Well, for my 10000th post I thought to do a little gathering of thoughts.
On the nature of being I guess. I have this phrase stuck in my head, so maybe it's from some other work that I can not remember at this moment.
I hold no desire to the highest truth, so read (if you wish) this text lightly
and with a bit of patience, I like to make my point clearly. Oh, and if you see something you think is said in another book, it's entirely possible, I'm not shy to remember valuable thoughts even if they are not mine. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.


Presumably our universe started with a big bang. It's the best theory we have to this day.
Either way our universe is, and everything that is in it is energy. I think it wouldn't be far off to say that our universe is energy, i.e., the portion of the (multiverse (if it exists)) space that is filled with energy.
Energy itself has been here since the first nanosecond, even earlier, the very first moment of our universe and presumably it existed even before that. I think I wouldn't be wrong if I say that energy is eternal and it can not be destroyed (according to the law of conservation of energy).
Everything we can detect is this energy in many forms and states. One of such states is atoms, which themselves consist of yet smaller particles, but for the ease of this essay I'll refer to them as a state, even if it's not entirely scientifically precise, i.e., the energy that the particles of atoms hold and the forces which hold them together.
So as we see atoms themselves aren't monolithic and of course they can be destroyed, not the energy that they hold though.

Our planet is about 4,6 billion years old and it's a part of the star system that originated some time before that. The atoms which existed then make up everything the Earth is today, minus some minor "pollution" from meteorites and the like.
So that which was lava rivers in the past is the is rocks, mountains and forests of today. People and flowers, cars and plastic bags - everything. So, though the appearance of the outer forms has changed the stuff that makes up everything on this planet hasn't.
I'm drinking green tea at the moment and it's entirely possible that some of the atoms in it were running through the bloodstream of some dinosaur 150 million of years ago. Now they will become a part of my body for some time to be. So, what is I and what is a rock, what was a dinosaur?

The difference between a dead, inanimate thing like a rock and a living thing such as myself is not from what we are made of, because we're all made from the same stuff, i.e., atoms, it's in the complexity that the difference is (I think this thought was said by the cosmologist Max Tegmark).
So the more atoms in a more complex order the more complex the structure that they form. For all we know we are the most complex structures in the universe, we most certainly are the most complex things on this planet, particularly our brain. So, if you cut off my hand and bury it in soil chances are some of it will become a part of some plant next year. If so, then is there really a death as such? Because the 4,6 billion year old atoms stay and new and new animate and inanimate things are formed by them, other humans too. And so these atoms mix and mix, all Earth is like a giant milkshake. And even if the atoms are destroyed the eternal energy remains.

So what is then destroyed with the event which we call death? The disassembling of a structure? So what? It happens all the time, even during when living stuff is alive, the tea I'm drinking, it's a process of reassembling.
Our psyche? It must be it, no? That which we know as a personality, but what is it and if it exists at all, and if it doesn't, can it be destroyed, die?

What is interesting is that atoms have assembled themselves into structures that are able to ponder on their very own origin (said by Sir Martin Rees).
Atoms form our bodies and our brain, our mind is a projection projected by the physical (biochemical, electrical) processes that take place in our bodies, particularly our brain. A projection of a very complex "gathering" of atoms. As I see it, the projection doesn't exist, it's only an illusion, and matter (atoms) and especially the energy of the universe is the real ground.
We can detect the stuff of our brain, neurons, electrical signals, even the EM field of the brain, its activity - that exists.
You think you exist? But what is you?

Upon death nothing is lost because there is nothing to loose, and nothing is gained, because everything already is. How much of that everything we perceive depends on our abilities, awareness of the world around. Maybe that's where nirvanic bliss comes into play - the quality of awareness. The energy can't be destroyed.

Because what in essence is I and You? I am a part of this universe, the energy that is throughout the universe is eternal or at the current expansionary state for an estimated 14 billion years. The atoms which make up my body have been at this particular place of the universe for about 4,6 billion years,
and when I speak - the Earth speaks, and when I see - the universe sees. My eyes are the eyes of the universe and I look at all I can see and everywhere I see myself. I can't draw a line anywhere. It's all one huge mix of atoms, one energy.

And the world around is the same cocktail of which we are a part of, we're connected to everything around by the laws which no one can break, which all are a part of - the laws of nature, the laws of physics.
When a creature dies the projection ends, but only the complexity of the structure changes, nothing really has happened - same atoms, same energy, same Earthstuff remain.
It's as if the film on a cinema screen thought itself to be alive, but it doesn't vanish when the projector is switched off, the film remains in the tape.

There is no death and no birth, it's only an illusion, an error of an imperfect perception.
There is no me and no you, just different manifestations of the same thing.
If you stare long enough in the abyss, the abyss stares back at you (Nietzsche)
I can tell you what I see in the abyss, I see my own eyes staring at me.


So don't be afraid of yourself, know yourself and smile back at the abyss, see, it winks at you.

http://piparmetra.net/ftp/paris_catacombes_bw.jpg

so what dies? you sid it...te persona, which originallyment 'mask'......i didn't hear you mention 'consciousness' in your essay. i believe yu dont justhave mqtter-energy but also consciousness (see Christian de Quincey http://www.deepspirit.com
whereas you can masure matter energy asit has extension in space, you cant measure consciousness as it has no extension in space--as Decartes pointed out. but where de Quincey differs fundamentally with Catesian dualism, is where he suggest that matter-energy and conscioousness are ALWAYS togther, though distinct.....and one is not better than te other as Idealism, and its antitesis, materialism would have it. rathe consciousness is how matter-energy FEELS, ad is in-formed....Alan Watts called matter-energy 'active intelligence'

so consciousness oprates ina kind of 'off on' fashion. check yer blinking now you see it now you dont. check ecstatic exprince where subject may undergo a death/rebirth exprience......asis te case with many NDEs, etc. it i like consciousness recycling itself.......say you lied for a 1000 years. how many memories woul you have....? how many entrenched opinions, prejudices, etc....?
i know some pople much less aged than that who are incredibly narrow minded, pejudical, stuck in a rut, etc....whereas a child aint. a child's more flexible, asare animals. what's that saying 'you cant teach an old dog new tricks'? tho i dontknow if thats entirely true, it illusrates what i mean

theidea of consciousness never dying is absurd. we dont dismiss 'life' and life is only one half of the deal

I never and nowhere stated that the consciousness doesn't die, I also never have stated that the universe is conscious.
Consciousness, as the projection of our brain, doesn't exist, it is nothing, just a projection on a wall. There is nothing there.
Of course this is just my opinion and I require no one to agree with me.

I never and nowhere stated that the consciousness doesn't die,

me::what were you doing tuesday, january 14th 1999?

I also never have stated that the universe is conscious.
Consciousness, as the projection of our brain, doesn't exist, it is nothing, just a projection on a wall. There is nothing there.

me:hope you arent being platonic?

Of course this is just my opinion and I require no one to agree with me.
ok. i'm not

Consciousness, as the projection of our brain, doesn't exist, it is nothing, just a projection on a wall

But that projection is something after all, it's made up of something that "is" not that "isn't".

