Could Nothingness Be Another Dimension In And Of Itself?

[Runewolf1973]

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.



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.



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').

I told you I don't consider anything to be truly conscious. I consider everything to be interactive and all evidence points to that. Interactions can be either local or non-local, simple or complex. Emergent Theory works just fine with everything I've said. You seem to be asking for me to identify a specific instance in time several billion years ago when a specific interaction caused a specific result. You realize that is not possible right? There is a reason why we call these theories and not "absolute truth". Theories are based on evidence. As far as your mystic viewpoint on the matter...I could really care less.

 

[godnotgod]

I told you I don't consider anything to be truly conscious. I consider everything to be interactive and all evidence points to that. Interactions can be either local or non-local, simple or complex. Emergent Theory works just fine with everything I've said. You seem to be asking for me to identify a specific instance in time several billion years ago when a specific interaction caused a specific result. You realize that is not possible right? There is a reason why we call these theories and not "absolute truth". Theories are based on evidence. As far as your mystic viewpoint on the matter...I could really care less.

Well that's a crappy response!

We're not discussing a mystical view; we're discussing YOUR view.

Look, if you don't have a good reason to support how a transition from the non-conscious to the conscious occurred, what good is your theory? Let's just downsize it to an assumption, OK? I wasn't asking you for a timeline; I was asking you how it occurs. You have no answer, so just admit it's nothing more than a notion.

Next!

edit: there IS a reason WHY you believe as you do, but I doubt if you are even aware of what that reason actually is.

HINT: 'indoctrination' as in 'materialism'

 

[YmirGF]

@Runewolf1973 @godnotgod

Perhaps you two should call it a day.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well that's a crappy response!

We're not discussing a mystical view; we're discussing YOUR view.

Look, if you don't have a good reason to support how a transition from the non-conscious to the conscious occurred, what good is your theory? Let's just downsize it to an assumption, OK? I wasn't asking you for a timeline; I was asking you how it occurs. You have no answer, so just admit it's nothing more than a notion.

Next!

edit: there IS a reason WHY you believe as you do, but I doubt if you are even aware of what that reason actually is.

HINT: 'indoctrination' as in 'materialism'

For you to understand my position, first you must set aside this silly notion that we're all somehow invested with this magical, mysterious power of "consciousness" and realize that we're all in fact just interacting. So technically, there was no such transition between non-conscious to conscious forms because forms of matter are not conscious, they are interactive via the Fundamental Forces. Likewise, there was no such transition between non-living matter and living matter because matter neither lives nor dies, it interacts. Some forms of matter changed/evolved over
time to interact in more peculiar, complex ways than others. That is all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Yes, I can see what you're saying and will mull this over some more. This model of interaction is actually very similar to how consciousness is described in the Buddhist suttas, it arises in dependence on sense-organ and sense-object, eg ear and sound.
In any I do find the interaction model a great deal more convincing than a religious belief in consciousness as a fundamental property.

 

[godnotgod]

For you to understand my position, first you must set aside this silly notion that we're all somehow invested with this magical, mysterious power of "consciousness" and realize that we're all in fact just interacting. So technically, there was no such transition between non-conscious to conscious forms because forms of matter are not conscious, they are interactive via the Fundamental Forces. Likewise, there was no such transition between non-living matter and living matter because matter neither lives nor dies, it interacts. Some forms of matter changed/evolved over
time to interact in more peculiar, complex ways than others. That is all.

Via your flawed argument, we can also say that there is no such thing as interaction/non-interaction, evidence once again that points to your dualistic views of Reality.

The other problem with your silly argument is that, while you claim there was no transition into consciousness, (while claiming 'Emergent Theory' at the same time), you then claim that 'consciousness' is an illusion; that there is only a 'feeling' of consciousness. But you cannot even explain how this illusion comes about (!), and yet persist in basing your fake 'theory' (not even) on a condition that would require a transition from non-conscious interactive material to interactive material that can create an illusion.

Hey, man! Now we're talking, eh?

Non-conscious, interactive material that is capable of creating illusions! Must be Magic! Why, this is far more compelling than non-conscious material creating mere consciousness!

And while you use 'Emergent Theory' to support your so-called 'theory', you negate it in the same breath by saying that consciousness doesn't exist! The ultimate materialist argument! Why, there's only interactive material, folks, and you're it! You're all made of styro-foam!...interactive styro-foam! bleah!

