Thread: Model Of Determinism.

Thanks for the Campbell lectures.

I have finished the one Xaq posted. It's a really interesting field, but he didn't
mention anything that I haven't already heard. But it was especially interesting
to see a physicist talk about meditaion and virtual non-physical realities in
the way he did. Another book that deals with exactly this would be Michael
Talbot's 'Holographic Universe'.

What I found interesting as well is that he was actually part of the research
group of Robert Monroe. Certainly gives another spin to it, as well.

Originally Posted by really

That's not true. Newtonian causality is not microscopic at all. It is macroscopic and that is reflected with all classical physics. Quantum behavior is microscopic and it appears to be far more complex than with causality. You are dealing with fields of energy and things that do not discretely exist, namely waves and particles.

Nah. Quantum physics only came to show that the Newtonian causality actually applies to more microscopic things than what was once thought, and this would explain some phenomena that weren't comprehended before. Causality applies to the smallest particles of the universe, and indirectly to more macroscopic particles. Quantum physics came to show that there isn't fields, nor energy; but that these are actually the effect of particles.

You don't even know what quantum physics is. Stop trying to use it in your arguments.

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.

Yes, I do. Subjectivity is caused by differences in the conformation and composition of your brain.

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.

Not childish opinions. If it has non-scientific conclusions, then it is superstitious, dogmatic, or new-age crap (whether you like the terms or not).

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.

No, it doesn't mean it can be inaccurate to define. It means humans may have an inaccurate understanding of it, not that it's an inaccurate concept - much to the contrary.

Define "consciousness", "infinite dimension", "non-linear paradigm", "unlimited field of energy", "limited", "artificial", "contextual", "all-encompassing", "independent", "objective", "observer", "intrinsically granted", "nature of consciousness".

Do you even realize you're talking exactly like those astrologists? Talking, talking, and saying nothing? jeebs

Once again, try to be scientific. You aren't even trying. Unless you do realize that it's impossible to define 'consciousness'. Remember that, if something exists, it can be analysed by science -- I've told you this several times already.

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.

Shut up.

I'm saying that your definition of 'you' is my definition of 'brain'. You refuse to understand that because you just don't want to admit you were wrong.

Why "radically incorrect standards"? If anything here is incorrect, it's you.

That's not your problem because it doesn't follow. Here you seem to think you can prove consciousness according to my definition:

"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?

Nah, you gave it another definition, by the time I said that. Man, don't waste your time trying to prove me wrong about something you know I'm right at.

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.

Nah, it doesn't exist intrinsically; in fact, I don't even know what it means to "exist intrinsically". Please define it. But I do know one thing -- if something exists, it interacts with other things in reality, and this interaction is evidence or proof of it. Once again, if something exists, it can be analysed by science. Anything that can't be analysed by science doesn't exist, by the sheer definition of "existence".

Also, science doesn't provide evidence, science studies present evidence. Also, science knows no "familiar".

It's not conceptualizable or linear, but it is verifiable in another context.

If it is verifiable, science can analyse it, even though it's hard for humans to understand it. Or you think it's easy for humans to understand atoms?

However, science is yet to come upon evidence for (your new-age definition of) 'consciousness'.

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.

You don't know what "falsified" means. Take the following example:

God exists because I've seen him.

That is a non-falsifiable statement. To be "falsifiable" means that something can be falsified, regardless of if it ever will be falsified or not. 'Atoms' can be falsified, even though it's likely they never will. 'God' cannot be falsified, which means that it doesn't exist by definition.

Man, it's a mistake to say science is limited. You're making it all the time.

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?

Nah. An observation doesn't imply an observer. It simply implies the production of information. I know 'observation' is not the best word for it. But well, what can you do.

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.

I'm sorry woot? You've started not making sense long ago, but this is just ridiculous.

No, you shut up

Originally Posted by dajo

No, you shut up

NO U.

(and please don't tell my mom I've said this)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

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.

I think I see the important difference, but... (see next response)

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

But do you agree that it can be described as a semantic problem, as per earlier post and Xaqaria post? (Simply recognise that you don't have to use that word to describe what you are describing, it's an unnecessary belief and only creates more confusion. When you are on the other side of the burst bubble you will feel fine)

You know what, it may just be a semantic problem. I'm not sure, because seems quite subtle. By finite, it means singular, in this case. Is that another way to phrase it?

