What came before the Big Bang?

[godnotgod]

The physical world is real only at a certain level of consciousness
Gopi Krishna says: “When we look at the causal world, it is rigidly bound by cause and effect. But when we reach a higher dimension of consciousness we find that the rigid walls of matter melt. Space and time lose their rigidity, and there is a mingling of the past, the present, and the future. Looking at the whole thing from this point of view, what we think about the universe - the laws, the effect and cause - is a product of our own consciousness. In our dimension of consciousness, the world is not illusory. It is real. But in the next higher state of consciousness it loses its solidity.”

New Brain - New World

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No. That's not what I said. I said that the mass of matter releases it's potential energy when a reaction takes place, such as when wood is burned, 'mass' being a property of matter.



All of which is just to say that non-material consciousness is produced by the material, which says nothing at all. Again, consciousness is outside of time and space, while the material brain functions totally within time and space. If consciousness were a 'product', as you say, then it could be measured and contained, but that is not possible.

How can you say that something called 'consciousness' is produced when you don't even know what it is that's being 'produced' (as if that were even possible)?

You realize that something outside of time and space, means that it doesn't exist right?

What is being produced is simply interaction. I am interacting with my environment, I am aware of my environment. my perceptions by my senses are impacted by my environment, my brain allows me to not only form memories, but enables me to be able to produce links between those memories. That is consciousness.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The physical world is real only at a certain level of consciousness
Gopi Krishna says: “When we look at the causal world, it is rigidly bound by cause and effect. But when we reach a higher dimension of consciousness we find that the rigid walls of matter melt. Space and time lose their rigidity, and there is a mingling of the past, the present, and the future. Looking at the whole thing from this point of view, what we think about the universe - the laws, the effect and cause - is a product of our own consciousness. In our dimension of consciousness, the world is not illusory. It is real. But in the next higher state of consciousness it loses its solidity.”

New Brain - New World

Why do you add the quote as if it carries any weight? Particularly when we view the website it was taken from, where we essentially have a bait-and-switch; the article begins by talking about QM, to lend an air of false credibilit to what comes next- and about halfway through, starts trying to sneak a bunch of unsubstantiated spirituo-babble in through the backdoor. In other words, all you've really given us here is the bare assertion that "the physical world is only real at certain levels of consciousness"- yeah ok, you believe that, that's nice; so what?

 

[godnotgod]

I hope I don't have a transceiver built into my brain somewhere that I don't know about. I would hate to think I'm being controlled by something I have no control over. Wouldn't that make me like some kind of robot or something?

Why didn't I come preinstalled with night vision, lasers, and anti gravity boots?

Because you have consciousness, which allows you the knowledge and use of these things.

 

[godnotgod]

Why do you add the quote as if it carries any weight? Particularly when we view the website it was taken from, where we essentially have a bait-and-switch; the article begins by talking about QM, to lend an air of false credibilit to what comes next- and about halfway through, starts trying to sneak a bunch of unsubstantiated spirituo-babble in through the backdoor. In other words, all you've really given us here is the bare assertion that "the physical world is only real at certain levels of consciousness"- yeah ok, you believe that, that's nice; so what?

It's not a belief; it's an experience that is verifiable, but you have to get into the driver's seat yourself.

From the vantage point of Higher Consciousness, BOTH views are understood, but from that of ordinary consciousness, one is only aware of the phenomenal world, and the belief that it is reality. It's not something I believe; it is the common view. The problem comes when that belief no longer matches what is actual Reality. We get a gimpse of this mismatch with QM.

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it?

“We don’t know who first discovered water, but we can be sure that it wasn’t a fish,” the old saw reminds us. Continual exposure to something reduces our awareness of its presence. Over time, we become blind to the obvious. We swim in a sea of consciousness, like a fish swims in water. And like a fish that has become oblivious to his aqueous environment, we have become dulled to the ubiquity of consciousness.

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence. We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined. The polite term for this trick is “emergence.” At a certain stage of biological complexity, evolutionary biologists claim, consciousness pops out of the brain like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever. As Rutgers University philosopher Jerry A. Fodo flatly states, “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. So much for our philosophy of consciousness.”

In spite of the complete absence of evidence, the belief that the brain produces consciousness endures and has ossified into dogma. Many scientists realize the limitations of this belief. One way of getting around the lack of evidence is simply to declare that what we call consciousness is the brain itself. That way, nothing is produced, and the magic of “emergence” is avoided. As astronomer Carl Sagan expressed his position, “My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings – what we sometimes call mind – are a consequence of anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.” Nobelist Francis Crick agreed, saying “[A] person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them.”

This “identity theory” – mind equals brain – has led legions of scientists and philosophers to regard consciousness as an unnecessary, superfluous concept. Some go out of their way to deny the existence of consciousness altogether, almost as if they bear a grudge against it. Tufts University cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett says, “We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious.” Dennett includes himself in this extraordinary claim, and he seems proud of it.

