What is your problem with "matter" ?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 





It's only meaningless if those doing the communicating are unable or unwilling to understand one another.


Me: 1=1 (rational)
You: 1=345 (delusional)
Communication: meaningless!

Peace!




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by rwfresh
 




You:


Me: 1=1 (rational)
You: 1=345 (delusional)
Communication: meaningless!


me:
Peace!
edit on 23-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by IAmD1
 

The point is that a visible, material finger is just as useless as an invisible one when trying to point at what cannot be perceived by material means. What you need is something that makes the invisible visible.

*


reply to post by rwfresh
 


Dude there is a very strong likelihood that there is no one reading our little discussion here.

This is not the only thing about which you are wrong.


I didn't find out about it's illusory nature through scientific America or the wiki article i posted. I experienced it directly so there is no question in my mind.

How do you know your experience was not an illusion?

Nice Celine Dion avatar, by the way.

edit on 23/8/12 by Astyanax because: brevity is the soul.


Agreed but in order to find that something you would first have to have an idea of where or what you are looking to highlight which is what I ment with the question is it better to point at an invisible thing using an invisible finger or to use a finger you can understand.

Once the thing is understood it becomes visible and the whole point of the exercise of pointing was to make it so - i assume.

The finger in my point was not so much a finger on a hand than any science, event or otherwise that has a part that points towards a presently unknown cause or effect.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Don't matter matter or the matter becomes a matter. All matter is proof of truth! I don't understand. Why deny the existance of the existing. It's cause of things. Consciousness. What's the matter? Why exploring consciousness if you can be conscious. I'm drifting away. To be conscious of your consciousness is bypassing consciousness itself. It's probably possible but error in functionalty. Mindloops. Hunting the wind comes to mind. Consciousness is something you can only be. You can't force it. Just to have an intention to be conscious is enough. This spark is sufficient living your life. Do consciousness and sin have got something to do with eachother? Sometimes you are conscious of matter, sometimes you are not. Aren't you always conscious of something? Such complex thinking of consciousness. Why the search. Wasn't it enough to just be your conscious. Living is about consciousnesses. I promote no consciousness! Wicked sins....



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You are jumping the gun. When Dr. Hood applied the TMS he did not shut down the entire brain. He disrupted the part(s) responsible for speech. Watch the video again and you will see. The auditory system was not affected, hence the subject was able to understand language.

The strong electromagnetic current disrupts the pathways that carry the electrochemical currents. To use your computer reference, the CPU, or the software that is running, is NOT affected at any given time. So your analogy with the "no reboot time" doesn't apply.


CPU and software are not data registers that represent state.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


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.


This premise you offer negates any means of verification whatsoever. So please, verify that what you perceive to be true IS in fact true. And that what I (or anyone else) perceives to be true is NOT true (given that it contradicts what you've perceived as being true). Oh, and do it by way of an impartial, disinterested means...since this is the only way that verification is actually accomplished.

I appreciate your turn of a phrase (as evident by my signature), but I fear that your capacity for accurate inference leaves much to yet be developed.
edit on 8/23/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by chr0naut
 


You are jumping the gun. When Dr. Hood applied the TMS he did not shut down the entire brain. He disrupted the part(s) responsible for speech. Watch the video again and you will see. The auditory system was not affected, hence the subject was able to understand language.

The strong electromagnetic current disrupts the pathways that carry the electrochemical currents. To use your computer reference, the CPU, or the software that is running, is NOT affected at any given time. So your analogy with the "no reboot time" doesn't apply.


CPU and software are not data registers that represent state.


Thanks rwfresh, you said it beautifully.

AllsOne, when the TMS pulses were removed, were you able to determine a noticeable period when the affected subsystem may have had time to reinitialize?

Similarly, the earliest TMS devices were not as 'finessed' as modern variants. They had one coil on one side of the head and another on the opposite and hence disrupted the whole intermediate brain. These would not be suitable for TV/children as they might well induce unpleasant side effects such as incontinence, spasms or vomiting. There is also a danger with the older equipment of disrupting "base of brain" functions necessary for life.

Modern TMS equipment allows us to affect only specific areas between the coils rather than total neural disruption, and in so doing, we can identify the functional layout on the brain, of neural processing, assigning speech recognition to one area, visual interpretation to another and religious experiences to another.

You will also notice that the pulse application was short, this is to ensure that it cannot in any way become life threatening or lead to permanent damages.

edit on 23/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
How do you know your experience was not an illusion?


Originally posted by rwfresh
It is an illusion. That's how i know.

So your beliefs are based on an illusion? Yes, sounds about right.


hahaha Some real gold in this thread...

You said it.



Maybe you are an illusion. Every think of that? HUH?

