Consciousness, A Discussion

there is no end to the complexities we can invent to muddy the water.

we have this sensation of existing. to be more specific and accurate, i know only that i do.
what this sensation could come from if we did not is beyond me.
(i realize you could probably take that as a horrible pun too)

at any rate, i see no point in manufacturing needless complexity (unless it were in some way interesting)

inductively there is a high rate of repitition to suggest, things of which we know nothing, do indeed exist.
(but not that what we would like to think we know of what we don't, is at all greatly likely)

i see a great many more words then these being posted. perhaps the failure is only my own, but the value of them, i do indeed fail to perceive.

 

Higher dimensions ? Lower dimensions ? Equal dimensions ?

If equal , then two / our concept of 3d to be just one of two . With that it's easier to think upon the physics of mind as
equal to the physics of life . I cannot conceive of conciousness without a relation to all life . I recall your story of the
little lights in the sweatlodge - yes - that life form that will relate to human , thus may interact with 3d , yet at will may
with us and/or as well beyond .

 

I certainly understand your sentiment---and yes there is more than what is posted.

I do not simply state that mind is multidimensional because it is convenient, or a cool idea. I present a philosophical argument to state it, which I back up with Einstein's theories of Relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology, and the latest advancements in cosmetology (just kidding on the cosmetology).

First let me remind you that I define the physical as that which exists in space-time and has mass, in other words only those physical things which exist within the three physical dimensions. Light is intricately connected to the physical world, but it is in fact of the fourth dimension as demonstrated by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

I am also a phenomenalist, and so when I speak of the physical world, I am actually referring to the phenomena of the physical world—so it is actually what we perceive to be physical. However, through quantum mechanics we can understand that there is for instantaneous flashes what we perceive to be a physical manifestation upon each probability wave collapse (except that of light energy, because even as a particle it remains zero-time zero-mass) which does create the phenomena we perceive as physical. So perhaps the physical does exist—but it doesn’t matter for in the end, it is only the phenomena we perceive as physical that we can ever perceive—in the end, that is our reality.

The crux of my philosophy of Archephenomenalism is three principles which begin a response to Kant’s Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (his argument to what is required for metaphysics to become a science). The three principles are based on Kant’s three a priori modes of cognition: self, space, and time. All three principles may seem very basic, but they are a priori arguments, and are deeper than they may seem. The first two principles would be analytical judgments based on, or according to, Kantian logic or reason, but the third one is a synthetic judgment, and is therefore the very elusive synthetic a priori that Kant said must occur before metaphysics could even begin as a science.

The three principles begin with Descartes’ First Principle, ‘I think therefore I am.’ However, unlike Descartes, I do not carry this primary subjective principle to objectivist conclusions. Everything remains subjective.

The second principle is, ‘I am here in time, therefore it is now.’ The implication here is that the only thing we can truly know to exist in the physical sense is the present. But how long is now? By the time we perceive it, it is already gone. If the physical manifests only as long as a probability wave collapse, it is an infinitesimal point of time. Scientifically it is defined by the speed of light, because the speed of light is the speed of time.

The third principle is, ‘I remember, perceive, and intend, therefore I transcend the physical now.’ If physical existence only manifests in the present, and mind extends beyond the present, then in terms of our experience of consciousness, it is not limited to physical existence.

Think of a massive graphics panel with myriads of little LED’s. Each LED blinks on and off in rapid succession, and each time it is on, we will say it represents a probability wave collapse, and while it is off, it represents a probability wave, which we could also refer to as a super-positioned particle, or even a particle field—in any case it only exists as a physical particle with a single position in space-time briefly after the particle wave collapse. Even though each LED is a light blinking on and off, all together, the LED’s can provide us with pictures and videos and so forth.

