Everything is consciousness.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

ou are asking "what consciousness is" because you are biased towards materialism and you need a materialistic explanation.

Not necessarily "materialistic" I'd also be happy with discovering a new form of field or energy. But there for sure needs to be something that can be measured even if it's just the effects it has on other stuff and not "it", turns out there is such a thing: brain activity, the effect consciousness has on our brain and body, the only issue is for you ideallists that it is only in the bodies of organic alive matter.

In idealism, since everything is consciousness or mental stuff, what you call a body made of matter is just the appearance of a mental process, it is what a mental process looks like when seen from outside of it.

So in idealism, it is not the matter of the brain that produces consciousness or the mental stuff, but it is the mental stuff that produces the brain activity, because there is actually no difference between what you call the matter in the brain and the mental inner life, it is in truth the same stuff, it's just that the mental activity in your mind looks like something, and that appearance is one of a body that is alive and moving around etc..

If you want to understand idealism and really be able to offer counter arguments, you have to accept it on its own ground, and not do as you do, always trying to reduce it to another thing which in your mind is always some type of matter.

a reply to: gosseyn

lol

and not do as you do, always trying to reduce it to another thing which in your mind is always some type of matter.

which is exactly what you do trying to reduce everything to a type of mind... I don't see how that'd be better?
Especially as I am open to the universe being built on information and in my world view there's a lot of room for a natural & universal/cosmic intelligence processing that information ... it's really you who's hellbent on simplifaction and reducing everything down to one property.

a reply to: Terpene

The one doing the experiment

a reply to: Peeple

So without an observer the interval is just infinitely high or low?
That would equate as infinite potential, what frequency and amplitude becomes measurable would still depend on the one doing the experiment, I'd guess...

And the double slit experiment yields the results it does because?
If I'm understanding you right there should be threshold for the detector, from which on the wave function wouldn't collapse anymore?

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Untun

Here's something:"Consciousness" is a state of mind. At some point, it's the consciousness that becomes "un-concious" by it's very nature.

Consciousness is the repairing tool for the imperfect. Consciousness is Alknowing and All seeing and Almighty. Nothing is impossible for consciousness. It is exhalted The Most High.

Consciousness or sentience, or are they the same thing? I don't believe rocks are self-aware. But all living creatures (ability to reproduce) might be? Are sponges self-aware? How about amoeba?

All living things have a genetic program in their DNA, intelligence of a sort.

I believe in intelligent design because of that programming.

a reply to: Terpene

the electron per se is immortal if you will. Its natural interval is its "lifespan".

There are double slit experiments where the electron goes through as wave, then there are those when the experiment is doing "single electrons" which is really just limiting the time window of the electrons passing through the slit.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels

I believe in intelligent design because of that programming.

That's weird. I didn't need anything scientifically proven to know everything was designed. Those who seek for proof in matter should stick to their faith, it must be they aren't convinced. When you know with your being you don't go on a trip to find proof. Why do people do this? It's a form of control, to serve "one in need of proof", but nobody is in need of proof. Everybody knows very well God exists. The rational is confusion, it's a trap occupying someone with a senseless occupation. Perhaps this is the grand delusion of the end times.

There is no need to prove God, never was and never will be. Everybody knows very well God exists. It's like another layer of awareness came into being though it's a deception, a delusion for that matter substantiated by a the foundation God needs to be somehow invented by man.

a reply to: Untun

Well said.

Its been asked: "As the Concious sleeps, who maintains the body and UN-concious state?" It is the "Ying and Yang" of things. One doesn't exist without the other.

Again...a Rose in a world of roses...is simply just a flower. Yet both. Non-existent without the other. Metaphorically speaking of course!

Best, MS

a reply to: Untun

Welcome to the One.

We are One.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

lol

and not do as you do, always trying to reduce it to another thing which in your mind is always some type of matter.

which is exactly what you do trying to reduce everything to a type of mind... I don't see how that'd be better?
Especially as I am open to the universe being built on information and in my world view there's a lot of room for a natural & universal/cosmic intelligence processing that information ... it's really you who's hellbent on simplifaction and reducing everything down to one property.

You try to criticize something without even the slightest understanding of that thing. So let me get you through the very basics:

Mind/experience is the given, it is the only thing about which we can say "there is no doubt this exists". Everything else is an inference. When you say "this piece of rock on the ground is totally independent from mind/experience" you are making an inference. Even Tononi(your idol?) agrees with me on that. It is even his very first axiom.



So now that you hopefully understand this, you should understand also that I am not reducing anything to anything else, but I am just stating the obvious: only experience exists.

And to go one notch further, materialists say that this thing (matter) which is in truth only an inference inside mind/consciousness/experience, is the very thing that gives birth to experience itself! Isn't that crazy? This enormous mistake leads to what is called under materialism "the hard problem of consciousness", which is not a problem under idealism.

a reply to: gosseyn

I understood perfectly the first time, I just think it's false.
A logical fallacy like saying:

I am not reducing anything to anything else, but I am just stating the obvious: only experience exists.

Because that is reducing it to only one thing, and it's simply also not true.

"the hard problem of consciousness", which is not a problem under idealism.

well that's true, because in search of a unicorn you just declare everything is the unicorn... to you that might be "problem solved" to me it's just absurde

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

I understood perfectly the first time, I just think it's false.
A logical fallacy like saying:

I am not reducing anything to anything else, but I am just stating the obvious: only experience exists.

Because that is reducing it to only one thing, and it's simply also not true.

Why is it not true? Are you saying we can experience something without experience? So you disagree with Tononi too about his first axiom, what he calls "the most important fact"?

a reply to: gosseyn

No. I am saying that even if it might be true you, I, or any other living being can't experience anything without our mind, everything else with or without a mind still exists on its own.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

No. I am saying that even if it might be true you, I, or any other living being can't experience anything without our mind, everything else with or without a mind still exists on its own.

How do you know that?

a reply to: gosseyn

Because we wouldn't be able to describe it independently the same way it is 'experienced' by others and our machines if it wouldn't.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

Because we wouldn't be able to describe it independently the same way it is 'experienced' by others and our machines if it wouldn't.

Idealism is not necessarily solipsism, but solipsism is a form of idealism. The idealism I talk about is a conception in which there is an objective world out there, but it's just not made of some hypothetical fundamental substance called matter. We don't need the matter hypothesis to explain and describe the world.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: gosseyn

Because we wouldn't be able to describe it independently the same way it is 'experienced' by others and our machines if it wouldn't.

How do you know there are 'others'?
Don't the 'others' appear in experience?

a reply to: gosseyn

we totally do. There's in physics a big area doing exactly that like Kinematics for examble, the description of impacts when two objects collide etc. and it all works out almost perfectly when experimentally tested in reality.

a reply to: Peeple

How do you know that?
Didn't that appear in experience?