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.

 

If There Were No Consciousness What Would Be The Point Of Material Existence?

page: 11
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: MissSmartypants

The point is usually the sharp bit.
I wish I could think of a snappy comeback to that but I can't so you win. Except...what is the benefit of humor to our survival?


Humor has surprise and misfortune or mistake involved in it, so learning might be a reason for it. Laughing increases the blood oxygen is think.

Humor is a way to reward learning by more oxygenated blood?




posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
a reply to: MissSmartypants

"Observation" and "Interaction" are interchangeable in the context I'm operating from.... that the physical world as we know it, in essence doesn't exist without a mind to perceive it.

That means nothing exists unless we can perceive it.

That is positivism, as I was informed at the coffee shop.

I think positivism is a bit skewed towards collectivism. Keynesians use it to defend the divinity of the experts and of authority in general.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The point/purpose is actualizing/experiencing potential. The point is everything that is possible to do that you would not be able to do/experience if you did not exist. This is the obvious motivation, point, purpose, of being.


YES! ..because everything exists in superposition


Superposition, good word.

Like ideas on a page of writing, consciousness exists in the complex energy fields made by biology.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: MissSmartypants

yes ma'am. the quoted post yo uhave by me is in response to your statement. "This is the way I see it", as in agreement.

RE: our consciousness existing outside our body, and a relation to an afterlife....who knows. What if "you" are only a metaphorical facet on a huge gem. Just one face from many faces, all a part of the macro.
Yes I think that I am and I feel it all has something to do with fractals somehow.


Coincidentally, our use of language parallels the way biology uses chemistry.

First biology used proteins and RNA to make large molecules, like spoken language made sentences and complex ideas.

Then the DNA codons record and write out biological wisdom like our written alphabet writes out the accumulated human wisdom.

Could be a fractal pattern in that.



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

2) Somethingness cannot be created or destroyed. (undeniably true)

3) Therefore, Something/somethingness has always existed, and always will.


Might be true, but it does violate causation. Somethingness has no cause if it has always existed.

And if somethingness was caused, it could be countered, removed, evolved etc...



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: artistpoet

I dont think consciousness molds matter, if it did we could think anything into an out of existence. We can't think things in and out of existence... just manipulate things we are consciously aware of already pre-existing to come into or go out of existence. We are hackers to everything we are consciously aware of, whether we are a virus or not is an ideology... and if you haven't guessed by now, are something I do not follow but point at as an absurdity that fuels all our problems and energy for things we find problematic.

The inventor doesn't create a problem out of thin air, then puts effort to solve it. The problem itself is debatable as to being a problem, but pre-existing due to something else. So the inventor looks at this "problem" and forms ideas on how to solve it or make it easier and tests these solutions on the problem... if it solves it great, if it doesn't then it doesn't. The problem is when an invention brings more problems to the table than it first set out to solve.

Ex. Henry Ford invented the truck, to solve the problem of not having enough time for our families due to so much work required on the farm. So this invention of the truck intended to make that happen for us, has now turned into something that is debatable as to whether it makes our lives easier... since it has since evolved to allow us to stretch out from the family farm, and has also become a cause spend even more time away from our families.

Whether the truck is a good thing or a bad thing, is left up to an individuals conscious thought to sort based on the ideals they hold for life... when the truck itself is neither good nor bad until we place our ape hands and use our special thumbs to grasp the wheel.

If thoughts are energy waves why couldn't they interact with other energy waves and therefore alter them in some way. According to the "Down the Rabbit Hole." ideology water molecules can be influenced by emotions.


If thoughts interacted with anything, the process of interaction would change the original thought, which would mean that new thoughts could only exists for micro micro seconds-- to short a time to consciously perceive them.

