The Counscious Defines Time

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by TruthSeeker, Jan 11, 2003.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    First of all, concider two things:
    • Our conscious is self-limiting
    • Time itself is ummeasurable
    We are a conscious. A counscious defines itself by a mind, will and emotions different from other mind, will and emotions (other conscious). Time is measured by the conscious in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years (etc), but its concept is general rather than individual. It is easier to get my point if we do some experiments...

    Coincider this: It is 22:00. Before you go to bed, you read a book. The book you are reading is very boring and your teacher told you that you have to read it for tomorrow. It seems to take forever to get to the end of the book. Then, when you finish, it is 00:00 (eventhough it seemed that you have been reading for 4 hours...:bugeye: ). Then you finally go to bed. In 5 minutes you are sleeping and having dreams. Suddenly, the alarm clock goes on. It is 7:00. You think to yourself: "already!?". It seemed like 5 or 10 minutes.

    Have you ever had such experience? I know I did many times. What does that mean? How does our counscious regulates how we experience time? That's exactly what I've been asking myself. Here is something that I got.

    I realized that whenever I do something that needs concentration (in other words, something that need my conscious to be very involved), then time goes by really slowly. So as much consciousness I have, as much slower the time is experienced.

    In the other hand, whenever I do something that doesn't require concentration, then times goes by very quickly. So as much lack of counsciousness I have, as much faster the time is experienced.

    Examples for you to try for yourself:

    Conscioussness-Required Actions:
    • Reading
    • Studing
    • Playing an instrument
    • Any form of art
    • Looking to the clock/watch (try it! time passes really slow...!)
    • Building something
    • Solving an enigma or a math equation
    • Thinking about this stuff...

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    • Waiting

    Consciousness-Abscent Actions:
    • Playing games (besides mind games...)
    • Getting drunk...

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    • Maybe having sex...? I dunno...

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    • Using drugs
    • Sleeping
    • Eating (may vary...)
    • Watching TV

    The list goes on... but those are the ones comes to mind...
    Most of them can vary person to person, depending on wheter you concentrate or not. There are some that are special. Like sleeping, it passes fast for everyone. And waiting is also special for some reason that I cannot comprehend yet...

    Let's continue... Let's get both to the extreme.

    What happens when we die? The ceasing of consciouness? Maybe. We don't have any assurance of what happens, but most of us seem to tend to believe that it is the non-existance of the conscious. Since death implies time, it might be interesting to go deeper in this subject. How does we experience time after we die? We don't. But that doesn't mean time ceased to exist, that only means that it cannot be experienced by us. Whoever is alive still experience time through their conscious. So is the existance of time defined by our conscious or our conscious is defined by time? That's strange because it is our experience of time that defines time itself. Does time exist or is it just a figment of our imagination? That is what keeps coming back to me as I think about complete abscence of counscioussness.

    Besides, not everything in the universe is counscious. So how does time exist for a rock? It doesn't exist...? A rock cannot experience time, so time won't exist for a rock. But time still exist even though the rock doesn't experience! So is time dependent on a counscious to experience it, so that it can exist? I think so! Maybe time only exist because we can experience it! But is still our conscious that defines how "fast" it will pass! That's kinda weird... Let's continue...

    Let's go to the other side of the spectrum. Imagine that we are SupraConscious. What do we find? As I said before, an abundance of counscioussness makes the conscious experience time in slow-motion. So what happens is we are totally conscious? If we are very conscious, time will pass very slow; if we are extremely conscious time will pass even slower, so that means that eventually time will cease to pass!!! We will be in an everlasting NOW, an everlasting present! Huuumm... everlasting present... Isn't God omnipresent (always present)? Isn't God omniscient (supraconscious, know it all)? Isn't God omnipotent (omniscience probably provides it). Then God is a SupraConscious Being. He is beyond time because He knows everything and He can do whatever He wants because He knows everything. So God must have Wisdom and know the Truth. How about Love? Maybe by Loving you become SupraConscious? Maybe by Loving you become Love ITSELF? How does God's kind of Love affect our conscioussness? Many questions about Love... but I still don't have all the answers...

