Thought is independent of time

There are some serious scientists out there who claim that time does not exist other than as a construct of our own experience. I have read about them in the past, but now I am more interested, I’ll have to go back and find out more. I have a Scientific American Special Collectors Edition from exactly a year ago that is only on time. I believe it has an article on these guys.

Because a 4th dimension helps make our mathematical models of the universe work out I tend to believe that there is a 4th dimension. But the existence of a 4th dimension does not mean that time has to exist as we perceive it. All things could be in existence at the same time (which is the argument posed by these scientists if I recall correctly) it is only within our experience that it exists. Though this can get a little sticky and murky once we start examining the effect of mass on space-time and how it bends space-time.

However, that is a sticky subject anyway. Because the more we bend space time, the more we have to question whether time does exist. For example, it has been proven already that time is slower at the altitude that Jetliners fly at, than it is on the surface of the earth (where we are closer to this immense mass called earth, which bends space time because of its mass). In other words, every time I fly my time moves slightly slower than a family member who is still on the ground. Does this mean that when I call them from onboard that flight, I am talking to them from the future? Take this same concept and apply it to someone next to a very massive object where space-time is warped much more. Fred Alan Wolf pointed out that if you were to look backwards and watch the universe as you fell into a black hole, time would speed up and eventually you would see the death of the universe.

Besides, a very fundamental aspect of our reality—light—exists in zero-time, zero-space, yet it is fundamental to our experiencing reality. In fact, it very likely is what all of reality, including what we perceive as mass, is based on (see my gendankenexperiment several posts back). Even if you don’t buy into the argument that everything is fundamentally light, the fact is that electrons, protons, neutrons, and even individual atoms have been used in the double Slit experiment and produce the same results as light.

We can only conceive of consciousness based on time because we can only experience reality from a conscious bias. In today’s Cartesian world, we can only understand consciousness as consciousness-of, and based on the mind-body split of Descartes, we can only conceive of this as a consciousness of a physical reality. Descarte created the overly objectivistic rationalist zeitgeist that we are observers of nothing but the physical. But this is largely a conscious existentialistic experience (ego-consciousness) in a world that has become alienated from the subconscious.

Ok Meagain, here is my paragraph of why thought may be independent of time:

1.) We do not know what consciousness truly is. Furthermore, there is a problem with qualia and other experiences of consciousness, that make it difficult to explain from a materialistic perspective that holds that consciousness is simply emergent from matter (the Hard Problem of Consciousness). 2.) Questions raised by the Double-slit experiment, which suggests that we may influence the past at quantum levels. 3.) Rupert Sheldrake’s biomorphic field theory, and the evidence he has based his theories on which suggest that humans and animals do in fact have a non-local collective consciousness. 4.)Dr. Stanislav Grof’s thousands of case studies of subjects under the influence of LSD, mostly in a therapeutic setting, as well as those under a breathing-induced alternate state of consciousness, especially those which include cases of very lucid experiences in other ‘times,’ many of which involve details that the subject could not have known about, but which have been historically verified. 5.) Carl Jung has written of elements of the subconscious mind, which is still consciousness, that are pre-conscious in development in terms of the conscious mind (for example, archetypes). This, and his theories of collective consciousness, combined with Rupert Sheldrake’s work suggest the possibilities of a level of consciousness that is not local nor contingent upon time. 5.) If light exists in a state of zero-time zero-space, and we do not know what consciousness really is, we cannot rule out the possibility that consciousness is a form of energy, that like light, exists in a zero-time zero-space context, which means that consciousness-of is simply consciousness of the single moment of here and now, much as light particles are only experienced for a brief instant in the here-and-now which, is gone by the time we become conscious of it. That is the conscious-bias, or the conscious-of of the ego-conscious mind is dependent on our experience of time. At a more eternal level—say at the speed of time, i.e. the speed of light, perhaps—consciousness-of may very well be the manifestation or creation of the physical realm.

For these and some other reasons that I can’t think of off hand, I think that to assume consciousness is dependent on time (as well as being emergent from matter) is a conclusion that is simply reductionist Cartesian thinking.

