Consciousness Comments
sbrazz wrote:
Objective understanding of how something works, or some property relies on three viewpoints.
(1) An overall (whole) view of the object or process concerned - the wetness of water.
(2) A reduced level of some of the parts and processes - ex – interaction of molecules.
(3) We view both from our own conscious level - we stand back from both levels and see how the parts make the whole. But the understanding is itself a subjective experience. Like Rodger Penrose says understanding involves awareness.
Now when we try to understand our own consciousness we strike a problem. I have only one direct view of consciousness - my own. In trying to understand what gives rise to consciousness, one doesn't want to know what makes a person "appear" conscious; one wants to know what gives rise to the actual phenomena - I must therefore put my own personal consciousness on the stage. But I cannot do this. I cannot stand outside my own consciousness and look at it and its workings. The best I can manage is some reflections on myself, but then I am looking at myself in some detached way (Nagel's view from nowhere), that is not much better than observing someone else’s inferred consciousness. We cannot consciously stand apart from own consciousness. Therefore how consciousness arises from a mechanical mind is beyond comprehension, and so appears as emergent.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 3:19 AM / April 28, 2013 | Read More
kassdeck wrote:
As mysterious as death can seem, your existence itself is more so. Why do we focus so much on what happens at death and not creation/ If you are still and thoughtful, it's WEIRD that you were once NOT HERE and are NOW HERE. Death is the place where you existed before birth. Does anyone else get completely freaked out about that? YOU exist... well, because your parents had sex. What were you before you were born? Everything? Nothing? An egg? A lucky sperm? A star? Frankly, it's rather weird. Okay... really weird! try to remember! You can't. There is a story about a young couple with a new baby. The brother (himself quite young) asked to talk to the baby... alone... The young parents agreed, but curious, stood at the door and . little boy then asked the baby, "Quick! Please tell me where you came from! I'm starting to forget."
Maybe this story isn't true, maybe it is, but it's cool. Because we have all forgotten, if we ever knew. So mysterious, and then we argue about God.
How cute?
:|
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 6:50 AM / April 10, 2013 | Read More
jlhinc23 wrote:
With regards to the question, "How are brains structured?" we can say that human infants are born with some "hard-wiring" or structuring in their brains, but they do not have a sense or concept of self (as older people do)--so this is something that is developed and acquired over time. (This is profound because most people do not realize that their normal sense of self and reality is constructed or created over time--so the personal 'me' that you know as 'you' is mostly (or perhaps fully) something made-up or something created--although there can be found traces of the 'real' you in these constructs).
Object-relations theory (as per developmental psychology) describes the process of how an infant's brain becomes structured--or how 'knowledge' is created (including knowledge of or pertaining to a "self" and knowledge of or pertaining to "reality"). As object-relations theory describes, all knowledge (and its corresponding mental structures) is comprised of a "triad" consisting of (1) an impression or representation of a self, (2) an impression or representation of an object, and (3) an affect (or emotional or energetic link between the two). After the first few years of life (4-5 years) the child hopefully develops stable mental structures which contain (1) 'knowledge' or a sense of a self (comprised of all of one's representations of self via object-relations; and leading to a stable and cohesive sense of self), (2) representations of external objects (which units forms one's overall representations of reality), and (3) an overall sense (i.e. sensation or feeling) of self and reality (as per the affects embedded or associated with the 'self' representations and 'object' representations). At this point it can be said that the child's (or adult's) consciousness is now embedded and experienced within these mental structures, frameworks, or mental representations of self and reality; and this becomes the critical point, in that consciousness becomes structuralized and experienced mainly (or only) via these structures or representations (i.e. knowledge) of self and reality; and because they are only representations of self and reality, and not the real thing, we (as adults) get a biased and subjective experience of self, reality and consciousness as it gets filtered and processed by the mind (its programing).
From this perspective, it now becomes clear that to "move closer to truth (or reality)" one must have the consciousness or ability to move beyond one's subjective, mental programs or representations in favor of being able to comprehend, perceive and/or experience an objective self and an objective reality, i.e., a self and a reality that can only exist and be appreciated and experienced fully in the present (as opposed to being framed and experienced via 'old' and subjective representations via the past).
So, somehow one must learn how to move beyond (or transcend, if you will) these mental structures (or mental programs) in favor of a purer, more real, and present-oriented experience of self and reality. (It is my understanding and experience that there are ways to do this but it is too complex to write about here; but for those who have actually experienced this phenomenon of 'breaking this barrier' i.e. the barrier of the mind, only you can appreciate its profound significance and truly know that this is where real consciousness can be found, where one's ontological self and ontological reality can be perceived and experienced).
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 7:50 PM / January 15, 2013 | Read More
Pmpunky wrote:
This is a completely off topic questions but does Dr. Kuhn have a seperate contact page?
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 5:24 AM / December 12, 2012 | Read More
marknesser wrote:
I have heard and read many wonderful words of wisdom. Most of which I want to believe, because they make logical sense and some that I believe, because they have been demonstrated. We should not believe anything, unless it can be continually demonstrated to be true. Can anybody show me proof that our individual consciousness lives on after the death of this body? This is the most important truth or answer that I search for, that no wise person has ever been able to show me...
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 2:44 AM / October 01, 2012 | Read More
Derinos wrote:
When the brain ceases to exist on death, what is left of consciousness? During life, the coded electrical activity that accompanies consciousness is constantly transmitting an electromagnetic version of itself as a weak radio signal, spherically a wave-front moving at the speed of "light". Is that what remains of the "I" in the finite Universe?
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 6:19 AM / September 24, 2012 | Read More
Wendalore wrote:
The more I study the books that discuss Near Death Experiences, the more I wonder why Robert Lawrence Kuhn does not interview some of the people who have written the more scientifically oriented ones. Books by Jeffrey Long, MD, Pim van Lommel, MD,
and Chris Carter (Science and the Near Death Experience, 2010) to name one's I've been reading.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn claims he wants to believe in God and the afterlife, and yet on his show, he seems to mainly talk to scholars and religious philosophers who have been tackling the issue since long before Near Death Experiences were rigorously studied.
However, once you have read a few hundred NDEs and then read all the evidence so far gathered, pro and con, it is easy to come to the conclusion that NDEs are real, not hallucinations. You have to be truly closed minded to read all that I have read and not believe they are real. Once you accept this, the obvious next step is an arriving at an understanding that consciousness is neither caused by, nor limited to, the physical brain. This can opens the door to the possibility of belief in the existence of "something" that is not of his world – something that some , perhaps Robert Lawrence Kuhn, may want to call "God." This belief may be further established as one learns that there is a common message that NDErs get – that they have a purpose in life that they must fulfill, or try to fulfill, on this earth. And the purpose is always about love, giving, and refining one's soul. Or self.
There is much researched information available now. why would Robert Lawrence Kuhn not avail himself of it? Why has he only interviewed people who believe and practice the psychic arts, but who have produced no research about it?
There exist many hypotheses that propose that the NDE is merely an hallucination caused by chemicals in the dying brain, or by human psychological distress.
Chris Carter's book tackles each and every one of these. Dr van Lommel, and Dr. Long, many. This must be done by each NDE explorer so that the part of ones' mind that does not want to give up its materialist reductionist point of view has nothing left to cling to.
So Robert - are you perhaps afraid to end your search? What sort of meaning would you now pursue? Would there be no more website? no more TV show?
And why is this dam website so user-unfriendly?
Wendalore
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 1:09 AM / September 16, 2012 | Read More
jonathant wrote:
Amazingly... we now have the truth about consciousness.
Jeremy Griffith explains:
"The truth is, the subject of consciousness brings our mind so quickly into contact with the unbearably depressing issue of the human condition that ‘consciousness’ has become synonymous with—indeed code for—the problem of the human condition."
Taken from the book "Freedom", at www.humancondition.com.
Once the human condition is explained, consciousness is actually really simply defined. It is not complex at all! Amazing stuff!
