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: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   
I have been on a big Walter Russell kick lately. I really like the way he explains the Universe and creation. Here is one of his ideas:

"Failure to recognize that this universal body of moving matter has been created by some power outside of itself has led science to conclude that the energy which created matter is within itself. Even more erroneous is the conclusion that energy is a condition of matter.

This universe of matter-in-motion is a Mind-conceived, Mind-creating body. As such it is as much a product of Mind as a pair of shoes, a poem, a symphony, or a tunnel under a mountain is a product of Mind which conceived it, and motivated the action which produced it as a formed body of matter.

The poem is not the poet, however, nor is the symphony its composer. In a like sense this universe is not its own Creator. Whatever qualities or attributes there are in any product- whether it be an adding machine or a universe - have been extended to that product by their creator to manifest qualities, attributes, and energies which are alone in the creator of that product.

Nor is the IDEA which matter manifests within matter. IDEA is never create. Idea is a Mind quality. Idea never leaves the omniscient Light of Mind. Idea is but simulated by matter-in-motion.

IDEA never leaves its invisible state to become visible matter. bodies which manifest IDEA are made in the image of their creator's imaginings.

Every creation, whether of God or man, is an extension of its creator. It is projected from him by force which is within its creator and not in the projected product.

All of the knowledge, energy, and method of creating products are properties of Mind alone. There is no knowledge, energy, life form, substance, or thought in the motion which matter is."



So for me.... creation is put forth from the intent of Mind and is created in the image of the creator. The actual creation is not the creator. That is why it is hard for us to understand. The words written down on the paper are not the poem or the idea of the poem. How could the painting understand the painter. We CAN understand with knowing. Not thinking. Deep stuff to me. I love it.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
Consciousness is the game-changer for the thinking person imo. Science generally sidesteps the issue as the implications don't compute with the current models they've bought into. It's so elusive to that mindset that most ignore it...or attempt to explain it away.

I've come to believe that consciousness is the one and only "indivisible" thing in the universe. Consciousness, to me, is one of the main reasons that a conscious "God" is indeed plausible.

Superior OP, thanks for sharing.

i both agree and disagree with you.
i believe consciousness is inherent in all living things (bacteria, etc.)
I dont beleive consciousness is one and only indivisible thing in the universe.
first there are many different forms of consciousness (plants, life, etc) so already it is divided.
two, I am under the assumption that consciousness encompasses metabolic functions, or we are talking about god, again.
my 2 c.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by cplouffe
I have been on a big Walter Russell kick lately. I really like the way he explains the Universe and creation. Here is one of his ideas:

"Failure to recognize that this universal body of moving matter has been created by some power outside of itself has led science to conclude that the energy which created matter is within itself. Even more erroneous is the conclusion that energy is a condition of matter.

This universe of matter-in-motion is a Mind-conceived, Mind-creating body. As such it is as much a product of Mind as a pair of shoes, a poem, a symphony, or a tunnel under a mountain is a product of Mind which conceived it, and motivated the action which produced it as a formed body of matter.

The poem is not the poet, however, nor is the symphony its composer. In a like sense this universe is not its own Creator. Whatever qualities or attributes there are in any product- whether it be an adding machine or a universe - have been extended to that product by their creator to manifest qualities, attributes, and energies which are alone in the creator of that product.

Nor is the IDEA which matter manifests within matter. IDEA is never create. Idea is a Mind quality. Idea never leaves the omniscient Light of Mind. Idea is but simulated by matter-in-motion.

IDEA never leaves its invisible state to become visible matter. bodies which manifest IDEA are made in the image of their creator's imaginings.

Every creation, whether of God or man, is an extension of its creator. It is projected from him by force which is within its creator and not in the projected product.

All of the knowledge, energy, and method of creating products are properties of Mind alone. There is no knowledge, energy, life form, substance, or thought in the motion which matter is."



So for me.... creation is put forth from the intent of Mind and is created in the image of the creator. The actual creation is not the creator. That is why it is hard for us to understand. The words written down on the paper are not the poem or the idea of the poem. How could the painting understand the painter. We CAN understand with knowing. Not thinking. Deep stuff to me. I love it.

i think i can rephrase that simpler.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.


If you disagree, then you either believe QM is wrong or that you have no free will. As I pointed out in the OP, there are only two ways to interpret QM. Either conscious observation is necessary to collapse the wave function or it is not. If you follow the line of QM that says conscious observation is not required, then the only possible conclusion is pure nihilism.

If you are a determinist nihilist, this is fine. You believe that you don't really have a choice to believe anything differently. In which case, I don't really have any choice but to feel sorry for you.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.



