Consciousness

[godnotgod]

I agree with many of your comments. The "I" or the voice in my head is truly an illusion and dimensionless. You obviously agree with that. This was not derived from experimental knowledge, it was derived from common sense. Since everything we can conceive of can't physically exist in our head, its existence can only be a dimensionless illusion of reality. But this "I" can't move the keys on my keyboard. It's the sensory signals I receive from my eyes, that interpreted your post, that accessed comprehension, memory, and knowledge compartments throughout the brain, that started this process of dialog. These signals are then interpreted as language. I can then access my motor cortex and send signals to my fingers to type the specific keys and respond to your post. In other words the "I" represents just another functional real member of your own species that is posting under the silly tag "truly enlightened".

You are correct, I am held back by the consistency of reality. I have been taught to trust the scientific methods of inquiry. I am guilty of defining my reality by all things I experience through my senses. You will agree that(from a science perspective) there is nothing physically perfect, or absolute in Nature. Is it possible that our senses over time, missing, or when over used, will simply give a faulty representation of reality? Amputee's still feel "phantom" itches to their missing limbs.

No matter how compelling the argument we create, it must be tested to become valid. No matter how good the rationale is, it can't be better than the evidence supporting it. If a medium exists that allows one consciousness to interact with another, it can easily be tested. Since one consciousness does not interact with another, we have no connection to a UC. I certainly believe that your experiences are real to you. Don

You know, up until fairly recently, Quantum physicists have discovered that 'particles' are the result of wave fluctuations in their surrounding fields, and so now we have 'field theory'. Some even say that what we thought to be a solid particle, is actually a standing wave; not a particle at all, but pure energy.

While we may seem to be autonomous entities moving about in the world, the reality is that we are 100% integrated into our environment. In fact, I would venture to say that who and what we are, both physically and essentially, is a result of interactions with our environment. The sense of 'I' is created via input from those interactions as our identity, and those interactions always involve awareness.

"One alternative [to the current paradigm] that is gaining increasing attention is the view that the capacity for experience is not itself a product of the brain. This is not to say that the brain is not responsible for what we experience — there is ample evidence for a strong correlation between what goes on in the brain and what goes on in the mind — only that the brain is not responsible for experience itself. Instead, the capacity for consciousness is an inherent quality of life itself.

In this model, consciousness is like the light in a film projector. The film needs the light in order for an image to appear, but it does not create the light. In a similar way, the brain creates the images, thoughts, feelings and other experiences of which we are aware, but awareness itself is already present.

All that we have discovered about the correlations between the brain and experience still holds true. This is usually the case with a paradigm shift; the new includes the old. But it also resolves the anomaly that the old could not explain. In this case, we no longer need scratch our heads wondering how the brain generates the capacity for experience.

This proposal is so contrary to the current paradigm, that die-hard materialists easily ridicule and dismiss it. But we should not forget the bishops of Galileo’s time who refused to look through his telescope because they knew his discovery was impossible."

Peter Russell, physicist
Does Our Brain Really Create Consciousness? | HuffPost

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You know, up until fairly recently, Quantum physicists have discovered that 'particles' are the result of wave fluctuations in their surrounding fields, and so now we have 'field theory'. Some even say that what we thought to be a solid particle, is actually a standing wave; not a particle at all, but pure energy.

While we may seem to be autonomous entities moving about in the world, the reality is that we are 100% integrated into our environment. In fact, I would venture to say that who and what we are, both physically and essentially, is a result of interactions with our environment. The sense of 'I' is created via input from those interactions as our identity, and those interactions always involve awareness.

"One alternative [to the current paradigm] that is gaining increasing attention is the view that the capacity for experience is not itself a product of the brain. This is not to say that the brain is not responsible for what we experience — there is ample evidence for a strong correlation between what goes on in the brain and what goes on in the mind — only that the brain is not responsible for experience itself. Instead, the capacity for consciousness is an inherent quality of life itself.

In this model, consciousness is like the light in a film projector. The film needs the light in order for an image to appear, but it does not create the light. In a similar way, the brain creates the images, thoughts, feelings and other experiences of which we are aware, but awareness itself is already present.

All that we have discovered about the correlations between the brain and experience still holds true. This is usually the case with a paradigm shift; the new includes the old. But it also resolves the anomaly that the old could not explain. In this case, we no longer need scratch our heads wondering how the brain generates the capacity for experience.

This proposal is so contrary to the current paradigm, that die-hard materialists easily ridicule and dismiss it. But we should not forget the bishops of Galileo’s time who refused to look through his telescope because they knew his discovery was impossible."

