Consciousness and quantum theory

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute

You could be, but I doubt it. The trouble is that your no. 7 isn't true if you're right. Much of the contents of consciousness may derive from the brain, but if consciousness 'creates all perceived reality' then it creates the brain.

Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.

Ergo the human brain, the universe, particles, energy and all the fixed physical laws maybe nothing simpler than a 'dimensional consciousness.'

It is very safe for all physicists, cosmologists or humanity to assume that we actually exist in a universe where primary forces, life forms and our senses are reality and solid. This dimension might even be a hologram which is known to be divisible infinitely and still each divided portion maintains the original form.

But as you say, "I doubt it."

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.

Ergo the human brain, the universe, particles, energy and all the fixed physical laws maybe nothing simpler than a 'dimensional consciousness.'

As in the 'emptiness' of Buddhism or the 'Zero ontology'.

It is very safe for all physicists, cosmologists or humanity to assume that we actually exist in a universe where primary forces, life forms and our senses are reality and solid. This dimension might even be a hologram which is known to be divisible infinitely and still each divided portion maintains the original form.

Sorry, don't get that.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
As in the 'emptiness' of Buddhism or the 'Zero ontology'.
Sorry, don't get that.

In the measurements of a single hydrogen atom, the nucleus is so small that even photons cannot strike it so to be seen with the best electron microscope. The single electron is postulated to move around the nucleus in an orbit that does not decay.

If that nucleus could be enlarged to approximately a 4" diameter, the electron orbit would be approximately 8 miles out. If you extrapolate this fact to the known universe, approximately 99.99% would be space and the remainder particle matter. Not taking into account any other invisible matter that maintains gravitation which prevents the universe from expanding rapidly to nothing.

Einstein postulated that matter is condensed energy which can at times become matter or return to the energy state. QM introduces the uncertainty principle with particles ability to instantly communicate with other particles at unimaginable distances.

What exactly is real in this chaotic universe of particle/energies that arrange themselves in ways to form life, consciousness, matter and what makes the laws of nature stable?

The String Theory and all other accepted physics in a wholly physical universe seems inadequate to explain our reality. There has to be something very different to explain existence.

It would seem that all theories of physical laws in this universe are as valid or invalid as another.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
The String Theory and all other accepted physics in a wholly physical universe seems inadequate to explain our reality. There has to be something very different to explain existence.

Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute

Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.

You are correct about the Buddist philosophy which claims that all things arise out of emptiness.

But the Buddist philosophy also believes that sentinent beings arise from the same emptiness. Plato also believed in the same concepts but was most likely not aware of the Buddist theology.

Many scientists today also believe in these same concepts of all matter, energy and the entire universe arising out of the so-called Big Bang.

The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe.

[ur]http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Holographic_universe.htm[/URL]

Noel Huntley, Ph.D.

Ouspensky, in his book A New Model of the Universe, states that everything is everywhere and always. Physicist John Wheeler of Princeton states that the geometrodynamical quantum foam of superspace represents a superhologram of the universe, and physicist Jack Sarfatti's interpretation of this quantum superspace is that the wormholes connect all parts of the universe directly to every other part. Leading physicist David Bohm stresses quantum interconnectedness and unbroken wholeness. Charles Muses and Arthur Young refer to objects as superhologram images. Science writer Michael Talbot reiterates that thought processes are holographic in that all thoughts are infinitely cross-referenced with all other thoughts. Physicist Keith Floyd states that holographic models of consciousness make such brain processes as memory, perception, and imaging clearly explainable. Science writer Fritjof Capra speaks of the universe as a hologram, in which each part determines the whole

Unfortunately there is no way to prove something so preposterous which questions an orthodox physical universe.

 

[Rader]

the enigma

Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.

Originally posted by onycho
Actually Canute you may have hit it on the mark. The possibility that consciousness might be a flow of some sort of plasma in a real dimension in which all human perception is in reality as we assume it exists.

The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route? There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by onycho
Actually I choose to temporarily disagree with all of your statements. Reality may be somewhat different than conventional wisdom.

Your number 7 may be the reverse of conventional theory in a wholly physical universe.

For just a moment step outside of your fixed point of reference.

Consciousness may create all perceived reality in a dimension of timelessness or a singularity.

