What is your problem with "matter" ?

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by gosseyn

Originally posted by chr0naut

Many posit (& I agree) that consciousness exists at a more fundamental level than matter, at the quantum level or perhaps even more fundamental (places we have hardly touched upon, even theoretically).

How can you say that when we don't even know what matter really is ? How can you compare something that is unknown ? Again, I see in what you say the will to consider consciousness as something more noble than matter. It is an old bias that comes from thousands of years ago.

Because of a number of things which I can observe, I believe that consciousness is not bounded by our skulls, i.e: it is not just the matter within our head that it arises from.

This can be demonstrated by disruption of the operation of our neurons, via trans cranial magnetic stimulation, after which we don't have to go through a restart/reboot process. Everything just comes up working very quickly just as it was before with no changes to person-hood or mental functionality. So it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that perhaps the conscious person is not located within the disruptable neural matter.

edit on 21/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

but isnt the thought process and brain waves an electrochemical phenomena,, or electromagnetic in some way? so wouldnt the magnet tamper with internal going ons of the brain?

also do you think memory and thought might be like film was shot on magnetic tape ( or something like that),,., and out memories and thoughts are captured in a similar photo sensitive process,, to latter be retrieved by micro beams of light projecting the ingrained memory on the theater screen of our inner eye?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by gosseyn

Originally posted by chr0naut

Many posit (& I agree) that consciousness exists at a more fundamental level than matter, at the quantum level or perhaps even more fundamental (places we have hardly touched upon, even theoretically).

How can you say that when we don't even know what matter really is ? How can you compare something that is unknown ? Again, I see in what you say the will to consider consciousness as something more noble than matter. It is an old bias that comes from thousands of years ago.

Because of a number of things which I can observe, I believe that consciousness is not bounded by our skulls, i.e: it is not just the matter within our head that it arises from.

This can be demonstrated by disruption of the operation of our neurons, via trans cranial magnetic stimulation, after which we don't have to go through a restart/reboot process. Everything just comes up working very quickly just as it was before with no changes to person-hood or mental functionality. So it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that perhaps the conscious person is not located within the disruptable neural matter.

edit on 21/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

but isnt the thought process and brain waves an electrochemical phenomena,, or electromagnetic in some way? so wouldnt the magnet tamper with internal going ons of the brain?

also do you think memory and thought might be like film was shot on magnetic tape ( or something like that),,., and out memories and thoughts are captured in a similar photo sensitive process,, to latter be retrieved by micro beams of light projecting the ingrained memory on the theater screen of our inner eye?

TMS (Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation) does disrupt the neurons, inducing current flows while the pulses are 'on' but as soon as the disruption is removed, despite the residual currents and disruption to any patterns previously stored, the brain almost instantly reverts to normalcy.

reply to post by chr0naut


ok,, so that leads you to believe the pulses are effecting brain sensors outside of the brain,,

because the time it takes the pulse to travel from the machine to the brain would have needed a delay? or its that the pulse is still in the area effecting the inner brain,, yet the person is fine at that point?
either way it is still odd because the inner brain is known to have a major role in ( ya know) yet the person is fine even when the pulse is still rattling around the brain....

unless im misunderstanding everything

I'm back! Supper was a hit and was told over and over by the kids, THANK YOU MOM! Ahhhh..... I felt so appreciated. :-)

Speaking of how I felt, where is feelings? In my brain? Let's go down the rabbit hole together.. Haha!

The electrical impulses and neurons in my brain are unique in me as they are to others. My brain houses and stores information and feelings. Where do theses impulses come from? From an electrical universe that has dark matter everywhere is a pretty good indication to me that my brain and mind can in fact be influenced by outside forces. It's electrical so it makes sense.

I have this aura that surrounds me and I believe little kids see this around me because they always seem to stare, smile and look at me as if I'm something from out of this world. They pick me out of a crowd! Lol

I believe this aura is a protective shield from outside forces ( like the earth), possibly dark or negative forces. It reflects my personality and mood to others. They may not can see it, but it can be felt.

We seem to want to denounce the fact we all have a spirit that is connected to our body. The spirit helps guide these impulses, however not against the free will of the flesh. If you think or ask aloud for something the will is determined and measured by the spirit. They work together for the ultimate causes unless the flesh over powers the spirit with free will.

We are more than flesh and bones!! Spirit has to be considered. Just because it cannot be seen or measured does not mean it doesn't exist because it's infinite. The spirit upon departure of the flesh takes what it needs from the flesh and disperses back to the pool of consciousness or subconsciousness possibly.

That in which we cannot see is not measured until it becomes visible to us. As humans we are limited with the five senses. We may can feel what we do not see but since we cant see " it" we dismiss it. Once the flesh goes away and the spirit is free from the bondage thoughts become clearer because we can now visualize and measure what was once not thought of in the flesh.

