Is Matter Self Aware?

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
A percept needs to have an object that is perceived.


No, a percept IS an object that is perceived. Do you even know what you are talking about?


If it can be argued that objects are indeed only thought, why don't you do so? I am interested to hear how you can deny the universe and all the evidence that shows otherwise.


I have just done so. Did you read?



Finally. An argument. It's about time you grew a pair and entered the ring.


This has been the argument from the beginning. I think instead of saying "Finally an argument," it would be more correct to say "Finally I comprehend the argument."

We were arguing the nature of thought, and we have already concluded that consciousness is thought. You can not have one without the other, they are one in the same.



Your argument is liken to me saying Dog is a cat.


If that's how you comprehend it, I'm afraid you're more lost than I had originally thought. What a shame.


If this is what you think consciousness is, why didn't you just use the word 'thought' in the beginning? We apparently weren't even arguing about the same thing.


I did. Go back to our very first comments....it's not that difficult.



Now that we have your initial contradiction sorted out, and I am finally conscious of the fact you think that every single thing in the universe is thought rather than consciousness, I finally have a grasp on your foundation.


Consciousness = thought, so you can either say everything is thought, or everything is consciousness. Either works for me.



First of all, there is no empirical evidence to support your claims.


I have already stated I am not in the position to argue my beliefs as fact (my beliefs being that thought [consciousness] creates our physical universe) because thought is intangible. It has no way to be described through the limiting factors of language. I simply asked you to explain the process in which a thought is formed since you claim that thought is solely a function of the brain without any metaphysical involvement. If it is purely physical, then there must be empirical evidence to support your claim. However, there is not, because as has already been concluded, there is no known mechanism of the human brain responsible for the conscious experience. This is why you fail.


Even descartes thought the physical world existed (but you would only know that if you read his work), yet you have the audacity to use his overused quote to support your claim.


I've read much of his work.
Descartes concluded that thought is the only thing he can be sure of, as other sensory perceptions have been wrong before, therefore he can doubt their reliability. Thought, the fact that he is conscious and experiencing, is the only thing one can be absolutely sure of. He concluded that since he was able to doubt, someone or something must be doing the doubting, therefore it is proof of his existence.



Second, if the universe is illusory, then all your thoughts, ideas, consciousness and every ideal you cling to would be illusory as well. Or do they somehow not reside in the universe?


My beliefs are more along the lines that thought (consciousness) is the only absolute, and all that there is. What we perceive as our universe is only interpreted through our sensory functions, therefore I can doubt its authenticity.



Third, how you can even conceive of mind without matter defies all logic and common sense.


No, it doesn't, as much as you'd like to pretend it does.


Even Descartes knew this.


Again, I am confident that Descartes would be siding with me on this one. Sensory perceptions are faulty, therefore unreliable.
edit on 7-16-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by warpig221
 


Very good. I know a great mind when I see it. You've made some very sound arguments despite the douchebaggery.

If I allow you the benefit of the doubt we find that you find your perceptions and senses are thoughts, your body and anything physical are thoughts, your organs, brain and thoughts are mere thoughts. All you have is your thoughts. This I will concede. Yet your reductio ad absurdum changes nothing for me—the figment of your imagination you've been arguing with all day.

Your body, as a figment of your imagination, is unable to become etherial and walk through other imaginary objects. Your imaginary brain gets imaginary injured and yet your eternal thought or consciousness is impeded. Thought itself is just a thought for you, yet not bound by the same conditions you place every other thought. Perception is a thought, yet illusory. The physical world is a thought, yet illusory. Thought is thought, yet not illusory? Thought is real, but the thought of perception or the physical world is not real? And now I realize that I too am just one of your thoughts, and as you forget about me, I disappear like smoke in the wind—but that smoke in the wind is just thought, and the wind too, and these words, it's all consciousness.

You've convinced me.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


That's what I like to read!