If you disagree, then you either believe QM is wrong or that you have no free will. As I pointed out in the OP, there are only two ways to interpret QM. Either conscious observation is necessary to collapse the wave function or it is not. If you follow the line of QM that says conscious observation is not required, then the only possible conclusion is pure nihilism.

If you are a determinist nihilist, this is fine. You believe that you don't really have a choice to believe anything differently. In which case, I don't really have any choice but to feel sorry for you.



...or.....consciousness can arise out of nothing (at the point of he collapse of the wave function)....I personally would believe this. but its not an issue, and not part of my belief system.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
...or.....consciousness can arise out of nothing (at the point of he collapse of the wave function)....I personally would believe this. but its not an issue, and not part of my belief system.


Then you believe QM is wrong and are basing your beliefs on faith alone. This too is fine. We are all entitled to believe whatever we want no matter if those beliefs reject scientific fact or not.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You could argue who we should feel sorry for, for people who accept their fate, or for people who can't live with it. I have yet to find a reason why it matters whether there is free will or not. As long as we don't know the outcome, it is good enough for me. Still, I don't think the world is deterministic, I believe that there is also randomness. Meaning that not only we do not know the outcome of a choice, but also that we can't possibly know it.

Anyway, my point was more that your story is mere speculation, originating from a desire that there is "more". It is not a logical proof.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by BBalazs
...or.....consciousness can arise out of nothing (at the point of he collapse of the wave function)....I personally would believe this. but its not an issue, and not part of my belief system.


Then you believe QM is wrong and are basing your beliefs on faith alone. This too is fine. We are all entitled to believe whatever we want no matter if those beliefs reject scientific fact or not.

i don't think so.
you are basing YOUR ideas on faith.
My idea of inflection point of consciousness is wave within a wave within a wave,
QM in not the end.
It is the beginning.
In time we will understand better,
It is not finished, as you are proposing, based on what YOU would LIKE to BELIEVE.
Got ya.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You could argue who we should feel sorry for, for people who accept their fate, or for people who can't live with it. I have yet to find a reason why it matters whether there is free will or not. As long as we don't know the outcome, it is good enough for me. Still, I don't think the world is deterministic, I believe that there is also randomness. Meaning that not only we do not know the outcome of a choice, but also that we can't possibly know it.

Anyway, my point was more that your story is mere speculation, originating from a desire that there is "more". It is not a logical proof.


If determinism is true, I don't have a choice about who I feel sorry for. I'm just here for the ride, my feelings are not my own. I have no control over anything.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You could argue who we should feel sorry for, for people who accept their fate, or for people who can't live with it. I have yet to find a reason why it matters whether there is free will or not. As long as we don't know the outcome, it is good enough for me. Still, I don't think the world is deterministic, I believe that there is also randomness. Meaning that not only we do not know the outcome of a choice, but also that we can't possibly know it.

Anyway, my point was more that your story is mere speculation, originating from a desire that there is "more". It is not a logical proof.

There is randomness?
Of course. The universe is both entropic and extropic.
Talk about randomness.
Don't you understand plb, this guy needs to KNOW, right NOW.
When as you have pointed out, we don't have to make up our MINDS.
His proof is not proof at all, just a twisted logic, created GOD.
Why, because of dualities.
He can only think in daulities, good vs bad.
When there is no such thing in the universe.
There simply is.
And it creates.
End of.
all else is interference.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by BBalazs
...or.....consciousness can arise out of nothing (at the point of he collapse of the wave function)....I personally would believe this. but its not an issue, and not part of my belief system.


Then you believe QM is wrong and are basing your beliefs on faith alone. This too is fine. We are all entitled to believe whatever we want no matter if those beliefs reject scientific fact or not.

i don't think so.
you are basing YOUR ideas on faith.
My idea of inflection point of consciousness is wave within a wave within a wave,
QM in not the end.
It is the beginning.
In time we will understand better,
It is not finished, as you are proposing, based on what YOU would LIKE to BELIEVE.
Got ya.


If you don't believe in QM, that's OK. You can have whatever religious beliefs you choose.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I have yet to find a reason why it matters whether there is free will or not. As long as we don't know the outcome, it is good enough for me. Still, I don't think the world is deterministic, I believe that there is also randomness. Meaning that not only we do not know the outcome of a choice, but also that we can't possibly know it.

Anyway, my point was more that your story is mere speculation, originating from a desire that there is "more". It is not a logical proof.


There is no speculation. QM is clear about the need for an observer to collapse a wave function. Stating the clear mechanics of QM is not speculation.

If you don't think the world is deterministic and you believe QM to be true, then according to QM, you believe consciousness is infinite and external to the physical brain. There is no other logical choice.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Are you arguing, that an Artificial Intelligence cannot become conscious since consciousness is external?