    Well... this is probably mind-bending for many... I guess I'm eating a doughtnout now...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Huuummm... doughtnout...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anyways... I will finish it quickly (the doughtnout is calling me...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). What does all that mean? It seems that what we experience is just what our conscious defines as "real" or "reality"...? And death? Is it SupraConsciousness or Complete lack of Consciousness? For Christians, death will be different from us and an atheist. If you know God, you will become like Him ("eternal life"). If you don't, you will cease to exist ("second death"). How wise is the Bible to say that? What is the Bible really saying? Maybe It is saying that by being SupraConscious you get eternal life? Seems so... Think about it honestly...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 12, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    man, you're freaking me out!

    off of your post, well, I swear I've theorized along extremely similar lines... I'm very very impressed (for what that's worth) with your reasoning here... and will take the time to retort in detail at some point.... well, actually link to the thread and you'll see an amazingly similar approach to the problem.

    unfortunately, you screw shit up by trying to introduce jesus reasoning. STOP THAT and you'll maybe get somewhere. are you just so overwhelmed by your tripped out brain that you have to blame it on something? you don't know anything! you have faith in assumptions... that is completely different than knowing anything. your reasoning above is very very good, but MAN... why screw it up with this (and most of what followed):

    You don't know this apparently: The relativistic effect of time dilation means that the "present" is only a local condition... it messes with my head but it's true. Further, it's a little uh "premature" to go assigning broad conclusions regarding theism from an excellent line of reasoning regarding time. You jump to conclusions prematurely, then state your hypothesis as fact... that is unreasonable.

    I believe though, that we are truly onto something with this... if you learn to tone down the god crap somewhat we might actually have a very interesting conversation.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. orthogonal Registered Senior Member

    Hi Truthseeker,
    Unless you define the word "God," then I'm afraid these questions are meaningless.

    If you define God as omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, then these questions are tautological.

    Best wishes,
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    First off, I disagree with the god concept. I don't think he exists and there is no and has been no proof that he does. There is only belief that one would exist and that is no different today than it was 5 centuries ago. (Though the gods were differnet then and every bit as real to them) Just because of belief, does not make it real either. In the Middle Ages, people believed in dragons. No true dragons have been discovered to date, unless you believe that dinosaurs fit that billing.

    As for conscious, it is a self precieved measurement. Both the awareness of itself and of the passage of time. The passage of time is marked by what the consciousness focuses on. More intense focus causes time to lengthen and less focus causes it to speed up. That is the reason that watching the clock makes time pass slower and having fun causes it to seem to speed up.
  8. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    You would probably be very impresed by how I got to that conclusion....

    I stated the exact reason why I believe in God. You see, our conscious limits itself, so the Truth cannot be attained directly by the conscious. However, as you become supraconscious (and midle-term supraconscious..) you start to know the Truth. You have difficulty in believing in God because it is hard for you to believe that there is a supernatural invisible being. That's ok... but if you really wish to understand what I'm saying, you should quit seeing God this way, because that's not my focus here. I'm not saying how God appears to be, and I don't want to discuss that here (cause it's pointless). However, I would like to discuss the nature of God and try to find out how He is possible in the light of science. For now, think about God as a concept. I stated that he is Truth, so let's use Truth instead of God...
  9. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    God is The Truth.

    Read carefully in this little bit...
    And you will get how my "belief" in God is grounded in scientific analisis...
    If you pay attention to the last sentence, I inderectly called God "Truth"...
    I also provided the reasons why I "believe" (besides knowing it...):
    • He is everywhere
    • He is SupraCounscious
    • The other two provides the last one.
    All this is compatible with the theory of how time is experienced when you are supracounscious. I proved it in words, theorizing it.
  10. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    You cannot prove there is no God. Unless you brake my reasoning, then you can prove that God doesn't exist within my reasoning. Dragons and gods were usually used to explain how nature works. That was early science, without experimentation. It was philosophy, they tryed to understand the world by thinking about it. That was the early idea. Wheter there were Greek people that worshiped those gods or not, that I don't know...

