Science vs. Mysticism

[crosz]

I never saw the movie contact because someone told me the aliens actually just turn out to be jodie foster's father in the end...

I thought that sounded lame so I never watched it.

Am I missing something? is it a good movie...?

The alien took on the form of her father so she could see him/not freak out.. Your friend isnt the best listener

 

[crosz]

The Double Slit Experiment and frequencies - Science - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

wow..

There is no way he has broken through on dmt. And I need to assume he doesn't meditates or see what we have seen. He came here cause he was curious, and now gets off on telling us how unreal everything we see is. Just remember your experiences, learn from them. I'll take whatever info I get from a weirdo I meet in other dimensions, before i take a serious word from this "wellllll.. that isn't EXACTLY proven yet.. see.. if you blahblah didiblah blah this blah blah blah.. you will see that what you experienced doesn't make sense on this tiny spec of dust in space." Now I don't believe 99% of the dots that are being connected with physics. But I have a hard time understanding the need some people have to deny the possibility's. Not letting anyone say it smells like shit without testing it in a lab with a peer review.

He hasn't shown one single spec of imagination. Everything that comes out of his fingers is 100% of what we know on this tiny little spec of dust in space. Pure ego. how he ended up here? From the amount of time spent on his posts and how often he posts on a subject that he is not passionate about, a subject that is the most controlled substance in the world. On a subject that has so much unknown information in it. I would seriously consider him being paid out of the same pockets as the media. If not, that means he is insanely passionate about proving people wrong during his insanely large amount of spare time. Which is sick minded imo.

If you have read this. It would be cool if your next reply explained your last breakthrough. What you saw, what you learned from it. And how it effected you. If not.. Seriously, bug off. You are helping no one but peoples ego.

*granted that link is to the "Science" section. I am also new here and don't know if some like the fact there is pure ego around to balance things out. Bud damn this guy is as bad as it gets.

 

[crosz]

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena. They will learn more in one decade than in all the previous century's of its existence." -Nikola Tesla.

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand fourth in naked and simple beauty." -Galileo Galilei

"WOW that one guy was so full of known facts. So amazing" -Nobody ever

Discouraging interest in fields undiscovered is pointless. Leave people alone. Let them dream. Its not hurting anyone.

 

[gibran2]

Oh my – this is long! :shock:

Fine, scientists do, but they do so from or through science. Anyway, that is a semantic issue, I think the point remains the same. And yes, evidence does in fact point to the fact that what we identify as consciousness and mind arises from physical processes in the brain. This is something that can easily be inferred from the massive amount of data. I don't know how you can argue against this. How else should we explain everything that seeps out of neuroscience everyday? How else should we explain evolution, the history of the universe before consciousness were there and so on? Where, and how, did consciousness exist in the early universe? Where, and how, did it exist before matter?

Part of the problem here is how you seem to be defining consciousness. Your definition seems to be more in line with “perceptual awareness and related neurological processes”. Relatively unsophisticated robotic sensory systems can be made aware of their surroundings and responsive to them, yet most would agree that such simple mechanical systems are not conscious. The consciousness I’m talking about is a consciousness that, although related in some way to awareness, is not itself awareness. Don’t ask me to define precisely what consciousness is – greater minds than mine, having devoted generations to the problem, are unable to answer that question. It’s much easier to explore what consciousness isn’t rather than to pin down what it is.

The consciousness that neuroscience explores is not the same consciousness that we’re discussing here. Neuroscience investigates states of mind, levels of awareness and responsiveness, reactions to stimuli, etc. This sort of consciousness, if we want to call it that, obviously arises from mechanistic biological processes. But as I said, mechanistic processes, biological or otherwise, do not “produce” the sort of consciousness we are now discussing.

You may consider these types of consciousness to be equivalent. If they are, then you would have to admit that any system capable of responding to its environment is conscious. You would be forced to conclude that thermostats are conscious, that rocks are conscious, and that subatomic particles are conscious. (Panexperientialism)

You make the assumption in your questions that consciousness didn’t exist until beings with awareness existed. If consciousness “created” the universe, how would things be different? Why do you suggest that evolution, the history of the universe, etc. would be different? The primacy of consciousness paradigm claims that consciousness existed before the material universe. Consciousness existed before, and will continue to exist in the absence of, physical beings.

