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.

 

Science and the Conscious Force that is in all

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Now you're just playing with words, and yet your own words betray you. If things are formed out of energy, then there is energy first, and then the transformation of that energy into other things


"first" before what? "other things" compared to what? Even as it transforms it is still energy.



Originally posted by jiggerj
planets for example. Can you say that planets always existed because planets are energy? Of course not.


If energy is eternal and planets are energy, then the ESSENCE / MAKE-UP / BEING of planets always existed, just not in the form of planets.




posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
HarryTZ.


This theory is the brainchild of Robert Lanza, a notable scientist with a Doctorate in Medicine. He has a book published by the name of Biocentrism, which I have yet to look into. Really interesting stuff, though. Makes sense, doesn't it?
edit on 27-6-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)


The 6th at 7th principle are in conflict with the conclusion that time and space are a fabric. But that in and of itself does not negate the conclusion that consciousness is a force.



Jiggerj



I don't claim to be right or wrong.


Ahh that means you are a skeptic


Spooky action at a distance presents an interesting thought experiment in relation to the non-random behavior of life in general. Getting into your car and going to work everyday from a purely mechanical sense is a fairly consistent activity. And while there is considerable diversity with respect to how each of us think there are also consistencies (This referencing personality, character and so on).

Our "footprint" upon the quantum nature of our environment is inherently non- random. Again our perceptions are totally based upon internal representations. What we see with the common senses is being generated in the brain. To be blunt when we look at a tree we are seeing what our common senses are able to observe of that tree.

We exits in a quantum reality and our common senses deliver us a representation, one that is accurate enough that allows for our survival and development.

Any thoughts?








edit on 27-6-2013 by Kashai because: Modfied content



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Actually Planks Satellite has made apparent that this Universe is the result of the physical interaction between two other Universe's. In relation to the definition of this Universe being about 85 billion light years wide. In relation to Multiverse theory such objects are about 10x10 to the power of 28 meters from this "Universe". This brings up an issue of how do they interact but that is for another topic. In the case of the observation that has been confirmed our "universe" was apparently created.

The phenomenon offered by the OP presents a quantum effect, making, apparent that the human brain can process quantum experiences.

Further

Any thoughts?


edit on 28-6-2013 by Kashai because: Added and modifed content



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Good points and the problem is materialism. It starts with an assumption and then everything has to fit that assumption. So the post you linked to must mean there's no free will because the material brain has to be responsible for consciousness. Here's some of the faulty thinking from the article.


You may think you decided to read this story -- but in fact, your brain made the decision long before you knew about it.

In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.

The unease people feel at the potential unreality of free will, said National Institutes of Health neuroscientist Mark Hallett, originates in a misconception of self as separate from the brain.

"That's the same notion as the mind being separate from the body -- and I don't think anyone really believes that," said Hallett. "A different way of thinking about it is that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing."

Hallett doubts that free will exists as a separate, independent force.

"If it is, we haven't put our finger on it," he said. "But we're happy to keep looking."


The fact is they never looked. Science has never explored conscious as a fundamental force or consciousness separate from the brain in a major way. Something like this takes time, money and research. If you bring up consciousness as separate from the material brain and now if you talk about quantum consciousness, you're met with ridicule. If you don't follow the line that consciousness is an emergent property and if you don't arbitrarily separate life from non life, then it's just pseudoscience. It's really closed minded and it makes no sense.

When you look at what the brain scans tell us. They show that the brain processes information but there has to be something else that initiates experience. How can the brain recall specific memories at will? How does the brain know the difference between a memory from the Army or a memory from little league? How does the brain know the difference between these memories? How does the brain initiate experience? How does the brain initiate and direct intent to a specific region of the brain to carry out a specific function?

At the end of the day, the brain processes information. It allows us to carry out experience but it doesn't initiate experience. When I take a shower or drive to the store, the brain allows me to carry out this experience but it doesn't initiate experience. How does the brain tell the brain I want to take a shower? How does the brain tell the brain I want to drive to the store? The brain can process these experiences but there's zero evidence that the brain can initiate experience. It sounds silly just thinking about it.

The article makes it clear:


"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.


This is a clear materialist interpretation that makes no sense. So blind brain activity occurs and then this brain activity reaches consciousness. So now the brain blindly directs conscious activity? What initiates the brain activity? What gives the brain activity specific will and intent to produce a specific conscious action? So consciousness has to be a force of will and intent that initiates experience.




edit on 28-6-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj



By monitoring the micro patterns of activity in the frontopolar cortex, the researchers could predict which hand the participant would choose 7 SECONDS before the participant was aware of the decision.
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I watched something of this in a documentary, and my question is: what happens in the brain when we are presented with a sudden need to act within a second or two, instead of seven seconds? A spoon falls off the table and we catch it in less than a second. We couldn't have known the spoon would fall 7 seconds before it happened.


your amygdala(s) in the brain take over (from the slow part)...



The purpose of the amygdala is relatively simple: it is a brain shortcut to quickly engage automatic brain responses so you correctly respond to threats -- such as seeing a rattlesnake in the middle of your path.


www.viewzone.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


I agree the article supports materialism but at the same time that interpretation is one way of looking at it...

Jung was also an Atheist despite the fact he developed the idea of the collective unconscious. He also spent many years interacting with indigenous cultures. Even the works of Leonard Susskind in relation to his debate with Stephen Hawkins, related to an alternate perspective to life in general.

There are in fact many problem with respect to Materialist models when in comes to consciousness. A rather good example is the Willowbrook facility in Staten Island NY.




top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join