A localized perception of a reality where:

1) Your brain is made of cells.
2) Cells are made of molecules.
3) Molecules are made of atoms.
4) Atoms are made of subatomic particles.
5) Subatomic particles are the ones that are observed performing "weird" acts, due to quantum Uncertainty.
6) The brain, being made up of trillions of subatomic particles, isn't recognizable at the subatomic level.
7) Consciousness takes place in the brain's processes.

A dimension where human intellect finds finite limits but which allows humanity to merrily preceed to create experimental theories and observable findings.

Of course this premis would neither be measurable nor quantifiable and therefore easily discounted as metaphysical.

But then of course I could be wrong...

Not only could you be wrong, but you are challenging a large construct of knowledge, that has been gathered over centuries. I'm not saying it couldn't be wrong either...in fact, I challenge it all the time (when the opposition is in favor of it...the so-called "devil's advocate" approach), but not here. If you have some reason to postulate that it's wrong, then I'd like to see what the flaw is. Otherwise, science is innocent 'till proven guilty, eh?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Yeah, all materialist reductions end in 'nothing'. That's why I mentioned emptiness.

Wrong. All materialist reductions end in that which can be reduced no further. Whether because spacetime loses meaning at any scale smaller than that, or because it literally has no mass but nonetheless exists, this is always (AFAIK) the case.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route?

There just might be another route to an objective world than the two you mentioned. The indeterminism of 'freewill' which could enter into a chaotic universe becoming a simpler state of equilibrium. A system which is initially disorder (Big Bang) and which ultimately arranges itself into a state of homeostasis. The proverbial rearrangement of unrelated and chaotic particles into a universe where the immutable laws of physics can be more or less observed.

There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.

It seems that you have arrived at the very essence of the debate. Has this universe and its laws always been present in a timelessness infinite now or was there a beginning of everything?

The SAS construct is side-stepped by many simply because of that very indigestible concept of Consciousness. A reality being outside of any objective equation where a unified theory of all things and places exists.

The concept of 'purposeful evolution' is a malediction to the very concept of a Creator in the current world of physics and cosmology.

I actually held on to the illusion that there was some sense of order to the universe... I am now convinced that we are all living in a Chagall painting—a world where brides and grooms and cows and chickens and angels and sneakers are all mixed up together, sometimes floating in the air, sometimes upside down and everywhere.

ATTRIBUTION: Susan Lapinski

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Mentat
Not only could you be wrong, but you are challenging a large construct of knowledge, that has been gathered over centuries. I'm not saying it couldn't be wrong either...in fact, I challenge it all the time (when the opposition is in favor of it...the so-called "devil's advocate" approach), but not here. If you have some reason to postulate that it's wrong, then I'd like to see what the flaw is. Otherwise, science is innocent 'till proven guilty, eh?

You are absolutely correct. Science had constructed a well postulated mass of knowledge over many centuries until some little German patent clerk overturned conventional wisdom.

It is better not to risk loss of observable truth than to chance error.

ATTRIBUTION: William James

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
The enigma exists, that through scientific observation we have determnined that evolution of the less complex to the more complex systems occurs in the objective world, we do not know why only a little bit about how. We could go two ways Creationism or determinism, or is there another route?

There just might be another route to an objective world than the two you mentioned. The indeterminism of 'freewill' which could enter into a chaotic universe becoming a simpler state of equilibrium. A system which is initially disorder (Big Bang) and which ultimately arranges itself into a state of homeostasis. The proverbial rearrangement of unrelated and chaotic particles into a universe where the immutable laws of physics can be more or less observed.

Gee now i know i am not alone in the universe. Thoughts are not mine. Was that a statement, or do you perceive it as i do?

There seems to be deeply imbeded in all things, the know how to evolve and at the right moment, to do it. For that to be, there would have to be something to direct it. Or is it all by chance? Experimental testing on all levels from humans to atoms, indicate that consciousness might be imbeded in everything and works outside of the parameters of the material world. It would then have to be in all things, and on all levels. It could possibly be, a simple mathematical construct SAS by which on quote Vladmir, the equations of the electrical, magnetic and mechanical moments are designed specially to search for the laws of living substance in the mathematical form. By that way evolution would have many dead ends but always follow the lead. That SAS construct would then be Consciousness itself. Which then would bring up the question why does the objective world evolve, does it have a purpose? Or is it just an illusion that consciousness decided to imbed in the vary nature of this universe.

It seems that you have arrived at the very essence of the debate. Has this universe and its laws always been present in a timelessness infinite now or was there a beginning of everything?

