What experiences the model?
You said before,
"it doesn't make any difference if there is a human that "experiences" something and a human that acts exactly as if he had experienced it."
It doesn't make a difference to what, or to who?
Printable View
What experiences the model?
You said before,
"it doesn't make any difference if there is a human that "experiences" something and a human that acts exactly as if he had experienced it."
It doesn't make a difference to what, or to who?
You people and your pseudophilosophies kind of remind me of this guy http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_staple_madness.png ...taking high level concepts and applying them to the universe as fundamental constants. It's cute, in a kind of annoying way.
What guy?
Also, your smugness despite a complete lack of contribution is cute in an annoying way too.;)
I put "experiences" in quotes for a reason. What I meant is that, in a physical world, there is no difference between something that acts in a way and something that reacts exactly the same way as the thing that acted that way. Basically, they're doing the exact same process, which means there there is no distinction. The reaction to multiple things is what determines an unique object.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Saying one is different from the other is just like saying 1 =/= 1. I think you get the problem.
Kromoh one of my main points that you missed was to do with causality. You were saying it is microscopic. Please respond to my argument.
Great, you spelled "f***ing" correctly. As for being a machine though, according to you we are much like computers then. What does a computer experience? What does my Gameboy experience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Ultimately, to be aware of, and/or comprehend with certainty. In this case, I don't mean through the "brain", but through simply existing.Quote:
Define "know".
That's called knowing about something. I'm not interested in the physics or mechanics of knowing about things; that's obvious. I'm talking about the root of all knowledge. How far back can you go? You don't stop at the brain.Quote:
Humans were naturally selected to have the (conjunction of) cognitive processes that allows them to simulate models of sensorial reality. This could be loosely interpreted as "knowing something".
Only according to your definition of the external requirements for knowledge. How can you be sure the robot is conscious, and actually knows that he knows?Quote:
You can program a robot to "know" about himself, you know. It doesn't require any magical or transcendental mind to experience things for humans to create mental models about themselves.
Consciousness and experience are extremely hard to define, and do not actually require definition because of their nature. You know what being conscious is. Consciousness includes all reality in this sense. Perhaps a more suitable term is awareness. Do you need to define awareness? You can't. But it is here. You're stuck with it, and machines do not have it for the reason they do not live.Quote:
FOR THE FUGGING LAST TIME: DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS, DEFINE EXPERIENCE, DEFINE KNOWLEDGE. Using the terms without a proper, non-ambiguous, and consensual definition is like using words of a foreign language.
Person watching DVD movie on television.Quote:
Define observer.
That you already deny the importance of experience, is fundamentally not much different that aiming to deny consciousness.Quote:
You will have a hard time defining consciousness, much before I even have to try to deny its existence.
I didn't ignore all your explanations, but what I asked was for more elaboration. So far it sounds like observing something in existence has a start and stop time. Why doesn't the interaction, or the observing, always last?Quote:
An "observation" is not what you're thinking of. It's not an "observer" "observing" something. In science, an "observation" is an interaction -- a physical interaction, carried through physical laws or attraction, repulsion, action and reaction, emission, etc etc. It's basically doing something with the object to be observed, analysing its reactions, and taking conclusions about its possible behavior.
Let's use an analogy to make your understanding easier: science is like a blind person. It must "touch" things in order to acquire information about them. This "touching" can be through a multitude of methods. However, no matter how sophisticated the method is, it's still "touching", and this "touching" can influence the thing being touched, changing it at the exact time we are touching it.
The other analogy is the watch analogy I already explained, and which you ignored. It was made by Albert Einstein himself. He said the atom is a cohesive watch. You can't see the inside, nor observe how it works, without breaking it. But, when you do break it, it stops working. Which means you can never gather information about the inner processes of the watch without making those processes stop. What you can do is try to deduce how the watch worked, by analysing its broken pieces, but you will never be 100% sure. This watch, my friend, is anything science has ever studied.
The blind person: He exists within time and space, so he is always interacting with it, touching it, sleeping in it, standing in it, whatever. Really doesn't matter that he is blind. Literal observation all plays a part in this as well, for that reason. Looking at things acquires information about them, which influences what you do with them and think of them.
