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.

 

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Uuuugh I got a headache....





posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
Uuuugh I got a headache....



Lucky you. You only get an headache.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


we are debating if the universe is conscious.,.. and in order to do so would require going over basic facts of life... like GOD for a start




What? I am not understanding you.


im sure you dont... the entire premis of this thread is based on human "conscious" ?

what about ever other living being on this planet or dont they count?

and i use that in relation to "being here" as a fact . role / function of being alive as a whole.

So if im just a function of the universe and conscious then the universe is as well..

Im INSIDE the thing and it MADE me.. so inherently it would be conscious of its self now wouldnt it?

yes? no no yes?

did i leave anything out?



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


Good thing I am drunk right now.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


we are debating if the universe is conscious.,.. and in order to do so would require going over basic facts of life... like GOD for a start




What? I am not understanding you.


im sure you dont... the entire premis of this thread is based on human "conscious" ?


I am assuming you are referring to the videos? The videos are not subtitled so I do not know what they are saying. But I have heard it all before.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 




That is interesting, how can you have an observer without consciousness? "Seeing" requires consciousness. A camera cannot "see"


That is a very good point.

How can anything "see" if there is nobody home?

Sort of like this question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




I propose we are indeed mindless zombies without a conscious mind.


Then you would be mindless. You wouldn't be seeing anything! Get it?

You would be D E A D



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 



yes, science is trying to study consciousness but the answers with the materialistic scientific methods are still far, far away from any answers...


Ah OK, so science is wrong because science can't fully answer everything upon the demands of your every whim, but the contrary of scientific knowledge can be true without proven to be true. Awesome view point, really tells me a lot of how you think, or lack of.


Who said the science is wrong? Science merely observe the results.

Science does not explain consciousness as of this date. It merely observes the results.




like I said if there weren't any self awareness, we wouldn't be here... what is so hard to understand here? (I know, the problem is your arrogant close minded ego)


I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against:


the epic fail of modern materialistic science is its' refusal to take the consciousness into account about life and the universe...



Oh okay. As long as we understand each other.

Science includes consciousness and observes the results of consciousness.

But science CAN NOT explain consciousness (as of this date).



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Science *does* study consciousness but there is no evidence known to science that demonstrates that reality exists because of consciousness. Do you understand that part or simply ignore it because then you wouldn't be oh so special?


I am not sure you're really understanding it. Common mistake.

I've had this same debate with many people, here on ATS and in real life.


There is no evidence that objects can not exist without consciousness. But that is not what is debated here.

You can create a robot with sophisticated AI. This robot would be aware of it's environment. Etc. Etc. But is it "aware" or "conscious"?

The problem here is what awareness or consciousness mean. We can talk about qualia all day.

I think what we really need is a good defintion.

Like what Indigo Child said, a camera sees, but does it really "see"?



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
This video lecture by Professor Stuart Hameroff is the best evidence for a conscious universe along with paranormal effects and a quantum brain.

It's got all the technical details.

Enjoy!

www.rhine.org...

He co-developed this model with Roger Penrose from Oxford.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by constantwonder
 


But aren't the mathematics products of us observing? Or do I have it backwards?


Mathematics are the rules we've discovered that govern things always. Mathematical and physical law are law because they happen everywhere all the time. With or without something there to witness it


How would you know that something happens without being observed?


We don't.....


Unless of course something causally connected to this 'something' eventually is observed, and then provides means of indirect observation.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I was going to jump in but you are making some good points.

The problem for materialist is nobody has ever touched matter. They assume an objective, material reality but this is just wishful thinking.

You would think something like this would be simple. You put on your shoe or grab the remote to change the channel. The truth is nobody has touched matter.

Materialism is a belief system. They say dead matter all of a sudden became aware of itself. They start with this false assumptiom.

The truth is perception creates reality so the universe must perceive itself. The universe is conscious.

See people say the universe can exist without consciousness. This is because they reduce consciousness to the human brain.

Consciousness manifest itself through a phantasm that we perceive as matter.


It comes down to semantics. I think you are talking about a kind of consciousness that is not the same as what other people are necessarily referring to.

Here is my view of consciousness:

my leg itches...I didn't go to the toilet today, I wonder if that will cause trouble tomorrow. Goodness it is late, I better go to sleep soon...when will my wife be horny again? I can't go much longer like this. Why am I having a philosophy conversation with a computer? Will my next statement be in the form of a question? That turkey was dry. ha! no it wasn't....


Consciousness is for most people associated with inner dialog. So ask yourself: Does the universe wonder what it's gonna have for breakfast tomorrow morning? I think the answer is most likely no.