BTW, congrats on your 10,000 post.

But that projection is something after all
Why should it be?
it's made up of something that "is" not that "isn't"
At the moment I am listening to Icelandic folk music. I hear a melody. Sound waves.
My brain records and analyses these waves, it values them against the information that already is stored in the brain and the electrical responses it gets back relative to the input - like or dislike, loud or quiet, etc.
So, is there required (must we invent) some other higher/seperate being/thing somewhere that listens to the music and likes or dislikes it?
I think not, I think that people say "is" out of wishful thinking.

Again, this is just my opinion.


BTW, congrats on your 10,000 post.
Thanks! Feels like a birthday! :D

I actually can "see" music when I listen to it while others only "hear" it.

Ah, my sister has that condition too (in a mild form). I forgot what it is called.
I saw a program on Discovery about various abnormalities (i.e., out of the normal way of most people) in perception.
There were people who actually tasted words and saw music as colours, etc. Fascinating!
But it too has to do with how our brain works.

Avatar:

There is no death and no birth, it's only an illusion, an error of an imperfect perception.
There is no me and no you, just different manifestations of the same thing.
If you stare long enough in the abyss, the abyss stares back at you (Nietzsche)
I can tell you what I see in the abyss, I see my own eyes staring at me.

Whilst true on many levels, we are seperate on others in a relative sense. Surely you and the rock are not the same thing, no? Nor I and the moon? We're intimately connected, made of the same substance, et cetera, but our relative seperation does exist.

Consciousness, as the projection of our brain, doesn't exist, it is nothing, just a projection on a wall. There is nothing there.
Of course this is just my opinion and I require no one to agree with me.

How doesn't it exist? If you claim that energy exists, and consciousness is perceived in the same way, how can you say consciousness is not something which can arise from energy interactions and such things and thus have a reality on the scale which it forms?

At the moment I am listening to Icelandic folk music. I hear a melody. Sound waves.
My brain records and analyses these waves, it values them against the information that already is stored in the brain and the electrical responses it gets back relative to the input - like or dislike, loud or quiet, etc.
So, is there required (must we invent) some other higher/seperate being/thing somewhere that listens to the music and likes or dislikes it?
I think not, I think that people say "is" out of wishful thinking.

To have a thought, we must have a thinker. To have a feeling, we must have a feeler. If you perceive feeling or perceive thinking, you are the cause of that thought, or are being effected by that feeling. A thought without a thinker would not be known to be a thought, as it impresses itself upon us only through coming from us and being perceived (internally) by us.

The condition is synthesia, by the way.

Surely you and the rock are not the same thing, no?
Depends on the level of depth I look into it really.
If you claim that energy exists, and consciousness is perceived in the same way, how can you say consciousness is not something which can arise from energy interactions and such things and thus have a reality on the scale which it forms?
But does consciousness consist of energy, is it a part of the energy released in the big bang or is it only a projection of that energy, i.e., we tend to make the connection with our mind to see it as a seperate entity, but in reality it is just many brain neurons interacting, making a convincing picture of something whole.

Just like cartoons. You draw it and skip through the pictures very fast, a movement appears. The cartoon character might think it's a seperate entity running forward, while in reality it's just many still images. The movement doesn't exist, laws of physics don't define it, we can have a shoe flying like a flying saucer in a cartoon.

-------
Sorry, I will reply to the last part of your reply some time later, got to run,
be back in five or six hours.

Avatar:

Depends on the level of depth I look into it really.

Yes, but on atleast some levels, they are different, no?

But does consciousness consist of energy, is it a part of the energy released in the big bang or is it only a projection of that energy, i.e., we tend to make the connection with our mind to see it as a seperate entity, but in reality it is just many brain neurons interacting, making a convincing picture of something whole.

Consciousness results from energetic reactions, so surely it is made of energy just like everything else. It seems most definitely to be an emergent property of all those neural interactions.

Just like cartoons. You draw it and skip through the pictures very fast, a movement appears. The cartoon character might think it's a seperate entity running forward, while in reality it's just many still images. The movement doesn't exist, laws of physics don't define it, we can have a shoe flying like a flying saucer in a cartoon.

But is such happening here? We have a mind that is an emergent property of brain interactions which results in a consciousness to perceive things outside us.

Yes, but on atleast some levels, they are different, no?
Does an orange change its' state whether you look on it with a 5x or 10000x zoom?
They look different to my eye, yes, but the object itself and its properties doesn't change.
There is no reason why I should value the information what I receive with my eyes higher than what I get from a subatomic detector.
We could apply the old saying "the beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder", just changing "beauty" with simmilarity.
Of course I see this computer monitor as a seperate thing with my eyes, but with the information my brain has I at the same time know that it's not so seperate as my eyes tell me.
Consciousness results from energetic reactions, so surely it is made of energy just like everything else. It seems most definitely to be an emergent property of all those neural interactions.
I already gave my response to this argument.
..we tend to make the connection with our mind to see it as a seperate entity, but in reality it is just many brain neurons interacting, making a convincing picture of something as a whole.

I.e., my argument is that no consciousness exists, it's just a projection, an illusion.
Brain has no one central computer, it's a distributed network.
But is such happening here? We have a mind that is an emergent property of brain interactions which results in a consciousness to perceive things outside us.
Yes, why not? Just the cartoon character and the artist are one. It draws what it wants and/or can depending on its' ability (talent, skill, creativity, imagination, etc).

We don't need a mind to perceive things outside of us. heliotropism as an example.
More developed, but in principle the same are all the rest of our perceptive organs,
brain just evaluates the information against the information we already have.

Is heliotropism an example of a plant consciousness? I don't know, I'm asking.

My argument is quite simple though, alas it might not seem like one.
And I won't repeat it too many times in different forms, it's tiring. (my head hurts and I don't have any medicine at home).


There is the stuff that our universe is made of: the primary source is energy.
Our universe is energy in different states and the borders of it are the furthest reaches this energy is at.
Our brain is made of this energy, it exists and is indistinguishible from anything else on this level.
With the death a reaarrangment of stuff happens in an atomic level. Our universe has lost nothing.
An individuality is nothing, because it doesn't fall under the laws of nature and the laws of the universe, individuality is an illusion we give an enduring property because it's easier to precieve the world around, but it by no means is an accurate and precise picture. Individualities are just like characters in a dream so to say.

It's how I see it, and I require no one to see reality like me.