Peter Russell, physicist
Does Our Brain Really Create Consciousness? | HuffPost

I'm really not interested in the opinions of a physicist, giving his opinions in the fields of neuroanatomy, psychology, neurology, or neurophysiology. I'm not even that good. I have more than just a working knowledge in quantum mechanics, and definately a proponent of the QFT. Firstly, there is no such thing as pure energy. Energy is a quantity associated with the quantum fields. It is not an isolated entity. All particles must use this energy to sustain their integrity. Energy as a functional entity, must do work. Otherwise, pure energy is meaningless. Even photons have momentum(angular), and it's massless.

I agree that at some level of reality, we are one with our environment. But as a physical human being we are only a part of our environment. 90% of all human functions are done without our awareness at all. Until something goes wrong. I have no idea what the wave properties of matter have to do with consciousness, UC, orUUC. It seems you are moving towards a composition fallacy. Just because a part of the whole is true, doesn't mean that the whole is true. Our consciousness was created from our overdeveloped language and limbic systems. Do you think that we are self-aware at birth? Anyway, we may simply need to agree to disagree, since you are not objectively supporting your position. All I can say is, if your beliefs help you sleep better, then it is a positive. I have no reason to disbelieve your subjective experiences. They are just not mine. Don

 

[godnotgod]

I'm really not interested in the opinions of a physicist, giving his opinions in the fields of neuroanatomy, psychology, neurology, or neurophysiology. I'm not even that good. I have more than just a working knowledge in quantum mechanics, and definately a proponent of the QFT. Firstly, there is no such thing as pure energy. Energy is a quantity associated with the quantum fields. It is not an isolated entity. All particles must use this energy to sustain their integrity. Energy as a functional entity, must do work. Otherwise, pure energy is meaningless. Even photons have momentum(angular), and it's massless.

I agree that at some level of reality, we are one with our environment. But as a physical human being we are only a part of our environment. 90% of all human functions are done without our awareness at all. Until something goes wrong. I have no idea what the wave properties of matter have to do with consciousness, UC, orUUC. It seems you are moving towards a composition fallacy. Just because a part of the whole is true, doesn't mean that the whole is true. Our consciousness was created from our overdeveloped language and limbic systems. Do you think that we are self-aware at birth? Anyway, we may simply need to agree to disagree, since you are not objectively supporting your position. All I can say is, if your beliefs help you sleep better, then it is a positive. I have no reason to disbelieve your subjective experiences. They are just not mine. Don

We are not 'one with our environment at some level of reality'; we are at one with it at every level. Show me where you see a disconnect, and at which 'level' this occurs? In your mind? Why would your electro-chemical reactions lie to you? I mean, since they are responsible for everything, they certainly are capable of a small joke or two.

As a physical human being, we are 100% connected to our environment. It is apparent in every breath, and by the very fact that gravity exists.

Consciousness is needed to create language, so how is it that language 'created' consciousness?

The fact that there is no sense of self at birth is further indication of a universal consciousness at play. A self only comes about gradually at around 14 months, after exposure to social input from parents and interplay with the outside world. This is the process of identity formation, and the conditioning of universal consciousness into individual consciousness, and somewhere along the line, the connection to universal consciousness is 'lost'. We become what we think is an autonomous, isolated shell 'over here', with the world 'over there', not realizing we are completely immersed in the world at every moment.

What you refer to as 'my subjective experiences', are not mine; that is to say, they do not have their source in "i"; they have their source in the 'not-I', and what is the 'not-I' but the universal.

The experience of the ocean wave is not that of the individual wave; it is that of the entire ocean. Likewise, what we think of as 'my experience' is an illusion; it is the experience of the entire universe.

Yes, energy fluctuations from the Quantum and Higgs fields create the standing waves that we thought were 'particles'.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, .

The Particle: Introduction

"All known elementary particles are standing waves of space."

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

 

[Truly Enlightened]

We are not 'one with our environment at some level of reality'; we are at one with it at every level. Show me where you see a disconnect, and at which 'level' this occurs? In your mind? Why would your electro-chemical reactions lie to you? I mean, since they are responsible for everything, they certainly are capable of a small joke or two.

As a physical human being, we are 100% connected to our environment. It is apparent in every breath, and by the very fact that gravity exists.

Consciousness is needed to create language, so how is it that language 'created' consciousness?