Emotions aren't thoughts, emotions are brute surges of neural energy. Emotions can cause some thoughts to be more likely than others.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: PhotonEffectIf the singularity had inflated evenly at the start of the big bang then no subatomic particles would ever had clumped together to begin the process of building matter. They would have just continued expanding on forever, never interacting, and we would not be here now contemplating this. But instead the inflation seemed to be following some predetermined pattern right from the start. The odds of that are astronomical, excuse the pun.



I never heard that before. A completely symmetrical Big Bang would never condense. Logically true.

So the universe must be lop-sided.

Symmetry tends to prevent things perhaps.

Possibly a profound argument against orderliness and conventionality in itself.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

I think it has to do with our subconscious mind limiting us until we have complete understanding and control over it.

Its exactly like a dream. What keeps us from flying when we don't realize its a dream? Your own subconscious belief possibly? You understand your in a dream and your mind is creating that reality. Its the same here. Only we are still trying to remember that we are dreaming. Which takes a percentage of the collective conscious( or ones own knowledge of reality) to wake up to the reality that we are still in a living dream. Which is what we are working on as humanity. Which is what science is starting to figure out.

So we need to train our subconscious to overlap the conscious mind to create our own reality from the inside out. So Enough people think positive and have enough focused intention on a goal happening, it will happen. The final intention is only limited by the dreamer.

Enough focus on any desired outcome creates that reality. The more you realize you are the creator of your reality, the more possible it will be to fall though the chair your sitting on.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I will choose to be careful with my words here and do my best to describe my point of view, which realistically, is a matter of simple grammar and language.

The “I” that I consider myself to be is the body that is now typing this. It is he who says “I” when speaking about himself. It is a fairly simplistic notion of the self, but one that is logical and verifiable through the simplest observations. I have never been given any reason to assume more than that. Therefore, I am not a something-or-other in possession and in control of a body like most people appear to assume about themselves. I am my heart, bladder, nose, brain and tongue. The purely linguistic use of “my” to describe parts of myself, are purely grammatical, like how with the phrase “a hard day’s work” does not imply that something called a “hard day” is in possession of another thing called “work”. I’m fairly certain you understand this already, but if I write it out I can follow my own train of thought.

The notion of “parts” of the body are logical, not concrete, entities. They are for descriptive purposes. But only when a heart is removed from the body by physically cutting it out, can the heart be its own entity, with its own boundary, attached to nothing but itself. We’ve talked about this before: “where does the heart end and the rest of the body meet?” There is no imaginary seem or lines between organs, like there is no natural seem or line on the ground where we draw borders on a map. So no I do not believe we are composed of separate objects, or different systems of matter, for they are never separate until they physically are removed.

I disagree with every one of your analogies to computer RAM, to software, to sense-data, to screens, to cars and automobiles. I thought you were speaking about consciousness, not computers. You nor your car do not feel full when you put gas in it. Your computer doesn’t itch when you play with your mouse. Tires are not grown on cars as feet grow on legs. Your imagination is describing absolutely nothing about consciousness until you can take the word “consciousness”, write it on a piece of paper, and glue it to what you are speaking about, which has only ever been the body.

So this object in the body your speak of – point at it for me. Put up a picture of it. Some say its the brain; some say its the soul; some say its the entire nervous system. Let’s take a soul and set it on a chair; let’s take a brain and set it on another chair; let’s take a nervous system and set it on another chair. Now which one of these objects in their respective chairs is conscious and aware? Which one do you really think “you” are? Fungi the nervous system? Fungi the brain? Are you prepared to logically, rationally point to one of these objects and say “Look, that is consciousness”?

If you mean to say that consciousness and not the body is affected by anesthesia, you’d be dead wrong. Everything anesthesia does it does to the body. If you mean to say that without a nervous system and what it does, or without a brain stem and what the brain stem does, or without a spinal cord and what it does, we’d be without “consciousness”, you’d merely be speaking tautologies. You are speaking about what you call parts of the body, calling this or that part consciousness, but you are no less speaking about the body. No, we would not be without something called consciousness without a working brain stem, we would be without a working brain stem – end of story. The function of an object is the exact same as that object. The brain is exactly the same as brain function. When the brain is broken or injured, guess what, so is its function. When the tow is broken or injured, so is its function. Why? Because the body and its functions are exactly the same thing. Tautologies.