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 8:42 PM / August 30, 2012 | Read More
Mitra U. wrote:
Cases of rebirth ( if any single case estabilished scientifically in the world) can be taken as proof of existance of soul.
Souls of seers, who worked for humanity throught their lives, are few examples of God, we must take their lives as our religion to develop peace, harmony & love in society.
Such souls as God must not be taken as creator, the process creation of universe is entirely saperate subject, not a least concerned with such God/Gods, rather soul/ god can be taken as something superior species then humen or can be taken as a product of the process - evolution.
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 8:48 PM / August 20, 2012 | Read More
carlsond wrote:
The chief tenets of New Thought (best described as Gnostic Christianity) are:
God is infinite intelligence
Spirit is the ultimate reality
True human self-hood is divine
In short, Monism - that Spirit (Big Mind), mind & matter are the same (New Thought). Culture (small mind) is subjective Spirit and that Nature is objective Spirit. Different movement of one absolute Spirit.
Ken Wilber felt the philosophy Friedrich Schelling successfully integrated the 'Ascending' (the path of Wisdom) and the 'Descending' (the path of compassion).
Schelling understood that development or evolution was a spiritual movemnt.
In the 'spirit' of keeping this comment short, you can read more about Schelling and New Thought at www.harmonyangels.com
It's got a useful UI. Click 'Ski the GS', then click
'GS Trail Map'. For Schilling, ski down the TRUTH mountain till you find 'Philosophy' (lower left). For New Thought, ski down the GOODNESS moutain till you find 'New Thought'. Happy Trails.
Don Carlson
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 9:32 PM / August 16, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
If "What it is like to be something" was deprived of the world like a "Kaspar Hauser Bat" it could not know "What the world is like for" "What it is like to be something".
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 3:52 PM / August 10, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
The historical Kaspar Hauser never had an experience of "What the world is like for" "What it is like to be a human being" he never had an experience of "What it is like to be a bat" "What the world is like for" What it is like to be a bat" he never had an experience of the world because he was deprived of the world. We are not deprived of the world we know the world in a mysterious way."
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 10:32 PM / August 08, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
"What is it like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" who never had an experience of "What is the world like for" "What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" who never had an experience of " What it is like to be a bat" "What is the world like for" "What it is like to be a bat" ?
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 3:56 AM / August 08, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
Neither bats nor predator apes are able to explain "What it is like to be something" What is the world like for" "What it is like to be something" therefore they are inclined to accept wrong explanations.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 1:53 PM / August 07, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
"What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" "What is the world for" "What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" who never had an experience of the world who knew everything about every elementary particle in the universe a human being could possibly know?
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 11:05 AM / August 07, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
The mind-body problem, the explanatory gap comes into existence by applying wrong concepts to a mysterious world. It's true we do not know "What it is like to be a bat" "What is the world for" "What it is like to be a bat" as in the case of human beings.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 7:05 AM / August 06, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
The physicalist conjecture that Laplace's demon's knowledge is the ideal theory of the world is wrong. A theory of the world has to explain "What is it like to be something" What is the world like for" "What it is like to be something" ...on planet earth there is no such theory available.
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 3:19 AM / August 06, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
"What it is like to be Mary" "What is the world for" "What it is like to be Mary" who never had an experience of red who had Laplace's demon knowledge at her disposal ?
"What it is like to be the Space Kaspar Hauser" "What is the world for" "What it is like to be the Space Kaspar Hauser" who never had an experience of the world who had Laplace's demon knowledge at his disposal ?
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 1:58 PM / August 05, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
It's the Space Kaspar Hauser problem...
The Space Kaspar Hauser never had an experience of red...furthermore he never had an experience of the world...http://philpapers.org/post/6813
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 7:55 AM / August 05, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
The solution to the mind body problem to the explanatory gap is that the real problem is"What it is like to be something" "What is the world for" "What it is like to be something" which is completely mysterious both in case of a bat and in case of a human being.
There is no amazing success of physics. The amazing thing about physics is that it is neither able to generate a serious question about an organism and its world nor knowledge about anything but particles.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 1:31 AM / August 05, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
It is the two planets question: Why should I drop down on a planet which is populated by an organism which generates knowledge about elementary particles and particle aggregates instead of dropping down on a planet which is populated by an organism which generates knowledge about
"What it is like to be something" What is the world for" "What it is like to be something" ?
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7213 Reply |
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 12:01 PM / August 04, 2012 | Read More
kaiwelp wrote:
Space Kaspar Hauser or “What is it like to be a bat” reloaded...
Kai Welp
The Space Kaspar Hauser has never seen a colour like Mary - furthermore he has never seen the world...
A space Kaspar Hauser who spends his whole life isolated in a dark, empty space capsule far away from the next solar system knew everything about particle physics and cosmology a human being could possibly know (to know everything about every elementary particle in the universe...).
Obviously he has no knowledge about a bat although a bat has spatial location, spatial dimensions and can be broken down into spatial parts. But he has knowledge of every elementary particle in the universe.Particle physics and cosmology do not generate knowledge about the spatial bat, nor do they generate knowledge"What it's like to be a bat". The question arises how do we know about the levels which supervene upon the elementary particles of a bat?
If the Space Kaspar Hauser dropped down on earth or another planet his knowledge about himself and the world would explode as in the case of the historical Kaspar Hauser. He would add knowledge about levels that supervene upon elementary particles.The ontological status of elementary particles and the levels that supervene upon them seems unclear.
David Chalmers posits that Laplace's demon could not know about consciousness - the hard problem...If the demon spent his life in a dark empty space capsule he could not know anything about the levels supervening the particles...he could not know "What it's like to be a bat he could not know about the spatial bat.
The levels supervening upon elementary particles are not at all emergent or comlex levels of particles.There is no ontological emergence or complexity. Particles remain particles remain particles. Therefore the Space Kaspar Hauser knows everything about every particle but he doesn't know anything else. Dropping down on a planet he realizes there is an (alien) spatial bat and a "What it's like to be a bat" and elementary particles. The particles, the spatial bat, the"What it's like to be a bat" seem to transcend ontologically the cognitive capacities of the Space Kaspar Hauser.
This guy got the matter-mind supervening upon elementary particles problem...
The levels supervening upon fundamental physics are Kaspar Hauser levels which develop by leaving the dark, empty space capsule far away from the next solar system.
You need more to have more
What is the Space Kaspar Hauser living in a dark, empty space capsule but knowing everything about every elementary particle in the universe be deprived of ? To know everything about particle aggregates doesn’t mean to know about the levels supervening upon the particles. Dropping down on a planet he encounters something in space which can’t be explained in terms of the particle substance, the only substance he is familiar with. What is it, what is there? There are three substances: elementary particles, a spatial bat substance, a something which supervenes upon particles, a nonspatial What it is like to be a bat substance - very mysterious.
Identity Theory
The theory that the spatial patterns of the world are identical with particle aggregates faces the same problem as the identity theory of the mind. A Space Kaspar Hauser who knew everything about every elementary particle in the universe could not know about a spatial bat, nor about "What it is like to be a bat". Perhaps there are smart aliens in the universe who are able to discern the spatial nonparticle substance which supervenes upon the particles of a bat and the nonspatial substance which is roughly where the bat is located in space. We know about the wetness of water because we are in contact with a something of which the Space Kaspar Hauser is deprived.
...atoms, molecules, cells=elementary particles. The unknown nonspatial substance and spatial substance supervenes upon the levels which can be build up from fundamental physics. You can' t build up "What it is like to be a bat" nor a spatial bat from fundamental physics
On what a bat and a human being is
"What it's like to be a human being which knows and explains not everything about the nonspatial What it's like to be a bat and a spatial bat" is mysterious and not scientific.
"What it' s like to be a bat which knows and explains not everything about the nonspatial What it' s like to be a human being and a spatial human being" is mysterious and not scientific.
Neither a human being nor a bat are scientists they are simply not able to be scientific.