Now, I can also imagine consciousness, like a dog or a cat might have.... the dialog would not have nearly the same shape of human dialog. but it would include acknowledgements of bodily functions and itches and stuff like, it's warm over here. mmm feels nice. squirrel!!!!!!!! what was that noise?

Does the universe concern itself with its safety? does the universe seek warmth? does the universe watch for the best opportunity to pounce on a bird? .... I think you and I both agree that it doesn't. SO that version of consciousness (stream of consciousness for a cat) probably doesn't cross the universe's mind.

I can imagine yet another form of consciousness: Deep meditation. the state where you are not in control of your own thoughts and let go. Although in this state one remains capable of linking that experience back to the realm of words and sensation and the whole experience seems continuous. At no point is one so far out that one forgets to breathe during meditation....

Then maybe..... maybe the experience one might have while on some seriously heavy psychedelic drug perhaps. Since I haven't tried any of those, I can't speak for what that is like. But some who have tried those drugs have come back to claim to have made contact with a deeper form of consciousness. Perhaps this is what you talk about? or maybe not, I am not sure, But certainly, one cannot talk about a non-materialistic view of consciousness and drugs in the same paragraph. Seems very contradictory.

So after you take out mundane experience, inner dialog and raw perception via the 5 senses (plus whichever minor senses that don't get counted) what is left?

I have a feeling that this is what you mean by consciousness but I am not sure. And I am not sure that anybody knows what is left because nobody can imagine what that sort of experience is like because we all have to deal with having brains and words and pictures and sounds in our heads. Very very hard to have a moment when all that is suppressed and then come back and write about it. Not sure it's even possible, except for drugs, but no doubt those are material substances having an effect on the brain. doesn't get any more material than that.

I believe that all of my conscious experience has occurred with the influence of my brain, and my bodily or ego needs have played a part in forming them. I think anybody who can refer to some other form of consciousness other than their own, or that from another living creature has to give some sort of explanation as to how they are privy to this knowledge. Claiming to know of some other form of consciousness seems almost like claiming of being able to talk to god.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


what point? the point was about the brain? and how it relates to the body?? i have no point to prove its a well known fact?

or am i missing something?


Apparently you are.

Define "you" and "I".

Can you locate that in your brain? If I cut pieces of your brain, do I take away "parts" of "you"?

To this date, neuroscientists can not answer that question.


There are lots of cases of people with various brain injuries who have lost the ability to see, the ability to speak, or the ability to form a word from an image presented to one eye. People who have become "transformed" into another person after a head injury, People who believe that their loved ones are impostors when responding to the IMAGE of their loved ones but not the sound of their voices.

There are very very curious brain injuries with specific locations answering some of those questions. Although it seems like much of the brain is "distributed" so we can tolerate individual cells dying from various reasons and not suddenly loose, say, a letter of the alphabet.

To me your post seems like it's like saying.

"Computer scientists are not able to answer which computer *is* the internet"

-rrr



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Consciousness is quite literally the awareness of something. Internal dialogue is not consciousness, because one is aware of the internal dialogue. This is another way of saying consciousness is beingness.
To say I am conscious, I first have to define what I mean by "I" if I am referring to the personality, then it is not conscious, because again it is an object of awareness.

A good analogy used in Yoga is to describe the ego as the moon and consciousness as the sun. The ego thus only has reflected conscousness.

The Eastern logic is quite simple the universe is consciousness because it is beingness. There are not several kinds or types of consciousness, because consciousness is not a divisble thing. There are though several kinds of ego that have varying levels of reflected light. In meditation, it is not that you are entering into a new consciousness, rather you are increasing your intake of conscousness. This consciousness is alll around in the same way they say energy is all around and it can be tapped. The human body(not just brain) has the potential to tap it. Theoretically, even AI could tap it. If the instrument is functional it can receive consciousness.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   


my leg itches...I didn't go to the toilet today, I wonder if that will cause trouble tomorrow. Goodness it is late, I better go to sleep soon...when will my wife be horny again? I can't go much longer like this. Why am I having a philosophy conversation with a computer? Will my next statement be in the form of a question? That turkey was dry. ha! no it wasn't....

Consciousness is for most people associated with inner dialog. So ask yourself: Does the universe wonder what it's gonna have for breakfast tomorrow morning? I think the answer is most likely no.

Now, I can also imagine consciousness, like a dog or a cat might have.... the dialog would not have nearly the same shape of human dialog. but it would include acknowledgements of bodily functions and itches and stuff like, it's warm over here. mmm feels nice. squirrel!!!!!!!! what was that noise?