What is interesting is that atoms have assembled themselves into structures that are able to ponder on their very own origin

Well thats what's always got me. I have often tried to make sense of how the hell I managed to appear out of almost nowhere. But I am not a seperate entity from the apparent lifeless matter around me which I thought I was for most of my life. All the stuff that came from the big bang is what makes up my conciousness. It makes me wonder of what other universes (or whatever) exist without having a way of being aware of their own existence, because certainly this universe has a way of being concious of it's own existence.

theres a danger tho of belief systems claiming that you as an individual are an illusion. This idea of curse is not new and occursin the
eastern philosophy of the Upanishads, which states that tere is 'true' 'One' from which eerything derives, and the 'Many'--ie., the sense of separate things and being an indiviual is 'Maya', meaning ''illusion'. Why it is dangerous as an imposed belief system is that it undermines an individual's RIGHTS!

which states that tere is 'true' 'One' from which eerything derives, and the 'Many'--ie., the sense of separate things and being an indiviual is 'Maya', meaning ''illusion'.
Well, it seems that according to the laws of physics such is the nature of the universe.
There really is one energy from which everything else derives and is a part of, and we are parts of this universe, we are this universe, this energy.
Why it is dangerous as an imposed belief system is that it undermines an individual's RIGHTS!
Rights are even more illusionous. I'm saying this as a law student.
Oh, and nobody ever imposed me to open a physics book. :D

Avatar:

Does an orange change its' state whether you look on it with a 5x or 10000x zoom?

Nay, but it certainly looks quite different on those levels.

They look different to my eye, yes, but the object itself and its properties doesn't change.

Agreed.

There is no reason why I should value the information what I receive with my eyes higher than what I get from a subatomic detector.

Indeed, but to disregard either is folly.

Of course I see this computer monitor as a seperate thing with my eyes, but with the information my brain has I at the same time know that it's not so seperate as my eyes tell me.

Is not it seperate on some level? Again, you choose to disregard one perception for another, yet you all ready demonstrated that there is no value to cling to either.

I already gave my response to this argument.
..we tend to make the connection with our mind to see it as a seperate entity, but in reality it is just many brain neurons interacting, making a convincing picture of something as a whole.

If the brain neurons fire as a whole, and they produce a "convincing picture", does not this "convincing picture" have a reality, just like the orange which is made up of billions of atoms? Is not the relationship of the atoms a thing there? Just as the relationship of the neural firings?

I.e., my argument is that no consciousness exists, it's just a projection, an illusion.
Brain has no one central computer, it's a distributed network.

Neither does anything, but does not such "centrality" exist as a whole?

Yes, why not? Just the cartoon character and the artist are one. It draws what it wants and/or can depending on its' ability (talent, skill, creativity, imagination, etc).

There is no "paper" of reality "flipping back".

We don't need a mind to perceive things outside of us. heliotropism as an example.

Considering there is very little difference betwixt heliotropism and sense, one might well argue that it is part of the plant mind. In fact, it could be analogous to a plant's sight, considering it reacts similarly to how photons react on our eyes.

More developed, but in principle the same are all the rest of our perceptive organs,
brain just evaluates the information against the information we already have.

Is not this the nature of mind and thought?

Is heliotropism an example of a plant consciousness? I don't know, I'm asking.

I would argue: Yes.

There is the stuff that our universe is made of: the primary source is energy.

Agreed.

Our universe is energy in different states and the borders of it are the furthest reaches this energy is at.

Partially agree. I would argue that energy extends infinitely, above and beyond the universe. But this is immaterial to our argument.

Our brain is made of this energy, it exists and is indistinguishible from anything else on this level.

Granted.

With the death a reaarrangment of stuff happens in an atomic level. Our universe has lost nothing.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

An individuality is nothing, because it doesn't fall under the laws of nature and the laws of the universe, individuality is an illusion we give an enduring property because it's easier to precieve the world around, but it by no means is an accurate and precise picture. Individualities are just like characters in a dream so to say.

Completely disagree. You are prejudicially placing the infinitely small as more important than the infinitely large. It is said that we all emerge from the natural laws of reality, that one could indeed think of all possibilities as a seed waiting to flower. If we hold this inherent place even when unmanifest, then in what way are the macroscopic forms less integral to the universe than the quantum?

KennyJC:

Well thats what's always got me. I have often tried to make sense of how the hell I managed to appear out of almost nowhere. But I am not a seperate entity from the apparent lifeless matter around me which I thought I was for most of my life. All the stuff that came from the big bang is what makes up my conciousness. It makes me wonder of what other universes (or whatever) exist without having a way of being aware of their own existence, because certainly this universe has a way of being concious of it's own existence.

In what way is the universe "conscious of its own existence"?

duendy:

theres a danger tho of belief systems claiming that you as an individual are an illusion. This idea of curse is not new and occursin the
eastern philosophy of the Upanishads, which states that tere is 'true' 'One' from which eerything derives, and the 'Many'--ie., the sense of separate things and being an indiviual is 'Maya', meaning ''illusion'. Why it is dangerous as an imposed belief system is that it undermines an individual's RIGHTS!

There are no rights. "Right" is a made up concept. All things in life are fought for. A right implies a sacred, inalienable thing, which is foreign to man and nature.

Indeed, but to disregard either is folly.
I agree with this and it was not my intention to seem like I'm disregarding some facts, I am not,
here's why I think that the macro level is less important.
An illustration for an example: There are two mice (seperate beings) running in a limited multi-d cage, space (our universe), yet under an electronic microscope we can see that they are connected with long nanowires which have been melted into their flesh and into the walls of the cage.
Now, the mice look completely seperated to a naked eye, they run around, etc, but in reality they are connected with themselves and the cage, they can not leave it and they also affect each others' motions.

We don't experience how our gravity affects the a needle, because the interaction is just too small and our planet is overwhelming it, but it is there.

What we see under a microscope does not cancel out what we see with the naked eye, but what we see with a naked eye does not cancel out the micro/nano/etc view too, i.e.,
we see two things as seperate and non-interacting what in reality can be seen connected in a smaller level, the latter level does not dissapear.

------
I'll try to answer other of your points in a few hours, lectures, got to run again

In what way is the universe "conscious of its own existence"?
KennyJC will correct me if I'm wrong.
We are this universe and being a part of it we with our conscious mind perceive the world around and in us, i.e., perceive our universe - us ourselves. We're matter and energy of the universe that has come alive.

If the brain neurons fire as a whole, and they produce a "convincing picture", does not this "convincing picture" have a reality, just like the orange which is made up of billions of atoms? Is not the relationship of the atoms a thing there? Just as the relationship of the neural firings?
Could be.

There is no "paper" of reality "flipping back".

The paper of reality in this case is our multi-d space.


Neither does anything, but does not such "centrality" exist as a whole?
I think there are a few centres of consciousness (for people) interacting.
awake consciousness, subconsciousness, instincts (nervous memory), dreamstate consciousness.
I would argue: Yes.
ok, I think so too, it's a form of plant consciousness.
But in the physical universe it does not exist, only the motor cells that are specialized in pumping potassium ions into nearby tissues. Right?

My idea is that consciousness is like a physical body of a dream character (note: I'm not messing in here or relating to hinduism!), i.e., it is real as a dreamthing, it has a body in dream and it can do stuff with that body and it has risen from the interactions of brain neurons, but it has no physical (any state) structure in the universe therefore it does not exist, it's imagination.