The fact that there is no sense of self at birth is further indication of a universal consciousness at play. A self only comes about gradually at around 14 months, after exposure to social input from parents and interplay with the outside world. This is the process of identity formation, and the conditioning of universal consciousness into individual consciousness, and somewhere along the line, the connection to universal consciousness is 'lost'. We become what we think is an autonomous, isolated shell 'over here', with the world 'over there', not realizing we are completely immersed in the world at every moment.

What you refer to as 'my subjective experiences', are not mine; that is to say, they do not have their source in "i"; they have their source in the 'not-I', and what is the 'not-I' but the universal.

The experience of the ocean wave is not that of the individual wave; it is that of the entire ocean. Likewise, what we think of as 'my experience' is an illusion; it is the experience of the entire universe.

Yes, energy fluctuations from the Quantum and Higgs fields create the standing waves that we thought were 'particles'.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, .

The Particle: Introduction

"All known elementary particles are standing waves of space."

standing waves | Quantum Wave Theory

There are far too many issues here for me to unpack all at once. I never said we were not connected to our environment. In fact I said we were a part of our environment. To me both mean the same. It is the "oneness" with the environment on the macroscopic level that I disagree with. Only at the subatomic level are we "one" with our environment. Just asking where the disconnect is demonstrate a less than basic understanding of science. Basically, in classical Newtonian Physics(macro reality) we can determine with certainty the speed and position of an object at the same time, whether the object is stationary or in motion. These objects have the properties of mass and gravity. At the quantum level, mass is irrelevant, and gravity is far to weak, to determine the speed and position of an object with 100% certainty at the same time. The disconnect is that we are talking about the properties of mass in the Macro-world, and the properties of wave functions in the subatomic world. If you can prove that there is no disconnect, every physicist in the world will be beating a path to your door, including members of the Nobel committee.

I agree that it is only inductive reasoning to conclude that language developed before consciousness. I simply conclude that without language, how do we carry on any internal dialog? What do we use to describe what our senses are representing to our consciousness? How does our consciousness describe the emotions it experiences? What do we use to convey to others our basic needs? How do we describe concepts? I believe that language development is crucial in the development of consciousness. If consciousness developed first, How would we know?

I claim that I am unable to share your subjective experiences. Therefore I can't know if they are real or not. You state that your experiences are not sourced in your consciousness("I"), but in the "not-I". You call this "Not I" the Universal "something". Have you any idea how many logical fallacies you have committed? As I've stated before, you have the right to your own beliefs, but not your own logic. Don

 

[godnotgod]

There are far too many issues here for me to unpack all at once. I never said we were not connected to our environment. In fact I said we were a part of our environment. To me both mean the same. It is the "oneness" with the environment on the macroscopic level that I disagree with. Only at the subatomic level are we "one" with our environment. Just asking where the disconnect is demonstrate a less than basic understanding of science. Basically, in classical Newtonian Physics(macro reality) we can determine with certainty the speed and position of an object at the same time, whether the object is stationary or in motion. These objects have the properties of mass and gravity. At the quantum level, mass is irrelevant, and gravity is far to weak, to determine the speed and position of an object with 100% certainty at the same time. The disconnect is that we are talking about the properties of mass in the Macro-world, and the properties of wave functions in the subatomic world. If you can prove that there is no disconnect, every physicist in the world will be beating a path to your door, including members of the Nobel committee.

I agree that it is only inductive reasoning to conclude that language developed before consciousness. I simply conclude that without language, how do we carry on any internal dialog? What do we use to describe what our senses are representing to our consciousness? How does our consciousness describe the emotions it experiences? What do we use to convey to others our basic needs? How do we describe concepts? I believe that language development is crucial in the development of consciousness. If consciousness developed first, How would we know?

I claim that I am unable to share your subjective experiences. Therefore I can't know if they are real or not. You state that your experiences are not sourced in your consciousness("I"), but in the "not-I". You call this "Not I" the Universal "something". Have you any idea how many logical fallacies you have committed? As I've stated before, you have the right to your own beliefs, but not your own logic. Don

If individual consciousness is 'I', then 'not-I' can only be not-individual consciousness, ie; 'universal' consciousness. Is this a 'logical fallacy', or just logic?

Language is symbolic representation of experience. Direct experience comes first, without conceptualization. Direct experience is the experience of consciousness. So language came afterward as a means of describing experience. Consciousness did not develop; it was already in place as the fundamental reality to what did develop.

On the Quantum level, mass is not real mass, but virtual mass, seen and experienced as real mass on the macro level. It is the macro world that is built upon the sub-atomic world. There is no disconnect here. They are one and the same 'world'. You and I, having our foundations upon the sub-atomic world, are in no way separate from our environment, either in the sub-atomic or the macro world.