The watch analogy: On the other hand, is a much better analogy for what you're saying. Also, it goes against what you're saying because to define consciousness or awareness is to misunderstand it. You've already pulled it apart in saying it has relationships to the brain (when you were talking about experience), did you not? I'm talking about consciousness as a whole, where you keep falling short. Go ahead and analyze it and you will find its seeming parts, and you will think that we are machines.
Your contribution?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
lol I was very close to posting something like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I don't really get the problem. If the brain is like a computer modeling reality, what does it output to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
Point me to it. However, if I don't have an answer to your question of "what is the sex of the angels", forgive me, but the answer you might be looking for is "angels don't exist".Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Hmm, it depends a lot on your definition of experience. I myself would classify experience as the memorization of information dealt with by the machine/brain. In this case, your computer and Gameboy do have experience, but colossally less experience than a human being that is programmed to experience things. In fact, they probably have less experience than several insects.Quote:
Great, you spelled "f***ing" correctly. As for being a machine though, according to you we are much like computers then. What does a computer experience? What does my Gameboy experience?
Man, there is no awareness that doesn't involve the brain. You're practically saying that your existence is independent from the brain, but when I accuse you of so, you deny it. You are your brain. Rocks also simply exist, but experience nothing, because they have no brains.Quote:
Ultimately, to be aware of, and/or comprehend with certainty. In this case, I don't mean through the "brain", but through simply existing.
I don't friggin know what it is called. Nor do I care. Once again, don't drag everyday definitions into a philosophical argument about experience. Explain what the words you are using mean, before using them -- it's called a definition.Quote:
That's called knowing about something. I'm not interested in the physics or mechanics of knowing about things; that's obvious. I'm talking about the root of all knowledge. How far back can you go? You don't stop at the brain.
Also, once again, you are your brain. And this was NEVER remotely related to quantum physics. At all.
By indicators. How can you know about the existence of electrons? By indicators. The same old watch analogy. Duh.Quote:
Only according to your definition of the external requirements for knowledge. How can you be sure the robot is conscious, and actually knows that he knows?
FUGGING LEARN WHAT A DEFINITION IS. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT A CONSCIOUS BEING IS, JUST LIKE I DO NOT KNOW THE SEX OF THE ANGELS, BECAUSE ANGELS DON'T EXIST. EXPLAIN WHAT THE WORDS YOU WILL USE MEAN, PRIOR TO USING THEM. THAT IS WHAT A DEFINITION IS. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING OF YOU. IT'S NOT HARD AT ALL. I DON'T SHARE YOUR DOGMAS AND SUPERSTITIONS ABOUT EXISTENCE. THAT'S WHY YOU MUST DEFINE THEM TO ME. EITHER DO THAT OR YOU'RE ADMITTING SCIENCE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT YOUR MUCH-LOVED CONSCIOUSNESS.Quote:
Consciousness and experience are extremely hard to define, and do not actually require definition because of their nature. You know what being conscious is. Consciousness includes all reality in this sense. Perhaps a more suitable term is awareness. Do you need to define awareness? You can't. But it is here. You're stuck with it, and machines do not have it for the reason they do not live.
Also, if something is impossible to define, it doesn't exist. Logic 101.
Also, you don't even know what life is. It's not something magical. Living beings are machines.
If you don't understand that this last time I won't keep discussing with you.
You just gave me a tautology. What is an observer? The person watching. What is a person watching? The observer. You stupid. You can't define "observer" in science. That's what I'm trying to show you. The observer is a machine, reacting just as he was programmed to. The observer is part of the same medium the observed is in.Quote:
Person watching DVD movie on television.
I don't need to deny consciousness, you genius. Logic 101. You're the one making the positive claim, saying consciousness (whatever you think that is) exists. The onus of proof is up to you.Quote:
That you already deny the importance of experience, is fundamentally not much different that aiming to deny consciousness.
Jeebs I'm getting repetitive. If only you didn't think my every argument ignored your points. Do you even read what I write?