Lets choose the latter, beginning of everything. Let's look at some evidence. We can answer that, with the data we have. CBR confirmation, understanding of when the laws were set, a basic picture of evolution from the Big Bang til now, conscious self aware humans to conceptualize all this.

But then we have the problems, 99.9 percent of everything is empty space, we can only account for a small percent of that in weight, we are in 4 differnet aware or dream states, we are aware, before our sences tell us they happen. Lot like an illusion.

The SAS construct is side-stepped by many simply because of that very indigestible concept of Consciousness. A reality being outside of any objective equation where a unified theory of all things and places exists.

That has been my point many times on other threads. There is a lot of evidence on our evolutionary level, where we can confirm to good probability, that consciousness is independent of the objective reality. So then which is reality?

The concept of 'purposeful evolution' is a malediction to the very concept of a Creator in the current world of physics and cosmology.

Nothing is motionless in this objective universe. Nothing with motion has no purpose. Purpose demands choice and choice free will. Free will creates duality. Negativity arises out of duality. Negativity is the illusion. The other side is positivity or unity which sees no sides.
Question: Why does an illusion have to evolve?

 

[onycho]

the enigma

Originally posted by Rader

Gee now i know i am not alone in the universe. Thoughts are not mine. Was that a statement, or do you perceive it as i do?

Now only paranoia is sure that there is one behind the many. Whatever you think and do are yours alone just as you attempt to disparage concepts foreign to your experience. Do you perceive my meaning?

Lets choose the latter, beginning of everything. Let's look at some evidence. We can answer that, with the data we have. CBR confirmation, understanding of when the laws were set, a basic picture of evolution from the Big Bang til now, conscious self aware humans to conceptualize all this. But then we have the problems, 99.9 percent of everything is empty space, we can only account for a small percent of that in weight, we are in 4 differnet aware or dream states, we are aware, before our sences tell us they happen. Lot like an illusion.

So you are in possession of data and evidence of basic laws you know to be valid? Do you have four dream or illusion states in which you also hear voices?

That has been my point many times on other threads. There is a lot of evidence on our evolutionary level, where we can confirm to good probability, that consciousness is independent of the objective reality. So then which is reality?

To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depth of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.

ATTRIBUTION: Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

[pelastration]

animated images

Instead of going in semantics about consciousness I spent some days on the design of still images and animated images on the mechanism of consciousness. On http://www.mu6.com/consciousness2.html you will find three animated gif's showing the attention shift essential in the whole discussion, and our individual perception of reality.

Don't forget I come to this concept only based on one postulate about spacetime.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by pelastration
Instead of going in semantics about consciousness I spent some days on the design of still images and animated images on the mechanism of consciousness. On http://www.mu6.com/consciousness2.html you will find three animated gif's showing the attention shift essential in the whole discussion, and our individual perception of reality.
Don't forget I come to this concept only based on one postulate about spacetime.

Albert Einstein

"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds."

 

[Canute]

Onycho

You said - "The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe".

How does your view differ from the Buddhist view? It seems to be the same, as far as it goes, and aside from the fact that you're theorising rather than experiencing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by onycho
You are absolutely correct. Science had constructed a well postulated mass of knowledge over many centuries until some little German patent clerk overturned conventional wisdom.

I'm so pleased that you mentioned this, since I've been meaning to explain the following point, but have had no opportunity:

Occam's Razor coincides with the old adage, "if it's not broke, don't fix it". Occam's Razor would call any assumption "additional", if this new assumption was not for the purpose of "patching up" a "break" in the previous conception. There was something wrong with Newtonian Mechanics (actually, there were a few things wrong with it), and Einstein saw that. So, he "patched up" the "crack". In doing so, he made his theory more accurate than the previous theory and thus Occam's preference of lesser assumptions doesn't apply. However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, and thus your idea (while possibly correct) requires an additional postulate...meaning that it's worse off by Occam's Razor.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
...However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, [/B]

Hmm. Except perhaps their existence and fundamental nature.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
Onycho

You said - "The only difference in my fictional premise is the fact that there is no sentinent beings, physical matter, laws of nature or anything else real. No Buddist reincarnations seeking perfection or anything else requiring a fixed universe".

How does your view differ from the Buddhist view? It seems to be the same, as far as it goes, and aside from the fact that you're theorising rather than experiencing.

Canute I never denied that I was theorizing about reality of consciousness vs. a wholly physical universe.

