Theory of Everything

[gibran2]

“Consciousness is nothing but a complex serious of chemical reactions.”

What evidence do you have to show this is the case?

And consider the consequences of such a statement: If consciousness is nothing but a complex series of chemical reactions, and if a hypothetical computer can accurately simulate any complex series of chemical reactions, then one must conclude that computers can in theory be conscious.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the logic gates and other primitive circuit elements of a computer need not be implemented in silicon. It is conceivable to make logic gates out of water pipes and valves. So in theory, it would be possible to construct a computer from plumbing parts that could simulate any complex series of chemical reactions. So one must conclude that plumbing parts – copper pipes, pumps, and various valves when arranged properly are conscious.

“You have no idea whether or not they really will never be understood. It's a guess”

I suggest you study the halting problem a bit more closely. “Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. We say that the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines.” (wikipedia)

 

[Skizm]

“Consciousness is nothing but a complex serious of chemical reactions.”

It is a hypothesis based upon my knowledge. Everything in our body is just a complex chain of enzyme intiated chemical reactions. Why should consciousness be any different? We're just organic technology. Of course, it's just a guess based on the observations I've made over the span of my life. Neither of us are really qualified to say "I know, 100%, how this works", while you are not saying that you do say we will never understand. Never is 100%, and we are finding out more and more that 100% doesn't really exist in the world of science.

What evidence do you have to show this is the case?

And consider the consequences of such a statement: If consciousness is nothing but a complex series of chemical reactions, and if a hypothetical computer can accurately simulate any complex series of chemical reactions, then one must conclude that computers can in theory be conscious. Maybe, I'm a computer programmer (in training that is, still a novice) that loves to trip, so naturally this question has come across my mind. Part of me says the mind is infinite, technology is never infinite. The other part condemns the other part for underestimating human ingenuity. Answer to the question: I don't know. I certainly hope we will develop conscious technology...and it will rule the universe! Muahahaha!


Furthermore, keep in mind that the logic gates and other primitive circuit elements of a computer need not be implemented in silicon. It is conceivable to make logic gates out of water pipes and valves. So in theory, it would be possible to construct a computer from plumbing parts that could simulate any complex series of chemical reactions. So one must conclude that plumbing parts – copper pipes, pumps, and various valves when arranged properly are conscious. A Bunch of Rocks puts it in perspective for me, I think you will appreciate this web-comic

“You have no idea whether or not they really will never be understood. It's a guess”

I suggest you study the halting problem a bit more closely. “Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs cannot exist. We say that the halting problem is undecidable over Turing machines.” (wikipedia) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the halting problem unsolvable because it focuses are observing an infinite loop for the entire course of its loop? Which is infinite...so we cannot observe its true length

 

[Ellis D'Empty]

(think of 2012 for example. Nobody knows wtf is going to happen, but we all have an idea)

Just wanted to chime in here, we also have no idea whats going to happen tomorrow. So throwing out "2012" like it's some important date (although we will move into the age of the fish) is just wrong.

On the OP:

I like it, didn't have time to read it all, but i'll get around to it as I see fit. Like you said everyone has their own opinions, and this is yours (collectively with the materials you've read/watched). Trying to push that opinion onto others as a belief (which I'm not saying your doing) is an idiotic escapade... (Again not implying it to you)

Trying to understand is human nature, but you must realize is that whatever "explanation" you find, it still won't be "the answer". As there is no "answer". Only questions, and (un)understanding, because once you understand, human nature dictates that you must ask another question to try and "disprove" what you already understand, in turn creating a whole other "vortex" of questions.

 

[clouds]

Yes – I agree. The “divine eternal mystery” is a characteristic of both the visionary realm and the material cosmic realm, although I don’t separate the visionary realm from the material cosmic realm as you seem to. *1

"Oh, I wonder why does the apple fall to the ground." <-- Your response might be “It falls to the ground because it goes down instead of up - let's move on to the next problem.” A true description, but not an explanation. It tells us nothing we don’t already know. In the same way, to say that DMT attaches to receptors in the brain tells us nothing about what you call the “visionary realm”. *2

“Your ignorance or fears are not equivalent to everyone else’s.” <-- This is a true statement, but irrelevant. I haven’t been discussing my ignorance or my fears, I’ve been discussing things that cannot ever be understood by any human being. You seem to not want to accept this as a possibility, but there are things that will remain forever a mystery. *3 There are things that cannot even in theory be known. (Look up the “halting problem” as an example.)

