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.

 

I Don't Understand Death, Nobody Does!

page: 13
23
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

For this proposition to be taken seriously, a detailed hypothesis is required to justify why it would be so. It would need to cover what hypothetical properties this unknown attribute has, in what way it could conceivably be identified, and what predictions could be made if it does indeed exist. The hypothesis would also be required to explain why there is a need for it to exist to explain anything, and identify where our current knowledge is insufficient. It would be necessary to explain how it fits in with current understanding, or if it contradicts what we already know, why such a contradiction occurs.

No such hypothesis exists. All I have ever seen, (and I have read a lot of avant garde and progressive hypotheses as an academic, many unfinished), is arguments from assertion and unjustified claims.


I've mentioned Biocentrism to you twice in this thread and you haven't jumped on it. Why? I thought it would be something you'd like to get your teeth into.


I have ignored your references to biocentrism as it is not science. It is a pseudoscientific philosophy that essentially claims that universe is created by the consciousness that observes it. It's solipsism on a universal scale and is incoherent.

Oh, you can do that here? I might just ignore some of your posts then.

The fundamental problem you have is that any theory that sides with my beliefs you are going to call pseudoscience because you find it all a little 'silly'. It's a theory. Spin as much words around it as you like, it's a theory.



The arguments put forward to justify biocentrism equate to applying quantum mechanics' 'observer effect' to the macro, relativistic scale, this is ludicrous.

What of the other arguments? We should maybe just concentrate solely on this one shall we?



it is not based on any accepted knowledge or observation, and cannot be used to make any kind of predictions.

This statement just annoys me. Send me a PM with your address and I'll send you the book for free. We are not going to discuss something you haven't read.

Trawling the internet for blogs and newspaper articles on the book to justify your argument isn't going to appease me.

I should apologize, when you said earlier you have read 'lots' of papers surrounding my beliefs I assumed this (pretty big) one would have been one of them.




posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: spygeek

Again, a scientific theory is not 'just a theory' by the lay-definition. A scientific theory is a technical term with a specialised definition. It is a model, repeatedly proven to the point of reliable certainty with observation, experiment, and objective evidence.


OK, then what theory are you currently in favor of? I want to know what it is you are agreeing with here as the theories I am looking at cannot fully explain consciousness. In fact the most credible theory is IIT, which I would assume you find quite of lot of the latest findings disturbing?

But again, it's only a theory.


Integrated information theory can theoretically be used to quantify consciousness using a measure of information processing and integration, (i.e. how "much" consciousness an organism has based on how much information it integrates). It can't be used to explain how consciousness arises from neural activity and electrochemistry.

Exactly. It still cannot fully explain consciousness.



I'm not sure what to what latest findings you refer that have implications I would find disturbing..



The axioms and postulates of IIT say that consciousness is a fundamental, observer-independent property that can be accounted for by the intrinsic cause–effect power of certain mechanisms in a state—how they give form to the space of possibilities in their past and their future. An analogy is mass, which can be defined by how it curves space–time around it—except that in the case of experience the entities having the property are not elementary particles but complexes of elements, and experience comes not in two but in a trillion varieties. In this general sense, at least, IIT is not at odds with panpsychism.
Link
Panpsychism, now that's weird. Essentially the keyboard you are using has an element of consciousness. (just a theory though)


Every waking experience should then be seen as an “awake dream” selected by the environment. And indeed, once the architecture of the brain has been built and refined, having an experience – with its full complement of intrinsic meaning – does not require the environment at all, as demonstrated every night by the dreams that occur when we are asleep and disconnected from the world.
Link
Right now my friend, you are experiencing an "awake dream". (again, just a theory)


An intriguing possibility is that a neurophysiological state of near-silence may be approximated through certain meditative practices that aim at reaching a state of “pure” awareness without content [18], [42].
Link
Wow, what? We are touching on meditation here! This is not disturbing, just cool.


Koch writes:
“Even simple matter has a modicum of Φ [integrated information]. Protons and neutrons consist of a triad of quarks that are never observed in isolation. They constitute an infinitesimal integrated system.”

This has profound consequences. It would mean that consciousness is spread throughout space like a cosmic web of experience. Of course awareness is greatest where there is significant information integration, but in essence, “mind” (or “psyche”) is everywhere.
Link
Weird, right? That's a direct quote from Koch. Protons and Neutrons! I thought you told me it had to do with the 'x' and 'x' and 'x' of the brain and that neuro boffs had a pretty good idea? Well, they don't. All everybody has are theories.