Whose? Yours?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

We base everything we know as well as formulate every possible concept that we can upon what our SENSES PERCEIVE and then after receiving that data...and ONLY AFTER...can be begin to conceive anything beyond those perceptions of data.

By this Logic...we are limited to what our sensory perception has ever experienced. Even when using Math...we must QUANTIFY in order to even determine a path of ENLIGHTENMENT. This limits us in many ways and in order to break through these inherent walls we must be able to evolve to a state at where our ability to think as well as conceive is not limited to these walls of perception.

So...we have some growing up to do. Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


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.


This premise you offer negates any means of verification whatsoever. So please, verify that what you perceive to be true IS in fact true. And that what I (or anyone else) perceives to be true is NOT true (given that it contradicts what you've perceived as being true). Oh, and do it by way of an impartial, disinterested means...since this is the only way that verification is actually accomplished.

I appreciate your turn of a phrase (as evident by my signature), but I fear that your capacity for accurate inference leaves much to yet be developed.
edit on 8/23/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


The statement was an end to an impossible conversation with someone who could not accept that 1=1. It is a demonstrated fact that you have articulated above. No one's experience can be accepted as true unless the receiving party is open to accepting it. Yours is not the first message here to attempt to put words in my mouth.
I challenge you to show me where i stated someone's experience was NOT true. As cry baby one clearly stated:

"No experiment can be verified by myself unless my own nervous system is part of the equation."

I agree with the above statement.

"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"

Does this make more sense now? I can continue to communicate the proof but simply denying the statement results in a conclusion.

further:

"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. "

We can argue the concept of proof as well and how proof is transmuted into an experience of knowing. But the topic at hand is consciousness preceding brain. But all you self-proclaimed followers of empirical data just can't get over what you know is true. It drives you all crazy that someone can declare with total confidence a truth that cannot be shared in a scientific paper. You will not experience the truth of consciousness in the way you are insisting. And the amusing thing is it has been said 1000's of times for 1000's of years by people much more informed than you or me.

Just adding here that the last paragraph is not directed at you.. Just a broad statement about some of the views expressed here. Nice sig!! hahah.
edit on 24-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
How do you know your experience was not an illusion?


Originally posted by rwfresh
It is an illusion. That's how i know.

So your beliefs are based on an illusion? Yes, sounds about right.


hahaha Some real gold in this thread...

You said it.



Maybe you are an illusion. Every think of that? HUH?

Whose? Yours?



Yes maybe.. Maybe you are an illusion i am projecting. But i am holding out for empirical proof. You have offered none.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


"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."


So,, Being you..... what proves to you that your consciousness precedes your brain?

For you to believe this,, there must be something that happened or proved to you somewhere in the span of your earthly existence,, that allows you to say what it is your saying with the confidence it is truth..



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Maybe you are an illusion i am projecting. But i am holding out for empirical proof. You have offered none.

Why should I want to prove to you that I exist? Good heavens. Surely you of all people must understand how much fun it is to keep people guessing.

Sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that you are real. Though possibly not for real.

edit on 24/8/12 by Astyanax because: I used a naughty word.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I have the impression that for many people here, what we call matter is a very limited thing and very visible, the impression that many people think that we know everything about it, while in reality matter covers a huge amount of manifestations and can be very invisible, and we still have a lot to learn about it. My question is : why do you need to invent an "immaterial realm" when you know that we are still in the process of understanding the material realm ? How do you know that what you have experienced or what you believe is not just another manifestation of matter ? You seem to despise science for some of its aspects, but in the same time you don't realise that you fall in the trap of science when you say things like "look, science cannot explain this or that, so the answer must be elsewhere", you don't realise that you take science as a witness, while you don't understand that science is an ongoing process.(I would need a good example to be clear here but I don't find one right now). Why can't you, for example, assume that consciousness is another manifestation of matter ? After all, we don't yet understand the fundamentals behind matter. Is matter energy, or is it something else ? How does it come into existence ? Why don't you assume that the solution, according to the knowledge and the unknowns of our time period, is the simplest one ? It took us some thousands of years to master electricity and understand its laws, how can you know that in the future we wont master other forces, or substances, like space-time itself and even consciousness ? Or would you agree, if in the future we master those other things, that they finally are part of the material realm ?

My pov is that I don't want unnecessary divisions in the way we describe the universe, in our model. And I see no reason, right now, to invent an "immaterial realm".



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh
 


"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."


So,, Being you..... what proves to you that your consciousness precedes your brain?

For you to believe this,, there must be something that happened or proved to you somewhere in the span of your earthly existence,, that allows you to say what it is your saying with the confidence it is truth..


I get where you are coming from but i think you misread the quote. The experience itself is the verification. But...

Consciousness happens/happened. What is real? I am that. Even if the delusional personality you are talking to is incapable of proving the truth of what i (and you) are to you it does not negate it. The experience, the verification remains available.

