It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Speed of Consciousness?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:14 PM
A photon's perception of movement?

Pardons, but can we truly guess at what a photon percieves? Whether it perceives at all?

Were it to percieve, then the same could be said for all other particles as could be said about it. Electrons, Protons, Quarks, all 6 neutrinos, they would all have the 'perception' that they do not move, and that they have no speed.

According to your proof that light feels no speed, and no time, and no movement, all particles feel no speed, movement, or time, thus, nothing anywhere is moving, nothing anywhere ever has! It is just instant skip from A to B for absolutely everything!

Unless of course you can somehow differentiate between the perceptions of photons and electrons, then I may just wish to give you the Nobel prize.

Next, I don't know why you think I didn't read the thread or the links that people posted, you seem to think my contrary stance makes me an asshole! I am a skeptic, and I know what I know, and read what is given, you have given me the supposition that light really moves everywhere instantly, so our consciousness therefore is also instantaneous! There is no proof that consciousness is made up of light, or anything else for that matter, there is only supposition and allegation.

And to Billybob: There are many things which cause a flower to choose ts colour, though they generally aren't 'chosen'. As evolutionary theory predicts, the flower would have a certain colour, and survive with a certain degree of success. Every once in a while a DNA reformation malfunctions and a change occurs, occasionally, it affects colour. If the change enhances the being then the being shall thrive and overtake its predecessor, if it is a disadvantage then the change shall be wiped out. After the hundreds of millions of years plants have had flowers, it seems natural that those colours they choose are quite successful.

As for chameleons, I believe it has something to do with the molecular structure of their skin, when hit by a certain wavelength of light, it reflects that generalized wavelength. That is why they do not become invisible, and merely change to the general colour, once again, they do this because this happenstance mutation was beneficial.

As for your note on cognition, feygan, random thoughts can easily be prescribed to randomnity itself. Chaos theory shows infinite possibilities, but it shows a general trend in when and where those possibilities are divided.

Also to note is, as you have brought up my apparent non-knowledge of, quantum theory. One of the key principles of Quantum Theory is the Uncertainty Principle, stating that the lesser the extent of observation on a particle, the less effect we have on it and the surer we can be of its state, but the greater the extent of measurement we have on an object, the more we affect it, and the less sure we are about its state. In this way we come to realize that there is no certainty, only a range of probabilities. Inside our heads, things quite probably have attained a unique balance, where, rather than having all thought and reaction rely on guessable and measurable stimuli, as the brain of, say, a cat or a dog, thought has been passed on to the state of the particles making up our brain, which, indirectly, are affected by stimuli and have, at best, a random range of outcomes. This accounts for you seeing an object, and 'deciding' whether or not you need to move it, in certain cases actions are predictable as simple equations, but in others actions are completely undetermined.

Realize now that this is only my supposition, and while it is a perfectly logical and normal way for the physics of our universe to, within our given 'perceptions', explain consciousness, and that I harbor no need to go off into tangents of instantaneous ultradimensional projected consciousness.

It isn't exactly simple logic, but there is always a logical explanation.

I apologise for writing in a way that 'attacks' you through my use of the words 'simple logic', but you all seemed to be pulling things senselessly out of thin air based on your own intuition when you could have explained it with logic, and been equally, if not more sure of yourself.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Viendin]

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 07:39 PM
Yes I agreee it is all supposition and allegation, the same way all theories are until they are proved/disproved. I'm not suggesting that a photon percieves in the sense it knows where it is etc, but just that were you a photon, then you would have no speed from your point of view. (also as it's just a hypothetical to show a point I think the universe may allow that photon to percive for the sake of argument)

But yes maybe nothing is truely moving as such to it own perspective. When in a plane, if it wern't for windows you would deny that you were moving if you didn't know a plane had to move to stay above ground. so from your perception you would be stationary, adn all you would know if you got on that plane at New York and now your getting off again at LA. How did you get there? you don't know you had no windows, it just happened.

To address the point of consciousness being made up of light, I wasn't trying to say that, but just that it seems to have many of the same properties of light. If you look at people who have the ability to astrally project, or remote view, they are able to take their "consciousness to places that are impossibly far for the time it takes them to arrive. Some have spoken of a "nowness" where there exists no history, this could only be achieved if they were travelling at the speed of light.

"With practice one can begin to see the current of thoughts and the ego attachments and recognize that no thought is more or less important than any other. One can come to distinguish that there is actually "space" between thoughts. This space between thoughts is the original unobstructed nature of mind. To experience this space is to taste the essence of now-ness. In the space of now there is no history, no ordinary time, no ego, no beginning and no end. Because one learns to see without concepts, cultivating this space is called cultivating clear seeing."