Matter is measured and non matter cannot be seen or detected to measure so it's ... " out of mind because it's out of sight". Our eyes are the rulers. We have to see to believe. What if we could not see? The blind person is driven by touch. The mentally retarded may be driven by emotions. The senses come into play as needed. But is there a forgotten sense? A sense that the spirit holds the flesh does not?

Intuition/Subconscious?

I wonder... Outside of matter/ observation is there an entire world derived from subconsciousness?

I don't wish to join the argument just at present, but I would like to point out that all those arguing for the existence of metaphysical entities on this thread are using examples from physics to do so.

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

Very interesting post. I really enjoyed reading that. I'm not doubting you in any way when I say this, but I just don't see how everything can have consciousness. Did you mean that literally? I know you said a "much lower form of consciousness" than we have, but still... everything?

The cigarette I just smoked... did I just kill its 'consciousness' when I lit it?

The guitar picks I use that eventually get worn down over time, do they feel pain as they strike the strings?

This post probably made me seem profoundly daft. But I wasn't quite sure if I understood properly. I'm just interested in knowing what you mean exactly. As my sixth grade teacher used to (jokingly) say, there's no such thing as a stupid question, but the world is full of inquisitive idiots

reply to post by Xaphan


Yes. Everything is consciousness is probably the most absurd proposition I've ever heard. It flies in the face of all common-sense.

I think what the proponents of a universal consciousness are trying to say is that the universe wouldn't exist without someone conscious to view it or experience it—namely, themselves. I would call the notion a good example of self-centeredness and man's fear of having no purpose. But it is easily disproven. As we know, when someone conscious doesn't exist to view the universe, it is them who doesn't exist, not the universe.

As we inch around every scientific corner, the majority of folks are hoping for an inkling of meaning to be found there ie. God, consciousness, heaven etc. This is why there is so much hatred of science: it never finds any lofty and grandiose purpose to humanity. Because of this, they disregard it all together. and sometimes—because it is guilty by association—the physical world as well. Without any of these hopes to cling to, and every man-made purpose becomes disproven, the possibility of eternal existence in an after-life quickly dissipates.

Is the universe made of consciousness? Of course not.

Originally posted by meticulous
reply to post by gosseyn

 

Sounds like mind over matter to me.

Yes, mind has always been over matter.

reply to post by gosseyn


Matter is a label given to a very specific illusion. What is matter at the most fundamental level?

The brain is apparently made of matter. What is the fundamental substance of the brain?

You will never prove something that isn't true unless you are subject to believing lies and delusion.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Xaphan

 

Yes. Everything is consciousness is probably the most absurd proposition I've ever heard. It flies in the face of all common-sense.

I think what the proponents of a universal consciousness are trying to say is that the universe wouldn't exist without someone conscious to view it or experience it—namely, themselves. I would call the notion a good example of self-centeredness and man's fear of having no purpose. But it is easily disproven. As we know, when someone conscious doesn't exist to view the universe, it is them who doesn't exist, not the universe.

As we inch around every scientific corner, the majority of folks are hoping for an inkling of meaning to be found there ie. God, consciousness, heaven etc. This is why there is so much hatred of science: it never finds any lofty and grandiose purpose to humanity. Because of this, they disregard it all together. and sometimes—because it is guilty by association—the physical world as well. Without any of these hopes to cling to, and every man-made purpose becomes disproven, the possibility of eternal existence in an after-life quickly dissipates.

Is the universe made of consciousness? Of course not.

edit on 21-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: grammar

Don't confuse the religion of science with real science. Real science does not claim proof of any of the most profound questions ever pondered. The religion of science insists that it's assumption are True. Just like every other bureaucratic religion.

"As we know, when someone conscious doesn't exist to view the universe, it is them who doesn't exist, not the universe"

Do we know? How might you prove it? If the hypothesis is "universal consciousness" than that "one" that doesn't exist is the only one that persists. So if you find yourself observing you are persisting. Your entire ideology is built on assumptions.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I don't wish to join the argument just at present, but I would like to point out that all those arguing for the existence of metaphysical entities on this thread are using examples from physics to do so.

Perhaps because the only way to prove any effect of the metaphysical in this realm is to point to the seemed effect it has in the physical measurable world?

Does it help pointing at invisible things with invisible fingers will it be more real than if i point with the finger you can actually see?

Originally posted by rwfresh
Don't confuse the religion of science with real science. Real science does not claim proof of any of the most profound questions ever pondered. The religion of science insists that it's assumption are True. Just like every other bureaucratic religion.