 

By the way, it has been found that injury to the basal forebrain can impair the ability to place memories and events in a chronological order. This indicates that this region of the brain is key to an understanding of linear time or the chronological order of things.

 

This is pretty much an argument for thought being dependent on time as far as I can tell. These examples that you give suggest that individuals develop strong feelings associated to particular stimuli. One who has a strong emotional experience from a poem or sonata likely has some memory (suggesting a passage of time) attached to that experience. If the experience of that piece is not tied to a specific memory, it probably evokes certain emotions that the individual has experienced before or provide qualia that the individual hopes to attain or avoid in future experience.

Doesn't neurological damage further validate the experience of thought being correlated with the physical and intertwined with time? We could probably run the gamut of various neurological damage and disorders and make an attempt to argue that nothing in regards to perception is set in stone for human experience for every individual. For instance, we can suggest that abberations in dopamine and glutamate may produce hallucinatory visual stimuli to some individuals which most do not experience and we can argue the validity of this stimuli. But then to suggest something along the lines of sight is merely a human construct is absurd.. I think you are missing the point, I don't think anyone who has said that thought is dependent on time has suggested that the perception or experience of time is universal for everyone or even most, but it does seem that how we construct and formulate thoughts is a result of integrating external stimuli, experience and associations and thus being dependent on time.

 

thedope:

:-D Eventually.

But?! No-one is saying reality is local to the exception of locality except you in saying it's neither here nor there! lol As I wrote back at #140:

"There is no locality that is real to the exception of any other, but that doesn't make reality anything more or less than local! lol "

You mean the drama that comes too dear at our expense. Let's be our proverbial selves then, where we admit the best in life is free, and should we deign to measure it, to count its cost, to at least not let it leave a difference we don't ourselves make! :-D

lol You'd best ignore the following questions, like...the misinterpretation of an experience is an illusion? Or, how about this one - How many people in particular are you saying we can live without?

A thought that was itself a perception. No, your claim remains mistaken. I reckon you'd rise from your chair without thinking if a neanderthal came at you from out of nowhere brandishing a club. Of course you'd have to see him first, not out of nowhere naturally, but see him nonetheless. lol

 

You are right as long as we assume that a quale (singular of qualia) is a learned response based on memory of previous experiences and so forth. But David Chalmers, who introduced the Hard Problem of Consciousness, felt that there is a level to qualia that is a priori, a given that is not learned. He listed four properties of qualia, the fourth one being, “Directly or immediately apprehensible—to experience a quale is to know it, know you are experiencing, and know all about that quale. I believe that some of this concept comes from people who have been blind since birth and were given sight, for example, and their ability to suddenly see colors, and things. But experiencing qualia is something more profound than just the sensory experience. And of course qualia entail all kinds of things, other than seeing colors or listening to a Sonata. Qualia are something that cannot be communicated or explained. We can program a computer or a robot, for example, to identify red by wavelength, but a computer or a robot would never experience red the way we do. And how would you explain it to someone who has never had eyesight?

But here is another example—Qualia includes the experience of anger. A lot of anger could be dependent on time, for example repressed shadow imagery that is based on an event from our childhood or some other point where something was literally repressed. But there are events of anger that stem from other archetypical motifs, such as those Jung identified as the anima or animus---this gets much murkier in terms of a learned behaviors because elements of this are a priori elements that we were born with.

But you make an arguably valid point, and Chalmers doesn’t have all the answers here. Let me provide a different example. Every time my wife smells incense or a burning candle, when there is no candles or incense around, a relative of hers passes away over the next year or two (I’m joking!!!)---a relative of hers passes away within about a week. I used to not believe her, but I’ve seen it happen over and over. It happened in the Philippines (she is a Filipina), usually at home. But it happened in a car, and I believe one time when we were outside. Then after bringing her to America in 1996, it still happens. Sometimes it is a close relative, other times it is a more distant relative, but it always happens within a few days or a week, and typically she will experience it several times until the we hear that someone passed on. These are not only relatives that are sick and dying. Somehow she is sensing something that happens a week or so into the future.