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If individual consciousness is 'I', then 'not-I' can only be not-individual consciousness, ie; 'universal' consciousness. Is this a 'logical fallacy', or just logic?

Language is symbolic representation of experience. Direct experience comes first, without conceptualization. Direct experience is the experience of consciousness. So language came afterward as a means of describing experience. Consciousness did not develop; it was already in place as the fundamental reality to what did develop.

On the Quantum level, mass is not real mass, but virtual mass, seen and experienced as real mass on the macro level. It is the macro world that is built upon the sub-atomic world. There is no disconnect here. They are one and the same 'world'. You and I, having our foundations upon the sub-atomic world, are in no way separate from our environment, either in the sub-atomic or the macro world.

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

Mass is a property of matter. This property is not virtual at the macro-level of reality. If it were, we would all be floating in outer space now. Because of its interaction with the other quantum forces, mass gives matter its properties. But at the quantum level mass is irrelevant, or none existent because of the wave function of subatomic particles. You are correct that we are all composed of subatomic particles. But that's it. Maybe you can solve the problem of quantum de-coherence in an isolated system? Maybe you can solve the measurement problem? Maybe you can explain how "classical phase space" and "quantum phase space" are linked? When you can do this, then you can claim no disconnect exists.

You have not proved that consciousness is "I", let alone discounted all possibilities of what "not I" could be. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle, false dilemma, false dichotomy, and an argument from ignorance. It is not logical without any supporting evidence. It is simply self-serving logic.

I believe that consciousness is simply a state of being aware of our body and environment. Self-awareness is simply being aware of consciousness. I believe that both are conceptualized by language. We can certainly conceptualize experiences before they are real experiences. We do this every day.

At this stage we should just agree to disagree. Your beliefs are not logical, but they are also unfalsifiable. I can only correct the obvious, the rest is just an exercise in futility. Don

 

[atanu]

...

I believe that consciousness is simply a state of being aware of our body and environment. Self-awareness is simply being aware of consciousness. I believe that both are conceptualized by language. We can certainly conceptualize experiences before they are real experiences. We do this every day.

...

So, when one is sleeping and there is no consciousness of body, is consciousness absent? How does it get born out of nothing? Or, when one is dreaming of a different kind of a body, is consciousness of different nature-quality?

 

[godnotgod]

Mass is a property of matter. This property is not virtual at the macro-level of reality. If it were, we would all be floating in outer space now. Because of its interaction with the other quantum forces, mass gives matter its properties. But at the quantum level mass is irrelevant, or none existent because of the wave function of subatomic particles. You are correct that we are all composed of subatomic particles. But that's it. Maybe you can solve the problem of quantum de-coherence in an isolated system? Maybe you can solve the measurement problem? Maybe you can explain how "classical phase space" and "quantum phase space" are linked? When you can do this, then you can claim no disconnect exists.

Did you bother to even glance at the two links I provided, which point to mass as being virtual, and particles as being standing waves? I think you are still clinging to the old materialist paradigm; it's dead, really. There are no little solid steel balls called 'particles' that have real mass.

You have not proved that consciousness is "I", let alone discounted all possibilities of what "not I" could be. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle, false dilemma, false dichotomy, and an argument from ignorance. It is not logical without any supporting evidence. It is simply self-serving logic.

So you don't agree that individual consciousness translates to 'I', regardless whether it (ie 'I') is an illusion or not? Doesn't 'I' define an individual conscious entity?

I believe that consciousness is simply a state of being aware of our body and environment. Self-awareness is simply being aware of consciousness. I believe that both are conceptualized by language. We can certainly conceptualize experiences before they are real experiences. We do this every day.

Yes, but the conceptualization is NEVER how the actual experience turns out. You can't use language to describe an experience you haven't yet experienced; you talk about it with language AFTER the experience. But the process of conceptualization is a kind of experience itself which also requires conscious attention and focus.

When you say that 'consciousness is simply a state of being aware of body and environment', do you mean to say that there exists an agent of consciousness called 'I', as in: 'I am conscious of my body and environment'?

At this stage we should just agree to disagree. Your beliefs are not logical, but they are also unfalsifiable. I can only correct the obvious, the rest is just an exercise in futility. Don[/QUOTE]

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Did you bother to even glance at the two links I provided, which point to mass as being virtual, and particles as being standing waves? I think you are still clinging to the old materialist paradigm; it's dead, really. There are no little solid steel balls called 'particles' that have real mass.



So you don't agree that individual consciousness translates to 'I', regardless whether it (ie 'I') is an illusion or not? Doesn't 'I' define an individual conscious entity?



