Stop Talking to Yourself

[WildernessWildChild]

I'm waiting.....[video=youtube] [/video]

 

[Badjedidude]

^^^All hail The Fonz.

 

[9006]

Yeah... except that's not how logic works.

If logic is a subjective thing open to interpretation and personal belief, then it isn't valid logic.

I don't care if a guy makes wild claims about his ability to fly if he jumps off a building. Once he jumps, he might think he can fly, and he can call that "truth" all he wants... but he can't fly. No matter how hard he wishes to fly, he's just not going to. Because that's not how the universe works. There is an objective reality that isn't open to interpretation and opinion. He's going to hit the ground and most likely die.

In the same vein, a person can call their wild claims, "logic" all they want. But that doesn't make it logic or true.

If this makes me "closed-minded," then so be it.

I think this is all specifics and misconceptions, but if a guy jumps off a building, his logic could be that if he flaps his arms like an idiot, then (steering clear of the physics) he will fly; you're right, this isn't how this would work, but that doesn't mean it's not his logic.

It's not like he's going to conduct all the tests first, also, I think the level at which you think about it, has a contributing effect on how you understand.

 

[Badjedidude]

I think this is all specifics and misconceptions, but if a guy jumps off a building, his logic could be that if he flaps his arms like an idiot, then (steering clear of the physics) he will fly; you're right, this isn't how this would work, but that doesn't mean it's not his logic.

That's incorrect, though... this is what I'm trying to argue. There is no personal logic. There is only logic correctly or incorrectly applied. It could be the guy's opinion or belief that he would fly, and he could even call it logic, but he wouldn't actually be applying valid logic (no matter how much he calls it such) to his thought process when engaging in that activity.

Maybe I am making too big a deal of semantics here.

It's not like he's going to conduct all the tests first

Making tests first would be a **** good idea if you're going to be jumping off of a building, wouldn't you say?

 

[perfanoff]

The brain creates the thought process and emotions but these do not and cannot explain consciousness.

Why not?

The soul is a funny thing, there is no physical explanation for it

Who says a specific construct like a soul even exists?

I don't know why people have such a hard time believing that consciousness is simply a result of humans having the most advanced brains on the planet. I see no proof for a soul. I see no proof to assume that consciousness stems from anything other than physical processes. It's quite a leap to assume that there's some separate aspect of us that exists beyond the physical. Why is such a leap even necessary? Because you feel it must be so? That's just not good enough of a reason for me to believe in a soul. Or religion, for that matter.

What's so horrible about the thought that we're just physical beings, our consciousness the result of physical phenomenon? Does that invalidate our existence?

I don't think so.

I agree that the brain may be the sole cause of it, but the consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon on its own. It transcends language because language is a construct designed to express the material world. The fact is the soul/consciousness is a recurrent phenomenon referred to over the millennia in human pursuits in knowledge.

The existence of our (axiomatically, just my) consciousness is not invalidated if you make that assumption. I see nothing horrible in thinking that consciousness may be a solely physical phenomenon than the alternative. However it is fact that it may be such a phenomenon that is not even analyzable objectively i.e. "the hard problem of consciousness" does not have a scientific, yet alone logical, let alone objective, description or solution.

If one is to assume that the physical is all there is to it, e.g. a person's consciousness is a direct result of the physical world and no external factors, one has to immediately assume that there is an infinite number of consciousnesses that have/are/will arise in the world. Now don't even get me started about the word "physical". Anything that can ever be expressed IS a part of the physical world. Its expression is the existence of it. Which brings me back to the model theory my friend made a few years back.. and my criticism/conclusion we drew about the grand fallacy of distinction of anything, in other words dividing a unity.

To make an oversimplification, some people here understand what a quantum system is. There can be no correct separation of the world in distinct quantum or physical systems because there will always be unexplained influences. In other words, the whole world by itself is a huge quantum Schrodinger's box. And more.

Of course words have become meaningless a while ago. I shall stop to not come off as crazy, but I wish my friend wasn't abroad.. or I had someone to chat with on these questions.

 

[Badjedidude]

If one is to assume that the physical is all there is to it, e.g. a person's consciousness is a direct result of the physical world and no external factors, one has to immediately assume that there is an infinite number of consciousnesses that have/are/will arise in the world. Which brings me back to the model theory my friend has.. and the conclusion we made about the grand fallacy of distinction of anything, or otherwise dividing a unity.

You'd have to present me a pretty good argument to convince me that there's a problem with the existence of an infinite number of consciousnesses. I don't think it could be infinite anyway; eventually I think humanity will go extinct or transcend/evolve to the point where we're not human anymore... and that might include not having a consciousness. There are too many variables here, so I'm not even sure we can make the assumption that there would be infinite consciousnesses.

I agree that the brain may be the sole cause of it, but the consciousness is a metaphysical phenomenon on its own.

Again, you're assuming that consciousness is somehow a metaphysical thing.

Check this out:

home.earthlink.net/~dolascetta/Predict.pdf

It's entirely possible that quantum models of physics could explain consciousness in a physical context -- there's no real need to assume that consciousness is a metaphysical concept.

 

[9006]

That's incorrect, though... this is what I'm trying to argue. There is no personal logic. There is only logic correctly or incorrectly applied. It could be the guy's opinion or belief that he would fly, and he could even call it logic, but he wouldn't actually be applying valid logic (no matter how much he calls it such) to his thought process when engaging in that activity.

Maybe I am making too big a deal of semantics here.

It's not like he's going to conduct all the tests first

Making tests first would be a **** good idea if you're going to be jumping off of a building, wouldn't you say?

I was about to go bed! I can't resist...

You say there's no personal logic, but who says what logic is in the first place? And wouldn't that be personal logic? Everyone has a different perspective of logic.

I understand what you're saying, you throw a ball, gravity's gonna drag it back down (providing the energy input doesn't exceed gravitys pull!), that's logic, but what if I had never experienced gravity? Would I still think it's logical that I'd get my ball back after I lashed it towards the sky?

Making tests first would be a **** good idea if you're going to be jumping off of a building, wouldn't you say?

Exactly, then he'd recognize that it wouldn't be logical to think he could fly, but instead fall to his hideous, splattered death.

 

[Badjedidude]

You say there's no personal logic, but who says what logic is in the first place? And wouldn't that be personal logic? Everyone has a different perspective of logic.

Yeah... not quite, I think.

But I think we're getting to the point where definitions for these words (logic, perception, etc) are failing us; in which case neither of us are going to be saying anything useful or coherent a few posts from now. We'll get into epistemology and then just get lost in philosophical babble.

I understand what you're saying, you throw a ball, gravity's gonna drag it back down (providing the energy input doesn't exceed gravitys pull!), that's logic, but what if I had never experienced gravity? Would I still think it's logical that I'd get my ball back after I lashed it towards the sky?

Well, if you'd never experienced gravity, then obviously you're in a different universe from the one we now inhabit... in which case physics and logic themselves would/could be vastly different from how we now understand them. And I can't easily place myself in that hypothetical universe, but I assume that I would follow the logic of that universe: The ball should go up, and will always go up unless altered by another force.

But we don't live in that universe. So we can't just willy-nilly make up our own personal logic and honestly believe that it's true -- we follow the rules of our universe (objective reality, etc).

But again... I think this is an issue of definition.

Also, I feel slightly bad for having derailed this thread so badly. I think my bitching has gotten us seriously off-topic... but oh well.

 

[perfanoff]

There's no need to think scientifically on whether there can be or not be infinite amounts of consciousnesses. It can't be proved/disproved either way because it is a term that is not defined, possibly not even anything close to fully definable. What I said was that I entertain the idea as an elegant one.

I skimmed the first couple of pages and I'm compelled to agree with this: "The model reveals that ultimate reality is a universal consciousness, and a separate physics paper shows how the universe arises from that reality"

Well said. Wow, we're going somewhere here.
What we have been referring to metaphysics here is most closely defined in the context as that Ultimate Reality minus The Physical Universe. If you disagree with this, say so.

Moving on. Skimmed the rest of the article and it's a true gem.

Let me make it clear to you (if you choose to agree with what this paper asserts):

What is consciousness? Consciousness is another name for existence. Existence is an
abstract concept that is true of itself.

Since the universe contains all models, each model exists and is a conscious one in itself.

And on the other hand, this here comes at a tangent to what I referred as to the fallacy of dividing the unity:

2. Is there a God? Yes. God is the name we give to the transcendent, atemporal,
unchanging aspect of existence. Existence is an abstract concept, but it is a conscious
being. In fact, existence and consciousness are the same concept. The transcendent aspect
of existence (one of the two ways to look at existence) is outside of time and creates time
and the temporal universe. We are existence observing itself inside of time. The former is
God. We are not God.

But by definition, existence cannot exist unless it is a part of the universe, and the universe exists, hence existence IS the universe. In other words, consciousness can be redefined as (simplifying for the sake of clarity) not an individual person's collection of sensations. Rather, this collection would be just a part, a facet if you will, of the universal consciousness. Or simply the consciousness.

In conclusion since the ultimate reality IS the physical universe, consciousness is of course a physical phenomenon. And now if you've read carefully you'll see I contradict myself right here. Hence the fallacy of dividing unity. And the pointlessness of these papers.

Still, so interesting. Another, rare and curious facet, or a reflected light, of reality, that we can obtain by looking from within, through a distorted diamond, this one decomposing and filtering the white light just to somehow reconstruct and focus most of it back in a collimated beam.

Anyway that paper is NOT a physical sciences paper. It is if anything, a mathematics/philosophy/methaphysics paper. And we all know that mathematics is related, maybe almost, but certainly NOT a science. In the sense of science = natural science. To illustrate:

 

[Badjedidude]

Well, well... this thread is getting interesting.

What is consciousness? Consciousness is another name for existence. Existence is an
abstract concept that is true of itself.

Not necessarily. At this point we're talking primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness -- a thing that exists doesn't have to be conscious to exist (unless you posit that a thing which exists is only defined as a thing which perceives of its own existence... which I don't entirely agree with). A thing that exists can be conscious. The universe can contain consciousness, but it doesn't necessarily have to.

Since the universe contains all models, each model exists and is a conscious one in itself.

Ehhh depends on how we're defining the word "universe." Is the universe the totality of all things that exist? Or is it the just what can be observed? If it's the latter, then not all models need be included in the "universe" or even necessarily exist.

2. Is there a God? Yes. God is the name we give to the transcendent, atemporal,
unchanging aspect of existence. Existence is an abstract concept, but it is a conscious
being. In fact, existence and consciousness are the same concept. The transcendent aspect
of existence (one of the two ways to look at existence) is outside of time and creates time
and the temporal universe. We are existence observing itself inside of time. The former is
God. We are not God.

Again, this is a definition issue. What you call God may not be what others call God. And why use the word "God," when we could call that transcendent, atemporal, unchanging aspect by another name? There's just too much baggage, I think, to use that word effectively here; God implies personhood -- and there's no reason to assume that any transcendent, atemporal, unchanging aspect need be conscious.

 

[Focused_Intent]

Since this threads topic has taken a turn I will share something I wrote on a different forum with you all.

I am saying it is thought that is creating the world. People are living in their own bubbles of perception projecting their experiences onto their walls of perception. They are all connected by something called a collective consciousness and because of this they cooperatively create the world. It is because of this collective consciousness which science has measured that things like telepathy are possible. You are pure consciousness energy.

Here is the most accurate way I can think of to try and explain what we call life:

If you are standing in the center of your room imagine that everything is being projected outward from your body. Understand that your body is also just a part of the projection. When people look up at the night sky they think they are looking out toward the universe. This is not true. The universe is inside of you and that is why when you go inward through meditation you find everything. Scientists will never understand the universe by studying its reflection. If you held a phone in front of a mirror could you figure out how the phone works internally by looking at its reflection? No, you could only make some obscure observations.

 

[perfanoff]

You need to realize that

"perfanoff Wrote:What is consciousness? Consciousness is another name for existence. Existence is an
abstract concept that is true of itself." is a quote from the paper and not my original thought. Since we have to agree on anything to make some progress, we can entertain some of the conclusions from this paper. As I said I'm inclined to since I find this facet of the universe very elegant. Quite more than, let's say, somebody sticking a trident in a bad old granny's burning ass in some very, very hot place <<
The presence of the universe reduces the "can" to an "is" under specific circumstances. This is the quantum model (the physical one.. it's another discussion if quantum theory has actually redefined the word physics): what can, is an overloaded function of is. And everything can and does in the universe (this is now the idea of the multiverse paper that this paper cites and builds on).

How to more conveniently define the universe can be a linguistic question but I'd go with "the totality of everything that exists" for the sole reason it's more practical to draw any solid conclusions about it. Since we want to get an analyzable facet of the universe for the specific problem. Characteristics of the consciousness RELATED TO THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE can be described by natural science, but other characteristics (which I feel very compelled exist, and are unignorable) can not. In reality, set theory does not apply to the universe. It cannot be decomposed as the set of elements a1,a2,a3... such that sum(a1,a2,a3...) IS the universe. This is generally because of the self-referential nature of models. It's been a few years, but there was a mathematical proof? about it.

The "2." is also directly quoted from the paper.

What will keep happening IS the errors of definition will show up everywhere. They will always plague any meaningful discourse that tries to explain, describe a part of anything, in total clarity. This was the plague of the late Principia Mathematica.

"PM, as it is often abbreviated, was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven. As such, this ambitious project is of great importance in the history of mathematics and philosophy,[1] being one of the foremost products of the belief that such an undertaking may have been achievable. However, in 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorem proved for good that PM, and in fact any other attempt, could never achieve this lofty goal; that is, for any set of axioms and inference rules proposed to encapsulate mathematics, there would in fact be some truths of mathematics which could not be deduced from them."

And this is the way that I personally reason that not only for mathematics, but for anything, the act of definition, which is at its base an act of distinction of A ?= B, for any A and B, is a fallacy. In the end the initial premise of the paper invalidates it as a ground truth. If you will, if you define any distinguishable system (such as a language, science, belief or knowledge set), you will run into it never being correct OR improvable to be incorrect due to lack of clear definition. Hence the argument, there is only unity. There is more. This unity is and can be never defined; it defines itself and more importantly it defines what a definition is.

So my philosophical idea follows naturally. People, and everything else we can think of, are shimmers of this diamond, the universe. We do not exist per se, we are only expressions of it that come when you shine the light on it in a certain way, at a certain angle. All we do and can do is interact with other rays of light that cross us in interferable conditions but in the end, to say we are distinct from the diamond is a terrible fallacy, because we are infinite orders of logic less material than it (due to our extreme impossibility to define... just WHAT is a human being? is it even correct to refer to human beings, just human beings here?) and so we will never and can never reach this unity no matter how much we scoop he surface. Because a ray of light can only pass through one point at a time. You move the light and the projection through the prism/diamond changes. And the constructed panoramic picture is never what IS. There's a good assertion that can be made: since we can only operate with noninfinite objects, ideas and systems, we have to sacrifice specificity for generality or vice versa. In the end, the only real, certain conclusion that can be made, in my belief, is.. it is. Anyway enough rambling for tonight. Unfortunately talking about that stuff will not feed me

---

Since this threads topic has taken a turn I will share something I wrote on a different forum with you all.

I am saying it is thought that is creating the world. People are living in their own bubbles of perception projecting their experiences onto their walls of perception. They are all connected by something called a collective consciousness and because of this they cooperatively create the world. It is because of this collective consciousness which science has measured that things like telepathy are possible. You are pure consciousness energy.

Here is the most accurate way I can think of to try and explain what we call life:

If you are standing in the center of your room imagine that everything is being projected outward from your body. Understand that your body is also just a part of the projection. When people look up at the night sky they think they are looking out toward the universe. This is not true. The universe is inside of you and that is why when you go inward through meditation you find everything. Scientists will never understand the universe by studying its reflection. If you held a phone in front of a mirror could you figure out how the phone works internally by looking at its reflection? No, you could only make some obscure observations.

The notion of telepathy is NOT possible because it is disproven and unlikely to exist.

CIA and KGB have both funded paranormal programs, and none have had ANY success. Some things in the physical world that WE live in HAVE TO obey rules. YOU as a manifestation of the type HUMAN BEING are subjected to stringent rules. Don't insinuate immaterial possibilities to people, please tell that stuff to the immaterial people instead (the ghosts or whatever)

 

[WildernessWildChild]

Since this threads topic has taken a turn I will share something I wrote on a different forum with you all.

YESSSSSSS....the shark has been jumped!

My powers of prediction are amazing.

 

[Focused_Intent]

The notion of telepathy is NOT possible because it is disproven and unlikely to exist.

It was never disproven. Many people practice telepathy successfully, everything is connected. Consider that they have split particles and separated them by distances and the particles still act as if they are connected. If they change the charge of one the other also changes its charge ect.. The global consciousness project showed a spike in tension among people days before the 9 11 terrorist attacks. The list goes on and on, but this is something you can experience personally. Find a partner and practice sending each other thoughts.

http://teilhard.global-mind.org/

CIA and KGB have both funded paranormal programs, and none have had ANY success. Some things in the physical world that WE live in HAVE TO obey rules. YOU as a manifestation of the type HUMAN BEING are subjected to stringent rules. Don't insinuate immaterial possibilities to people, please tell that stuff to the immaterial people instead (the ghosts or whatever)

Do you really think they would tell you about it's success? They still have all those programs going secretly. You have forgotten what you knew when you were a child and more in tune with your true nature. That the world is a magical mysterious place where anything is possible. People have told you NO so many times you don't think you can do anything except be a slave to the society that forces you to run around trying to acquire worthless money. Thought alone can alter this physical matter as Dr. Emoto proved with his demonstration on water molecules. The placebo effect is further proof. My suggestion is that you meditate and all these truths will be revealed to you. Get back to nature!

 

[TropicalStarfish]

Interesting thread.

if you had to draw a distinctive line between what is you and what is not you, where exactly would you draw it?

I've also found it funny that we often refer to our brains and the inner workings of such as something that is not our self. We objectify things into synapses, neuro-transmitters, and the like, when what we are really talking about is the very stuff that is consciousness itself.

 

[Edward W]

Does this mean I made up Focused_Intent and this entire forum? <I will ask my inner voice>

 

[perfanoff]

Interesting thread.

if you had to draw a distinctive line between what is you and what is not you, where exactly would you draw it?

I've also found it funny that we often refer to our brains and the inner workings of such as something that is not our self. We objectify things into synapses, neuro-transmitters, and the like, when what we are really talking about is the very stuff that is consciousness itself.

Exactly.

 

[Edward W]

This thread hurts my energy.

 

[9006]

This thread hurts my energy.

That's because your wanking while reading it.

 

[Sarah_Lbnz]

This morning I pointed to my right hand with my left index finger and exclaimed, "IT EXISTS". I then pointed to my left hand with my right index finger and said, "SO DOES THIS ONE!" .... "OMGERD I HAVE TWO HANDS!" I then realized I was talking to myself and thought it best I should share this adventure with you fine folks.

/and still, some may disagree with me that my right hand and my left hand actually exist.