Nah, it doesn't have a start and stop. Things in the physical reality are always interacting with one another. The matter is, there is not always a computer there to read the outcomes of the interaction, analyse them, and give you information. The definition of "observation" is: any physical phenomenon that humans use to acquire information.Quote:
I didn't ignore all your explanations, but what I asked was for more elaboration. So far it sounds like observing something in existence has a start and stop time. Why doesn't the interaction, or the observing, always last?
Nah. The point of the analogy was to show that you can't even observe something without changing what/how it was before the observation. And don't start an argument over my analogy -- as two smart H. sapiens, we should both know analogies are limited.Quote:
The blind person: He exists within time and space, so he is always interacting with it, touching it, sleeping in it, standing in it, whatever. Really doesn't matter that he is blind. Literal observation all plays a part in this as well, for that reason. Looking at things acquires information about them, which influences what you do with them and think of them.
Man. Learn what a definition is.Quote:
The watch analogy: On the other hand, is a much better analogy for what you're saying. Also, it goes against what you're saying because to define consciousness or awareness is to misunderstand it. You've already pulled it apart in saying it has relationships to the brain (when you were talking about experience), did you not? I'm talking about consciousness as a whole, where you keep falling short. Go ahead and analyze it and you will find its seeming parts, and you will think that we are machines.
I don't keep falling short. You do. You think "you" are something other than your brain. You are wrong. "You" are your ego, one of the cognitive functions of your brain.
Saying we should not define consciousness nor study it, and just accept it for what someone tells us is the very definition of a dogma. You sound like a religious zealot saying we shouldn't define God. Without a definition, everyone has a personal interpretation about the word, and it becomes impossible to falsify them all. Saying we shouldn't define something is but to promote misinformation, just so that you don't lose your point.
We are machines. I've explained you how and why. Either you counter-argue it, or you stop saying we are not.
I don't really understand the last part of your question +.+Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Experience: The encountering and interaction of so-called life-story of events, places, people, objects, (etc) perceived through the senses and the mind's realm of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
For the sake of discussion, we may as well say these things do not experience. They do not have brains, much less are they even alive.
Spoiler for Definitions and "you" :
Consciousness: Consider it as a non-linear field of infinite energy, out of which time and space arise; forming the substrate of all subjective experience and the very source of manifest existence. Refer to this as a basic definition, but keep in mind that the very definition of something that is infinite is going to be inaccurate.
Your turn: Define "you" and why it is an object called the "brain", instead of simply resting undefined.
That's just the limitation of my analogy, don't sweat it. It's good you agree that the observer is part of the same system as the observed. You also said: "The definition of "observation" is: any physical phenomenon that humans use to acquire information." So really, there is no need for measurement or interaction, because there is acquiring information all the time. This is part of experiencing.Quote:
You just gave me a tautology. What is an observer? The person watching. What is a person watching? The observer. You stupid. You can't define "observer" in science. That's what I'm trying to show you. The observer is a machine, reacting just as he was programmed to. The observer is part of the same medium the observed is in.
You see, indicators do not get you anywhere here. This is a different paradigm. However, if you think there are indicators for this, then it is no different than saying that there are indicators for consciousness. So you mustn't really understand what I mean, because you disagree with consciousness. Let's say consciousness is the total subjective awareness out of which all knowledge arises. You cannot indicate that; it is prior to indication and beyond proof. The funny thing is, deep down, you already know it. For that reason you cannot even apply your watch analogy to this.Quote:
By indicators. How can you know about the existence of electrons? By indicators. The same old watch analogy. Duh.
No, it does not exist logically. Consciousness exists illogically because it is a greater paradigm and calls for greater dimension. I've already been over this actually, if you go back a few pages. A similar problem was also brought up on the first page.Quote:
Also, if something is impossible to define, it doesn't exist. Logic 101.
[...]
I don't need to deny consciousness, you genius. Logic 101. You're the one making the positive claim, saying consciousness (whatever you think that is) exists. The onus of proof is up to you.
What we're dealing with is something that doesn't require proof. Nobody has to prove that you are conscious or that you experience. Only you know what it's like, because you're a conscious being. You don't even have to think about it. Since this is a purely subjective matter that involves awareness, if you ask for proof, the burden is yours for kidding yourself. The problem is, you ascribe experiencing with the brain, however, without being conscious, you cannot ascribe anything at all.
