Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Rick O'Shez]

Exactly. So what came first? The sound waves.

Yes, sound waves impact on ear drum.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I would personally say the most primitive and instinctive and emotional part of the human is their brain stem region as well as their gut/belly region.

The humans power and certain energy coming predominantly from this region along with the "gut/belly" region due to very imbalanced alchemy and poorly bonded atoms/cells with less complex energy going from the brain stem region through the vagus nerve and into the gut/belly region where there are plethora's of this energy in both.

Decisions are more reaction based, emotionally based, instinctive based, selfish based, etc.

Yes I know....all complex interactions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes, sound waves impact on ear drum.

So in what way did awareness come first?

 

[Runewolf1973]

The microphone just converts mechanical vibration into electrical signals, in much the same way an eardrum does.

Yes, it is all very mechanistic...even the human brain. It is nature's machine.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So in what way did awareness come first?

I was saying that awareness occurs before the person reacts to the sound they have perceived.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I was saying that awareness occurs before the person reacts to the sound they have perceived.

Sure, the awareness occurs before they react to the gunshot, but only after those sound vibrations hit the ear drum and were processed by the brain. Unless you are psychic and knew someone had fired a gun without actually seeing it happen and before the sound actually interacted with your eardrums.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Think of it this way...

They wouldn't call awareness or consciousness an emergent phenomena if it was not in fact emergent from something else. So what is awareness and consciousness emergent from? Why do we have awareness or consciousness? My theory... Fundamentally everything interacts and that interaction generates that feeling of consciousness. We just happen to interact in a more complex manner than those things we consider not to be aware or conscious.

 

[Unification]

Explain what awareness is if you think it comes before interaction.

I never said such with that post. I mentioned inner environments and outer environments.

Interaction occurring in the inner environment before occurring in the outer environment.

The thoughts of firing a gun precede firing the gun. Interaction within preceding external interaction. The cause is due to how someone is wired in their inner environment and acting upon that, creating a wide array of effects to the external environment and other human beings internal environment.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I never said such with that post. I mentioned inner environments and outer environments.

Interaction occurring in the inner environment before occurring in the outer environment.

The thoughts of firing a gun precede firing the gun. Interaction within preceding external interaction. The cause is due to how someone is wired in their inner environment and acting upon that, creating a wide array of effects to the external environment and other human beings internal environment.

You have to actually have seen a gun before and know what it is ie: you must have interacted with a gun in some way before the thought of firing a gun could even arise. There is always some form of interaction which takes place first.

 

[Unification]

You have to actually have seen a gun before and know what it is ie: you must have interacted with a gun in some way before the thought of firing a gun could even arise. There is always some form of interaction which takes place first.

Of course, but preceding the preceding to the first person who ever made a gun, the thoughts or ideas and knowledge were in their inner environment. Everything is a continuous interaction from within to outside to within to outside to within. . And on and on. The effects of cause from 2,000 years ago even continue to evolve and interact and have significant effects today.

Still, seeing a gun and firing a gun is a simultaneous process between inner and outer environments. Your fingers are firing the gun, while the interactions within are communicating and telling the finger to fire the gun. Just as the eyes are seeing the gun, the communication of interaction within are causing the eyes to see the gun.
It's a simultaneous interpretation.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Of course, but preceding the preceding to the first person who ever made a gun, the thoughts or ideas and knowledge were in their inner environment. Everything is a continuous interaction from within to outside to within to outside to within. . And on and on. The effects of cause from 2,000 years ago even continue to evolve and interact and have significant effects today.

Still, seeing a gun and firing a gun is a simultaneous process between inner and outer environments. Your fingers are firing the gun, while the interactions within are communicating and telling the finger to fire the gun. Just as the eyes are seeing the gun, the communication of interaction within are causing the eyes to see the gun.
It's a simultaneous interpretation.

Yes, those complex interactions from which that feeling of consciousness emerges happen almost instantaneously...at the speed of light I would venture to say.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You have to actually have seen a gun before and know what it is ie: you must have interacted with a gun in some way before the thought of firing a gun could even arise. There is always some form of interaction which takes place first.