What it is like to be a human being which knows and explains about elementary particles is far too mysterious to write it down in a science book. A scientist has not the ghost of an idea "What it's like to be a scientist".
The Space Kaspar Hauser knew everything about every elementary particle in the universe a human being could possibly know and therefore he could not know about anything else but particles. He could not know about his organs he could not know about societies, cultures, spatial bats, "What it is like to be a perfect extraterrestrial which knows and explains everything", he could not explain why "What it's like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" supervenes on particles.
He could not know because there is an additional nonspatial "What it is like to be" substance and an additional spatial substance he could not know because he spend his life in a dark empty space capsule far away from the next solar system.
Supervenience is a human concept like complexity or emergence. The ontological dispute about the intrinsic nature of "What it is like to be a bat" and about a spatial bat is crucial. The Space Kaspar Hauser argument reveals that knowledge about elementary particles is Kaspar Hauser knowledge that is to say is knowledge about particles and many particles and nothing else. Furthermore it claims that there is an "elementary particle, a particle aggregate Zeitgeist" which posits that everything is elementary particles without being able to explain a nonspatial experience of red or a spatial parking ticket.
To be about the spatial world is something completely unknown both in the case of a bat and in the case of a human being. It is something which is closely connected to "what it is like to be something". Therefore nobody insinuates that a bat disposes of a scientific concept of the physical world and there is no reason to assume that a trading predator ape disposes of a scientific concept of the physical world. There is something out there when we receive a parking ticket something we deeply do not understand...like brains, and bats and "what it's like to be something".
Is it ontologically possible to identify and explain the spatial world, elementary particles, "what it's like to be something", everything ? The presupposition to know and to explain about anything is to know and to explain "what it's like to be something which knows and explains about something" The difficulties of humans and bats in solving that problem are obvious. For all I know this is exactly the reason why economics, natural sciences, buddhism, ... fail in knowing and explaining the world ...
"What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" is a way to evaluate that an alleged "theory of everything" is human knowledge about nothing at all.
To evade the question "What is it like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser, an all-knowing Extraterrestrial, a trading predator ape, a sanguivorous Vampire bat, ... " means to evade the question "What is the world like for..."
A Space Kaspar Hauser who spent his whole life isolated in a dark empty space capsule far away from the next solar system could know rudimentarily about three things: "What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" in a way about his spatial body and about a dark empty space capsule.
In addition he knew everything about every elementary particle in the universe a human being could possibly know. He is Laplace's demon without any access to the universe.
"What is the world like" for "What it is like to be a Space Kaspar Hauser" ? Although he disposed about perfect knowledge about every elementary particle in the universe he could only know about three things. We are as ignorant about "What it is like to be something" as about "What is the world like" for " What is it like to be something". http://philpapers.org/post/7167
"What is it like to be something" "What is the world like for" "What it is like to be something" is not a question of materialism, physicalism, dualism or idealism. Neither a bat and a bat's world can be explainded in such terms nor a human being and a human being's world can be explained in such terms. To be about a nonspatial "What it is like to be" (substance?), to be about a spatial "There are spatial things" (substance?), to be about "elementary particles and particle aggregates" (substance?) is probably very different for a bat and a human being and something else. To be a materialist, a dualist, an idealist presupposes knowledge both a bat and a human being do not possess.
I would like to elaborate on my total mysterian view with reference to the ability of humans to experience, to know, to explain the world.
The assumption that Laplace's demon could know about the universe is fundamentally wrong.
A Space Kaspar Hauser who never had an experience of red who never had an experience of
the world who had the demon's knowledge at his diposal could not know about the world.
It is not about the hard problem of consciousness it is about the question why (human) perfect knowledge about elementary particles does not lead to knowledge of the world.
"What it is like to be Laplace's demon who spend his entire life in a dark empty space capsule far away from the next solar system" "What is the world like for" "What it is like to be Laplace's demon who spend his entire life in a dark empty space capsule far away from the next solar system"
google "Space Kaspar Hauser"
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 11:39 AM / August 02, 2012 | Read More
Graham Epp wrote:
Upon understanding that a multi-verse exists and our one temporal universe is but one amongst an infinite number of others it should become apparent that the essence of what we are is eternally represented. This is then mathematical certainty requiring only proper perspective.
Two chief questions arise:
1. What is wrong with me that I can't accept we continue and limit myself by calling this most interesting natural phenomenon eternal representation?
2. How can we describe a parallel events stream so that reasonability, desirability, and coincidence are satisfied within empiricism and deductive logic?
These questions require a lot of hard thinking, but always point to the same conclusion. We do naturally continue and those rewards to be had in balanced recurrence (neither predisposed to stagnation nor erosion of self) surpass those suggested by magic-based religions. The doubter has as much to learn as the dreamer has to unlearn and they are unfortunately engaged in a symbiotic relationship causing much misunderstanding and needless suffering.
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 8:23 PM / April 23, 2012 | Read More
sridattadev wrote:
Dear Robert,
I can understand your interest in brain and nervous system to explore consciousness and I agree with you that brain has to play a major role in causal or relative consciousness. But the root of consciousness (absolute I or singularity or conscience) is in the heart. We as humans need to understand the key role of heart in consciousness. We can consider the Vortex at the center of the brain as the event horizon of a black hole which leads to the singularity in the heart. We can easily comprehend the I "am" in the brain but have to realize the absolute truth of I "is" in the heart. It is similar to how our scientific world can well describe the material universal outside of the event horizon of a black hole, but is unable to comprehend what goes on inside the black hole and at the singularity.
I "am" a verse and I "is" the uni, put together the Universe.
I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely. The language and the medium of this communication are also products of imagination. Reality as it seems can be termed as implementation of imagination. It is not mind over matter, it is only mind that matters. I am the sum total of my thoughts, I is the calculator.
According to E=MC^2, mass gets converted to energy when it travels at the speed of light. Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind). Create a body with a thought, destroy the body with a thought and find the inner most self, Soul. We are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we are our inner most self (singularity). A great scientist once thought what would it be like to travel at the speed of light and came up with the theory of relativity, now it is our time to wonder on what would it be like to be the space-time itself or experience the singularity and realize the absolute theory of everything.
A simple mathematical equation to represent everything including nothing is zero = infinity, application of this simple fact will solve all other complex equations. This can be proved as follows.
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
and so on....
Zero remains constant in any relation to itself, no other number can remain constant while satisfying all the relations to itself.
I will use the character "~" to represent infinity and express the following equations.
~ + ~ = ~
~ - ~ = ~
~ * ~ = ~
~ / ~ = ~
and so on....
Also infinity is similar to zero and remains constant in relation to itself.
The same mathematical truth can be deduced as follows as well.
If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true
It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".
This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.
If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.
If life is the meaning of our relative existence on this planet then we were all dead even before we were born, so why fear death as we all have already experienced death. On this planet only one being, human, seems to care for Time dimension while all other species do not. If we only understand the perception of other beings dimensions sharing this planet would we appreciate the beauty of it all. There can be as many dimensions as we choose to have. There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. Time is the space between all of us and in time we shall all be one (singularity). Everything gravitate towards singularity or Absolutely nothing gravitates everything, which implies there is no gravity in singularity. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction or singularity in everything that creates the actions (anti gravity) and the consequent reactions (gravity).
Death is to a person, as black hole is to a star. As light cannot escape singularity and time does not exist beyond singularity, so does a dead person cannot see light or does not have perception of time. Dark Matter / Dark Energy are only as dark as our thoughts. Lets weigh our thoughts in and we would have the total mass / energy of the universe. The moment when one stops thinking is when one sees the true light of love in the heart. Some think that universe is expanding, some think that universe is contracting, some think that universe is eternal, I know that universe is what we want it to be.