He says consciousness is fundamental, it is a larger system and it is subjective. I believe he also said it is one with "all that exists" because it's part of everything; every reality frame and that it is always there. Now, to me this means consciousness is non-linear. His "fish in the ocean" example is a linear analogy of infinity (the fish can only see so far), which is one of the reasons why it shouldn't be applied to consciousness.

But in a non-linear awareness, there is no distance/time/space, so it cannot be said to be finite. Again, when this is applied to something that is, fundamental; subjective; "always here" (beyond time), within of all-that-exists (beyond space) then it doesn't exclude anything. That is why he says it is encompassing/unbounded. If it doesn't exclude anything, to me it is not worth saying that it is finite or limited. The only way I can see consciousness as finite in its singularity, is through the concept that in itself seems to separate consciousness from the observer.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. Quantum physics only came to show that the Newtonian causality actually applies to more microscopic things than what was once thought, and this would explain some phenomena that weren't comprehended before. Causality applies to the smallest particles of the universe, and indirectly to more macroscopic particles. Quantum physics came to show that there isn't fields, nor energy; but that these are actually the effect of particles.

You don't even know what quantum physics is. Stop trying to use it in your arguments.

Oh yeah, that's why you keep ignoring my argument, because I don't know what quantum physics is... LOL. I don't believe you. You basically just said the same thing with more detail. But you have not said how it negates energy fields and the famous "sea of probabilities", all of which you cannot even properly measure. You don't realize that it functions by conditions and likelihoods, rather than by individual so-called causes. If you think you've identified a cause, there's a good chance you've misplaced your own observers/observation's influence in a given scenario, not to mention failing to consider the limited scope within which you're observing.

Yes, I do. Subjectivity is caused by differences in the conformation and composition of your brain.

Ok so you may know what subjectivity is. Now does subjectivity exist? Yes. It doesn't matter how you think it exists, then, because no matter what: it is an a priori substrate. Thus, you cannot say that it is caused by something you subjectively perceive. For crying out loud, you cannot say it is caused by the brain. That is after the fact. You have to first know of existence before you can say anything about it.

No, it doesn't mean it can be inaccurate to define. It means humans may have an inaccurate understanding of it, not that it's an inaccurate concept - much to the contrary.

Define "consciousness", "infinite dimension", "non-linear paradigm", "unlimited field of energy", "limited", "artificial", "contextual", "all-encompassing", "independent", "objective", "observer", "intrinsically granted", "nature of consciousness".

Do you even realize you're talking exactly like those astrologists? Talking, talking, and saying nothing? jeebs

Once again, try to be scientific. You aren't even trying. Unless you do realize that it's impossible to define 'consciousness'. Remember that, if something exists, it can be analysed by science -- I've told you this several times already.

I'm not defining all those words. You can use your brain and look them up in the dictionary. The key word is consciousness, simply revise what I have already defined it as.

Also, right now I'm wondering if you even bothered to watch those videos that were just posted by Specialis Sapientia. They support A LOT of what I've said.

Shut up.

I'm saying that your definition of 'you' is my definition of 'brain'. You refuse to understand that because you just don't want to admit you were wrong.

Why "radically incorrect standards"? If anything here is incorrect, it's you.

What is your definition of the brain? I'm not messing around with you; you just need to explain.

Nah, you gave it another definition, by the time I said that. Man, don't waste your time trying to prove me wrong about something you know I'm right at.

I know what I said. Go ahead, prove me the consciousness that I defined.

I repeat:

"According to that definition, "consciousness" is not beyond proof at all. According to that definition, consciousness actually exists and is observable by science." - Kromoh

This was in response to:

"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." - really

Nah, it doesn't exist intrinsically; in fact, I don't even know what it means to "exist intrinsically". Please define it. But I do know one thing -- if something exists, it interacts with other things in reality, and this interaction is evidence or proof of it. Once again, if something exists, it can be analysed by science. Anything that can't be analysed by science doesn't exist, by the sheer definition of "existence".

This is not objective existence!

