Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

When my consciousness ceases, I cease to observe reality, this does not imply that reality itself ceases to exist altogether.


Prove it. If you are not there to see it, how do you know it still exists?

The argument of other minds is an argument of correlation. Do you have proof that anybody else exists other than you? All you observe are bodies that may behave like you, may exhibit behaviour that seems to be conscious, but you don't actuallly know for certain they are conscious because you cannot experience their consciousness. In dream, we also see others, that exhibit behaviour that seems to be conscious, but that does not mean they are real. Do you have any reason to believe that others in waking life are anymore real?

I am taking you far down the rabbit hole, but I don't think your intellect can handle it.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   


Absolute unfounded conjecture! Also a hypocrite as evident by the nature of your responses on page one. You never seem to have implied once that it wasn't us and that it was instead God being the observer. You clearly implied that we did the act of observation. You hypocritical liar, unbelievable, really just nonsense.


It is not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension. I never implied that it is the human observer which is collapsing reality, and I've always believed that. If you understood that, then it was an error in your comprehension. I hope you have it clear now that I do not believe we are collapsing realiity. It is pure consciousness that collapses reality, in other words our essence, which is my concept of god.

In new-age and Hindu thinking god is not an external being, but rather is BEING.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algebra
O.K thanks.

A lot to think about.

What is your backround by the way? if you dont mind me asking


He is Richard Dawkins and don't you forget it!

Or is that just his wishful thinking? Doesn't make it true though.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



Prove it. If you are not there to see it, how do you know it still exists?


Both me and my grandfather existed in this reality at one point. About three years ago he died of complications with his health and yet despite his death, this same reality that we both existed in when he was alive is still here in which I continue to exist within it. Irregardless of him not being here to see that it is still her, it is indeed still here.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Now that I think of it, the question itself is utterly ridiculous and moot to the point. As you've now clarified that in your opinion it is your concept of God who observes reality, then inherently reality will still exist regardless of us individually living or not. As long as something is in a state of being, there will always be a universe, accordingly by your own biased opinions.


The argument of other minds is an argument of correlation. Do you have proof that anybody else exists other than you? All you observe are bodies that may behave like you, may exhibit behaviour that seems to be conscious, but you don't actuallly know for certain they are conscious because you cannot experience their consciousness. In dream, we also see others, that exhibit behaviour that seems to be conscious, but that does not mean they are real. Do you have any reason to believe that others in waking life are anymore real?


OK, fine I will concede that we are all philosophical zombies that possess no consciousness at all, that we only act as if we do.


I am taking you far down the rabbit hole, but I don't think your intellect can handle it.


I'm open to the possibilities, but I am closed to the applauding of demonstratively erroneous information in which you appear to enjoy so much. I would be absolutely tickled if you find that rabbit hole for me. I actually wish the contrary *were true*, how great would that be! Yet, poking at gaps, sensationalizing and openly purposefully lying don't give rise to profound truths.


It is not my fault you lack basic reading comprehension. I never implied that it is the human observer which is collapsing reality, and I've always believed that. If you understood that, then it was an error in your comprehension. I hope you have it clear now that I do not believe we are collapsing realiity. It is pure consciousness that collapses reality, in other words our essence, which is my concept of god.

In new-age and Hindu thinking god is not an external being, but rather is BEING.


I appreciate the clarification. There was no lack of comprehending what was read as this aspect of your opinion was never put forth to begin with and left as is, appears as I read it to be. It is a lack of explanation on your part, so please don't place your own faults upon me. If you wish to discuss reading comprehension, reread your responses on the first page compared to the statement I replied to.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
More proof of God existing. This is obvious. If earth is conscious than the universe must be.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
OK, fine I will concede that we are all philosophical zombies that possess no consciousness at all, that we only act as if we do.


I wish you'd do the logical thing and report your own consciousness or lack of it instead of telling me what the status of mine or others is. I am here to report otherwise. The most useful input I can provide here in this context is to maintain the undecidability of such statements from anything other than a subjective frame of reference.