Add this to the numerous other contradictions in your fabricated concoction, such as the now world famous 'Animating Factor'. that is supposed to be 'Everything', and yet is a 'factor' of that same 'Everything'.

Whether matter neither lives or dies has nothing to do with whether a transition from non-conscious matter into conscious matter took place.

And on and on we go.

It is not a peculiarity that consciousness is evident; but it is peculiar for someone to use consciousness to try to prove it doesn't exist.

You continue to be fooled by maya by focusing on the effect (interaction) rather than on the source (consciousness).

 

[godnotgod]

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.

But that interaction is not, as you claim, consciousness, nor even the illusion of consciousness, but it is consciousness that interprets the sound wave and its sculpting by the ear drum in order to identify the sound and respond to it. The depth and complexity of this response is dependent upon the level of attention we are paying to the sound source, such as music, for example. We pay attention via consciousness, which is a deliberately focused receptivity without expectation.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I can see what you're saying and will mull this over some more. This model of interaction is actually very similar to how consciousness is described in the Buddhist suttas, it arises in dependence on sense-organ and sense-object, eg ear and sound.

That is a completely different argument!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That is a completely different argument!

No, it's further evidence that Buddhist teachings don't support your new-age Hindu beliefs about consciousness as a fundamental property. In the Buddhist suttas consciousness is consistently described as arising in dependence on sense-organ and sense object, so it's clearly not described as a fundamental property. And as I've observed before the Heart Sutra makes it clear that consciousness is subject to emptiness ( sunyata ) just like the aggregates.

So Buddhism doesn't support your new-age Hinduism and it's increasingly clear that science doesn't either. I don't care what you choose to believe but I am tired of you continually misrepresenting, muddling and side-stepping. There is really nothing of substance in your random emissions, it's just an incoherent muddle of conflicting ideas. Smoke and mirrors.

If you must preach can't you go and it in the New-Age DIR? They might be more sympathetic to your ideas there.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Via your flawed argument, we can also say that there is no such thing as interaction/non-interaction, evidence once again that points to your dualistic views of Reality.

The other problem with your silly argument is that, while you claim there was no transition into consciousness, (while claiming 'Emergent Theory' at the same time), you then claim that 'consciousness' is an illusion; that there is only a 'feeling' of consciousness. But you cannot even explain how this illusion comes about (!), and yet persist in basing your fake 'theory' (not even) on a condition that would require a transition from non-conscious interactive material to interactive material that can create an illusion.

Hey, man! Now we're talking, eh?

Non-conscious, interactive material that is capable of creating illusions! Must be Magic! Why, this is far more compelling than non-conscious material creating mere consciousness!

And while you use 'Emergent Theory' to support your so-called 'theory', you negate it in the same breath by saying that consciousness doesn't exist! The ultimate materialist argument! Why, there's only interactive material, folks, and you're it! You're all made of styro-foam!...interactive styro-foam! bleah!

Add this to the numerous other contradictions in your fabricated concoction, such as the now world famous 'Animating Factor'. that is supposed to be 'Everything', and yet is a 'factor' of that same 'Everything'.

Whether matter neither lives or dies has nothing to do with whether a transition from non-conscious matter into conscious matter took place.

And on and on we go.

It is not a peculiarity that consciousness is evident; but it is peculiar for someone to use consciousness to try to prove it doesn't exist.

You continue to be fooled by maya by focusing on the effect (interaction) rather than on the source (consciousness).

I’m not negating Emergent Theory because what we call consciousness is an effect which emerges due to our many complex interactions…sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell… If my theory of interaction is to hold, then it should not go against or conflict with the evidence already brought forth in support of other well established theories (Emergent Theory, Quantum Theory, The Theory of Evolution, etc…) rather it should further support those theories and science which it does. My theory does not go against science, my theory supports the evidence and the evidence supports my theory. That everything in nature interacts is an observable, testable and repeatable FACT as demonstrated by physics. My theory simply addresses that matter is neither living, nor conscious, nor does matter ever become living or conscious, rather it interacts in different ways. Some forms interact in simple ways, while other forms interact in very complex ways. From those more complex interactions emerge the effect or illusion of "conscious" and "living" matter.