But... you gave me a though, I have to think about it. What exactly is the information that is stored in the conscious brain, plant, nervous system (genetically given to offspring - instincts)...
I'm not that good in neurology..

In a hard disk (brain) exist 1s and 0s (interactions of neurons) binary code. In both cases it's information. So, is it information as it is, i.e., 1s and 0s, or it becomes information only when it's interpreted by the operating system (consciousness)?

This example isn't very good though, brain works as a quantum computer.

With the death a reaarrangment of stuff happens in an atomic level. Our universe has lost nothing.
Agreed wholeheartedly.

So if the universe has lost nothing, was there anything in the first place?
Is consciousness a thing outside our universe?
Is a projection (interaction of pictures and light) on a screen outside our universe?

Well, it seems that according to the laws of physics such is the nature of the universe.
There really is one energy from which everything else derives and is a part of, and we are parts of this universe, we are this universe, this energy.

me::yes agreed....AND your OWN EXPERIENCE is showing yu as an individual. the oter is conjecture. an abstrract. which staes that your individuality is 'illusion'. do you see whati a saying? when you get idea-o-logies that state that 'you' are lesser tan an 'abstraction', beit 'God', the 'One', the State, Chairman Mao, etc etc, then tat ideology is fascist, and ignores the rights of the individual. the mindset argues that really 'you' are an illusion. and the real is the abstraction. althoug in reality it i a mere concept that is set apart--ie., abstracted from a whole dynamic process

Rights are even more illusionous. I'm saying this as a law student.

me::why are you a law student? you want power, right?

Oh, and nobody ever imposed me to open a physics book. :D
no. but yo seem to have said it is exact 'law' though dont you?

yes agreed....AND your OWN EXPERIENCE is showing yu as an individual. the oter is conjecture. an abstrract. which staes that your individuality is 'illusion'. do you see whati a saying? when you get idea-o-logies that state that 'you' are lesser tan an 'abstraction', beit 'God', the 'One', the State, Chairman Mao, etc etc, then tat ideology is fascist, and ignores the rights of the individual. the mindset argues that really 'you' are an illusion. and the real is the abstraction. althoug in reality it i a mere concept that is set apart--ie., abstracted from a whole dynamic process
Rights of the individual have nothing to do with the physical reality, rights are just ideas that those in power impose on others.
Human is no lesser and no greater than a flower, a part of this universe, is this universe.
All the rest what we think of ourselves is just our imagination and wishful thinking.
Individuality is just a unique way a brain interprets data, and because there are many brains we think each has some special value. The value is just in our heads, to the laws of nature it's all the same - nothing.
why are you a law student? you want power, right?
Nah, creative work process with logic and wit as the main tools.
no. but yo seem to have said it is exact 'law' though dont you?
It is no one seperate law, but you only have to put 1+1 together.
That's the problem nowadays really, we have data, we have information, but few are aware what it means and what the consequences are.

Hey, on a bit of an emotional note, does anyone want a nice song about our topic by Current 93? :)
If anyone wants it, email me (address visible in my profile) your email address, so I can re the song to you (7,4mb).

Rights of the individual have nothing to do with the physical reality, rights are just ideas that those
in power impose on others.

me::dont agree at all. and your attitudes reveal the philosophy i am warning about. An individual DOES have rights as a human being. Those in power do not bckindividual rights. are ya maaad? jeezus yu to them are cannon fodder for their wars---are a worker slavin away for the GNP---a person who is a statistic. powers hve never chmpioned the rights of the individual. you are showing much naiveity if you think this. te STATE pretends to, especially in te so-called 'free' world. but it is a sham. the war on drugs should tell you this in big flashin neon!

Human is no lesser and no greater than a flower, a part of this universe, is this universe.

me::yes, and as plants and all Nature hasrights, so should the person. you know you can also have fascistic mindsets which set Nature abover the individal too. such as Nazi Germany. there rathe has to be both

All the rest what we think of ourselves is just our imagination and wishful thinking.
Individuality is just a unique way a brain interprets data, and because there are many brains we think each has some special value. The value is just in our heads, to the laws of nature it's all the same - nothing.

me::but as i keep saying..the 'laws of nature' is just a concept--an abstraction you have conjured up. THAT becomes all, and beliving it you dismiss indivdual rigthts. its a carry on patern where an abstract is put up there beit 'God', 'Energy', the 'One', the 'People', the 'Gross National Profit@, etc.....and the individual then becomes the subject. the exploited subject wit lesserand lesser rghts......hmmmmm, dont want you as MY lawyer dude

Nah, creative work process with logic and wit as the main tools.

me::we more need FEELING

It is no one seperate law, but you only have to put 1+1 together.
That's the problem nowadays really, we have data, we have information, but few are aware what it means and what the consequences are.
because they have lost their soul/feeling!

dont agree at all. and your attitudes reveal the philosophy i am warning about. An individual DOES have rights as a human being
Only those rights given by other human beings AND ius naturale, i.e., the right to be alive and not a slave.
You travel to another planet and they have no concept of property and all the aliens laugh at your idea and point fingers, it's just that, an idea that's accepted as obligatory to some extent.
This is not a topic on politics, so stop messing them in. Black holes don't give a shit about your right to live.
as i keep saying..the 'laws of nature' is just a concept--an abstraction you have conjured up
It is not!! That's absurd! Gravity is one such a law and you obey it whether you like it or not.
Another law of nature for example is the cosmological constant, another one is the speed of light, etc, etc, ad infinitum
THAT becomes all, and beliving it you dismiss indivdual rigthts. its a carry on patern where an abstract is put up there beit 'God', 'Energy', the 'One', the 'People', the 'Gross National Profit@, etc.....and the individual then becomes the subject. the exploited subject wit lesserand lesser rghts......hmmmmm, dont want you as MY lawyer dude
Yes, individual is nothing in the face of the universe, indistinguishable from all the rest of the existance.
And I don't believe, I know. It's hard fact physics.

Only those rights given by other human beings AND ius naturale, i.e., the right to be alive and not a slave.

me::but we ARE slaves. hadn't you noticed? and the power elite's propaganda machine is so clever not many even know theyare. yet you seem to feel the same power elite fight for individual rights. i think you have done to much 'critical thinking' indoctrination classes under the professor whathis name.

You travel to another planet and they have no concept of property and all the aliens laugh at your idea and point fingers, it's just that, an idea that's accepted as obligatory to some extent.

me::errr pardon moi? what do you mean? aiens? have you personally been to another planet?

This is not a topic on politics, so stop messing them in. Black holes don't give a shit about your right to live.

me::hah, this from you who suddenly brings into te debate aout aliens pointing fingers.....actually i dont mind, cuase i see the limitations of spcialized thiniing. actually all issues interelate. we need to approach problems in an interdisciplnary way!