BTW, I'm a bit tickled that you've taken the term "zombies" to heart.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



I wish you'd do the logical thing and report your own consciousness or lack of it instead of telling me what the status of mine or others is. I am here to report otherwise. The most useful input I can provide here in this context is to maintain the undecidability of such statements from anything other than a subjective frame of reference.

BTW, I'm a bit tickled that you've taken the term "zombies" to heart.


I absolutely love the philosophy behind it now, and the rest of your post is exactly what a zombie would say!


I don't personally know what consciousness is or is not or if it can ever be proven to be one way or the other. I just find it very hypocritical to poo poo against science and then turn around and use science to prove their own conjectures and then turn around and poo poo on the science that they're using when it's demonstrated that this is not what the science is saying and then turn around again and say it was God.

OK, who's God? Your personal definition? The Greek Gods? The Egyptian Gods? The God or Gods that might be worshiped around other worlds in the universe?

But alas, I lack intelligence due to honesty. I am closed minded because I am more open minded than they are. I am arrogant because I fight against their false claims and demonstrate those claims to be false. I'm just one sad little boy who doesn't know diddly squat and everyone else is right and uses pixie dust to make cupcakes.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 

Hi GrandKitaro777, I watched the 3 min video which was good. I would love to see the other 9 min one, but the link doesn't work. Could you post the Google reference #.


I think the first video clip is a compilation taken from a movie that was the theatres a few years ago called What The Bleep Do We Know. It's not a bad movie, especially if you can get over the fact that it was produced/directed by followers of a US cult called Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

But it's definitely worth a view. The idea of consciousness and awareness affecting what we see as reality is not new age, it's just repackaged. Life is an illusion. Science has proven this to be true. The table you're sitting at is not really solid but rather composed of frozen energy. Real magic occurs when one has the ability to thaw and rearrange that energy at will.


"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Shakespeare




[edit on 23-12-2009 by Neo__]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidience
"Conscious universe getting more support by scientists."

I really hate statements like this, the reason being is that our population is growing and pretty much any idea is bound to be "getting more support"...


Does that mean that you disagree with this? Or are you just pointing out what you view as flaws in his wording?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Part of your contention may be accurate, but I maintain that all those esoteric paths in conventional sciences are actually quite in the minority when it comes to serious practitioners of these sciences. Go into any major university undergraduate or graduate program, and you will see nary a mention of the esoteric dimensions. Do you know why that is? Except in psychology, which deals with notions of self, they are almost entirely useless from an experimental point of view.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I don't personally know what consciousness is or is not or if it can ever be proven to be one way or the other. I just find it very hypocritical to poo poo against science and then turn around and use science to prove their own conjectures and then turn around and poo poo on the science that they're using when it's demonstrated that this is not what the science is saying and then turn around again and say it was God.


I can relate to the confusion. Science needs to grow to accomodate it, not be rejected as an invalid way to investigate reality.

I can say I have some idea about consciousness and qualia but no idea how to just hand the insight over in words. Every time I try it just has a certain mystical sound to it. It ends up sounding circular and contradictory but it really is not. I'd like to tear the mystery away and will keep working on doing so.

As (vaguely) outlined below, this knowing is somewhat double-edged and thus potentially disasterous for the unprepared mind, perhaps especially one intolerant of ambiguity or one uncomfortable retaining understanding that is quite likely irreducible.


OK, who's God? Your personal definition? The Greek Gods? The Egyptian Gods? The God or Gods that might be worshiped around other worlds in the universe?


No, it's nothing so anthropomorphic. Any being like that is not of ultimate truth. You'll never see me worshipping anything, not even if it came and knocked on my door.

What seems to be the case, truely truly the case is that this "thing" that some would say is "God" really is UNDEFINABLE and INDESCRIBABLE . Any attempts to do so (even my previous assessment) tends to reduce it into the domain of limited knowledge. Noone's trying to pull your leg or get out of anything. Its just an exceedingly difficult position to be in relative to those that haven't experienced.


But alas, I lack intelligence due to honesty. I am closed minded because I am more open minded than they are. I am arrogant because I fight against their false claims and demonstrate those claims to be false.


I'm afraid I have to go back in the thread to fully understand the debate between Indigo_Child and yourself and each others' objections and points. From what I did read, I feel I can relate to and process both sides of it. It seemed to be starting to blow up into contentious hostilities (us vs. them) and it doesn't have to go there.