- See more at: http://www.superconsciousness.com/topics/science/why-consciousness-not-brain#sthash.FBOWnxoK.dpuf

 

[godnotgod]

You realize that something outside of time and space, means that it doesn't exist right?

Not at all. It just doesn't exist as a thing within the conceptual framework of space-time. Consciousness is not a thing. It neither exists nor not-exists; it is Reality itself, which is not subject to birth and death, is ungrown, and unconditioned.

What is being produced is simply interaction. I am interacting with my environment, I am aware of my environment. my perceptions by my senses are impacted by my environment, my brain allows me to not only form memories, but enables me to be able to produce links between those memories. That is consciousness.

No it isn't; that is the retrieval of data stored within your memory banks, but it is consciousness which allows you to understand what it is you are looking at.

You claim to be interacting with your environment, but who is it that is the agent of this interaction? There is none, this "I" being but an illusion of the mind. There is no separate self acting upon the environment. You are the environment interacting with itself.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Physicist Freeman Dyson believes the cosmos is suffused with consciousness, from the grandest level to the most minute dimensions. If it is, why aren’t we aware of it?

“We don’t know who first discovered water, but we can be sure that it wasn’t a fish,” the old saw reminds us. Continual exposure to something reduces our awareness of its presence. Over time, we become blind to the obvious. We swim in a sea of consciousness, like a fish swims in water. And like a fish that has become oblivious to his aqueous environment, we have become dulled to the ubiquity of consciousness.

Once again, that sounds nice, but nothing here provides any reason for thinking that "the cosmos is suffused with consciousness". At present, all indications are that consciousness is unique to biological organisms, in particular, those with certain cognitive machinery.

In science, we have largely ignored how consciousness manifests in our existence.

Hardly.

We’ve done this by assuming that the brain produces consciousness, although how it might do so has never been explained and can hardly be imagined.

Simply inaccurate; we don't assume that the brain produces consciousness, there are many empirical indications that this is so.

The polite term for this trick is “emergence.” At a certain stage of biological complexity, evolutionary biologists claim, consciousness pops out of the brain like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. Yet this claim rests on no direct evidence whatsoever.

Unless "direct" is being used as ad hoc weasel language to qualify what sort of evidence we do have, this is simply untrue.

In spite of the complete absence of evidence, the belief that the brain produces consciousness endures and has ossified into dogma.

Ironically, this false refrain about "the complete absence of evidence" reeks of dogma.

Many scientists realize the limitations of this belief. One way of getting around the lack of evidence is simply to declare that what we call consciousness is the brain itself. That way, nothing is produced, and the magic of “emergence” is avoided. As astronomer Carl Sagan expressed his position, “My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings – what we sometimes call mind – are a consequence of anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.” Nobelist Francis Crick agreed, saying “[A] person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them.”

This “identity theory” – mind equals brain – has led legions of scientists and philosophers to regard consciousness as an unnecessary, superfluous concept. Some go out of their way to deny the existence of consciousness altogether, almost as if they bear a grudge against it. Tufts University cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett says, “We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious.” Dennett includes himself in this extraordinary claim, and he seems proud of it.

Needless to say, this is not a responsible or accurate portrayal of the issue, or of the views of identity theorists or eliminativists. It's pretty sad; virtually every critique of Dennet's position rely's on painting a caricature of a strawman, and then mocking the strawman (committing a double doozy of a fallacy; not only a strawman, but an appeal to incredulity!)- at least this is par for the course, sad as that is.

 

[Slapstick]

The physical world is real only at a certain level of consciousness
Gopi Krishna says: “When we look at the causal world, it is rigidly bound by cause and effect. But when we reach a higher dimension of consciousness we find that the rigid walls of matter melt. Space and time lose their rigidity, and there is a mingling of the past, the present, and the future. Looking at the whole thing from this point of view, what we think about the universe - the laws, the effect and cause - is a product of our own consciousness. In our dimension of consciousness, the world is not illusory. It is real. But in the next higher state of consciousness it loses its solidity.”

New Brain - New World

I see you have consorted with a Yogi. Seems to me like this next higher state of consciousness just tunes out the laws of physics or physical systems.

Since we are on the topic of multiple dimensions, your quote raises another question about the big bang. Although I notice this has more to do with the consciousness or "next higher level of conscious" and not so much physical systems.

1) Is the big bang the beginning or the end of space and time?
2) Is it just the continuum of space and time?
3) Is it neither of the above?
4) Is there something more to this realm and others you might have a better explanation for?

 

[godnotgod]

Once again, that sounds nice, but nothing here provides any reason for thinking that "the cosmos is suffused with consciousness". At present, all indications are that consciousness is unique to biological organisms, in particular, those with certain cognitive machinery.

