What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 20741 - 20760 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 10:53am PT


It's not just 'Werner's theory'. If you've paid much attention to the man, you can observe he is living proof of what he keeps trying to teach you.

Don't take my word for it. I'm just a lowly rocket and spacecraft designer and AI systems engineer and lifetime solo rock climber, but without the proper academic credentials except as a concert violinist.

So please read Robert Lanza's work with Bob Berman ... they have all the right academic credentials and carefully back up their reasoning with extensive references to mainline scientists, including Bell.

And watch the following video presentation by Rupert Sheldrake. When I first met him, I told him he was one of the smartest living scientists. He replied that a lot of his peers wouldn't agree with that. I replied that a lot of his peers have a lot to learn, don't they.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFhsObpja8A
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:51am PT
As Werner keeps trying to explain, neither the brain nor the mind is the real source of intelligence. Intelligence is a property of consciousness.

The brain is a conduit for perception and transmission of thought forms.

The mind is a non-physical structure created within universal consciousness. The mind translates and maintains wave-forms/ thought-forms in the holographic images that we relate to as a material reality; as created and observed by consciousness.

Intelligence is a property that arises within consciousness as it is playing around.

Consciousness is the universal playing field underlying everything.

Science is a great tool for categorizing the structures arising within the mind, but is useless for understanding the basic questions of reality

cosmologists scientists are having great fun trying, while imagining increasingly complex structures which are none of them basic

The 'Hard Problem' of how does consciousness arise from the material universe is simply a mis-understanding.

The universe arises from consciousness and not the other way around. The substance of the universe is consciousness
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 30, 2018 - 12:33pm PT
Were it only so.

Maybe start by explaining that 'conduit' part...

And yet again, why would a fundamental consciousness require or even bother with a material universe at all? Loneliness? Boredom? A hobby?
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 01:29pm PT
consciousness playing

are you just trolling me?

a conduit is simply an optimized flow path: electricity through a wire, water through a pipe, climbers up The Nose route, etc; and neurophysiology has been well discussed on this thread

electromagnetic pulses travel through neurons in the brain at about 250 mph along paths well mapped out by researchers

humans only directly perceive a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum while our technical instrumentation expands that somewhat

air pulse vibrations at 20 to 20,000 times a second travel through air at about 750 mph until the eardrum vibrates sending signals to an area of the brain transforming these vibrations as sound perceptions ... other frequencies of air pulses such as 10 times a second are not perceived as sound

electromagnetic vibrations between 400 and 700 nanometers received by rods and cones in the retina conducted at 250 mph through neurons to an area of the brain where Fourier transforms produce our perception of patterns and colors of light which are interpreted by our conscious intelligence into what we imagine to be the contents of space-time ... other frequencies outside this band width are not perceived by humans as light, although various other creatures view extensions of this range

radio and radar and many other frequencies are not directly perceivable by human sensors

I'm simply pointing out that all these fields of vibrating energy are at base a field of energetic conscious awareness
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 02:33pm PT
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00311/full

Near-Death Experiencers (i.e., people who have experienced a NDE; NDErs) usually report very detailed memories of their experiences (Thonnard et al., 2013; Palmieri et al., 2014) and, phenomenologically, NDEs can be described as a set of different and distinguishable features. In his book, Moody (1975) established a list of the 15 most frequently recounted features based on a recruited sample of 150 coma survivors. His 15-element model notably includes the overwhelming feeling of peacefulness and well-being, a sensation of being out of the body, the sight of a brilliant light and the feeling of being surrounded by it, life review, experiencing a tunnel, and decreased fear of death. His description of NDEs can actually be considered as the prevailing societal model of Western societies (Athappilly et al., 2006), notably because of the widespread popularity of his work. However, the author did not specify in his book any ranking of frequency or precise statistical data or figures. Recently, Charland-Verville et al. (2014) investigated NDEs features by using statistics and frequency distribution on reported responses to the Greyson NDE scale (Greyson, 1983) by retrospectively interviewing NDErs. They reported a ranked organization of the Greyson NDE scale features according to their frequency of occurrence: feeling of peacefulness/well-being, Out-of-Body Experience (OBE), seeing a bright light, altered time perception and entering unearthly environment.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 02:53pm PT
The Observer, 25 January, 1931, p.17 (via ProQuest and the University of Sydney), in the article "Interviews With Great Scientists. VI. - Max Planck".

The interview by J. W. N. Sullivan includes the quote, verbatim, in the second column: “Do you think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter and its laws?”