And hey, sometimes a little douchebaggery is needed to spice things up a little


I might shoot you a PM tomorrow because I have a few questions for ya. Nevertheless, philosophical debates are always an interest to me so thanks. Hope to see you around on some other topics.

Peace



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





That's your problem, you expect too much.


Ehm, this is what I said,




Like I expected, like many skeptics, you don't even know what you are talking about exactly.


So if you say I expect too much, as an answer to that comment, it would mean that you don´t even know what you are talking about at all. You are saying that I should expect even less of you, lol.




Show me anything besides a youtube video that corroborates your claims.


Buddy, you responded to the YT vid suggesting its assertions were wrong. It is up to you to tell us why they are wrong.

As long as you refuse, I can´t really respond to disprove your words, can I?

Explain to us what mechanism is letting the wave function collapse in the DS experiment described in that YT vid?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by warpig221
 


We can only prove that everything happens within our perception, we cannot prove that anything happens or exists outside of our perception.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by warpig221
 


We can only prove that everything happens within our perception, we cannot prove that anything happens or exists outside of our perception.


There is really nothing outside of our perception. There are only things which lie outside of our ability to perceive through our 5 senses. We can still become aware of these things that lie beyond the senses, because they are located within thought. I think it's very important to become aware of these things because then we realize that there is nothing to prove, because proving something within our sensory functions is only illusory. The real 'proof' is in what we all intuitively know, we just all have to find our ways to remember.
edit on 7-17-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by warpig221
 


I´m sorry I responded to the wrong guy again.

And I didn´t mean it like that exactly.

But I know what you mean, I remember.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


LOL oh it's cool hahaha



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


I think the idea of matter being self aware is pretty cool but why can't matter exist and yet no one be aware of it or in turn itself? Why can't it just be there even if no one knows or thinks of it being there?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by irontalon
Why can't it just be there even if no one knows or thinks of it being there?


Because quantum physics seems to be telling us that without being observed, matter acts as a wave of potentiality with no fixed position in space. Only the act of observing causes the waves of potentiality to act as particles and become fixated at a certain position in space.

So for example, the question "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" would seemingly be answered as no, because an observer is needed to witness the falling of the tree and interpret the vibrations as sound.
edit on 7-17-12 by warpig221 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
]consciousness wouldn't exist without matter.



I think it's funny that you speak like you know for certain.

Please point us to the biochemical process responsible for the conscious experience. I eagerly await.


I think its funny you speak as if you know for certain.

Please point me to consciousness without matter. I eagerly await. But I won't hold my breath.


If consciousness can effect matter beyond the confines of the human body (i.e the double slit experiment) would not the next logical step suggest that consciousness is not bound by matter, and therefore does not need it to exist....?


You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Either way, interpretations are only conjecture.
edit on 16-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)


I have; and what you say is not completely true. There are many eminent physicists who support the consciousness hypothesis. They may not be all be prepared to take their quite as far as those who made such docos as 'What The Bleep', you also have to keep in mind of the 10 or 11 scientists who appeared on that film only one disagreed with the films conclsions.

There have also been double blind experiments conducted which prove the effects are caused by human observation and have nothing to do with proximity of the recording equipment etc. While the conclusions regarding consciousness actually causing effects in reality on a macro scale maybe be a little far-fetched for many scientists who quite rightly will only take their conculsions as far as what can be proven experimentally, there is one fact which cannot be ignored.

The human mind effects the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe

This is a proven fact and shows that the human consciousness is not bound by the physical body. What conclusions you make after this short of further scientific experimentation are your own but it opens a rabbit hole which questions the very nature of reality as we know it.

Also while it doesn't completely disprove your premise of 'consciousness without matter', (in fact this would be almost impossible as there is matter everywhere in the universe in various concentrations) it does , as I have stated already, show that the mind can and does effect other matter beyond the confines of the physical human shell.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by warpig221

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
]consciousness wouldn't exist without matter.



I think it's funny that you speak like you know for certain.

