What happened BEFORE the big bang?, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 14-10-2010 @ 01:18 PM by Astyanax

reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Well, you tried.

Your thread has been ruined by the most obnoxious example of trolling I have ever seen on ATS, and I've been here five years. Sadly, the Ignore button seems to have disappeared, or I for one would have put an end to the annoyance a long time ago.

I'm leaving this thread now, VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep. I advise you, and everyone else who feels as I do, to do the same. Let the Universal Consciousness alone to rave away to itself as it pleases.

'Bye all.

reply posted on 14-10-2010 @ 01:35 PM by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Well, you tried.

Your thread has been ruined by the most obnoxious example of trolling I have ever seen on ATS, and I've been here five years. Sadly, the Ignore button seems to have disappeared, or I for one would have put an end to the annoyance a long time ago.

I'm leaving this thread now, VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep. I advise you, and everyone else who feels as I do, to do the same. Let the Universal Consciousness alone to rave away to itself as it pleases.

'Bye all.

There you go again.

'Channeling' the Angel of the Abyss, whose fundamental goal is division: division of consciousness from the physical reality, division between science and religion, division between "self" and "not self" and between 'thinker' (or 'believer') and 'doubter' (or heretic, infidel, lunatic, troll), division between people, division between religions, division between races, division along economic lines.

Once that division occurs, there is a simultaneous projection of evil upon the 'other'.

That projection of evil is the origin of conflict, and then violence, and then warfare, and then genocide...

And, then, the extermination of the human race.

But you don't care.

You cry and whine that no one will fall down and worship your perspective on reality as the ONLY perspective.

I am NOT demanding that you accept my perspective on this.

All I am suggesting is that this perspective is a viable and alternative perspective to yours.

But that you will NOT permit.

To you, the 'thinker' is 'God'...

A 'God' who shall NOT 'have strange gods before him' who do NOT believe that he is 'God'.

Michael

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 04:33 AM by andre18

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Michael Cecil

I think Micheal did raise a relevant point, where did consciousness come from in regards to the Big Bang theory? Although one may say that consciousness is nothing more than a 'side effect' of evolution, how was 'thought' created out of mere energy and matter?

Wow too easy. Yes conciseness is a side effect of evolution and it came from memory prediction. Prediction leads to intelligent behaviour. We have a memory system called the neocortex - the sensors we have comes up into the neocortex and the neocortex is sitting there memorising all the things that are going on and in the future when you see something similar to that again - the neocortex will play it back.. o iv been here before, so it allows you to predict the future. Thus allowing you to make more intelligent decisions.

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 07:14 AM by atlasastro

reply to post by andre18

Hawkins Memory-prediction framework is likened to, if not described as, being algorithmic in nature.
Hawkin's also bases the Theory on Bio-Directional hierarchies, that is, the system is two way dependent on a system already developed and operating. The bottom up hierarchy and the top down expectations(from memory).

Also, this theory suggest a COMMON algorithm for the whole system, based on machine learning models.

This begs the question.
Who does the programming.

Sorry, had to be said. hehe.

Not to mention, if computers or complex machines can run routines based on similar algorithms with established bio-directional hierarchies with an ability to generate encoded expectation of outcomes from experience, we can expect them to develop consciousness simply as a side effect of memory prediction, just like you state in your post, that our consciousness is a side effect of memory prediction.

Wow, too easy.

It is a good theory, but it is based on to much subjectivity in relation to the predictions and observations used to support it.
IMHO anyway.

edit on 15/10/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 07:29 AM by zeevar

NOTHING...why? Because the Big Bang is only a theory, don't be duped by charlatans in white coats, that's how they make their names, they study things and instead of actually taking things to the next level they come up with a theory.

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 07:50 AM by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I always imagine the universe as expanding to a "breaking" point, then back to nothing, then bang,"break", bang, "break", bang, etc.

Are you at all aware that this kind of thought merely follows the template set out previously by the 'movement' of self-reflection in the creation of the "self"; that is, the consciousness which exists prior to the consciousness of the 'thinker'?

In other words, the 'movement' of self-reflection instantly creates the 'space' within which the consciousness of the "self" exists as different from both other "selves" and the physical reality; then, that "self" completely collapses once it is consumed in one kind of an experience or another. This alternation of an "inflation" of the conscious 'space' and, then, a "collapse" of the conscious 'space' is then projected upon--and asserted as an explanation for the origin of--the 3-dimensional 'curved' space/time reality.

The 'problem' with the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes is the expression of a fear that the conscious 'space' itself is facing an absolute, timeless, and irrversible annihilation.

This is what the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker' is all about: an escape from the collapse of the conscious 'space' by extending that 'space' in 'time' with the thought of the 'thinker'--which is not capable of collapsing.

Thus, thoughts cannot be synthetically separated from the consciousness in which those thoughts originate.

Michael
edit on 14-10-2010 by Michael Cecil because: clarification
edit on 14-10-2010 by Michael Cecil because: spelling error

Your phrasing "are you at all aware" has an annoying condescending tone. If you are saying similar theories are common, I'm sure they are. That doesn't change the fact that this is what I imagine. Sorry if that philosophy makes you feel hopeless or something, your distaste for it is obvious.

edit on 15-10-2010 by GogoVicMorrow because: ...

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 11:34 AM by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrowYour phrasing "are you at all aware" has an annoying condescending tone.

