Scientist explores himself

[ar81]

BBC NEWS | Health | Just what does make me 'me'?

[rei]

why are scientists so convinced the key to consciousness is in the brain? what if consciousness comes from another source?

[Rockchick26]

Doesn't this test prove that consciousness IS in the brain? It said they failed the test during the sleep stage, when we "surrender" our consciousness. I want to believe in a seperate consciousness just as much as the next person but this puts a damper on that...it sounds pretty positive that our brain is what gives us the consciousness. That would explain the babies not recognizing themselves until their brain matured to the right age. If consciousness is always there, why don't babies have that sense right from the start?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Doesn't this test prove that consciousness IS in the brain?

No.

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

It said they failed the test during the sleep stage, when we "surrender" our consciousness. I want to believe in a seperate consciousness just as much as the next person but this puts a damper on that...it sounds pretty positive that our brain is what gives us the consciousness. That would explain the babies not recognizing themselves until their brain matured to the right age. If consciousness is always there, why don't babies have that sense right from the start?

The mind is like an information field, or even a program we might say, and the body is like a computer. If your computer doesn't have the hardware to support a given program, you cannot load or express that program on the computer.

However, this doesn't mean the program didn't exist UNTIL it was on the computer. Perhaps it was floating around on the net for example, or maybe it was being beamed through space as a satellite signal, just waiting to be received.

As the body computer grows, it becomes more and more able to accommodate the expression of more and more of the "soul software". Just like computers with crappy graphics cards can't play highly advanced games, the body computer that is not developed cannot support all the cognitive functions available to the "program" that is our soul.

More complex souls require more complex bodies. For example, many animals do not have "self awareness", as that is not a level of complexity that their souls are patternized for, they DO have "awareness" though, its just not of their "selves". It's of their environments, and whatever else they are experiencing. They just aren't ego driven like human beings are.

Consciousness isn't this thing that is only in some things and not in others, it permeates the immensity of ALL space and ALL matter. Even dirt is conscious. Not conscious in the way you and I or even animals are conscious, but it *IS* conscious nonetheless.

[Melchior]

"It's all hardware."
(especially software)

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

No.



The mind is like an information field, or even a program we might say, and the body is like a computer. If your computer doesn't have the hardware to support a given program, you cannot load or express that program on the computer.

However, this doesn't mean the program didn't exist UNTIL it was on the computer. Perhaps it was floating around on the net for example, or maybe it was being beamed through space as a satellite signal, just waiting to be received.

As the body computer grows, it becomes more and more able to accommodate the expression of more and more of the "soul software". Just like computers with crappy graphics cards can't play highly advanced games, the body computer that is not developed cannot support all the cognitive functions available to the "program" that is our soul.

More complex souls require more complex bodies. For example, many animals do not have "self awareness", as that is not a level of complexity that their souls are patternized for, they DO have "awareness" though, its just not of their "selves". It's of their environments, and whatever else they are experiencing. They just aren't ego driven like human beings are.

Consciousness isn't this thing that is only in some things and not in others, it permeates the immensity of ALL space and ALL matter. Even dirt is conscious. Not conscious in the way you and I or even animals are conscious, but it *IS* conscious nonetheless.

Ahhhh! I see now! That makes good sense. It makes me feel really special then that I am a human, one of the complex bodies necessary for my complex soul! But that leads me to this question; why didnt God (or who/whatever) make us with brains that worked right away? What is the point of having that time where it doesn't work? Well, I don't mean it doesnt WORK but you know what I mean, able to comprehend itself?

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Doesn't this test prove that consciousness IS in the brain? It said they failed the test during the sleep stage, when we "surrender" our consciousness. I want to believe in a seperate consciousness just as much as the next person but this puts a damper on that...it sounds pretty positive that our brain is what gives us the consciousness. That would explain the babies not recognizing themselves until their brain matured to the right age. If consciousness is always there, why don't babies have that sense right from the start?

I thought it suggested the opposite? When sleeping we have full consciousness, especially in lucid dreams, but no electric activity is measured.

If consciousness was 100% brain function wouldn't it show activity while dreaming?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

Ahhhh! I see now! That makes good sense. It makes me feel really special then that I am a human, one of the complex bodies necessary for my complex soul! But that leads me to this question; why didnt God (or who/whatever) make us with brains that worked right away? What is the point of having that time where it doesn't work? Well, I don't mean it doesnt WORK but you know what I mean, able to comprehend itself?

Our consciousness is ascendant in nature. It evolves, and more to the point, it enjoys evolving. It is not necessary to evolve, as we/god are perfect and know all things already, but the experience of growth is very special to us, spiritually speaking.

From that perspective, it would make sense that their would be a myriad of avenues for our souls to experience growth or expansion, and it just so happens the human body is one of those forms. There are other forms -- ones with less restrictions on soul expression (more complex body computers in other words). But, the human body was there, and for whatever reason, we chose that particular form of expression to experience growth through.

So what I'm getting at is that it is not so much that Source created humans to be a certain way (it DOES create them, but it likes everything just as good as everything else), but rather, that is simply where those bodies are on the evolutionary (and spiritual evolutionary) ladder. We saw where they were at on that evolutionary ladder and decided to use them to experience the growth we so desired to experience. The bodies are still evolving. Perhaps one day, there will be complete continuity from the spirit world to the physical world and no loss of expression will be experienced. But who knows when that will be.

But this is not to imply in any way that it was not desired that the human form be that particular way. Trust me, there were other types of bodies available. So there must have been something desirable about the way the human form develops that attracted us on some level. Perhaps to experience a brief escape from self awareness for a time -- perhaps to experience the innocence of the child who doesn't know better -- perhaps to experience the primitive state of the human brain ?

There could be many reasons. I'm not going to pretend to know them all.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by joelr

I thought it suggested the opposite? When sleeping we have full consciousness, especially in lucid dreams, but no electric activity is measured.

If consciousness was 100% brain function wouldn't it show activity while dreaming?

But we have no consciousness any time during sleeping EXCEPT during lucid dreams. So where does it go the rest of the time and why does it go there at all? I mean, you'd think we'd be able to stay aware of ourselves falling asleep every minute of it, not just when we're lucky enough to lucid dream, and not even everyone has done that!

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Our consciousness is ascendant in nature. It evolves, and more to the point, it enjoys evolving. It is not necessary to evolve, as we/god are perfect and know all things already, but the experience of growth is very special to us, spiritually speaking.

From that perspective, it would make sense that their would be a myriad of avenues for our souls to experience growth or expansion, and it just so happens the human body is one of those forms. There are other forms -- ones with less restrictions on soul expression (more complex body computers in other words). But, the human body was there, and for whatever reason, we chose that particular form of expression to experience growth through.

So what I'm getting at is that it is not so much that Source created humans to be a certain way (it DOES create them, but it likes everything just as good as everything else), but rather, that is simply where those bodies are on the evolutionary (and spiritual evolutionary) ladder. We saw where they were at on that evolutionary ladder and decided to use them to experience the growth we so desired to experience. The bodies are still evolving. Perhaps one day, there will be complete continuity from the spirit world to the physical world and no loss of expression will be experienced. But who knows when that will be.

But this is not to imply in any way that it was not desired that the human form be that particular way. Trust me, there were other types of bodies available. So there must have been something desirable about the way the human form develops that attracted us on some level. Perhaps to experience a brief escape from self awareness for a time -- perhaps to experience the innocence of the child who doesn't know better -- perhaps to experience the primitive state of the human brain ?

There could be many reasons. I'm not going to pretend to know them all.

