It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When my consciousness ceases, I cease to observe reality, this does not imply that reality itself ceases to exist altogether.
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.
Originally posted by Algebra
A lot to think about.
What is your backround by the way? if you dont mind me asking
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.
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.
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.
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 #.
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"...
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.
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.
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.
In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working") 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.
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.
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]
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
Matter is energy. So energy can exist by itself.
The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space). For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass.
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?