I too have something like that, though there could be a physical explanation. As a kid I always missed the earthquakes. I live in Colorado, and generally the earthquakes here were small---but there were a few back in the 60’s caused by oil companies pumping water into the ground to get more oil out of wells that were slowing down (this was before fracking). My mom would feel them, but I missed out and always wanted to feel them. My first earthquakes were in Japan, and not only did I feel those, but I discovered that anywhere from a week to a few days before a good sized earthquake, one that you could definitely feel, I would get a sensation somewhere between the earth moving and dizziness. It would especially happen when I was tired, and I believe my back was in a certain posture in relation to the ground---I don’t know. At first I usually thought that I must be overtired and got dizzy---though I don’t get dizzy. And it was just a momentary sensation that I could almost ignore. But I soon realized that the only time it happens is before an earthquake. We were in the Philippines one time and I kept getting this feeling. My wife had told me that they don’t get earthquakes there and I thought that was good enough for me (so much for all that book learning, and the ring of fire (which the Philippines sits right on)). So I assumed that I must actually be dizzy---maybe the food or something… We were in a government building in Manila when I felt it very strong and I warned my wife that we were going to have an earthquake and it will be big. I told her we should get out of the building, but we were only able to make a few steps before it hit. That was a 7.8 at the epicenter, and the biggest earthquake I ever felt---and hope it was the last.

You are right, except that I simply was pointing out an example of how we can physically process time within the brain. My real point, however, is not that consciousness being dependent on time requires a universal perception of time. I think that point was brought up early in the thread, and even our own individual experiences of time fluctuate. So yes, we can experience time differently. My point is that it is the ego-consciousness (or what we refer to as the conscious mind) that we use to construct thoughts integrating external stimuli, experience and associations and is therefore dependent on time, giving us a consciousness-bias. It is our own individual consciousness-of that keeps us locked into the moment just past the here-and-now. Therefore we cannot rule out the possibility of a level of consciousness that is NOT dependent on time.

My wife for example may be able to tap into a higher, perhaps multidimensional level of her consciousness that already knows a relative will die. This may not be a level that is conscious-of in the sense that we understand consciousness, and therefore she understands it through symbolic motifs that are rich in association with death—candles or incense.

Or to use another example---in the holographic model of the universe, there is no physical dimensions as we understand them, but the model has numerous followers in the science world. It is dependent upon our own consciousness creating these dimensions. But we have no perception that this is actually happening. That fact does not invalidate the model, because it could be happening at a subconscious level we are unaware of-----or even at the level of the ego. We are generally never aware of what our ego does to maintain consistency of personality. But it does this all the time--we go to bed angry and wake up with the same anger because the ego keeps us consciously focused on that aspect of our experience. The ego also constinusouly rperesses stimulus, no pertinent facts regarding our environment, etc, etc, as well as feelings, subconscious stimulus, our heartbeat, and all kinds of other things---we are very rarely, if ever, aware of such things. The ego is able to function in these ways b ecause we are not aware of it.

 

Wolf:

To assume consciousness as being dependent on time is really, as I've expanded upon, only an acknowledgement of its interdependency, of its having its own time and also the possibility that it could become it. This so-called "conclusion" gives us time. The other, that consciousness is independent of it, is really just a lingual misunderstanding! lol Since I don't possess it, I have to say I guess, as opposed to conclude, that it exists of wanting to suggest that time is our very own. As for assuming the emergence of consciousness from matter, it's no conclusion, never having stopped emerging from it. lol Reductionist thinking?! For that assumption you should be reduced on high to a simmer of your former self! Even if only so you may resume assuming. And Cartesian?! That's a good one coming from one who thinks they exist from the thought coming first. :-D

 

Took too long explaining to you what I already knew?

I didn't say neither here nor there.

You are being stingy with your language in not recognizing certain conjugations of the word local. Local by definition is more or less.