1. I'm not separating the visionary realm from the material cosmic realm. I'm surprised that you are telling me this, because my point has always been that neither the visionary realm and the material cosmic realm are totally unexplainable. Both are part of Nature. Both are part of Reality. Both can be studied. Sure, there may be some things about the visionary realm that we will never know, as there may be things about the cosmic material realm that we may never know. But we don't know what is the limit. We don't know what will be forever unknown because we can't see the future. As simple as that.

2. At least it is a start. Knowing that DMT molecules interact with specific receptors is a description, and yet, an important one. I'm not saying that I can explain the visionary realm. But I'm not saying that no one else will ever do it. I don't know how limited human cognition is. And my own cognition limits are not the same of everyone else today or in the future.

3. I suppose that there will be things and phenomena that will forever remain a mystery. But I cant really know. It seems to me that you are saying that the visionary realms (specifically) will remain forever an eternal mystery. Also, you want me to accept that nobody will ever be able to explain a natural phenomena. In other words, you want me to accept that all humanity will be forever as ignorant as I am right now about a natural phenomena. I just cant "accept" that, because, ironically enough, I don't know what we (humanity) are really capable of knowing and understanding.


On a side note gibran2, have you considered the possibility that humans someday will improve their cognitive capacity so much that we ourselves couldn't even understand them? Don't underrate humans. Don't overrate natural phenomena.

 

[1973tour]

I don't believe anything. But I do think about a lot of things. I'm a philosopher and I find it extremely intriguing seeing what other people think. I'm not trying to change anyones views or beliefs, I'm merely presenting a possibility in the form of a thought-experiment. Trying to actually explain all this shit is like trying to describe the color red to a blind man. It's not happening. Think of the OP more as something that I know is flawed, but seemingly could be true. The post in its very essence is designed to trick the mind so it can ask different questions. It's a thought experiment much like Scott Adam's work God's Debris. If you haven't read this book I strongly urge you to. Its a two hour read and will fuck your mind over and over.

Anyway, I consider this "experiment" to be successful, because now everyone here is talking about things that they would'nt have if they didn't find something at least remotely interesting in my OP. (or something that is flawed haha)

So, thanks to all!

 

[gibran2]

Well, we have some very interesting posts here. So here’s a rather long response:

…It is a hypothesis based upon my knowledge. Everything in our body is just a complex chain of enzyme intiated chemical reactions. Why should consciousness be any different? We're just organic technology. Of course, it's just a guess based on the observations I've made over the span of my life. Neither of us are really qualified to say "I know, 100%, how this works", while you are not saying that you do say we will never understand. Never is 100%, and we are finding out more and more that 100% doesn't really exist in the world of science.

You have taken the philosophical stance of an epiphenomenalist. Rather than ask “Why should consciousness be any different?”, we can ask “How would the universe be any different if there was no consciousness?” As you’ve suggested, our bodies/brains are just biochemical machines, so why consciousness? How would a person without consciousness (and I’m not referring to awareness, wakefulness, etc.) be any different from one with consciousness?

Also, it is true with 100% certainty that there are some things which will forever remain a mystery to us. What we can’t say with certainty is which particular things they happen to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the halting problem unsolvable because it focuses are observing an infinite loop for the entire course of its loop? Which is infinite...so we cannot observe its true length

No, that’s not correct. To use your example, the halting problem is a problem because we don’t know when or if a loop might end. The loop might end after a finite number of iterations, or it might never end. No matter how many iterations it goes through, we cannot say if the loop is infinite or finite.

I'm not separating the visionary realm from the material cosmic realm. I'm surprised that you are telling me this, because my point has always been that neither the visionary realm and the material cosmic realm are totally unexplainable. Both are part of Nature. Both are part of Reality. Both can be studied. Sure, there may be some things about the visionary realm that we will never know, as there may be things about the cosmic material realm that we may never know. But we don't know what is the limit. We don't know what will be forever unknown because we can't see the future. As simple as that.

I have never said that the “visionary realm” is totally unexplainable. In fact, with a major paradigm shift in science, much of it may be explainable. If you haven’t seen this talk, I suggest you watch it: The Primacy of Consciousness.

Here’s one of the ideas concerning paradigm shifts that was discussed in the talk: At one time, astronomers thought that the Earth was at the center of the universe, and that all heavenly objects revolved around the Earth in perfect circular orbits. Observations and careful measurements supported this idea – the stars all revolved around the Earth in perfect circular orbits. But the planets – the “wanderers” – didn’t seem to follow this basic law of the cosmos. So how can the motion of planets be explained? Easy! Epicycles – perfect circles within perfect circles could explain much of the observed irregularity.