Also, get out of the habit of denying things when you don't even know what they mean. Consciousness is intrinsic to existence; it pertains to the nature of what it is.

If it is verifiable, science can analyse it, even though it's hard for humans to understand it. Or you think it's easy for humans to understand atoms?

However, science is yet to come upon evidence for (your new-age definition of) 'consciousness'.

If it's verifiable, but not provable, then more often than not it is experiential.

You don't know what "falsified" means. Take the following example:

God exists because I've seen him.

That is a non-falsifiable statement. To be "falsifiable" means that something can be falsified, regardless of if it ever will be falsified or not. 'Atoms' can be falsified, even though it's likely they never will. 'God' cannot be falsified, which means that it doesn't exist by definition.

Man, it's a mistake to say science is limited. You're making it all the time.

Ok now do me a favor: Falsify subjectivity.

Nah. An observation doesn't imply an observer. It simply implies the production of information. I know 'observation' is not the best word for it. But well, what can you do.

Whether or not you call it an observer, the production of information is useless without knowing about it. We must assume that the information is known. That is intrinsic to the field of consciousness and subjectivity.

I'm sorry woot? You've started not making sense long ago, but this is just ridiculous.

What does it mean for there to be an Absolute truth?

Really, it all hinges on the ability to understand something that is finite and unbounded. The example of the surface of the earth is the easiest to understand. Obviously you can walk forever in a straight line across the earth and never find the edge, and yet it is not infinite. Not only that, but one can never walk in a straight line across the surface of the earth for an infinite amount of time because no matter how long you go, it is always a finite amount; even if you walk forever.

All of consciousness can be finite and yet it is impossible to find an end of it.

The more I read your post, the more I feel like infinite is just a word you want to apply to the totality of existence even if the definition does not really apply. There is no reason why "everything" has to be synonymous with "unendless quantity".

That is indeed an interesting take on it. Perhaps I understand that consciousness is unbound, but I'm still not grasping what makes it finite.

You're comparing it to measurable things such as the earth. Refering to that analogy, you can measure the earth in two ways. The first example you know it is a finite existence, relative to everything else in the universe. You can also measure the earth in a continuous, unbound method, i.e. by walking in a straight line around it, never finding an edge. Thus, you can measure it in two ways, one shows that it is a discrete existence, the other indicates boundlessness (then again that's not really measuring it, but anyway). However, the earth is not a finite existence if the earth is all that exists, and there is no boundary or limitation if nothing is excluded.

How is consciousness actually comparable to the earth apart from being unbound?

Surely you can expand on your explanation Xaqaria? I don't see why it should be so hard, if you know what you're talking about. However I don't think you can say "it all hinges on the ability to understand" without really forming a comparison out of your given analogy. It's not convincing; it just seems contradictory or unresolved.

Anybody else got an explanation?

Sorry, haven't been on a whole lot; I'll answer you today, but right now I'm headed out.

In your "two ways to measure", neither way produces an infinite measurement. The first way you compare it to everything else. It is less than everything. I don't really consider this real measurement but I think it helps me understand why you are calling 'absolute reality' infinite. The second way is unbounded as you say, but it is still not infinite. You can measure the earth in terms of how far you can walk in a straight line across it's surface. You might say that this distance is 'infinite' but that is an abstraction and not reality. No matter how long you walk across the surface of the earth, you will never do it for an infinite amount of time. Even though you could theoretically walk forever, at no point will you have ever walked forever since that isn't a real amount of time.

How else is consciousness like the earth? Well, I don't know if I can give an answer you'll be happy with. I can say that existence is similar to a surface, and that consciousness is like a lotus that springs from beneath and sits on that surface. This surface is like a bubble, and inside the bubble is nothing so that every point on that bubble is separated from every other point by that nothing. The bubble expands indefinitely and all of us things get stretched out and farther away from each other on the surface, but underneath we are still only separated by nothing. Consciousness comes from the nothing and connects all of the parts of the surface to all of the other parts. Even though the bubble is expanding, and therefore there are more and more parts to connect, there is always a finite area of surface reality to connect and so the consciousness is also finite.