Max Planck: “No. I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

It is worth noting that the interviewer prefaces his interview with the remark, "‘In my interview with him Professor Planck replied to all my questions with a quite remarkable lack of hesitation. It would seem that his ideas on these subjects are now definitely formed, or else that he thinks with remarkable rapidity – probably both suppositions are true".
capseeboy

Social climber
portland, oregon
Dec 30, 2018 - 03:02pm PT
Consciousness is the universal playing field underlying everything.

Wow, I missed this along the way, or forgot. I thank you.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 05:33pm PT
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/nhl.pdf

Nag Hammadi Library

Gnosticism asserts that "direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings," and that the attainment of such knowledge is the supreme achievement of human life.

Mind wants to know that which is beyond mind. To know that which is beyond mind, mind must go—vanish, leaving no vestige of itself behind. The humour of it is, the mind, which is finite, wants to retain itself and yet know Truth, which is infinite. This is the position of those who seek Truth through intellect. Few grasp this fact, and so most grope and grapple in vain. —Meher Baba
TClimberByTrade

climber
Santa Ana
Dec 30, 2018 - 07:08pm PT
A scientist of interest and not reduced to hack or pluck comes to mind.
capseeboy

Social climber
portland, oregon
Dec 30, 2018 - 07:17pm PT
Here's some underlying consciousness.Enjoy.

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 30, 2018 - 08:25pm PT
I do have some familiarity with your quotes from Bell, but I think he is clinging tightly to avoiding the solution to 'The Hard Problem'.

hardly, John Bell was rather clear headed on the subject of quantum mechanics, and it can be argued that he is the beginning of the modern renaissance of quantum mechanics, quantum information science, etc...

considering how much resistance he had in the physics community at the time to his work, he would probably be amused to be characterized as a scientist unwilling to confront difficult problems.

I'd take his opinion over Planck's any day.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:20pm PT
strange list, you are complaining that physics can't answer questions that it is asking and actively researching right now...


How did the Big Bang happen?

I think this is an active area of research, a couple of weeks ago in the Physical Review Letters:
CPT-Symmetric Universe
Latham Boyle, Kieran Finn, and Neil Turok
Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251301 – Published 20 December 2018
ABSTRACT
We propose that the state of the Universe does not spontaneously violate CPT. Instead, the Universe after the big bang is the CPT image of the Universe before it, both classically and quantum mechanically. The pre- and postbang epochs comprise a universe-antiuniverse pair, emerging from nothing directly into a hot, radiation-dominated era. CPT symmetry selects a unique QFT vacuum state on such a spacetime, providing a new interpretation of the cosmological baryon asymmetry, as well as a remarkably economical explanation for the cosmological dark matter. Requiring only the standard three-generation model of particle physics (with right-handed neutrinos), a ℤ₂ symmetry suffices to render one of the right-handed neutrinos stable. We calculate its abundance from first principles: matching the observed dark matter density requires its mass to be 4.8×10⁸ GeV. Several other testable predictions follow: (i) the three light neutrinos are Majorana particles and allow neutrinoless double β decay; (ii) the lightest neutrino is massless; and (iii) there are no primordial long-wavelength gravitational waves. We mention connections to the strong CP problem and the arrow of time.

Synopsis
There are many other ideas, but note that these ideas provide tests, the three mentioned in this abstract are already subject to experimental investigation, so we'll know.

What was the Big Bang?

Simply put, the "Big Bang" occurs at the time when the reversed expansion of the universe converges to a singularity. The theory of inflation has been said to put the "bang" in the "Big Bang"

What, if anything, existed before the Big Bang?

see above for an example, there are also papers on "bounce" cosmologies...

What is the nature of dark energy, the dominant entity of the universe?

The nature of dark energy is that of a negative density field that accelerates the expansion of the universe. The universe starts out radiation dominated, it become matter dominated and then dark-energy dominated in the end. There are a number of candidates for dark energy, but it is a relative new comer to cosmology (1990s) and thoughts stemming from Weinberg's interesting paper calculating the cosmological constant (from about the same period) lays out the conundrum.

What is the nature of dark matter, the second most prevalent entity?

That is has mass, and does not interact with other forms of matter very strongly. Also an active area of research. It has been around since the 1930s but it wasn't until Rubin's observations that it was taken as a serious problem. Modern cosmology, ΛCDM, is able to explain cosmological measurements, the theory includes all three, dark energy, dark matter and baryonic matter.

How did life arise?

Also an area of intense research. But taking a physical approach of abiogenesis, many ideas are in play, Kauffman is mentioned above, for instance the critical behavior of metabolic networks, where metabolism may have been the first aspect to have evolved.

How did consciousness arise?

The default view is by evolution.

What is the fate of the universe, for example, will it keep expanding?

It looks like it will accelerate its expansion, which is what happens in a dark-energy dominated universe. Thus ending in what is referred to as the "Big Rip".