Yes, but the conceptualization is NEVER how the actual experience turns out. You can't use language to describe an experience you haven't yet experienced; you talk about it with language AFTER the experience. But the process of conceptualization is a kind of experience itself which also requires conscious attention and focus.

When you say that 'consciousness is simply a state of being aware of body and environment', do you mean to say that there exists an agent of consciousness called 'I', as in: 'I am conscious of my body and environment'?

At this stage we should just agree to disagree. Your beliefs are not logical, but they are also unfalsifiable. I can only correct the obvious, the rest is just an exercise in futility. Don

[/QUOTE]


Of course you can conceptualize experiences you haven't yet experienced, using language or not. Basketball players are taught to conceptualize standing on the free-throw line and putting the ball through the net. This is to improve their accuracy when they do this for real. If you are told that you will be working a Mcdonalds tomorrow, can't you conceptualize working behind the counter, serving customers? Do words like fries, burgers, shakes, etc., come to mind? Why would you say you can't?

Since it is obvious that you will continue to straw man me, falsely equivocate, misrepresent, or distort anything I say....... we're done here! I don't mind ignorance, but I can't stand willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. It is best that you exploit others that don't have a clue. Don

 

[godnotgod]

Of course you can conceptualize experiences you haven't yet experienced, using language or not. [/QUOTE]

I had a feeling you would misunderstand my statement; I should have expanded on my meaning.

I simply meant that, no matter what you may think about an upcoming event, its experience itself does not match your ideas about it. We use language before and after the experience, but language is only a symbolic representation, and is secondary to the experience. You might say that all language is an attempt to describe experience, even when describing objects.

Copping out is your decision. So be it.

One last thing about the particle, a quote from Einstein:

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."
Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, .

The Particle: Introduction
http://blazelabs.com/f-p-intro.asp

 

[godnotgod]

I never said we were not connected to our environment. In fact I said we were a part of our environment...

I agree that at some level of reality, we are one with our environment. But as a physical human being we are only a part of our environment.

godnotgod then said:

We are not 'one with our environment at some level of reality'; we are at one with it at every level. Show me where you see a disconnect, and at which 'level' this occurs?

If we are 'only a part of our environment', then there must be a disconnect at some point.

There is no such point.

I wish I could help you with your mis-use of Reason and Logic. Perhaps a Logic 101 brush-up is in order??

 

[Truly Enlightened]

godnotgod then said:

We are not 'one with our environment at some level of reality'; we are at one with it at every level. Show me where you see a disconnect, and at which 'level' this occurs?

If we are 'only a part of our environment', then there must be a disconnect at some point.

There is no such point.

I wish I could help you with your mis-use of Reason and Logic. Perhaps a Logic 101 brush-up is in order??

You are the last person on the planet that I would ask for help with simple intuition, basic science, basic induction, and basic logic. What do you think the disconnect would be between a 4 dimensional object and the environment? Could it be that no two objects(macro level) can occupy the same space at the same time. Or, is this concept beyond the "I" or consciousness to conceive? Since we can't, we can only be a PART of or CONNECTED with our environment(not ONE with it). But at the quantum level of reality, mass is irrelevant or doesn't exist(photons), because particles behave as a wave function. What would be truly interesting, if you knew WHY particles behave as a wave function, and not like little still balls? Your question should be, how do we connect the quantum world to the macro world. We know that there is a way, since all the fundamental forces were once a single force. I'm afraid the answer is certainly not because we are all made of atoms, that no disconnect can exists. And then to add insult to misery, you want me to prove that you are wrong. Of course you can only keep denying the evidence and the logic. It is you that needs a course on logic, especially in what logical fallacies are.

No matter how many time I point out your faulty logic, you will just keep re-inventing changes in your meanings. Defending your narrative is more important than accepting or finding the truth. This is just intellectual dishonesty. That is why correcting your nonsense and logical fallacies is a waste of both our times. How can a universal consciousness exist, without describing what its universal perspective is? You can't! How can consciousness be separate from our physical senses or our physical brain. It can't! What objective evidence, fallacy-free logic, or related observable phenomenon, can support anything you claim without bending reality to fit? If this is only your belief, so what, but it is not science. Hence, lets just agree to disagree. Don​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So, when one is sleeping and there is no consciousness of body, is consciousness absent? How does it get born out of nothing? Or, when one is dreaming of a different kind of a body, is consciousness of different nature-quality?