    You understood my concept. Now try to understand why I put God in the end of it. Also, this is a summary...

    abscence of conscious.....conscious.............supraconscious
    second life
  11. orthogonal Registered Senior Member

    Hello Truthseeker,
    I read it very carefully, Truthseeker.

    Please let me explain that the scientific method begins with a hypothesis that can be verified by the means of a physical experiment (not a thought experiment). The next step is to actually perform the experiment. Ideally, the experimental data allows one to either corroborate or to refute the original hypothesis. Quite often the hypothesis is modified and another experiment is performed. This iterative process can continue for some time.

    Truthseeker, nothing of what you have written here follows the scientific method. What you've done is to manipulate some undefined terms until they appeared to be different. For example:
    This simply demonstrates the Symmetric Property of Equality. It's true for any variable you might choose to replace the subject and the predicate with; If A = B, then B = A.
    If you had properly defined your terms I could critique this argument as a non sequitur. It tends towards circularity, however, as the argument never actually makes a complete circle I wouldn't be technically justified in making that criticism of it.

    Truthseeker, the terms used in an argument must be explicitly defined unless they are thought to be conventionally understood. For example, since most people know what a bicycle is, I can confidently use the word "bicycle" in an argument without first needing to define the term. But when you use words such as "supraconscious," most people, myself included, haven't the slightest idea what you mean by it. I remarked in an earlier post that even though we hear the word "God" quite often, since it means something different to nearly everyone, that term must also be defined each time it's used. Philosophy, by its very nature deals with ideas only a hair's breadth removed from outright nonsense. It's critically important that we agree on clear definitions before we begin. If we fall into speaking nonsense, at least we'll all be talking the same nonsense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Once we've defined our terms we can begin the argument. Of course, our arguments themselves should ideally follow very specific rules of logic. I wonder, Truthseeker, if you might be interested in taking a course in logic at school? It's a fascinating subject. I had my first course in logic over twenty years ago, and despite my interest in the subject I feel as though I've barely scratched the surface. I make logical errors quite often, but when an error is pointed out to me at least I have the luxury of slapping my forehead and exclaiming, "Of course!" instead of trying to argue that my error should be admitted to the debate. Since you clearly enjoy constructing arguments, I think you might enjoy learning the "nut-and-bolts" of the craft. Just an idea...

    Last edited: Jan 12, 2003
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member


    that was refreshing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    You should get an English person to say "doughtnout". That would be funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I like your theory.

    Buddha lived in the eternal now.

    I like people who can say: "you can not prove this" or "cut the god crap".

    I like people who can see infinite possibilties.

    I like doughtnouts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    I guess I should have clarified before.. what I really like is when people approach the problem of consciousness from the perspective of the eternal now. The details, while some have merit, are somewhate muddled. There is no point in showing specifically where the problems are, cuz Truthseeker won't admit problems with his arguments. Watch, he'll try to refute ortho's post. Stupid.
  15. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    It is a problem to speak about God and consciousnes and supraconsciousness without defining the terms properly. To go further with the argument, we need clear definitions.

    But I like an intuitive grasp on what he said. I don't think you'll be able to go somewhere with this theory by using logic.

    You say 'cut the god crap'. Doesn't it bother you that there is such a schism in people's minds? Some go with logic and science, some go with Veda's and Buddha or Christianity.

    Some get stuck in the middle.

    Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    apparently you're talking to me?