This makes me wonder...if our souls chose the human body with which to experience things, how is it that the human race as a whole is leading further and further down a path of evil? I mean, war, drug addiction, diseases, destroying the earth, turning towards electronic communication rather than face to face, why would we choose something so advanced yet we can't even stop ourselves from destroying ourselves slowly?

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

This makes me wonder...if our souls chose the human body with which to experience things, how is it that the human race as a whole is leading further and further down a path of evil? I mean, war, drug addiction, diseases, destroying the earth, turning towards electronic communication rather than face to face, why would we choose something so advanced yet we can't even stop ourselves from destroying ourselves slowly?

Sounds like you've been listening to the news, which 90 percent of is negative in nature, reporting random pockets of disharmony from different parts of the world in a one hour block. It is incredibly misleading as to the REAL nature of this world. What you focus on expands in your experience.

You're ignoring the well-being, the beauty that is present, the wonder of instantaneous mass communication. The glass is not half empty, it is half full. You have to look at things in a different light, not from a separated vantage point, but as an interrelated whole.

Watch this:

Abraham on politics and the environment.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Sounds like you've been listening to the news, which 90 percent of is negative in nature, reporting random pockets of disharmony from different parts of the world in a one hour block. It is incredibly misleading as to the REAL nature of this world. What you focus on expands in your experience.

You're ignoring the well-being, the beauty that is present, the wonder of instantaneous mass communication. The glass is not half empty, it is half full. You have to look at things in a different light, not from a separated vantage point, but as an interrelated whole.

Watch this:

Abraham on politics and the environment.

Wow that video was amazing. I have a few of the Hicks' books but kinda forgot about them after trying that stuff out for a year or so and didn't see any results. As far as what I was saying before, I HAVE tried to focus on only good news in fact I skim over the newspapers now only to look for the good stuff and i don't even watch the news on tv anymore (except to get the weather forecast sometimes). But I've found that even if you ignore or avoid the bad news yourself, you will inevitably run into it when dealing with people. A good example is, how I don't watch the news but when I go to my dad's house, he has it on the entire time, and I always pick up a magazine or book and pay no attention to the news but then my dad has to comment on everything and force me to acknowledge it. How do you avoid that kind of stuff? I'm not going to quit visiting my dad or tell him to watch something else, that is unreasonable.

And also, I don't think any of it will go away just by me not focusing on it. Sure my life may be better for it but that doesn't automatically make it go away. I don't have any part of the war on drugs or the war on terrorism yet those things are getting bigger and harder to control.

But back to my original question, that doesn't really answer it...because either way, it shouldn't be happening AT ALL if humans are so advanced and conscious.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

And also, I don't think any of it will go away just by me not focusing on it. Sure my life may be better for it but that doesn't automatically make it go away. I don't have any part of the war on drugs or the war on terrorism yet those things are getting bigger and harder to control.

But back to my original question, that doesn't really answer it...because either way, it shouldn't be happening AT ALL if humans are so advanced and conscious.

And what I'm saying is that "advanced" is a sliding relative scale. You say half empty, I say half full. If we compare ourselves relative to a world that is at complete peace, we AREN'T advanced. But relative to a world worse off than us, we WOULD appear advanced.

We are evolving, and perfection would defeat the purpose of growth. What you call "evil" I prefer to call "growth challenges".

I was under the impression your question was:

Originally Posted by Rockchick26

if our souls chose the human body with which to experience things, how is it that the human race as a whole is leading further and further down a path of evil? I mean, war, drug addiction, diseases, destroying the earth, turning towards electronic communication rather than face to face, why would we choose something so advanced yet we can't even stop ourselves from destroying ourselves slowly?

You see the world as getting worse, I see it as getting better. And my previous post was explaining how our two seemingly opposite beliefs could both be true, relative to our own individual perspectives.

Not paying attention to the bad will not make it magically disappear from the world. That is, unless everybody did it, in which case it would. You don't offer vibration for them, and they don't offer vibration for you. There is desirable and undesirable everywhere you go in everything you seek, in everything you see, but whether you pay attention to the undesirable OR the desirable, you will get more in your PERSONAL experience.

All the "objective" world is is a composite or conglomeration of personal perspectives or experiences. Experience is all that exists. There are no objects unto themselves. You could call two peoples experiences different realities even, if you wanted. They are related in so far as they share experience. Some experiences are universal, some are personal. The universal experiences unite the personal experiences. And what determines if two given entities share an experience? The answer is by how similar their vibrational offering of thought is. Birds of a feather, flock together.

So anytime you are paying more attention to the bad, than the good, you are contributing to it, and bringing yourself closer to it. This doesn't mean you have to stop visiting your dad, but I guarantee if you changed your thoughts, and I mean really changed your thoughts, your experience of his negativity would CHANGE. You would stop sharing the experiences that were negative, you would only share experiences that were positive. Of course, if he were COMPLETELY negative, he would fall out of your experience completely, but obviously he is not, or you would not desire to see him in the first place.

There will always be people on this planet doing something you don't like. You can either think about it, and be unhappy, or focus on what you want and be HAPPY. You didn't come to this world to wittle all the variety and contrast of this world down to a few narrow ideas that YOU deem "good". There is no universal standard of good and evil. All there is is vibrational relativity, and when you are in alignment with ANY given topic, you will harmonize with it.

I can understand, and sympathize, however, that you would doubt that if you haven't worked up a belief and/or had experiences that affirmed this reality to you.

Best regards.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by rei

why are scientists so convinced the key to consciousness is in the brain? what if consciousness comes from another source?

True that.

To some of us it is obvious that the source of consciousness is from something higher.

People who dismiss anything but the physical are the ones who are actually limited in their awareness to the scope that they can't even understand or comprehend a higher power.

Basically, there is no hope for them So don't even try.

[Rockchick26]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

And what I'm saying is that "advanced" is a sliding relative scale. You say half empty, I say half full. If we compare ourselves relative to a world that is at complete peace, we AREN'T advanced. But relative to a world worse off than us, we WOULD appear advanced.

We are evolving, and perfection would defeat the purpose of growth. What you call "evil" I prefer to call "growth challenges".

Interesting! I only chose the word "evil" because that is what gets thrown around most. I would probably more say that humans are just getting more unconscious and more driven by ego. But I also see that a lot of people are getting MORE conscious (mostly from visiting this forum every day), I just find it harder to find more conscious people in my real life. I don't know how, because you'd think after spending every day in this forum for the last 3 years that I would start to find some people in real life who reflect this, but unfortunately it hasn't happened.

Not paying attention to the bad will not make it magically disappear from the world. That is, unless everybody did it, in which case it would.

I wish everyone knew this. Oh what a perfect world it would be then! *sigh*

So anytime you are paying more attention to the bad, than the good, you are contributing to it, and bringing yourself closer to it. This doesn't mean you have to stop visiting your dad, but I guarantee if you changed your thoughts, and I mean really changed your thoughts, your experience of his negativity would CHANGE. You would stop sharing the experiences that were negative, you would only share experiences that were positive. Of course, if he were COMPLETELY negative, he would fall out of your experience completely, but obviously he is not, or you would not desire to see him in the first place. [/quote]

HA!! If you only knew my dad! I'm not exaggerating when I say 95% of the time my dad is negative! It's a tough situation, dealing with him. I'm constantly struggling to keep myself in a good mood when I'm with him. I mostly just go see him because if I don't, he only gets more negative.

[Manomanman]

That is such a pedantic new story. I can tell you WAY more about our true nature than this fool can. I really really need to start blogging about this stuff. I think people are eager to hear about it. Visit my blog and let me know if you want to hear more.

[Melchior]

@ Manomanman: Interesting blog; visited and scanned.
Go ahead and blog some more then. It would be a nice change from things that haven't really make sense based on personal experience.

Speaking of personal experience...