The work of Christof Koch and Francis Crick suggested that the core of consciousness is governed by the claustrum. This region of the brain would receive a large amount of sensory and cognitive information from many distinct regions of the brain and effectively integrate and condense it down into one cohesive continuous whole; the mechanism of conscious awareness.

That's not true at all. Conciousness (using IIT) is not 'governed' by the claustrum. As highlighted above, consciousness is everywhere.

Christof Koch’s answer: Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe. Wherever there is integrated information, there is experience.


IIT turns out to be a modern twist on an ancient philosophical view known as “panpsychism”. But before you go dismissing the concept because of its name, you should know that intellectual heavy hitters such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, and William James are all considered panpsychists. Its central tenant is that all matter has a mental aspect, which makes consciousness universal.
Link


“The entire cosmos is suffused with sentience. We are surrounded and immersed in consciousness; it is in the air we breathe, the soil we tread on, the bacteria that colonize our intestines, and the brain that enables us to think.”

That's a direct quote from Christof Koch's book "Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist".

So, let's say consciousness is everywhere, what is to say Robert Lanza is wrong with regards Biocentrism. He may be onto something? Maybe consciousness is the 'creator'. I'm just putting that out there.
edit on 3/25/16 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/25/16 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
Oh, you can do that here? I might just ignore some of your posts then.

The fundamental problem you have is that any theory that sides with my beliefs you are going to call pseudoscience because you find it all a little 'silly'. It's a theory. Spin as much words around it as you like, it's a theory.


Okay, I accept that it's a theory, by the lay-definition. It isn't a scientific theory though, like you claimed earlier. Under a scientific definition, it is an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

If an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is used to generate a theory, than that theory is by definition pseudoscientific.

It's not that I am spinning words around it, I am simply stating the fact of the matter. If you can find and present an actual scientific theory that supports your beliefs, I will gladly accept it. I will take any pseudoscientific theories with a large grain of salt however.




The arguments put forward to justify biocentrism equate to applying quantum mechanics' 'observer effect' to the macro, relativistic scale, this is ludicrous.

What of the other arguments? We should maybe just concentrate solely on this one shall we?


There are no other logical arguments based on scientific findings. The quantum 'observer effect' is the only one that even attempts to use established data.


originally posted by: angryhulk
Exactly. It still cannot fully explain consciousness.


IIT doesn't attempt or claim to "fully explain consciousness". It attempts to quantify consciousness, nothing more. Did you bring it up just to show it is not all-encompassing? What's the point of that? According to the rest of your reply, it appears that you think IIT is the be all and end all of our knowledge of consciousness.. It is not. It is a flawed attempt to quantify it, not explain it.


Link
Panpsychism, now that's weird. Essentially the keyboard you are using has an element of consciousness. (just a theory though).


So, in a general way, IIT is not at odds with the particular philosophical view of consciousness that is panpsychism.. So what? It's not exactly in support of it either, it's simply indifferent and does not rule it out..


Right now my friend, you are experiencing an "awake dream". (again, just a theory)


In exactly the same sense, while sleeping and dreaming I experience an "asleep life". All this says is that to the perceptual processes of the brain, there's no difference between dreams and reality. This is accepted and not at odds with anything we currently know, it doesn't suggest consciousness is not physical, either.


Wow, what? We are touching on meditation here! This is not disturbing, just cool.


Indeed, meditation is cool. We are finally in agreement about something. xD


Weird, right? That's a direct quote from Koch. Protons and Neutrons! I thought you told me it had to do with the 'x' and 'x' and 'x' of the brain and that neuro boffs had a pretty good idea? Well, they don't. All everybody has are theories.


All he is actually saying is the potential for mind is everywhere, if one defines mind as nothing more than "integrated information".


That's not true at all. Conciousness (using IIT) is not 'governed' by the claustrum. As highlighted above, consciousness is everywhere.


Wait...what? Did you read the study? It does not rely on or employ IIT at all. It hypothesised exactly what I claimed it did. You can't invoke another theory that says nothing about the work I was referring to, in order to rebut it..

Again, IIT says nothing about what governs consciousness. It is simply a theoretical way to quantify consciousness. As I pointed out above, consciousness has the potential to be everywhere information is integrated, if one solely uses IIT to quantify and define consciousness.