"lo·cal [lṓk'l]
adj
1. in nearby area: relating to, situated in, or providing a service for a particular area, especially the area near home or work
the local school

2. characteristic of particular area: characteristic of, or only found in, a particular area
the local dialect

3. not widespread: confined to a fairly small area
There have been local outbreaks of the disease.

4. relating to governmental region: relating to a comparatively small region that controls some aspects of practical government such as housing or education
local elections

5. affecting small part: affecting only a specific part of a human's or animal's body
local infection

6. stopping everywhere: stopping at all the stations or bus stops on a route
local trains and buses

7. to phone number nearby: made to a phone number within a fairly small radius and therefore not itemized on a phone bill
a phone for local calls only

No the drama that asks for recompense.

An experience of sensory perception. Experiences aren't illusion but the counting or recounting of the parameters of an experience by the conscious mind can be fictional and have no objective constituents in reality. We can imagine things that are not so for the purpose of creation. We can imagine a solution that does not yet exist and we can also imagine an extant world that does not exist.

I don't know how many people there are.
I didn't give a number, but it takes at least two to facilitate our emergence as human beings in every extent.
That one particular person would obviously be someones significant other.

I wonder if these questions are less than sincere, being obtuse as they are. Stemming from perhaps the belief that I am speaking nonsense and you would like to portray it as such?

Seeing is the interpretation of reflected light. Sensory perception is not knowledge, it is information. We interpret form and surmise substance.

Oh, I should add that instinctive reflex is coded thought

 

Is a rock conscious? When did consciousness start emerging from matter?
If consciousness is interdependent on time in the way that you portray it there must be a time when consciousness begins to emerge from matter. Simultaneously does not explain the disparity between not conscious matter and conscious matter assuming that you regard some matter as being not conscious,
which is really a confusion since all your regard is conscious.

 

thedope:

You thought you had to? On my part, I've had to explain to you, and will probably always have to, that reality is always local. lol

Yeah you did. "Non-local, nor remote" Your "equation" for "everywhere" that's nowhere in particular. :-D

No, that's you. I let local mean what it may. Not possible in your non-local reality, no matter if it's paired or not with 'non-remoteness.'

I don't see the difference.

lol That last one's funny. With your wording, we shall live in illusion for the rest of our lives!

Variations on a theme. I don't think what you're trying to say is nonsense, but the way it sometimes comes out, eg. "Reality is non-local nor remote" is as loopy as all get out.

Knowing is ongoing, that's all. Perception and information are knowledge, no matter how you want to have knowledge apart; it resists being construed as absolute. :-D You yourself say it is shared, yet say it is not always perceived! lol

And coded thought? I don't know if in asking you to expand upon what you mean you'll think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm asking anyway. Illustrative examples would be nice.

Not the bloody rock again! When you say when first you do mean here on earth, right? Does it matter? Look up abiogenesis if you like. Here is a link I posted in the 'is consciousness emergent or a priori condition' thread concerning recent findings: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...life-emerged-from-cell-membrane-bioenergetics

About my conscious regard, it doesn't breathe life into clay, but it can breathe life into life.

 

If there is a level of consciousness that could be conscious of events in our physical past and future, and if you would say that such a level of consciousness is creating its own time, then I would see your point. In my arguments I hold that time is an intricate part of the physical dimensions---the 4 dimensions that we are consciously aware of, and I therefore understand your argument as relating to the levels of consciousness that we are aware of---in other words, conscious of as individuals. I see light as something that may in fact lie fundamentally in a higher dimension, which is why it can exist simultaneously billions of years in the past and right now in the here and now. It is why, if we were to move at the speed of light, all of existence would be like a single instant of zero space-time. If there is a level of consciousness that exists at such higher dimensions, then it would be outside of the physical dimensions of time. Even if it were to create its own time, our physical concept of time—from the standpoint of the whole life of the universe---i.e. all of physical existence from big bang to the end, would be nothing more than a brief instant of zero space-time.