The Buddhist view is significantly different from my construct of all reality existing as our 'freewill' assumes it exists. No solid particles, no energy, no universe and nothing but only a function of consciousness that creates mathematics and Big Bangs. Buddhism instead says:

Buddhist psychology

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/Buddhistteachings.htm

The nature of the mind

'...The mind is neither physical, nor a by-product of purely physical processes, but a formless continuum that is a separate entity from the body. When the body disintegrates at death, the mind does not cease. Although our superficial conscious mind ceases, it does so by dissolving into a deeper level of consciousness, called 'the very subtle mind'. The continuum of our very subtle mind has no beginning and no end...'

I don't believe in Transcendental Meditation either...

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Mentat

Occam's Razor coincides with the old adage, "if it's not broke, don't fix it".

So Newtonian 'classical' mathematics dealt with the macro world of our daily experience and this upstart German Jew clerk saw that long held constructs were 'broke' and needed 'fixin.'

Classical mechanics was the physics of forces, acting upon bodies. It was often referred to as "Newtonian mechanics" after Newton and his laws of motion. Classical mechanics was subdivided into statics (which deals with objects in equilibrium) and dynamics (which deals with objects in motion).

...So, he "patched up" the "crack". In doing so, he made his theory more accurate than the previous theory and thus Occam's preference of lesser assumptions doesn't apply.

So to "patch up that crack" Einstein and his contemporaries stepped out of the box of human observation, 'welded' the crack and wove a totally new construct of the micro level of particle activity which explained the 'cracked' observable mechanics of Newton's mathematical genius.

However, QM has no problem explaining the behavior of particles that can be solved by adding consciousness, and thus your idea (while possibly correct) requires an additional postulate...meaning that it's worse off by Occam's Razor.

How can an additional postulate explain that very troubling consciousness by any part of QM?

Albert Einstein

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

 

[Canute]

Onycho

Sorry, I still can't see where your view differs (in outline) from that of Buddhists. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your view.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
Onycho

Sorry, I still can't see where your view differs (in outline) from that of Buddhists. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your view.

Cantu please understand I don't believe that man's finite mind or consciousness has the ability to actually understand the exact nature of all things. The fact that genius minds around the world plod along with attempts at solving the 'unified field theory' ultimately, in my humble opinion, is just beyond human ability. Einstein said it best, "I want to know the thoughts of G-d, and the rest is detail."

Please forgive me if I misstate Buddhist philosophy in which the Buddha believes in the reality of mass, matter, a physical body and brain with a consciousness that is outside of the physical being. They see problems and suffering which arise from confused and negative states of mind, and that all our happiness and good fortune arise from peaceful and positive states of mind. Buddha Shakyamuni taught a theology for gradually overcoming our negative minds such as anger, jealousy and ignorance, and developing our positive minds such as love, compassion and wisdom. Through this we will come to experience lasting peace and happiness. Buddha believed that these methods work for anyone, in any country, in any age. Once humans have gained experience of them for ourselves we can pass them on to others so they too might enjoy the same benefits.

While I picture a dimension where nothing exists and the only reality is a flowing 'freewill' consciousness which exists in timelessness. For a short segment of 'time', consciousness experiences is allowed to perceive existence that we assume has boundaries, QM, weak and strong forces.

The only reason that I even suggest such an absurd theory is that there is a possible innate self-awareness property in particles. But then if my construct had validity, those same particles don't exist.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Cantu please understand I don't believe that man's finite mind or consciousness has the ability to actually understand the exact nature of all things.

I'm sure we can't understand all the details. But why can't we understand the basic truths?

The fact that genius minds around the world plod along with attempts at solving the 'unified field theory' ultimately, in my humble opinion, is just beyond human ability.'

A unified field theory is a human construct, not a feature of reality. It doesn;t really matter whether we understand it or not, we invented it.

Please forgive me if I misstate Buddhist philosophy in which the Buddha believes in the reality of mass, matter, a physical body and brain with a consciousness that is outside of the physical being. They see problems and suffering which arise from confused and negative states of mind, and that all our happiness and good fortune arise from peaceful and positive states of mind.

Yes this is a misstatement, and yes, I forgive you.

Buddha Shakyamuni taught a theology

I rather doubt that. Buddhism is a metaphysic, not a theology.

for gradually overcoming our negative minds such as anger, jealousy and ignorance, and developing our positive minds such as love, compassion and wisdom. Through this we will come to experience lasting peace and happiness. Buddha believed that these methods work for anyone, in any country, in any age. Once humans have gained experience of them for ourselves we can pass them on to others so they too might enjoy the same benefits.

