Quick Question about Solstice and Perihelion and the 4 Seasons. How does it work?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Yea I would agree on your evaluation, defnetly couldn't of put it as well myself. I remember phage being completely stuck in the mindset that only messureable phenomenon that can be studied and measured and tested is the true nature of reality, but the more we know about life and physical matter the less we seem to understand, if that makes sense lol.
As we have hit walls where as we can no longer measure and study the processes involved as the act of measurement somehow has a fundimental affect on the outcome How? . Is this because everything is conscious on some sort of level? light from the sun... rock and dirt ... microbes and germs/bacteria etc ... grass, plants and trees, to the animal kingdom and us.

The more we know the more questions arise which the only real logical explanations reside in wooho theroies. I think our bodies are just vehicles for our consciousness to experience this dimension. Is it possible we actually live within realms off very different kinds of conscious awareness and energy.
Who knows suppose we all will find out one day (OR NOT AS the case may be; although it's impossible to imagine no-thing after death as nothing implies somthing lol. I think life is a journey and the day our hearts stop beating a new door is opened and our consiousness/soul becomes untangled from our physical vehicle. Wishful thinking.. maybe? What do you think ankh/phage..

interesting discussion tho, I know off topic but the original op has been answered and the people's brains I want to pick are here...

I believe that higher consiousness beings affects the state of a lower consiousness beings/animals and materials like a pyramid. Although the higher consiousness needs the lower consiousness to be present as higher consiousness arise from the lower forms.,. I hope you understand what I'm getting at as I'm not as good as some others at putting my thoughts into words.
My believes arise from years of studying and pondering Many different facts and observing nature in general. Though I'm open to change it's a good place to be to know that we just don't know.

we know what we know but why do we know? we only know what we know because we measured it. But measuring can affect the natural order. This is deffo wooHO now lol sorry if I have totally lost you phage. I respect science and the things we have learned through measurement and testing. But the big questions are still to be cracked

a reply to: Oldskool88


Thank you for your contribution. This is turning into a great thread. From the observable world to the very large, to the infinitely small (quanta) back to the large, and with more context by which to try to begin getting some sort of frame of reference which is an inward experience of an outward reality.

We can't entirely stand apart from it and point our finger or measuring devices in any particular direction, at any scale and suggest that the map we are using is a representation of the territory and indeed as Phaedrus discovered in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (great book), for every new line of inquiry more questions are raised than are answered.

Materialists say that the quantum realm isn't a macro level phenomenon.

What's weird about it, if QM represents the best description of the territory is that it describes a non-local ocean that is at the same time discontinuous, and of a particulate substance (quanta). That sounds ominously digital, like some sort of digital holographic projection, as if the undifferentiated absolute of limitless, infinite potential, is filtered or in some way reduced even by an intelligent subtraction and limitation, as opposed to a capricious randomized addition from nothing or a hierarchy of matter eventually leading to consciousness at the apex of a long, but measurable timeline from big bang, to now.

It's a hard paradigm (materialism) to throw off or to reframe. Our mind just doesn't want to enter into that space of unknowing and of absolute mystery and uncertainty. We need a reality that we can nail down and point to, but deep in our heart of hearts we know that the effort is disingenuous maybe even a shield against having an authentic spiritual experience, and then there's all the religious nonsense to contend with, but maybe the way that's been interpreted isn't the true map of reality either, even if it too might have served as a pointer.

We're just screwed!

I think that getting to the presence of that truth, and reality, is the beginning of true wisdom and Phage is too wise not to give it serious consideration and reflection. Surely he understands the limitations of the current scientific paradigm.

And that was a heck of a potential paradigm shift presented last page with the two views about the precession of the equinox being due to a wobble in the Earth's axis or the corkscrew motion of our solar system relative to the galactic plane.

They happen, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly, but the world we've been taught to believe in, it's incongruent with reality and thus may be and likely is responsible for many if not most of our unnecessary sufferings as human beings and even as a species ie: if we're out of alignment with an understanding of our place and the meaning and purpose of human life as it is and is meant to be lived.

It could even be that the materialist monist, Newtonian worldview and paradigm is ruining everything - again, please read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig.