Although epicycles improved the understanding of planetary motion, they didn’t explain all of the observed motions. It was only via a major paradigm shift – accepting the outrageous notion that the Earth wasn’t at the center of the universe and that heavenly bodies didn’t move in perfect circles that further progress could be made. Without the paradigm shift, it would have been impossible to fully explain the observed motion of the planets. The motion of the planets would have forever remained a mystery. The scientific paradigm of the time didn’t propel our knowledge forward – it had exactly the opposite effect.

Likewise, the current scientific paradigm states that matter (and energy) reign supreme. All phenomena experienced and observed arise from changes in matter. If one accepts this paradigm, then one must also accept that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of matter. Now this leads to some crazy consequences, such as conscious plumbing fixtures (see my last post) and complex, coherent, yet totally alien realities being generated entirely by the brain.

But what if this isn’t the case? What if consciousness is supreme, and matter arises from consciousness? I’m not saying that I believe this to be true, but if it is, then consciousness will remain a mystery until the new paradigm is accepted. If our current paradigm is incorrect, then our current ways of thinking will stifle scientific progress with respect to consciousness and “supernatural” phenomena.

On a side note gibran2, have you considered the possibility that humans someday will improve their cognitive capacity so much that we ourselves couldn't even understand them? Don't underrate humans. Don't overrate natural phenomena.

Yes, but at that point they would no longer be humans. Our cognitive capacity has grown tremendously as we have evolved from lemurs (or whatever), but we don’t consider ourselves now to be lemurs with improved cognitive capacity. We consider ourselves to be something altogether different. Likewise, whatever it is that we may evolve into, they will not consider themselves to be humans with improved cognitive capacity.

Anyway, I consider this "experiment" to be successful, because now everyone here is talking about things that they would'nt have if they didn't find something at least remotely interesting in my OP. (or something that is flawed haha)

Agreed.

 

[Skizm]

You have taken the philosophical stance of an epiphenomenalist. Rather than ask “Why should consciousness be any different?”, we can ask “How would the universe be any different if there was no consciousness?” As you’ve suggested, our bodies/brains are just biochemical machines, so why consciousness? How would a person without consciousness (and I’m not referring to awareness, wakefulness, etc.) be any different from one with consciousness?

Well said. One reason I take that stance is because nature and evolution is lazy. Both of them will always take the path of least resistance.

Also, it is true with 100% certainty that there are some things which will forever remain a mystery to us. What we can’t say with certainty is which particular things they happen to be.

How do you know this though? We are low on the evolutionary ladder right now. You cannot say that there *certainly* are things that we will never understand. However, you can say that the probability that there exists things we will never understand is high; because, frankly, it is. Why can you not say that? Because none of us have any idea how intelligent we will be in one billion years, if we still exist that is. Or, for that matter, how much we will understand.

 

[gibran2]

Also, it is true with 100% certainty that there are some things which will forever remain a mystery to us. What we can’t say with certainty is which particular things they happen to be.

How do you know this though? We are low on the evolutionary ladder right now. You cannot say that there *certainly* are things that we will never understand. However, you can say that the probability that there exists things we will never understand is high; because, frankly, it is. Why can you not say that? Because none of us have any idea how intelligent we will be in one billion years, if we still exist that is. Or, for that matter, how much we will understand.

Ugh… Read up on the halting problem.

I know that there are some things that will forever remain a mystery because there are some things (i.e. the halting problem) that have already been mathematically proven to be mysteries. It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s a question of what can and cannot be said about certain algorithms.

 

[endlessness]

or godel's theorems are another example of this

 

[Skizm]

Also, it is true with 100% certainty that there are some things which will forever remain a mystery to us. What we can’t say with certainty is which particular things they happen to be.

How do you know this though? We are low on the evolutionary ladder right now. You cannot say that there *certainly* are things that we will never understand. However, you can say that the probability that there exists things we will never understand is high; because, frankly, it is. Why can you not say that? Because none of us have any idea how intelligent we will be in one billion years, if we still exist that is. Or, for that matter, how much we will understand.

Ugh… Read up on the halting problem.

I know that there are some things that will forever remain a mystery because there are some things (i.e. the halting problem) that have already been mathematically proven to be mysteries. It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s a question of what can and cannot be said about certain algorithms.

We understand the halting problem though, it is not a mystery. There is a difference between never being able to comprehend something and not being able to solve it is there not?

Consciousness is something we do not understand yet there is no proof that we will never understand it.

 

[gibran2]

We understand the halting problem though, it is not a mystery. There is a difference between never being able to comprehend something and not being able to solve it is there not?

Consciousness is something we do not understand yet there is no proof that we will never understand it.