It is not!! That's absurd! Gravity is one such a law and you obey it whether you like it or not.

me::gravity is just is. you dont HAVE to obey it, i is how things are. you ant grow two heads delibrately. thats another one. we are aware of this. what i am reather saying i is that IF you create an abstraction of the 'laws of Nature' then you create someting that can become static. just like happened in classical science. just as is happening now wit psitivist scince, and the iea we are merely biological MACHINES who wehn 'broke down' can be fixed by the States 'meds'. ....yo wt me. we have to be very careful what we mean by 'laws' of Nature, and not allow people to impose teir INTERPRETATION of such a 'law' which will impinge on our individual rights as individuals. we also are Nature!

Another law of nature for example is the cosmological constant, another one is the speed of light, etc, etc, ad infinitum

me::laws are to be broken. go ask a modern physicist about classical science. more so though...seeing previous 'laws' being LIMITED

Yes, individual is nothing in the face of the universe, indistinguishable from all the rest of the existance.
And I don't believe, I know. It's hard fact physics.

hah...had fact. i distrust 'facts' ...facts are cold hard static affiars witout any feelings. Charles Dickens knows tis. one of his charaters who represented te cold hard grin Industrial Revolution in 'Hard Times' was 'Mr Gradgrind'...and te book staets with him demanding 'facts facts facts'.....!!!

but we ARE slaves. hadn't you noticed? and the power elite's propaganda machine is so clever not many even know theyare. yet you seem to feel the same power elite fight for individual rights. i think you have done to much 'critical thinking' indoctrination classes under the professor whathis name.
Oh, and how exactly I am a slave? I'm a free thinking person plotting my own plots and working towards the goals I wish to walk to in this grand theatre play of reality.
I like to live, but nothing bad will happen when I die. C'est la vie, I have no problems with that.
errr pardon moi? what do you mean? aiens? have you personally been to another planet?
It's an example, a picture showing that rights are just in our heads.
hah, this from you who suddenly brings into te debate aout aliens pointing fingers
A response to your argument.
gravity is just is. you dont HAVE to obey it, i is how things are.
I have and I must, there can't be any other way, it's a law of nature and I'm a part of it.
The laws of nature == the laws of the universe
No one can create a law of nature.
laws are to be broken. go ask a modern physicist about classical science. more so though...seeing previous 'laws' being LIMITED
Laws of nature can not be broken, it's just that the previous knowledge of the natural world was not complete, so a better theory that explains the law better is made.
hah...had fact. i distrust 'facts' ...facts are cold hard static affiars witout any feelings.
Well, that's your problem then. Try feeling the properties of the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. :p

Oh, and how exactly I am a slave? I'm a free thinking person plotting my own plots and working towards the goals I wish to walk to in this grand theatre play of reality.

me:well i can see your education's made you think individuals dont need rights. thats one!

I like to live, but nothing bad will happen when I die. C'est la vie, I have no problems with that.

me::smug. thats 2

It's an example, a picture showing that rights are just in our heads.

me:about the alien analogy? ok. i grow aome cannabis plants in my garden or house. next minute 6 iniformed police thugs are pulling myplants out of the garden, and/or bashing my door in and takin the plants. then i am threatened with jail for growin natrual plants. now please tell me here ...where are my individual rights? all in my head?

A response to your argument.

I have and I must, there can't be any other way, it's a law of nature and I'm a part of it.
The laws of nature == the laws of the universe
No one can create a law of nature.

me::yesnthey can if they are devious, and use a 'law' to take away individual rights. for example, the 'law' tat positvist science states--that Nature is mechanical. and thus we must obey their interpretation ofit

Laws of nature can not be broken, it's just that the previous knowledge of the natural world was not complete, so a better theory that explains the law better is made.

me::how do you know what WE knowof the 'laws' of Nature is complete?

Well, that's your problem then. Try feeling the properties of the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. :p
ok then...i'm off to do it right NOW. if you dont hear from me again you know what happened

about the alien analogy? ok. i grow aome cannabis plants in my garden or house. next minute 6 iniformed police thugs are pulling myplants out of the garden, and/or bashing my door in and takin the plants. then i am threatened with jail for growin natrual plants. now please tell me here ...where are my individual rights? all in my head?

In the heads of the majority or the most powerful ones.
-that Nature is mechanical. and thus we must obey their interpretation ofit
Please try disobeying the law of gravity. I'd like to see you crash with your head in the Moon. :p
how do you know what WE knowof the 'laws' of Nature is complete?
Some are pretty well known and proven, like e=mc2, some are not. The cosmological constant is known and that's it with it, just as the value for the free fall acceleration.
My starting post is not based on any unknowns.

p.s. I won't reply to any more of your offtopic political posts about rights, etc., they have nothing to do with the laws of physics. If you dislike that, go and cry in a corner.
And please stop polluting this thread with your legal problems.

In the heads of the majority or the most powerful ones.

me::what the heck are you goin on about now? i asked you a straight question. if i cannot grow A flippin plant, do i have individual rights? i dont have to wait for your 'critical thunk' reply. the answer is N.O. goddit?

Please try disobeying the law of gravity. I'd like to see you crash with your head in the Moon. :p

me::oh do you not understand?tought you could think. i am on about how science will INTERPRETwhat is a 'law' o Nature. you are confusing the two

Some are pretty well known and proven, like e=mc2, some are not. The cosmological constant is known and that's it with it, just as the value for the free fall acceleration.

m::but as i say. it MAY be seen to be limited in the future. who knows?

My starting post is not based on any unknowns.

me::oh yeah?

p.s. I won't reply to any more of your offtopic political posts about rights, etc., they have nothing to do with the laws of physics. If you dislike that, go and cry in a corner.

me::you wont cause yu love o specialize. typical academic. andthats why if yer brains were dynamite they wouldn't blow yer follicles off......and also why noting radically changes when such as you believe yourselves so superior and to be leaders of men

And please stop polluting this thread with your legal problems.

you silly boy. just cause you have posted 10,ooo inane posts dont make you king of the sifjorums you know. or intellifent,wich yo aint

anyway with pleasure. i find you totally up your arse. yo dont even know when you abuse people, but blame it on them. really fits in with your philosophy about there not being any such thing as human rights does that!

Avatar:


I agree with this and it was not my intention to seem like I'm disregarding some facts, I am not,
here's why I think that the macro level is less important.
An illustration for an example: There are two mice (seperate beings) running in a limited multi-d cage, space (our universe), yet under an electronic microscope we can see that they are connected with long nanowires which have been melted into their flesh and into the walls of the cage.
Now, the mice look completely seperated to a naked eye, they run around, etc, but in reality they are connected with themselves and the cage, they can not leave it and they also affect each others' motions.

We don't experience how our gravity affects the a needle, because the interaction is just too small and our planet is overwhelming it, but it is there.

What we see under a microscope does not cancel out what we see with the naked eye, but what we see with a naked eye does not cancel out the micro/nano/etc view too, i.e.,
we see two things as seperate and non-interacting what in reality can be seen connected in a smaller level, the latter level does not dissapear.

But if the macrolevel in either does not exist, there'd be nothing to affect. No needle, no gravity; no mice, no nanowires. Moreover, gravity itself is a force that grows more important and more important the more macroscopic (atleast mass wise) a thing is.