Since we are unconscious, we are not conscious(aware) of space and time. Therefore, we are not aware of body. Consciousness does not go anywhere(disappear), or is reborn again. When you turn off the engine in the car, does the engine disappear? Does it return when you turn the engine back on? In other words, consciousness is always there, just not at a conscious level of awareness(unconsciousness). Although the exact process is still unclear, it involves preventing sensory signals from reaching areas of the brain responsible for conscious awareness. This process is not fully understood, but is a necessary function of the brain. When you close your eyes at night, does that mean your vision disappears, or is reborn when you open them again? Of course not. You ask a lot of questions at once. Some make faulty assumptions, and with respect, some are just nonsense questions. Just keep in mind, that we are all physical things, controlled by physical processes, that are the results of millions of years of trial and error. Don

 

[atanu]

Since we are unconscious, we are not conscious(aware) of space and time. Therefore, we are not aware of body. Consciousness does not go anywhere(disappear), or is reborn again. When you turn off the engine in the car, does the engine disappear? Does it return when you turn the engine back on? In other words, consciousness is always there, just not at a conscious level of awareness(unconsciousness). Although the exact process is still unclear, it involves preventing sensory signals from reaching areas of the brain responsible for conscious awareness. This process is not fully understood, but is a necessary function of the brain. When you close your eyes at night, does that mean your vision disappears, or is reborn when you open them again? Of course not. You ask a lot of questions at once. Some make faulty assumptions, and with respect, some are just nonsense questions. Just keep in mind, that we are all physical things, controlled by physical processes, that are the results of millions of years of trial and error. Don

Thank you for caring to reply. So, our consciousness is equated to a product of a machine, in this case a car. So, what is the engine in our case? What is the fuel? What is the agent that turns off and on the car? So, do you think that without understanding these we can conclude physical origin of consciousness ... and blame others of non sense?

I will be obliged if you could exactly show the non sense and faulty assumptions in my questions.

 

[godnotgod]

You are the last person on the planet that I would ask for help with simple intuition, basic science, basic induction, and basic logic. What do you think the disconnect would be between a 4 dimensional object and the environment? Could it be that no two objects(macro level) can occupy the same space at the same time. Or, is this concept beyond the "I" or consciousness to conceive? Since we can't, we can only be a PART of or CONNECTED with our environment(not ONE with it). But at the quantum level of reality, mass is irrelevant or doesn't exist(photons), because particles behave as a wave function. What would be truly interesting, if you knew WHY particles behave as a wave function, and not like little still balls? Your question should be, how do we connect the quantum world to the macro world. We know that there is a way, since all the fundamental forces were once a single force. I'm afraid the answer is certainly not because we are all made of atoms, that no disconnect can exists. And then to add insult to misery, you want me to prove that you are wrong. Of course you can only keep denying the evidence and the logic. It is you that needs a course on logic, especially in what logical fallacies are.

No matter how many time I point out your faulty logic, you will just keep re-inventing changes in your meanings. Defending your narrative is more important than accepting or finding the truth. This is just intellectual dishonesty. That is why correcting your nonsense and logical fallacies is a waste of both our times. How can a universal consciousness exist, without describing what its universal perspective is? You can't! How can consciousness be separate from our physical senses or our physical brain. It can't! What objective evidence, fallacy-free logic, or related observable phenomenon, can support anything you claim without bending reality to fit? If this is only your belief, so what, but it is not science. Hence, lets just agree to disagree. Don​

We cannot connect the Quantum world to the macro world; they have never been separated. They appear as separate to you because your science is incomplete. In fact, there are not two worlds; there is only One world, and this is it.

What we call the 'atom' is, as we well know, over 99.xxxx% space. It is this space that connects and holds the components of the atom together. In fact, the cutting edge physicist Nassim Haramein tells us that what we call 'material reality' has it's source in this stuff called 'space', and he has the calculations to prove it. 'Space' is just another word for 'universal consciousness'. We call it 'space' because we don't know it to be consciousness, and that is because of the conditioned subject/object split held by the mind.

We are not made of atoms; we are made of energy-consciousness appearing as material reality. All known particles in the universe are standing waves.

In the materialist paradigm, this world is the world of 'atoms'. But from the POV of Quantum physics, this world is a 'superposition of possibilities'. IOW, this is a thought universe, appearing to you, via of your senses, ie; your conditioned awareness, as a 'material' universe.

Consciousness doesn't need a brain. Brains need consciousness. Consciousness is Pure Abstract Intelligence, the source for everything that exists.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Thank you for caring to reply. So, our consciousness is equated to a product of a machine, in this case a car. So, what is the engine in our case? What is the fuel? What is the agent that turns off and on the car? So, do you think that without understanding these we can conclude physical origin of consciousness ... and blame others of non sense?