Don't confuse science with religion. Science is a method and a tool, not a metaphysical or moral doctrine. Science isn't doing the assuming, man is. But you are right in a sense, despite science showing us that a need in religion is dwindling, humans are growing more and more religious, hence the 'everything is consciousness theory.'

"As we know, when someone conscious doesn't exist to view the universe, it is them who doesn't exist, not the universe"
Do we know? How might you prove it? If the hypothesis is "universal consciousness" than that "one" that doesn't exist is the only one that persists. So if you find yourself observing you are persisting. Your entire ideology is built on assumptions.

I agree, but my assumptions are at least highly probable and verified empirically. The assumptions made by those who promote 'consciousness is everything'? Not verified, no evidence and highly unlikely.

The idea that everything is consciousness is unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't even a valid scientific theory. I cannot disprove it as much as someone can prove it. It's strange that throughout history, mankind has clung to the unfalsifiable, maybe because it cannot be disproven and is comforting knowing that even the most critical of critics cannot dethrone it, but not because there is any evidence to support the claim. The unfalsifiable helps us sleep at night, much like religion.

I also don't have to disprove anything because there's nothing to disprove. I have seen zero empirical or logical evidence that implicates everything is consciousness. It's up to those who wish it to be true to prove it. Until then, I won't hold my breath.

Your entire ideology is built on assumptions.

Correction: My entire ideology is built on empirically verified and logically valid assumptions.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


" My entire ideology is built on empirically verified and logically valid assumptions. "

this is asking a whole lot,,, but is it possible to briefly summarize your ideology?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by rwfresh
Don't confuse the religion of science with real science. Real science does not claim proof of any of the most profound questions ever pondered. The religion of science insists that it's assumption are True. Just like every other bureaucratic religion.

Don't confuse science with religion. Science is a method and a tool, not a metaphysical or moral doctrine. Science isn't doing the assuming, man is. But you are right in a sense, despite science showing us that a need in religion is dwindling, humans are growing more and more religious, hence the 'everything is consciousness theory.'

"As we know, when someone conscious doesn't exist to view the universe, it is them who doesn't exist, not the universe"
Do we know? How might you prove it? If the hypothesis is "universal consciousness" than that "one" that doesn't exist is the only one that persists. So if you find yourself observing you are persisting. Your entire ideology is built on assumptions.

I agree, but my assumptions are at least highly probable and verified empirically. The assumptions made by those who promote 'consciousness is everything'? Not verified, no evidence and highly unlikely.

The idea that everything is consciousness is unfalsifiable, therefore it isn't even a valid scientific theory. I cannot disprove it as much as someone can prove it. It's strange that throughout history, mankind has clung to the unfalsifiable, maybe because it cannot be disproven and is comforting knowing that even the most critical of critics cannot dethrone it, but not because there is any evidence to support the claim. The unfalsifiable helps us sleep at night, much like religion.

I also don't have to disprove anything because there's nothing to disprove. I have seen zero empirical or logical evidence that implicates everything is consciousness. It's up to those who wish it to be true to prove it. Until then, I won't hold my breath.

Your entire ideology is built on assumptions.

Correction: My entire ideology is built on empirically verified and logically valid assumptions.

edit on 21-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

Whether you can admit it or not you are definitely a believer in the "RELIGION of science". If you truly adhered to science you wouldn't even attempt to apply it to anything other than what it is good for. And you'd still be free to pursue those subjects and questions outside of it's realm without any hangups.

If you are fine living in and constraining your mind completely to what is "empirically verifiable" than i challenge you to do it. Obviously you have questions. All the elementary questions that cannot even be pursued or acknowledged with your belief system. Your belief system has you poking around for answers by making unverifiable statements wrapped in a flag of science.

Nothing against you.. just pointing out that you and i both know you are not satisfied with the lack of answers. What preceded the big bang? I mean.. just a juvenile starter question. Is it against your beliefs to ponder this unknown? Is it heretical to ask or hypothesize about it?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

" My entire ideology is built on empirically verified and logically valid assumptions. "

this is asking a whole lot,,, but is it possible to briefly summarize your ideology?

Self-mastery and self-honesty are the only principles I hold on to. Like everyone else, I am still searching for the rest.

reply to post by rwfresh


Please, I'd appreciate if you wrote in the 1st person rather than the 2nd. You don't know me enough to use me as a character in your posts.

Originally posted by rwfresh
If you are fine living in and constraining your mind completely to what is "empirically verifiable" than i challenge you to do it. Obviously you have questions. All the elementary questions that cannot even be pursued or acknowledged with your belief system. Your belief system has you poking around for answers by making unverifiable statements wrapped in a flag of science.

Am I fine with it? Do I have questions? My belief system? Am I poking around for answers? You've painted quite a silly picture of me without even knowing who I am. How that's possible I'm unsure.

