Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

We can dismiss the spiritual view of the Universe, and return to your materialist arguments, which are full of holes already, flaws which none of you can adequately address, especially in light of Quantum Physics.

The biggest flaw in your own viewpoint is the misuse of the term "consciousness".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Animating Factor.

Ok....I agree there is an animating factor involved...and I suppose it could be called an animating force or energy... but whatever the reality is that is represented by that label, it is one and the same reality meant to be represented by the labels I generally use....spirit, soul, vivifying, animating energy, etc... The thing about true religious practice though, is to go beyond the conceptual mind to the other side of the label to truly know what this force/energy is....iow, to become one with the source directly with no thoughts arising in the mind about the label to disturb the awesome peace of pure being...

 

[godnotgod]

This is a science thread not an imagination thread.

We are the scientists of Reality. The ordinary scientist studies the phenomenal world; we are focused on That which creates the phenomenal world.

 

[godnotgod]

The biggest flaw in your own viewpoint is the misuse of the term "consciousness".

You are the one misusing the term, as you equate it with interaction. Interaction is a process; an action, whereas Consciousness is a state. Without the state of Consciousness already present, there can be no interaction. You have not demonstrated how interaction is the fundamental reality. Just to say that it is so does not make it so. The problem with your 'theory' *cough* is that it is focused on the Outcome and not on the Source. You see only appearances, and not what is manifesting those appearances.


con·scious·ness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
Google Dictionary
*****

Interaction

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

 

[Runewolf1973]

You are the one misusing the term, as you equate it with interaction. Interaction is a process; Consciousness is a state. Without the state of Consciousness already present, there can be no interaction. You have not demonstrated how interaction is the fundamental reality. Just to say that it is so does not make it so. The problem with your 'theory' *cough* is that it is focused on the Outcome and not on the Source. You see only appearances, and not what is manifesting those appearances.

From a factual and scientific standpoint, consciousness IS equated with interaction. There is no problem with my theory save for the fact that it does not align with the unsupported drabble you like to preach.

 

[Runewolf1973]

con·scious·ness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
Google Dictionary
*****

Interaction

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

Thanks for pointing out just exactly how vague the term consciousness is, which is also the reason why I quite dislike using the term, which is also why people such as yourself like to mold and squeeze that term to coveniently fit into your personal belief systems or spiritual views. The term interaction is very useful on the otherhand. If you read a little further down into the link you provided (assuming you read only the first sentence or two) it goes on to describe something even more interesting...

"...combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena."


Hmmm...now what do you suppose that could mean?

 

[Unification]

You are the one misusing the term, as you equate it with interaction. Interaction is a process; an action, whereas Consciousness is a state. Without the state of Consciousness already present, there can be no interaction. You have not demonstrated how interaction is the fundamental reality. Just to say that it is so does not make it so. The problem with your 'theory' *cough* is that it is focused on the Outcome and not on the Source. You see only appearances, and not what is manifesting those appearances.


con·scious·ness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
Google Dictionary
*****

Interaction

Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another. The idea of a two-way effect is essential in the concept of interaction, as opposed to a one-way causal effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

The definition of interaction is focused on only "objects."

Every "thing" can be seen as an object. (Matter/particles/atoms/cells)
No-thing can be seen as a non-object.
(Energy/light)

Like a "thought" or a "feeling." It is not an object or a spec of matter. It would be nothing, or no-thing. No-thing as in not physical.

What is called consciousness could be a radiating electromagnetic field of energy. We receive light and give off light. Light travels. Light carries a message. From source to source. We are interacting right now due to the source that rests within me and the source that rests within you. That source is the same medium/intercessor to the larger Source. Is that source "Pure consciousness" or "pure energy" or spirit? Are they all the same thing?

Other than semantics of words, I think that the only issue between everyone here is if the cosmos is aware or if it's not. If both the cosmos and human are aware or if just the human is aware. Regardless if it's pure consciousness or pure energy interacting with matter.
If all of the complex and/or simple interactions leading to awareness only fell down to planet Earth.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The definition of interaction is focused on only "objects."

Every "thing" can be seen as an object. (Matter/particles/atoms/cells)
No-thing can be seen as a non-object.
(Energy/light)

Like a "thought" or a "feeling." It is not an object or a spec of matter. It would be nothing, or no-thing. No-thing as in not physical.

What is called consciousness could be a radiating electromagnetic field of energy. We receive light and give off light. Light travels. Light carries a message. From source to source. We are interacting right now due to the source that rests within me and the source that rests within you. That source is the same medium/intercessor to the larger Source. Is that source "Pure consciousness" or "pure energy" or spirit? Are they all the same thing?