If we were to freeze the board at any one point, we would find that only certain LED’s were on, while all t he others were off. This would therefore represent a set of simultaneous probability wave collapses, and therefore represent one point of physical Now (what I call a quantum now). In the next moment a new set of lights would be on, while all the others were off, representing a new set of simultaneous probability wave collapses, and therefore a new quantum now. This is somewhat how physical particles appear and disappear in terms of physical existence (and the rest of the time they represent a superpositioned wave in the 4th dimension). Yet through all of this, based on my third principle, our experience of mind is that it remains continuous, or as Edmund Husserl would say, it demonstrates retention. Therefore, even as those continuous moments of the present disappear into the nothingness of the past, we experience a continuum of experience in time. In addition, we can return to something that no longer exists within our minds as the past, and anticipate, plan for, or even cause a future that has yet to exist.

Because the double slit experiment and the Zeno Effect demonstrate that we shape the reality around us at a quantum level, and that research such as the experiments at MIT on human intention demonstrate that we can alter physical reality at physical levels, we can argue that we not just here to perceive the phenomena of the physical dimensions, but that we are also participants in shaping the physical world. This also validates our own free will or existential freedom.

I could go on, but let me leave it at this.

 

Where is there a dividing line between your own Consciousness and another's? Sure you can respond, "the skin", but this is not some ultimate separator in the same way that you have more than 1 finger but they all equal the whole of your hand. Consciousness is the foundation of all experience, and nobody owns it, but everything possesses it.

 

Our reality of Conciousness conceals nothing . So why board a plane pre-determined to crash , falling deathly so ?
Why mis-apprehend stubbornly ? for lack of love

 

On a relative scale of course I don't want to board a plane pre-determined to crash. I was recently on a plane and contemplating this actually. Physical Death still exists but that doesn't mean that Consciousness isn't ever-present. You also don't want to burn yourself on a stove either, but that doesn't mean that Consciousness isn't ever-present.

 

Then you always know what you are doing ? Yet still not be free .

 

Our indigenous ancestors experience a world where everything is alive. They know that this is the case (unlike man tainted by civilization who would require a leap of faith to belive such). Therefore they are open to experiencing such a world. The fact that everything is alive is empirical for them--in ceremony there is a causal relationship between nature and man that is just as real as there is between my fingers pushing keys on this keyboard and the resulting words appearing on the screen.

I have seen and experienced this first hand--time and again.

 

We are all indigenous to a place and ancestors of someones to be . Ceremony ? Does it
assist the fullness of conciousness ? It has given a feather unto my dready beard ... and
by this I am .

Damn , I'm still hoping for odorous epiphany ... from the smelly kid , teen spyrit .

 

No more need to be said.

 

It feels like an impossible leap to breach the safety of the mind. I feel isolation can only get you so far. Although these forums are amazing they're still far too safe, experienced at home in familiar surroundings where our fantasies can run amok without consequence. Fantastic exercise to build mental capacity, but it's all castles in the sky. The power of someone able to push you off the precipice into the reality of your own creation is awesome.

I've been guilty of this at least.. and I think it may be a recurring pattern with the younger generations. Particularly of western influence as MV highlighted.. the age of information wields a double edged sword. Though, the possibility remains I guess, comes down to how much you want it.

 

Excessive depressive Orderliness creates the Demon of Sluburbia ? Be kind to the disorderly mind .

 

Ha! Next week I appear in court on a charge of disorderly conduct . Harmless , excellent , inspired disorder . I
intend to enter no legal plea and ask the charge be dismissed . Should the magistrate exhibit excessive order-
liness I believe there may be noticeable consciousness effect displayed . I'll be fine , perhaps fined - but that's
not important .