    Actually, yes, god is a problem... consciousness isn't but supraconsciousness is. I can somewhat infer what the two problems mean, but clear definition would make it solid. I doubt Truthseeker could define them though and then stick appropriately to the definition throughout his argument.
    It would defintately be a big help, but even if he presents them, he won't be able to adhere to his own definitions.
    Okay, now it seems that you're talking to T?
    And I mean it, it's stupid to jump to conclusions.
    Yes it bothers me a lot. I hate it, I try to help but it is often quite useless. When you are in the grips of the meme, it's difficult to see it, and worse, the only way out is to want out. It's a tough spot for the vitim and those trying to help him.
    Indeed. I mostly stick to logic and science, but I prefer 'reason'.. it's a much broader tool.
    You're on it.
    right there with you eh? nice. glad to notice you there. cheers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    No, I wasn't. I think that the theory can not develop any further with logic. You can have an intuitive grasp on it. It can feed your emotional side and for some reason I always like that.

    It would be very unlikely that the theory would debunk what (other) great minds say about time in a more scientific aproach.

    But don't you think a lot has to do with point of view? Even the use of reason is a meme. The scientific method is the most practical we have, and therefore you can call it the 'best', but I can't imagine that Buddha or the Veda's, could be plain wrong.

    In another thread, there was talk about how everyone sees only part of the universe, and therefore can see what he wants to see. I think that is what's happening all the time. Some giant brain should put the pieces together, without chosing one of the memes.

    kmguru seems to be a man who goes in the direction of integration of pov's. He practices meditation, knows all about ancient Hindu culture, talks about Gods like they are his neighbours and still he sells software and hardware using a business strategy he probably thought of himself.

    The art is to be able to switch point of view. It requires a huge amount of knowledge. There's also the danger of becoming a machine when doing so I think. People value other people for 'their' opinion. Not for huge chunks of knowledge. But how can you choose one pov if you know there are many?

    In what way do you use it broader?

    Ain't life beautiful? A new thing to ponder about: ending influence of time by consciousness.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    Rant, continued

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Most people will choose a pov and stick to it no matter what. Look how Cris jumped in in the where is our mind thread, explaining how we are nothing more than our brain.

    Looky, he just debunked thousands of years of eastern philosophy. He is backed up by science. One million scientists can't be wrong or something like that.
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    hmm... good point. I don't think though, that an argument as such is worth pursuing externally (yes, that depends on my pov for sure) because there can be no way to relate to it with the other humans. it's one thing to relate it and then smash it up into something else, but it's quite another to assert that it has validity to those you know (from the degree of subjectivity involved) cannot understand what you mean. if you choose to present that type of argument it can only be to see if you can smash it into pieces and rebuild it stronger... or to waste yours and everyone elses time I suppose, if that's what you're into.
    absolutely... it has to encorporate it... because it has obvious validity. I do think though, that it can EXPAND the current perspective on time. At least I entertain the thought because it interests me. I further entertain the thought that I'm on a path to be able to expand this kind of argument (though not T's specifically) such that it is VERY reasonable. I do realize that I could be full of shit though, I think that's very important.
    I don't think so because in my opinion reason encompasses intuition. In other words, my intuition (regarding a specific) is not independen of my knowledge regarding the topic. I examine that intuition via reason, but reason or "something reasonable" really only implies to me the following: a system which is consistent with itself. in other words like mathematics. mathematics is reasonable because it makes sense. if it makes sense it is reasonable, it it is reasonable, it was likely arrived at via reason. *shrug*
    Agreed, you're right on the money in my opinion.
    what if you want to see truth?
    yes, he seems very very sharp, as do a number of people who post on this site.
    I agree, but I think there is an art to sniffing out those who are just making shit up as they go too... with no basis in anything but their own heads. I smell that in T.
    That's not true, I count on a lot of people for their knowledge. I have a good sense for who has a lot and who doesn't. It's fun.
    pov is fluid by nature. it changes with the present.
    I use the ideas from all of my knowledge (and will assimilate yours as well if you let me) as broadly and as to the best of my ability such that it emcompasses what I suspect is truth and will probably make sense in terms of iteself and the related concepts... but I cannot control directly how my brain fetches that information. In other words, most of my thoughts come kind of like: a flow of verbage comes to my consciousness as if the result of my mind weaving it's way through a relational dabasish kind of conceptual matrix in my head. so I guess I'm just saying I use it as broadly as I can at the time within a context that's stipulated as subjective... trying to keep all that in mind all the time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    some shit like that.
    yes, I do think life is incredibly beautiful. oh, and I've thought about that before, I just haven't entertained it much because for me it's a bit premature and sideways to my inclination.
  20. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    I proved you that the conscious IS defined by time. Now, to prove you that God exists, than you would probably have to experience Him or see evidence. You have two choices:
    -Become supraconscious yourself, so that you can experience God directly.
    -Go and find someone that do miracles, and you will see God's evidence. If you would see the Red Sea rise and everyone passing through the dry bottom, I'm sure you would believe in God...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Meanwhile, I theorically proved that the existance of God is possible. However, He certainly is above time and not influenced by it. I could go into details on how Faith works and how does the Spiritual Real works in relation to space-time, but that would be to go a little off-topic... It is a very broad topic this one...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    God is defined in the Bible as Truth. There is only written thing about God is the Bible. So, let's get this definition. Do you try to define medical stuff like the nae of a bone? No. Why? Because you don't know. So, I'm the one here who seems to be more intimate and used with the Bible, so please know that my terms are grounded on the Bible's terms.