What's confusing me here is that you're using the word "interacting" in two different ways.

1. The eardrum "interacting" with the sound waves.
2. How the person reacts having perceived the sound "gunshot" - an example of how the person interacts with their environment.

"Interacting" works fine with #2, but it seems like a stretch with #1, because it implies the eardrum is having an effect on the sound waves, which it isn't. It would be more accurate to say that the eardrum is sensing the sound waves.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What's confusing me here is that you're using the word "interacting" in two different ways.

1. The eardrum "interacting" with the sound waves.
2. How the person reacts having perceived the sound "gunshot" - an example of how the person interacts with their environment.

"Interacting" works fine with #2, but it seems like a stretch with #1, because it implies the eardrum is having an effect on the sound waves, which it isn't. It would be more accurate to say that the eardrum is sensing the sound waves.

It would really be more accurate to say that the ear drum is reacting to the sound waves. That action/reaction is still interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

TFundamentally everything interacts and that interaction generates that feeling of consciousness.

In what way does this occur?

A battery is an electro-chemical set of reactions, but no consciousness 'emerges' from it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It would really be more accurate to say that the ear drum is reacting to the sound waves. That action/reaction is still interaction.

"Reacting" yes, "interacting" no. Interaction implies a 2-way process, in this case the ear-drum would have to be influencing the sound waves, which it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

I think you have become pre-occupied with the idea of "interaction" and you are trying to force everything into this paradigm.

 

[Runewolf1973]

In what way does this occur?

A battery is an electro-chemical set of reactions, but no consciousness 'emerges' from it.

A battery consists of simple interactions whereas consciousness is emergent from numerous complex interactions. A battery is not arranged/evolved to support the same kind of complex interactions which occur in the brain or which generate consciousness.

BTW, you are absolutely correct that what I am referring to as far as interaction and change deals specifically with what we call empirical reality or perceptual reality. It is in the realm of the testable and verifiable. This has nothing to do with Ultimate Reality or Pure Consciousness. Whether there is such a reality or not I cannot say.

 

[Runewolf1973]

"Reacting" yes, "interacting" no. Interaction implies a 2-way process, in this case the ear-drum would have to be influencing the sound waves, which it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction

I think you have become pre-occupied with the idea of "interaction" and you are trying to force everything into this paradigm.

I don't have to force any of it into my "paradigm" because technically physics does that quite well already. The eardrum consists of what? Physical matter. Anything composed of matter or energy IS interactive...hence why we have what are called the Fundamental Interactions. Even on a subatomic level everything is interactive. Therefore, although the influence the eardrum has on the sound waves may not be as apparent or obvious, rest assured that influence is present. The eardrum consists of physical matter which is in fact altering that sound wave in one way or another...acting as a physical barrier and slowing that sound wave down or altering its frequency. Interaction.

 

[godnotgod]

A battery consists of simple interactions whereas consciousness is emergent from numerous complex interactions. A battery is not arranged/evolved to support the same kind of complex interactions which occur in the brain or which generate consciousness.

BTW, you are absolutely correct that what I am referring to as far as interaction and change deals specifically with what we call empirical reality or perceptual reality. It is in the realm of the testable and verifiable. This has nothing to do with Ultimate Reality or Pure Consciousness. Whether there is such a reality or not I cannot say.

But what you are describing is something for which you have no evidence. Just because the interactions become complex and numerous does not qualify as a means for creating consciousness. You are saying that the brain IS arranged/evolved to create consciousness, whereas a battery is not. But what determines the point at which non-conscious 'X' develops the capability to create consciousness, and why? What you're really implying is that consciousness already exists, and is that very determining factor.

The method of science, empiricism, does not here prove 'Emergent Theory' as verifiable. It is just an assumption that the brain creates consciousness. Because science has no other tools with which to explain consciousness, it's results can only be consistent with its methodology.

edit: for example, how a plant transforms sunlight, water, etc, into nutrients is well documented by science, but not for consciousness.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But what you are describing is something for which you have no evidence. Just because the interactions become complex and numerous does not qualify as a means for creating consciousness. You are saying that the brain IS arranged/evolved to create consciousness, whereas a battery is not. But what determines the point at which non-conscious 'X' develops the capability to create consciousness, and why? What you're really implying is that consciousness already exists, and is that very determining factor.