@ Anagogy: These things you speak of about consciousness (i.e. ascendant nature, permeation of all of space/matter, evolving entity in a world of paths, creation of the Source, and probably other stuff as well), I personally have not experienced any of it directly. Not been told any of that by any'thing' that I deemed a trustworthy source of information. Nor have I reached those conclusions intuitionally, perhaps even of something similar, but of an altogether different quality. Moreover, the findings of the report in question here also doesn't have anything in particular to support those views of consciousness, except perhaps the comparison of consciousness to software. but as I pointed out earlier in a favorite quote of mine: "It's all hardware", software at a fundamental level is really just hardware and without hardware, the software could not exist, similar to the ideas in nondualist philosophy. Granted, I don't think those ideas of consciousness are necessarily 'false', but at the same time, I also don't think that they are verifiable while we are in the physical world of those ideas in the case they are true, and that, unfortunately, is not very useful. (In any case, I'd like to get to the bottom of this whole consciousness thing as well, and bits and pieces like these don't help too much in getting any answers... ).

In response to the evolutionary chain thing about human bodies and consciousness, I'm looking forward to the day which I can make my current self obsolete. (for those who've read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is similar to the situation of 'Deep Thought' and the 'Earth' ). Unfortunately, in this case, it is my guess that for it to be successful, what would be required is a sense of detachment of my current self with itself... a dissolution of the self (or if you enjoy puns, perhaps it will be a disillusion ).

@ Curtis2011: I'm not sure if you would classify me as one of those people beyond hope of comprehending a higher power. Does the fact that I 'can' but at the same time 'will not accept it due to 'valid' reasons' mean that I'm one of them? Why is it obvious that consciousness comes from something 'higher'? What does it mean to be 'higher' in the first place? If there was nothing 'lower' would the 'higher' still exist? Or is speaking someone like me, somewhat of a nondualist (at least I hope that's an accurate enough term, not completely solidified yet here... >.>) trying to explain some abstract concept as the teachings of the bible to some other existence such as a pet cat?

@ Rockchick26: As with many of the other people here, this test, by itself, does not prove anything about consciousness really except that these people got these results, etc. I would agree that it is definitely strong support for this thing we call consciousness being related to the brain however. The 'mirror stage' as it has been called is also somewhat supportive of that idea that consciousness is not 'inherent' but rather 'developed'. Maybe at such a complex level as what's found in the networks of the brain, there emerges consciousness, but I'm guessing that it also depends on the type of networking involved, something that's, at least in part, determined by DNA.

Also, I also seem to have a bit of difficulty finding 'more conscious' people in my life outside of the internet. Perhaps things like this aren't so important to them and the law of attraction keeps it from invading their otherwise happy lives. Or, probably, they just don't want to be bothered with such pursuits, choosing to ignore it perhaps out of a mental defense mechanism whenever it is brought up.

@ rei: 'what if' questions, while good for thought experiments and providing interesting consequences at times, really don't hold as much ground as empirical evidence and critical analysis of information gathered from such data. If consciousness really does come from another source, whatever that source is, it's hiding itself quite well. Then again, theories are constantly being updated.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Anagogy: These things you speak of about consciousness (i.e. ascendant nature, permeation of all of space/matter, evolving entity in a world of paths, creation of the Source, and probably other stuff as well), I personally have not experienced any of it directly. Not been told any of that by any'thing' that I deemed a trustworthy source of information. Nor have I reached those conclusions intuitionally, perhaps even of something similar, but of an altogether different quality. Moreover, the findings of the report in question here also doesn't have anything in particular to support those views of consciousness, except perhaps the comparison of consciousness to software. but as I pointed out earlier in a favorite quote of mine: "It's all hardware", software at a fundamental level is really just hardware and without hardware, the software could not exist, similar to the ideas in nondualist philosophy.

Well of course, everything in the physical world is physical, so any analogy I use from it will be....yep, you guessed it: physical.

Also, I wasn't trying to say the report supported the idea of nonphysical, I was just offering an alternate explanation for something observed. Rockchick was under the impression it proved consciousness arises in the brain and I was explaining how that doesn't necessarily follow.

And also, please understand, I'm not out to win converts to my perspective, I require no validation from others for what I've personally discovered as truth. Some things people need to figure out on their own, which is fine, and it doesn't mean I'm right or your wrong or vice versa. You can't know ANYTHING 100% except perhaps, for the fact that you personally exist.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Granted, I don't think those ideas of consciousness are necessarily 'false', but at the same time, I also don't think that they are verifiable while we are in the physical world of those ideas in the case they are true, and that, unfortunately, is not very useful. (In any case, I'd like to get to the bottom of this whole consciousness thing as well, and bits and pieces like these don't help too much in getting any answers... ).

Depends on what would "verify" them for you. What evidence would you, personally, find acceptable? Oftentimes, I find that people demand physical evidence for something that isn't even physical to begin with, which is a pretty hopeless affair, but that doesn't make it untrue necessarily.

Originally Posted by Melchior

In response to the evolutionary chain thing about human bodies and consciousness, I'm looking forward to the day which I can make my current self obsolete. (for those who've read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it is similar to the situation of 'Deep Thought' and the 'Earth' ). Unfortunately, in this case, it is my guess that for it to be successful, what would be required is a sense of detachment of my current self with itself... a dissolution of the self (or if you enjoy puns, perhaps it will be a disillusion ).

I wonder why you are so disposed towards dissolution? I haven't read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so perhaps you are referencing something I'm not completely grasping.

The current self is always becoming obsolete. Your self of ten years ago is less evolved than your current self. It is "obsolete" in a sense. From my perspective, spiritual evolution is all about rising to higher and higher plateau's of fulfillment, which are birthed from various places of contrast in the physical world.

Best regards.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Well of course, everything in the physical world is physical, so any analogy I use from it will be....yep, you guessed it: physical.

It is also my belief that the 'metaphysical', or nonphysical as I think you put it, is really on the same page as the 'physical' a bit different, but as long as it is a part of our world, something that can be interacted with, then it is considered to be 'physical'. Otherwise, where would you make that distinction between the physical and the nonphysical? I don't think that there is really any clear boundary. Furthermore, why would this belief in the nonphysical being separate from the physical come about in the first place? If there really were a 'nonphysical', this might then be an interaction between the two worlds, but then that also means that the two are 'connected' and with my previous statements about interaction, that would be the cause for that nonphysical to actually be physical (sorry if that was a bit convoluted... >.>). On the other hand, you could say, there really were no 'nonphysical', and then that nonphysical would merely be an illusion created entirely out of the physical realm. In any case, what I think I'm really trying to say here is that all of the universe, no matter what it is that makes it up, is all part of that whole, interconnected, unable to really be separated (or in other words, nondualism in a nutshell. )

Also, I wasn't trying to say the report supported the idea of nonphysical, I was just offering an alternate explanation for something observed. Rockchick was under the impression it proved consciousness arises in the brain and I was explaining how that doesn't necessarily follow.

Yeah, while I agree that consciousness emerging as a result of the complex network of the brain may not necessarily be the right conclusion to the problem, from the results of the report, it certainly is in great favor of that conclusion. Moreover, the alternate explanation doesn't follow the results as 'closely', or rather, with respect to 'occam's razor' seems to be the more complicated version of the solution.

And also, please understand, I'm not out to win converts to my perspective, I require no validation from others for what I've personally discovered as truth. Some things people need to figure out on their own, which is fine, and it doesn't mean I'm right or your wrong or vice versa. You can't know ANYTHING 100% except perhaps, for the fact that you personally exist.

