A Universe from Nothing?

[Rick O'Shez]

In fact, the gross world we visibly experience could not exist were it not for the sub-atomic world.

So what? The "gross world" IS the one we "visibly experience".

What you fail to understand is that different rules apply at different scales.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Perhaps, but at our human scale it is Newtonian mechanics which dominate what we experience.

What is being claimed here is that consciousness is the basis of the cosmos, that is pure pseudo-science.

Yes, I agree with you, there is no scientific evidence that the universe is conscious.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is why Quantum Mechanics has essentially overturned the applecart of Newtonian physics.

No, it has added new understanding of behaviour at the sub-atomic scale. Newtonian mechanics is still a good description of how things behave in our everyday world, at the human scale.

If I drop a brick on my foot it will hurt, and my settee doesn't disappear back into the quantum foam when I happen not be looking at it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It is Consciousness itself, as Hagelin explained, is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

"As Hagelin speculated" would be accurate. I wish you would stop dressing up beliefs and speculations as facts.

I also wish you would stop dumping in jargony expressions like "Pure Abstract Intelligence" without explaining what they are actually supposed to mean. Or even better, start using Plain English, drop the pretentious jargon, start expressing your ideas clearly and succinctly. Stop expecting the rest of us to be mind-readers, stop being so egocentric.

 

[ak.yonathan]

So what? The "gross world" IS the one we "visibly experience".

What you fail to understand is that different rules apply at different scales.

This is where I'm gonna disagree with you. It's not that different rules apply at different scales, but rather that the quantum effects can be ignored on a large enough scale. However in principle the effect is still there. So, quantum mechanics does apply to our everyday world, just not in a way that is normally noticeable. Newtonian mechanics is a special case where the quantum numbers are very large and the speeds involved are considerably less than the speed of light. You could use quantum mechanics to explain the everyday world, but it usually is not necessary and Newtonian mechanics is sufficient.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps, but at our human scale it is Newtonian mechanics which dominate what we experience.

What is being claimed here is that consciousness is the basis of the cosmos, that is based on pseudo-science and speculation.

I agreed that godnotgod's view about cosmic consciousness and feeble attempt at hijacking quantum mechanics as pseudoscience...in that regards, I have no doubt...

...but (of course, there is always a "but" with me ), it is more than just mere speculation...no, it's much worse than that. It is pure wishful thinking, in which he tried to present as fact.

I don't find his tactics anymore appealing than either Muslims using the Qur'an as "science" or Christian creationists using the biblical creationism as "science".

I find this method of using science for their agenda to be completely dishonest and reprehensible.

 

[ArtieE]

In addition, clinical studies now show that experienced meditators (esp monks) have actually grown thicker cerebral cortexes via the brain's exposure to many years of meditative experience. IOW, consciousness grows the material brain, and not the other way around.

You can also grow a thicker cerebral cortex by learning a language. http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Your-Brain-Grow
What would you call that? Languageness grows the material brain?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I agreed that godnotgod's view about cosmic consciousness and feeble attempt at hijacking quantum mechanics as pseudoscience...in that regards, I have no doubt...
...but (of course, there is always a "but" with me ), it is more than just mere speculation...no, it's much worse than that. It is pure wishful thinking, in which he tried to present as fact.
I don't his tactics anymore appealing than either Muslims using the Qur'an as "science" or Christian creationists using the biblical creationism as "science".
I find this method of using science for their agenda to be completely dishonest and reprehensible.

I agree, there is a fundamental dishonesty involved. New-agers are the worst offenders because they misrepresent both science AND traditional religious teachings.

 

[ArtieE]

It is Consciousness itself, as Hagelin explained, is Pure Abstract Intelligence.

And the definition of intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." So Consciousness could say "I am consciousness. I am intelligent. I have the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." ?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would like to see a succinct definition of consciousness before proceeding further.

Succinct means a couple of lines of Plain English, free from jargon and quote-mining, and free from dodgy Youtube videos.

 

[godnotgod]

You clearly don't understand the difference. Perhaps you have repeating the same beliefs for so long that you have begun to believe them.

.

Beliefs are the product of thought. Realization occurs without thought and therefore cannot be belief.