    That wouldn't be true. If you say that, anything in the Bible will work. The Bible gives you an equation. If you change the values in the equation, it doesn't work anymore. In the same way, if you choose any definition from the Bible, you completly screw it up. So please, stick with the definitions that we have...

    You don't know supraconscious...? Well... THAT I didn't know...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ok... here it goes...

    everlasting: forever, infinite time. Also beyond time, since we are dealing with the very conscept of it.

    NOW: the concept which defines what is experienced in the present moment. Present as itself.

    everlasting present: the two above concepts combined. A prsent moment that is experienced forever. Also beyond time. It would be like seeing a movie by each frame of it, all at the same time.

    God: Supraconscious Being

    Supraconscious: To be totally aware, totally conscious of everything. To always know everything.

    omnipresent: Total presence defined by space-time. Be everywhere at the same time, always exist. Be beyond the reality of space-time.

    omniscient: To know everything. The same as supraconscious.

    omnipotent: To be able to do everything as long as you choose so.

    Wisdom: The ability of knowing deeply and without fixed perspective.

    Truth: What is true to everyone despite your beliefs, perceptions or realities. The reality above the conscious.

    I don't know... how many mistakes did I make this time...?
  21. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member


    It IS possible...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    counscious: For "me" it's "me", for "you" it is "you". The part of yourself that is self-aware aware about the world itself.

    supraconscioussness: Being supraconscious, experience a greater awareness beyond that of one's own conscious. Transcend one's own conscioussness, defined and limited by one's own perceptions, definitions and past experiences. (back to "The Meaninglessness of Conversation and The Puzzle of Life"...!!)
  22. matnay Registered Senior Member

    My opinion on time follows:

    I believe that the Universe is an infinite tapestry of dimension, full of everything possible, and at the same time, nothing at all.

    Anyway, back to the topic. I think that the universe does not move or progress through time, but simply is what it is- an eternal state of stillness. Since time is proportionally related to movement (and are essentially the same thing) time is an illusion. An analogy would be a car driving down the street. When the car is moving, it seems that the world is changing around you, when in fact, it's not moving at all. It's all an illusion.

    Your life is like a movie reel. Think of your entire life as an infinite number of freeze-frames, with each frame representing a different dimension. I think that each progressing instant of time is actually just one of an infinite number of parallel dimensions, slightly offset from the 'previous instant'.

    We only perceive time because we are programmed to perceive the abstract concept of movement during each instant of our life.
    So in reality, each instant of perception is eternally preserved in a dimension of it's own. Even more of a brain warper is the fact that we are not even self-aware, but are only programmed to believe that we are.

    That ends my opinion.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2003
  23. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Not different then mine at all, I guess...
    It's hard to believe that I'm not the only one here that sees that time is an illusion...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Have you read my film-frame example...? I think it is somewhere around this thread...

Share This Page