I’m not talking about the halting problem in general, I’m talking about particular algorithms that exhibit the halting problem. The mystery lies in whether or not particular algorithms will halt.

Let’s say I present you with a particular algorithm X and tell you that algorithm X iterates a particular function, and if certain conditions are met, the iterative loop will halt. We select input values, and then let the iteration process begin. My question is this: Will the program ever halt?

You can’t answer that question (unless of course the program halts). So, as long as the program is running, the question of whether or not it will halt is a mystery.

 

[nn-DMT]

Trying to understand is human nature, but you must realize is that whatever "explanation" you find, it still won't be "the answer". As there is no "answer". Only questions, and (un)understanding, because once you understand, human nature dictates that you must ask another question to try and "disprove" what you already understand, in turn creating a whole other "vortex" of questions.

Kevyn the Khem, I really like your approach. I think that this thread is a spot-on model of this phenomena. Who are we to say we "understand"?? Even in this dualistic aargument of whether or not we, as simple humans, can understand the DMT experience there must be some level of "understanding" to take a position on the matter. Even to say that we as humans cannot understand the DMT experience would require at least some level of understanding. This whole thread cancels itself out.

That said, I do still very much agree with the notion that there are things beyond our underrstanding. Is anyone familiar with m-theory? I'm surprised this hasn't already come up in a thread about a "theory of everything"

 

[Skizm]

I’m not talking about the halting problem in general, I’m talking about particular algorithms that exhibit the halting problem. The mystery lies in whether or not particular algorithms will halt.

Let’s say I present you with a particular algorithm X and tell you that algorithm X iterates a particular function, and if certain conditions are met, the iterative loop will halt. We select input values, and then let the iteration process begin. My question is this: Will the program ever halt?

You can’t answer that question (unless of course the program halts). So, as long as the program is running, the question of whether or not it will halt is a mystery.

Ahh, I understand what you're trying to say and agree...to an extent.

There are three distinct results: A) It will not run (Halt at beginning) B) It will run and halt at some point or C) It will run infinitely. We comprehend, that given input, what can happen. So, yes, it is a mystery when you ask what will happen but we know what can happen. In essence, we have mapped it, we understand it.

Saying that we will never understand consciousness is a premature-assumption. You can never say, with 100% certainty, what will happen. This is my entire point, which granted, may not have been clear in my earlier posts

 

[gibran2]

Saying that we will never understand consciousness is a premature-assumption. You can never say, with 100% certainty, what will happen. This is my entire point, which granted, may not have been clear in my earlier posts

I never claimed that we will never understand consciousness. Here’s what I said:

What if consciousness is supreme, and matter arises from consciousness? I’m not saying that I believe this to be true, but if it is, then consciousness will remain a mystery until the new paradigm is accepted.

Regarding the halting problem, Skizm said:

There are three distinct results: A) It will not run (Halt at beginning) B) It will run and halt at some point or C) It will run infinitely. We comprehend, that given input, what can happen. So, yes, it is a mystery when you ask what will happen but we know what can happen. In essence, we have mapped it, we understand it.

Using the same logic, you seem to be suggesting that we already understand consciousness.

We know that one of the following three statements regarding consciousness is true:

a) Matter creates consciousness.
b) Consciousness creates matter.
c) Neither a) nor b) is true.

“We comprehend what can be true. So, yes, it is a mystery when you ask what is true but we know what can be true. In essence, we have mapped it, we understand it.”

 

[clouds]

I have never said that the “visionary realm” is totally unexplainable. In fact, with a major paradigm shift in science, much of it may be explainable. If you haven’t seen this talk, I suggest you watch it: The Primacy of Consciousness.

Agreed.

Phew! I think this issue is clear now for you and me and probably to most people reading this thread.

Likewise, the current scientific paradigm states that matter (and energy) reign supreme. All phenomena experienced and observed arise from changes in matter. If one accepts this paradigm, then one must also accept that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of matter. Now this leads to some crazy consequences, such as conscious plumbing fixtures (see my last post) and complex, coherent, yet totally alien realities being generated entirely by the brain.

Totally alien realities? Mmmhh... I think they appear alien because of cultural boundaries. But maybe they are not "alien" in the popular sense of the word. Maybe that visionary phenomena is normal. Maybe it is part of our psyche/soul. Maybe its some sort of spiritual technology that its supposed to be experienced by humans. Imagine for a moment that these natural phenomena are not extraordinary, that they are part of the "package", if you will. What if we dropped our cultural prejudices and personal impressions? What if we approached this phenomena as part of what WE CAN do? As something that is part of this existence. Of this reality.

gibran2, what do you think of the following quote?