I know that while theoretically you cannot be 100% sure of anything, because the law of inductive reasoning has worked in the past (by way of the same law, no less ), it is far more reasonable to take the results as they are and use the explanation from the results and conclusions from empirical data as opposed to the results and conclusions that don't. (Yes, I know it is likely very difficult to get this other idea, including the 'nonphysical', of how the world works validated by experiment, especially when the theory essentially prevents it, but if that is the case, then at least start from something that can be 'proven' and work a way to that conclusion instead of simply purporting the conclusion (actually, I'd be very interested in you could link me to something that explains the reasoning behind these conclusions, thanks ))

The 'fact' that "I" exist can also be debated. For instance, what is this "I" anyway? the age old statement of "I think, therefore I am" never really bothered to explain what the "I" was (or thinking for that matter...). Is the "I" something obvious to things in existence? In other posts, I've tried to tear down this distinction between the "I" and the "rest of the universe", giving the reason that the separation is merely an illusion. That means that the "I" in the 'fact' is no longer the "I" that it means to be.
It's fine if validation is not what you seek, but do be sure to keep questioning.

Depends on what would "verify" them for you. What evidence would you, personally, find acceptable? Oftentimes, I find that people demand physical evidence for something that isn't even physical to begin with, which is a pretty hopeless affair, but that doesn't make it untrue necessarily.

Any evidence, as long as it is actually evidence, would be fine. Like I said above, fundamentally there should be no distinction between the physical and the nonphysical. If it's abstracting out the fundamentals though to reach this consciousness concept though, then while I might use it for it's convenience/utility, I would also not believe that it is entirely true, only an approximation, however good that approximation is.

I wonder why you are so disposed towards dissolution? I haven't read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so perhaps you are referencing something I'm not completely grasping.

The current self is always becoming obsolete. Your self of ten years ago is less evolved than your current self. It is "obsolete" in a sense. From my perspective, spiritual evolution is all about rising to higher and higher plateau's of fulfillment, which are birthed from various places of contrast in the physical world.

Nah, dissolution is something that essentially comes from nondualism. the part from HHGTTG, is the part about becoming obsolete (in the book, 'deep thought' was the computer designed to answer the 'ultimate question', but that 'failed' with an answer of 42, and so 'deep thought' designed another computer, with greater computing power than it, 'Earth', to find out what that question really meant because 'deep thought' knew that it could not figure out the question by itself. ). But yeah, in my view, my current self is 'never' obsolete, but rather always at the cutting edge of my personal evolution, as it were. What i meant by obsolete is that i would have created a replacement for my current self to something that could do what, even with all the 'evolution' that i could achieve in my lifetime, I could never accomplish.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

It is also my belief that the 'metaphysical', or nonphysical as I think you put it, is really on the same page as the 'physical' a bit different, but as long as it is a part of our world, something that can be interacted with, then it is considered to be 'physical'. Otherwise, where would you make that distinction between the physical and the nonphysical? I don't think that there is really any clear boundary. Furthermore, why would this belief in the nonphysical being separate from the physical come about in the first place? If there really were a 'nonphysical', this might then be an interaction between the two worlds, but then that also means that the two are 'connected' and with my previous statements about interaction, that would be the cause for that nonphysical to actually be physical (sorry if that was a bit convoluted... >.>). On the other hand, you could say, there really were no 'nonphysical', and then that nonphysical would merely be an illusion created entirely out of the physical realm. In any case, what I think I'm really trying to say here is that all of the universe, no matter what it is that makes it up, is all part of that whole, interconnected, unable to really be separated (or in other words, nondualism in a nutshell. )

I agree with you. I'm not actually a proponent of dualism. I believe mind and matter are made up of the same stuff, which I believe is consciousness. I think form is "simulated" in the same way that form is simulated in dreams. So from my perspective it is the physical world that is the illusion, rather than the nonphysical being the illusion. But perhaps I am only making semantical distinctions.

If you dissect a dream brain, however, you won't learn much about consciousness, except, perhaps about your own subconscious expectations of what object performs what functions in an illusory environment.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Yeah, while I agree that consciousness emerging as a result of the complex network of the brain may not necessarily be the right conclusion to the problem, from the results of the report, it certainly is in great favor of that conclusion. Moreover, the alternate explanation doesn't follow the results as 'closely', or rather, with respect to 'occam's razor' seems to be the more complicated version of the solution.

Occam's razor can be very misleading sometimes. The simpler answer isn't always the right one and furthermore, what is perceived as "simple" is a matter of perspective. You can ask a child and an adult where babies come from and chances are the child's answer will be more simple than the adult's answer, but it would also be less accurate in it's simplicity. Of course, they both seem to make sense to the person espousing such a theory based on their observations.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I know that while theoretically you cannot be 100% sure of anything, because the law of inductive reasoning has worked in the past (by way of the same law, no less ), it is far more reasonable to take the results as they are and use the explanation from the results and conclusions from empirical data as opposed to the results and conclusions that don't. (Yes, I know it is likely very difficult to get this other idea, including the 'nonphysical', of how the world works validated by experiment, especially when the theory essentially prevents it, but if that is the case, then at least start from something that can be 'proven' and work a way to that conclusion instead of simply purporting the conclusion (actually, I'd be very interested in you could link me to something that explains the reasoning behind these conclusions, thanks ))

I would start with Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on validating the phenomenon of reincarnation and then move onto more spiritually based works like Michael Newton's research on the topic of the between life state. He has clients from all types of backgrounds and beliefs, but they all report a remarkable consistency of information while under hypnosis about the nature of the spirit world and our consciousness. He's even had clients who unconsciously corroborated each others memories from past lives together.

And while I feel like there is some good empirical evidence to support reincarnation, I can't help but feel empiricism is not always the best way to go for spiritual knowledge. There have been some things I've read where I simply could not doubt what I read after reading it, even though there was no physical evidence to support it. I can literally feel the truth resonating in some works of spirituality. And I dare say, my life experience has been enriched immeasurably by such unscientific knowledge.

Originally Posted by Melchior

The 'fact' that "I" exist can also be debated. For instance, what is this "I" anyway? the age old statement of "I think, therefore I am" never really bothered to explain what the "I" was (or thinking for that matter...). Is the "I" something obvious to things in existence? In other posts, I've tried to tear down this distinction between the "I" and the "rest of the universe", giving the reason that the separation is merely an illusion. That means that the "I" in the 'fact' is no longer the "I" that it means to be.
It's fine if validation is not what you seek, but do be sure to keep questioning.

When I said the "I" is undoubtable I meant to imply that you are conscious of the fact that you are conscious. You can't doubt that you are conscious of being conscious. It's intrinsic. But you are right to question the nature of the ego.

I agree with the rest of your logic there.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Any evidence, as long as it is actually evidence, would be fine. Like I said above, fundamentally there should be no distinction between the physical and the nonphysical. If it's abstracting out the fundamentals though to reach this consciousness concept though, then while I might use it for it's convenience/utility, I would also not believe that it is entirely true, only an approximation, however good that approximation is.

Everything in the world of form can only be approximations anyway. I see the physical world as the manifestation of intangible thought forms. It's like trying to paint "love" or "freedom". What images do you use? What expresses those intangible concepts structurally or symbolically?

Everything is just a sign, pointing to a more inclusive reality. Or so, that is my opinion of how things are based on my spiritual understandings at this point in time.

Best regards.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

I agree with you. I'm not actually a proponent of dualism. I believe mind and matter are made up of the same stuff, which I believe is consciousness. I think form is "simulated" in the same way that form is simulated in dreams. So from my perspective it is the physical world that is the illusion, rather than the nonphysical being the illusion. But perhaps I am only making semantical distinctions.

If you dissect a dream brain, however, you won't learn much about consciousness, except, perhaps about your own subconscious expectations of what object performs what functions in an illusory environment.