Besides that, until you can point to consciousness without pointing to a conscious object, you really have no argument, and I feel have submitted to grammatical superstition. The real world awaits your return.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Consciousness is experience. It's not an experience.


Experience is the body – what, when and where you are at any given moment, and how it relates to the world around it. Remove your body from this equation and see just how much experience, consciousness and mind is left.

Why should one shy away from and deny what isn’t there? What I deny is your assumptions. It is rather that you shy away from and deny what is there, the body.

Yes I am more aware of myself than I have ever been. I can even see my own reflection. Are you able to see yours?

The assumption that we are bodies or robots whenever we do not have minds is laughable, especially when you are unable to account for both minds and zombies in your picture of reality. You are unable to evoke any imagery of mind, since you have not had any experience with such an entity, and any imagery of zombies and robots is derived from fiction. Your ghost in the shell theory lacks both ghosts and shells. All your variables are missing from the reality you are so adamantly trying to paint for everyone, that when we finally look at your picture we see a large convoluted mess full of half-baked analogies, complete with imagery of robots, of zombies, of computers, but not one single human being. In reality, it is as easy as pointing to both a zombie and the mind it is missing, but we both know you cannot do that. I bet you are even unable to show me what I am supposedly denying, so I will not ask you to.

I can prove to you I am an object by moving from one room to another. Me, the object, moves from one room to another. How will you prove you are not an object? It could be simple. Remove the object from the "you" you speak of (and you are right to put quotation marks around it) and reveal yourself, maybe possess another object and back up your assertions. But we both know you cannot do that, and we have absolutely nothing but your tall tale to back up these assumptions.


If I were to ask you- Who are you? Would you be a hypocrite in answering that question?


I would say “Who’s asking?”. Would you be a hypocrite by using your body to ask me this?


Thing is- you said before, that you adhere to the embodied cognition theory. But this theory does not deny the mind. It actually requires it. You deny the concept of mind though. So where does this leave you exactly?


I utilize theories. I do not adhere to them. I am the only one I know of who does not believe in these notions. Categorize me how you see fit. Maybe a zombie?
edit on 4-1-2015 by Aphorism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   
I simply ask myself.... Well, is the universe aware of itself? Since to exist it must be observed and one must be aware of its being. Since we are from this universe .... We are "star stuff", we are also the universe and are aware and observe as much of the universe as possible. So yes!

Existing is to observe and make aware of. Which explains the phenomenon of music... It is not directly creating life but it gives the awareness of life, as well as anything created.

The point of material existence without consciousness is to exist... Of course if consciousness was obsolete there would be no existence. But for the simple fact that we stated it is there, hypothetically speaking, we gave its existence. Therefore its objective is to exist.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ImaFungi

2) Somethingness cannot be created or destroyed. (undeniably true)

3) Therefore, Something/somethingness has always existed, and always will.


Might be true, but it does violate causation. Somethingness has no cause if it has always existed.

And if somethingness was caused, it could be countered, removed, evolved etc...


There are only two possibilities. They are both absolutely baffling/absurd/incomprehensible. One must be true. I believe there is more logical power to believe that the one I stated is the truth.

The possibilities are; Something. 1. coming from pure nothing, 0.

Or, what I believe is the truth.

Something, has ALWAYS existed. Never created, never destroyed.

