Conscousness - the awareness of nothing?

interesting perspective....hmmmmm

I am not sure that the water analogy is adequate as the concept of an aether is not well held. Also it is impossible to give future space a value other than that of potential only, or potential space as it hasn't come to be yet. In this sense the universe is constantly in an act of creating it's future as it goes. But until it is created it can not be said to exist. Therefore the future space in front of the train is non-existent until the train actually fills it.

In this context the train could be said to be moving into nothingness as it keeps on creating the present.

It is also interesting to consider I think as an aside that the past could be considered as finite [determinable] and the future as infinite [undeterminable]. The universe, after all, could explode at any time sort of thing due to reasons beyond our current comprehension. But the past has already happened.

So nothingness must be present for somethign to exist if that something is constantly changing or moving.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

isn't awareness the same as consciousness?

"consciousness is the consciousness of nothing?"

and because it doesn't explain what consciousness you might as well say: nothing is the nothing of nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well look at it this way.....

when you look up at the moon in the night sky you can see it up there but you can also see that there is nothing between it and you [ no clouds] You are aware of the vacuum of space even though you can't see it.
What would happen do you think if you could not see nothing between the moon and the earth?
How would it look if we could not see the space?

So is this not awareness of nothing easy to understand?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack:

I did not mean it as an aetherial medium. Space - although it does have a substance, clearly, that has a non-zero energy, and that is speaking purely from Heisenberg's and vacuum energy - is more like a mathematical grid, just as it is represented in Cartesian coordinates .

Actually, does not the capacity to move into something demand its pre-existence? That is to say, does not there need to be track in order for a train to move forward? So too must we glide on the tracks of space.

Hmmm. Interesting. Mystery as infinity and knowledge as finiteness? But then what of speaking of infinity as a whole? Does not this permit knowledge of it?

I am reminded of an experiment that seems apt to describe the "limitless growth potential inside infinite space".

Take a jar and put one or two eggs in it. Notice how it is full?

Well, how about we add some blue berries? Notice how it is full now?

But what if we add water? Finally, it is full.

No wait, what if I add some salt? Now it actually is full.

Space is thought to be full in many instances, but it really never is. An infinite space can accomodate an infinite degree of everything.

 

But PJ aren't we talking about future space...? if it exists where is it?

 

Consider this:

If space is eternal and infinite, then there is no "future space". All contained in the future is found here and now. That is, the future is merely a recombination of what is present now. In fact, even in a finite past this is possible, as it really only requires spatial infinity, or spatial inclosure without growth.

 

Ok this sounds like a bad Monty Pithon joke....

 

There is no awareness of nothing because there is no such thing as nothing. Everything and anything is always something.

 

The awareness of nothing is that something. The awareness itself is something.

"Ahh theres an empty acre of land for me to build a house upon"

The awareness is one of potential to utilise nothing. "Nothing" provides the opportunity for something.

Which raises the interesting notion that the space between the moon and the earth may not actuallly exist until one actually travels it. That is to say that distance is an illusion of potential or future movement but is nonexistant if there is no potential for movement.
An example of Circular, simultaneous logic.

 

Quantum Quack:

Try to envision nothing.

 

the funny thing about that is to envision nothing you simply have to not envision anything.
Or simply look at the space in front of a moving train and assume that there is no air within that space.
Or look at a space craft travelling in a vacuum and see what immediately surrounds that space craft as it moves along it's vector and time line.

 

Quantum Quack:

If you are seeing it, you are not seeing nothing.

Also: Do try to imagine there is no air infront of a train in an Earth like enviroment. Considering we cannot even see the air to begin with...

But here's something to consider:

If you truly want to think of nothing, don't think at all. To not think is to think about nothing - in essence, its negative status cannot be positively envisioned.

 

Maybe it is worth thinking about this for while. To me it is as easy to see nothing as it is to see something. As to see the absence of something is to see nothing.

It aint that hard to see nothing really.....

I isn't that complicated either, although It is very easy to complicate.

but [ ] seeing nothing is easy.

Also when I said that to not envision is to see nothing I meant essentially the same thing as your comment about thinking nothing.

"....I envision nothing so therfore nothing is what I envision...."

 

PJ, I understand what you are thinking about, conceptually absolute nothingness........and I agree with you in the main.
However using brackets {} I can clearly say that I see nothing between those brackets. It is true that in a dimensional sense the screen is white within those brackets but there is no content between them as such in this context.

So the nothing between those brackets is dependent on perspective and desire [ what are you looking for ] And the context determines whether nothing is seen or not.

You may see a white background but to me I disregard the background as I am working with the foreground and as the brackets have nothing between them in the foreground I can quite justifyably state that there is nothing between them {}

This is why i stated that consciousness in part requires the awareness of nothing as if we had no awareness of nothing we would be unconscious [ asleep or dead] because it is the nature of thought to fill the void with content as it is with movement. Even if that content is nothing. {}

And if you are not filling the void with either thought or movement or both you must be unconscious or dead......

 

Quantum Quack:

Woops! Sorry for the misunderstanding, then!

But in regards to your other comments: What is the absence of something that one can see? Or rather, in what sense do you mean this?

Ah! I see what you mean. Content as the brackets around the meaningless.

 

Space does not exist, space is simply time. Time is simply change, but distance does not exist, as proven in quantum experiments.

 

And in future I also dont exist. lolz. pathetic.

 

I tend to think the best way to example this question is to look up at the moon and ask yourself what you actually see between the moon and you.

And then go on to ask how this "relative nothingness" relates to absolute nothingess or unconsciousness.

 

The most interesting thing about all this is that if we can see nothing between the earth and the moon how is this so if the eyes can only see light?
If we can agree that the eyes can see a void of nothing between the earth and moon I ask how is this so?
And if so does this not seriously challenge conventional notions of light and perception?

 

Consciousness is awareness of one-self, understanding that I exist and that I have some sort of free-will that allows me to be self-aware.

Humans cannot possibly think of nothingness...there is no way to imagine it. Humans think they can think of nothingness...but all they think of is relativity of one object to the other and relation to that relativity. When I look at the moon at there are no clouds...nothing between me and the moon (even though thats not true)...I tend to think of imagining how far that moon is based on the relative measurements of distances between familiar objects. One cannot think of nothingness.

Humans cant see nothingness...but they can feel it...feeling empty inside...or soulless as some say.