As scientific explanation is the accepted medium for people to understand things, I have chosen this path to explain the true nature of our being. We are nothing but the result of our imagination. We can travel in space and time with our minds. The body we have is nothing but a space ship that is made for the journey on this planet, soul is the captain. Our brains are the best particle accelerators. I imagine that one day there will be only science of self realization at the highest realm of education converging all sciences, philosophy and religion. Altruistic science should be for enquiring (thinking about) the truth, philosophy for discussing the thoughts and religion for regulating the thoughts for greater good of all beings. I know that this will be done one way or another.
The theory of everthing is that there is absolutely nothing, God is absolute state of mind, soul that is everything and nothing, we are relative states of mind, bodies that are something in between. Happiness and sorrow are relative states of mind, absolute state of mind is peaceful.
Exploring thy self is plain, discovering thy self is not. Intelligence arises from conscience (birth or white hole or entaglement) and results in duality or virtual reality. Intelligence merges back with conscience (death or black hole or enlightenment) and results in singularity or absolute truth. Intelligence is relative and variable. Conscience is absolute and constant. Intelligence is digital in nature. Conscience is analog or continuous in nature. Intelligence is complex. Conscience is simple. Wisdom is the knowledge of conscience and application of intelligence in pursuit of peace and joy.
One is still in duality if one still thinks there is space and time besides one self. One attains singularity by knowing there is no space-time other than one self. Duality is voluntary like raising a thought in the brain, singularity is involuntary like a heart beat. Life is a combination of both of these experiences. As a father of three boys and being fully aware of my self, relatively speaking, isn't it true to say that I created the universe for them.
Truth is simple, accepting it is not.
I am relative I is absolute
I am phenomenon I is nuomenon
I am pi I is zero
I am 3-sphere of love I is n-sphere of love
I am geometry of love I is singularity of love
I am variant I is constant
I am finite I is infinite
I am present I is omnipresent
I am potent I is omnipotent
I am scient I is omniscient
I am mortal I is immortal
I am transcendental I is eternal
I am matter I is ether
I am observed I is the observer
I am dual I is single
I am digital I is analog
I am mind and body I is the soul
I am in the brain I is in the heart
I am intelligent I is the conscience
I am in space-time I is the space-time
I am sound I is the silence
I am visible I is invisible
I am light I is dark
I am asleep I is awake
I am a dream I is the dreamer
I am in peace I is in love
I am human I is god
I am one of our kind I is everyone of all kinds
I am something I is nothing and everything
I am virtual reality I is absolute truth
Love,
Sridattadev.
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 8:46 AM / March 29, 2012 | Read More
sridattadev wrote:
Dear All,
I wanted to share my thoughts on levels of consciousness I have come to understand through several experiences in my life so far. I am going to explain these states of consciousness I have experienced, most of us would have also experieneced these states to some extent.
If we imagine levels of consciousness in a linear way,
At one end is absolute unconscience
closest to this end is extreme sub consciousness (absolute ignorance)
midpoint is consciousness (awakened state)
closer to the other end is super consciousness (absolute enlightenment)
at the other end is supreme conscience.
These states can be explained with an equation of s=bm2, (soul (conscience), body, mind) that I have put together in the Theory of everything.
Absolute unconscience is the state of body with out awareness of soul or conscience.
Realm of subconscious is governed by pride, jealousy, greed, gluttony, suspicion, anger, obsession, addiction, fear and so forth. In this state, the intellect or mind of the being is subdued and the being experiences more bodily presence. Excessive non vegetarian food, excessive alcohol and drugs are the dietary habits of this group. Extreme examples of sub conscious beings are Dictators, War lords, Maniacs, psychos...This state of existence is all about taking and is violent like volcano.
Conscious state is governed by love, compassion and contentment. This state is middle ground where all the attributes for existence are sustained and controlled and is a peaceful state. In this state the intellect or the mind of the being is balanced and aware of its body and soul. Moderate consumption of food, very limited consumption of alcohol are the dietary habits of this group. Beings in this state experience happiness, sorrow and peace. This state can be attained by many of us if we just change our habits.
Super Conscious state is the state of divine beings like Krishna, Moses, Jesus Christ, Shirdi Sai Baba, Lord Buddha, Mohammed Prophet, Guru Nanak, RamaKrishna Paramahamsa, Dada Bhagwan and many more great spiritual people. In this state mind is fully realized of its soul and very limited bodily experience remains. This is the highest state possible for conscious human beings and is pure love and compassion and is absolutely peaceful. This state is very highly sustainable energy state like our sun. The beings in this state are all about giving. Very simple vegetarian diet and no consumption of alcohol is the dietary precursor for this state. Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, altruistic scientists, phliosophers, doctors who are constantly working for the greater good of the world also have elevated consciouness.
Final state of Consiousness is Supreme conscience or God or Allah or Paramatma, this state is beyond matter and energy but is the source of it all. This state is absolute soul and there is no body or mind. Super Conscious beings come to being from Supreme conscience to serve humanity and when they are done they become supreme conscience again.
In S=bm2, Soul or Conscience or God is the universal constant and is omni present, omni scient, and omni potent. Perception of this universal constant is the only variable between all things else. It is this difference in perception of this constant, is the universe we see. I have classified things and beings based up on their perception. It is the inherent nature of human beings to try and attain the absolute perception of this universal conscience or God. This universal conscience or Soul or God is everywhere as it is in everything and nothing as it is not a thing.
Sub Conscious materializes
conscious experiences
Super Conscious energizes
Sub Conscious has definite spacetime
conscious has finite spacetime
Super conscious has infinite spacetime
Sub conscious ignores the truth
conscious searches for the truth
Super conscious realizes the truth
Sub conscious divides
conscious is
Super Conscious unites
Sub conscious blames
conscious bears
Super conscious resolves
Extreme sub consciousness leads to absolute unconscience or permanent death or eternal black hole.
Conscious individuals will lead peaceful lives
and will result in conscious socieities and eventually peaceful world.
Super consciousness leads to absolute enlightenment or eternal peace or Supreme conscience or immortality or infinity.
As I wondered where do the animals and plants on this planet fit in this scale, I can see that animal kingdom is just below the mid point of consciousness but not too far from it and plant kingdom is above the conscious mid point.
Animal kingdom though governed by some attributes of subconscious state such as fear of survival, desire for reproduction these attributes are under control and sustained by mother nature. Hence their state of existence does not lead to chaos on this planet.
Plant kingdom is governed by the attributes of super consciousness and hence it is all about giving food, shelter and medicine to other beings and are just doing the duty and being fully aware of their existence. As beings in this state have deemed the need for sensory perception as irrelevant, this state of beings do not have full fledged sensory receptors. Greatest of spiritual teachers have attained enlightenment in presesnce of these beings.
We have been doing cycles of existence at different levels of consciousness via
birth [first moment of consciouness] and death [brief moment of unconsciouness].
We have developed a system of credit history which tracks the behaviour of an individual finances and gives one certain capabilities to borrow and acquire certain material things in our society. Can any one individual remember exactly all that he has spent over past few months, let alone the entire life. So can one not remember their past lives, but are given this current form based up on the sum total of the actions and reactions that have occurred during the course of one's previous existence. This is called "Karma" philosophy. As humans we have the capability to understand and experience these different states of consciousness, we are gifted beings. Human life is a chance to realize these different states of existence and work towards the ultimate state of supreme conscience. As critical mass of us lean towards sub conscious state, the balance gets disturbed and chaos will set in. We all know the effects of deforestation. As the worlds balance tips off towards the sub conscious, world becomes chaotic and people will start to experience its ill effects. This is when supreme conscience will arise to restore the balance on this planet in one way or another.
Love,
Sridattadev.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 2:00 PM / March 28, 2012 | Read More
sridattadev wrote:
Dear All,
I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely. The language and the medium of this communication are also products of imagination. Reality as it seems can be termed as implementation of imagination. It is not mind over matter, it is only mind that matters. I am the sum total of my thoughts, I is the calculator.