Well I'm certainly not going to go and pretend I am contributing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Just pointing out stuff I've noticed about these 'discussions', and that post was mainly aimed at really and his/her/its arguments about consciousness.
Also, ninja nicely summed up what I think about determinism and the universe:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Lawl. K is a constant.
So?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
So what 'different variables' are you talking about? :panic:
You don't see the other letter and its different exponents (One is understood.) on the side with k?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
That's not a very scientific definition, you know. Because science doesn't define "life-stories", "events", "mind", and "realm of thinking".Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Aka: I still don't know what you mean by experience. Whatever you mean, it's not an accurate definition, it's more like an everyday one.
Nah. For the sake of discussion, we must be very rigid and define all things. Also, your idea of "alive" is very far off. Machines are only not considered alive because they are not made of biological cells. They have metabolism, irritability, etc etc.Quote:
For the sake of discussion, we may as well say these things do not experience. They do not have brains, much less are they even alive.
Shut up. Look at what you're saying. New-age crap.Quote:
Consciousness: Consider it as a non-linear field of infinite energy, out of which time and space arise; forming the substrate of all subjective experience and the very source of manifest existence. Refer to this as a basic definition, but keep in mind that the very definition of something that is infinite is going to be inaccurate.
Also, definitions that involve infinity are not inaccurate. Mathematics has a whole branch about transfinite numbers. Your definition is inaccurate not because of that, but because it's just smelly crap pulled right out of your ass.
Seriously, if you're not at least gonna try to make this a science-based discussion, don't waste more of your and my time.
I never defined "you" or "me". That's what I've been saying the whole discussion - science has no definition for that. What I was saying is that what you call "you" (aka according to your definition) is actually the product of the brain.Quote:
Your turn: Define "you" and why it is an object called the "brain", instead of simply resting undefined.
Man, learn what an interaction is. Interaction = any physical phenomenon.Quote:
That's just the limitation of my analogy, don't sweat it. It's good you agree that the observer is part of the same system as the observed. You also said: "The definition of "observation" is: any physical phenomenon that humans use to acquire information." So really, there is no need for measurement or interaction, because there is acquiring information all the time. This is part of experiencing.
Jeebs, it's hard talking to someone who doesn't even know high school concepts =.=
According to that definition, "consciousness" is not beyond proof at all. According to that definition, consciousness actually exists and is observable by science.Quote:
You see, indicators do not get you anywhere here. This is a different paradigm. However, if you think there are indicators for this, then it is no different than saying that there are indicators for consciousness. So you mustn't really understand what I mean, because you disagree with consciousness. Let's say consciousness is the total subjective awareness out of which all knowledge arises. You cannot indicate that; it is prior to indication and beyond proof. The funny thing is, deep down, you already know it. For that reason you cannot even apply your watch analogy to this.
And stop saying about what I know or not, you've been having a hard time even understanding things I simplify heavily for you.
Shut up. "Consciousness exists illogically..."Quote:
No, it does not exist logically. Consciousness exists illogically because it is a greater paradigm and calls for greater dimension. I've already been over this actually, if you go back a few pages. A similar problem was also brought up on the first page.
If something doesn't follow logic, it doesn't exist.
I'll repeat myself:
If you're not gonna try to make this a science-based discussion, don't waste my patience with your new-age crap.
Shut up and go learn basic science. Everything requires proof. If there is no proof, then it is to be considered false immediately. Everything that exists can have proof. Because, for something to exist, it must interact in some way with the rest of the universe. And that interaction is observable and serves as proof about its existence. If there is no interaction, then the thing you're talking about is much like Schroedinger's cat: non-existent.Quote:
What we're dealing with is something that doesn't require proof. Nobody has to prove that you are conscious or that you experience. Only you know what it's like, because you're a conscious being. You don't even have to think about it. Since this is a purely subjective matter that involves awareness, if you ask for proof, the burden is yours for kidding yourself. The problem is, you ascribe experiencing with the brain, however, without being conscious, you cannot ascribe anything at all.
------------------
Friendly hint: stop making a fool of yourself saying stuff like "it doesn't exist logically. If you have no arguments left, just don't reply to this post and go live your life. I won't mind at all. You're not the only person in the world that has been wrong about something, you know.