I believe this is more likely to be truth, because, if you want to believe or state that; something came from nothing; you are admitting that in some way, in reality, 'somethingness' is possible to exist at all, and if you concede this point, the logical extension is accepting that perhaps somethingness always existed. Because once you admit that somethingness is the exact opposite of nothingness, and because we exist in any way at all, it is impossible to say that 'only nothing exists', you must exist that somethingness can not be turned into nothingness, because that does not make sense. You can take a rock, and lets say you were the most powerful scientifically advanced entity that can ever be thought of, you can literally 'do anything' you can think to do, and so you break the rock little by little, more and more, to its atoms, to its subatomic particles, keep separating each part from each other, trying to turn the something, the rock, into nothing, trying to turn the something, the pieces of the rock, into nothing, you keep splitting and splitting, until the pieces are so small, they are only what near 2d in size, and then you split some more, you keep splitting, until you are left with only the smallest theoretical possibilities of quanta of something, and then you split that, or shave a tiny piece of, and then you have a tiny piece, and then you shave a tiny piece off the tiny piece, and then you have nothing? How do you get the tiny pieces to disappear, where are they disappearing too, how can they escape the 3d spatial environment of nothing that surrounds all things and by nature does not even exist, how can something escape the existence of the fact that it is something?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I believe you just described the Large Hadron Collider.

To answer your question. How can something escape the existence of the fact that it is something?

Take away the observer. If there is nothing to observe the existence of that something, does it exist? Not until there is consciousness to observe it.

The observer is the creator of that something.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MikhailBakunin
I simply ask myself.... Well, is the universe aware of itself? Since to exist it must be observed and one must be aware of its being. Since we are from this universe .... We are "star stuff", we are also the universe and are aware and observe as much of the universe as possible. So yes!



Existing is to observe and make aware of. Which explains the phenomenon of music... It is not directly creating life but it gives the awareness of life, as well as anything created.



The point of material existence without consciousness is to exist... Of course if consciousness was obsolete there would be no existence. But for the simple fact that we stated it is there, hypothetically speaking, we gave its existence. Therefore its objective is to exist.
So its back to the old who came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, the observer or the observed? Hmm?
edit on 1/4/2015 by MissSmartypants because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

So its back to the old who came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, the observer or the observed? Hmm?

You can check right now if there is a separation between the observer and the observed. You are the observer and what is seen is the observed.
The present scene is constantly appearing different (observed) - whereas the present awareness (observer) doesn't appear to change.
Real (absolute) reality would be one that is never changing and never moving.
Illusionary reality would be that which is constantly changing and moving.

Rest and motion appear as one which creates the illusion of time and space.

The wave sees other waves until it realizes the waving is the ocean.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism


Experience is the body –

How so? I've never heard that before. Experience is a verb. You're equivocating experience as the body, perhaps for lack of a better explanation, or a complete denial of experience all together.

I wonder what you think the body is?

What is life? Or will you just equivocate this as the body as well, and be satisfied



I can prove to you I am an object by moving from one room to another.

But you deny subjectivity, so this statement as I see it would be invalid as such, if not entirely hypocritical. Respectfully.


Me, the object, moves from one room to another. How will you prove you are not an object? It could be simple.

My body is an object, yes, and I don't believe I've ever denied that. But I am a subject - a self. It's been made clear that you have no need for the latter, and I'm trying to understand this point of view. I really am. I referenced a zombie or a robot, since these are barren of a self, and the use of these metaphors is the only way for me to make sense of what you're saying.

I will ask, as I'm sure I have before, if you have inner thoughts. Or if you feel anything. If you can answer yes, then what is feeling? The actual experience of feeling something I mean. Does referring to this as the body really provide a useful explanation? To me I guess it doesn't


I would say “Who’s asking?”. Would you be a hypocrite by using your body to ask me this?

I don't see how I would be, since I don't deny the body as an object. I accept the subjective aspect of the body too. That's the difference.

I ask again- do you deny subjectivity? Do you deny the self; yourself; your identity? That introspective and reflexive part of you? If so, you can not prove anything I'm afraid.
edit on 4-1-2015 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: MissSmartypants

So its back to the old who came first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, the observer or the observed? Hmm?