It started with Aristotle when he set about to categorize everything and then encode that knowledge as a labelling and facts ABOUT this and that (to enshrine it in the halls of Academia, the University), that we broke with and separated ourselves from a charmed world when virtue was truly its own reward, what the ancient Indian's referred to as Brahmavidya or the sacred science as a first cause of every facet and element of human life at all levels, like a cornerstone of civilization even a golden age. It was an exploration as much of innerspace as outerspace.

The paradigm shift in science and philosophy is inevitable, and so the sooner the purely materialist monist paradigm falls away the better even if God forbid it might hurt Phage's feelings, who doesn't seem to get upset anymore or lose his cool, if only he could be provoked in some way?! Just kidding around mostly Phage, don't take me too too seriously and I know you don't.

Just a few thoughts.. hope that was coherent.

Best,

Ankh

originally posted by: Oldskool88
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Yea I would agree on your evaluation, defnetly couldn't of put it as well myself. I remember phage being completely stuck in the mindset that only messureable phenomenon that can be studied and measured and tested is the true nature of reality, but the more we know about life and physical matter the less we seem to understand, if that makes sense lol.
As we have hit walls where as we can no longer measure and study the processes involved as the act of measurement somehow has a fundimental affect on the outcome How? . Is this because everything is conscious on some sort of level? light from the sun... rock and dirt ... microbes and germs/bacteria etc ... grass, plants and trees, to the animal kingdom and us.

The more we know the more questions arise which the only real logical explanations reside in wooho theroies. I think our bodies are just vehicles for our consciousness to experience this dimension. Is it possible we actually live within realms off very different kinds of conscious awareness and energy.
Who knows suppose we all will find out one day (OR NOT AS the case may be; although it's impossible to imagine no-thing after death as nothing implies somthing lol. I think life is a journey and the day our hearts stop beating a new door is opened and our consiousness/soul becomes untangled from our physical vehicle. Wishful thinking.. maybe? What do you think ankh/phage..

interesting discussion tho, I know off topic but the original op has been answered and the people's brains I want to pick are here...

I believe that higher consiousness beings affects the state of a lower consiousness beings/animals and materials like a pyramid. Although the higher consiousness needs the lower consiousness to be present as higher consiousness arise from the lower forms.,. I hope you understand what I'm getting at as I'm not as good as some others at putting my thoughts into words.
My believes arise from years of studying and pondering Many different facts and observing nature in general. Though I'm open to change

it's a good place to be to know that we just don't know.

we know what we know but why do we know? we only know what we know because we measured it. But measuring can affect the natural order. This is deffo wooHO now lol sorry if I have totally lost you phage. I respect science and the things we have learned through measurement and testing. But the big questions are still to be cracked

I just heavily edited my original post it almost a totally new post.

Would like to hear your thoughts on my evaluation of my outlook as I think we align somewhat. I totally get what your saying and can honestly say I don't disagree with anything you said


It's good to ponder every now and then

a reply to: Oldskool88


I've heard it said in QM circles that just before we measure, or judge or choose or decide as the case may be, that in that domain of non-judgement, non-condemnation, non-distinction, not yet measured, that our consciousness must be a non-local phenomenon, which is localized and actualized when the choice is made and the wave collapsed.

The free gift of eternal life to be a gift must be appropriated at some point and I think it's in the knowing that we are something more than a set of beliefs and judgements, most of which are probably not even the least bit accurate to begin with. Oh the low estimation we place upon ourselves and others, this focal point of an otherwise unactualized open field of limitless possibility. We gravitate straight to the lowest possible common denominator, or, at best, think of ourselves as a mere thing of some kind as Phage does, or as materialists tend to do even to the degree that they would vehemently argue against free will itself if need be to avoid the implications of the woo woo.

But what would happen if we flipped the basic fundamental presupposition from materialist monist to monistic idealist (consciousness, not matter is primary).

Does death not lose it's sting and is not our sense of humor and charm restored?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

EXACTLY amazing outlook to be freed of the fear of death and science has not been able to discount this paradigm of reality

Absolutely fascinated in these thoughts. Great discussion!

I will look forward to hear phage response if he bothers at all. I feel that he may be uncomfortable discussing this stuff. It's a shame it's seen as wooho as its a boundary we need to cross.

