Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Unification]

It would then be helpful if you had taken a class on the topic.

Factually no other source has ever been found. Only the brain produces the conscious mind

The blood/fluids/plasma's/energy produce the conscious mind. The brain is a piece of meat. Wise scientists are starting to steer towards this as no consciousness has ever been found from coming from the brain itself.

 

[outhouse]

The brain is a piece of meat.

factually false.

Wise scientists are starting to steer towards this

LOL provide sources or retract this rhetoric.

No credible scientist states such, we can see thought in the brain now, and know questions answered, before the test subject even knows it.

Your wrong again

 

[Unification]

factually false.



LOL provide sources or retract this rhetoric.

No credible scientist states such, we can see thought in the brain now, and know questions answered, before the test subject even knows it.

Your wrong again

You don't see "thought(s)" in the brain. You see a portion of the brain light up and say, "hey look the thought is in the cerebellum." You don't see the thought, nor is the thought the cerebellum. Nor do you know the thought or what one is thinking.

The brain is the computer that takes the ideas/thoughts that the light puts into it and provides it as understandable activity on the physical plane.

We also see blood, plasma, fluids, oils, energy, and chemicals in the brain.

 

[Unification]

factually false.



LOL provide sources or retract this rhetoric.

No credible scientist states such, we can see thought in the brain now, and know questions answered, before the test subject even knows it.

Your wrong again

No credible scientist would ever say they see a "thought."

 

[outhouse]

You don't see "thought(s)"

It would really help if you knew what you were talking about.

No credible scientist would ever say they see a "thought."

factually false

 

[Unification]

It would then be helpful if you had taken a class on the topic.

Factually no other source has ever been found. Only the brain produces the conscious mind

Just as science is discovering the heart has a brain and mind of its own too, composed of brain cells.

 

[outhouse]

. Nor do

Factually false.

We can ask questions and know the answer, before the test subject knows the answer, because we see the thoughts being produced with that much clarity.


Before debating education is pretty much key to the topic. All topics

 

[outhouse]

Just as science is discovering the heart has a brain

Factually false.

Only non credible sites produce that rhetoric.

 

[Unification]

Factually false.

Only non credible sites produce that rhetoric.

Thanks for your opinions.

 

[godnotgod]

When the mind is completely stilled, it is realized that no such mind actually exists. Zen calls this realization 'no-mind'. The mind is a self-created principle; an illusion, and all thoughts that emanate from the illusory mind are also illusory. Only consciousness, without thought, is real. Consciousness without thought is Pure Consciousness, that is to say, 'clear'. This is the difference between SEEING into the nature of things, and THINKING about what the nature of things is (ie 'ideas; concepts, etc.')

https://books.google.com/books?id=ISaR9VGcdIQC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=zen+where+do+thoughts+come+from?&source=bl&ots=uAWUejI_1b&sig=qTES_46aPM_G1YtEjpu0X8JMtVc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix3vPV9KDJAhWSM4gKHQLiBsEQ6AEIVDAJ#v=onepage&q=zen where do thoughts come from?&f=false

'Think not-thinking'
Buddha

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wise scientists are starting to steer towards this as no consciousness has ever been found from coming from the brain itself.

So this lot have got it wrong then? http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made

Can you point to any credible science which supports the idea that thoughts are photons?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think it makes more sense to talk about different levels of interaction...or different interactive states.

Clearly all organisms interact with their environment. I'm still not sure I see how such interaction could take place without the organism being aware of it's environment at some level.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Clearly all organisms interact with their environment. I'm still not sure I see how such interaction could take place without the organism being aware of it's environment at some level.

Think of an organism or a human body as no more than a complex arrangement of chemicals...largely composed of water and a smaller amount of various other elements. We are basically walking test tubes...a bag of chemicals. The "awareness" is the effect of complex chemical interactions taking place within our bodies. For those interactions to be dependent on awareness is akin to what Godnotgod is saying that consciousness is fundamental.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Think of an organism or a human body as no more than a complex arrangement of chemicals...largely composed of water and a smaller amount of various other elements. We are basically walking test tubes...a bag of chemicals. The "awareness" is the effect of complex chemical interactions taking place within our bodies. For those interactions to be dependent on awareness is akin to what Godnotgod is saying that consciousness is fundamental.

I'm talking here about how an organism interacts with it's environment, not about the internal stuff. For example if a plant isn't aware of light/heat it can't grow towards the sun. If a human isn't aware of an ice-cream van she won't get an ice-cream.

 

[Unification]

So this lot have got it wrong then? http://engineering.mit.edu/ask/what-are-thoughts-made

Can you point to any credible science which supports the idea that thoughts are photons?

No, they are not wrong. Thoughts are all electric/light/energy/alchemy. There isn't much credible. Half of science will say one thing about the photon and the other half will say another. The utilization of both and using deductive reasoning/logic is more productive than taking one fundamental side. It is why QM and classical physics have a difficult time meshing. Highly political, agenda-driven with self images and self-credibility to protect at all costs. Every human being that breathes is an abstract walking anomoly to science. A breathing pseudo-scientist. A breathing breaker and defier of science. One would be naive and lying to themselves to not be aware of this.