Other than semantics of words, I think that the only issue between everyone here is if the cosmos is aware or if it's not. If both the cosmos and human are aware or if just the human is aware. Regardless if it's pure consciousness or pure energy interacting with matter.
If all of the complex and/or simple interactions leading to awareness only fell down to planet Earth.

Light is electromagnetism which is also a Fundamental Interaction.

Interaction can be seen as no-thing, but also as the underlying fundamental force behind all "things" and that which drives all "things".

 

[godnotgod]

From a factual and scientific standpoint, consciousness IS equated with interaction. There is no problem with my theory save for the fact that it does not align with the unsupported drabble you like to preach.

How can science equate anything with consciousness when it doesn't even know what it is yet, let alone its origin? 'Emergent Theory' is not even a valid hypothesis. 'Consciousness' is still considered a hard question in science.

What you call 'the factual and scientific standpoint' is essentially a subject/object-split focus on the details of the Outcome, namely, the manifested Universe, in which it cannot see the forest for the trees. The scientific observer is wholly integrated into the object of observation along with the entire observational process. Science is concerned with behavior, characteristics, and predictability of the details of the Outcome, otherwise known as 'facts'. Facts exist due to a certain number and kind of regularities and patterns, many times of a cyclical and/or repetitive nature, inherent to the Universe. That does not mean that the details about the Universe represent what the Universe actually IS.

Just because there is interactive brain activity does not equate to the reality of consciousness, and just because consciousness is affected when there is brain damage does not mean consciousness is brain-dependent. From the POV of non-locality*, the brain simply cannot process the information fed to it from non-local consciousness, or process the information already stored there BY consciousness.

BTW, that's 'dribble' and not 'drabble'.

*I have already posted a research paper along with a video several times proving the non-local capability of the human brain.

 

[godnotgod]

Thanks for pointing out just exactly how vague the term consciousness is, which is also the reason why I quite dislike using the term, which is also why people such as yourself like to mold and squeeze that term to coveniently fit into your personal belief systems or spiritual views. The term interaction is very useful on the otherhand. If you read a little further down into the link you provided (assuming you read only the first sentence or two) it goes on to describe something even more interesting...

"...combinations of many simple interactions can lead to surprising emergent phenomena."


Hmmm...now what do you suppose that could mean?

It means that the statement is based on what is known as an ASSUMPTION. That is why it is seen as 'surprising'.

The reason you call consciousness 'vague' is simply due to the fact that you cannot pinpoint it via scientific observation, analysis, and predictability. It does not exist in Time or Space, or even Causation, for that matter. So the only thing the scientist can latch onto with his science is how it is associated with the brain. But consciousness exists throughout the body as well.

You have vacillated throughout this thread between recognizing consciousness and denying its existence. If you don't like using the term, then you shouldn't use it at all. You call yourself a materialist, which usually means that the Universe is seen as dead and unconscious. Today, some scientists neatly explain human consciousness away by simply saying essentially what you are saying: that the electro-chemical reactions of the brain are all that exists. There is no consciousness. And yet, here it is right in front of you and I, a self-evident state.

 

[Unification]

You realize that light is electromagnetism which is also a Fundamental Interaction.

Of course.

What a vague term, "interaction."

 

[Runewolf1973]

How can science equate anything with consciousness when it doesn't even know what it is yet, let alone its origin? 'Emergent Theory' is not even a valid hypothesis. 'Consciousness' is still considered a hard question in science.

What you call 'the factual and scientific standpoint' is essentially a subject/object-split focus on the details of the Outcome, namely, the manifested Universe, in which it cannot see the forest for the trees. The scientific observer is wholly integrated into the object of observation along with the entire observational process. Science is concerned with behavior, characteristics, and predictability of the details of the Outcome, otherwise known as 'facts'. Facts exist due to a certain number and kind of regularities and patterns, many times of a cyclical and/or repetitive nature, inherent to the Universe. That does not mean that the details about the Universe represent what the Universe actually IS.

Just because there is interactive brain activity does not equate to the reality of consciousness, and just because consciousness is affected when there is brain damage does not mean consciousness is brain-dependent. From the POV of non-locality*, the brain simply cannot process the information fed to it from non-local consciousness, or process the information already stored there BY consciousness.

BTW, that's 'dribble' and not 'drabble'.

*I have already posted a research paper along with a video several times proving the non-local capability of the human brain.

Is interaction confined to brains only? No, interaction is present everywhere in the universe.