I'm just one sad little boy who doesn't know diddly squat and everyone else is right and uses pixie dust to make cupcakes.


That's actually a well and humble attitude in my book-- "I don't know". Is that how you honestly approach seeking or is that simply sarcasm? That is only an inquiry.

I, don't know, other than my own personal experiences and their relationship to other experiences. I am as my human self an impermanent event that will one day pass.

Perhaps Buddhism is your cup of tea if you would want to personally explore spirituality without many of the elements you seem to find objectionable, except perhaps some sects. It's really more of a metaphysic. It compells no belief in a diety. It doesn't say to kill the nonbeliever (which in truth is actually an allegory to "kill the nonbeliever" in one's self by proving it to one's self, naturally the profane misinterpret such a statement to mean "go kill others who don't subscribe to your dogma"). It does leave itself open to falsification. I wouldn't recommend conflating everything with your perception of Abrahamic faiths or else in my view you're denying yourself something worthwhile.

You might consider that in that "I don't know" one piece should be added is that many do have insights that go beyond current formal understanding and trying to congeal them into contemporary encoding is very, very difficult and frustrating. Having personally experienced to some degree, I tend to understand what they are trying to convey but only because I have a grasp of the thoughts that give rise to the language employed. The words really don't have the necessary import on their own, precisely because of its irreducibility. I understand the need to make sense of it and the urgency to do so.

My best hunch is that religion served to provide quick and easy ways of interpreting this advanced insight that was far beyond intellectual understanding of the times. Slowly our knowledge will bridge the gap and the distortions reduced in communication.

If you set upon that dicipline yourself perhaps you would come to know and relate, even if you don't currently believe it to be useful-- perhaps you would ultimately. Contrary to some belief systems, it isn't "special" or unattainable by some select chosen few. It's simply a case of if you don't play, you definitely don't win.

As far as pixie dust cupcakes, if I find a recipe I'll share it online. Zombies love cupcakes since they make a wonderful dessert after the brain entree.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo__
 



Life is an illusion. Science has proven this to be true. The table you're sitting at is not really solid but rather composed of frozen energy. Real magic occurs when one has the ability to thaw and rearrange that energy at will.


This is entirely untrue and I'll demonstrate why.

First, let's take a look at energy:


In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working"[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.

Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[2]
source

Basically, energy is a function or property of matter, not a separate distinct thing compared to matter nor something that matter is made from.

Now, as for the claim in regards to illusory nature of solidity, again your just wrong in your assertion.


The solid state of matter is one of the three main states that matter is found in. The solid state is characterized by structural rigidity and resistance to changes of shape or volume.
source

Solid as a state of matter does not mean everything touches, but that it is more resistant to changes. The reason the atoms in our body don't touch against the atoms in the chair your sitting at is due to the mechanics behind the force carriers. This is what science means, it's the media and new agers that decide to sensationalize what science tells us. This is why you have your unfounded beliefs in what you think science says, because you have not bothered to look at what science actually says. If you still don't understand what I've just posted, raise some specifics and we'll go into it a little more deeper if need be. I've cited sources, so hopefully you will at least take the time to review them because *that* is what science shows us.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
We exist as energy frequencies. Everything we see is our brain's interpretations of those frequencies.

It's said that the movie Matrix was inspired by ETs. Those streams of data at the end, as seen by Neo, are really who we are.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Matter is energy. So energy can exist by itself.

But if we went with the strict definition of energy as being a property of something, then what is that something that all the energy at the time of the Big Bang a part of?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
reply to post by sirnex
 

Matter is energy. So energy can exist by itself.
But if we went with the strict definition of energy as being a property of something, then what is that something that all the energy at the time of the Big Bang a part of? [/i}


Something exists. Matter exists. Matter is comprised of ever smaller particles, all which are 'forms of energy.' I know of no science anywhere that posits the existence of sort of abstract, Blakean "Energy" (Blake wrote the "Energy is eternal delight"), a substance that is without form and in an of itself exists. I think is partially a matter of semantics. Lots of ATSers and mystics and new agers conceptualize a pure form of energy that flits around, perhaps like a plasma beam from a Ghostbusters' backpack. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but that's not what physicists refer to when they speak of energy. If "energy can exist by itself," I'd love to hear an articulate explanation of how and where, and what its qualities are. Enlighten me, please! As of this moment, your statement sounds utterly meaningless to mine ears.