About 20 years ago, I was still a hippy idealist, who believed that I could shape my own reality. At that time I witnessed some things in the Philippines that very strongly suggested life beyond the grave. But it was too weird and I had no cultural context for any of it. I saw the world in Modernistic terms—through objectivistic rationalism. I tried to dismiss this strange experience, and then in the face of a lot of bad luck, questioned my own idealism. The fact that consciousness would be emergent from physical matter was the most logical conclusion. I embraced existence as the basis of being. But what had happened in the Philippines still gnawed at me. I’ve talked about this stuff before, and the past 10 or 12 years where my perception of reality, my experience of the universe, has become very irrational—one of a universe that is very strange, and includes spirit. My rational side struggled with it for some time. I experienced synchronicities that became increasingly hard to explain, but I did rationalize them away—and this is why I had the experience with the tail that I wrote about in the other thread—an event I could no longer rationalize. It was after that event that I became involved with my Lakota friends. The universe is so strange that I have seen the night time sky act out a key mythical motif straight from Lakota legend, while I sat on a hill for several days. And I was told it was going to happen by a bird who said nothing, other than to point to a tree with its beak, and then land on it. That night I wondered if it would really happen, but I fell asleep. Suddenly I woke up, and it happened. There was no hallucination, no dream. Could anything be more strange?

I have seen too many things like this to understand the universe as simply emergent from physical matter. I understand my individual consciousness in the here-and-now as being physically manifested in the physical body, but I also understand that after the death of this physical body, my consciousness, like that of others, will continue to exist, but not necessarily in the physical here and now. While there may be an element of assumption on my part, these are not things that I have rationalized, or come to theorize, or what have you. These are things that I have experienced—my own, purely existentialist experience (in this case, existentialist referring to subjective individualistic human experience). I have always been open to challenge my beliefs, which is how I got here in the first place. If I were now to experience things that told me all of that was purely illusion, than I would return to a rational explanation. My suggestions in this thread are not conclusions, but an attempt to make sense out of this irrational universe that I now experience.

From your life experiences, you conclude that consciousness is emergent from matter, and that consciousness cannot exist without the physical body. This is a strictly materialist viewpoint—which is why I do not understand why you took issue with my suggesting you were a materialist. Materialism holds that if consciousness does exist it arises from the material world. It makes logical sense, and the empirical world of science, for the most part, certainly suggests that is how it is. But where I may differ from you is that I was always willing to challenge my beliefs. Numerous philosophers, a number of scientists, and others refer to the dogma of science—the reductionist thinking that all being is based on physical reality. It is reductionist and dogmatic because it allows for no other possibility. Material reality—matter—is to science what god is to religion. They are both just as dogmatic because they do not allow for any alternative—even though neither one has the final answer. Dogma is different from belief in that beliefs can be challenged and changed when new evidence comes out. Therefore I stand by my statement that it is reductionist.

I cannot say that your view of consciousness is wrong, (I would then fall victim to a dogmatic reductionism), I can only say that it does not explain the universe I have come to know in the past 12 years or so.

While Descartes’ first principal was, I think therefore I am, he then proceeded to remove the observer—the ego—out of the picture with his mind/body split. From his first principal he went on to prove that god exists, and then re-proved that physical reality exists. This effectively split religion and science into two separate worlds, one focused on spirit, the other on the physical. But the subjective ego was from thereon alienated from the objective world around it as simply an objectivistic observer. Science has proved that the mind has a much more intricate connection to the body then just the pineal gland as Descartes theorized. But the observing self is still the objectivistic observer looking at the world as a world of objects---even other humans are nothing more than objects in this Cartesian world. While there may have been a God (an essence, or transcendent spirit if you will) in the original Cartesian world, its survival depended upon rational proof, and once we, as objectivistic rational observers, rationalized it did not exist, the Cartesian world discarded it as a non-existence created by our own minds ala St. Thomas Aquinas.

You have told us that you cannot see consciousness existing in a disembodied form free of the physical body. This places the ego-self, just as firmly within the physical shell as an objectivistic observer in a world of objects (the physical world) as Descartes. It also does not resolve Descartes’ mind/body dichotomy, because it does not explain away things such as—how does my wife understand a relative will die within a matter of days by smelling candles or incense when none are present. Or how can a tail suddenly appear where moments before was empty ground. It is still the result of a world where the vestigial remains of the spiritual is relegated to the world of religion, and the physical world is ruled by the sciences, which in pure rationally objectivistic terms (ala Descartes) has been raised to the superior unifying truth of our culture. Therefore I stand by my statement that it is Cartesian.