Occam's razor can be very misleading sometimes. The simpler answer isn't always the right one and furthermore, what is perceived as "simple" is a matter of perspective. You can ask a child and an adult where babies come from and chances are the child's answer will be more simple than the adult's answer, but it would also be less accurate in it's simplicity. Of course, they both seem to make sense to the person espousing such a theory based on their observations.

Those semantic distinctions do help the understanding though, and I appreciate it. As a result of this, it has become clear that we both share similar thoughts on the subject of the physical/nonphysical in terms of duality. The difference then lies in which way we lean toward in terms of what the actually resembles more. I've chosen that all is essentially physical and that metaphysical stuffs are just another component of that, whereas the views you have are more that the 'nonphysical' is all that there is. Now, with respect to the actual operation of the world, both views are identical, and whereas I say it runs off of physics, you're more inclined to say it's consciousness, right? (Hopefully that was a somewhat accurate summarization of our 'clashing' views).

Now, I have run into a bit of trouble however, because these two systems are still a bit different. In one, the physical laws of the universe are what I attribute to the operation of consciousness, the other, consciousness is essentially the physical laws of the universe. These two universes are different though, because technically, in the second, the physical laws can change depending on a changing consciousness (or better put, the universe is the consciousness and changes in the universe reflect changes of the unifying consciousness). In the first however, the physical laws are more or less set and all that the universe is is resultant from these invariant laws. A question then would be if there were laws governing the consciousness, per say, similar to how physical laws govern the universe in the 'purely physical' model?

Phenomenologically, the two universes 'behave' the same way (after all, I think they both try to explain the one we live in), but qualitatively, the two universes are different and the 'purely consciousness' model seems to 'allow' for a greater degree of freedom of what the world can actually be (a degree of freedom that we haven't really seen yet, but that may be because of the laws of the unifying consciousness itself preventing that?). I'm not sure if occam's razor works with this problem anymore. phenomenologically, the two models describe everything 'perfectly', however they describe different 'everythings', if you know what I mean there... I still believe that the 'purely physical' model is the simpler of the two when describing only what we see, namely due to that extra freedom presented by the 'purely conscious' one. Moreover, there are more 'elements' involved in the purely conscious one, there's the 'consciousness' and the 'dream', but perhaps the consciousness is the dream, correct me on that. On the other hand, the 'purely physical' model only presents the 'physical world'.

I would start with Dr. Ian Stevenson's work on validating the phenomenon of reincarnation and then move onto more spiritually based works like Michael Newton's research on the topic of the between life state. He has clients from all types of backgrounds and beliefs, but they all report a remarkable consistency of information while under hypnosis about the nature of the spirit world and our consciousness. He's even had clients who unconsciously corroborated each others memories from past lives together.

And while I feel like there is some good empirical evidence to support reincarnation, I can't help but feel empiricism is not always the best way to go for spiritual knowledge. There have been some things I've read where I simply could not doubt what I read after reading it, even though there was no physical evidence to support it. I can literally feel the truth resonating in some works of spirituality. And I dare say, my life experience has been enriched immeasurably by such unscientific knowledge.

The thing with the consciousness model and empirical evidence is that empirical evidence is essentially useless on the same level as non-empirical evidence (essentially due to that extra degree of freedom I mentioned earlier, that an evolving consciousness can generate it's own evidence for whatever phenomenon it expresses). Also, with all this life/death states, if consciousness is the universe, it still doesn't make any sense to talk about life or death because the universe, or unified consciousness, continues on regardless. It would be useful in describing a 'unified consciousness' in a 'purely physical' model, but as soon as we move to a 'purely consciousness' model, I don't see how that could be used in the same manner. Then again, I suppose at that point, the 'work' would already have been done and it wouldn't matter. Still, I can think of other inconsistencies with the 'unified consciousness' model, but if they are really due to the illusioned 'purely physical' model mucking thing up, then why should they exist in the first place? (inconsistencies include some laws being universal (namely the illusioned ones) and others not being universal (namely those describing the unified consciousness and the projections of it), this evolution that is going on, for there's nothing to compare it to (or perhaps this 'unified consciousness' is really something of a record of everything (essentially just itself) during its existence, which is akin to the term God, hmmm...., also that system might allow for inconsistencies but may not exhibit it (i.e. a changing consciousness that doesn't really change anything but the illusion, and not itself))

In other words, I think I've at least gotten a better idea of this whole conscious thing and how it could work out. Even with that comparison to god that I've heard some people on the forums have mentioned. But still: and don't understand how this should be the model at all, and if it is, more

When I said the "I" is undoubtable I meant to imply that you are conscious of the fact that you are conscious. You can't doubt that you are conscious of being conscious. It's intrinsic. But you are right to question the nature of the ego.

I agree with the rest of your logic there.

I'm not so sure that "I" comes from consciousness however, as was described above, but only the 'ego' resultant from it. After all, if it was a unified consciousness, the "I" is essentially the entire world and there is nothing but "I", and without an "Other", that "I" is a meaningless distinction. Heh, disillusion again.

Everything in the world of form can only be approximations anyway. I see the physical world as the manifestation of intangible thought forms. It's like trying to paint "love" or "freedom". What images do you use? What expresses those intangible concepts structurally or symbolically?

Everything is just a sign, pointing to a more inclusive reality. Or so, that is my opinion of how things are based on my spiritual understandings at this point in time.

Interesting thought came up: in either model, the 'other' model cannot 'win'. (actually, even with those 'suggestive' cases of reincarnation, I think that if such a phenomenon occurred, it would be the result still of a 'physically consistent' universe, just one that we have not yet gathered all there might be to know yet). And this is then where there is an essential parting of ways because either model is 'fine' phenomenologically, but the explanations are, and must be, different (otherwise there would be no split). Duality within non-duality, huh... I am beginning to understand the importance of freedom of religion now. Still, those comments I made above, with the 'inconsistencies' in the 'purely consciousness' model, perhaps they're not 'inconsistent', but as long as I'm 'here' operating under the 'purely physical' model, they will remain 'inconsistent'. I wonder if it's the same on the other side, although I can't imagine how it could be. Hey, another thought, wouldn't the 'fact' that this 'purely physical' illusion of the manifestation of consciousness is 'consistent' with itself, standing alone, just as easily be 'proof' for the validity and perhaps 'truth' of the 'purely physical' model?

Also, before I go, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure talking with you. What thought you've prompted me to think has been significant.
Too bad, well for you I suppose, it's only made for me my current views stronger and these alternates weaker in comparison... I just am not so 'spiritually' inclined, even if I believe consequences of classical views of spirituality can exist in the world. Continuing in my thought, perhaps these two models are exactly the same anyway... I'll need to let it digest for now.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Now, with respect to the actual operation of the world, both views are identical, and whereas I say it runs off of physics, you're more inclined to say it's consciousness, right?

Yes, but what I'm curious about is this: do you believe in a "soul aspect", but prefer to believe it has it's roots as some sort of physical phenomena? For example, electromagnetism perhaps? I would like understand your belief system more in depth from the "physical metaphysical" side of the equation.

Originally Posted by Melchior

A question then would be if there were laws governing the consciousness, per say, similar to how physical laws govern the universe in the 'purely physical' model?

In a sense yes, but in another sense no. I see consciousness as an "unbounded essence". There is nothing external to an unbounded essence. I also see "awareness" or "consciousness" as the stuff "existence" is made of. Consciousness affirms existence -- without consciousness, existence could not be known, and so, I see them as one and the same, practically and literally speaking.