I am aware of the fallibility of science. No experiment can be verified by myself unless my own nervous system is part of the equation. Nonetheless I derive what I can from the results, especially when they've been observed and recorded many times. Do I hold the results will be the same tomorrow? No, of course not. But when I speculate, I don't dogmatically express my speculations as truth. If I was to speculate that a fire-breathing dragon lives at the centre of the sun, I don't go about claiming it as truth. I am honest enough to know when I'm speculating.

Nothing against you.. just pointing out that you and i both know you are not satisfied with the lack of answers. What preceded the big bang? I mean.. just a juvenile starter question. Is it against your beliefs to ponder this unknown? Is it heretical to ask or hypothesize about it?

No. YOU are not satisfied with the lack of answers. This is the only thing you can be certain of. I would appreciate if you didn't assume I was exactly like you. Nothing against you. I have a problem when people try to portray me as if they know me.

I love to speculate on the unknown and see nothing heretical about it. It's when speculations are dogmatically expressed where I find discomfort. There always seems to be a motive behind dogma. If one wants to express his speculations undogmatically, I would love to do so, but this is rarely the case.

Science isn't dogmatic. It tells you what it sees. It's up to man to invent what it doesn't.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You're the one dogmatically claiming that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. Not me. Or did i misunderstand?

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable. But you'd have to be me to experience the truth of it though. I am assuming you understand this premise, based on your last message.

I can accept that your consciousness is a byproduct of your brain because you say so. No problem. And we now know you never make assumptions about people so you should be free to accept my proof.

Yes i have lots of questions! Whether of not consciousness is a byproduct of the brain isn't one of them. It's something i never wonder about anymore. I would have to deny what i know as true, physically/mentally/spiritually to even ponder it.

Peace!

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable.
Yes i have lots of questions! Whether of not consciousness is a byproduct of the brain isn't one of them. It's something i never wonder about anymore. I would have to deny what i know as true, physically/mentally/spiritually to even ponder it.

Can you please tell us what you know is true and how we would be able to verify it ? Or is it something improvable, unverifiable by someone else than you ? You said your consciousness precedes your brain, do you mean that it is older and existed before your brain ? Are you going to tell us about past lives or something like that ?

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

You're the one dogmatically claiming that consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. Not me. Or did i misunderstand?

Yes you misunderstood. I didn't say that. You assumed so, and then proceeded to dogmatically express as fact that consciousness precedes your brain:

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable. But you'd have to be me to experience the truth of it though. I am assuming you understand this premise, based on your last message.

Then you continue to assume. This is exactly what I was talking about. Assuming and dogmatizing. There's no need to assume here, just ask me a question and I will answer truthfully.

I can accept that your consciousness is a byproduct of your brain because you say so. No problem. And we now know you never make assumptions about people so you should be free to accept my proof.

I didn't say so. Also, you haven't shown proof, you asserted it. Big difference.

Cheers.

Originally posted by gosseyn

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable.
Yes i have lots of questions! Whether of not consciousness is a byproduct of the brain isn't one of them. It's something i never wonder about anymore. I would have to deny what i know as true, physically/mentally/spiritually to even ponder it.

Can you please tell us what you know is true and how we would be able to verify it ? Or is it something improvable, unverifiable by someone else than you ? You said your consciousness precedes your brain, do you mean that it is older and existed before your brain ? Are you going to tell us about past lives or something like that ?

There is something that has been stated for thousands of years with total authority many times. And that is that (and i am paraphrasing) only an individual can experience the Truth DIRECTLY through themselves in and of themselves. Meaning, when it comes to THE Truth there is no proof but the proof you directly experience, Like Misanthrope(sorry if i got the name wrong) said. And i fully agree with him.

There is a long standing hypothesis of Truth itself. Right? The original question from which all questions originate. WHAT is TRUTH? And there is an associated experiment that has been performed MANY times throughout history. It's conscious, focused, self directed, direct inquiry through quiet contemplation. ie: meditation, prayer etc. And the conclusion is always the same. How does one communicate the proof? It's not possible. Instead "truth" is forced on people through trickery, domination, intellectual bullying.

So no, I'm not going to tell you the truth because it is not possible for me to communicate something you need to recognize in yourself. I am not withholding it. I am not declaring my ownership of it. I am admitting my inability to communicate it. But i can tell you that the hypothesis and experiment have LONG been established which would enable you to experience and know it first hand.

Not every truth comes with a subscription to Scientific America. The work that went into the Large Hadron Collider is nothing compared to what is required of you and everyone else to experience the truth through the established experiment. Which is precisely WHY so few have done it. Too hard.

That said. If you believe that your consciousness is a byproduct of your brain i will take your word for it. My experience is otherwise. And again, i can't honestly question it if i tried.