?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
How does "experiential phenomena" sound? Same thing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
You know what I mean; I think you're just being difficult. An everyday definition will do just fine.Quote:
Aka: I still don't know what you mean by experience. Whatever you mean, it's not an accurate definition, it's more like an everyday one.
Oh yes of course. Explain.Quote:
Nah. For the sake of discussion, we must be very rigid and define all things. Also, your idea of "alive" is very far off. Machines are only not considered alive because they are not made of biological cells. They have metabolism, irritability, etc etc.
"New-age crap"... lol. You come across as having obvious prejudgements and being aggressive. I'm not even talking about new-age things. Do you think that if it is not concrete scientific jargon, then it must be new-age crap?Quote:
Shut up. Look at what you're saying. New-age crap.
Also, definitions that involve infinity are not inaccurate. Mathematics has a whole branch about transfinite numbers. Your definition is inaccurate not because of that, but because it's just smelly crap pulled right out of your ass.
Seriously, if you're not at least gonna try to make this a science-based discussion, don't waste more of your and my time.
[...]
Shut up. "Consciousness exists illogically..."
If something doesn't follow logic, it doesn't exist.
I'll repeat myself:
If you're not gonna try to make this a science-based discussion, don't waste my patience with your new-age crap.
I specifically said infinity is inaccurate to define! It has nothing to do with mathematics either.
What is my definition? If you can't define "you", then it is not much different than asking me to define consciousness. If that's what you mean, then you really have no say in it.Quote:
I never defined "you" or "me". That's what I've been saying the whole discussion - science has no definition for that. What I was saying is that what you call "you" (aka according to your definition) is actually the product of the brain.
Oh really? Then what's your problem? Explain.Quote:
According to that definition, "consciousness" is not beyond proof at all. According to that definition, consciousness actually exists and is observable by science.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At some point you need to consider that the scientific paradigm is limited and cannot arrive at greater truths.Quote:
Shut up and go learn basic science. Everything requires proof. If there is no proof, then it is to be considered false immediately. Everything that exists can have proof. Because, for something to exist, it must interact in some way with the rest of the universe. And that interaction is observable and serves as proof about its existence. If there is no interaction, then the thing you're talking about is much like Schroedinger's cat: non-existent.
So you basically believe in everything then?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Also, explain what exactly a 'greater truth' is.
I realize that science can't provide you with everything you need to know, or arrive at greater meanings. This doesn't mean I believe in everything, it means I recognize limitations.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
The most vivid example I can really think of is an Absolute truth. There's no way science can prove the Absolute, but no doubt there is an Absolute truth than can be verified. The greater truths of existence are subjective.Quote:
Also, explain what exactly a 'greater truth' is.
Man, it won't. All I've done in this thread so far was to explain you why it wouldn't. Don't insist in your mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
If it has lots of conclusions that are not scientific, it is new-age crap.Quote:
"New-age crap"... lol. You come across as having obvious prejudgements and being aggressive. I'm not even talking about new-age things. Do you think that if it is not concrete scientific jargon, then it must be new-age crap?
What in hell does "consciousness" have to do with infinity.Quote:
I specifically said infinity is inaccurate to define! It has nothing to do with mathematics either.
Also, infinity is not inaccurate to define. It's hard to define. But being hard to define is no problem for physics, it is only problem for human understanding.
??Quote:
What is my definition? If you can't define "you", then it is not much different than asking me to define consciousness. If that's what you mean, then you really have no say in it.
It's impossible "you". "You" is just an everyday definition, and is not scientifically valid. That's what I've been saying this whole time.
My problem is that you still haven't given me a (scientific) definition of 'consciousness'.Quote:
Oh really? Then what's your problem? Explain.
Ooops. Read this, made by a very smart fellow forum colleague: Absence of evidence is evidence of absenceQuote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At some point you need to consider that the scientific paradigm is limited and cannot arrive at greater truths.
Also, don't say there is anything science can't reach. If something exists, it can be studied by science. Unless you're saying we should study things which don't exist :panic:
No, you are misunderstanding its use. If you go about life with the attitude that 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" then you end up not being able to make sense of the universe as you don't understand the concept of falsification.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
And...Science...Is not subjective. Thank you for pointing out the obvious :?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
Subjective truths are notoriously unreliable btw.