Please point us to the biochemical process responsible for the conscious experience. I eagerly await.


I think its funny you speak as if you know for certain.

Please point me to consciousness without matter. I eagerly await. But I won't hold my breath.


If consciousness can effect matter beyond the confines of the human body (i.e the double slit experiment) would not the next logical step suggest that consciousness is not bound by matter, and therefore does not need it to exist....?


You should look into the double split experiment a bit more and read the what the physicists and reviewers have to say. The only ones who assert that it is consciousness affecting the result are pseudo-scientists such as Deepak Chopra who aim to fit it into their biased metaphysics and men who are trying to sell books.

Either way, interpretations are only conjecture.
edit on 16-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)


I have; and what you say is not completely true. There are many eminent physicists who support the consciousness hypothesis. They may not be all be prepared to take their quite as far as those who made such docos as 'What The Bleep', you also have to keep in mind of the 10 or 11 scientists who appeared on that film only one disagreed with the films conclsions.

There have also been double blind experiments conducted which prove the effects are caused by human observation and have nothing to do with proximity of the recording equipment etc. While the conclusions regarding consciousness actually causing effects in reality on a macro scale maybe be a little far-fetched for many scientists who quite rightly will only take their conculsions as far as what can be proven experimentally, there is one fact which cannot be ignored.

The human mind effects the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe

This is a proven fact and shows that the human consciousness is not bound by the physical body. What conclusions you make after this short of further scientific experimentation are your own but it opens a rabbit hole which questions the very nature of reality as we know it.

Also while it doesn't completely disprove your premise of 'consciousness without matter', (in fact this would be almost impossible as there is matter everywhere in the universe in various concentrations) it does , as I have stated already, show that the mind can and does effect other matter beyond the confines of the physical human shell.



The human mind effects how we view the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe

It's solipsistic to think our own consciousness can affect matter, despite the fact nothing has proven that mind can affect matter. We only wish it to be true. It's self-centeredness, and can be debunked by going outside and trying to affect matter with the mind. It just doesn't happen. There's too many variables to just conclude that "it must've been because we were watching it."

Second, we don't live on a quantum level. Nothing does.

These experiments tell us more about humans, the human processes and the way our equipment works than they tell us about the universe. We draw the lines on the map, we make the equipment, we come up with the experiments. We measure them, calculate them and dream up conclusions. It tells us more about how we work.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





It's solipsistic to think our own consciousness can affect matter, despite the fact nothing has proven that mind can affect matter. We only wish it to be true. It's self-centeredness, and can be debunked by going outside and trying to affect matter with the mind. It just doesn't happen. There's too many variables to just conclude that "it must've been because we were watching it."


No there are no variables. The experiments are setup in a way so that there are no outside forces influencing the particles in the exp.

Like a previous poster pointed out, these experiments also prove that it´s not the measuring devices that are responsible for the wave collapse.

Some also show that the signature of an entangled particle, showing if its path could be determined or not,, that should have materialised at point A in a moment in the past, seems to materialise in the present as soon as the conscious observer checks the entangled partner particle at point B and obtains the which path info, or not, resulting in a non interference pattern, or an interference pattern at A.

Point A is checked second and the result always lines up with what the observer learned at B.

The outcome at A depends on the outcome at B, yet the detection at A had already happened when the result of point B was still open and random.

In order for these quantum results to be possible, there has to be a mechanism that is communicating between particles. The only thing connecting them is the consciousness of the observer, and the result always corresponds to what he knows, which is something that would be impossible if they were not controlled by the human observer.

And it´s not like we can control reality directly.

It´s more like we are game console running a game, and rendering our surroundings driven by a main program.

We can "control" a particle in these experiments because we force it to make a choice, by "looking" at it.

And like I said it "travels throught time" or at least information does, forcing a past result to line up with our first observation made in the present, in order to make "reality" fit, and "make sense" according to what we know at that point.




Second, we don't live on a quantum level. Nothing does.