Ok.

While I picture a dimension where nothing exists and the only reality is a flowing 'freewill' consciousness which exists in timelessness. For a short segment of 'time', consciousness experiences is allowed to perceive existence that we assume has boundaries, QM, weak and strong forces.

Ok, Buddhism again.

The only reason that I even suggest such an absurd theory is that there is a possible innate self-awareness property in particles.

I don't find it absurd. Try a search on microphenomenalism or panpsychism. Both well supported by philosophers to this day.

But then if my construct had validity, those same particles don't exist. [/B]

They do and they don't. Depends where you're standing. Call them epiphenominal and it solves the dilemma.

 

[Rader]

conscious reality

If consciousness is "the reality" we are the by-product of one of a infinite number of multiverses. To think contrary would be ego-centric. We create our own reality inside Reality.

David R. Hawkins; The eye of the I, The limitation of perception imputes to events in the world an invisible, magical force called "casuality". It confuses necessary condition as bieng causes. It also confuses temporal sequence with causality. "Events do not really happen", in Reality. These are arbritrary attractions that are the result of selective, sequential focusing. In Reality, no events are occurring; therefore, no explanations are necessary. In Reality, creation is continuous. The unmanifest becomes manifest. Each observation, however is couched in mentalizations of time and location and therefore ostensible sequence. These are only mentations, how the observable comes about. It is created out of consciousness. Nothing in the world causes anything else. All is interwined in a holographic dance wherin each element influences every other element but does not cause it. Cause is an epistemological invention and is only that of a mentation. The artifact of mentation creats spurious conundrums which then require the spurious explanation of causality to "explain". In Reality, the absoluteness and totality of Creation leaves no vacancy to be filled with any explanatory thought form such as cause. Totality is complete and requires no cause. Cause is force; creation is power.
God is power not force.

What could possible be the reason for consciousness acting this way? Maybe its because, beauty is the best way of describing the Creator. The beauty of Creation is in all its diversity.

In Doñana Spain lives the koo koo bird. Yes you have seen his icon on all koo koo clocks. He lays his eggs in other nests. He wastes no time warming his eggs when others can do it. He spends his time, on other usefull things, contemplating what no one has time for. So if anyone calls you koo koo, remember that it has another deeper meaning.

Link to the 70 sciences to study conscientiology.
http://www.mundoiac.org/English/Sciences/Conscientiology/SubdisciplinesOfConscientiology.asp

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute

I'm sure we can't understand all the details. But why can't we understand the basic truths?

Throughout the centuries basic truths or hypothesis' have been accepted by the scientific world only to eventually be replaced by newer models. How are we to know that today's knowledge or truths are truly immutable?

A unified field theory is a human construct, not a feature of reality. It doesn;t really matter whether we understand it or not, we invented it.

Sorry about the use of the word 'solve' the Unified Field Theory when in fact the search for same by human beings remains elusive. Any invention of a basic formula for a 'Unified Field Theory' must necessarily mean that we have a well defined understanding of the physics which occurs at any point in the universe.

Yes this is a misstatement, and yes, I forgive you.

Very civil of you to forgive.

I rather doubt that. Buddhism is a metaphysic, not a theology.

Metaphysic is the philosophical study of being and knowing while Buddhism has a particular theology system or school of religious beliefs and teachings of the Budda, i.e.;

NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH OF BUDDA: The members of the path are defined in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere as follows:

Right View of the Four Truths;

Right Intention governed by renunciation (non-sensuality), non-ill-will, and non-cruelty (harmlessness);

Right Speech in abstention from lying, slander, abuse and gossip;

Right Action in abstention from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct;

Right Livelihood for bhikkhus as that allowed by the Rules of the Discipline, and for laymen as avoidance of trading in weapons, living beings, meat, intoxicants, and poisons (AN V);

Right Effort to avoid unarisen and to abandon arisen evil, and to arouse unarisen and to develop arisen good;

Right Mindfulness of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness as given in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta -- that is, contemplation of the body as a body, of feelings as feelings, of states of consciousness as states of consciousness, and of ideas as ideas;

Right Concentration as (any of) the four jhana -meditations.


Ok. Ok, Buddhism again.

Thye do and they don't. Depends where you're standing. Call them epiphenominal and it solves the dilemma.