According to E=MC^2, mass gets converted to energy when it travels at the speed of light. Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind). Create a body with a thought, destroy the body with a thought and find the inner most self, Soul. We are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we are our inner most self (singularity). A great scientist once thought what would it be like to travel at the speed of light and came up with the theory of relativity, now it is our time to wonder on what would it be like to be the space-time itself or experience the singularity and realize the absolute theory of everything.
A simple mathematical equation to represent everything including nothing is zero = infinity, application of this simple fact will solve all other complex equations. This can be proved as follows.
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 * 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
and so on....
Zero remains constant in any relation to itself, no other number can remain constant while satisfying all the relations to itself.
I will use the character "~" to represent infinity and express the following equations.
~ + ~ = ~
~ - ~ = ~
~ * ~ = ~
~ / ~ = ~
and so on....
Also infinity is similar to zero and remains constant in relation to itself.
The same mathematical truth can be deduced as follows as well.
If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true
If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true
If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true
If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true
If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true
It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".
This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.
If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.
If life is the meaning of our relative existence on this planet then we were all dead even before we were born, so why fear death as we all have already experienced death. On this planet only one being, human, seems to care for Time dimension while all other species do not. If we only understand the perception of other beings dimensions sharing this planet would we appreciate the beauty of it all. There can be as many dimensions as we choose to have. There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. Time is the space between all of us and in time we shall all be one (singularity). Everything gravitate towards singularity or Absolutely nothing gravitates everything, which implies there is no gravity in singularity. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction or singularity in everything that creates the actions (anti gravity) and the consequent reactions (gravity).
Death is to a person, as black hole is to a star. As light cannot escape singularity and time does not exist beyond singularity, so does a dead person cannot see light or does not have perception of time. Dark Matter / Dark Energy are only as dark as our thoughts. Lets weigh our thoughts in and we would have the total mass / energy of the universe. The moment when one stops thinking is when one sees the true light of love in the heart. Some think that universe is expanding, some think that universe is contracting, some think that universe is eternal, I know that universe is what we want it to be.
As scientific explanation is the accepted medium for people to understand things, I have chosen this path to explain the true nature of our being. We are nothing but the result of our imagination. We can travel in space and time with our minds. The body we have is nothing but a space ship that is made for the journey on this planet, soul is the captain. Our brains are the best particle accelerators. I imagine that one day there will be only science of self realization at the highest realm of education converging all sciences, philosophy and religion. Altruistic science should be for enquiring (thinking about) the truth, philosophy for discussing the thoughts and religion for regulating the thoughts for greater good of all beings. I know that this will be done one way or another.
The theory of everthing is that there is absolutely nothing, God is absolute state of mind, soul that is everything and nothing, we are relative states of mind, bodies that are something in between. Happiness and sorrow are relative states of mind, absolute state of mind is peaceful.
Exploring thy self is plain, discovering thy self is not. Intelligence arises from conscience (birth or white hole or entaglement) and results in duality or virtual reality. Intelligence merges back with conscience (death or black hole or enlightenment) and results in singularity or absolute truth. Intelligence is relative and variable. Conscience is absolute and constant. Intelligence is digital in nature. Conscience is analog or continuous in nature. Intelligence is complex. Conscience is simple. Wisdom is the knowledge of conscience and application of intelligence in pursuit of peace and joy.
One is still in duality if one still thinks there is space and time besides one self. One attains singularity by knowing there is no space-time other than one self. Duality is voluntary like raising a thought in the brain, singularity is involuntary like a heart beat. Life is a combination of both of these experiences. As a father of three boys and being fully aware of my self, relatively speaking, isn't it true to say that I created the universe for them.
Truth is simple, accepting it is not.
I am relative I is absolute
I am phenomenon I is nuomenon
I am pi I is zero
I am 3-sphere of love I is n-sphere of love
I am geometry of love I is singularity of love
I am variant I is constant
I am finite I is infinite
I am present I is omnipresent
I am potent I is omnipotent
I am scient I is omniscient
I am mortal I is immortal
I am transcendental I is eternal
I am matter I is ether
I am observed I is the observer
I am dual I is single
I am digital I is analog
I am mind and body I is the soul
I am in the brain I is in the heart
I am intelligent I is the conscience
I am in space-time I is the space-time
I am sound I is the silence
I am visible I is invisible
I am light I is dark
I am asleep I is awake
I am a dream I is the dreamer
I am in peace I is in love
I am human I is god
I am one of our kind I is everyone of all kinds
I am something I is nothing and everything
I am virtual reality I is absolute truth
Conscience is the cosmological constant.
Conscience is the common sense as we all share it.
There is only one soul or singularity or conscience.
Be in Love to Rest in Peace
Love,
Sridattadev.
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 1:37 PM / March 28, 2012 | Read More
Danielpm wrote:
The Keep it simple People, comment really allplies to this. How many of you have been to a Funeral? So Why did the Body Cease to Live? Science still hasnt figured that out!!!! Science Still Doesnt know Where The Human Beings, Being Goes. Sure they know why it stops as from an accident or cancers effects.
But the the Lifes Spirit, THE SOUL! , The Eternal Living being that inhabited that body has left it and has reunited itself back into the creators massive Flow of Pure energy. The Life force that gives breath is called the Soul!. You can call it whatever you want and different cultures call it different things but when the Soul Leaves the Body it Dies! . You can hook up a body to life support but when the soul leaves the body, its over!
We also KNOW the Soul resides in the Upper part of the body in the Brain and we have proven this over the past 100 years. The Jarvic heart can replace a heart and the person lives so "heart death" does not determine death anymore! like it used to. Remember checking the pulse!!
In todays Medical world, Brain death is the determining factor. In the Book "Stiff, The most bizarre ways to determine death were performed so as not to bury someone alive. Just 40 years ago, doctors were Sticking hot probes in orifices and now THE modern day determining factor is ultimately, the Brain. The reason is is because the Soul resides in the Brain. Our soul consists of intellect, memory, imagination and our consciience in basic terms. Our ability to learn and emotions and motor funtions are all part or the Soul and Brain/body connection. Wouldnt it be amazing If science could complete a Brain transfusion? Put my Brain in Your Body? Im sure they are working on it furiously, for it would mean that my soul could live in any body I choose, even a female body, and Im a male. See when there is Brain Death, The eyes go into the Death stare and the Human Being becomes just a Human and the being is somplace else. We have tried to view the spirit/soul leaving the body and there are no public reports of this being accomplished. Point is There is somthing that leaves the Body!!! The SOUL
Scientists seem Deceived in the War of what is Good and Evil over this materistic world What is Truth and what is a Lie!!! every doctor I know, and Ive seen many lately, all seem to agree that they treat the Body and they treat the Soul/Spirit/Person which are two separate things. They hate certain People. and it has nothing to do with their body. It has nothing to do with the color of Skin or religion or anything other than the Person. The Body and the Soul are SEPARATE!!! Scientists saying they are one is the root of denying what is said in Genesis that God Breathes through His spirit of Truth, The Breath of Life into Flesh and Life Comes into man!! Then Sin and Death destroy THE BODY. But then the Person is Judged and that is why His name is more important than his flesh. The laws of the universe of honering parents and dont kill and steal and screw your neighbors wife and envying what others have and be happy with what you have and work hard to get what you want are for the Person not the Body. Every culture agrees these things are right to do and everyone hates a Liar when they are lying to you!!!. So when God adds the 1st three commandments to Honer God, Stop Cursing his name and stop worhiping Money, then The Person says now this is pushing things too far! THESE are the LAWS of the Universe, just as immeiate as gravity and energy. You want to steal, what goes around comes around. You steal and you will be stolen from!!!! guaranteed!!! No Ifs ands or buts, no exceptions. Just like dropping an apple out of a window, IT WILL fall to whats below. To ask IS There a SOUL? IS Like asking IS there a Body? ITs The Stupidest Question Ive Ever Heard! Yes There is!!! and its right in front of your faces.
The Question should be How do I protect MY SOUL after I die!! To Receive A New body without pain and fear and hate.! The Body It was designed For!! No more Decay, no more pain and sorrow and Death!.
