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.
Originally posted by EnlightenUp
In a strictly physical aspect, thought is action.
Brain activity cannot proceed [precede?] thought if thought is brain activity neither can thought proceed [precede?] brain activity if brain activity is thought. That's sheer nonsense if they are equivalent. I suppose you're saying there is brain activity that isn't thought and all thought is brain activity, a subset thereof, therefore brain activity that is not thought proceeds brain activity that is thought. If you say "brain activity proceeds thought, then thought is experienced (which is brain activity)" what's experiencing it? Other brain activity? What about experience that isn't thought?
Why would a "conscious" subroutine need to be conscious and what make such a thing more capable of difficult decisions than a configuation of neurons and associated electrical patterns that do the same but is not conscious?
It seems obvious conscious experience would change if the unconscious processes were changed...
...thus leading one to wonder if there are in fact truely unconscious processes at all. It simply may be a case of losing track of it, ie. not to be remembered in the following moment.
You mentioned that there must be a place where there is no time? Yes, that is in fact this material world. Time is comparing one apparent movement pattern against another. There are clocks. The brain is a clock as well.
It hit me all on my own that strictly multiple consciousnesses (the kind that is not a philosophical zombie) make no sense at all.
And yes, plodding obsessive reason... is a critical tool in forming a synthesis... If I were in that awareness now, I could not converse with you.
To what level do you compare non-reductionist/non-materialist ideas to stereotypical Abrahamic notions like "God is a separate, personal and authoritative entity"?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Before you determine that synchronicity exists, you'd need a study that involved a large sample of people. And every 'meaningful but apparently causeless' coincidence reported by your sample would have to be carefully investigated to establish that it was actually causeless. This would be very hard*. Pareidolia would certainly have to be taken into account--and eliminated. Have you done that?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Dogmatic refusal to believe something, against compelling evidence that it is true, is not scepticism but superstition. It is important not to confuse the two. I do not.
*Ontologically speaking it would be impossible, since all events have causes.
Originally posted by timewalker
It happens to me almost daily. Mostly with television or radio. Sometimes I think of a friend out of the blue and they end up calling that day. Just earlier tonight I was looking at previous works of James Cameron and saw he did True Lies with the Governator and I thought about always getting the title confused with Total Recall and I went to turn on thee TV. Low and behold True Lies was on. Pretty boring I know but it is just fresh off the old noggin.
It's a good thing to be in sync with the universe.