Under IIT, information processing and intergration = consciousness. This is arguably a partial-panexperientialism theory that can only measure protoconsciousness, not consciousness.

In short, you can't use IIT to make a case against consciousness naturally arising from neural activity. IIt does not rule it out.


That's a direct quote from Christof Koch's book "Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist".


And it is based on a concept that is inherently flawed. He is simply extrapolating the quality of consciousness to literally everything that has the quality of "information integration".


So, let's say consciousness is everywhere, what is to say Robert Lanza is wrong with regards Biocentrism. He may be onto something? Maybe consciousness is the 'creator'. I'm just putting that out there.


If consciousness is everywhere, then it exists beyond any conscious observer and Biocentrism is refuted.

Let's be accurate and say consciousness isn't everywhere, but information and the potential for its integration into protoconsciousness is, according to integrated information theory. Biocentrism would have no relevance to this at all.

If consciousness is "the creator", then it created itself out of it's own creation.. This is logically impossible.
edit on 25-3-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: spygeek

originally posted by: angryhulk
Oh, you can do that here? I might just ignore some of your posts then.

The fundamental problem you have is that any theory that sides with my beliefs you are going to call pseudoscience because you find it all a little 'silly'. It's a theory. Spin as much words around it as you like, it's a theory.


Okay, I accept that it's a theory, by the lay-definition. It isn't a scientific theory though, like you claimed earlier. Under a scientific definition, it is an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

If an untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is used to generate a theory, than that theory is by definition pseudoscientific.

It's not that I am spinning words around it, I am simply stating the fact of the matter. If you can find and present an actual scientific theory that supports your beliefs, I will gladly accept it. I will take any pseudoscientific theories with a large grain of salt however.




The arguments put forward to justify biocentrism equate to applying quantum mechanics' 'observer effect' to the macro, relativistic scale, this is ludicrous.

What of the other arguments? We should maybe just concentrate solely on this one shall we?


There are no other logical arguments based on scientific findings. The quantum 'observer effect' is the only one that even attempts to use established data.

Like I said, I'll send you the book.



IIT doesn't attempt or claim to "fully explain consciousness". It attempts to quantify consciousness, nothing more. Did you bring it up just to show it is not all-encompassing? What's the point of that? According to the rest of your reply, it appears that you think IIT is the be all and end all of our knowledge of consciousness.. It is not. It is a flawed attempt to quantify it, not explain it.

I brought it up because it is a strong player when it comes to scientists understanding consciousness. I don't think it's the be all and end all, I think it's understood to be one of the most promising theories you have.



All he is actually saying is the potential for mind is everywhere, if one defines mind as nothing more than "integrated information".

Well if mind is everywhere it is certainly not governed by the claustrum.



Wait...what? Did you read the study? It does not rely on or employ IIT at all. It hypothesised exactly what I claimed it did. You can't invoke another theory that says nothing about the work I was referring to, in order to rebut it..

It does rely on IIT?
Yes I can. For as long as this argument surrounding consciousness ensues, I can discuss with you as many theories surrounding consciousness as I please. Not necessarily to rebut your own beliefs but to ensure that you understand that there are smart people out there that dedicate large portions of their lives to understanding what governs consciousness, still looking for an answer. Whereas you were of the firm opinion that it was the brain and you and your mates had a pretty good idea how it works. You don't.



In short, you can't use IIT to make a case against consciousness naturally arising from neural activity. IIt does not rule it out.

I think it does. Consciousness cannot be everywhere but said to stem from our brains.



If consciousness is everywhere, then it exists beyond any conscious observer and Biocentrism is refuted.

Let's be accurate and say consciousness isn't everywhere, but information and the potential for its integration into protoconsciousness is, according to integrated information theory. Biocentrism would have no relevance to this at all.

I missed the part about protoconsciousness. Can you point me in the right direction. Is it on IIT's site?



If consciousness is "the creator", then it created itself out of it's own creation.. This is logically impossible.

OK, this is a paradox, much like god then? Like I said I was just putting it out there to test the water.
edit on 3/26/16 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/26/16 by angryhulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: spygeek

hmm...In death we are all equal and alone. You cannot bring your titles with you and what is your education and conventional knowledge is not important at the slightest, when it comes to death.