This is so incredibly ignorant.

Everything you see has a quantum level beneath the surface. Quantum particles are the base of our "reality".

Our consciousness can influence the very particles that make up atoms wich make up matter. Even atom sized particles if I'm not mistaken.

So jeah, something "magical" is going on. Get used to it.
edit on 18-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


No there are no variables. The experiments are setup in a way so that there are no outside forces influencing the particles in the exp.


Name one place in the universe where there are no outside forces influencing particles. There isn't such a place. Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does.

Everything else you said is based on a variable-less, completely synthetic, man made, man conceived, void of nature, observed by instruments and entirely unnatural version of the universe. Explain to me how this translates into reality?



So jeah, something "magical" is going on. Get used to it.


You've discovered the answers of life on youtube. I'm used to that because it happens all too often.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Like I established mutiple posts back, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I tried to explain to you why these result are so remarkable but you just seem to ignore that, and you clearly don't know which experiments I'm talking about, referring to YT.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

arstechnica.com...




Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does.


Again, these experiments prove that the intstruments don't influence the wave function. you have no clue buddy, like most of the skeptics I encounter.

I have no explanation for reality, but these experiments prove that our consciousness can influence particles that are the buildingblocks of our reality.
edit on 18-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Like I established mutiple posts back, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

I tried to explain to you why these result are so remarkable but you just seem to ignore that, and you clearly don't know which experiments I'm talking about, referring to YT.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

arstechnica.com...




Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does.


Again, these experiments prove that the intstruments don't influence the wave function. you have no clue buddy, like most of the skeptics I encounter.
edit on 18-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)


Again, Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does. The experiment is relative to the experiment only. Show me in nature how particles act this way, show me a place in the universe where there are only two slits and particles flying through them, show me without having to find everything through layers of powerful electron and screens. The result tells us more about the equipment, our methodology, and the experiment than it does about the universe.

Your failure to think for yourself is sheep-like at best.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ralphy
 


You think asking this in ATS will provide THE answer?
I studied physics. So far, no proof matter is self aware. I dream the day I'll find a proof. Every physicist do...



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





Again, Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality?


Excuse me buddy, this thread is about matter being "aware". Our discussion started because you suggested that the assertions made in the posted YT vid, are a load of bull.

So I tried to explain to you why they are valid, and provided more info for you to read and maybe make a substantial post.

Instead I have to explain reality to you, I already said I don't know how reality works exactly, but we can see that the particles that make up reality seem to line themselves up to fit our known parameters.

This is relevant to the thread.

Stay on topic and debunk the claims I made.




Your failure to think for yourself is sheep-like at best.


You seem to have a hard time thinking at all. Btw, you seem to be in the sheep/old paradigm camp, actually.

I am basing my statements on the undeniable results of experiments, and you deny them and choose a "safe" mainstream science standpoint. How does that make me a sheep?




Show me in nature how particles act this way, show me a place in the universe where there are only two slits and particles flying through them, show me without having to find everything through layers of powerful electron and screens.


Lol, sorry, went over your head there with those links right? ".....them fancy electron screens!..."

So can you agree that at least in these experiments, human consciousness can influence these particles?
edit on 18-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 





Show me in nature how particles act this way, show me a place in the universe where there are only two slits and particles flying through them, show me without having to find everything through layers of powerful electron and screens.


Do you understand that in order to learn how particles act in nature, we need to do, and did do, these kind of experiments?

The point is not that we create only two options in the experiment, the point is that when we look, we eliminate all possible realities, except the one that conforms to our expectations and parameters.

This may in the future, turn out to be relevant to the way reality in general manifests itself to us.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





You think asking this in ATS will provide THE answer?


Are you suggesting that noone should make threads or ask questions on ATS anymore? Because there are no experts here? Except maybe.....




I studied physics.


Very impressive....


I'm Rick James..bitch!





So far, no proof matter is self aware.


There is a lot of proof that particles "know" stuff.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join