You can check right now if there is a separation between the observer and the observed. You are the observer and what is seen is the observed.
The present scene is constantly appearing different (observed) - whereas the present awareness (observer) doesn't appear to change.
Real (absolute) reality would be one that is never changing and never moving.
Illusionary reality would be that which is constantly changing and moving.

Rest and motion appear as one which creates the illusion of time and space.

The wave sees other waves until it realizes the waving is the ocean.
What I was asking was...was there a consciousness that existed before the physical universe...one in need of something to observe?



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ImaFungi

2) Somethingness cannot be created or destroyed. (undeniably true)

3) Therefore, Something/somethingness has always existed, and always will.

Might be true, but it does violate causation. Somethingness has no cause if it has always existed.

And if somethingness was caused, it could be countered, removed, evolved etc...


There are only two possibilities. They are both absolutely baffling/absurd/incomprehensible. One must be true. I believe there is more logical power to believe that the one I stated is the truth.

The possibilities are; Something. 1. coming from pure nothing, 0.

Or, what I believe is the truth.

Something, has ALWAYS existed. Never created, never destroyed.

I believe this is more likely to be truth, because, if you want to believe or state that; something came from nothing; you are admitting that in some way, in reality, 'somethingness' is possible to exist at all, and if you concede this point, the logical extension is accepting that perhaps somethingness always existed. Because once you admit that somethingness is the exact opposite of nothingness, and because we exist in any way at all, it is impossible to say that 'only nothing exists', you must exist that somethingness can not be turned into nothingness, because that does not make sense. You can take a rock, and lets say you were the most powerful scientifically advanced entity that can ever be thought of, you can literally 'do anything' you can think to do, and so you break the rock little by little, more and more, to its atoms, to its subatomic particles, keep separating each part from each other, trying to turn the something, the rock, into nothing, trying to turn the something, the pieces of the rock, into nothing, you keep splitting and splitting, until the pieces are so small, they are only what near 2d in size, and then you split some more, you keep splitting, until you are left with only the smallest theoretical possibilities of quanta of something, and then you split that, or shave a tiny piece of, and then you have a tiny piece, and then you shave a tiny piece off the tiny piece, and then you have nothing? How do you get the tiny pieces to disappear, where are they disappearing too, how can they escape the 3d spatial environment of nothing that surrounds all things and by nature does not even exist, how can something escape the existence of the fact that it is something?



I can't really conceive of what I am about to write, but

Math has Zero, the Empty Set, and Negative Numbers.

Somethingness could be compared to nothing, or anti-somethingness. Maybe like inverted space where the bigger it is, the smaller it is.

After sleeping on it, I agree with you that eternal somethingness is intuitively more likely and natural.

Cause and effect could be an entirely human distortion or simplification, like color.

On the other hand, our minds have never needed to think about anti-somethingness. We might get a handle on that someday.



Three dimentionality could also be a simplification of our minds. Why exactly 3? Why not more?

3D is enough to account for motion through an object without bisecting it. Like sticking a spear into a deer.

Our minds interpret reality to give us survival information. We read the kiddie book of reality, at best. More likely, we feel only the outer surface of it.




edit on 4-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?


To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.


So...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, there is no sound of the tree crashing to the earth.


of course it makes a sound as sound is vibration,



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
It's a hard concept to wrap your mind around...if there were no life in the universe and only inanimate material objects interacting with each other what would be the point of existence? Is a point or purpose even necessary? What say you, ATS?


To expand on that, according to current quantum theory, without an observer, the universe technically would not exist. As without an observer to collapse the wave function, the "universe" would simply exist as a wave of probability until something/someone finally observes it.


So...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it fall, there is no sound of the tree crashing to the earth.


of course it makes a sound as sound is vibration,

Sound is vibration but so is vision!
All that appears is vibrating.
Can a vibration happen without a medium?

Maybe it is the observer which is vibrating?
Maybe the obsever is pure light vibrating?
edit on 5-1-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join