It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





If consciousness is reducible to the smallest component (subatomic particles), then those subatomic particles must be conscious entities.


Nope, thats not what weak emergence of consciousness implies. It states that the property of consciousness has to be reducible to subatomic particles, contrary to strong emergence which states that its not possible. Weak emergence does not prescribe that the property in question must be present among individual reduced constituents, only that it must be reducible to them.
edit on 19/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


Now you are simply highlighting your own ignorance.

Keep talking.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Again, this is a theory of decoherence, which I covered in the OP.


Except hypothetical many-minds interpretation mentioned in the OP, I dont see much that would support the idea of consciousness being of any special importance. Instead of quantum observation, I prefer "quantum measurement" as to not imply special importance to consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





Again, this is a theory of decoherence, which I covered in the OP.


Except hypothetical many-minds interpretation mentioned in the OP, I dont see much that would support the idea of consciousness being of any special importance. Instead of quantum observation, I prefer "quantum measurement" as to not imply special importance to consciousness.

en.wikipedia.org...


Many minds is derived from many worlds which is derived from decoherence.

Decoherence in itself explains nothing.

Many worlds leads to pure determinism with no room for consciousness other than an emergent epiphenomena.

It's OK if you are a determinist nihilist.

I just don't think you're going to be able to sell many people on that.



edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Many worlds leads to pure determinism with no room for consciousness other than an emergent epiphenomena.

It's OK if you are a determinist nihilist.

I just don't think you're going to be able to sell many people on that.



edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Ah, so I guess in your mind, if determinism exists then somehow consciousness doesn't? Couldn't it have been predetermined for consciousness to exist?

And what does determinism have to do with nihilism? If everything is determined then that means that people some people were meant to believe in a purpose of life and some weren't. Some were meant to believe in free will and some weren't.

And even if he can't sell people on that idea, so what? It's ether true or it isn't whether people like it or not.

And as already pointed out by others, I'm not sure why you are assuming that an "observer" have to have consciousness... It's obvious that you don't understand how that word is being used in Quantum Physics...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Ah, so I guess in your mind, if determinism exists then somehow consciousness doesn't? Couldn't it have been predetermined for consciousness to exist?

And what does determinism have to do with nihilism? If everything is determined then that means that people some people were meant to believe in a purpose of life and some weren't. Some were meant to believe in free will and some weren't.

And even if he can't sell people on that idea, so what? It's ether true or it isn't whether people like it or not.

And as already pointed out by others, I'm not sure why you are assuming that an "observer" have to have consciousness... It's obvious that you don't understand how that word is being used in Quantum Physics...


Cool story bro.

I now realize that you didn't really have a choice in writing that post, just I don't really have a choice in responding to it.

I'm simply on autopilot along for the ride.

As for not understanding the observer in QM, simply saying that "I don't understand" is not proof that I don't understand. I understand it far better than you do. No measurements, no observations, no NOTHING can take place without consciousness.


edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Cool story bro.

I now realize that you didn't really have a choice in writing that post, just I don't really have a choice in responding to it.

I'm simply on autopilot along for the ride.


Whether or not I had a chose, the response was made, and if determinism is true, you are not on autopilot along for the ride, you ARE the ride and it is the laws of physics pushing you forward...


Originally posted by mnemeth1
As for not understanding the observer in QM, simply saying that "I don't understand" is not proof that I don't understand. I understand it far better than you do. No measurements, no observations, no NOTHING can take place without consciousness.


edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


Well if you understand it better than I do, that's terrific. I don't have an ego problem so I don't care if you understand it more. In fact, I love learning so that would be great (and I have done a lot of research on this subject by the way)....

So, why can't anything take place without consciousness and how do you know this? Surely the universe was existing before Earth was made with it's conscious creatures, and if you say there was a greater consciousness behind it all, well how do you know this?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Whether or not I had a chose, the response was made, and if determinism is true, you are not on autopilot along for the ride, you ARE the ride and it is the laws of physics pushing you forward...