The "energy" present at the Big Bang was the sum total of all available energy in the closed system we conceptualize as our universe. It was always there, and whatever form it took, it's now our fingers, thoughts, feces, planet, 10 billion-year-old photons, etc. If you're asking "where" it came from, no one can state an answer with absolute certainty. I think it's probable that our universe is not really a closed system, but really a local accretion of gravitationally-bound matter, floating around in a vast 'space,' much like a galaxy floats around in the space of our own cosmos. Further, I think it's probable that this is just the work of Nature, and happens in many locations throughout the vast, infinite space we might term the "multiverse," even though it is really, ulimately, a universe. I suspect that this process has no beginning or end, and is something truly eternal and transcendant, no observer, mysticism or creator necessary.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Before Nothing/Something can be understood or explored, Awareness had to exist first!

And that is of Course is “Consciousness”.

Before anything can exist there first must be Awareness otherwise Nothing at all can manifest or even exist.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



I can relate to the confusion. Science needs to grow to accomodate it, not be rejected as an invalid way to investigate reality.

I can say I have some idea about consciousness and qualia but no idea how to just hand the insight over in words. Every time I try it just has a certain mystical sound to it. It ends up sounding circular and contradictory but it really is not. I'd like to tear the mystery away and will keep working on doing so.

As (vaguely) outlined below, this knowing is somewhat double-edged and thus potentially disasterous for the unprepared mind, perhaps especially one intolerant of ambiguity or one uncomfortable retaining understanding that is quite likely irreducible.


How can we simply demand consciousness be what creates reality when we don't know what consciousness is or how it arises? An exercise such as this might be as faulty as planting an apple seed and concluding an orange tree should grow from it.


No, it's nothing so anthropomorphic. Any being like that is not of ultimate truth. You'll never see me worshipping anything, not even if it came and knocked on my door.

What seems to be the case, truely truly the case is that this "thing" that some would say is "God" really is UNDEFINABLE and INDESCRIBABLE . Any attempts to do so (even my previous assessment) tends to reduce it into the domain of limited knowledge. Noone's trying to pull your leg or get out of anything. Its just an exceedingly difficult position to be in relative to those that haven't experienced.


I find it rather arrogant and presumptuous of others to exclaim that whatever is the causation of the universe must have been at the very least a conscious force and in the extreme as very intelligent and powerful and as always have existed as such.

Why can not the contrary be equally believable? That reality has always existed as it exists but in different states than the state it's in now as the law's of physics demonstrates that it should exist? I find it hypocritical to believe on form of eternal existence must be true but another form can't possible be true. Yet, I am the closed minded one. I know that isn't what your saying, but the statement reminded me of what others openly state about me.


I'm afraid I have to go back in the thread to fully understand the debate between Indigo_Child and yourself and each others' objections and points. From what I did read, I feel I can relate to and process both sides of it. It seemed to be starting to blow up into contentious hostilities (us vs. them) and it doesn't have to go there.


She's just a special case out there in her own little world. She's arguing something that isn't there and despite me demonstrating that the video was wrong in it's claims about what science is saying, she still places those delicate fingers in her ears and screams "I can't hear you." I agree, it doesn't have to get hostile and I would prefer that it doesn't, but if she want's to remain arrogant to her unfounded opinions in light of explicit evidence to the contrary, then that is her own doing.


That's actually a well and humble attitude in my book-- "I don't know". Is that how you honestly approach seeking or is that simply sarcasm? That is only an inquiry.


It's how I approach reality. I don't know much of anything about it and I use that lack of knowledge as the foundation for discovering reality.

I don't know if there is no God up there as the ultimate observer in which creates reality, nor am I against the possibility of one. Simply, because I don't know and I see no evidence by my own observations or cited by others, I will debate till I'm blue in the face when they claim it's an absolute fact. Especially when they start posting erroneous information about what science says, such as the video in this thread.