But man is the only organism with a sense of a separate "I"; that is to say, with an individual consciousness. The rest of the biological world may be exhibit consciousness, but all organisms are completely integrated with their environments. Man thinks of his consciousness as somehow separate.

If the level of cognitive machinery is the criteria for consciousness, then the universe must be far more conscious than any organism, because organisms come out of the universe, and not the other way around.

Simply inaccurate; we don't assume that the brain produces consciousness, there are many empirical indications that this is so.

You have refuted everything that indicates a conscious universe, and affirm the emergence of consciousness from the brain, but still have offered zero evidence to support this hypothesis.

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?

 

[godnotgod]

I see you have consorted with a Yogi. Seems to me like this next higher state of consciousness just tunes out the laws of physics or physical systems.

Since we are on the topic of multiple dimensions, your quote raises another question about the big bang. Although I notice this has more to do with the consciousness or "next higher level of conscious" and not so much physical systems.

1) Is the big bang the beginning or the end of space and time?
2) Is it just the continuum of space and time?
3) Is it neither of the above?
4) Is there something more to this realm and others you might have a better explanation for?

Higher states of consciousness do not 'tune out' physics or any other science, but instead places all science into the correct context so that the findings of science can be correctly interpreted. The universe is that context. After all, science is about the universe, not the other way around.

All of the reading I've done re: the BB is that space-time began at that moment. If that is incorrect, perhaps a science person here can make the appropriate correction to that statement. Your suggestion that space-time may have existed prior to the BB would only mean the existence of a universe.

Because space-time is merely a conceptual framework, the context within which the BB occured is no space/no time, but the reality is still no space/no time, even now. It is all about consciousness, and the projection of consciousness we call the universe.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If the level of cognitive machinery is the criteria for consciousness, then the universe must be far more conscious than any organism, because organisms come out of the universe, and not the other way around.

No, just because the universe has conscious things in it doesn't mean it is itself conscious; this is a textbook fallacy of composition.

You have refuted everything to indicate a conscious universe, and affirm the emergence of consciousness from the brain, but still have offered zero evidence to support this hypothesis.

How does the material brain create non-material consciousness?[/COLOR]

How the brain creates "non-material consciousness" is not the same question as whether it does- and in any case, the results of contemporary cognitive sciences, such as the mapping of various cognitive activities to particular areas of the brain, suggest just such a correspondence, and thus are highly consistent with various forms of physicalism.

 

[godnotgod]

No, just because the universe has conscious things in it doesn't mean it is itself conscious; this is a textbook fallacy of composition.

No. That's not my meaning, but that is fallacious, since the universe does not 'have conscious things' in it, but that conscious beings have emerged from a conscious universe, the 'things' not being separate from the universe. In fact, they ARE what makes up the universe.

My meaning was more that conscious beings are not known to have the capacity to create universes, while the universe does indeed have the capacity to project conscious beings, as well as other complex entities, which indicates a higher level of consciousness that would be required to do so.

How the brain creates "non-material consciousness" is not the same question as whether it does- and in any case, the results of contemporary cognitive sciences, such as the mapping of various cognitive activities to particular areas of the brain, suggest just such a correspondence, and thus are highly consistent with various forms of physicalism.

'Suggest' tells us nothing about 'whether' nor 'how' this occurs. 'Emergence' at this stage of the game is nothing more than a notion. Once again, we are back to assuming that TV signals come from the TV set, and that, just because the signals end when the set is off, this is confirmation of such a notion. This is no better than the blind men touching parts of the elephant and declaring them the elephant.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

My meaning was more that conscious beings are not known to have the capacity to create universes, while the universe does indeed have the capacity to project conscious beings, as well as other complex entities, which indicates a higher level of consciousness that would be required to do so.

No, that doesn't follow either. That the universe includes conscious beings does not entail that the universe has a "higher level of consciousness".

'Suggest' tells us nothing about 'whether' nor 'how' this occurs.

Um... What? If the evidence suggests that it is so, then it indeed tells us something about whether it is so- it suggests that it is.

'Emergence' at this stage of the game is nothing more than a notion.

A notion that appears able to account for the relevant evidence.

Once again, we are back to assuming that TV signals come from the TV set, and that, just because the signals end when the set is off, this is confirmation of such a notion.

Its more like concluding (not assuming- you appear to be unclear on what "assume" means, since you've misused it several times now) that the sounds and pictures that come from the television have something to do with the circuitry inside since changes in the former appear to have a correspondence with changes in the latter. It would be an odd coincidence indeed if it turned out that our brain just so happened to always be doing the exact same thing whenever we were performing a particular cognitive activity, and that everyone else's brain did the same thing. That there is some significant relation between the two seems far more likely.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I just don't understand what's so attractive or romantic about notions like the universe being conscious, or the existence of non-physical persons watching over us, that we're willing to come up with all sorts of convoluted and contorted lines of reasoning to try to convince ourselves and others that these notions are credible. Different strokes for different folks, I guess...

