posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
The notion of consciousness as nothing but information processing in the brain leads logically to the mathematical universe hypothesis, in
which case whether we are in a "Matrix" simulation or not is irrelevant because all possible realities must exist (consciousness as information
processing = ability to produce consciousness in a computer simulation = ability to produce consciousness by pencil and paper = consciousness is
really just "in the math" and therefore every "mathematically possible" consciousness must exist).
I'll readily agree that consciousness arises from information processing, but one needs something physical in order to process that information,
which is where the brain comes into play. Then we need some way to receive information, which is where our five sensory organs come into play. If any
of those systems fail, so then do our ability to function in reality. Without the sensory organs working properly, damaged in some way or the workings
altered by drug usage we lose ability to perceive various aspects of reality, but regardless of that loss or skewed function reality still maintains
the same. If your tripping on shrooms, feeling no pain due to anesthesia and knocked unconscious from a tranquilizer... if I throw you to the lions
it'll still eat you.
Point is, the rest of reality doesn't care how you perceive it or if you do at all. Your conscious mind won't affect how it works.
reply to post by Itisnowagain
What do you consider 'peer reviewed report'?
If you want someone to present you a convincing other perspective, the least you could do is watch all three.
I think assuming that the world is built of solid little blocks, atoms lead to cells, that lead to molecules and then to brain and then out of that
comes consciousness is where science has gone wrong . Consciousness is primary, first there was nothing.
The peer review process keeps people from having any claim wildly published without fact verification. I disagree with the first there was nothing
stance because there is no such thing as nothingness. One also has to think, if matter can't arise from nothingness, then how does energy,
consciousness, God(s), universes, multiverses, etc. You can't claim x arose from nothing, but then nothing else can but that one thing.
reply to post by Communicater
And here all the time I thought the banks/investment firms having their own private federal reserve corporation who can tell treasury to print
worthless money from thin air with no backing was number one on the hit parade...
Well, I consider that more of a recent economic development. Religion has been around since the very first time we asked what where when how and why.
reply to post by Buddha1098
War is clearly the world's best business my friend.
I consider this also a more recent economic issue. War in ancient history, primarily the bloody murderous wars from the Christians was more for
pushing their religious beliefs forcibly upon the world than it was for economic gain. Religion has always stood financial gain throughout history,
first from sacrificial offerings, then "donations" of food and beverage to the "God(s)" (more like priests), then monetary donations, etc.
Religion has always always stood to gain something in return for peddling it's beliefs.