It was certainly not my intention either to annoy you or to be condescending.

What I was trying to say is "Have you ever heard of any explanation of the origin of that thought?"

That was the meaning "at all aware". Have you ever heard anything like this before?

If you are saying similar theories are common, I'm sure they are. That doesn't change the fact that this is what I imagine. Sorry if that philosophy makes you feel hopeless or something, your distaste for it is obvious

At least some of the background I have on this is from the teaching of J. Krishnamurti who observed that thought often functions to end a discussion rather than to contribute to a discussion.

In other words, people get to a point where they come across the answer which is sufficiently pleasurable to them.

They then consider that answer to be satisfactory and stop investigating any further.

I consider such people as not really being serious at all.

Michael

reply posted on 15-10-2010 @ 11:48 AM by Freeborn

Tried to read all the thread but it all got a bit too much and heavy for a relative simpleton like myself.

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this but BBC2 recently broadcast an hour long Horizon programme on this very topic recently.
I enjoyed it as they tried to explain things in layman's terms, a prerequisite for me!

Hope this link works.
www.bbc.co.uk...

reply posted on 16-10-2010 @ 01:40 AM by andre18

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by andre18

Hawkins Memory-prediction framework is likened to, if not described as, being algorithmic in nature.
Hawkin's also bases the Theory on Bio-Directional hierarchies, that is, the system is two way dependent on a system already developed and operating. The bottom up hierarchy and the top down expectations(from memory).

Also, this theory suggest a COMMON algorithm for the whole system, based on machine learning models.

This begs the question.
Who does the programming.

Have no idea about "Bio-Directional hierarchies" but the programming? You mean A G C T?....

we can expect them to develop consciousness simply as a side effect of memory prediction, just like you state in your post, that our consciousness is a side effect of memory prediction.

Well yeah, in fact i would expect computers to eventually become conscious because of memory prediction. But it took billions of years to get this far evolutionary wise, so even with computers it would still take hundreds of thousands of years before that happened - that's computers becoming aware without us making them aware ourselves. You see, at the moment computers are just analysing binary 1's and 0's so they can't evolve any conciseness in a billion cozillion years.

However, in the future say 50 years we'll most likely understand the human brain to the point where you could apply memory prediction in computers and at that point of course the more we learn from the brain the more we can apply to computers making them more smart, more conscious, more aware. Dude my theory is sound.

Too easy.

edit on 16-10-2010 by andre18 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-10-2010 @ 02:46 AM by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrowYour phrasing "are you at all aware" has an annoying condescending tone.

It was certainly not my intention either to annoy you or to be condescending.

What I was trying to say is "Have you ever heard of any explanation of the origin of that thought?"

That was the meaning "at all aware". Have you ever heard anything like this before?

If you are saying similar theories are common, I'm sure they are. That doesn't change the fact that this is what I imagine. Sorry if that philosophy makes you feel hopeless or something, your distaste for it is obvious

At least some of the background I have on this is from the teaching of J. Krishnamurti who observed that thought often functions to end a discussion rather than to contribute to a discussion.

In other words, people get to a point where they come across the answer which is sufficiently pleasurable to them.

They then consider that answer to be satisfactory and stop investigating any further.

I consider such people as not really being serious at all.

Michael

It's cool, but I wasn't trying to end discussion with my thought. That's why I said I "imagine" as opposed to this is the way it is. So quite the opposite, I remain agnostic for the same reason.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 07:44 AM by scratchmane

I've said it before:

The question of what came before and/or after is only valid behind the illusion of Time.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 12:36 PM by Freeborn

reply to post by scratchmane

Please explain how time is an illusion.

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 01:42 PM by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by scratchmane

Please explain how time is an illusion.

This does not directly answer your question; but, in reverse speech analysis, it has been found that meaning is encoded in language in both a time forward direction--which conveys information from the consciousness of the 'thinker'--as well as in a time-reversed direction--which conveys information from the 'unconscious' or the consciousness of the "self". This has been used in counseling in order to listen directly to what the patient or client is saying at the level of the 'unconscious'; in a manner much more direct than dream interpretation.

In addition, you may want to Google "time symmetrical quantum mechanics" and some of the more recent findings with regards to how physics is looking at the whole subject of time.

Michael

reply posted on 19-10-2010 @ 02:25 PM by Riffrafter

Originally posted by exmilitaryportuguesenavy
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Imagine a black hole, all light energy and matter is sucked in and never left. Now I wonder where he goes all light energy and matter that is sucked into this black hole? probably will accumulate inside of the black hole and going out the other side forming a BIG BANG, I do not know, but this is my theory, our universe emerged from a black hole. Big Bang, Explosion of light what a coincidence isn't it? Sorry for my english

Thanks for the post and your English is a helluva lot better than my Portuguese.

Just a point of information, we do now know that Black holes emit an enormous amount of energy in the form of radiation (non-visible) so it's probably a good guess that at least some of the stuff getting "sucked in" can be accounted for in that form. Exactly how that happens or for that matter everything that happens inside a black hole is all conjecture and theory at this point...

Happy hunting...

reply posted on 24-10-2010 @ 02:54 AM by Luminakisharblaze

Before anything else was in this Universe it was an intelligent void. It was wrapped (well still is) by a Universe of light/love energy. Until that energy broke through and slowed its energy down in bits to the individual frequencies required, the light and the dark were separate. There was a kind of chaotic order to this void, but no form or substance.

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^