Kromoh please address my quotation of you for my argument of causality.
Ok fine. Let's just stick with the term "subjectivity." I'm sure that's good enough. It encompasses both experience and consciousness, and you should know what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromoh
You have to keep your childish opinions out of this. Especially if you're asking me to explain things to you - that proves to me you already don't know what I'm talking about anyway.Quote:
If it has lots of conclusions that are not scientific, it is new-age crap.
The fact that infinity is hard to define and is hard for humans to understand means that it can be inaccurate to define. Consciousness is infinite in dimension because it exists within a non-linear paradigm. As a unlimited field of energy is not limited to time or space. Consequently, it can neither be subject to artificial criteria that divide it into time and space in order for it to be proven. It is contextual. Meaning, it is all-encompassing: Tell me of an independent objective reality that didn't require an observer in order to exist. This is intrinsically granted through the nature of consciousness.Quote:
What in hell does "consciousness" have to do with infinity.
Also, infinity is not inaccurate to define. It's hard to define. But being hard to define is no problem for physics, it is only problem for human understanding.
You have been saying that the whole time? I don't think so. You've been saying "you" is what the brain is. If there is no "you" then it is not what the brain is. It's not the brain because then it is scientifically valid according to radically incorrect standards.Quote:
It's impossible "you". "You" is just an everyday definition, and is not scientifically valid. That's what I've been saying this whole time.
That's not your problem because it doesn't follow. Here you seem to think you can prove consciousness according to my definition:Quote:
My problem is that you still haven't given me a (scientific) definition of 'consciousness'.
"According to that definition, "consciousness" is not beyond proof at all. According to that definition, consciousness actually exists and is observable by science." - Kromoh
Do you mind expanding on that?
It really depends on the context. Here we are dealing with something that exists intrinsically, yet can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a completely different paradigm. You cannot provide evidence for it because its evidence is simply all that exists and cannot be differentiated by familiar means. To limit evidence to specifics also implies exclusion.Quote:
Ooops. Read this, made by a very smart fellow forum colleague: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence
Also, don't say there is anything science can't reach. If something exists, it can be studied by science. Unless you're saying we should study things which don't exist :panic:
It's not conceptualizable or linear, but it is verifiable in another context.
The very understanding of the concept of falsification is where I say greater truths cannot be falsified, and they simply have no requirement to be falsified. Recognizing limitations has nothing to do with believing in whatever your mind pleases, but coming to see the innate knowledge of things that cannot be proven. The variable of knowledge becomes conscious awareness itself, not by discrete, logical data.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
In that understanding, consciousness exists throughout all observation yet no consciousness/observer/observation can really be proven. You cannot then say there is no observation/awareness of phenomena; do I need to explain why that is absurd?
Have you not said anything about an Absolute truth? As a subjective truth, it is quite the contrary to something that is notoriously unreliable. Quite the contrary. Without it, nothing exists, much less reliability in any case.Quote:
And...Science...Is not subjective. Thank you for pointing out the obvious :?
Subjective truths are notoriously unreliable btw.
i.e. you believe in whatever because you really want to, not because you have reason to believe it is true. (Objective reasoning)Quote:
Originally Posted by really
No. A plant can observe its surroundings and respond to them. But it is not conscious; it does not know it exists. I know I exist. I am conscious. I'm not quite sure why you threw this in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
You haven't explained or given an example of an absolute truth. As far as I am concerned, from what you've said, anything someone believes, if they believe it hard enough, is an absolute truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
I want everyone to watch these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb...next=1&index=6
It is pretty long (about an 1.5 hours) but it is worth it. It is a presentation by a physicist named Dr. Campbell about his book trilogy, My Big Toe. In it, he describes his Theory of Everything, or TOE. He explains that the physical universe is only a subset of the whole of reality, and therefore it is impossible to explain things like consciousness with physical reality since consciousness and other non-physical phenomena are part of the larger reality that the physical universe is only a small subset of. It is impossible to explain the larger system with only information contained in a subset within that system.