Jesus Christ Said Unless You Eat My Body and Drink My Blood you have No Part in me!! He didnt apologze for saying this!! He didnt say Oh wait dont leave!!! Im just using symbolism!! NO! Jesus sacrfices Himself everyday at the Traditional Latin Catholic Mass. This is the ONLY way to JESUS! The MASS of Scarifice. The Passover was the symbolism of Killing a Perfect Lamb and Smearing the Blood over your door Posts and then eating the lamb Standing ready to flee. Then Gods people were set Free and Pharohs First Born was Killed and if you didnt do all that was said, your first born died too. Jesus is Your Souls BEST FRIEND and ONLY FRIEND!! at DEATH!
Please Beloved, You have a eternal Soul and You need to worry Less about your Body and more about your Soul!
.
Protect YOUR SOUL at the Hour of YOUR death with the BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS, Pray The ROSARY which is The GOSPEL OF LUKE and JESUS ANSWERS all ReQUESTS from his MOTHER and It is better to go to Jesus Holding his Mothers Hand than alone. Pray the Rosary, This is the Way to Pray.
Everyone has to face death and your going to be terrified when it comes!! I have terminal illness and This is the only peace for my soul and its Perfect peace. I pray that Science doesnt interfere with the basic fact that a body without its soul is dead.
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 3:23 PM / March 11, 2012 | Read More
lucass wrote:
I have researched the after life for many years. I have found that the afterlife is based on natural laws and has nothing to do with religion. Unfortunately, most discussion of the afterlife involves religion. I believe that it is only when mankind has evolved beyond religion that we will understand the afterlife. The idea of Savior-gods; the idea of an anthropomorphic God is created by men and has nothing to do with the afterlife.
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 9:10 AM / March 11, 2012 | Read More
Derinos wrote:
I have to reduce, for this discussion, to psychoneural parallelism, which is hard to escape.
The human brain can be viewed as a cascade of differently dedicated microcomputers which continuously interact by exchanging messages, (even while asleep, if at a lower level of activity).
Consciousness then can be defined as the present ("t" or Time is part of the equation!)temporary effect of these ongoing conversations, which include the recall and re-spooling of stored data or experience, against a background of continuous current input (and its memory,experience, or stored data ), from the entire conscious and unconscious sensory structure of the attached body..
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 6:50 AM / January 20, 2012 | Read More
Skylynx wrote:
As for the repeated feedback loop of awareness between one's self and the world, which allows a sense of time gone by: a tiger does this when he stalks his prey. But most people don't allow that a tiger thinks of God, hopes for an afterlife, or promotes altruism for the nation in which he lives.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 5:36 AM / January 07, 2012 | Read More
Frank M DiMeglio wrote:
Hi Keith. Here is very fundamental and definitive proof as to why "consciousness is a major problem for materialists" (to quote you).
Balanced attraction and repulsion that involves balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity is the requirement of fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Both gravity and inertia must [necessarily] be at half strength/force for such a union to occur. This is required of quantum gravity as well. This can only be done by making space equally (and both) visible and invisible. Opposites must be combined, included, and balanced. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Space must be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in an equivalent and balanced fashion.
Mathematics cannot fundamentally and ultimately combine, include, and balance opposites. That is obvious. The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Do you agree or disagree? Dreams fundamentally combine and include opposites. Dreams generally and fundamentally unify physics.
Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space. The visible AND YET INVISIBLE (equivalency and balancing) of inertial/gravitational space in dreams even allows for vision, as this is evident in the invisible and visible space of/inside the body/eye while waking. (Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.) HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA ARE EQUALLY (AND BOTH) VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE IN DREAMS in keeping with the middle distance in/of space and middle force/energy. Indeed, the space [as a whole/generally] IS semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams. The space in dreams is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible.
This is the fundamental and general unification of physics in/as dream experience.
What a shock to the modern physics' community this is! Author Frank Martin DiMeglio has fundamentally and generally unified physics in/as dream experience.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 5:30 PM / December 10, 2011 | Read More
jeffw98 wrote:
Excellent series, and I agree with Keith Ward. I would go even further say that science appears to have no hope of ever even understanding consciousness. Science is objective, and it excels at discovering objective processes, and explaining things in terms of the objective material world. Physical processes – even neurological ones, all have external, objective properties verifiable by many observers. But no physical process that we can understand has hidden subjective properties. That would add something utterly new and foreign to physics. Consciousness and subjectivity are simply not in the vocabulary of physics. Subjectivity cannot be an emergent property because it is simply not an observable property of any physical system in the universe (except your own body, if you are a believer in consciousness). If you told a physicist that a dynamic physical process "felt" something, he would look at you funny, although a neuroscientist might not. And yet, most scientifically-minded people assume without question, that neural processes generate subjective awareness and feeling, and that's all there is to it. How is that explained within the confines of known physics? If objective physics was all there was, we should be unaware automatons, no feelings, no illusions, nothing at all. You can avoid the whole mess by denying that consciousness exists at all, and use philosophy to explain it away (the approach of the eliminativists et al), but an unsatisfying view like that ignores a fundamental observation on your part - not very scientific. An automaton composed solely of objective processes would not be able to make such an observation.
One argument that I didn't see mentioned in the series, is the childhood "why am I me" question, touched on by Nagel and others. Why is reality being experienced from the perspective of your body instead of another body elsewhere in this vast universe or another universe, or from of every other body simultaneously, or from no body at all? That is simply what is being observed. In physics, there are no preferred locations or times, so why is your location (here) and time (now) so obviously preferred? What's so special about your collection of atoms? This is a fundamental asymmetry for which no physical explanation seems possible, and a contradiction between personal experience and the physical model. It would not be a problem for an automaton since it cannot experience reality. It is relevant because everything you think you know - all the science, math, philosophy, religion, spirituality, art, culture, etc - none of it has ever actually been separated from your perspective and experience. It's also an epistemic problem.
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 1:25 PM / November 08, 2011 | Read More
john2004 wrote:
I worked on AI theory for a while and in the process of looking at my own inner experience, I feel consciousness is a fairly simple phenomenon that is easily implemented in an AI.
Consciousness is more than awareness. I mean consciousness is the awareness of yourself from the inside. It is a knowledge of who, what, why, when and where, as they apply to you personally. It is the sense of time and place that your brain creates as a matter of course. Disconnect that source of personal information and you would just sit there aware of different things like vision, hot and cold, hunger, pleasure and pain, but there would not be a person present.
In an AI, it would be implemented by a feed back loop from the awareness center, through a delay path and then dumped back into the awareness center. .In an human or animal, a data reduced version of your experience is delayed ( by the 0.1 second minimum update cycle of the human brain) and then becomes part of your experience in the present moment. The delay is the key. it gives you information from the immediate past as if it were real time experience. And that information contains even older information from earlier loops. I suspect specific types of information get looped with different compression rates depending on the perceived value of the information. Your sense of time comes from these repeated memories of "time" by way of this loop. You 'feel' the passage of time as these memories fade away as the experiences continue to loop.
All this is subconscious. Sort of a hardwired feature of advanced brains. You can not control this memory loop. It is not the same thing as either long or short term memory. It is a third thing. You only 'feel' this memory as if your immediate past experiences were real in the same way you experience the room about you as if that were real.
Think about it. If you suddenly stopped getting information about what you had been doing, what your goals had been, where you left hand was a moment ago, who you were talking to, and so on, would you really be here? You would be an awareness lost in an eternal now with only short and long term memory of someone's life that had no connection to you in this moment. Sort of like our present day AI's operate now.
Anyway, if a AI needs to be conscious, just add a loop and feed a copy of what it experiences in real time through a tight feedback delay and then add it back in as another experience. Instant consciousness.