I will be obliged if you could exactly show the non sense and faulty assumptions in my questions.

I was not making any equivocation between consciousness and a man-made machine. I was giving you an analogy. I was trying to relate to you that consciousness is a term(not a thing), that we use to describe a state of being. That is, a state of awareness of the position of self within space-time. It is inconceivable to think that consciousness can exist as a disembodied entity without a functioning brain. This can be easily demonstrated, and studied using many different artificial means. Simple logic says that if we lose the brain, consciousness does not exist. But if we lose consciousness, the brain still exists. Therefore, consciousness can't exist without a functioning brain. A better question to ask is what fuel does the brain need to sustain its functions. The brain needs blood chemicals, neural activities, and lots of oxygen to sustain its function. Consciousness only needs a brain.

Since you can't decide what to dream, it is your subconscious mind that is interacting with your conscious mind. Your dreams revel your innermost emotions and your conception of self. It is still consciousness, but at a subconscious level. If the brain was removed and replaced, or you were reincarnated into another brain, then you can loosely say that consciousness was reborn. But there is no evidence to support these ideas. Therefore, asking a question that assumes that consciousness disappears and is reborn, is making a faulty assumption that consciousness does disappear and is reborn. The truth is it doesn't disappear or go anywhere. It is just chemically separated from its sensory inputs. How this process works, we are not certain. But the evidence supports that depriving the brain of sensory inputs will induce an unconscious state. Therefore they are related.

Yes, I can conclude the "physical origin of consciousness". Consciousness itself is not physical, or sentient. It is only a state of awareness that is represented to the subjective mind as snapshots of reality by a functioning brain. Without sensory information, no snapshots, thus no conscious awareness. I don't blame others that their beliefs are nonsense. Beliefs don't require evidence or need to be defended. I happen to believe that a universal perspective must exist at all times. Therefore no one actually dies, they simply switch to a another perspective. But I'm not going to bother defending what I can't prove. Don

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I can conclude the "physical origin of consciousness". Consciousness itself is not physical, or sentient. It is only a state of awareness that is represented to the subjective mind as snapshots of reality by a functioning brain. Without sensory information, no snapshots, thus no conscious awareness.

Your statement implies infinite regression, since in order for you to locate a 'physical origin of consciousness' in time and space, consciousness must already be present, which you are utilizing in order to make your statement. You are arguing an impossible point. This is the reason Planck said that we 'cannot get behind consciousness': it has no beginning nor end, is limitless, and infinite, not existing in time or space, and is uncaused, unborn, and unconditioned. Try to understand this.

Without sensory information, there is no activity of MIND, but CONSCIOUSNESS is still present, prior to and after the ACTIVITY of mind, whether sensory information is present or not. IOW, consciousness is not dependent upon sensory information. One does not need to be conscious of SOMETHING. Consciousness needs no object. Mind does, but mind is conditioned awareness. The mind can mis-read sensory stimuli.

You accidentally burn your finger on a hot stove. Because consciousness is always present, there immediately is 'OUCH!', without a single thought. It is only in the split second AFTER the event that MIND kicks in and says: "Oh! I burned my finger!".

Mystics throughout the ages have realized the pitfalls of the senses, and so transcend them in order to gain a clearer view via pure consciousness. This is the process of spiritual awakening that is beyond the machinations of mind, senses, and delusive thought.

 

[godnotgod]

Just because something is conditioned, dependently arisen, and without core essence does not make it illusion. It just makes it impermanent, inconstant, and subject to change, like the rest of reality.

As I understand it, Brahman is understood as That which does NOT change; which does NOT come and go; which is unconditioned Pure Consciousness, etc. and so is considered the only true Reality. Everything else is maya.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

We cannot connect the Quantum world to the macro world; they have never been separated. They appear as separate to you because your science is incomplete. In fact, there are not two worlds; there is only One world, and this is it.

What we call the 'atom' is, as we well know, over 99.xxxx% space. It is this space that connects and holds the components of the atom together. In fact, the cutting edge physicist Nassim Haramein tells us that what we call 'material reality' has it's source in this stuff called 'space', and he has the calculations to prove it. 'Space' is just another word for 'universal consciousness'. We call it 'space' because we don't know it to be consciousness, and that is because of the conditioned subject/object split held by the mind.

We are not made of atoms; we are made of energy-consciousness appearing as material reality. All known particles in the universe are standing waves.