The galaxy and universe may or may not possibly be part of a larger conscious being experiencing its reality on a different time scale in a different dimension and form of consious energy (Maybe it's experience of our last 1,000,000 yrs is equivilant to it experiencing 1 minute)Haha truely pondering now I can't see why this couldn't be true and I'm certain iv lost phage now. Lol feel free to educate me phage why this is defnetly out of question. Explain to me why these thoughts are as crazy as they sound. Look how our inner bodies function. Life is amazing our birth was part of life's process so will death be part of our lifes process.
does essential conscious being only beside in this dimension.?

Hmmm time to leave these deep realms of thought. Truely entertaining and thought provoking though

www.researchgate.net... hen_conscience_enters_the_scene

a reply to: Oldskool88


Here's something we should put in our pipe and smoke it.

The best model of the size of the actual universe suggests that it's flat, and therefore, of infinite size relative to the known universe transcribed by the Hubble volume.

www.technologyreview.com...

originally posted by: Oldskool88
As we have hit walls where as we can no longer measure and study the processes involved as the act of measurement somehow has a fundimental affect on the outcome How? . Is this because everything is conscious on some sort of level? light from the sun... rock and dirt ... microbes and germs/bacteria etc ... grass, plants and trees, to the animal kingdom and us.

There are things we can't measure. But from a scientific perspective if you can't measure something, you can't claim to know much about it. That doesn't mean it's not there or not real, but it does mean that there's no way to make observations to test our hypotheses. Take this for example:

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Oldskool88

Here's something we should put in our pipe and smoke it.

The best model of the size of the actual universe suggests that it's flat, and therefore, of infinite size relative to the known universe transcribed by the Hubble volume.

www.technologyreview.com...

This attempts to answer the question of what might be beyond the observable universe. Since we can't make any observations beyond the observable universe, it's difficult if not impossible to test hypotheses about what's beyond. Maybe that could change someday, if for example we invented warp drive and could fly faster than light we could make observations of what's beyond the distance where light can reach us. Until we can make observations though, we are in the territory of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

So, lets say,
person A says what's beyond the observable universe is more of our universe.
person B says what's beyond the observable universe is other universes, a multiverse.
person C says what's beyond the observable universe the cosmic consciousness which created our universe.
person D says what's beyond the observable universe is a giant turtle which holds it up.

If no observation or experiment can settle which hypothesis is correct, it doesn't seem like there's much point in debating them from a scientific perspective. That doesn't mean one of them isn't correct, one of them may be correct, but we don't know which one, and we have no way of knowing scientifically. It's also possible that all of them are incorrect.

You can still pick one and say "I like this one" and that's fine, but it's not science. Science is a way of knowing something objectively, and if you just pick one because you like it, that's not objective, independently verifiable knowledge.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Re: Observable universe and actual universe size, please read the link I posted.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Re: Observable universe and actual universe size, please read the link I posted.

Of course I read that, but it's from 2011. It's an example of "person A says what's beyond the observable universe is more of our universe. " which there probably is but if that article led you to believe we really knew how much back in 2011, then you have been misled. We still don't know even today, and we may never know beyond doubt if we can't make observations to confirm our suspicions.

The following analysis has shown some issues with flatness claims at high redshift that aren't addressed at all in that 2011 analysis, which is understandable since these deviations weren't known in 2011.

Falsifying ΛCDM: Model-independent tests of the concordance model with eBOSS DR14Q and Pantheon

Fig. 3 shows Θ(z) (top) and O k (z) (bottom). Both are consistent with a flat FLRW metric up to z ’ 1.2.
However, at high redshift, some deviation from flatness can be seen.

(emphasis mine). So up to redshift of z=1.2 the universe appears flat, but over that, some deviation from flatness can be seen. They also point out the model dependence and the fact that we're not even sure the model is right but they claim to have model-independent tests.

It was an awfully big leap back in 2011 to try to calculate the size of the universe beyond the observable universe, when we still had so many unresolved issues with our models, which is still the case today.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Hey that's neat, thanks!

Interesting that the deviation from flatness is so small and barely measurable, the implication being that the actual universe, relative to the known, must be absolutely HUGE.