The method of science, empiricism, does not here prove 'Emergent Theory' as verifiable. It is just an assumption that the brain creates consciousness. Because science has no other tools with which to explain consciousness, it's results can only be consistent with its methodology.

edit: for example, how a plant transforms sunlight, water, etc, into nutrients is well documented by science, but not for consciousness.

I believe it is a false assumption that the brain creates consciousness. In reality, nothing is "created", it only changes form. Likewise, there is no special new "force" or new "ingredient" created in the brain. Nothing new is created. Given enough time and the right conditions, matter changes form...combines, mixes and conglomerates naturally with other elements and other forms of matter. Eventually new and even more complex forms of matter develop (emerge) due to that natural "mingling". The more complex those forms of matter became, the more complexly they interacted with the surrounding environment. Eventually certain forms of matter became so complex that they began to interact in a manner in which we could call a primitive form of awareness. Really it's not consciousness though. During the entire process, nothing ever truly became "conscious", or even "living" for that matter...things just began to interact in a more and more complex manner with the environment. The most highly interactive form of matter we know is the human brain. The brain does not generate consciousness however, the brain is a structure which evolved in such a way that allows for complex interactions to take place within a localized environment. Interaction is far from local however. Interactions occur everywhere in the universe and although the brain allows for complexity, not all of our interactions which lead to that effect we call "consciousness" are contained within the brain. I do not consider creatures to be conscious (including humans) in the sense that they possess some special ingredient or constituent that sets them apart from other forms of matter. I consider creatures (life forms) to be highly interactive forms of matter. It is all just matter changing form, some forms just changed over time in a rather peculiar way and began interacting in a rather peculiar way.

 

[godnotgod]

Eventually certain forms of matter became so complex that they began to interact in a manner in which we could call a primitive form of awareness.

But there is no evidence to support that idea. Nothing exists to demonstrate exactly how this occurs. It is only an assumption that takes the form of a leap of faith.

The brain does not generate consciousness however, the brain is a structure which evolved in such a way that allows for complex interactions to take place within a localized environment. Interaction is far from local however. Interactions occur everywhere in the universe and although the brain allows for complexity, not all of our interactions which lead to that effect we call "consciousness" are contained within the brain.

If you don't believe that the brain generates consciousness, then please stop using the term 'Emergent Theory' to describe how consciousness comes into play. And if you believe that consciousness includes outside influences, then consciousness itself is non-local. Further, if you believe consciousness is only an effect; an illusion, then this effect includes the notion of a thinker called 'I'. Since 'I' then, is an illusion, that is to say, there is no personal consciousness, then consciousness must, by definition be universal in nature. Universal Consciousness. Something I have pointed to all along. The brain and the organism it inhabits, is/are also products of outside influences, since the matrix is the universe itself. IOW, consciousness creates the organism and its constituent brain.

I do not consider creatures to be conscious (including humans) in the sense that they possess some special ingredient or constituent that sets them apart from other forms of matter. I consider creatures (life forms) to be highly interactive forms of matter. It is all just matter changing form, some forms just changed over time in a rather peculiar way and began interacting in a rather peculiar way.

Ha ha..so matter, acting in a peculiar way, is understood as doing so by matter acting in a peculiar way. Don't you think that to be a bit odd, even peculiar? But this begs the question: where, and how, does the transition occur from the non-peculiar to the peculiar?

It seems rather obvious that the immense space between the components of the atom (>99%) must be an essential constituent of the atom. Being essential, (and dominant as regards volume) it could very well be that space, rather than matter, is the source of consciousness. In addition, that space is contiguous with the space 'outside' the atom. Therefore, if space is the source of consciousness in atoms in the brain, then it must also be the source of consciousness outside the brain, meaning that consciousness is universal, omninscient, and infinite, pervading Everything that exists to the point of it actually BEING Everything that exists. As the Hindus say: 'like dye dissolved in water', and 'tat tvam asi' ('thou art That').