So one day humans might build machines that effectively and accurately mimic the complex interactions found in nature and thereby generate the illusion of “conscious” or “living” machines. Will we ever create actual consciousness or life? No. Likewise, nature never created genuinely conscious or living matter, only highly interactive forms of matter.

I'm not interested in discussing how any of this might pertain to your mystic viewpoint because anything that does not involve logic or reasoning is completely irrelevant when it comes to science and the ideas which I am presenting.

 

[godnotgod]

I’m not negating Emergent Theory because what we call consciousness is an effect which emerges...*snip*....

From those more complex interactions emerge the effect or illusion of "conscious" and "living" matter.

If consciousness, whether real or illusory, emerges from non-conscious material, there is a change, and that change is a transition from a state of non-illusion to one of illusion, or one of non-consciousness to one of consciousness. Your claim of no transition directly contradicts the very 'Emergent Theory' of science you are using to support your argument, which is completely useless as it fails to describe the process by which this transition occurs.

Again, science can describe in detail how a plant converts sunlight, minerals, and water into nutrients, but you cannot describe how either Emergent Theory works nor how the illusion of consciousness emerges from non-conscious material. This is a feat far more difficult than what Emergent Theory even proposes.

I'm not interested in discussing how any of this might pertain to your mystic viewpoint because anything that does not involve logic or reasoning is completely irrelevant when it comes to science and the ideas which I am presenting.

As I said, we're not discussing a mystic viewpoint; we are discussing your Mickey Mouse view which amounts to pure poppycock and hot air.

If you really believe in your own poppycock, then all I can say is that you are living an imitation of life.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...we are discussing your Mickey Mouse view which amounts to pure poppycock and hot air.

That really is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[godnotgod]

No, it's further evidence that Buddhist teachings don't support your new-age Hindu beliefs about consciousness as a fundamental property. In the Buddhist suttas consciousness is consistently described as arising in dependence on sense-organ and sense object, so it's clearly not described as a fundamental property. And as I've observed before the Heart Sutra makes it clear that consciousness is subject to emptiness ( sunyata ) just like the aggregates.

Was the Buddha's Enlightenment an experience in consciousness? Or maybe you believe what RW is saying: that consciousness is an illusion and therefore the Buddha must have been completely deluded, including what he says in the suttas about consciousness. Why, there is no consciousness that arises; it's all a Grand Illusion, an effect of interaction in the material world. Ha ha ha....pure crap!

 

[godnotgod]

That really is the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it's exposing the fact that the black of the kettle is nothing more than shoe polish.

Why is it that you latch onto that instead of the actual discussion? Can you explain how what RW describes as 'the illusion of consciousness' 'emerges' from the nonconscious -material world? No, because your ideas are poopycock as well.

 

[Runewolf1973]

...you cannot describe how either Emergent Theory works nor how the illusion of consciousness emerges from non-conscious material. .

Many things emerge out of complex interaction. Why should consciousness be any different?

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

 

[Rick O'Shez]

.. therefore the Buddha must have been completely deluded, including what he says in the suttas about consciousness.

You clearly have no idea what the suttas say, or what the Buddha taught, so stop pretending it's anything to do with your silly new-age theories and Chopra snake-oil.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Many things emerge out of complex interaction. Why should consciousness be any different?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Interesting stuff here: https://www.quora.com/Is-consciousn...the-brain-or-a-fundamental-property-of-matter

 

[godnotgod]

Many things emerge out of complex interaction. Why should consciousness be any different?

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

If it's no different, then you should be able to explain it, just like those 'other things'. So how do you explain how the illusion of consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter? I do expect you to stop beating around the bush and answer the question.

 

[godnotgod]

You clearly have no idea what the suttas say, or what the Buddha taught...

The question is not about what the Buddha taught, but whether his Enlightenment was an experience in consciousness or not. Stop creating convenient diversions in order to avoid answering the question. If you don't know the answer, then just say so, and we can proceed from there, OK?

 

[Runewolf1973]

If it's no different, then you should be able to explain it, just like those 'other things'. So how do you explain how the illusion of consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter? I do expect you to stop beating around the bush and answer the question.

It is a scientific fact that given enough time and the right conditions, things in nature change and new forms and new phenomena emerges. It is really not that difficult of a concept to grasp, so I don't see why you're having so much trouble with it. Stubbornness I guess?