KennyJC will correct me if I'm wrong.
We are this universe and being a part of it we with our conscious mind perceive the world around and in us, i.e., perceive our universe - us ourselves. We're matter and energy of the universe that has come alive.

So it would be better to say "part of the universe is conscious", nay?

The paper of reality in this case is our multi-d space.

Do dimensions have physical existence?

I think there are a few centres of consciousness (for people) interacting.
awake consciousness, subconsciousness, instincts (nervous memory), dreamstate consciousness.

Do not they generally interact as part of a larger mind?

ok, I think so too, it's a form of plant consciousness.
But in the physical universe it does not exist, only the motor cells that are specialized in pumping potassium ions into nearby tissues. Right?

Ask yourself this: What is thought but awareness and recollection of sensory stimulus or inference from the senses?

My idea is that consciousness is like a physical body of a dream character (note: I'm not messing in here or relating to hinduism!), i.e., it is real as a dreamthing, it has a body in dream and it can do stuff with that body and it has risen from the interactions of brain neurons, but it has no physical (any state) structure in the universe therefore it does not exist, it's imagination.

Tell me, are not even subatomic particles made of another thing? Are they "imaginary" because of this? Nothing is a whole in and of itself. Nothing is indivisible. The interaction of neurons in a relationship is completely analogous to the quarks that make up the atom, or the cells that make up our body.

But... you gave me a though, I have to think about it. What exactly is the information that is stored in the conscious brain, plant, nervous system (genetically given to offspring - instincts)...
I'm not that good in neurology..

It is something very interesting, isn't it?

In a hard disk (brain) exist 1s and 0s (interactions of neurons) binary code. In both cases it's information. So, is it information as it is, i.e., 1s and 0s, or it becomes information only when it's interpreted by the operating system (consciousness)?

This example isn't very good though, brain works as a quantum computer.

How does it act like a quantum computer? Do you mean -litterally-? Or do you mean in an analogous manner?

But as to the question of whether or not it is information before or after it is consciously interpreted as such, that is an interesting question. I have concluded that sensory information is not sensory information unless consciously perceived, so information may not be information without consciousness to interpret it.

So if the universe has lost nothing, was there anything in the first place?
Is consciousness a thing outside our universe?
Is a projection (interaction of pictures and light) on a screen outside our universe?

Consciousness and projection are surely not outside our universe, but one must also consider that though atomically, or energetically, nothing was lost, macroscopically something -was-. The death of a bird may mean nothing to the Conservation of Energy, but that bird is dead.

I shall respond to the rest of this stuff later. I have stuff to attend to, also.

Darn, again I don't have enough time to answer it all. What's your GMT timezone? :)

But if the macrolevel in either does not exist, there'd be nothing to affect.
Well, presumably all that is in our universe has the ability to interract through some forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

So it would be better to say "part of the universe is conscious", nay?
So we're here back to my old argument that the microlevel links don't dissapear on macro level.
A part that is a part of a united thing, essentially everything is one energy that has been expanding and transforming since the big bang.
We can just stop here and agree that we have different perception of the aspects of the physical reality.
It's not that I agree or disagree, it's more like you see blue and I see red and we both try to persuade each other that the blue is red and the red is blue. I'm afraid it's futile for both sides. Sorry.
It's just that I know and feel a straw of grass being as much a part of myself as my finger. Honest! Maybe it's a medical condition. (laughs)

Do dimensions have physical existence?
Well according to the M-theory (which has yet to be proven right or wrong, but it's a physics theory not an assumption) the 11th dimension runs through every point in the universe like a long tube, it's just very small and we do not notice it. Other dimensions have simmilar properties, i.e., they're very, very small if observed from a 3+1D space.
I'd say that the physical existence exists in dimensions.

Do not they generally interact as part of a larger mind?
My experience and knowledge is that they're quite seperate. Affect (sp) is an example, when persons conscious mind completely switches off and there is no interacton, a person acts only guided by nervous wiring, instincts. It has no use and doesn't use the conscious mind. At least I think it is so.
What is thought but awareness and recollection of sensory stimulus or inference from the senses?
Can you please rephrase this? I'm generally good in english, but.. I understand the words, but not the meaning. Maybe another grammar structure? Thanks!

I'll return to our discussion tomorrow.
I'd like to get to the bottom of this.
Cheers!

Darn.. have to complete work, but noticed this question/argument. :D
Tell me, are not even subatomic particles made of another thing? Are they "imaginary" because of this? Nothing is a whole in and of itself. Nothing is indivisible. The interaction of neurons in a relationship is completely analogous to the quarks that make up the atom, or the cells that make up our body.
No, they are not imaginary, and I understand the analogy you're pointing at. I have two problems with it:
1. In physical reality every next step can be detected one way or another. We can detect a particle, a quark, atom, molecule etc., but can we detect consciousness?
We can detect heliotropism as a physical/biological process, but the interpretation that it is a form of consciousness we give freely from ourselves, we don't have a detector that says: aha! that's consciousness, consciousness doesn't interact, but it exists as a concept. Please point out my error (if there are such) in this.
2. Because of the property of our universe that everything can be devided to the primary energy I don't see the importance of anything above the existance of that primary level.
But I guess that's very subjective. :m:

Duendy:

Back up your notion of rights. Present the objective proof that anything has a right.

Avatar:

I'm in New York, so that's -5 GMT.

Well, presumably all that is in our universe has the ability to interract through some forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, but if the mice did not exist, would they be able to be connected to the cage?

So we're here back to my old argument that the microlevel links don't dissapear on macro level.
A part that is a part of a united thing, essentially everything is one energy that has been expanding and transforming since the big bang.
We can just stop here and agree that we have different perception of the aspects of the physical reality.
It's not that I agree or disagree, it's more like you see blue and I see red and we both try to persuade each other that the blue is red and the red is blue. I'm afraid it's futile for both sides. Sorry.
It's just that I know and feel a straw of grass being as much a part of myself as my finger. Honest! Maybe it's a medical condition. (laughs)

So then, you are aware of that blade of grass before you see it or touch it? You can tell me what is happening to that blade of grass right now? Moreover, we must also considered the ontion of limits. Consciousness only arises in animate beings, and does not seem to be present in other things at all. For instance, is there a consciousness of the milkway simply because there are billions of beings within it (here on Earth and perhaps elsewhere) that have consciousness?

Well according to the M-theory (which has yet to be proven right or wrong, but it's a physics theory not an assumption) the 11th dimension runs through every point in the universe like a long tube, it's just very small and we do not notice it. Other dimensions have simmilar properties, i.e., they're very, very small if observed from a 3+1D space.
I'd say that the physical existence exists in dimensions.

The problem with ascribing dimensions actual physical existence, is that we've never seen a two dimensional object, nor a one dimensional, or zero dimensional object, nor is it likely we ever will, considering a two dimensional object would have have zero depth.

My experience and knowledge is that they're quite seperate. Affect (sp) is an example, when persons conscious mind completely switches off and there is no interacton, a person acts only guided by nervous wiring, instincts. It has no use and doesn't use the conscious mind. At least I think it is so.