No one can answer where consciousness came from, just as no one can answer what existed physically before the Big Bang. These are mysteries, and they are equivalent mysteries.

These are serious questions, and why can't we control reality more if consciousness in fact creates it? Shouldn't it then be possible to collectively create, say, hamburgers ex-nihilo? Or walk through walls? Something like this? How does even consciousness, something immaterial, create matter? This would essentially violate everything we know about the universe. There are no plausible solutions to these problems, as far as I know.

We can’t control physical reality with our consciousness because we are physical beings bound by very strict physical laws. As a scientist, I thought you already knew this!

I can’t answer your question regarding how immaterial consciousness creates matter. This is another mystery. But it is a mystery equivalent to how matter was created out of nothing, as claimed by proponents of the primacy of matter paradigm.

I sincerely think that the progress of evolution on earth shows an unmistakable trajectory from matter to mind. Considerable evidence exists that the phenomena we call mind and consciousness arise from the natural mechanisms of a purely material brain. For instance, as brain function decreases, so does consciousness until we eventually lose it, as when under full anesthesia. If consciousness does not arise from a material brain, but is immaterial in nature, why does this happen, I wonder? If it is not immaterial, then why could it not arise from the brain as modern neuroscience suggests it does?

Again, the consciousness you are describing is related to neurological processes. This is not the same as the consciousness we’re discussing here. It would be nice if we had distinctive words to describe the two. I agree fully with you that mechanistic “brain consciousness” is a physical process.

I just can't reconcile the idea of consciousness creating matter with the evidence we have over decades of scientific inquiry. It does not seem to make any sense, and it meets considerable explanatory problems that must be tackled for this to be taken more seriously. Please do offer some solutions to these problems if you have them, and perhaps I'll join the primacy of consciousness paradigm

Science hasn’t answered the question of how matter – how the physical universe – came into being. There is no scientific evidence or inquiry into “pre-Big Bang existence”.

You can’t reconcile the idea of consciousness creating matter, yet you seem to accept that matter was created out of nothing? (The “nothing” that physicists often talk about isn’t actually nothing. True “nothingness” has no creative potential.)

Neuroscience is making progress, everyday, toward a fully material understanding of consciousness - whereas semantic arguments like yours; "but everything arises in consciousness!" really brings us nowhere. This claim is, the way I see it, completely removed from reality and is not contingent upon how reality works. It is akin to claiming there are unicorns in every house but that they are placed so no one can find them.

Once again, confusion over the kind of consciousness we’re discussing.

My claim has never been that everything arises from consciousness. My claim is much simpler: All we know – through direct experience – is that consciousness exists. Consciousness is the only aspect of reality/existence that we are able to directly experience. Everything else is inferred, including the existence of objective reality.

The hypothesis that brain creates consciousness is completely compatible with all the evidence and data we have from neuroscience. Reverse causality is even more difficult to infer from the data, not to say explain satisfactory. Here are some more examples from neuroscience;

The hypothesis that the brain creates responsive biological systems is compatible with scientific evidence. But there is no evidence that the brain creates the sort of consciousness we’re discussing here. Neither is there evidence that the primacy of consciousness is more likely. However, we can be certain that consciousness exists. As I said before, consciousness is the only aspect of reality/existence that we are able to directly experience. Everything else is inferred, including the existence of objective reality.

Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Loss of conscious visual perception can occur to stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1. With functional MRI we can directly measure changes in conscious experience, as well as with electroencephalography and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can even predict human choices from brain-scanning activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions they are going to make. How is this reconcilable with the reverse hypothesis of consciousness creating matter, and thus the brain? And how does this not support the original hypothesis of matter giving rise to consciousness?

If I damage a thermostat so that it no longer properly responds to changes in temperature, does this say anything at all about the nature of consciousness?

Yes, certainly neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind, but it does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing. If it did, one ought to think there are more suggestions going this way within neuroscience, or?

Scientists do not investigate the sort of consciousness we are discussing here.

No one denies that consciousness is a hard problem, and one of the greatest mysteries of science today, but before we reify consciousness to the level of an independent agency capable of creating its own reality, let’s give the hypotheses we do have for how brains create mind more time. It does, metaphysical circle wanks left aside, make a hell of a lot more sense imo.