I've heard it said that if the known universe was the size of a golf ball, that the actual universe would be many light years across. If so, that's crazy.

If there's a creator, which I believe there is, "His" motto must be

"Go big or go home."

What boggles my mind, while in the realm of science fiction I suppose since we don't know what's there, is the idea of what's going on out there on other worlds, like right now.

Our own human experience and context wouldn't be equipped to process it, as a reality.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Oldskool88
As we have hit walls where as we can no longer measure and study the processes involved as the act of measurement somehow has a fundimental affect on the outcome How? . Is this because everything is conscious on some sort of level? light from the sun... rock and dirt ... microbes and germs/bacteria etc ... grass, plants and trees, to the animal kingdom and us.

There are things we can't measure. But from a scientific perspective if you can't measure something, you can't claim to know much about it. That doesn't mean it's not there or not real, but it does mean that there's no way to make observations to test our hypotheses. Take this for example:

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Oldskool88

Here's something we should put in our pipe and smoke it.

The best model of the size of the actual universe suggests that it's flat, and therefore, of infinite size relative to the known universe transcribed by the Hubble volume.

www.technologyreview.com...

This attempts to answer the question of what might be beyond the observable universe. Since we can't make any observations beyond the observable universe, it's difficult if not impossible to test hypotheses about what's beyond. Maybe that could change someday, if for example we invented warp drive and could fly faster than light we could make observations of what's beyond the distance where light can reach us. Until we can make observations though, we are in the territory of Newton's Flaming Laser Sword

If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation then it is not worthy of debate.

So, lets say,
person A says what's beyond the observable universe is more of our universe.
person B says what's beyond the observable universe is other universes, a multiverse.
person C says what's beyond the observable universe the cosmic consciousness which created our universe.
person D says what's beyond the observable universe is a giant turtle which holds it up.

If no observation or experiment can settle which hypothesis is correct, it doesn't seem like there's much point in debating them from a scientific perspective. That doesn't mean one of them isn't correct, one of them may be correct, but we don't know which one, and we have no way of knowing scientifically. It's also possible that all of them are incorrect.

You can still pick one and say "I like this one" and that's fine, but it's not science. Science is a way of knowing something objectively, and if you just pick one because you like it, that's not objective, independently verifiable knowledge.

without pondering in the what ifs thou. we would never have theories to test! usually First comes the inner believing in a theory. Followed by building a test that shows this to be true or false. But how do we build tests to test consiousness and its fundamental effects (how does consiousness awareness and measurement collapse the wave function?). We can't leave consiousness as a separate scientific aspect that can be studied later. As its a fundamental aspect present in every test we have ever made or any test we are planin in making.

Something I find interesting that we seem to have discovered regarding the center of our own galaxy having at its core, a super-massive black hole, is that it suggests that there's a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy.

There's so much that we don't know about galactic and solar system formation and evolution.

Also, is there a singularity at the center of every black hole and a "white hole" on the other side of it, spewing forth matter and energy into another universe in formation?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Hey that's neat, thanks!

Interesting that the deviation from flatness is so small and barely measurable, the implication being that the actual universe, relative to the known, must be absolutely HUGE.

Even the observable universe is huge, with a current diameter something like 93 billion light years, so yes the universe is huge since it's apparently bigger than that.

But there's a lesson to be learned here. The authors of that paper say future measurements should shed more light on the flatness so we are always seeking new and better data, but for illustration purposes let's say that their observations about flatness were correct. What they found is:
redshift 0.2: flat universe
redshift 0.4: flat universe
redshift 0.6: flat universe
redshift 0.8: flat universe
redshift 1.0: flat universe
redshift 1.2: flat universe

now given this pattern, what would we expect for redshift 1.4? 1.6? 2.0?

If someone said the data suggests a flat universe so there's no reason to expect otherwise as redshift increases, it's hard to disagree with that logic. However, their data shows that logic could be wrong, because it doesn't necessarily show flatness at 1.4, 1.6, or 2.0 redshift. This shows the danger of extrapolating, because measurements may not always be what you might expect. So again I think the 2011 predictions about the size of the universe beyond the observable universe assumed a great deal, which even if the assumptions could be deemed "logical", that doesn't mean they're right.

originally posted by: Oldskool88
without pondering in the what ifs thou. we would never have theories to test!