I have always been leaning toward the simulation hypothesis, since day after day our virtual world simulations that run on our computers become more and more indistinguishable from reality. Artificial intelligence is yet in its infancy, but even there we have programs capable of same level of reasoning as some small animals like rodents. It is not long till we have mastered monkeys and dolphins - eventually humans.

So while i find this thread thought provoking, i cannot see the evidence you present to justify your interpretation.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by BBalazs
...or.....consciousness can arise out of nothing (at the point of he collapse of the wave function)....I personally would believe this. but its not an issue, and not part of my belief system.


Then you believe QM is wrong and are basing your beliefs on faith alone. This too is fine. We are all entitled to believe whatever we want no matter if those beliefs reject scientific fact or not.

i don't think so.
you are basing YOUR ideas on faith.
My idea of inflection point of consciousness is wave within a wave within a wave,
QM in not the end.
It is the beginning.
In time we will understand better,
It is not finished, as you are proposing, based on what YOU would LIKE to BELIEVE.
Got ya.


If you don't believe in QM, that's OK. You can have whatever religious beliefs you choose.

if i don't believe in something it doesn't make me religious. you are absorbing this to me, as i have proven you theory wrong.
and so you go into another, more dangerous and judgmental logical fallacy - presuming to know what I think and believe.
I told you what I think, and its perfectly valid, you just don't care to see it.
I have not told you what I believe, ut we all NOW KNOW, you are a religious nut hell bent onproveing your precious god.
Good luck.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by varikonniemi
Are you arguing, that an Artificial Intelligence cannot become conscious since consciousness is external?

I have always been leaning toward the simulation hypothesis, since day after day our virtual world simulations that run on our computers become more and more indistinguishable from reality. Artificial intelligence is yet in its infancy, but even there we have programs capable of same level of reasoning as some small animals like rodents. It is not long till we have mastered monkeys and dolphins - eventually humans.

So while i find this thread thought provoking, i cannot see the evidence you present to justify your interpretation.

an artificial intelligence has no metabolical functions.
it is not alive.
end of story.
Debunked.
Its just a theory.
If your faith dictates believe it. Otherwise nothing to see here.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by varikonniemi
Are you arguing, that an Artificial Intelligence cannot become conscious since consciousness is external?

I have always been leaning toward the simulation hypothesis, since day after day our virtual world simulations that run on our computers become more and more indistinguishable from reality. Artificial intelligence is yet in its infancy, but even there we have programs capable of same level of reasoning as some small animals like rodents. It is not long till we have mastered monkeys and dolphins - eventually humans.

So while i find this thread thought provoking, i cannot see the evidence you present to justify your interpretation.


If you don't see the evidence, then you don't understand the arguments.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is no speculation. QM is clear about the need for an observer to collapse a wave function. Stating the clear mechanics of QM is not speculation.


No, thats what you made up. Your speculation.


If you don't think the world is deterministic and you believe QM to be true, then according to QM, you believe consciousness is infinite and external to the physical brain. There is no other logical choice.


Like I said, there is randomness. Your "logical proof" is just speculation, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There is no speculation. QM is clear about the need for an observer to collapse a wave function. Stating the clear mechanics of QM is not speculation.


No, thats what you made up. Your speculation.


If you don't think the world is deterministic and you believe QM to be true, then according to QM, you believe consciousness is infinite and external to the physical brain. There is no other logical choice.


Like I said, there is randomness. Your "logical proof" is just speculation, nothing more.

ha, finally you realize we are dealing with a dualistic mind here, who looks for god and finds it in the impossibility of two theories he has set up, when I have offered a third, and likely there are hundreds.
He needs to believe.
Do you pls?
I have no need for believe myself.
I am a travel, I schooler.
I seek to know, not to believe.
Ha.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, thats what you made up. Your speculation.


Ummm no. If you would like to demonstrate where I'm wrong, please feel free. You can read it right from wiki's page or you can read it in any number of scientific journals. I was nice enough to provide you links for this purpose.


Originally posted by -PLB-Like I said, there is randomness. Your "logical proof" is just speculation, nothing more.


Citing the theory itself is not speculation. I'm not speculating about anything.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Here is what wikipedia says:
"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer."

APPEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do you understand the concept?
It is not understood.
It is not the end, only the beginning for QM.
Or should they just stop there? Just cause the great nemethhas said, STOP!
This point is convenient for my FAITH?!
Sheees, you probably would have done the same with the atom.
SAD.


If it were so, then APPEAR would be absent from sentence.


BUSTED!

God nut.

edit on 20-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join