Because consciousness is unbounded, it has no inherent limitations (that is to say, aside from being automatically relegated to "existence" rather than "nonexistence".) But it can temporarily restrict itself to whatever limitation, structure, shape, or form it chooses. In other words, it can "pretend" to be ANYTHING -- including a physical universe.

But......because everything is one, there are certain truths that will always remain in effect, no matter how much consciousness pretends to be otherwise. For example, even though it can pretend to be a bunch of unrelated, objective, physical parts rather than a homogeneous unified whole, it is only a simulation. This means that ALL information will ALWAYS be communicating with all other information behind the scenes, even though certain aspects have temporarily dissociated from the whole. Separation is not really possible. This is the reason for the "law of attraction" and all psychic phenomena. It's simply a matter of tapping into our natural "omniscience" that exists at the base of our consciousness. Intention manifestation is a simply (<< ha ) a process of "fixing outcomes" by "juggling" knowledge variables in the illusory matrix of our reality.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Phenomenologically, the two universes 'behave' the same way (after all, I think they both try to explain the one we live in), but qualitatively, the two universes are different and the 'purely consciousness' model seems to 'allow' for a greater degree of freedom of what the world can actually be (a degree of freedom that we haven't really seen yet, but that may be because of the laws of the unifying consciousness itself preventing that?). I'm not sure if occam's razor works with this problem anymore. phenomenologically, the two models describe everything 'perfectly', however they describe different 'everythings', if you know what I mean there... I still believe that the 'purely physical' model is the simpler of the two when describing only what we see, namely due to that extra freedom presented by the 'purely conscious' one. Moreover, there are more 'elements' involved in the purely conscious one, there's the 'consciousness' and the 'dream', but perhaps the consciousness is the dream, correct me on that. On the other hand, the 'purely physical' model only presents the 'physical world'.

You see the physical model as less complex, and I see the consciousness model as less complex. Interesting isn't it -- the variability of perspective?

I see the consciousness model being quite elegantly simple, and yet, allowing for an infinite range of possibility. I feel that modern quantum theories such as the Everett many worlds hypothesis actually lend credence to the freedom allowed by the consciousness model. When you consider an infinite range of possibility/probability, you start to wonder about all the different directions, dimensionally speaking, that energy can flow that we simply are not equipped to imagine. You start to look at energy as more of an infinite continuum of variable patterns, than a purely physical collection of "objects". But again, whether we call it all "physical" or all "consciousness" the main difference between our perspectives is simply the range of probabilities that are possible.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Still, I can think of other inconsistencies with the 'unified consciousness' model, but if they are really due to the illusioned 'purely physical' model mucking thing up, then why should they exist in the first place? (inconsistencies include some laws being universal (namely the illusioned ones) and others not being universal (namely those describing the unified consciousness and the projections of it), this evolution that is going on, for there's nothing to compare it to (or perhaps this 'unified consciousness' is really something of a record of everything (essentially just itself) during its existence, which is akin to the term God, hmmm...., also that system might allow for inconsistencies but may not exhibit it (i.e. a changing consciousness that doesn't really change anything but the illusion, and not itself))

It is very difficult to articulate the true nature of the consciousness I'm referencing here, and god knows more finessed individuals than I have tried and failed miserably. People have so many mixed up ideas about "God", life, death, energy, matter, and time.

I see consciousness as transcending all boundaries (aside from "existence"). That includes time. This means it is also timeless. Time is simply a measure of change, which means at the highest level of consciousness, there is NO change occurring. This means our perception of change is an illusion. Consider that carefully....

Try to imagine the nature of an "omniscient" presence of unified consciousness. You wouldn't just know everything that IS, you would know everything that COULD BE. And in knowing those probabilities so perfectly that they were INDISTINGUISHABLE from actuality (because your capacity to imagine is propelled by infinite energy, or in other words, the absence of limiting factors), those realities might as well EXIST. You can begin to see how the difference between "actual" and "probable" begins to break down. This implies ALL things exist, and always have. Our perception of change is simply an extremely minute cross section of an eternal knowing-ness or conscious awareness of infinite probability....

Originally Posted by Melchior

In other words, I think I've at least gotten a better idea of this whole conscious thing and how it could work out. Even with that comparison to god that I've heard some people on the forums have mentioned. But still: and don't understand how this should be the model at all, and if it is, more

Yeah, it still seriously blows my mind. Am I right? Well, that's the individual journey we all have to take, I guess.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm not so sure that "I" comes from consciousness however, as was described above, but only the 'ego' resultant from it. After all, if it was a unified consciousness, the "I" is essentially the entire world and there is nothing but "I", and without an "Other", that "I" is a meaningless distinction. Heh, disillusion again.

I agree, if you are everything, then to say "I" is really unnecessary, because there is no reason to even differentiate one aspect from any other aspect, which is what the word "I" attempts to do. I prefer the phrase "I AM" because I feel like it articulates the nature of consciousness as "existence" more clearly than "I" alone does. But perhaps we need to invent some new words here.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Hey, another thought, wouldn't the 'fact' that this 'purely physical' illusion of the manifestation of consciousness is 'consistent' with itself, standing alone, just as easily be 'proof' for the validity and perhaps 'truth' of the 'purely physical' model?

It could, but its "consistency" is really quite variable. Since we can't "jump outside ourselves" and experience "true objectivity" subjectivity will always be all we can directly experience. Perhaps that is all that exists. Just because the universe appears physically consistent to YOU doesn't mean it is that way to everyone else. Go read any autobiography written by a mystic and you will see their experience of "reality" is often anything BUT consistent in terms of "physical laws". I think our expectations play more a role in reality than we even realize.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, before I go, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure talking with you. What thought you've prompted me to think has been significant.
Too bad, well for you I suppose, it's only made for me my current views stronger and these alternates weaker in comparison... I just am not so 'spiritually' inclined, even if I believe consequences of classical views of spirituality can exist in the world. Continuing in my thought, perhaps these two models are exactly the same anyway... I'll need to let it digest for now.

It's been a pleasure talking to you, as well.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if you find the physical model more believable than the consciousness model. I share my knowledge dispassionately (but not to imply I'm not passionate about my belief) with those who are curious, as I'm perfectly happy with other people's beliefs (whatever they may be), but I very much enjoy discussing metaphysical ideas as well as other kinds of philosophy.

Best regards.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

Yes, but what I'm curious about is this: do you believe in a "soul aspect", but prefer to believe it has it's roots as some sort of physical phenomena? For example, electromagnetism perhaps? I would like understand your belief system more in depth from the "physical metaphysical" side of the equation.

I'd prefer to believe that any 'soul aspect' of the universe, in the case that it exists, has it's roots in some sort of physical phenomena. This is for the same reason that I think that any 'metaphysical' laws would be on the same page as the 'physical' ones, because they both describe how the world operates, which then we could simply call them 'laws', with the only real difference is what 'interaction' it describes. i.e. the difference between electroweak interactions and the strong interactions, although physicists are still attempting to find a unified law of everything. Speaking of which, if the unified theory of everything, if found likened itself to this unified consciousness model, then from the understanding of the physical model, that 'unified consciousness' would be the 'physical model'. Currently however, I just don't see how that could happen though, which is why I had all those expressions in my previous post... Quite frankly, I see my model also more 'useful' than the other one because it is more predictable even though some of its components aren't as much (predictably unpredictable however ).

In a sense yes, but in another sense no. I see consciousness as an "unbounded essence". There is nothing external to an unbounded essence. I also see "awareness" or "consciousness" as the stuff "existence" is made of. Consciousness affirms existence -- without consciousness, existence could not be known, and so, I see them as one and the same, practically and literally speaking.