Does the universe concern itself with its safety? does the universe seek warmth? does the universe watch for the best opportunity to pounce on a bird? .... I think you and I both agree that it doesn't. SO that version of consciousness (stream of consciousness for a cat) probably doesn't cross the universe's mind.


From my perspective, I believe there are degrees of conscious.

If you compare a bacteria to a insect, you would conclude that a insect is more conscious. If you compare a insect to a bat, you would conclude a bat is more conscious. If you compare a bat to a dog, then you would conclude a dog is more conscious. Animals today such as a chimpanzee, dolphin, elephant, and a dog display qualities that borderline self consciousness.

Other animals such as lizards, rats, and birds pale in comparison.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 





I chose to incarnate for the experiences and catalysts to these experiences within this incarnations experience.


No offence but you chose jack squat..

Didnt choose to make a universe didnt choooose to create LIFE didnt chooose to be born.

This type of mentality of IM HUMAN AND SPECIAL is the reason our world is a mess.

my cat has more humility.

I mean when are people going to wake up to the fact we are ALONE that we have ONE GIFT

LIFE



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 





Incarnation is not in any way neccesary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things.


can you please stop Bs ing me please I man do you think im some little kid?

i mean really cmon what makes you more spcial than me? NOTHING

yet you going to letucre me on something you know nothing about ?

do you know how silly you look?

what makes you think or i think we have a clue what we are talking about

The problem is HONESTY be honest and stop being a BS crafter.. just because you call me broter or sister does not make my life any more roesy does it?

so stop please stop ... its horrible to a fellow human grovel just because they want there life to mean something

stinks..



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Who says I'm talking down to you? I'm at an equal level teaching/learning WITH you it is a mutual expression between two selves, in reallity we are not seperate.

I do not talk down to you, I talk with you brother/sister.

Namaste.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 





awareness of not been able to comprehend what we are, part of and within.


or ignorance of the facts

here are 2. and i shall say "again"

Your mind has no shape nor does the universe.

the only 2 things that are not possible to mesure

what would be the logical outcome of what we are in ?



...so why are you using the terms `mind` and `universe`..? surely submitting a title for something gives rise to claims of extent and separateness/individuality...this seems to be counter productive to your cause.

You also mention `shape`, well the lack of, but what is `shape` and how can you know when it is not one.?
This claim is a `fact` you say, isnt a `fact`part of a theory.? a human construct, to be understood as strictly relative to an Earth bound observer, open to revision when the observer is aware of more.?

...the Earth is flat, to one observer, a globe to another, a speck of light to another etc...

Using the language of definition in the framework of Science will not provide an answer to or flesh out a Metaphysical problem/enquiry and Philosophy will only help to define a better question from a particular stance.

What `is` and what is in a state of `being`...Protagoras,"man is the measure of all things" and Heraclitus,"all is flux".

Where do the terms you have used fall.? universe, mind, infinity(implied), fact.

I think you should make a decision before you proceed, because using parts of so many frameworks is liable to lead to contradiction.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


Consciousness is quite literally the awareness of something. Internal dialogue is not consciousness, because one is aware of the internal dialogue. This is another way of saying consciousness is beingness.
To say I am conscious, I first have to define what I mean by "I" if I am referring to the personality, then it is not conscious, because again it is an object of awareness.

A good analogy used in Yoga is to describe the ego as the moon and consciousness as the sun. The ego thus only has reflected conscousness.

The Eastern logic is quite simple the universe is consciousness because it is beingness. There are not several kinds or types of consciousness, because consciousness is not a divisble thing. There are though several kinds of ego that have varying levels of reflected light. In meditation, it is not that you are entering into a new consciousness, rather you are increasing your intake of conscousness. This consciousness is alll around in the same way they say energy is all around and it can be tapped. The human body(not just brain) has the potential to tap it. Theoretically, even AI could tap it. If the instrument is functional it can receive consciousness.

[edit on 25-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]


Frankly I have no ground on which to debate that. I realize that consciousness is defined that way by you and what seems like an entire philosophy. It seems to make sense. I don't think I am able to define consciousness, although I certainly am aware that I am conscious.

However, because that definition came about from a person ultimately, then how do we not know that consciousness as defined here (the state of beingness) is an illusion brought about by our own brains? if in fact that was the case (and I don't think we can conclusively ever know either way given our incapability to step aside from our brains and remain alive) then it would seem a brain, or at least some kind of feedback system is required for consciousness.

By that standard, then, one could rank consciousness in terms of complexity, with a thermostat being right around the bottom of the ladder, present day AI near the middle, plants, animals and people much higher up, and ultimately, interconnected social collectives very much near the top.

-rrr



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join