Perhaps Buddhism is your cup of tea if you would want to personally explore spirituality without many of the elements you seem to find objectionable, except perhaps some sects. It's really more of a metaphysic. It compells no belief in a diety. It doesn't say to kill the nonbeliever (which in truth is actually an allegory to "kill the nonbeliever" in one's self by proving it to one's self, naturally the profane misinterpret such a statement to mean "go kill others who don't subscribe to your dogma"). It does leave itself open to falsification. I wouldn't recommend conflating everything with your perception of Abrahamic faiths or else in my view you're denying yourself something worthwhile.


I've looked into Buddhism very little, but I'm more of a materialist than a spiritualist kind of guy as this is what most of the evidence seems to be pointing to so far. I'm not saying spiritualism isn't true, but that I have my own opinion based on evidences that resist falsifiability rather than evidences based on personal experience alone. I can cite tons of beliefs based on personal experience that we now know were wrong. The only reason I go the Abrahamic route is because it is the most prevalent and widely believed/discussed here on ATS. If other aspects of spirituality are or would be raised, I would be delighted to discuss them as well.


You might consider that in that "I don't know" one piece should be added is that many do have insights that go beyond current formal understanding and trying to congeal them into contemporary encoding is very, very difficult and frustrating. Having personally experienced to some degree, I tend to understand what they are trying to convey but only because I have a grasp of the thoughts that give rise to the language employed. The words really don't have the necessary import on their own, precisely because of its irreducibility. I understand the need to make sense of it and the urgency to do so.


I have this thing against personal experiences, including my own. If I can't find something that is collective of reality, then how can I be one-hundred percent sure that it truly exists to reality?


My best hunch is that religion served to provide quick and easy ways of interpreting this advanced insight that was far beyond intellectual understanding of the times. Slowly our knowledge will bridge the gap and the distortions reduced in communication.


I have my own opinions of religion and why/how it arose. It appears to be a more primitive political system that eventually gave rise to true politics.


If you set upon that dicipline yourself perhaps you would come to know and relate, even if you don't currently believe it to be useful-- perhaps you would ultimately. Contrary to some belief systems, it isn't "special" or unattainable by some select chosen few. It's simply a case of if you don't play, you definitely don't win.


I take such a stance as 'just in case' and I personally can't force myself to strictly follow a path of belief 'just in case'. It also implies that whatever force behind the universe had created the universe with life in mind and that it demands life behave a certain way and rewards such behavior. Yet, when we look at nature itself, there is no inherent set of moral code and as much as we pretend to be a moral species, we truly are not.


As far as pixie dust cupcakes, if I find a recipe I'll share it online. Zombies love cupcakes since they make a wonderful dessert after the brain entree.


HA! Screw that, I say patent the recipe and open shop. A new magical effect in every bite!



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Thanks -- here's a fun one:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by np6888
 



Matter is energy. So energy can exist by itself.


OK, so screw what the science says itself. Your more knowledgeable than the scientists.


The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space).[20][21] For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass.
source


But if we went with the strict definition of energy as being a property of something, then what is that something that all the energy at the time of the Big Bang a part of?


I don't know nor will I attempt to make any attempt at making any factual statement in such regards. I just simply do not know at this time, nor does anyone else on this planet. All I know is what the sciences and religions have to say at this moment, but as has happened many times in the past, both will continuously refine their opinions and views as new evidences and discoveries come to light.

My own personal opinion is that reality has always existed and has always operated as dictated as it should by the laws of physics, but has not always been in the same state as it currently is. I also wouldn't doubt that strange forms of life may have predated this state of existence that operate upon different mechanics than what we currently observe life being ruled by.

We all know we can't get something from nothing and that matter/energy can never be created or destroyed, but instead transition through different states. I personally don't believe the big bang theory is an accurate model of reality as it rests upon too many assumptions and has required unobserved inventions in order to make it work with what we observe of reality. I'm working on my own model based upon my own opinion, but I will never know if that model is real to reality. I just don't know man, all we can do is guess, but never can we claim that guess to be true.









 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join