Ah, yes, you make a good point there. It's the idea that the observer and the observed are 'the same'. I just like to strip away that extra consciousness term from the equation and say that the 'illusion' of existence is what is actually 'real', that there's not a consciousness that creates the illusion in the first place. instead that 'consciousness' is an illusion of the world, and not the world being an illusion of consciousness which is the 'real' world.

Because consciousness is unbounded, it has no inherent limitations (that is to say, aside from being automatically relegated to "existence" rather than "nonexistence".) But it can temporarily restrict itself to whatever limitation, structure, shape, or form it chooses. In other words, it can "pretend" to be ANYTHING -- including a physical universe.

But......because everything is one, there are certain truths that will always remain in effect, no matter how much consciousness pretends to be otherwise. For example, even though it can pretend to be a bunch of unrelated, objective, physical parts rather than a homogeneous unified whole, it is only a simulation. This means that ALL information will ALWAYS be communicating with all other information behind the scenes, even though certain aspects have temporarily dissociated from the whole. Separation is not really possible. This is the reason for the "law of attraction" and all psychic phenomena. It's simply a matter of tapping into our natural "omniscience" that exists at the base of our consciousness. Intention manifestation is a simply (<< ha ) a process of "fixing outcomes" by "juggling" knowledge variables in the illusory matrix of our reality.

Right, I believe that there is no 'pretending' going on. That things should be taken at face value based on what information is presented to us. The existence of the "law of attraction" does not need to be excluded from that, nor does it need that element of a connection of all information due to a 'unified consciousness' to achieve its results. I see just as little reason for its existence in the 'consciousness' model as the 'physical' model. even if it existed, why would it exist? Neither model answers it adequately in my mind (although, I think the consciousness model certainly has an upper hand in terms of believability). But, if it exists (I think it does, or something similar to it, but I still have my doubts), then all we can do is take that it exists and try to explain how it 'works' (that, by the way, is pretty much what the field of physics has done since it began ).

You see the physical model as less complex, and I see the consciousness model as less complex. Interesting isn't it -- the variability of perspective?

I see the consciousness model being quite elegantly simple, and yet, allowing for an infinite range of possibility. I feel that modern quantum theories such as the Everett many worlds hypothesis actually lend credence to the freedom allowed by the consciousness model. When you consider an infinite range of possibility/probability, you start to wonder about all the different directions, dimensionally speaking, that energy can flow that we simply are not equipped to imagine. You start to look at energy as more of an infinite continuum of variable patterns, than a purely physical collection of "objects". But again, whether we call it all "physical" or all "consciousness" the main difference between our perspectives is simply the range of probabilities that are possible.

I have actually attempted to visualize what reality would be like in that case at one point sometime in the past (well, according to the past in my current world with my current understanding, whatever you understand what i mean. Or rather, a you in an 'unconnected' world that gets what I've typed here even though that I that typed it never really happened, that there is only the present moment, and only the 'string' of present moments that have any degree of connectability and continuity can understand :P). Seriously though, I have though, with everything happening all at once, every possible collapse of the universal wavefunction, which by the way would not just apply to our bodies as a whole, but every 'particle-wave' in existence, which means that those universes where everything is jumbled up also happens, etc. I might also add that the law of induction that I mentioned earlier in getting empirical evidence breaks down, if you didn't already catch on to that earlier. Actually, with what I've read on the subject, all these many worlds, all operate under the same physical laws and can't really be called 'many worlds'.

I think what you may be after is the so called "Many Many Worlds Hypothesis" (actually I'm not sure if this was an actual hypothesis or just some added theory by the professor discussed in one of my physics subjects . either way though, I think it's just as valid), which to my understanding has an infinite amount of the worlds described by the 'many worlds hypothesis', if that hypothesis applied to that particular world, each with different physical laws. This, perhaps is what would be best described by the 'unified consciousness' model, that extra degree of freedom I was talking about. At the present moment, I don't see anything against that, except that it's not all that useful for a certain manifestation in the present universe, namely me, in operating in that same universe, especially if under that model, there will always be a 'me' that will not be driven toward that line of thinking. The more useful model, of course, would be one in which not everything is so deterministic (i.e. free will).

Continued in next post..... (sigh, I never imagined it would be so quick for me to reach the 10000 character limit... >.>)

[Melchior]

Continued from previous post.....

It is very difficult to articulate the true nature of the consciousness I'm referencing here, and god knows more finessed individuals than I have tried and failed miserably. People have so many mixed up ideas about "God", life, death, energy, matter, and time.

I see consciousness as transcending all boundaries (aside from "existence"). That includes time. This means it is also timeless. Time is simply a measure of change, which means at the highest level of consciousness, there is NO change occurring. This means our perception of change is an illusion. Consider that carefully....

Try to imagine the nature of an "omniscient" presence of unified consciousness. You wouldn't just know everything that IS, you would know everything that COULD BE. And in knowing those probabilities so perfectly that they were INDISTINGUISHABLE from actuality (because your capacity to imagine is propelled by infinite energy, or in other words, the absence of limiting factors), those realities might as well EXIST. You can begin to see how the difference between "actual" and "probable" begins to break down. This implies ALL things exist, and always have. Our perception of change is simply an extremely minute cross section of an eternal knowing-ness or conscious awareness of infinite probability....

Don't worry about it, you're just fine, better than anyone else I've communicated with on the subject at least. Also, I try not to be one of those people with mixed up ideas... and see where it's led me? (i.e. I think it's safe to say that I've imagined it, perhaps unknowingly at the time, this 'unified consciousness', from what I've written above (or at least something I see as remarkably similar))

It could, but its "consistency" is really quite variable. Since we can't "jump outside ourselves" and experience "true objectivity" subjectivity will always be all we can directly experience. Perhaps that is all that exists. Just because the universe appears physically consistent to YOU doesn't mean it is that way to everyone else. Go read any autobiography written by a mystic and you will see their experience of "reality" is often anything BUT consistent in terms of "physical laws". I think our expectations play more a role in reality than we even realize.

I would have agreed to that, in theory anyway, if not for the 'our' in there, because in that, there is again that illusion that the manifestation of the 'unified consciousness' has anything to say in the matter, especially if everything that has ever existed and will exist, etc., etc. is already 'known' to the 'unified consciousness' combining the infinite and infinitesimal into one.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if you find the physical model more believable than the consciousness model. I share my knowledge dispassionately (but not to imply I'm not passionate about my belief) with those who are curious, as I'm perfectly happy with other people's beliefs (whatever they may be), but I very much enjoy discussing metaphysical ideas as well as other kinds of philosophy.

Well, as I've said, I believe in it because it really does describe what I've experienced and intuited about the world the best. Hopefully, I've already given you enough reasons why I think that is with what I've written to at least try to understand why this is.

[joelr]

All things considered I think it can be proven that the evidence suggests consciousness is more than just a physical happenstance. That it has a creative and fundamental role in the universe rather than a random phenomenon.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

All things considered I think it can be proven that the evidence suggests consciousness is more than just a physical happenstance. That it has a creative and fundamental role in the universe rather than a random phenomenon.

Sure, I suppose... >.>
As I've written though, I think the alternative to this is both more probable and more consistent.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Sure, I suppose... >.>
As I've written though, I think the alternative to this is both more probable and more consistent.

How so? I didn't see any mention of scientific findings that would make one feel that way. Right now science tells us that consciousness can create matter. The creative aspect is even more powerful than time. In other words a conscious thought can change matter creation in the present and past.
Pretty good clue as to which side may be correct.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

How so? I didn't see any mention of scientific findings that would make one feel that way. Right now science tells us that consciousness can create matter. The creative aspect is even more powerful than time. In other words a conscious thought can change matter creation in the present and past.
Pretty good clue as to which side may be correct.