"People are so alienated from their own soul that when they meet their soul they think it comes from another star system" → Terence Mckenna

But what if this isn’t the case? What if consciousness is supreme, and matter arises from consciousness? I’m not saying that I believe this to be true, but if it is, then consciousness will remain a mystery until the new paradigm is accepted. If our current paradigm is incorrect, then our current ways of thinking will stifle scientific progress with respect to consciousness and “supernatural” phenomena.

I would love to see a Paradigm Shift in Science, I also believe that this shift is coming. But as all new scientific paradigms, it has to work. It needs to deliver results. I really hope we as humanity progress in this area. I think the "visionary phenomena" will be a key subject in this paradigm shift. Because, it involves both consciousness and matter. This is great!

Yes, but at that point they would no longer be humans. Our cognitive capacity has grown tremendously as we have evolved from lemurs (or whatever), but we don’t consider ourselves now to be lemurs with improved cognitive capacity. We consider ourselves to be something altogether different. Likewise, whatever it is that we may evolve into, they will not consider themselves to be humans with improved cognitive capacity.

I see where you are getting to. I agree. I don't have a problem with humans evolving into a more intelligent species. That is just on the cognitive side of the discussions. But there are also other options that could happen, so that humans understand more and acquire more technology, knowledge and abilities:

• What if some extraterrestrials share technological knowledge with humans?

• What if humans get connected to a source of higher understanding? (Like machines)

• What if genetic engineering someday makes humans more intelligent and with high technical abilities?


I mean, there are lots of probable ways that humans can improve their understanding other than evolution (which is of course a very probable way).

Although the halting problem demonstrates that there are things that most likely will be forever unknown to science, We don't know if the visionary phenomena will be forever a divine eternal mystery. It is a mystery right now, but hey, even consciousness is... for now.

 

[gibran2]

gibran2, what do you think of the following quote?

"People are so alienated from their own soul that when they meet their soul they think it comes from another star system" → Terence Mckenna

That may very well be true, but sometimes other star systems are actually other star systems.

What do you think of this quote?

“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” – attributed to Sigmund Freud

 

[jbark]

Here is a quote I believe is attributable to Wilder Penfield (paraphrased as i could not find the source):

Imagine the surgeon operating on his own brain.

The sheer impossibility suggested by this conundrum leads me to believe that in our present state as Homo Sapiens, we will never delve deeply into the mystery of mind, nor answer the question of what exactly our reality IS - for to understand consciousness is, i believe, inextricable from an understanding of the reality in which it operates.

How does one understand emptiness? Not by touching it, or by any other method of measurement. Emptiness is a concept arrived at by applying the concept of existence, or more specifically presence, and its opposite, absence. The mind and consciousness are understood in this manner: subjectively and conceptually. It is neither the purview of science to explain the "concept" of emptiness nor the idea of consciousness. This is more strctly the domain of philosophy, and why we have a branch of study thus named.

Science may employ its tools to understand what happens in the brain neurologically, but to me this is akin to measuring the dimensions of an empty space: delineating emptiness may help you relate the concept, or work with it to measure or observe other things, but it is as erroneous to believe that emptiness is thus understood as it is to believe that by observing synapses and measuring electrical impulses in the cerbral cortex that we will ever understand the mind.

Defeatist? I do not believe so. I just do not believe the surgeon can operate on his own mind.

Cheers,
JBArk

 

[clouds]

What do you think of this quote?

“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” – attributed to Sigmund Freud

I don't have any tattoos, but If I had no other option but to draw something in my arm, it would be that phrase. Including the "attributed to" part.

 

[dragon-n]

without getting myself involved here, i just wanted to point out how humorous i find it that 1973tour's incredibly thought-provoking, mind-warping post is one of his first. like he was just waiting at the gates of accepted membership, foaming at the serotonin receptors, and now, once in, he's like, "that's it!! i'm gonna rip these guys' minds a new one." :lol:

the stoned-ness in me thanks the stoned-ness in you, friends!!

 

[olympus mon]

in all my books and science video's ive never had the 11 dimensions explained or even attempted to be explained. the fact that i could understand it is whats so surprising. ive spent so many nights hurting my brain trying to understand the tesseract and 4D that the thought of being able to comprehend 11 dimensions was un fathomable.

Here it is in a (somewhat) easy to follow video!!
After the 5th-6th dimension I had to watch this a few times to continue following it, but this guy does a good job!!

eleventh dimensional theory_pt1

eleventh dimensional theory_pt2

I've posted those before a while ago, but they are always fascinating to watch!

Here is other great one in that guys series.

Time is a direction


Enjoy!
WS

awesome videos! good looking out.