If that makes you feel better about not having a choice in anything you do, more power to you.


Originally posted by arpgme
So, why can't anything take place without consciousness and how do you know this?


According to classical QM nothing can take place without observation. According to many worlds, things can take place but there is no possibility of free will. Since I believe I have free will, this is how I know this.


Surely the universe was existing before Earth was made with it's conscious creatures, and if you say there was a greater consciousness behind it all, well how do you know this?


Because of the logical proofs provided in the OP.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
E=MCr

Energy is Memory and it is Circulating and rEpeating

pete and repete was sittin on a fence pete fell off who was left?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
higher biochemical charges increases consciousness
true
check your battery terminals the red pos post and neg post = they have dandruff on it just like a man with a highly charged body has a halo - sun = soul = solar he gets dandruff

non spent sexual energy stored up combined with the natural biochemical body produces a halo and pills cause ills suppressing this - but the energy must flow - it will burst the dams

the earth has a sun
so why not her children?
no soul = no sun
no halo = no soul
no guilt = halo


you must be connected to and naturally so to your mother get grounded - the sun is a mi9rror few can gaze upon - when one does = we see ourself



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Ok, logical proofs can result in much cerebral masturbation - that's great. We can all find a position in which we feel comfortable, emotionally satisfied, or intellectually honest. You previously implied that infinite consciousness, which you don't seem to have defined, is demonstrable through NDEs. Does anyone know of anyone, from the seven billion people on Earth, who is able to produce this state in themselves, by will, and provide data that may be testable and not just anecdotal?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gartharino
Ok, logical proofs can result in much cerebral masturbation - that's great. We can all find a position in which we feel comfortable, emotionally satisfied, or intellectually honest. You previously implied that infinite consciousness, which you don't seem to have defined, is demonstrable through NDEs. Does anyone know of anyone, from the seven billion people on Earth, who is able to produce this state in themselves, by will, and provide data that may be testable and not just anecdotal?


I think if people could invoke such states at will it would be detrimental to the purpose of being here.

The entire purpose of being here is to experience not being "there" in that realm of pure consciousness.

If we could still access that place, then there is no point to even coming here.

Bray relates being alive physically to being in a state of sleep spiritually. I tend to agree with him as it matches human wake/sleep cycles.

Consider that pure consciousness may need to "sleep" by becoming a physical form in the same way humans need to sleep to recharge themselves. So when you go to sleep in the realm of consciousness, you "dream" of being alive in the physical.

In other words, physical reality is the dream and death is an awakening.


edit on 19-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I would like to point out that the book the OP got a lot of this information from is available for free download on Amazon.com. It is called "Quantum Physics, Near Death Experiences, Eternal Consciousness, Religion, and the Human Soul" by William Bray.
I am actually in the middle of reading it myself and immediately recognized the wording and language used.
Link to the Book on Amazon.com
Its quite a long read and I have to re-read a lot of it, but the author does reiterate a lot of points to try to make sure you understand.
One fundamental problem I have with his logic so far is that he is certain that Planck's numbers are undoubtedly the smallest possible length/measurement/mass in our physical universe. I don't know if that is entirely true. What if science just hasn't advanced enough to detect smaller "packets", as he calls them?

EDIT:
I just found out it is free only if you are an Amazon Prime member. Otherwise, its $4.95.
edit on 19-1-2012 by kohaku because:

edit on 19-1-2012 by kohaku because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-1-2012 by kohaku because: spelling errors



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


It's a simplistic argument, but the big bang wouldn't need a creator. If a creator exists, who created the creator? If the creator requires no creator, then neither does the big bang. Neither does consiouness. The concept of a beginning and an end is as much a human creation as time itself.

Conciousness is eternal, in my humble opinion. This incarnation of it may end, but it will evolve and move on. No creator required.


