haven't the slightest idea of how or why this happens. It seems to me the only truth we know about consciousness is that we have it, but that does not seem to require any scientific explanation.



posted on May, 8 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
What if that bright light, that you see when you die, is just a womb?



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join