Somehow you didn't receive the message I sent. If it can be tested, then make all the hypotheses you want, then test them. I was cautioning about things which can not be tested, like directly observing what's beyond the observable universe.

But how do we build tests to test consiousness and its fundamental effects (how does consiousness awareness and measurement collapse the wave function?).

While a minority of physicists might think otherwise, the majority of physicists think that consciousness is not required to collapse the wave function.

We can't leave consiousness as a separate scientific aspect that can be studied later. As its a fundamental aspect present in every test we have ever made or any test we are planin in making.

You're entitled to that opinion but most physicists would disagree. We look back in time at galaxies forming and evolving in the early universe perhaps before any consciousness existed anywhere and certainly before any consciousness existed on earth since this is before the earth existed.

Maybe you've fallen into the trap that quantum mechanics seems to require an observer but this doesn't mean conscious observer since a rock or some air molecules will function in the role of observer and they have no consciousness.


Sean Carroll, physicist: "Deep in the heart of almost every physicist is the conviction that (the observer) shouldn't really be important...that the existence of a person, which is what it sounds like when you say the word observer, that shouldn't be part of a real physical theory. There's sort of a minority of physicists who have taken up the radical point of view that no you can't even define quantum mechanics without really taking observers seriously as part of the fundamental ingredients of the theory. The rest of us are trying to say what we really meant all along by observers is something else, some part of the system that interacts with some other part of the system in another way, so I for one am happy to count video cameras, rocks, atoms and molecules in the air as quantum mechanical observers for all intents and purposes."

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Also, is there a singularity at the center of every black hole and a "white hole" on the other side of it, spewing forth matter and energy into another universe in formation?

The occurrence of a singularity in a black hole is usually considered a breakdown of the theory of relativity, which is expected to be resolved by some type of "theory of quantum gravity" if such a thing is possible, which will feature some kind of quantum description of the center of a black hole which is not a singularity.

I don't know much about white holes and I'm not sure if anybody does, including whether any actually exist or not, but I don't think they are associated with black holes which form from gravitational collapse, which I suspect includes most if not all of the black hole candidates we are aware of.

I agree with your post but not fully. There's many maybe's and speculation going on. And many people disagree with the mainstream take on qm because it's just so weird compared to classical mechanics. Remember because a conscious observer is not present at the time of doing the experiment doesn't mean that the consiousness from the observer has not still caused the collapse of the wave function. As for a m easureing device to be active doing the measurement a conscious observer must of built , set up and checked the data. Still a conscious process going on...

Goes back to what I was saying earlier can everything be considered conscious on some sort of level with consiousness being the fundamentals of reality rather than matter...

IS EVERYTHING CONSIOUSNESS

Interesting read as I said before I'm open to all possibilities..

If there is nothing but consciousness, then there can’t be anything other than consciousness which would cause consciousness to appear as limited forms. Somehow, consciousness must do this to itself. Bernardo uses the analogy of a whirlpool, which seems to have a form, but is nothing but water interacting with itself. Physics speaks of the Unified Field as having a self-interacting nature, similarly explaining that at that level, there is nothing other than itself with which it could interact.

If consciousness “creates” the “material” universe through self-interaction, how is it that the various forms which consciousness appears to assume seem to lose sight of their essential nature? If there is nothing but consciousness, is consciousness somehow hiding its true nature from itself? In Vedic terminology, this hiding quality emerges as a natural consequence of the self-interacting dynamics of consciousness. Being conscious, and having nothing other than itself of which to be conscious, consciousness becomes aware of itself and in so doing, seemingly diversifies into observer (rishi), process of observation (devata), and observed (chhandas). I say “seemingly” because as Ramana Maharshi and others have pointed out, diversification only appears to take place. It doesn’t actually do so. The rope never really becomes a snake.

It seems to me that the hiding quality of consciousness is essential to there being a manifest universe, or appearing to be one. If every bit of creation were fully aware of its true nature as consciousness from the outset, there would be no possibility of or need for manifestation, no evolution of increasingly complex forms, no fun game of hide and seek which God is playing with Himself! Once the illusion is seen through, the game is over. More than one sage has uttered statements such as “The universe never manifested” or “Nothing ever happened”.