 

[godnotgod]

Perhaps, but at our human scale it is Newtonian mechanics which dominate what we experience.
.

Actually, what Newtonian mechanics measures is the result of what is going on at the sub-atomic level. Without it, there is no 'Newtonian' anything.

 

[godnotgod]

So what? The "gross world" IS the one we "visibly experience".

What you fail to understand is that different rules apply at different scales.

I understand that, but just because you don't see what's involved in the experience does not mean you are not experiencing it. If I shock you with electricity, you experience it, but you don't see the electrons causing your distress. It is because of the spacial, sub-atomic, atomic, and molecular structure of the brick that you feel pain when dropped on your foot.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I agree with you, there is no scientific evidence that the universe is conscious.

Are YOU conscious? If so, where does your consciousness end and the unconscious universe begin?

A wave is comprised of water. It is, in reality, the ocean itself, which is also water.

 

[godnotgod]

No, it has added new understanding of behaviour at the sub-atomic scale. Newtonian mechanics is still a good description of how things behave in our everyday world, at the human scale.
.

...at the comparatively macroscopic or gross scale.

One of the primary things that QM has overturned re: Newtonian physics is the assumption that the 'material' world is 'real'; QM now describes it as 'possibility', as well as finding that it's structure is virtual in nature. All of the mass of the atom is now understood to be created by fluctuations in the Quantum/Higgs Fields.

 

[godnotgod]

You can also grow a thicker cerebral cortex by learning a language. http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Your-Brain-Grow
What would you call that? Languageness grows the material brain?

Does one focus one's consciousness when learning a language?

 

[godnotgod]

I would like to see a succinct definition of consciousness before proceeding further.

Succinct means a couple of lines of Plain English, free from jargon and quote-mining, and free from dodgy Youtube videos.

It cannot be described in rational terms, and yet is immediately apparent and obvious to everyone as direct experience. It IS one's ongoing experience even prior to self-awareness, and because of that, it is not a personal experience, but a non-local one. It is, in fact, the experience of The Universe expressing itself as you. Your false sense of self only thinks it is yours. It's true nature is that it is empty of inherent self-nature. It is Sunyata. You are Sunyata.

 

[ak.yonathan]

Are YOU conscious? If so, where does your consciousness end and the unconscious universe begin?

A wave is comprised of water. It is, in reality, the ocean itself, which is also water.

Just because the universe contains consciousness doesn't mean that it itself is conscious. Just because a box holds apples in it doesn't mean that the box is an apple itself. I have to admit I don't know where the boundary lies but I'm sure there is one.

 

[godnotgod]

And the definition of intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." So Consciousness could say "I am consciousness. I am intelligent. I have the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." ?

Except that there is no such agent of intelligence/consciousness called 'I'. You yourself stated that 'I' was an illusion of the chemical processes of the brain, which ends at death. I disagree that 'I'is the product of brain chemistry, which has not been demonstrated. It is the product of consciousness, which is not dependent upon the brain.

Your definition does not say "the ability of someone to acquire and apply knowledge and skills."

The Universe acquires and applies knowledge and skills all the time. It has evolved from a singularity to what we now see and experience.

Somehow, a single blade of grass can manufacture it's own food without having a brain, something we have no concept as to how large or complex a brain we would require to accomplish the same task.

Is there a 'water whirler' called 'whirlpool' that whirls water? No. There is only whirling water, caused by gravity and other factors beyond what you call 'whirlpool', just as there are factors beyond what you call 'I' to what you only think 'you' do, and why the Hindus say: 'There is no self or other; there is no doer', and why Buddhism says that:

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

 

[godnotgod]

Just because the universe contains consciousness doesn't mean that it itself is conscious. Just because a box holds apples in it doesn't mean that the box is an apple itself. I have to admit I don't know where the boundary lies but I'm sure there is one.

Why are you sure?

The box analogy is flawed.

The things IN the Universe that are apparently conscious are what comprise the Universe itself, along with everything else. There are no such things that are separate from the Universe. The Universe is itself Consciousness, expressing itself as 'The Universe'. So it is not exactly that 'things are conscious', like a rock, for example; what is manifesting the rock as 'rock' is consciousness.