 

[godnotgod]

No, that doesn't follow either. That the universe includes conscious beings does not entail that the universe has a "higher level of consciousness".

Conscious beings are not 'included'; they are integral to the universe to the tune of 100% integration. You don't come into the world; you come out of it, in the same manner that oranges grow out of orange trees. But you're missing my point: we, as conscious, intelligent beings, and yet, cannot produce a universe, but the universe can produce conscious beings, which would require a higher level of conscious intelligence. You want to separate conscious beings from that from which they emerged in their totality. That separation exists only in your mind. It's an illusion. The fact is that conscious beings and the universe are not different.

Um... What? If the evidence suggests that it is so, then it indeed tells us something about whether it is so- it suggests that it is.


A notion that appears able to account for the relevant evidence.

The logic involved is faulty. There is no real scientific basis for this notion.

Its more like concluding (not assuming- you appear to be unclear on what "assume" means, since you've misused it several times now) that the sounds and pictures that come from the television have something to do with the circuitry inside since changes in the former appear to have a correspondence with changes in the latter. It would be an odd coincidence indeed if it turned out that our brain just so happened to always be doing the exact same thing whenever we were performing a particular cognitive activity, and that everyone else's brain did the same thing. That there is some significant relation between the two seems far more likely.

Right, and that relation would be that consciousness in not just universal, but as what determined how the brain is to function. It would be awkward, if not impossible, if we, as conscioius beings, had to constantly consciously monitor and regulate bodily functions, such as breath and heart rate, digestion, etc. while at the same time having to deal up front with whatever spontaneously came our way. It would be a juggling act of supreme proportions. So consciousness relegates these functions to the brain to get them out of its way, as well as others for instant retrieval and usage when needed.

 

[Slapstick]

Higher states of consciousness do not 'tune out' physics or any other science, but instead places all science into the correct context so that the findings of science can be correctly interpreted. The universe is that context. After all, science is about the universe, not the other way around.

The other way around? The other way around of what?

All of the reading I've done re: the BB is that space-time began at that moment. If that is incorrect, perhaps a science person here can make the appropriate correction to that statement. Your suggestion that space-time may have existed prior to the BB would only mean the existence of a universe.

I believe in multiple dimensions so I think it’s possible for space and time to have occurred before the big bang.

Because space-time is merely a conceptual framework, the context within which the BB occured is no space/no time, but the reality is still no space/no time, even now. It is all about consciousness, and the projection of consciousness we call the universe.

I don't view it the same way. :tuna:

 

[godnotgod]

I just don't understand what's so attractive or romantic about notions like the universe being conscious, or the existence of non-physical persons watching over us, that we're willing to come up with all sorts of convoluted and contorted lines of reasoning to try to convince ourselves and others that these notions are credible. Different strokes for different folks, I guess...

Who said anything about any overseers?

It's not that the universe being conscious is attractive or romantic; it's simply the way things are. Both science and religion have created false notions of a dead universe and man as created 'artifacts', while atheism has created an image of man as nothing more than a 'meat machine'.

The idea is not that there is a natural world with a supernatural entity above it, but simply that the UNI-verse is all things in one, and that means that the ordinary and the miraculous are one and the same. Get used to it. It's just the way things are. What's the problem?

You're not, as you imagine, a separate ego acting upon the universe; you are just an action of the total universe, something the universe is doing at this moment, just as the wave is something the ocean is doing.

 

[godnotgod]

The other way around? The other way around of what?

The universe was in place before science ever came onto the scene.

I believe in multiple dimensions so I think it’s possible for space and time to have occurred before the big bang.

Can't you have multiple dimensions without space-time?

I don't view it the same way

The only other possibility in lieu of a manifested universe via consciousness is that of a real material universe sans consciousness. So what is the origin of the material from which the universe emerged?

 

[Slapstick]

The universe was in place before science ever came onto the scene.

Yes, that much is certain.

Can't you have multiple dimensions without space-time?

Sure, why not? I don’t view space and time as having much meaning.

The only other possibility in lieu of a manifested universe via consciousness is that of a real material universe sans consciousness. So what is the origin of the material from which the universe emerged?

The Universe doesn't have an origin.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure, why not? I don’t view space and time as having much meaning.

So if that is the case, there is no linearity. Everything occurs in the here and now, which is timeless.

The Universe doesn't have an origin.

If that is the case, then it is beginingless, which means everything within it has always existed as well, including consciousness, and if consciousness has always existed, then it is not a creation of the brain. The brain is a creation of consciousness. This, BTW, has been demonstrated by studies which show that meditating monks actually grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non meditators.

Timeless, Beginingless Conscious Universe.