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 Primary Question

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


Is it Energy to Matter to Mind or Mind to Energy to Matter?

Matter and energy are, of course, different forms of the same thing. One does not precede or succeed the other.

As for mind, I've said already that I consider intelligence to be an emergent property of complexity (though I probably should have said 'organized complexity'). It follows that I do not believe in the prior existence of anything called mind. Cogito, ergo sum is a somewhat naive conclusion; as Nietzsche pointed out, whatever 'it' is that thinks is certainly not 'I'; thoughts become conscious; consciousness does not create them.

For me, mind is an emergent property and has no power whatsoever, even over itself.


I believe it was you that said something about how we are "wired". That is the problem I have...I'm not so sure it is a matter of "wiring" as much as it is brainwashing at a very young and impressionable age.

Nature versus nurture. Have a look at this.


Of course, I do believe most people are just very happy to be told what to believe so they don't have to think about it (I know a few of these personally). And to think, when I was in my teens I considered going to seminary. Instead, I became one of those pesky "free thinkers" not well tolerated by organized religion.

As you'll have concluded already from my current signature, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Young people, fresh from school (where, of course, children really are 'told what to think') are more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories. Middle-aged folk like myself know, from our life-experience of career, politics and personal relations, that people are not nearly so easily brainwashed and biddable. They draw their own conclusions, based on psychological need, cultural background and personal experience, and it is very hard to shift them from those conclusions.

People are not happy to be told what to believe. They believe what they want to believe (or need to believe), which is very different.

I'd like to take back, or mitigate, what I said earlier about being wired differently from 'the vast majority'. It's true that I am one of the very few who does not object to reality because it so often goes against my wishes; but I think most people cope well enough with the world. They are reconciled to it. The ones who cannot be reconciled are a different lot--rebels, criminals, delusives, cranks, religious fanatics, conspiracy theorists and the frankly insane. There are a great many of them around, but they are by no means the vast majority.




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


While I agree with most of what you say, I do think most people are happy being led, especially when it comes to religion. Of course, a great part of that is culture. If, as you say, they are not happy to be told what to think, I would say that one needs only to look at the demographics of religion. Some of that, of course, depends on what and how a person is educated. In the middle east Islam is predominate and can be equated to brainwashing in some areas, in the west, of course, it's Christianity. If the majority of people wanted to question religion, I don't think religion would have such a hold on them. Now, in the west, where education is non-sectarian, I would think the results would be quite different than they are.

In Europe, the population is less reliant on religion, but here (the US), we have more church goers per-capita than Europe...of course, we also have more jailbirds per-capita.

In my personal contacts (family and friends) I have to stick by my statement. They are religious (no pun intended) churchgoers and do not question any aspect of the bible believing that to question the book is blasphemy. In fact, my mother-in-law has said (and I quote) "Don't try to take away my rose colored glasses!" and refuses to talk about "such matters".

Perhaps the term "most" is not accurate...maybe "a great deal" would be better.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 



In the western scientific approach it is "Energy into matter into mind" and the Yogi approach is "Mind into energy into matter".


Goes to prove that All is produced from opposites???

It is easy to understand why this argument exists then, but my question is what causes humankind to choose the side of the argument they do.

For example I am NOT a religious person, but rather look at the nuts and bolts of everything if I am able to.

I am aware of what you have written about yoga, but my beliefs do not lay in this area. That is not to say yoga is right or wrong.

I have to agree, that it also has something to do with what we are exposed to.

But keeping religion out of this, I am having great difficulty removing Consciousness out of the equation. A structure of action requires rules such as the laws of physics and Chemistry. These exist today and are unchangeable as far as we know. But something has produced these laws, and they don't seem to evolve as far as I am aware. These laws are also Sequential in nature, and have their structures also.

So let's see if anyone can provide those answers you are looking for?

Change is also sequential in nature so if the future change does not exist, then all would go into darkness.
Something produces future events or future events could not occur.

Even if we say there is NO future or past, it still requires a change to pre exist or nothing could or would change.

If this is correct why do the laws of physics NOT evolve?

Can we change these Laws?

I don't think so!

I am also having trouble with understanding why, the human primate thinks that Consciousness is thought.

As thought is the result of Consciousness and NOT the cause!

Withought Consciousness No thought!

But Counsciousness does NOT reqire thought!

It is a well known fact that parts of the brain act as decoders.

If we had all the facts then illness and death would NOT exist yet the human primate struggles with disease in that disease is still in our world today.

Is this because of our lack of knowledge or understanding or do we just enjoy these diseases???

I can't accept the latter so I can only say we lack knowledge and understanding of both ourselves and the World.

Perhaps this is why we are unable to produce the technology to cross Galaxies.

So we must see and accept ourselves as we are today, and NOT what we want to be.