Since travelling that fast would mean an infinite increase in mass, it would be safe to assume that nothing except something that has properties very much like light could go that fast. To back this up on anyone that has a belief in a higher being, I'm not going to suggest that they're "magical" per-se but more of an omnipotent nature. So how would "prayers" get to such a person if they had to cover vast distances of at least the planet? (assuming they reside here) Also having to deal with many thoughts coming in at once. Nothing I'm trying to say as evidence but just something someone posted that got me thinking.

your explaination of flowers and chameleons having abilities chosen by nature to be benificial something I totally agree with, it's all back to survival of the fittest. I also agree with your comment on adrenaline being damaging to the system if it ws in constant use. However it would be feasable to have a small amount of it "on-tap" to increase brain speed without being damaging, which would follow with a natural benefit. Unless we already have this built in? IE. we already think way faster than can be imagined or measured. (going back to thought at the speed of light again) Surely we have become the dominant species by luck of adrenaline and a sentinent nature?

To go into your thoughts on Chaos theory, I'm assuming that the predictable case actions would be things such as "I'll move that it's burning". But I think your saying that something like "I think that would look better over here on this desk" are determined by randomness? While it's a little arrogant to say I'm my own person and control my own thoughts etc, I find it hard to once again survive if a good 50% of our actions in life are random? Although at this time I can't offer an alternative argument.

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by feygan
your explaination of flowers and chameleons having abilities chosen by nature to be benificial something I totally agree with, it's all back to survival of the fittest.

i don't believe it. except that you said 'chosen' by nature. that i feel is accurate. evolution theory is bull#. things stay the same for a long time(ecosystems-wise), and then rather suddenly many species change at the same time.
people who believe the current theory of evolution, are ignoring the fact that species need each other. the whole system evolves, and not just individual species.
sybiosis can't be a product of 'survival of the fittest'. insects like the caterpillar that looks like a venomous snake as a defense mechanism cannot be explained using this theory of random genetic mutations.
really. think about it.
and the chameleon or octopus, ...could you link to a study that backs up this theory of molecular sensing of patterns. i find that very hard to swallow.

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 10:52 PM
Ok firstly to the issue of molecular sensing, I'm going to take an assumption here, but I'm guessing its just a term that used to discribe the process. Both chameleons and cephalopods have a small bags of pigment under the outer layer of thier skin, which when squeezed can change their colour. This can be used for a variety of reasons, in it's most dramatic it is for various forms of communication, from basic mating in chameleons to what appears like full conversations in cuttlefish. The ability is also used for both defense and stalking prey. It is normally triggered by the animal seeing its surroundings and then sending the correct signals to match. However in chameleons it is know that when under strong sunlight they do tend to take on a lighter shade to reflect this, maybe its caused by the light, maybe its a heat tollerance method, I'm not sure.

To say that symbiosis can't be a product of survival of the fittest is something I find strange. In nature there are normally two constant battles going on. Firslt the battle of the sexes, which is all to do with pheromones and displays etc. Secondly is the constant battle between predator and prey, which is where survival of the fittest comes in. A predator will evolve the best physical makeup, tools, and methods it can to catch it's prey. In response the prey will evolve the best makeup, tools, and methods to avoid being eaten.
In essense the entire natural world is one huge arms race that is constantly moving forwards. Currently we as a species are winning this race. The only reasons to have seen major changes on an ecosystem scale has been various forms of climatic change. (ice ages, deoughts, earthquakes, asteroids etc) If you set up a lab experiment on a planetary scale, and ensured its safety you would just see slow changes taking place in the organisms, with the odd jump here and there due to natural mutation.
So yes the caterpiller analogy is an example of evolution due to survival of the fittest, rather than a genetic mutation in the traditional sense, But genetic mutation is exactly what evolution is, some mutations are good and so kept in the bloodlines, and some are bad and so die out.
But somehow I've managed to devieate severly off topic now so I'll stop.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by feygan]

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by feygan

But somehow I've managed to devieate severly off topic now so I'll stop.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by feygan]

what you posted is not off topic, as far as i am concerned.
random mutation doesn't explain it to me. it is the consciousness of nature/god. the earth is conscious. the sun is conscious. the galaxy is conscious.
memetics explains nature much better to my version of mind. in simple terms there are archetypes floating about in the aether that manifest in the third dimension. now there is something that DEFINITELY proves consciousness is beyond time. we think in archetypes. archetypes exist outside of time. a triangle has no speed, no date of creation or destruction, no location. it just is. horses can come and go, but horseness always existed as an archtypal possibility.
plato described the heirarchy of creation quite well. god-demiurge-archangel-angel-elemental-material world, something like that.
don't worry, science will catch up with me. it already is somewhat with non-locality, quantum uncertainty, higher dimensions, string theory, etc.