 

This , a representation of a creature of light/shared conciousness/harmlessness

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:153252]

 

There’s a revolution going on in science.
A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness.Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better. The Quantum Activist tells the story of a man who challenges us to rethink our very notions of existence and reality, with a force and scope not felt since Einstein. This film bridges the gap between God and Science. The work of Goswami, with stunning precision and without straying from the rigors of quantum mechanics, reveals the overarching unity inherent in the worlds major religions and mystical traditions.

www.quantumactivist.com

 

Keep in mind though that Dr. Goswami comes from a Hindu background, and his "new perspective" sounds very much like the old perspective of Hindu theology. Like so many New Age thinkers, he draws on quantum paradoxes and anomalies to dress up metaphysical concepts which aren't scientific because they aren't falsifiable. For a skeptical view, see Victor Stenger, Quantum Gods. See also http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/
What Goswami has done is to reinterpret tenets of Hinduism in the lingo of quantum mechanics. He starts with the anomalies and paradoxes of quantum physics: the uncertainty principle,non-locality, discontinuity, tangled hierarchy, etc., and invokes the concept of "quantum consciousness" to explain them. Only unlike prevailing New Age approaches emphasizing that we create reality, he adds the feature that "we" , as separate, individually conscious entities, are ourselves illusions created by the One. This is metaphysics, not strictly speaking "science", because none of it is falsifiable. Monistic idealism is worth considering--but as philosophy or metaphysics. Goswami addresses the paradox that, if consciousness is singular and unitive, we seem to experience it as individual. The answer he gives is the Hindu one: our sense of individual consciousness is an illusion. He posits a pervasive consciousness field and maintains that physical reality is an illusion created by our minds--or rather by the collapse of wave functions by the consciousness field in a manner that we interpret as our own doing. Maybe so.

 

See also Sobottka, http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/new_page_11.htm for a detailed critique of Goswami's theory.

 

I'm judging Goswami not just on the information presented here but in the context of his other writings, especially The Self-Aware Universe and God is Not Dead.. He goes far beyond his level of expertise as a physicist, and gives us Brahman in quantum clothes. To me, the basic fallacy of his approach is to assume that the quantum phenomena described at the sub-atomic particle level apply equally at the atomic/macrocosmic level,.

 

And yet all physical mass--stars, galaxies, etc. is distributed across the universe at the same rate as would be predicted by quantum probability.

 

Far be it from me to dispute quantum probability. However, we go about our daily lives in a world in which the indeterminacies at the subatomic level seem to average out into more or less predictable regularities, making the subatomic quantum phenomena seem bizarre to us. Physicist Victor Stenger(The Unconscious Quantum, 1995), has shown that in order for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must approximate Planck’s constant (h). “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger points out that the mass and speed of neural transmitter molecules are about twice too large for quantum effects to be significant. I think Stenger is spot on in his conclusion: "Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics." And "no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe...The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle’s appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function." It's certainly possible that Goswami has it right, but the fact that he quantum leaps so readily from the data to the doctrines of the Hindu religion makes me suspicious. He was inspired by Capra (The Tao Of Physics), and shows much the same readiness as Capra to overgeneralize from the data.

Goswami's writings go well beyond the facts of QM into the realm of quantum mysticism, which most scientists consider to be pseudoscience. For example, in the Self-Aware Universe, he argues that the moon wouldn't exist if there was no observer to see it. "Quantum physics says no. When we are not looking, the moon’s possibility wave spreads, albeit by a minuscule amount. When we look, the wave collapses instantly; thus the wave could not be in space-time. It makes more sense to adopt an idealist metaphysical assumption: There is no object in space-time without a conscious subject looking at it.” I used to date a girl who believed that stuff. I remember telling her not to go down a certain street for fear of being mugged, and she said not to think such things because my negative thoughts would bring the muggers about! Gimmie a break! In his cameo role in the film What the #$*! Do We Know?! Goswami tells us:“The material world around us is nothing but possible movements of consciousness. I am choosing moment by moment my experience. Heisenberg said atoms are not things, only tendencies.” Michael Shermer then challenged him to put his conclusions to the test by jumping out the window. http://www.michaelshermer.com/2005/01/quantum-quackery/ I don't think Goswami obliged. I told the same thing once to a poster of Goswami's persuasion on these forums, and never heard from him since. I've always felt kinda guilty about that!