I just don't see them as all just chemicals or all just light as the same, but rather different waves/frequencies/vibrations/rays/bonding. There is a separation of a thought that is of peace and a thought of someone wanting to murder someone. Or an action of peace and an action of murder. Different energies and different interactions. I'm more interested in getting down to the vast and wide array of interactions and energies, where they arise, which parts of the brain and rest of body that the quanta's monopolize at, etc.

I am posing that thoughts, ideas, knowledge, memory, intelligence are light packets of quanta and virtually infinite amounts of them. Like an electromagnetic radiation storage. There is plenty of science that is directing attention towards that. The purer the thoughts, the more likelihood that the thoughts manifested in the mind are of pure light energy of singularity/equilibrium bonding.

The virtual and particle, the wave-particle duality are more of a virtual and wave as opposed to duality with particles especially with the "photon." It's erred viewing the photon as a particle. Yet, light still resides in particles but it's not the particles that are the thoughts, it's the actual quanta packets of light/energy. That the virtual are another abstract dimension that science can't and wont see or know beyond the physical height/width/length dimensions. Thoughts may arise from a bunch of physical interactions going on within the human but the abstract thoughts are not physical themselves. It is common and credible sense to understand that the abstract is beyond science and seems to be another dimension, while interacting with the physical.

I think that another issue that hinders and slows expansion are viewing the wave-particle as "duality" rather than "singularity." Everything is light energy and waves, particles are light energy and waves "slowed down." Everything simply or complexly interacts with everything because it is one and the same, in and of itself from "Pure Light Energy" or the "Animating Factor" or "Pure Consciousness."

https://www.insidescience.org/blog/...-acting-simultaneously-pure-particle-and-wave

 

[Runewolf1973]

I'm talking here about how an organism interacts with it's environment, not about the internal stuff. For example if a plant isn't aware of light/heat it can't grow towards the sun. If a human isn't aware of an ice-cream van she won't get an ice-cream.

On a fundamental level, nothing is truly aware, everything is interactive. A plant isn't aware of the Sun, a plant reacts to the electromagnetic energy given off by the Sun. Humans react to external stimuli via sight, sound, taste, touch and smell...all complex physical interactions. Humans are not truly aware either, we are highly interactive. It would elliminate a lot of confusion if we dismissed the rather superfluous terms "consciousness" and "awareness" from our vocabulary.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

On a fundamental level, nothing is truly aware, everything is interactive. A plant isn't aware of the Sun, a plant reacts to the electromagnetic energy given off by the Sun. Humans react to external stimuli via sight, sound, taste, touch and smell...all complex physical interactions. Humans are not truly aware either, we are highly interactive. It would elliminate a lot of confusion if we dismissed the rather superfluous terms "consciousness" and "awareness" from our vocabulary.

Sure, humans react to external stimuli, but without an initial awareness of those external stimuli via the senses there would be no possibility of reaction. A deaf/blind person won't react to the presence of an ice-cream van because she can't see it or hear it. So while I can see the usefulness of interaction theory, I don't accept that awareness and consciousness are superfluous.

 

[Unification]

On a fundamental level, nothing is truly aware, everything is interactive. A plant isn't aware of the Sun, a plant reacts to the electromagnetic energy given off by the Sun. Humans react to external stimuli via sight, sound, taste, touch and smell...all complex physical interactions. Humans are not truly aware either, we are highly interactive. It would elliminate a lot of confusion if we dismissed the rather superfluous terms "consciousness" and "awareness" from our vocabulary.

Rather than someone becoming more aware, they become more complexly interactive?

I really see no difference between a human becoming:
More complexly interactive.
More aware.
More consciously heightened.

I can't speak for a plant. I am not a plant nor have I experienced a day in their stems.

I think it's just semantics of words all talking about the same thing. I'm not a respector of words, I just think the confusion comes in when one is a respector of words and has not yet become more "complexly interactive" enough to see such.

One wanting to rid of all terminology and all definitions in order to fit their model. I see that as dogmatic. It's not the words or definitions fault.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Sure, humans react to external stimuli, but without an initial awareness of those external stimuli via the senses there would be no possibility of reaction. A deaf/blind person won't react to the presence of an ice-cream van because she can't see it or hear it. So while I can see the usefulness of interaction theory, I don't accept that awareness and consciousness are superfluous.

What you call initial awareness I call initial reaction. A deaf or blind person does not interact in the same way with an ice-cream van because their ability to interact is limited or impaired. Therefore their ability to be conscious or aware of such things is limited. In what way is awareness initial? Say if you were to be walking outside and all of a sudden someone fired a gun. You were not actually aware of the gun firing until the sound vibration hit your eardrums and sent that signal to your brain. The physical interaction came first and the awareness of the gun came after.

 

[Unification]

What you call initial awareness I call initial reaction. A deaf or blind person does not interact in the same way with an ice-cream van because their ability to interact is limited or impaired. Therefore their ability to be conscious or aware of such things is limited. In what way is awareness initial? Say if you were to be walking outside and all of a sudden someone fired a gun. You were not actually aware of the gun firing until the sound vibration hit your eardrums and sent that signal to your brain. The physical interaction came first and the awareness of the gun came after.

Look at it from the perspective and mind of the human pulling the trigger. It all happened in the inner environment first which set off an external environment reaction.

Inner environment(human firing gun) to external environment to inner environment(other human hearing gun fire.)