But we can't achieve anything that is concrete unless we know what we are experiencing (Universe) that is in its true workings rather than thinking what we see is the same as what is manifesting this experience.

i.e. what produces that picture on your Computer Monitor is nothing like the picture you see.

So in the case of the Universe the mechanism that produces what we see as the Universe is nothing like what we see and experience.

This is why I say we have to re-approach the questions in another way that will allow us to see and understand what is producing our environment.

Just because we can study the Atomic system does NOT mean that that system is what is manifesting the experience.

The Atomic structure is the "result" and NOT the cause.

The same applies to energy.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 

I agree that thought arises out of consciousness. A worm is conscious but I doubt it thinks about what it is doing. I could be wrong, though.

I want to address some other points you brought out and I will do so later, time now for pain pills and dinner!



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


You are on to it.....



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Okay, I'm back (for awhile, anyway).

You said "If we had all the facts then illness and death would NOT exist yet the human primate struggles with disease in that disease is still in our world today.

Is this because of our lack of knowledge or understanding or do we just enjoy these diseases???"

I assume you mean that if we had all the facts we would have the capability to conquer disease medically? Can't argue with that! But, disease seems to be able to mutate into new forms so we are constantly waging a war with it.

You said: "But we can't achieve anything that is concrete unless we know what we are experiencing (Universe) that is in its true workings rather than thinking what we see is the same as what is manifesting this experience.

i.e. what produces that picture on your Computer Monitor is nothing like the picture you see.

So in the case of the Universe the mechanism that produces what we see as the Universe is nothing like what we see and experience."

Yes! It is interesting to know that the image we perceive enters our eye through a lens that turns it upside down. That image is converted into electrical impulses that actually jump a gap between the optic nerve and the brain. It is then processed by the brain which turns the image right side up and makes sense of it. You can actually wear a special pair of eyeglasses that turn the image upside down before it enters the eye, which in turn causes the brain to receive the image right-side up and you get very disoriented because the brain flips the image like it used to so you perceive it to be upside down...for about 15 minutes. Then the brain adjusts for the deviation and ceases to flip the image and then everything is normal.

And, since we are capable of a very limited portion of the visual spectrum, we are not seeing everything that enters the eye. Same goes for sound.

The brain weeds out all information not deemed essential to our survival and a lot of the information is beyond our "receptive" ability. So, do we actually see the world as it really is or do we see something that does not actually exist?

You said: "So in the case of the Universe the mechanism that produces what we see as the Universe is nothing like what we see and experience.

This is why I say we have to re-approach the questions in another way that will allow us to see and understand what is producing our environment.

Just because we can study the Atomic system does NOT mean that that system is what is manifesting the experience.

The Atomic structure is the "result" and NOT the cause. "

I have a book that was written in 1903 by the Yogi Ramacharaka. In it he explains how the ancient Yogis of 5,000 years ago would meditate and see the universe as it really is. He said "They saw that when they viewed the smallest particle of matter it would dissolve into a field of energy." This was 2 years before Einstein's "Miracle Year". They described the quantum field as the "Dance of Shiva" - the vibrating field of energy that gives rise to the material universe. Ramacharaka went on to say that Western Science would discover this concept in about 30 years! I was impressed with that.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


Here is one possibility from the work of Nobel Laureate Dr. Jack Szostak at the Harvard Medical School:




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


Do we actually see the world as it really is or do we see something that does not actually exist?

What we see is the world as it appears to the human organism.

Other organisms--such as a bat, as in the famous essay by Thomas Nagel--perceive a different world. These perceptions will differ radically from ours; a bat lives in a world in which sound occupies the perceptually dominant place given in ours to light, while a duckbill platypus inhabits a world of electromyographic stimuli we cannot visualize even by analogy.

In all cases, what is perceived is reality. Moreover, it is always the same reality.

It is of no value to ask whether the world we perceive is real, or an illusion. It is, in a sense, both. It is an illusion in that it is a projection--a projection of quantum fluctuations giving rise to what we call matter, a projection of the interaction of physical forces we have no means of perceiving except by proxy, i.e. by perceiving their effects. No living being--at least, none that we know of--is capable of perceiving the true ground of physical reality. It may not be meaningful even to speak of such a thing.

But just because our view of the world is a projection, it does not mean that it is unreal: the projection is just the way reality happens to manifest itself to us. If we had evolved differently, we would probably perceive it differently, but what we perceived would be just as real, for it would be the same reality.