You are the creator. You are required for there to be a big bang (if you disagree... keep thinking about it). You are required for there to be redness and blueness. You are required for there to be coldness versus hotness. You are required for there to be the feeling of cloth brushing against skin, or the feeling of fear due to a loud noise. You are required for someone to "make you feel all warm and fuzzy". And when I say you, I'm not talking about any physical aspect of yourself. I'm talking about the *you*... and you know which you I really mean.

All of these are created by you. We're largely unconscious of how much miraculous creation we are constantly doing. We just consider it "my day". It's the greatest punch line in the history of history.


"Every"one who hasn't gotten this yet keeps forgetting to look under their own cushions for their missing coins.

I see the coins, but I haven't figured out what I want to do with them yet except talk about how neat they are.


Originally posted by Maslo
Why conscious? Unconscious interaction is incapable of collapsing a wavefunction?


The unconscious is merely consciousness hidden behind a veil for the purpose of quality "game play".

Great post OP. What is interesting is once you "get it", the proof is so simple as to seem elementary. Much like almost every "new" scientific discovery once it finally gets over the hump of disbelief.

Thanks!
edit on 2012/1/19 by ErgoTheConfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Given a set of N choices, with N possible values per choice, we can describe the equation Q = N^R where R is the number of choices and N is the number of values per choice. This generates Q unique images.

For each image A in Q there is an image ~A. (Law of contradiction)

Also, the amount of information lost in a given image space is equal to N^R/N or N^(R-1).

For our unvierse this figure N^(R-1) is very large.

If we exist within the universe, and are represented as part of the universe's choice quantity, then clearly we are apart of this lost information. Does this have a relationship to consciousness? I think so.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Jericho123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Fascinating!

Bookmarking for a better read and ponder later. Points 1 and 2 already blew my mind and I need to get some sleep.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by arpgme
Whether or not I had a chose, the response was made, and if determinism is true, you are not on autopilot along for the ride, you ARE the ride and it is the laws of physics pushing you forward...


If that makes you feel better about not having a choice in anything you do, more power to you.


If determinism is true, it still would be a choice, it would just be a choice predetermined.


Originally posted by mnemeth1


Originally posted by arpgme
So, why can't anything take place without consciousness and how do you know this?


According to classical QM nothing can take place without observation. According to many worlds, things can take place but there is no possibility of free will. Since I believe I have free will, this is how I know this.


Ah, ok. So you admit that this is based on the belief in free will.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Quantum Physics Needs No Consciousness

You can interpret QM with consciousness having special place, just like you can interpret electrons to be little devils. But its not scientific to do so when its not required. Physics should not assume dualism, unless explicitly proven. Thats not science (methodological naturalism).



The mechanism for free will would be simple separation of conscious entities in a realm of pure consciousness.


That seems like pointless verbiage to me. Define "pure consciousness" and explain why "simple separation" (whatever you mean by it) would result in such conscious entities having true free will (as opposed to "illusion" of free will). How exactly the true free will differs from illusion of free will? It just pushes the problem of free will of consciousness somewhere else, it does not solve it. Thus its redundant by Occams Razor.

I have come to the consclusion that your concept of true free will requires thoughts to be effect without a cause (in order to not be predetermined by anything). Thats illogical.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I have come to the consclusion that your concept of true free will requires thoughts to be effect without a cause (in order to not be predetermined by anything). Thats illogical.


Well, I don't think that is illogical, but it would be random instead. I don't see anything wrong with that position.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


1) Infinity is just a mathematical concept. It is impossible to have two events an infinite time apart. I also don't see why time has to exists for an infinite period.

2) Not sure what exactly "Einsteinian Quantum Mechanics" is, but the current generally accepted position is that conscious observation is not at all required to collapse a wave function. Unless of course you believe that everything in the universe is conscious. Making the term conscious a hollow term, without any meaning.

Well, I can go on, but I disagree with about all premises you have. Any conclusion derived from it is not sound.
edit on 20-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Cheer OP brilliant stuff, great read.

Or Is this response a result of the whole.....2nd line.....




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join