 

Wolf:

The universe emerges nonetheless from itself, and whether as idea or more, it's emergent.

That's not where you differ from me. Where we differ is that I'm a hard ass with language. lol It doesn't mean I'm not generous with it! :-D I am certainly a materialist by your reckoning, ie. I see no disembodiment. But it is because I don't see an inherent divide that I don't dismiss consciousness arising from itself. No difference between existence and essence.

The physical is freedom. I don't see the body as shell, or device, or in any way removed from consciousness.

Have you considered it's a dichotomy that doesn't actually exist, that it is not there to be 'resolved'? That we are body entirely explains better your wifes apparently dislocated sensations than disembodiment ever will! lol

Well, you know my suggestion. Kitsune, or eagle. And I don't doubt for a moment that you know what you know. :-D

I don't hold the universe to be rational! I'm just not that mean! lol


p.s. I still don't follow your zero spacetime for light, or the stuff about its simultaneous existence in the past.

 

I didn't feel I had to, you said finally although I may not be through yet.

Nowhere and nowhere in particular are not the same. Some descriptions consist of word sets. Just as I am called many things but I am none in particular.

Local and non-local are not the same. as per the definition of local
only found in
not widespread: confined to a fairly small area
relating to a comparatively small region
affecting small part: affecting only a specific part
within a fairly small radius

Reality is not only found in, a definition for local.
Reality is widespread as opposed to not widespread or confined to a small area, a definition for local.
Reality relates to more than a comparatively small region, a definition for local.
Reality affects more than a small part, a definition for local.

So let's let local mean what it may and non-local mean what it may.

Learning is ongoing. Knowledge is being shared. Perception is not knowledge but can lead to it.

More precisely encoded experience and it is in the form of DNA.

I didn't ask when life emerged from matter, I asked when consciousness arose from matter. If a rock is not conscious then consciousness does not emerge simultaneously with matter. Perhaps it emerges simultaneously from matter of a certain complexity? If so what is that level of complexity?

About my conscious regard, it doesn't breathe life into clay, no matter that it may breathe life into life.

 

thedope:

I said eventually.

LOL Yeah? Where is nowhere that isn't nowhere in particular? Don't tell me you're trying to say nowhere in particular is everywhere again, I simply haven't got the currency you're selling it to me for. :-D

No kidding.

No, but that doesn't mean it's anything more or less than local for its ongoing definition.

How widespread does a locality have to be before you'll concede reality is local?

You just can't separate reality from locality via definition can you. lol

Sure, but non-local meaning what it may in relation to reality? You'd have to supply the meaning in such an event thedope. lol

No. Knowledge is always perceived.

Knew you were going to say that without such knowledge being encoded. Was wondering how you'd get out of maintaining reflex is coded thought. :-D

Faulty reasoning. And distinguishing between consciousness and life is irrelevant when we are in any case dealing with the sensation of matter. Emergence isn't 'reduced' to the instant, to motion itself. It is the instant. About the complexity, have a look at that link.

 

That’s true---I just suggest that it is emergent from consciousness.

Fair enough---I’m still playing with that concept reckoning the materialist with the consciousness arising from itself ---your version of existence being one and the same with essence---maybe its two different ways of saying the same thing…?

But you don’t have the freedom, for example, to have an out-of-body experience where you go back to Victorian London and kill prostitutes just for the experience of the raw violence, the horror, and expression of pure sadistic aggression. It doesn’t give you the freedom to… oh no! I’ve said too much. Never mind any of that! You are right, silly me to think someone could… You know. …Never mind! You have no proof! …I mean, of course there is nothing to need proof of when I didn’t do anything… What am I talking about…?

Seriously though---modern science has moved beyond the body as an actual shell. The point is that the ego-self is still the objective observer.