Link me a wiki entry or something and I'll take a look into it. Currently, I've not seen any scientific findings that support the idea that consciousness is anything other than emergent phenomena, which is essentially the 'base' conclusion for a nondualist such as me, occam's razor and all.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Link me a wiki entry or something and I'll take a look into it. Currently, I've not seen any scientific findings that support the idea that consciousness is anything other than emergent phenomena, which is essentially the 'base' conclusion for a nondualist such as me, occam's razor and all.

It's better to drop parsimony (less is better) when dealing with the physical universe because through experience the logic is not sound. It's regarded as an ok rule of thumb when constructing models but final theories often do not follow that pattern. In fact it slowed the progress of many discoveries, even DNA.

Even an emergent property has no reason to possess the creation
abilities that consciousness holds. If a computer holds information about the position and momentum of a piece of reality (any sub-atomic particle and even now some much larger macroscopic objects containing billions of atoms) nothing changes about it's existence. It is a non-physical piece of potential information. Once consciousness contains the knowledge/thought of this same information the object will become a physical object. Even if the knowledge is gained far into the future, the past event will change to reflect the conscious recognition of this information.

The Newtonian mechanistic era did not call for this, it regarded everything as a seperate machine-like object and these old deterministic beliefs are still in the majority today. They give out the idea that consciousness is just another complex machine.

The LOA implies we send out some type of subtle energy which in turn somehow shapes how events and things happen to us. We can clearly see the possibility of this energy at work in these experiments.

The physicist R. Rhodes gives a great explanation of those findings here:

The Reality Program

He starts out with some background first but you may already know all or some of this stuff? If so then it's a matter of incorporating the results into a statement about consciousness rather than, as many physicists do, just look at it as a strange curiosity not to be pondered on and in turn ridiculed by peers.

Why did Fred Alan Wolf suddenly stop supporting LOA after the media got ahold of it and it became similar to ufos or ghosts in credibility? He was getting too much flack from his contemporaries.

[Melchior]

Originally Posted by joelr

It's better to drop parsimony (less is better) when dealing with the physical universe because through experience the logic is not sound. It's regarded as an ok rule of thumb when constructing models but final theories often do not follow that pattern. In fact it slowed the progress of many discoveries, even DNA.

Don't worry, I know. Current theories must always conform to experimental data whether or not prior theory does. Doing otherwise would be ignoring the world for what it is (This is one of the reasons why I don't have too many qualms with quantum mechanics, unlike most of the texts I've read attempting to describe it as confusing or weird. It's not weird, that's just how the world is. To say otherwise would be weird. ) That said though, in the realm of the up to date theories, phenomenologically, the 'simplest' explanation that fully explains the phenomena is generally regarded as the 'best' one, that rule of thumb you mention. In other words, I don't care about out of date theories (well, except for using them out of convenience at times ).

Even an emergent property has no reason to possess the creation
abilities that consciousness holds. If a computer holds information about the position and momentum of a piece of reality (any sub-atomic particle and even now some much larger macroscopic objects containing billions of atoms) nothing changes about it's existence. It is a non-physical piece of potential information. Once consciousness contains the knowledge/thought of this same information the object will become a physical object. Even if the knowledge is gained far into the future, the past event will change to reflect the conscious recognition of this information.

The Newtonian mechanistic era did not call for this, it regarded everything as a seperate machine-like object and these old deterministic beliefs are still in the majority today. They give out the idea that consciousness is just another complex machine.

The LOA implies we send out some type of subtle energy which in turn somehow shapes how events and things happen to us. We can clearly see the possibility of this energy at work in these experiments.

The physicist R. Rhodes gives a great explanation of those findings here:

The Reality Program

He starts out with some background first but you may already know all or some of this stuff? If so then it's a matter of incorporating the results into a statement about consciousness rather than, as many physicists do, just look at it as a strange curiosity not to be pondered on and in turn ridiculed by peers.

Why did Fred Alan Wolf suddenly stop supporting LOA after the media got ahold of it and it became similar to ufos or ghosts in credibility? He was getting too much flack from his contemporaries.

What was interesting for me was that during the time I was reading through that set of explanations, I had a sneaking suspicion that I had come across something like it in the past, if not this one specifically, then something quite similar, down to the comparison with a computer, but that is a common comparison I take it. But yeah, as for the background, I did pretty much already know all of it already, including the violation of Bell's inequalities, quantum tunneling, 'identical' wavicles (those particle-wave electrons), speed of light 'limit', and then some.

The problem I have with putting these statements to consciousness is that we don't really know what this consciousness thing is. When we study the brain, per say, all we see are the 'same' things that we observe in the laboratory for a double slit experiment. Also of note, because the equipment we use to measure the experiments are not classical in nature either, but also obey the same laws as the stuff that they are measuring (i'm sure you would agree with this statement, especially if those toasters brought up in the example by the notes were replaced by electron detectors), it's not that far of a stretch to apply the same rules to ourselves. I mean, if you look at the eye, it is an example of a detector, our brain, the 'computer' that analyzes the incoming information of that detector (such as the one that they recorded information on in an experiment, but destroyed the data before/after looking at the results of the interference so that they couldn't tell either way). It pretty then boils down to the question of: what makes us so special? Well, I don't think too much. Although, if i were to make a comparison, we would be akin to the spaceships in Conway's Game of Life.

Another point I'd have to make is that the analogy with the computer while a good one is also 'incomplete'. for a computer, it's not just the program that is there. there has to be the hardware for the software to run on (I think I mentioned this somewhere, if not here, then probably one of my other posts... >.>). In any case, I'll bring back that one quote here as well: "It's all hardware". Because if you think about a computer, even the computer program is a result of the underlying hardware performing the instructions. The 'information' of a program, by itself does nothing. It has nothing to operate on, no substance in of itself either. Of course, the computer is just an analogy and analogies tend to break down at times. What I do want to get across here is that information existing on its own doesn't really explain our universe as well as the idea that the information actually comes from somewhere, namely something 'real' as opposed to 'imaginary'. Also, I think if you look at the mathematics of the 'rules' which are also 'information' (information about what? I say it's about the physical universe, and not just an information one), they tend to find real answers (as opposed to imaginary ones, mathematically that is...), at least in QM they give 'real' probabilities that can be measured empirically.

Speaking of computers, I think the 'notes' are also a bit outdated (2002 for the most part) in saying that computers are sequential machines. There are plenty of applications these days (particularly in the field of graphics) that use the parallel computing capabilities of a graphics processor to complete similar tasks simultaneously. Granted, each individual processor is sequential, but then again, so is each individual neuron in your brain.
**EDIT: Nevermind, it seems that this bit about parallel computing was mentioned in the Endnotes of Ch. 5. However, the comparison of a processor to a neuron still stands. Here's another thought while i'm here: the simplest processor could be a wavicle.

So in an entirely physical world, the emergent consciousness doesn't really possess the creation abilities that it holds because all parts of the world hold the exact same qualities. I think that it is the interaction between the real that cause for what seem to be the individual realities of the real. and it's these interactions that would then in turn serve as the basis for consciousness.

This isn't to say that I don't believe in LoA at all. Just that if it exists, and I've experienced 'evidence' myself that might support it, it would exist as a result of physical laws as well, ones that we might not have yet discovered (although, if i had to choose one out of the current pool of ideas that I know of, it would be due to some sort of quantum entanglement )

One more thing, in the 'paradox' of Zeno's of the runner, I just want to comment that due to the uncertainty principle, when you try to locate the person at an infinitesimally small distance (i.e. at the end), you find out that you can't because you already know his 'exact' momentum, and he could have at that time existed past the point of the finish line. (at least, that is my naive answer to it anyway)