When does this ever happen? And under normal situations, do not the consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness work together in various ways?

Can you please rephrase this? I'm generally good in english, but.. I understand the words, but not the meaning. Maybe another grammar structure? Thanks!

My theory of Empiricism: All thoughts are sensory recollection or inference from the senses. Examples:

A particular tree (sensory recollection)
A centaur (inference from the senses combining a man with a horse)

1. In physical reality every next step can be detected one way or another. We can detect a particle, a quark, atom, molecule etc., but can we detect consciousness?

We certainly see how consciousness interacts with things, no? We certainly experience consciousness, yes? There was a time when atoms could not be detected, perhaps our incapacity to pin down consciousness is similar to that: Technological incapacity.

We can detect heliotropism as a physical/biological process, but the interpretation that it is a form of consciousness we give freely from ourselves, we don't have a detector that says: aha! that's consciousness, consciousness doesn't interact, but it exists as a concept. Please point out my error (if there are such) in this.

We'll deal with this under my Empiricism argument. But I will also note this: Do not we, as humans, experience consciousness first hand? Right now, I am looking at a screen, typing my thoughts, et cetera, what else is this but experiencing and working with consciousness?

2. Because of the property of our universe that everything can be devided to the primary energy I don't see the importance of anything above the existance of that primary level.

Let me ask you this: Are electromagnetism and gravity the same force?

How does it act like a quantum computer? Do you mean -litterally-? Or do you mean in an analogous manner?
By simulating the brain as a quantum computer it seems we are capable of obtaining a more accurate picture than if we simulate the brain as a classical, digital computer. I don't know the details, but that has been the conclusion of many papers on this subject.
On quantum computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

The death of a bird may mean nothing to the Conservation of Energy, but that bird is dead.
The consciousness of the bird is no more (if it existed in the first place), the bird is not gone as its' atomic mass and energetical value remains. This is my view. That the bird is nothing more than this gathering of atoms. Everything else is about how these atoms are put together. I tend to see the world with atomic level glasses on. :rolleyes:
Let's not argue about this, simply different views. Any other reader at this point can decide for himself which view he or she finds more valid.

I'm in New York, so that's -5 GMT.
7 hours then


Yes, but if the mice did not exist, would they be able to be connected to the cage?
No. What makes mouse a mouse? Would a mouse (body) with a consciousness of a t-rex still be mouse?
Sorry if this sounds overly philosophical, but I think this has to be made clear in this topic.
What is your view?
later edit: I don't think that a mouse can even have a consciousness of a t-rex simply because the brain of a t-rext is different.
But if we put a brain of a pigeon into a body of another simmilar size bird... hmm


So then, you are aware of that blade of grass before you see it or touch it? You can tell me what is happening to that blade of grass right now? Moreover, we must also considered the ontion of limits. Consciousness only arises in animate beings, and does not seem to be present in other things at all. For instance, is there a consciousness of the milkway simply because there are billions of beings within it (here on Earth and perhaps elsewhere) that have consciousness?
Ah, this has to do with my mindworks really - thinking process. No, I don't feel it as myself when I don't see it, but when I do, I have an input (blade of grass), then my brain applies the information stored in it to interpret the input, i.e., identification. Because of the views and facts put forward in this thread my brain does the connection leap back to the one energy -> big bang -> star formation -> proceses the heavier elements are made -> "birth" of the solar system, planet Earth -> life -> myself + blade of grass == path to the end of the chain. With this data my brain creates a virtual, non sensory, but itellectual emotion/sensation that I'm the same thing as the blade of the grass. Quite messed up, no?

The problem with ascribing dimensions actual physical existence, is that we've never seen a two dimensional object, nor a one dimensional, or zero dimensional object, nor is it likely we ever will, considering a two dimensional object would have have zero depth.
Wouldn't a simple drawing on a piece of paper be a two dimensional object?

When does this ever happen? And under normal situations, do not the consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness work together in various ways?
Situations of extreme stress, when the brain is not able to functioin properly. This is rare and I mentioned it only to show that not always consciousness interacts with the different levels of it, but yes, daily and generally that is not the case, then they interact.

We certainly see how consciousness interacts with things, no? We certainly experience consciousness, yes?
"I think therefore I am" comes to mind. I can prove it only to myself. To you, well, this text could be written by an infinite number of monkeys or a few people which don't form one united consciousness.
The problem is with the objective proof as I see it. If my brainwave activity would be monitored, the scientists would see how my brain interacts with input or other signals, it sees the data flow, it can interpret it, but it doesn't see/hear/whatever my thoughts. Many times I'm not aware of them myself (when subconsciousness performs some tasks and I get only the output).
We experience something, but we (at lest I) are not sure what exactly it is.
As an illustration, let's say that the mind is Earth (a planet). We know the diameter of it and we have charted the outlines of continents and have maps of our own continent, but the rest is mostly uncharted territory. I mean, do you know how exactly data is written in our (and other animal) nervous wiring (instincts)? I have no idea! And from the information I have, most scientists have no idea too.
There was a time when atoms could not be detected, perhaps our incapacity to pin down consciousness is similar to that: Technological incapacity.
That could really be the case.

But I will also note this: Do not we, as humans, experience consciousness first hand? Right now, I am looking at a screen, typing my thoughts, et cetera, what else is this but experiencing and working with consciousness?
See above, we can't detect it. Maybe it exists in more than 3+1d. Maybe it can't be detected because it doesn't exist and we automatically presume it exists just as we presume that a table has legs even if we don't see the legs, i.e., it is how our human mind perceives ourselves.
For example most humans strongly believe that there exists a creator of the universe just becase in their mind they think (know even!) that everything must be created and that creation can be only a work of a creator and they can't think any different, i.e., that's a fallacy and a limitation of our mind maybe wired in the very structure of our brain and how it deals with information.
And as we through generations become smarter and more and more know our mind it evolves and adjust to a different thinking process, low level structure of the brain changes.
Of course, this is only an assumption.
Are electromagnetism and gravity the same force?
No (according to my knowledge)

I've got one question about the nature of information.
Does information not exist during the time when there is noone to read it.
An example: we create a data disc and with it we put instructions how to be able to read it.
Human race vanishes and there is noone else in the universe.
Then an alien race appears, evolves, and eventually gets and reads our data disc.
It seems that the information gets only its' property of being information when there is someone to interpret it or it only is information when someone has interpreted it and that information stays with the interpreter.

It seems that our consciousness is not the data intself, but the process that operates with the data,
and storage is a seperate thing. It's a process because it's not the neurons themselves, but the interactions of neurons that make up thoughts (conscious, subconscious, etc).
So here's a question for me to think on: is process as such a physcial thing.
An illustration: I'm throwing a ball from one hand to another, both hands and the ball exist as physical structures, but the process of "throw".. it has no real physical footprint. "Throw" doesn't exist as a thing, it's only a concept that my mind gives to the (inter)action.