I'm not certain that particle existence or lack thereof is in any way causal,linked together or does it appear to solve any dilemma.

 

[phoenixthoth]

consciousness may be a by-product of a mathematical self-awareness structure.

under "russell's paradox, the achilles heel of solipsism," i basically postulate with more details that it's all the same thing.

also the article on SAS's explains what I'm talking about; it was written by max tegmark and is available here:
http://alephnulldimension.net/toe.pdf

if it all works out, it will unify not only the four forces but also consciousness.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Throughout the centuries basic truths or hypothesis' have been accepted by the scientific world only to eventually be replaced by newer models. How are we to know that today's knowledge or truths are truly immutable?

You're talking about scientific 'truths', which I agree can never be known to be true. I'm talking about what is really true.

Sorry about the use of the word 'solve' the Unified Field Theory when in fact the search for same by human beings remains elusive. Any invention of a basic formula for a 'Unified Field Theory' must necessarily mean that we have a well defined understanding of the physics which occurs at any point in the universe.

And then we'll have another scientific theory that we can't know is true, and so on ad infinitum. Science is fine if you want gadgets and so on, but it is not concerned with truth. Not even scientists claim that it is.

Metaphysic is the philosophical study of being and knowing

'Metaphysic' is a noun, used to stand for a metaphysical system. You're thinking of metaphysics, which is the study of reality, or what lies beyond physics.

"Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." Alfred North Whitehead

while Buddhism has a particular theology system or school of religious beliefs and teachings of the Budda, i.e.;

I wish you'd stop talking nonsense about Buddhism. It is not a theological system. And even if all the teachings of the Buddha were thrown away it wouldn't change a thing. Many people have discovered the truth of Buddhism without even knowing it existed. It is a metaphysic, an understanding of reality not derived from doctrine or belief in some teaching or other.

Technically it is not even a religion, although that's being a bit pedantic.

I'm not certain that particle existence or lack thereof is in any way causal,linked together or does it appear to solve any dilemma. [/B]

Sorry but I can't find any meaning in that.

 

[onycho]

Theory of Everything (TOE)

consciousness may be a by-product of a mathematical self-awareness structure.

"Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists', or 'My mental states are the only mental states.'

Most may disagree with the following construct but the concept is intriguing.

The TOE (Theory of Everything) may now be a reality and has been the subject of heated scientific debate raging for the last decade.

About 1448 BCE, a type of Rosetta stone was said to be inserted into this dimension of human consciousness. In a sum total of 304,805 letters (a total of 26 individual letters) which is much like a long single strand of DNA which encrypted to form a type of blueprint for the Theory of Everything. These letters when seen as a dimensional hologram, form into closely related events in recorded history. It is thought that the entire formation of everything has been encrypted into this multi-grouping letter formations.

Now the very long letter sequence has apparently been unlocked by powerful computers and which had initially been broken by a distinguished mathematician, and later corroborated by world-famous academics. After extensive peer review of the ELS code, the report was published in the respected journal Statistical Science in 1994, Vol 9. Given the consequences of this research, it was inevitable that some people would take exception to the findings. Despite the integrity of the research and the researchers, critics have made many strong attempts to refute the research and discredit the researchers.

For most of critics, the issue was not the existence of codes; it’s the implication, which runs contrary to their a priori assumptions. This view is best expressed by one of the critics. When challenged “What evidence would be enough to convince you that the codes exist?” she responded “No amount of evidence. “I know that the code was written by human beings!”

Scientific evidence rests on facts, demonstrated through repeated experimentation and independent verification. This has been done, and is the basis of a significant reliance on the authenticity of the code.

So what have the critics found? That theoretically one could cheat. That by surreptitiously not using an objective list of pairs of words, or by playing around with many alternative spellings of words, or by breaking basic rules of grammar, or by not considering minimal ELSs, one could concoct a contrived list and deceive people into believing that an objective experiment was performed.
This is precisely the method used by the critics to create “counterfeit” codes in Moby Dick; this is also the technique used in most of the popular books on the Codes.”
The only difference between the scientists opposed to codes, and the non-scientific use of codes is that the critics admit that their results were obtained through selective choices of data, i.e. cheating. Their claim however, is that the original codes researchers cheated in this same way.

To summarize, there are no scientists who claim that any hidden codes actually exist in different texts. Their claim is the opposite-that in fact, there is no such thing as a codes phenomenon in any text, and that the experiments performed and published are fraudulent.