If we accept the primacy of matter paradigm, we have some real problems with respect to consciousness: Materialists acknowledge that atoms are not conscious, individual neurons are not conscious, etc. yet are then forced to claim that consciousness is an “emergent” property. How do scientists explain this? Consciousness of the sort we’re describing doesn’t just pop into existence when a certain level of biological complexity is reached.

I know you’re not a fan of philosophy, but this is ultimately a question that can’t be addressed by science. Science tells us how the physical world works, but doesn’t – and can’t – answer why we’re here in the first place.

Another problem I have raised several times to you, but that I never got any answer to, is the following; place an object in a room, a place where I can't possibly know. Now exit the room and leave no observers there. I think we can agree that there is no consciousness perceiving this room now, right? Or the object? So, if consciousness creates matter, this object should not exist at all as far as I understand your philosophy (shoot me if I am wrong). How come, if I enter some time after, I will find the object at the exact same place you put it? The only rational explanation for me is that this object has some kind of defining properties, whatever they are, that are not contingent upon the observation made by consciousness. Some defining properties that exists independently of consciousness that makes it persist at this place in space and time. This problem can be generalized as well, and then we get the huge problem of existence between "time of perception" and that of shared reality.

I’m sorry, but I think I’ll have to shoot you. I don’t pretend to understand the relationship between matter and consciousness, but it’s quite possible that the material world doesn’t really exist at all. The material world may well be a “state” of consciousness.

Consciousness doesn’t leave a room when people leave a room, especially if rooms and people don’t really exist.

 

[ayaya]

Why have all my contributions been removed?

 

[Citta]

Thanks for your nice reply, gibran2. When you put it all this way, I am persuaded to agree with much of what you say, whilst also understanding better your point of view on this. Many times we have probably been talking above eachothers head on this, I suspect. I might get back to you when I have some time and have thought about it a bit.

Thanks again for your time

Edit; one little question to you gibran2. Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

 

[joedirt]

I disagree. In this example, nothing is being presupposed. There is no need to assume either consciousness creates matter or matter creates consciousness when working through it. What I have done in this example of the room, is only to take a concrete observation into account and then look at the two hypotheses under question; namely consciousness is a result of matter, and matter is a result of consciousness. The first hypothesis explains this observation without any difficulty, while the last one doesn't really seem to be able to explain it without further ad-hoc hypotheses and assumptions.

Ok Citta, I know you are studying hard to be a scientist, so I would like to ask a very simple question one scientist to another. How can we talk about consciousness in a scientific way when in fact OUR conscientiousness is directly coupled to our experiments and the interpretation of the RESULTS :shock:

I think most here would agree that good science demands that you isolate variables and good statistics demands little too no inter-correlation between variables. Think multi- linear regression or partial least squares (PLS) analysis here.

It would seem we first need to remove the dependent variables (or in the case of PLS recombine the to form new variables that are orthogonal).

So back to my original question. How can we seriously talk about consciousness from a grounded scientific perspective when quite clearly our subjective experiences is interfering with the experiment....and more importantly out interpretation of the results!

BTW I don't share gibran's view about distinctions in consciousness. To me it is ALL AWARENESS. Consciousness is just a more refined awareness. In my view it's likely that to some highly evolved alien race we we barely be considered conscious at all! :shock:

My starting hypothesis is that all matter is aware. I base this on the simple fact that two uncharged particles in a vacuum are still 'aware' of each other via van Der Walls interactions. Starting from this base level of awareness and working up it seems as though to me the universe is literally waking up to the fact that it is aware. Each progression in evolution from raw particles -> atoms -> molecules -> matter (rocks, trees, humans, etc) results in a slightly more refined system which apparently VIOLATES the laws of entropy? I mean you would be hard pressed to argue that humans are more disordered that the same collection of atoms once the body has decayed!


To be sure it is VERY clear that most of what we call us: Likes, dislikes, fears, loves, etc are ENTIRELY determined in the brain. When I talk about something that transcends this human body I can't seriously entertain that any part of ME actually survives. What I'm theorizing is more in line with Buddhist thinking. Some aspect of this base level awareness may makes it across the abode of death, BUT IT WILL NOT BE YOU or ME. I tend to currently share their view of a karmic bundle/thought stream/mind stream, but my views change and evolve over time as I have to also admit that what ever truth I have today is likely not THE TRUTH.