Emergent Theory is called a "theory" because it is beyond being a mere hypothesis.

Consciousness is not a hard question or problem. The hard problem is getting people to realize that consciousness is not some mystical property. It is the result of complex interactions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course.

What a vague term, "interaction."

Electromagnetism is vague?

 

[Unification]

From a factual and scientific standpoint, consciousness IS equated with interaction. There is no problem with my theory save for the fact that it does not align with the unsupported drabble you like to preach.

The only problem with your theory is the vagueness of the term "interaction." What types of energy and matter are more complex than other energy and matter? What types of energy and matter give rise to "Consiousness/awareness" on a quantum perspective?

 

[Unification]

Electromagnetism is vague?

The term "interaction" is vague.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It means that the statement is based on what is known as an ASSUMPTION. That is why it is seen as 'surprising'.

The reason you call consciousness 'vague' is simply due to the fact that you cannot pinpoint it via scientific observation, analysis, and predictability. It does not exist in Time or Space, or even Causation, for that matter. So the only thing the scientist can latch onto with his science is how it is associated with the brain. But consciousness exists throughout the body as well.

You have vacillated throughout this thread between recognizing consciousness and denying its existence. If you don't like using the term, then you shouldn't use it at all. You call yourself a materialist, which usually means that the Universe is seen as dead and unconscious. Today, some scientists neatly explain human consciousness away by simply saying essentially what you are saying: that the electro-chemical reactions of the brain are all that exists. There is no consciousness. And yet, here it is right in front of you and I, a self-evident state.

Consciousness is about as vague as "ectoplasm". Fundamental Interactions lead to combinations of interactions which lead to complex interactions. There is a reason why they are called the Fundamental Forces aka: the Fundamental Interactions.

 

[godnotgod]

Every "thing" can be seen as an object.

No, it cannot, due to the fact that the observer is part and parcel of Everything. Everything is The Absolute, and therefore, there is no 'other' to which it can be compared. IOW, the reality is that there is no subject/object. That is simply a concoction of Mind.

What is called consciousness could be a radiating electromagnetic field of energy. We receive light and give off light. Light travels. Light carries a message. From source to source. We are interacting right now due to the source that rests within me and the source that rests within you. That source is the same medium/intercessor to the larger Source. Is that source "Pure consciousness" or "pure energy" or spirit? Are they all the same thing?[/QUOTE]

Light and energy (along with the rest of the 'material' Universe) are what Consciousness is manifesting.

Spirit, consciousness, and nothingness are all one and the same.

Because there is Nothing, there is Everything.

Other than semantics of words, I think that the only issue between everyone here is if the cosmos is aware or if it's not. If both the cosmos and human are aware or if just the human is aware.

If the human is conscious and the Universe is not, where does human consciousness leave off and the unconsciousness of the Universe begin?

Dawkins states that things IN the Universe can be conscious, but the Universe itself cannot be. However 'things IN the Universe' are what constitute the Universe itself; the Universe is not a vessel that contains 'things'; it is those very things, along with the space between them.

 

[Unification]

Is interaction confined to brains only? No, interaction is present everywhere in the universe.

Emergent Theory is called a "theory" because it is beyond being a mere hypothesis.

Consciousness is not a hard question or problem. The hard problem is getting people to realize that consciousness is not some mystical property. It is the result of complex interactions.

Sure, not mystical but which energy and matter interact complexly to come to "awareness/consciousness." It's definitely not ordinary energy and matter.

"Complex interactions" are very vague.

 

[godnotgod]

Light is electromagnetism which is also a Fundamental Interaction.

Interaction can be seen as no-thing, but also as the underlying fundamental force behind all "things" and that which drives all "things".

No. It is what things do, but not necessarily their driving force. Why do you make that assumption? IOW, interaction is the Outcome, not the Source. You are confused.

We don't think of the movement of a car as the driving force behind the car. It is the engine and its fuel and all the other factors that together are its driving force. Ultimately, it is the entire Universe that is moving the car, as everything that the car is made of is interconnected to the rest of the Universe, including the driver, who is utilizing consciousness to maneuver the car. So we can think of consciousness as the driving force behind the interactive activity of the brain which is the driving force behind the movement of the car.

 

[Runewolf1973]

The only problem with your theory is the vagueness of the term "interaction." What types of energy and matter are more complex than other energy and matter? What types of energy and matter give rise to "Consiousness/awareness" on a quantum perspective?

What we call life forms are more complex than non-life forms. Complex arrangements of matter give rise to consciousness and awareness.