But is shows that you are very intelligent and in spirituality it is useful as long as intelligence is used in the right way.... Intelligence is often the source of arrogance or pride or in some cases even more illusions due to more thinking...more intelligent one is, more is open to traps along the path. But I don't know you...I am just saying. Be careful. : )

In true natural meditation there is not even a trace of thought present. But not due to stopping the mind, that is wrong to do by force. It is by realizing what are thoughts in reality and the source of them and when we do that they naturally will subside after time, when we know how to let go of them completely, naturally without effort. Well this is my experience...

Also TRUE Emptiness or voidness...cannot be learned - this is very important to know!
that would be like to see the eye that is looking...and this is where a lot of people get trapped in my opinion.

about your discovery of the self.
First - this is a TRICK question and was intended as such when I first mentioned it, and you have fallen right into trap - look above about explanation of true emptiness, what is than "true self"? : )
Second - I would ask you then - but how come? who discovered what when there is not a trace of "you" left in natural non-meditation? are you still clinging to some notion of experience or are you clinging to some other desire?
also what do you wish to achieve with spiritual search, what is your motivation and intent is very important.

... these are questions for deep contemplation, question about what is the real meaning of non duality... not meant for ats but for your own mind, so I don't need you to answer them here : )

But i will say this.
if one is exploring spirituality for egoistical reasons and desires for only own happiness or to experience some amazing stuff or bliss, than this shows attachments to the mind and body, which should be completely let go. Altruism is the only way. There should not be even a trace of them left. This is a bit of what true "non dual" masters teach. This is what they discovered, and this is what it is even today being discovered in buddhism or others advaita vedanta teachings by purest and most devoted masters. Deeply study the real meaning of nonduality, from different religions and see how they compare to your experiences, to your desires, to your thinking, to your actions,...

great starting source for me is this - of a few of such people who are known as true and wise saints, yogis, maters, etc. even till today:
www.theself.com

well, for me it was always a simple issue - about the question of life after death. Either ALL the people who have OBEs, NDEs, see ghosts and other beings, or have witnessed anything else paranormal...not to mention all religious or spiritual people and their experiences through the history and today....were or are deluded or confused OR modern science is still missing something very basic?

Eventually you are saying that such experiences are false somehow and basically just in the head. And mainly because of research in modern science today - and we have it only a few hundred years... and is handled in general by people who would do anything for some kind of profit.

And on the other hand you have many normal people with wo wo experiences, reporting them on the net and books in the past, without any gain or profit whatsoever, expect that they are sometimes seen as crazy or deluded...as sometimes happens here on ats also : )
And more importantly on the other hand you had and have people from many religions who devoted themselves for whole life to meditation in order to help other beings and themselves. They rarely or never tell a lie and are not interested in any profits, fame or anything material at all...they have renounced ALL material pleasures and possessions, only to help others.

And I will take the word about real nature of reality of such a person over scientist or others any day of the week : )
edit on 1458983227307March073073116 by UniFinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

I really appreciate this thread. I ponder this subject a lot as well. There are quite a few scenarios I play around with; here are a few:

-- One of the 'ideas' I have been mulling over involves a connection between the the Law Of Attraction, Magick and manifestation through thought and faith. Basically, I've realized that what people believe, really truly believe, becomes real to some extent, not just in their minds but in the Universe as well. This is a hard pill to swallow for many because it means that there is not one true path or belief system, they all have power in their own right. So...what if the plane that we currently live in is a sort of incubation pod for the next life; whatever you believe your next existence to be, it will be. Lost souls become ghosts, Hindus reincarnate, Christians go to heaven, atheists cease to exist, etc. Science tells us that there could be an infinite amount of universes coexisting...maybe this is the case? Could just be total bs(and probably is), but it's fun to entertain.

-- The simulation theory. This one has been discussed thoroughly here on ATS, and theorized by leading scientists. All the Universe, including us, are a simulation likely created by another simulation, and that pattern goes on until the Source(or until infinity?). If the Universe is consciousness and infinite then there doesn't necessarily have to be a source I suppose. Do we wake up in a pod like the Matrix, or have the VR goggles taken off when we die? Who knows? What if?

-- Reincarnation and/or The Singularity. The Universe is consciousness. We are fragments of this consciousness, heading towards an eventual singularity that may take aeons to reach. The book Conversations With God explains this concept nicely, worth a read. Each reincarnation is an accumulation of growth; spiritual growth, wealth of knowledge about the Universe, etc. Reincarnation doesn't necessarily have to be a part of this theory, maybe our identity completely disappears after we die. And once the singularity is reached, what happens next? Another Big Bang? Hmm.