Matter is illusory or phenomenon. Whatever word works best. For me illusion works well enough. It is without substance. I can agree that personality, perception, intellectualization, ego are all products of the brain. No problem. But the source of matter, is not a brain. The perception that it is actual is though.

I don't believe the real substance of you is a brain. Or your body. Because i know it of myself. If we need to conclude that consciousness is a label for the totality of delusional by-products of the brain then we need a different word for what i am talking about.

How can an illusory by-product of the brain understand substance if it has none to experience? It can't. So the faculty of knowing is left up to something that has the capacity to do so.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by rwfresh
 


Maybe you are an illusion i am projecting. But i am holding out for empirical proof. You have offered none.

Why should I want to prove to you that I exist? Good heavens. Surely you of all people must understand how much fun it is to keep people guessing.

Sadly, there is no doubt in my mind that you are real. Though possibly not for real.

edit on 24/8/12 by Astyanax because: I used a naughty word.



What was your opinion again? About matter and consciousness? On the fence? I can't remember.



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh
 


"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."


So,, Being you..... what proves to you that your consciousness precedes your brain?

For you to believe this,, there must be something that happened or proved to you somewhere in the span of your earthly existence,, that allows you to say what it is your saying with the confidence it is truth..


I get where you are coming from but i think you misread the quote. The experience itself is the verification. But...

Consciousness happens/happened. What is real? I am that. Even if the delusional personality you are talking to is incapable of proving the truth of what i (and you) are to you it does not negate it. The experience, the verification remains available.

Matter is illusory or phenomenon. Whatever word works best. For me illusion works well enough. It is without substance. I can agree that personality, perception, intellectualization, ego are all products of the brain. No problem. But the source of matter, is not a brain. The perception that it is actual is though.

I don't believe the real substance of you is a brain. Or your body. Because i know it of myself. If we need to conclude that consciousness is a label for the totality of delusional by-products of the brain then we need a different word for what i am talking about.

How can an illusory by-product of the brain understand substance if it has none to experience? It can't. So the faculty of knowing is left up to something that has the capacity to do so.


can anything ever exist that would fit under your definition of the word... "real"?

are you saying a persons delusions are more real then what a person actually objectively is?
or just that too that person their delusions are all thats real?
you understand that science is the attempt to remove the subjective delusions, and replace it with a more perfect map of reality as it actually is,,, do you suggest this is futile and we should all just do nothing but live in or delusional imaginations? or do you see anything worthy or admirable in what science has done and what it attempts to do? Understanding the nature and actuality of the different kinds of material "illusion" that makes up reality,, what the illusion is composed of,, its parts and how they effect each other,,



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
So let us quickly recap.

Consciousness is at the root of all experience. It exists before any experience arises, even that of studying/realizing the brain. So on a experiential level, consciousness precedes the brain. I don't think anyone would argue about that, it is quite obvious. Yet there is someone who believes that his experience invalidates all empirical research about the brain and its relation to consciousness, he believes his experience is the absolute truth of reality and he has come here to expound that truth. The science sympathizers, however, have made no determinant decision on the consciousness vs. brain debate. There is research inquiring into both theories, the consciousness precedes the brain theory and the brain precedes the consciousness theory, although so far there is much more data to suggest the latter is true.

There however is a third theory being put forth by the science sympathizers, which is the morphic field theory. This theory would keep with the brain precedes consciousness theory, in that consciousness is a derivative of the brain and yet there is a morphic field that connects all organisms, cells, particles... together. If this is true, then all of us could be correct. Consciousness could precede the brain on an experiential level, the brain could precede consciousness on an empirical/observable level, and there could be a universal connection between everything through what is called "morphic fields".

What are people's take on this?
edit on 24-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 


"morphic field that connects all organisms, cells, particles.... together."

wouldnt this be considered the universe and its physical laws?



posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


The problem with assuming consciousness is a product of the physical brain/matter is we would need to negate 1000's of years of actual research on the subject. Maybe we or i have the word wrong as it pertains to the study by modern scientists.

wiki:en.wikipedia.org...

'A similar concept appears in Buddhist philosophy, expressed by the Sanskrit term Citta-saṃtāna, which is usually translated as mindstream or "mental continuum". In the Buddhist view, though, the "mindstream" is viewed primarily as a source of noise that distracts attention from a changeless underlying reality.'

So if we are saying the word consciousness represents the concept of 'mindstream'.. than i am really sorry to all the people arguing with me. hahahahaha. Yes mindstream is a product of the brain. I would agree. sorry. I am not kidding. I had it wrong. I am not here arguing that continuous thought precedes the brain. Not at all.

Learn something new everyday!

edit on 24-8-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join