In the last four hundred years or so, we have learned to augment our sensory apparatus through technology. Formerly, we could only perceive that narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum known as visible light; now we have access to all of it. Moreover, the resolution of our electromagnetic sensors has increased to the point where we can now look, through them, at individual atoms. We have gained the ability, through our telescopes, to look back into the deep past and see what happened there. We have, indeed, refined our perceptual technologies to the point where they now return to us information that seems at times to cast doubt on the projection of reality we, as human beings, have evolved to have: thus we enter the paradoxical world of quantum mechanics. But quantum mechanics does not describe some separate reality; it is the same reality as always, merely viewed at a degree of resolution so extreme that the human sensorium and brain can no longer make sense of the data in the ordinary way.

You've spoken here and there of yogic worldviews and philosophy. I am South Asian; Hinduism and Buddhism are part of the cultural milieu in which I grew up and have lived most of my life. I know a lot of yogis, gurus, masters of vipassana meditation and the like. There is no denying that Eastern philosophers have achieved many insights into the nature of reality, but--speaking as someone acquainted with both schools--no more, in the end, than Western philosophers and scientists have. East or West, it all comes down to the same, eternal question: does mind precede matter, or the other way round? Lacking the tools of science, there was really no way any philosopher could address this question except by thinking about it. And just by thinking about it, some came to one conclusion and some to the other.

Westerners tend to think of Eastern philosophy as mystical; in truth, mysticism is a Western, not an Eastern phenomenon. Think of Confucius, or even more so of Lao-tzu: they were practical men who discouraged their followers from fruitless spiritual questing. Think above all of the Buddha, who would have no truck with gods or heavens or alternate realities, for whom the words 'mind' and 'self' were, ultimately, meaningless, and for whom the only goal worth striving for was complete extinction of consciousness. The Buddha was not a mystic, though many Westerners, interpreting his ideas through the filters of their own culture, think he was.

From Plato onward, Western philosophy remained bogged down in the unthinking acceptance of mind (human or Divine) as the ground of all reality; it was not until the seventeenth century that empiricism arose to free the mired pantechnicon and set it rolling again, this time along a useful path. It is no coincidence that empiricism and science emerged at the same time, any more than it was happenstance that empiricist philosophers like John Locke moved in the same circles as pioneers of modern science like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton.

The world as we see it is, for human beings, the only world there is. Nothing could be more real.

[edit on 10/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Thanks for this fascinating information. Unfortunately I am not educated enough to make any meaningful comment. But, I will watch this several more times as it is short and to the point and is a great illustration.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
To everyone who so patiently explained their views:

Thanks! I am overwhelmed. From all that was contributed here, I can see that there need not be an outside initiator to get life going.

I think I have exhausted this topic...any more and I will not be able to absorb it.

I must now wrestle with my own predisposition toward a more meaningful reason for the universe and life.

Gone is the beauty and mystery of life...and, in their place...a flat screen TV and an I-phone.

So, why is it that I am so damned depressed now?

Anyway, than you again. It has been a civil and informative topic.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopup Dave
To everyone who so patiently explained their views:

Thanks! I am overwhelmed. From all that was contributed here, I can see that there need not be an outside initiator to get life going.

I think I have exhausted this topic...any more and I will not be able to absorb it.

I must now wrestle with my own predisposition toward a more meaningful reason for the universe and life.

Gone is the beauty and mystery of life...and, in their place...a flat screen TV and an I-phone.

So, why is it that I am so damned depressed now?

Anyway, than you again. It has been a civil and informative topic.



Well I, for one, don't have any trouble seeing the beauty and mystery of life, supernatural creator or no supernatural creator.

Life is breathtakingly beautiful all by itself. And even if we understand everything about the mechanism of how it got here, the mystery of the myriad forms is still beyond comprehension.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

I am in resounding agreement with you.

The real world is a magnificently complex, infinitely interrelated web of phenomena, clothed in beauty and splendour. Its mysteries are endless and their solutions, when found, always fascinating--and most of the time, the splendid truth reveals yet another mystery underneath. Its attractions can never be exhausted, its enchantments, unlike those of the mystagogues, can never pall.

To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, the man who is tired of reality is tired of life.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I agree. Be it an accident or engineered, life is a miracle.

Again, thanks for the terrific responses. You have all given me much to ponder!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 



So, where did this “prime Directive” come from? It was not an evolutionary adaption because there could not have been further generations without it, hence, no evolution.


Ah, but it is an evolutionary adaptation. Not all life reproduces sexually, nor do we know if the first lifeforms reproduced sexually. It's a good question, just that it's asked without full knowledge of the theory of evolution; But it's great that you did ask for more clarification, to a point, hopefully you take it into consideration instead of ignoring it like the 95% of ATS does. It would be great to meet another intelligent member!



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 



Gone is the beauty and mystery of life...and, in their place...a flat screen TV and an I-phone.

So, why is it that I am so damned depressed now?


WTF!!??? How can you be depressed???!! I wish I had a flat screen TV and I-Phone!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join