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 6:49 PM / October 13, 2011 | Read More
rbristowjohnson wrote:
Robert, your conclusion:
"As I see it, for any hope of an afterlife, the only argument that can work, if any can work at all, is that God exists and God is personal. So only if I would believe that there really is a God, a God who has concern for me (and everyone), would I hold out hope for an afterlife.
Even then, in my opinion, not an afterlife by means of an immortal soul. And not right after death. But only by some kind of, well, reconstitution of mind and body. At some unknown time. In some mysterious way. And for a purpose beyond anything we can ever know."
is spot on. But consider that our experience of what comes "after" death might not have time involved at all. It could be fully transcendent of time or any human experience we have now while alive. Or maybe not, we just do not know diddley about it.
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 9:48 PM / July 01, 2011 | Read More
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
On Consciousness,
I’ve always looked at consciousness from the aspect of time juxtaposed with the individual. While some may find my ideas support both ways of thinking, namely that it’s existence is either real or an illusion, I believe that upon close examination one can clearly see its support of consciousness being real and not an illusion of our individual physical properties and that they only play a part.
We are more alike than we’re different, physically speaking. Such that there are few blood types, which allows for them to be interchanged between different people readily. In addition various compatibility factors allow for the transplanting of various organs, albeit all organs, if we had the technical capability. While the numbers are not as significant as with blood type, if you look at the worlds population as a whole I’m sure you’ll find that there are more compatible types than not. Either way I’m sure you’ll agree that the numbers are surely dwarfed by the total population (number of individuals) each of which is said to have a distinct and independent consciousness.
If a surgeon could find a body that was compatible with another’s brain, assuming we had the ability to connect all those nerves, I’m sure most would believe that the resulting whole would have the consciousness of the brain donor and not that of the body. Since in my hypothetical future we have this capability, what if we did something similar but only transplanted one hemisphere, connecting the two halves together?
If we take our 6.8 billion (approximate current worldly population) and add all those that have come before, in terms of consciousness versus physicalities, we would increase those numbers significantly. And while I’m sure that as we travel back in time evolution shall eventuality play a part in the greater number of incompatible body parts, I’m sure you understand my point by now, i.e., the difference between the physical being and the conscious being.
The way time comes into play is that I wasn’t born behind the eyes of Leonardo da Vinci, I was born now, in this time, behind these eyes. If in fact all our bodies work physically the same such that the parts can be interchanged, why does it seem that consciousness does not and can not? It is the one thing that is not transferable from one to another (I believe only in the possibility of varying degrees of reincarnation, but that’s another topic).
If I had to look to one thing that embodies the consciousness it would be the resulting electromagnetic field generated as a result of the totality of synapse firing’s in addition to and influenced by the greater whole of electromagnetic energy that is found in our universe. This then is why I’m me and you’re you, as everyone’s electromagnetic moment is slightly different due to varying physical/environmental constraints.
My position is that it is not an illusionary sum of an individual’s physiology because electromagnetic energy is everywhere in our universe and as we all know inductance plays a key role in the differentiation of varying electromagnetic fields, no matter how slight. So that I believe that our consciousness is a combination of both physiological and environmental energy.
I have embraced environmental casuals both in terms of Quantum Physics and Epigenetics, as well as an answer to racial differences.
I apologize for my verbose/rambling explanation and hope you were capable of reading through this without becoming overly annoyed.
I thank you for listening.
May PEACE be with you!
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 9:54 PM / January 30, 2011 | Read More
srb2001 wrote:
To be considered are recent empirical studies (cf Grayson, von Lommel, Parnia, Long) investigating veridical and corroborative aspects of Near-Death Experiences.
Such study is paramount in importance because it challenges Materialism and preconceptions regarding the extinction of the personality upon physical death.
It opens the floodgates for scientific acceptance of Supernaturalism along with Naturalism, as opposed to the contradistinctions more conventionally delineated.
This research begs questions of Mind/Body dualism, nonlocal experiential reality outside of time and space, as well as angelic/divine encounters with an order of existence outside of the material universe.
Perhaps Mystical Theology has already intimated such realities, out of which religious traditions source. The new radicalism would suggest that the "Myst" is, in fact, penetrable, and that science may be able to promote its purview into Metaphysics, empirically and without the errors of pseudo-scientific speculation.
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 1:08 PM / January 25, 2011 | Read More
ausdembruch wrote:
At the macro level of brain systems, it’s:
• symmetry and subtle asymmetries between sides—left and right brains are both similar and different
And maybe not so subtle asymmetries. Psychological testing revealed I had the abilities of an idiot iq=<75 on the spatial, and >150 verbal. At a very early age I pondered multiple universes, could play piano without instruction, could wonder about loops in time as if universe might have happened before, and what is man's nature, but could not put together an 8piece puzzle of an elephant. So much for personal brain symmetry. My brain has forced me into empirical positions it appears:}
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 9:28 AM / January 16, 2011 | Read More
SynchroniCity wrote:
Bodies that are made of atoms and molecules and even tinier subparticles have more than meet the eye. If we can imagine the 'revolving' quanta inside each of us and how it is entangled with Sparticles we can get an idea of something that is inside of us that is greater than that that is the world.
Sparticles are non localized and bodies PERSons are gravities of matter that do exist in a less pure copy with less duration, I so think.
But I do believe there is a Biblical dualism simply because 'how we think' makes us and we need to dial down the monism from behaviour that is frowned upon in the bible. After all, why repent if there is no dualism between soul and body? There has to be some original sin muddying our flesh existence that is cast upon us like sap.
Job is an example of duality in our lives. The monism or singularity (unity) of body to our sould is a polarization for our 'good'.
RE
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 6:11 PM / January 06, 2011 | Read More
SynchroniCity wrote:
SLIME MOULD and "Ants are like people."
Pico Mandola said "Firstly there is the unity in things whereby each thing is at one with itself, consists of itself, and coheres with itself. Secondly there is the unity whereby one creature is united with the others and all parts of the world constitute one world. The third and most important (unity) is that whereby the whole universe is one with its Creator, as an army with its commander."
The question now is if we are 'parts' to a more 'comprehensive whole'. What is our next closed system level. There is a 'collective consciousness' that intrudes the few cubic centimeters of our skull. There is a tug of war between the polluted CU repository, traces of attitudes throughout history culmunating, or rather self consumating upon us and our internal thought processes, our individual 'I' and the 'other' 'WHIThNess" you talk with in your head.
Do we 'create' the larger consciousness or do we send our scent to reajusting where the light shines? Is there are more comprehensive closed system that adjusts the LORD
God so to say that makes the slime mould or 'spirit of mankind' to get the heck out of dodge and into a better reflection/reflexion.
RE
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 12:12 PM / January 06, 2011 | Read More
SynchroniCity wrote:
Evidence of a 'higher consciousness'. One principle of nature and grace is the principle of so called "coincidences". At one extreme everything is a coincidence and it is so set up that everything is predetermined and the other extreme is that they are so rare and that it has to happen and it has to be only randomness behind it. Mathematicians consider it so rare that it is irrelevant.
If we simply can observe 'coincidences' it is a good starting point. An 'overall closed system' can utilize 'coincidences' to save you effort and time, when and if it happens.
There are different methodological approaches to jotting down coincidences if and when they occur. It was not until the early 2oth century that it became a study for a scientist. A biologist, Kammerer listed 100 coincidences for his "Das Gesetz der Serie" in English "Law of Series" and/or "When it rains it pours."
Jung approached it for his depth psychology application. The WE (Western-Eastern) came together and helped get first Tao of Physics type enthusiasts, and with the Police band the word "synchronicity" more into household terms.
The point here is that synchronicity is a probe and judgement of our mental and physical whereabouts with an uncanny attention to detail in order to get some point(s) across. In short, a communications operation.
The question is "who or what is communicating". Do your coincidences give any sense of 'someone up there watching' or doing something?
RE
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 12:10 PM / January 06, 2011 | Read More
SynchroniCity wrote:
SLIME MOULD and "Ants are like people."