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 07:15 AM
billybob, this is not going to become a creationist/evolutionist argument.

There is a ton of evidence for evolution, and against it.

There is a ton of evidence for creation, and against it.

Neither you, nor I, nor feygan, nor anyone else, can just say 'Oh, things are like this because god did it. He does everything.', or say that it is all living and aware, and literally chooses every day. We have nothing to support that second one, and roughly the same for creationism. Evolution has its problems, but it relies on facts to try and explain as best it can. Science isn't perfect yet, and likely never will be, but for the moment that is the best we can do before just claiming god did it.

No offence meant, but I've always considered the difference between the two to be this:

-----| |---- < The Evolutionist says that there is something in this space, and that it probably looks like this - , but we can't see it because our tools aren't good enough.

-----| |---- < The Creationist says they are touching. God just makes it look that way to us, because he wants us to question ourselves.

In truth, neither really has proof, neither is particularly right or wrong, but they describe a lot about a person, whether you will just say 'it is because it is' or you will try to explain it physically.

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:16 PM
Ok so to go back on topic, any more idea's about what consciousness is or how fast it moves?

posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 02:42 PM
From my perspective,
a few 'expressions' of consciousness we know as

Inspirations, Creativity, Epiphanies, Meditations & Prayers, those un-explainable moments of 'oneness', etc, et al......

All those (and other states...) are instantaneous (to my way of thinking)

only the 'process' of explaining...(which relies on the biological brain & supporting electro-chemical structure) can be viewed as taking time...

fer instance...your GUT FEELING is instant...but you, the scientist, will argue that the brain actually went into a type of 'hyper-drive' of analysis, using 'shortcuts' and the innate 'occams razor' strategies gained during evolution.... ((refer to your own graphic---l l---)) to fill in the missing "-", a never ending 'half-ing' the distance, as you move thru smaller infinity of 'steps'

i thun=ink its called rhetorical...

my view is that a material/mortal/carnal mind can concieve
-Beyond Itself and the physics of mundane material nature-

this Consciousness is instantaneous & 'super'-natural..
and just another way of 'connecting to god'.

*Chaos, Fractals, Heisenbergs' Uncertainty, Entanglements...are all parts of a different 'scale of universe' connected to the creator/god-head...

just like prayer, fasting,meditations, are parts/paths in the humanity 'scale of universe'

so a scientific theorist, a marble sculptor, a faithful believer....all have paths to non-locality, consciousness, the mind-of-god....

enjoy your journey

posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 01:12 AM
Is it possible that Earth has a collective consciousness?

I do remember reading work by some "Mad" scientist who proposed that the Earth had a 8khz information storage field in which he hoped to store all of earths knowledge
. The US military funded this program of his. Forgot his name though.

Im still entitled to believe that "our" consciousness prevades not in our bodies, but in another astral plane (dimension).

Also, is it possible that plants are "self-aware" beings?
Though we can state, "I think there for I am", How can we possibly state the above for plant life?


posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 01:15 AM
Actually, a theory put forth was that geomagnetic forces allow one to potentially access anything in it, ranging from human to structures and view them. It was put forwards by Micheal A. Persinger in his paper on remote viewing.


posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:08 PM

-----| |---- < The Evolutionist says that there is something in this space, and that it probably looks like this - , but we can't see it because our tools aren't good enough.

-----| |---- < The Creationist says they are touching. God just makes it look that way to us, because he wants us to question ourselves.

Creationist as in a Judeo-Christian-Islam0 bias? If so, Its nothing to be taken in serious tone. Now to consider the basic tenants that created these religions.....

All in all, "Theorys" none the less.


posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 03:30 AM
einstien, telsla and hawkings believe(d) in a god.
i believe for the same reason as albert. there is too much order in the universe for there NOT to be a creator. hawkings said, "god does not play dice with the universe".
these are three of the head gurus of science. i find it funny how people who worship science seem to overlook that the best scientific minds believe in something beyond darwin. uncovering the mysteries of creation does not mean that's it's not creation.
this goes back to the speed of consciousness, because, once again speed is something that measures a change in postition. if consciousness created reality, than consciousness can have no speed. if reality created consciousness, than the speed of consciousness sould be relative to it's mass. what's that? how much mass does a thought have? none? hmmmmm......looks like it still doesn't have a speed or postition or size.

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by billybob]

posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 12:51 PM
too much ordo
'According to Romans 1:19-21, through our observation and consideration of the works of creation, we inevitably come to the conclusion that an intelligent designer must be behind it all. The more we research the works of creation from a scientific standpoint, and emphasize its many wonderful aspects, the more unbelievable the doctrine of evolution becomes.'

posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 02:08 PM
does something omnipresent has a speed ? i don't think so

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in