-- Nothing. We're all here just...because. Life means nothing, morality means nothing, there is no grand story or scheme, the Universe just...is. When you die, you die. Consciousness is only seated in organic matter. Pretty dark stuff.


These are some ideas I think of. I am a devil's advocate by nature, a habitual what-if-er. What if? Why not? The Universe is mind-boggling. The more we learn about its behavior, the more anything seems possible. I tend not to think much in terms of the 'it all means nothing' paradigm, though during dark times it can and will take hold. I choose hope. Why not, if it doesn't even matter anyway?

Thanks for the topic

edit on 27-3-2016 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

Some fascinating ideas there mate. More so the singularity, that grabbed my attention. We may be all one and the same, so to speak.

Appreciate the tip on the book, will most definitely have a look.

With regards the law of attraction. It may be outlandish but fascinating indeed. My partner reads up on that sort of stuff. She's currently reading a book called 'The Secret' which I think touches on that.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: angryhulk
a reply to: humanityrising

Some fascinating ideas there mate. More so the singularity, that grabbed my attention. We may be all one and the same, so to speak.

Appreciate the tip on the book, will most definitely have a look.

With regards the law of attraction. It may be outlandish but fascinating indeed. My partner reads up on that sort of stuff. She's currently reading a book called 'The Secret' which I think touches on that.




The Law Of Attraction is quite interesting indeed. I read The Secret years ago and can say that it is a great introduction to the concept, though it's just the tip of the iceberg and it's a bit fluffy-woo-woo for my taste(imo). Mind Power by John Kehoe is must on the subject. All I know is, every time I've put the effort into it, I've gotten results. It could just be purely psychological; it makes sense that if you think about/visualize a desired result with focused intention you will be more motivated to seek it out productively. But I honestly believe it's a real law, of the Universe(don't quote me I just use what works, for me). If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, start learning/practicing Magick -- by definition, "Causing change to occur in conformity with your will."

I am not pretentious enough to think that someone's faith or belief, no matter what it may be in, cannot have the power to transform them and deliver them from their fears or steer them towards their dreams. There is power in faith, and in belief. And, as nutty as it sounds, I think all ideas have merit, if pursued with passionate dedication.

Another book worth reading is The Source Field Investigations by David Wilcock. It is a compilation of sourced scientific and biological studies that challenge the sterile, drab, and disenchanted current neo-classical scientific worldview. It's not 'pseudo-science woo-woo' if it's peer reviewed research...this book turned my world upside-down! Nearly 1000 pages and I couldn't put it down. It should be noted however that the author is crazy person and this book is the only golden egg he ever laid out of a heap of smelly, rotten ooze.

What is your path? Any book suggestions?

All I know is that I don't know. The more I learn the less I'm sure of...
edit on 27-3-2016 by humanityrising because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: humanityrising

I have to admit I picked up 'The Secret', and yes it's a bit soft, if that makes sense. It sort of shoots itself in the foot as it gives the impression of trying to romanticize the idea instead of discussing it in detail.

I'm new to the idea so I haven't read many books, only google driven research papers and articles. However, I have read Biocentrism by Robert Lanza which was a fascinating read. He essentially researches the idea of a world governed by consciousness and not the other way around. How the observer effects change by doing simply that, observing, and how the unseen world behaves when it isn't being observed (does a tree make a sound when there is nobody there to hear it?).



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: angryhulk

The 'observer' cannot make anything change - the 'observer' is where the action is happening. The observer is not separate from now and now is doing itself.
There maybe an assumption that you (the observer) is separate from what is happening and this will make for 'seeking' for some thing better - the idea of other will be worshipped.

The creation of 'me in time' having better or more will arise and that thought is imprisonment. 'You' are never in time. 'You' are here and now always seeing what is happening - thoughts of 'you in time' make believe there is a 'you' that can make things different.
edit on 28-3-2016 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: angryhulk

The 'observer' cannot make anything change - the 'observer' is where the action is happening. The observer is not separate from now and now is doing itself.
There maybe an assumption that you (the observer) is separate from what is happening and this will make for 'seeking' for some thing better - the idea of other will be worshipped.

The creation of 'me in time' having better or more will arise and that thought is imprisonment. 'You' are never in time. 'You' are here and now always seeing what is happening - thoughts of 'you in time' make believe there is a 'you' that can make things different.


I have to admit, you have confused me. However, this is what I was referring to, sort of: Do atoms going through a double slit 'know' if they are being observed



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join