Why are the constants the way they are?

I think that ideas of "naturalism" come to bare on this topic, though it is more a notion than a theory. But the line of reasoning goes that we would not exist if the universe had to be fine-tuned for our existence, thus the "constants" we measure must be "natural," that is, must be very probable.

Why are there exactly four forces?

Actually we think they are all the same force, but at least we have Electro-weak unification, the electromagnetic force and the weak force are the same force, dynamic symmetry breaking makes the propagators of the weak force, the W⁺, W⁻ and Z⁰ are massive, the propagator of the electromagnetic force, γ the photon, is massless. Without the symmetry breaking they'd all be massless and the "weak force" a bit stronger.

There are theories that unify the Electro-weak force with the Strong force, but so far CERN/LHC hasn't found evidence for this... perhaps when they come back after their shutdown?

Is life further experienced after one's body dies?

Experienced by what?

Which book provides the best scientific answers?

Seems a very silly question. There is a reason why there is no "Bible" in physics, our knowledge expands, it makes some old ideas obsolete, our understanding changes as do our theories in response. You can't write a book about physics that lasts for 2220 years or so... but we'll see what is in it around 4240 that is from today's work. Probably something... on the other hand AI will have taken over the practice of physics and humans will be trying to understand.

Okay so what can science tell us? A lot - libraries full of knowledge. All of it has to do with classifications and sub-classifications of all manner of objects, living and non-living, and categorizations of their properties ...

Science isn't just a set of facts, it is theory, and theory is predictive, deductive. What we observe and measure are empirical "facts," from which we are inductive, and with which we test the theories. For instance, the speed-of-light is not just a fact, it is related to the symmetry of space time.

So those who ask science to provide the ultimate answers or to explain the fundamentals of existence are looking in the wrong place - it's like asking particle physics to evaluate art. Scientists do not admit to this, however.

I don't know what ultimate answers you want, or what you consider the "fundamentals of existence." Science goes a very long way of providing answers and understanding about some very old questions, the origin of the universe, the origin of humans. Certainly the various ancient religions had a crack at this using all the knowledge they had at the time. They were wrong on any physical detail you'd like to compare. How could they have been right?

WBraun

climber
Dec 30, 2018 - 09:48pm PT
When it comes directly from the source itself then it is 100% correct.

The gross materialists never get it from the source itself.

They just start guessing, theorizing, mental speculating

When gross materialist goes to a foreign place they just start guessing how to exist there.

The intelligent class asks the the source directly.

The gross materialists are completely clueless to the source itself.

Thus they are always ultimately in the dark masquerading themselves as knowledgeable authorities on sh!t they really know nothing about but think they do .....
Jim Clipper

climber
Dec 30, 2018 - 10:22pm PT
And don't get waylaid by the apparently angry antidae. May be. It's there for you, and you don't have to burn...

It is just like the sky: the birds fly, but they don't leave any footprints. You cannot follow them; there are no footprints left behind.”
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 30, 2018 - 10:46pm PT
Thank you for an interesting response, Ed

Do you know of a respected contemporary cosmologist/theoretical physicist who considers the unified energy field to be conscious?

I wish Frank Sacherer was available to participate with us as a continuation of discussions he used to have with me
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 30, 2018 - 11:55pm PT
Do you know of a respected contemporary cosmologist/theoretical physicist who considers the unified energy field to be conscious?

I don't, but I've been hiding out for a while now working on NIF
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
Dec 31, 2018 - 07:12am PT
you know i worked on NIF computer control system during the design phase ...
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Dec 31, 2018 - 08:03am PT
yes, all the engineering of the laser is superb

Don Paul

Social climber
Washington DC
Dec 31, 2018 - 08:36am PT
The pre- and postbang epochs comprise a universe-antiuniverse pair, emerging from nothing directly into a hot, radiation-dominated era.

Since the expansion is ISOTROPIC, in every red shift measurement from radio waves to gamma rays, this means the Earth was at the very center of the "hot, radiation-dominated era." I'm more inclined to believe Tom's extraterrestrial views.

When the theory is proven wrong, proponents argue that "space itself" is expanding isotropically, like the surface of a balloon. Not only that, the expansion of the frame of reference is accelerating. The problem with this "small bang" theory is that a frame of reference is just an imaginary point of view, with no physical existence.

All this is the result of a Catholic priest trying to reconcile general relativity with Genesis, and can't be attributed to Einstein. I think the big bang theory became the most popular one because most physicists believe in God.
MikeL

Social climber
Southern Arizona
Dec 31, 2018 - 09:09am PT
I may be losing “mind” in all of this, unless one is arguing that mind (consciousness?) is below all of it.
Messages 20741 - 20760 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta