Thread: What is beyond space?

You're correct.
If you define consciousness as sand being blown in the wind then sandstorms are conscious.

ALTERNATIVELY

Who the fuck describes consciousness as an organism reacting to the environment?

Originally Posted by tommo

You're correct.
If you define consciousness as sand being blown in the wind then sandstorms are consciousness.

ALTERNATIVELY

Who the fuck describes consciousness as an organism reacting to the environment?

You didn't use the word consciousness you said "conscious" so I responded accordingly.

I guess the definition of consciousness is ambiguous but Ill give it a crack, lets just say it is the possibility of subjective experience. If a plant experiences subjective experience and a general awareness(that is a mouthful) how would we know? Plants are aware enough to react to their environment but do they have feeling or experience qualia? I have no clue

Im just messing around with you and not necessarily arguing for the conscious status of plants but I think it does pose an interesting question pertaining to how we define consciousness and acknowledge the consciousness of other species.

How would you define consciousness Tommo?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

like an expanding bubble. But space is just the surface of the bubble, not the contents of the bubble. If we bump this up a dimension so that the surface of the bubble is three dimensional then the depth would be fourth dimensional. If we bump it up dimensions so the surface is 4th dimensional then the depth would represent the 5th dimension.
Anyway, I am not claiming this is true or anything, it is just a way that I can imagine it. Of course then we have the same problem in the higher dimension: "What is beyond space?" if we are talking about 4th or 5th dimensional space.

Thats what I feel like on Dimitri.

Oh no, I'm slowly falling towards my right. D:

Originally Posted by tommo

Show me anything on Earth that has no brain but is conscious.

Corals, clams, plants, etc.

Tommo ease off please. You aren't even giving a chance to consider another point of view. You don't have to agree, but at least listen and consider. There is no adequate definition of consciousness. Consciousness is a mystery even to scientists, even more so than black holes. The view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption. The view that it doesn't come from the brain is also an assumption. Science has not isolated, measured, or even observed consciousness. It observes the affects of consciousness and infers its existence. It would be silly to deny the existence of consciousness since we all experience it. But IF we were totally objective, we could postulate that there is no such thing as consciousness, just a mechanical set of reactions and automatic programmed responses. Since it is such a mystery, and the limits of science being objective and limited to the material world, we are looking for material causes for consciousness. The brain is an obvious place to start. But each cell has demonstrated the qualities of consciousness in laboratories.

So, in the absence of any real proof we are able to continue theorizing and even philosophizing about consciousness. And the great thing about consciousness is that the best way to observe it firsthand is to observe one's own consciousness directly. My theory is that all matter has a degree of consciousness. Every particle has a small degree of consciousness. Just as life started out with simple single cells and then organized into more complicated multicellular beings, so as particles and atoms come together and allow more complicated consciousness. The consciousness of an O2 molecule is negligible compared to us.

Consciousness is not synonymous with the mind, however. My theory is that the brain is like a radio receiver and the mind is like radio waves flying through the air. The mind with its thoughts and intentions exist not in the brain, but it is the brain that receives them and makes them usable and known. I have spoken to some scientists who think that this is possible, yet they say that the whole nervous system would have to be part of the receiver or antenna. Also this happens to be the Dzogchen Buddhist (or Bon) view according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, AKA Bardo Thodol. According to those teachings, at death we lose our gross consciousness that we are familiar with when our brain dies. Then we black out. Then we awake to the ambient subtle consciousness that exists everywhere.

The picture I posted was just two pictures, one a few neurons, and another, the Universe. I made no commentary. The picture said it all. I am not claiming that the Universe is a brain or anything. I just like the picture and think that it is remarkable. There is nothing to agree with or disagree with, but we can wonder. If the Universe is conscious, and I think that it is, then we can wonder what is the Universe conscious of? Only itself, or is there something beyond the Universe? Are there other Universes? This might be where Phil or Caprisun say that the words are wrong. Because Uni- means one. I would be contradicing myself if I said that there is more than one Universe. However, this is just semantics and not reality. We must not confuse our language (which is only made up of symbols) with reality itself. A word is a symbol for the thing it represents, not the thing itself.

In theoretical physics they have come up with a word called Metaverse. The metaverse is like a huge high dimensional universe that all these smaller individual universes abide within. If these Universes all abide in a higher space they possibly possibly might be similar to neurons or cells. Theoretically, each Universe has its own laws of physics. That COULD be similar to how each type of cell has its own function in a greater organism. This is all speculation, I know, but so is any argument against it until further empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

You didn't use the word consciousness you said "conscious" so I responded accordingly.

I guess the definition of consciousness is ambiguous but Ill give it a crack, lets just say it is the possibility of subjective experience. If a plant experiences subjective experience and a general awareness(that is a mouthful) how would we know? Plants are aware enough to react to their environment but do they have feeling or experience qualia? I have no clue

Im just messing around with you and not necessarily arguing for the conscious status of plants but I think it does pose an interesting question pertaining to how we define consciousness and acknowledge the consciousness of other species.

How would you define consciousness Tommo?

WHHHHATTTTTTTTTT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!!!!!!!111!!!11! !!ONEONEEEEEE!!!!!?

That doesn't make any sense. How would swapping conscious for consciousness change anything?

Just pretend I said conscious in my response to you instead of consciousness. Reply again please.

Panexperientialism (belief that all matter is conscious) is a pretty interesting conclusion, the philosopher A.N Whitehead(who I admire very much) was a proponent of this idea. Im not sure if I would agree with the statement "the view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption" I would say it is more than an assumption but you are right consciousness has eluded empirical observation and continues to be a mystery.

I would ask if consciousness is not located or associated with the brain, then why does a person who has a deteriorated brain (from a disease like Alzheimers or physical brain damage) experience a dysfunction in mental capability? If someones arm is cut off or hair is cut off (both contain human cells) there is no apparent mental disruption.

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

conscious is an adjective, consciousness is a noun.

A brain damaged person has an impaired mind, but his consciousness is the same. Even a retard is just as conscious as we are, even a cat is just as conscious as we are, a snail is also. But we all have different mental abilities. Please understand the distinction between consciousness and mental function. Consciousness is not the ability to reason, or to conceptualize or think or even to cognize. Consciousness is kind of like light. It is the medium of the mind. It is the light in the eyes. The mind is like a tool. You can have a great brain and a highly developed intellect and mental function, but if you are asleep it is in the dark. Yes, the brain is related to the mind, although I believe they are different like I said in my last post. But I believe all matter is conscious. I never heard of Panexperientialism. I like that word. It reminds me of Panentheism, which I also agree with. Einstein was a pantheist, but I am a panentheist. Panexperientialism fits with both of those beliefs. Thanks for teaching me a word for the concept, and to show me that I am not the only one who ever thought of this!

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is no adequate definition of consciousness.

Oh really? Coz I can find at least 2 in any dictionary.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

But each cell has demonstrated the qualities of consciousness in laboratories.

Sometimes I think you're smarter than the average nutjob on here. Then I see you write things like this.
When? When has this happened? In some homeopathic quack jobs basement? Like that dude with dementia who tried to say that water has a memory?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

My theory

No. Your half-hearted idea. A theory requires some proof.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Consciousness is not synonymous with the mind, however. My theory is that the brain is like a radio receiver and the mind is like radio waves flying through the air. The mind with its thoughts and intentions exist not in the brain, but it is the brain that receives them and makes them usable and known. I have spoken to some scientists

Those quack jobs again? Simply saying "scientists" generally gives an air of pseudo scientific bullshit.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

who think that this is possible, yet they say that the whole nervous system would have to be part of the receiver or antenna. Also this happens to be the Dzogchen Buddhist (or Bon) view according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, AKA Bardo Thodol. According to those teachings, at death we lose our gross consciousness that we are familiar with when our brain dies. Then we black out. Then we awake to the ambient subtle consciousness that exists everywhere.

Oh! Yep, there it is....

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

The picture I posted was just two pictures, one a few neurons, and another, the Universe. I made no commentary. The picture said it all.

No, it is obvious what your point was. As they say, a picture says a thousand words. Well, who presents the picture and it what context also says 1000 words.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

If the Universe is conscious, and I think that it is, then we can wonder what is the Universe conscious of? Only itself, or is there something beyond the Universe?

What is the point of this? I could think that my pen is a nuclear bomb and then wonder what would happen if I dropped it on your head. But it's a futile thing to ponder because my pen is not a nuclear bomb and all the evidence points to that fact.
I seem to be noticing a pattern here.

You and stormcrow have just both committed several logical fallacies. Fallacy of division, fallacy of many questions, pathetic fallacy and some others I can't remember the names of.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

In theoretical physics they have come up with a word called Metaverse. The metaverse is like a huge high dimensional universe that all these smaller individual universes abide within. If these Universes all abide in a higher space they possibly possibly might be similar to neurons or cells.

This is what I'm talking about. Why? Just.... why? Why would you draw that conclusion????

--------

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

No, no.... You don't do that. Carl Sagan was a genius. Do not butcher his quotes.
Do you understand what you just said there?

If the universe is conscious.
We are it's way of knowing itself.

If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself? (I'm not arguing that the universe produced us to be conscious, that would almost require conscious thought, so don't even try that one. I'm arguing about the way you distorted that quote to gibberish.)

What Carl Sagan was saying was "We are the universes way of knowing itself" because we are the conscious part of the universe.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and make up a random meaning to prove a point. As I stated in my previous post.

Consciousness is the state of being conscious, or is used to say that something is conscious. Yes. How do you conclude from that that they are not the same thing?
Consciousness = being conscious. You just change the word in different contexts, or depending on the sentence.
"Consciousness is cool"
"That fact that I am conscious is cool"

"That guy is in a state of consciousness"
"That guy is conscious"

Same thing.

Whatever, you described being conscious as interacting with the environment. Which is fucking ridiculous.

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Panexperientialism (belief that all matter is conscious) is a pretty interesting conclusion, the philosopher A.N Whitehead(who I admire very much) was a proponent of this idea. Im not sure if I would agree with the statement "the view that consciousness comes from the brain IS an assumption" I would say it is more than an assumption but you are right consciousness has eluded empirical observation and continues to be a mystery.

I would ask if consciousness is not located or associated with the brain, then why does a person who has a deteriorated brain (from a disease like Alzheimers or physical brain damage) experience a dysfunction in mental capability? If someones arm is cut off or hair is cut off (both contain human cells) there is no apparent mental disruption.

Also if the universe is conscious then "we are the universes way of knowing itself" as Carl Sagan said. I love that man.

@Tommo- Consciousness is the state of being conscious so the two are not the same. But my conclusion about extending the label of "conscious being" to plants still stands. Like I said Im not sure if we could define plants as conscious because we cannot neccisarily agree on a single definition of consciousness, which is why I asked you to define it.

<3 just because you quoted Carl Sagan. I definitely lean on brain/body = consciousness, vase or two faces, are you looking at it (brain) or are you it (consciousness). Assuming the overwhelming possibility that life is a natural emergent process of chemistry, I believe the universe is conscious because of us, we are the universe. That being said, Dannon's theory doesn't sound too far off, a hydrogen atom floating around in the air in front of you could just as easily be zooming around as a part of one of the brain process's that create you reading this. Psychology and Neurology has it's mysteries, who's to say consciousness is nothing but atoms and environment? Atoms have their mysteries too, open mindedness definitely fits here. I only base what I lean toward to be true on observation, mostly modern science, and it's no less awesome. Science points toward a unity that makes us inseparable parts of everything, an infinite point of energy gone crazy various and complex. According to stellar nucleosynthesis, you and everything you see was once a part of a star gone supernova. To quote one of my hero's Carl Sagan "The Cosmos is also within us, we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself."

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I took every precaution to make sure that someone wouldn't respond with exactly what you responded with.

If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself? (I'm not arguing that the universe produced us to be conscious, that would almost require conscious thought, so don't even try that one. I'm arguing about the way you distorted that quote to gibberish.)


What Carl Sagan was saying was "We are the universes way of knowing itself" because we are the conscious part of the universe.

aka the Universe's consciousness, making for a conscious Universe.

Oh really? Coz I can find at least 2 in any dictionary.

It amazes me that a conscious being needs a dictionary to believe he is conscious.

No. Your half-hearted idea. A theory requires some proof.

It doesn't need proof unless I am a scientist trying to prove it to the world. I am not trying to prove it to anybody else or convert anybody. And remember two things: I am speaking in metaphors, and the reality is much more than I can imagine, let alone communicate. Of course my idea is half-hearted. This is an open discussion on a forum of people from all walks of life, not a science convention discussing only what has been proven.

Those quack jobs again?

Friends of mine. And they are not quack jobs just because they listened to me and answered my questions.

No, it is obvious what your point was. As they say, a picture says a thousand words. Well, who presents the picture and it what context also says 1000 words.

Honestly, my intention was that when I stumbled upon this picture, I wanted to share it, so I shared it on this thread because it seemed like the best place to. I didn't share it on my facebook, I chose to share it on dreamviews, on this site, because I thought it represented an idea that is on topic of this discussion.

What is the point of this? I could think that my pen is a nuclear bomb and then wonder what would happen if I dropped it on your head. But it's a futile thing to ponder because my pen is not a nuclear bomb and all the evidence points to that fact.

Agreed, all evidence points to the fact that your pen is not a nuclear bomb. We have plenty of evidence of what a pen is, being a man-made creation and all. We are still trying to figure out the Universe, and probably will be for a long time. We don't even know enough about the brain, let alone the Universe.

You and stormcrow have just both committed several logical fallacies. Fallacy of division, fallacy of many questions, pathetic fallacy and some others I can't remember the names of.

I know I committed many fallacies. I commit to lots of irrational and illogical things. I even commit rational and logical things also. I don't commit pathetic fallacies though, have you? I committed to a marriage once, which was also a fallacy. I committed to my friends and family. I committed to my music, which is definitely irrational. I committed to lucid dreaming, and I committed to love, the two most illogical and irrational states of being I know of.

This is what I'm talking about. Why? Just.... why? Why would you draw that conclusion????

I drew no conclusions. This isn't a conclusion.

--------

Carl Sagan was a genius.

<3

"We are the universes way of knowing itself"

<3

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and make up a random meaning to prove a point.

Whatever, you described being conscious as interacting with the environment. Which is fucking ridiculous.

So what? Assuming we don't have a definition, that doesn't mean that you just go and calling it fucking ridiculous to prove a point.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

aka the Universe's consciousness, making for a conscious Universe.

Yes. But only a part of it is conscious. Not the entire thing. Not every atom, as these two people are claiming.

Dannon said: "We don't even know enough about the brain, let alone the Universe."

True, if you define "the Universe" as just what the physical sciences seek to explain. I don't make the distinction though, the mysteries of the brain are the mysteries of the Universe to me lol.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Tommo said: "If the universe if conscious, meaning it can know itself already, why would it need humans to know itself?"

It can't know itself without us or other processes as complex as the human brain, but since it does include us as a part of it, it is aware of itself. We are it. It is aware. Humans are not in the universe they are the universe. lol

I believe that the Universe can know itself in more than one way. It can know itself as a cat, it can know itself as a star, it can know itself as a human. We are all the universe. We are all the Big Bang.

tommo said: "Yes. But only a part of it is conscious. Not the entire thing. Not every atom, as these two people are claiming."

I get what your saying, but if you think about it, without the inanimate stuff that makes our surroundings, there would be nothing to be conscious of, so it seems to be an intrinsic part. Everything's connected, so if every atom eventually connects to the brain and is a necessary part of consciousness, who's to say they're not a piece of it?

The brain is a necessary part of consciousness to be conscious the way a brain is. I think that just as life evolves, consciousness evolves. Consciousness was once inanimate matter. It evolved from pure energy, to particles, to atoms, to molecules, to organic molecules, to amino acids, to proteins, to DNA, etc. All as a symphony of the variety and diversity in which life is as an evolution of consciousness from pure energy to frontal lobe.

I even think that empty space is pure consciousness, but there is nothing to be conscious, or nothing to be conscious of. To be conscious of something takes a subject and an object. Without either only consciousness is left.

That red hurt my eyes. I'll see you in Kangaroo court.

Unnecessary Jeff.

Tommo,
I actually considered responding to your ridicule, to try to explain what I'm talking about.. how there just might be consciousness in ways that we aren't aware of, or whatever silly thing it was. Who knows what I was really trying to say, right?
You have already resorted to ad hominem insults. You have called me crazy. You have mocked my intelligence level. At the risk of sounding insulting myself I have to say that this is very childish and rude. You say that you have a desire to argue, and I think that is what this is all really about for you. You have splashed up big red letters and called us crazy for even considering possiblities that aren't written in a textbook. You have actually said that you consider debate and argument to be the same thing. They are not.
I'm not interested in arguing. I like exploring ideas and possibilities, and listening to other people's ideas and concepts.
So, I'm sorry. I'm not going to play your game. You can get angry and argue with someone else. I'm not interested in explaining myself to you, because I honestly do not believe you will listen.
I like this thread. I will continue to contribute to it and read other people's ideas, but I believe that devoting any more energy into trying to have a civil conversation with you will be wasted.
Have fun, kiddo.

You completely ignore the fact that I listen to reasonable arguments and have changed my view quite a few times when someone presents a logical point of view.

Why don't you just say that you really have no idea what you're talking about?
Why try to cover it up?
If you had a reasonable thing to say, you would say it.