Pico Mandola said "Firstly there is the unity in things whereby each thing is at one with itself, consists of itself, and coheres with itself. Secondly there is the unity whereby one creature is united with the others and all parts of the world constitute one world. The third and most important (unity) is that whereby the whole universe is one with its Creator, as an army with its commander."
The question now is if we are 'parts' to a more 'comprehensive whole'. What is our next closed system level. There is a 'collective consciousness' that intrudes the few cubic centimeters of our skull. There is a tug of war between the polluted CU repository, traces of attitudes throughout history culmunating, or rather self consumating upon us and our internal thought processes, our individual 'I' and the 'other' 'WHIThNess" you talk with in your head.
Do we 'create' the larger consciousness or do we send our scent to reajusting where the light shines? Is there are more comprehensive closed system that adjusts the LORD
God so to say that makes the slime mould or 'spirit of mankind' to get the heck out of dodge and into a better reflection/reflexion.
RE
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 11:57 AM / January 06, 2011 | Read More
Sweenith wrote:
You say that "throughout the 20th century, biblical scholars, historians of doctrine, and theologians increasingly concluded that the body-soul dualism is not inherent in biblical teaching, and many opted for physicalism." (Kuhn, second paragraph)
Regardless of whether the Bible teaches dualism with respect to human beings, ontological dualism IS inherent in biblical teaching: if God exists, then God is an immaterial mind; in which case, physicalism is false with respect to persons as such.
" It’s important that we keep this split between scholars and the general public in mind during political discussions of issues like abortion and stem cell research" (Kuhn, last sentence)
Why? If all scholars of ethics agreed on moral relativism, should we keep that in mind when discussing issues like abortion and stem cell research?
On: Do Persons Have Souls? by Nancey Murphy
Posted 10:49 PM / January 02, 2011 | Read More
SynchroniCity wrote:
Thank you for the education and focus upon 'life after death'.
Information is lost when we 'die'? What happened to the conservation of energy where all the things in a simultaneous 'time' simply change states?
If quantum persONs don't go back into 'light' then I guess we just dissappear? Hmm, that's right- the past vanished and does not exist anymore, ' future' don't exist because it has not happened and that is the 'present'?
Come on, what happened to your connections between the upper case S and lower case s?
PEM = SUM
'psyche' Energy Matter = System Unus Mundus
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 6:53 PM / December 29, 2010 | Read More
Sweenith wrote:
I will follow Kuhn by defining 'consciousness' as the "internal mental experience of an external physical world." i.e., consciousness involves experiencing the world from a perspective; there is a particular way that the world feels, looks, seems, to me.
Now, why should consciousness, so understood, ever be identified as, or arise from, "the cyclical waves of recursive feedback between the cerebral cortex...and the thalamus"? Surely it's logically possible that such wave of feedback exist without there being any consciousness to go along with them? If so, then they are not the same thing.
Moreover, my conscious experience is the experience OF the world; my thinking is ABOUT that which I am thinking; i.e., consciousness is intentional. But it's obvious that waves of feedback can't be ABOUT anything.
Neurons are neurons, they don't have aboutness: if they did, then there would be something which distinguishes intentional neurons (or collections thereof) from non-intentional ones. But what could that possibly be?
What could be added to a neuron (or collection thereof) that would suddenly make it about, say, the Hoover Dam? Why would any arrangement or organization of neurons cause there to be 'something it's like from the inside'? And, furthermore, what could possibly be relevant about those neurons, or that organization of them, for determining why THIS consciousness, instead of a different one? Why does pain or pleasure feel like THIS, why does redness look like THAT, and so on?
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 1:45 AM / November 26, 2010 | Read More
Sweenith wrote:
Excellent post - thank you for this balanced and thoughtful analysis of the question.
One thing that might be helpful: I notice you begin the assessment by differentiating evidential from non-evidential (fideistic) thinking with regard to the afterlife. I don't object to this (far from it), but I do think there is a prior question that ought to be addressed:
Before we can begin talking about the afterlife, we have to clarify
(A) what do we mean by "afterlife"?
Presumably this means continuing to exist after the death of the body. But to make sense of this, we have to determine
(B) what am "I"? what object, what thing, is that with which I am identical?
The answer to (B) will determine the answer to (A): if I am identical to my brain, for instance, then I could have an "afterlife" only if my brain continues to exist after death. If I am identical to my body, then I could have an afterlife only if my body continues to exist after death. If I am my soul/mind/consciousness/etc., then my afterlife will involve the continuing existence of my soul. And so on.
I think it will be obvious that, for those who think they are material objects or the functioning of material objects, such people ought to conclude that there can be no afterlife, apart from their body (or brain, or whatever the person is identical to) somehow being reconstituted (perhaps by future technology) some time after their death. However, I don't think this is what most of us have in mind when we are talking about the afterlife.
It can only be possible for me to survive the death of my material body if I am not the same thing as my body. Therefore, the possibility of the afterlife (except in the sense described above, "reconstitution") presupposes that I am not a material substance, but an immaterial one (i.e., it assumes dualism).
Thus, arguments and evidence against dualism are arguments and evidence against the afterlife. Though I don't myself think there are any sound or cogent arguments against dualism, this still counts as another means by which we can assess the afterlife evidentially.
On: Is there Life after Death?
Posted 12:22 AM / November 26, 2010 | Read More
SomethingNothing wrote:
There is good evidence that "consciousness" comes out of the rationalizing nature of the left brain. Experiment: There is an split brain patient given a picture to be processed by the right side of the brain. The picture show a man standing up. The patient stand up. When asked by the researcher why he stand up. The patient made up some explanation once the left brain is aware of the facts.
What does this experiment show?
Another example:
You are holding a cup. Is there a reason? Yes! "You" want to hold up the cut. It seems the ability to reason lead one to "idealize" the notion of a "self" that acts onto the world.
On: How are Brains Structured?
Posted 3:54 AM / November 21, 2010 | Read More
cwmjcm wrote:
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (can someone tell me if he is related to Robert Lawrence Kuhn?) might suggest that our scientific community is poised for the introduction of a new paradigm that will finally resolve some of these perplexing questions about consciousness. It appears that we humans are the only species on earth that have a consciousness of sufficient breadth to cause us to worry about it--and all the other stuff that consciousness burdens us with. The other animals seem to survive--as species--well enough without our level of consciousness. I wonder if our present level of consciousness is just an intermediate stage--an embryonic level of awakening that is necessary for the development of an even greater consciousness. If we think of consciousness as an entity unto itself, subject to the evolutionary forces that act upon our corporeal bodies as a species, then consciousness may evolve through the environmental stresses that consciousness itself creates. Those stresses might include an awareness of our own physical mortality, our vanities in the presence of fellow humans, our tendencies to feel responsibilities for our fellow creatures and our self-punishment upon reflection of our various shortcomings. If our present level of consciousness is not "maxed out" then what would be the characteristics of a higher consciousness, should it appear within our species?
On: Why Is Consciousness So Mysterious? by Keith Ward
Posted 3:27 PM / November 02, 2010 | Read More
Blog
Can Religion Be Explained Without God?
Most people believe that God exists and religion is God’™s revelation. But some claim that religion needs nothing supernatural; that religion, without God, can flourish because personal psychology and group sociology drive religion.
Read Post > | Comments (176) >
ALSO: Arguing God from Design, by Richard Swinburne >
Current TV Episodes - Summaries.
The 39 episodes in the current TV season: 13 episodes each for Cosmos, Consciousness, God.
Future TV Episodes - Cosmos, Consciousness, God
Learn about Closer To Truth participants. Browse bios and articles on CTT topics.
Closer To Truth overview. Go behind the scenes and meet the CTT team. View photos from around the globe and more.
Additional material and resources on Closer To Truth topics.
Visit SciTech Daily: the best intelligent, informed science & technology coverage and analysis daily.
View episodes, transcripts and participants from Closer To Truth Seasons 1 & 2.
Website of Closer To Truth season 3.