Also I still see such a freedom as being only temporal---death being a finality.

Well, you know my suggestion. Kitsune, or eagle. And I don't doubt for a moment that you know what you know. :-D[/QUOTE]

Yes, you have suggested that. But I would have seen it if they had brought it in physical form. As a matter of fact I interact with the wolf, the Red Tailed Hawk, and in some ways the eagle. The eagle is in fact an important motif to my wife. But this is generally not in a physical way—though I have had moments with both birds in a physical sense. I also have a Red Tailed Hawk feather that was given to me by an Indian friend several years ago, which told me of changes coming into my life. He had no idea of the significance it held for me, he just saw it and knew it was meant for me. Unfortunately it was changes that involve a lot of responsibility on my part---and here I’m a lazy hippy at heart. If the fox or the eagle brought it to me in a nonphysical manner, then I am right back where I started from---the existence of spirit.

So here is an example of my wife. In about 2004 or 2005 she started smelling it. As typical we checked all through the house. It leaves us both with an uncomfortable feeling (I even wonder if she might somehow pick up a signal regarding my own family—I have yet to experience the death of an immediate family member). None of the kids were burning candles or incense. She smelled it again several times over the next few days. Then one evening we got a call, her aunt and uncle who were in their 60’s but very healthy, and were both medical doctors, had been in a terrible car accident that same day and killed. After that she no longer experienced this for a year or two until the next relative passed away. How would you explain that from the perspective that we are body and that our consciousness cannot exist in a disembodied state?

It is not my concept. There are several sources you can go to and read about it. One of my favorites, is Fred Alan Wolfe’s, Parallel Universes, the search for other worlds. I found that book to be so mind blowing I referred to it as a hallucinatory drug trip without the drugs. I read it before Hawking’s famous book, and was very disappointed in Hawking—it may have been unfair, and maybe not true, but I claimed that Wolf covered all of Hawking’s book in the first few chapters of his. I’ve got a few other books in my library that discuss this---I can’t think of which ones----perhaps Brian Greene’s, The Fabric of the Cosmos?

Oh---I’m glad that you are not that mean!

 

Actually----please keep that up---that is probably why discussing these things with you is helping me in my own writing!

 

And it is, but that doesn't mean consciousness doesn't emerge from it! lol Interdependency!

I reckon so.

lol

Well, don't we all see the freedom of the body as temporal so long as we think we have to die?

I can't explain it, but I know disembodiment doesn't! :-D

 

So you did. Will an event become another event, seems a finality to me. This is where it gets really eventful.

You are tongue tied.

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings.
Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must either violate the principle of locality or allow superluminal communication.

In physics, nonlocality or action at a distance is the direct interaction of two objects that are separated in space without an intermediate agency or mechanism. Isaac Newton considered gravity-action-at-a-distance "so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it".
The bold quote here could have come from Dejavu.

Consciousness transcends time and space.

Entangled particles are intended together. Remember the time we take is optional.

I don't know the name of the person living fifteen doors to the north, of you, I confident however that they have one or more. You ever hear somebody say they don't get it?

 

I agree,
Dejavu is never too tedious for me!

 

Freedom is a construct of mind. There are many who consider themselves decidedly not free due precisely to their physical circumstance. I am not one of those by the way. I consider my physical circumstance to be ultimately inconsequential.

 

thedope:

As opposed to only somewhat eventful?

No, that was you that said nowehere is not the same as nowhere in particular. lol

I take it you think it must be the former, and yet even you thedope are of the instant.

Yet space is never separate from itself, there being no perfect vacuum.

Full quote:-

It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.

—Isaac Newton, Letters to Bentley, 1692/3
​

Not sure how you think it could have come from me. I'm the evincible Dejavu, and nowhere near as grave as you. :-D

Please feel free to fill us in as to where. I am fine with consciousness creating spacetime, but when transcendence of it is spoken of without further specifics, I want answers. lol

And the space? I know you equate gravity with intent. I will never know why. lol

Don't trouble yourself over it thedope, I'm sure they know their name, or if no-one now knows it, it has ceased to be known.