Let's try getting a little closer to what I'm talking about: When you take a monster hit of DMT or hit extreme hyperspace on any substance and achieve ego death....what exactly is that part of you that is still 'aware'? Could it just be another part of the brain watching itself? I suppose it could....

But isn't it possible that our base level awareness (that which even elementary particles have) does indeed transcend this? Is it possible that nirvana is the release of this awareness from our petty human consciousness?


Lastly, I hope you as a budding physicists will share this view. Any declaration of reality that doesn't include the psychedelic state is incomplete. It is simply WAT too fascinating and to deep to just say it's this chemical and that receptor...and I say that as someone who made his living for over a decade designing molecules to hit various receptors. The psychedelic state is just to vast of an expanse to be ignored IMHO.

Peace.

 

[jamie]

I have read a lot of material written by Carl Sagan. One of my favorites was "The Demon-Haunted World" where he "debunks" many different things from Astrology-UFOs and I can't help but feel it's a little unfair in a sense to other experimental ideas. Terence McKenna describes something of a "Great Attractor" pulling us, the apex of novelty, towards a point in time where unimaginable changes will take place. He also believes that we are a collective-conscience, other than that of the scientific POV. I was wandering if anyone had a thought or opinion on it. I, personally, am on the fence. Any advice? Peace.

Just google "Dr. J. Allen Hynek and Carl Sagan UFO's" and you will find that there is at least *some* reason to believe Sagan was not being public about his real feelings in reguards to the UFO thing. Of course we cannot verify this 100% atm.

I have never really found Carl Sagan all that interesting but I have not read all his books either so..

 

[crosz]

all matter is aware.

 

[Cuauhtēmallān]

 

[crosz]

Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

If you can consider a microbe, white blood cell or germ cell as conscious. It isn't hard for someone to go a small step further and call a light particle conscious. Since it seems to act differently only when a certain human actions are made.

Taking that small step, consciousness being broken down to light particles of information from the brain. Then that is pretty much the only conclusion left. If you count out 1,000 other possibility's that is. Its one, but a good one.

If you go as far as to accept that.. then you would have to consider that when the first spark of consciousness started from matter. That its intention to grow eyelashes to block dust, skin to protect organs. Was brought apon by the conscious matter (thought) because it knew it was getting dust in its eye and by acknowledging it is cold. Unconscious things don't "grow" skin. Conscious things feel and "create" things such as skin, cars, planes. It creates these things. I'm in NY and surrounded by what someone imagined and created. If thought truly didn't create our reality, we would be living in a much different reality. Anyway I doubt you want to go there . Sorry btw.. Ive been restricted to youtube for a while and been around a little too much science know it all's just being plain dicks. Didn't mean to take it full out on you.

 

[gibran2]

...Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?

Awareness, responsiveness to stimuli, human memory, self-awareness, etc. are all obviously (?) products of the material world.

It is possible that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, but this is something that can’t be proven. We are “trapped” in consciousness – we can’t experience anything outside of it – so anything and everything outside of it is inferred. This fact makes a consciousness-related explanation of existence seem more plausible than a matter-related one.

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

 

[Cuauhtēmallān]

It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

Not true. See above.

 

[Citta]

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

At least we can't know if we did. But yeah, it seems likely this is the case indeed. Reminds me of Kant's Ding an sich

 

[Cuauhtēmallān]

 

[crosz]

It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are yet.

Fixed?

 

[y]

The scientific method assesses facts.
The fact that someone predicted your star sign is a fact.

The scientific method assesses evidence, or lack thereof.

I have cleaned the thread.

Facts removed. Science wins by belief alone:
The answer "My guess is that neither is correct."

 

[y]

ffffffff

 

[y]

ffffff

 

[23]

My guess is that neither is correct. It seems likely that we don’t have the imagination, knowledge, or cognitive capacity to understand things as they actually are.

At least we can't know if we did. But yeah, it seems likely this is the case indeed. Reminds me of Kant's Ding an sich

Is this the consensus? :? :surprised

Maybe you will be interested in the Marseilles Tarot (

)