In the materialist paradigm, this world is the world of 'atoms'. But from the POV of Quantum physics, this world is a 'superposition of possibilities'. IOW, this is a thought universe, appearing to you, via of your senses, ie; your conditioned awareness, as a 'material' universe.

Consciousness doesn't need a brain. Brains need consciousness. Consciousness is Pure Abstract Intelligence, the source for everything that exists.

Why don't you simply say God is the space between, and within atoms? That God IS "Pure Abstract Intelligence. That God is the source for everything that exists. That God IS the universal thought, consciousness, unconsciousness, etc. Why don't you just say that God is everywhere, and that God did it all, and be done with it? You also can't simply mold established scientific principles to suit your self-serving logical perspective and beliefs. The difference between you a creationists, is that they try to discredit science evidence without evidence, and you try to redefine science evidence without evidence. In other words no difference since you both want to justify a belief in the supernatural, using science and not evidence.

Energy is a property of everything in the Universe. But unless energy is used to do some kind of work, or change from one form to another, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. How much work does a disembodied consciousness do? Nothing! How much work does disembodied space do? Nothing! Is space empty? NO! Are we made up of the elements we label on the periodic table as atoms? Yes. If you want to call them discrete energy packets(quanta), so what, this is already well understood. What is your point since they also must do work.

"Consciousness doesn't need a brain. Brains need consciousness. Consciousness is Pure Abstract Intelligence, the source for everything that exists.". This for me is inconceivable, based on the evidence alone.There is simply much more evidence supporting that consciousness is created by the brain than vise versa(stroke victims, Alzheimer, drugs, MRI's, etc.). Thousands of experiments confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes can produce subjective experiences. Not the other way around. Even changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by functional MRI, electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can even predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions they made. By using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct, on a computer screen, what someone is seeing. Does all this mean that consciousness cannot exist without a brain to exist? NO! It only means that the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that it can't. Maybe you can provide a similar amount of evidence to support your position? Don

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Your statement implies infinite regression, since in order for you to locate a 'physical origin of consciousness' in time and space, consciousness must already be present, which you are utilizing in order to make your statement. You are arguing an impossible point. This is the reason Planck said that we 'cannot get behind consciousness': it has no beginning nor end, is limitless, and infinite, not existing in time or space, and is uncaused, unborn, and unconditioned. Try to understand this.

Without sensory information, there is no activity of MIND, but CONSCIOUSNESS is still present, prior to and after the ACTIVITY of mind, whether sensory information is present or not. IOW, consciousness is not dependent upon sensory information. One does not need to be conscious of SOMETHING. Consciousness needs no object. Mind does, but mind is conditioned awareness. The mind can mis-read sensory stimuli.

You accidentally burn your finger on a hot stove. Because consciousness is always present, there immediately is 'OUCH!', without a single thought. It is only in the split second AFTER the event that MIND kicks in and says: "Oh! I burned my finger!".

Mystics throughout the ages have realized the pitfalls of the senses, and so transcend them in order to gain a clearer view via pure consciousness. This is the process of spiritual awakening that is beyond the machinations of mind, senses, and delusive thought.

My statement does not imply any infinite regression, since I stated that the physical source for consciousness is between your ears. Please don't straw man me. I simply stated that the physical brain must have evolved first before consciousness could be perceived or exist. This is NOT a chicken or the egg analogy. If you believe we all acquired a disembodied consciousness, without any perspective, without any physical brain, and without any evidence, then please prove it. I don't care how many people you can present to say that it did. Just prove it. I can only comment on what I believe and why I believe something is true, or have a high degree of certainty. You only comment on what you believe is true, and then twist reality and science, to give the perception of a high degree of certainty. For example; Responding to touching a hot stove is a neurological reflex arc, that is genetically and chemically controlled by our genes. Although some impulses reach the brain as stored knowledge, the reflex arc only involve a sensory neuron, a motor neuron, and the muscles. Nothing to do with consciousness. Does consciousness control our non-vegetative functions? No! Does it control any process that allows for movement, defecation, basal metabolism, cellular metabolism, etc. No! Why not?

Consciousness is one of three levels that describe the state of mind(unconsciousness and subconsciousness). If the mind needs sensory input, so does consciousness. And, since the mind is dependent on the brain, the brain must also need sensory input. My question is, other than simply asserting these belief claims as truth claims, how do you know? Are you God? What evidence, or natural phenomenon can you point to that indicates that your beliefs are true and logical? How do you know what transcends, "beyond the machinations of mind, senses, and delusive thought."? Since it is you that is trying to rationalize an impossible belief, we are both wasting each others time. Don