What are your thoughts?

Cheers!

Let me ask you this: Are electromagnetism and gravity the same force?

yes.

Avatar:

By simulating the brain as a quantum computer it seems we are capable of obtaining a more accurate picture than if we simulate the brain as a classical, digital computer. I don't know the details, but that has been the conclusion of many papers on this subject.
On quantum computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing

Quantum Consciousness is still -really- debated. It is interesting on some levels, but we also must consider how different the brain is from all sorts of computers at all. I look forward to a lot more information.

The consciousness of the bird is no more (if it existed in the first place), the bird is not gone as its' atomic mass and energetical value remains. This is my view. That the bird is nothing more than this gathering of atoms. Everything else is about how these atoms are put together. I tend to see the world with atomic level glasses on.
Let's not argue about this, simply different views. Any other reader at this point can decide for himself which view he or she finds more valid.

Okay, let me ask you this: Suppose the bird is - and we're just supposing here, as I have no clue of the atomic composition, in exact percentages, of the bird - 50 percent hydrogen, 25 percent oxygen, 23 percent carbon, and 2 percent sundry elements such as calcium, potassium, sodium, sulphur, iron, et cetera. Now, suppose I were to weigh said bird and then get the exact same amount of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and the others and plopped them down on the table. Would we have a bird?

This is not simply argument for the sake of argument, but because I think you are not taking into consideration the fundemental problems with viewing things simply through atoms. This is not even taking into consideration the enviromental conditions which would determine the state of matter these things are in, or the prevalence of the organic compounds in the body, or those further connections into organelles...

No. What makes mouse a mouse? Would a mouse (body) with a consciousness of a t-rex still be mouse?

No. The creature would be different, neither mouse nor tyrannosaurus-rex. Of course, this is an impossibility, but it is an interesting hypothetical.

later edit: I don't think that a mouse can even have a consciousness of a t-rex simply because the brain of a t-rext is different.
But if we put a brain of a pigeon into a body of another simmilar size bird... hmm

Well, either way you're going to have massive problems. But yes, I most definitely would point towards brain differences.

Ah, this has to do with my mindworks really - thinking process. No, I don't feel it as myself when I don't see it, but when I do, I have an input (blade of grass), then my brain applies the information stored in it to interpret the input, i.e., identification. Because of the views and facts put forward in this thread my brain does the connection leap back to the one energy -> big bang -> star formation -> proceses the heavier elements are made -> "birth" of the solar system, planet Earth -> life -> myself + blade of grass == path to the end of the chain. With this data my brain creates a virtual, non sensory, but itellectual emotion/sensation that I'm the same thing as the blade of the grass. Quite messed up, no?

Ah, so you don't mean you -litterally- are apart of the blade of grass, but go all the way back to the dawn of time, blahblahblah, yes. Okay, understandable. It isn't necessarily messed up, but I do think, as I have noted elsewhere, it is a bit inappropriate.

Wouldn't a simple drawing on a piece of paper be a two dimensional object?

Only in a -very- relative sense. In fact, it is -infinitely- away from being a two dimensional object.

Situations of extreme stress, when the brain is not able to functioin properly. This is rare and I mentioned it only to show that not always consciousness interacts with the different levels of it, but yes, daily and generally that is not the case, then they interact.

I don't think it is inappropriate to allow, at sometimes, the unconscious mind to overtake the main capacity of controlling the body, but even then, I imagine the conscious mind plays a subordinated role, as well as the subconscious. The brain is interconnected, as is the body.

"I think therefore I am" comes to mind. I can prove it only to myself. To you, well, this text could be written by an infinite number of monkeys or a few people which don't form one united consciousness.

Granted, yes.

The problem is with the objective proof as I see it. If my brainwave activity would be monitored, the scientists would see how my brain interacts with input or other signals, it sees the data flow, it can interpret it, but it doesn't see/hear/whatever my thoughts. Many times I'm not aware of them myself (when subconsciousness performs some tasks and I get only the output).

The problem may be due to two things: 1. Technological limitation. 2. Wrong method. There is also the -much- less likely third option of an immaterial mind, which isn't that defensible right now, although I would say consciousness warrants great investigation.

We experience something, but we (at lest I) are not sure what exactly it is.
As an illustration, let's say that the mind is Earth (a planet). We know the diameter of it and we have charted the outlines of continents and have maps of our own continent, but the rest is mostly uncharted territory. I mean, do you know how exactly data is written in our (and other animal) nervous wiring (instincts)? I have no idea! And from the information I have, most scientists have no idea too.

I agree. We need a lot more empirical study of the brain. It's -sorely- worthwhile.

See above, we can't detect it. Maybe it exists in more than 3+1d. Maybe it can't be detected because it doesn't exist and we automatically presume it exists just as we presume that a table has legs even if we don't see the legs, i.e., it is how our human mind perceives ourselves.

In general, it takes a -great- deal of evidence to suggest that plain evidence is not correct. Something as intimate at the perception of consciousness that we ourselves work with every day, would require enormous amounts of evidence to suggest it doesn't exist, precisely because of the proof you and I are offering right at this moment of speaking. Also, if consciousness did not exist, how could complex concepts arise? How could anything be perceived?

For example most humans strongly believe that there exists a creator of the universe just becase in their mind they think (know even!) that everything must be created and that creation can be only a work of a creator and they can't think any different, i.e., that's a fallacy and a limitation of our mind maybe wired in the very structure of our brain and how it deals with information.
And as we through generations become smarter and more and more know our mind it evolves and adjust to a different thinking process, low level structure of the brain changes.
Of course, this is only an assumption.

Epistemologically, we can come to improper conclusions, yes, but to link this back to fundemental brain function seems improper. I have an interesting ecological theory I will present sometimes of the idea of God.

No (according to my knowledge)

But they both are made of/use energy, no?

I've got one question about the nature of information.
Does information not exist during the time when there is noone to read it.
An example: we create a data disc and with it we put instructions how to be able to read it.
Human race vanishes and there is noone else in the universe.
Then an alien race appears, evolves, and eventually gets and reads our data disc.
It seems that the information gets only its' property of being information when there is someone to interpret it or it only is information when someone has interpreted it and that information stays with the interpreter.

This seems reasonable. Even DNA requires the proper format to "view" the information and manifest it.

It seems that our consciousness is not the data intself, but the process that operates with the data,
and storage is a seperate thing. It's a process because it's not the neurons themselves, but the interactions of neurons that make up thoughts (conscious, subconscious, etc).
So here's a question for me to think on: is process as such a physcial thing.
An illustration: I'm throwing a ball from one hand to another, both hands and the ball exist as physical structures, but the process of "throw".. it has no real physical footprint. "Throw" doesn't exist as a thing, it's only a concept that my mind gives to the (inter)action.

What are your thoughts?

It's an emergent property/relationship property/gestalt. Is it physical? Yes. But it is physical when the conditions are met, just like every other thing.


c7ityi_:

yes.

Only in the sense that Crom created it.