There are some things in those videos that I am fairly certain most people will not accept, but if you get anything from it, you should focus just on the part about trying to explain the whole system just with information contained within a subset of that system. It is all logically consistent and he explains it much better than I can.
Edit: Specialis I was going to credit you for showing me these, but I couldn't remember how to spell your name :P
No because that's not recognizing limitations, it's spoiling them. Personal desire has nothing to do with seeing a paradigm for what it is, when it is purported out of a more advanced reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
A plant isn't arguing that there is an independent objective existence. I am saying there's no existence without consciousness, no matter what you think is going on somewhere else (e.g. in a plant's consciousness).Quote:
No. A plant can observe its surroundings and respond to them. But it is not conscious; it does not know it exists. I know I exist. I am conscious. I'm not quite sure why you threw this in there.
What do you think "Absolute truth" actually means (regardless of what I've said)? It's very straightforward, but it doesn't mean it is whatever somebody imagines.Quote:
You haven't explained or given an example of an absolute truth. As far as I am concerned, from what you've said, anything someone believes, if they believe it hard enough, is an absolute truth.
HAHA wow... Specialis thanks for showing Xaq. Xaqaria you could not have posted a better video (series) for this! Brilliant presentation. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I pretty much agree with Thomas on everything, minus a few expressions. Overall I think he's nailed it; to me his Big TOE doesn't leave out much at all.
There is one thing I am not sure about. Why does he say (paraphrased): Consciousness is real and therefore finite? I would've thought that if he recognizes consciousness as the fundamental or larger system that has the capacity to encounter all possibilities, then it must be infinite (absolute).
I am just glad that you two have seen the presentation :)Quote:
Originally Posted by really
First we must differentiate between the two meanings of infinity, though are often mixed together. See below:
Does the ocean seem infinite for the perspective of the fish? Does the universe seem for the perspective of the human? Is the Consciousness System infinite from the perspective of us? The answer is that neither of these are truly infinite, but from the limited perspective we have, it would seem infinite. We can call it "Apparently infinite" and "Relatively infinite", those two words are much better two use than just infinite.
We are living in a evolving system, with unimaginable power and potential to evolve, it does not need infinity to exist and evolve, it is only us to use the word as a descriptor, but in the precise and absolute meaning it is illogical when applied to a real system (non-abstract, non-imaginary).
Tom writes a bit about it here:
Tom:
1) "Define infinity precisely, as a mathematician would, and it is an unreachable largest number that can only be approximated but never achieved. Infinity can never exist as a result. No real system or thing can be infinite. Infinity is just an abstract concept – an impossible state to realize – something that can be approached but never actually actualized, thus it cannot describe a real functioning system of any sort. It is an idea, an abstraction describing something imaginary. With this precise definition, Infinity as a description of an actual real thing (physical or nonphysical) is illogical.
2) Define infinity as something that appears to us to have no boundary. To a small bird, the atmosphere may seem infinite. To us, the universe may seem infinite. Consciousness and existence may seem infinite. With this relative definition (relative to the limitations of our experience, understanding, knowing, or imagining) you may call something that is real infinite that is merely way beyond your ability to comprehend its limits. According to the precise, mathematical, or absolute definition, these real (rather than imaginary) things that lie beyond you ability to comprehend their limits are not actually infinite at all, they only appear infinite to you because of your limited knowledge and perspective.
3) Many people confuse these two uses of the word “infinity” and do not differentiate between them properly because they do not appreciate the inherent limitations of their knowledge. For such individuals, belief, not logic, causes definition 2 to slip unnoticed into definition 1."
Specialis Sapientia, I remember Thomas mentioning the ocean, but this particular meaning of "infinite" comes from consciousness encompassing all possibilities, and that transcends time/space. This is yet another definition of it (see following). Encompassing all possibilities and reference frames, consciousness exists beyond all boundaries. Taosaur and I were actually discussing this with you here:
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=83213
I think Campbell addresses your issue with infinity, Really. He describes the totality of existence (consciousness) as finite, but unbounded, and ever evolving. Therefore, in terms of the way we understand infinity, it is infinite since it will continue to grow towards infinity, but in actual terms it is a finite existence. There is a strong distinction between actual infinity and the tendency towards infinity.