All this talk of consciousness as the sole reality and forms as mere appearance is not meant to imply that we should dismiss our activities and relationships as illusory. Contemporary spirituality is now recovering from a tendency to do that. Many of those who took refuge in the intellectual notion that they were “not a person” and that there is “nothing to do” lost interest in life, and in some cases suffered dissociative breakdowns. The current emphasis on “embodiment” is an attempt to counteract this. With that caveat, I’ll return to my theme.

If everything is consciousness, does it follow that everything is conscious? If so, to what degree? Have material forms entirely lost sight of their essential nature, or do they all retain at least a glimmer of it? There’s a Sufi saying: “God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man.” A rock is as much in consciousness and consciousness in it as is a human being. But rocks do not appear to be conscious in any meaningful sense. Yet at the atomic and sub-atomic levels, looking at carbon atoms for instance, a rock is indistinguishable from a human being. Some would argue that even at this level, nature is conscious.

Physicist and cosmologist Freeman Dyson writes that, “Matter in quantum mechanics is not an inert substance but an active agent, constantly making choices between alternative possibilities… It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron.”

originally posted by: Oldskool88
I agree with your post but not fully. There's many maybe's and speculation going on. And many people disagree with the mainstream take on qm because it's just so weird compared to classical mechanics.

That doesn't make much sense. Everyone agrees the observations are weird, like the double slit experiment and its variations, which you can do yourself. But I've never heard anybody say the observations are wrong or can't be repeated. As far as I know everyone who does the double slit experiment under the same conditions gets a very similar weird result.

The observations are independent of any model used to try to make predictions about future observations. What physicists do is try to make models that can predict experimental results. Is anybody saying the QM model doesn't predict experimental results for the double slit and similar experiments? I haven't heard anybody say that.

So as far as I can tell, everyone agrees on the observations, and that the QM model makes accurate predictions.

If you ask what do the models mean, the physicists say they don't know for sure. How is it possible to disagree with "I don't know"? The only way I know of is by saying "I know, and the answer is this" but that's not what you're saying is it? Nobody knows, so we should all be 100% in agreement on these three things:

-Experimental results such as the double slit experiment can be repeated.
-The mathematical model for quantum mechanics can predict these experimental results accurately.
-Nobody knows for sure the underlying meaning of the mathematical models.

So what this boils down to is not a problem with mainstream physics, but that as Richard Feynmann quipped, some people don't like the way the universe works (because experimental results are what's weird), and to those people he suggested finding another universe that they like better that seems less weird if they didn't like this one. This universe works how it works and physicists are not in control of that. Some physicists may not like how it works that much either, but they really have no choice but to accept that the experimental results are the experimental results, what other choice do they have? Talking nonsense about consciousness won't change the experiments.

Goes back to what I was saying earlier can everything be considered conscious on some sort of level with consiousness being the fundamentals of reality rather than matter...

IS EVERYTHING CONSIOUSNESS

Interesting read as I said before I'm open to all possibilities..

"If there is nothing but consciousness, then there can’t be anything other than consciousness..."I have no idea how to even comprehend that first sentence. Some people who beat their spouse are charged with spousal abuse, but I charge people who abuse the dictionary with dictionary abuse, and I level such charges against the author of that article. It may be difficult to define consciousness precisely but in simplest terms it's some kind of self awareness.

So when the author says "We were discussing whether inanimate objects can be conscious" I am dismayed. There are many hard questions in physics and physicists don't have all the answers so a lot of topics need further study. Whether a rock has consciousness or not is not a hard question, and to me it seems like a complete waste of time, energy and intellect to discuss whether a rock has consciousness or not. If it's not immediately apparent to you that a rock doesn't have consciousness, then your definition of consciousness is so different from what's in the dictionary (which is my definition) that there's no possibility of having any meaningful discussion about it.

What you can deduce from the article is that the author is abusing the dictionary and is at least somewhat aware of it, so it ends up being in some sense just nonsense and gibberish when he's not using terminology as it's ordinarily used. It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out, and people who think rocks are conscious have brains that fell out, if they are using the accepted definition of conscious in the dictionary. If they are abusing the dictionary, they should stop doing that.