The debate proceeds….

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute

You're talking about scientific 'truths', which I agree can never be known to be true. I'm talking about what is really true.

The truth has never been of any real value to any human being—it is a symbol for mathematicians and philosophers to pursue. In human relations kindness and lies are worth a thousand truths.

ATTRIBUTION: Graham Greene

And then we'll have another scientific theory that we can't know is true, and so on ad infinitum. Science is fine if you want gadgets and so on, but it is not concerned with truth. Not even scientists claim that it is.

There are only a few of us that now the truth and we are not telling...

'Metaphysic' is a noun, used to stand for a metaphysical system. You're thinking of metaphysics, which is the study of reality, or what lies beyond physics. "Christianity ... has always been a religion seeking a metaphysic, in contrast to Buddhism which is a metaphysic generating a religion." Alfred North Whitehead

I wish you'd stop talking nonsense about Buddhism. It is not a theological system. And even if all the teachings of the Buddha were thrown away it wouldn't change a thing. Many people have discovered the truth of Buddhism without even knowing it existed. It is a metaphysic, an understanding of reality not derived from doctrine or belief in some teaching or other.

Enough with Buddhism. Many people have discovered the TRUTH OF BUDDHISM until eventually they found it also just another illusion.

Technically it is not even a religion, although that's being a bit pedantic.

Technically even atheism is a religion with it's own dogma.

 

[Canute]

Onycho

Have you ever considered doing some research before forming your opinions? Or is that too much like hard work?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
Onycho

Have you ever considered doing some research before forming your opinions? Or is that too much like hard work?

Sometimes the impressions of your intellect outweighs your ability to be civil.

I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.

--Albert Einstein

 

[phoenixthoth]

maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what I'm talking about is meditating. I'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by onycho
Sometimes the impressions of your intellect outweighs your ability to be civil.

Perhaps you're right. My apologies. But you should not make claims about Buddhism (or anything else) without some understanding of it. It gets people annoyed. Try consistently writing nonsense about science on a science thread and see how civil people are. I was hoping you'd back off, but you kept going.

Anyway, I don't want a row. Just please find a bit out about Buddhism before asserting incorrect things about it. You make it sound ridiculous.

May the sun always shine on your tent

Canute

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what I'm talking about is meditating. I'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html

I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head.

Interesting link. It's an unusual article from a computation researcher.

You might like this. It's the best online resource for consciousness papers. Almost every view is there in depth.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html

 

[onycho]

Interesting Article

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

maybe instead of researching consiousness outside of yourself, you should research it inside. or at do both. what I'm talking about is meditating. I'm not sure if that's what kind of research you meant. let me give you an article on consciousness and tell me what you think:
http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html

The homeopathic and its related esoteric healing arts article is very interesting and raises some interesting concepts.

There are only a few problems that seem apparent:

1) The author indicates that by using homeopathic medicine or meditation, healings have occurred mysteriously. She even gives one example about the healing of her own child with infantile autism.

Unfortunately many mysterious healings occur on a rather irregular and random basis even without using any of the therapies indicated in the article.

2) The author tends to the "metaphysical view of consciousness which is rooted in a quasi-mathematical definition of its mechanism."

In my opinion, this construct is ultimately doomed to failure as any definition of consciousness or self-awareness is so ambiguous that it might be easier to measure the boundaries or dimensions of the universe in which we assume exists.

I feel that all one can do is wax philosophically about whether consciousness or awareness is formed in the brain or is outside of the physical world.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Canute
Perhaps you're right. My apologies. But you should not make claims about Buddhism (or anything else) without some understanding of it. It gets people annoyed. Try consistently writing nonsense about science on a science thread and see how civil people are. I was hoping you'd back off, but you kept going.

Anyway, I don't want a row. Just please find a bit out about Buddhism before asserting incorrect things about it. You make it sound ridiculous.

Your apology accepted and please accepts my own contrition for assaulting your own beliefs in Buddhism. I had no conscious intent to annoy anyone in writing 'nonsense' as actually I intentionally plagiarized a small portion of a Buddhist site which laid out some of its religious tenets as proof text.

Probably we all are guilty to some extent of bias towards our own personal beliefs. In an earlier post to which nobody responded, I was espousing my own beliefs in a debate about the accuracy of statistical probabilities in the Hebrew text of the five books of Moses.

Hope we can continue our discussions without animosity.