According to Thomas Campbell and others, reality is like a virtual simulation and consciousness is the information needed to keep that simulation running. In this sense, our reality is like a screen which is a type of surface. The totality of existence is a projection 'outwards' from whatever it is that is processing it all; that thing that is necessarily outside of our existence that simulates reality for us. He says that existence seems infinite but only because we are so very small and in a real system, it is impossible to process an infinite set, so it cannot actually exist.

Originally Posted by Lucidness

They say, if you stop the waffery of a butterfly then the whole world has changed because there was no waft on a certain day. It's a model for determinism. It shows that everything is appart of a cause of something. Perhaps, that butterfly could of gone into someones car, and frightened them and they had a car crash. Not preferably a butterfly, but you get the point.

Thought's ?

Imma go stop butterflies and tell people I changed the world now XD

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

In your "two ways to measure", neither way produces an infinite measurement. The first way you compare it to everything else. It is less than everything. I don't really consider this real measurement but I think it helps me understand why you are calling 'absolute reality' infinite. The second way is unbounded as you say, but it is still not infinite. You can measure the earth in terms of how far you can walk in a straight line across it's surface. You might say that this distance is 'infinite' but that is an abstraction and not reality. No matter how long you walk across the surface of the earth, you will never do it for an infinite amount of time. Even though you could theoretically walk forever, at no point will you have ever walked forever since that isn't a real amount of time.

I agree with this, and essentially the bold text is what identifies the problem of the argument. There is no way for an infinite measurement (where "measurement" is a linear construct), so in some ways I don't fully see how your analogies apply. What I mean by non-linear is that consciousness can be infinite without the need to ever measure it or restrict it. It is the essential understanding of "boundless" and it is not comparable to a linear perspective of, say, a fish looking around in the vast ocean, or a man trying to find the edge of the earth. It is a radically different paradigm, yet I'm surprised Thomas didn't seem to pick up on it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How else is consciousness like the earth? Well, I don't know if I can give an answer you'll be happy with. I can say that existence is similar to a surface, and that consciousness is like a lotus that springs from beneath and sits on that surface. This surface is like a bubble, and inside the bubble is nothing so that every point on that bubble is separated from every other point by that nothing. The bubble expands indefinitely and all of us things get stretched out and farther away from each other on the surface, but underneath we are still only separated by nothing. Consciousness comes from the nothing and connects all of the parts of the surface to all of the other parts. Even though the bubble is expanding, and therefore there are more and more parts to connect, there is always a finite area of surface reality to connect and so the consciousness is also finite.

According to Thomas Campbell and others, reality is like a virtual simulation and consciousness is the information needed to keep that simulation running. In this sense, our reality is like a screen which is a type of surface. The totality of existence is a projection 'outwards' from whatever it is that is processing it all; that thing that is necessarily outside of our existence that simulates reality for us. He says that existence seems infinite but only because we are so very small and in a real system, it is impossible to process an infinite set, so it cannot actually exist.

In Thomas' diagram he illustrates how the larger system dominates the sub system or objective reality. He always talks of how the subjective is prior to the objective. What is most important to what I'm saying is the root of consciousness essentially is purely subjectivity and formless. These things have no linear restriction such as "seemingly big", "restricted surface area" or "finite existence." It is undefinable in linear terms.

A stripped down example could be the notion of timelessness. Timelessness is non-linear and experiential, as is the totality of consciousness. It is a misconception to say timelessness doesn't or cannot exist because we will never be able to reach infinite time or be reaching for an infinite time. That is a limited, linear construct of timelessness. In actuality, timelessness encompasses every instant in the sense that they're identical and unlimited (there is no instant). Notions of "past", "now" and "future" all disappear, yet without timelessness, none of these terms could ever be perceived (that may sound paradoxical, but keep in mind I said "perceived"). There is no basis that things are actually finite except in perception and definition of objects, and the same goes for space as well, wouldn't you think? The subjective context for all of this is infinite; without boundaries and subject to no restriction.

Now I may see what you're saying when it comes to the actual information or the "physicality" of existence, which may not be infinite as I put it. However, the screen upon which all of this arises is also related to the fact that consciousness is inclusive of its information but while not subject to its limitations; it is unbound in both time and space, and therefore purely subjective and always fundamental. Thus, consciousness is essentially still infinite.

See, I agree with everything you say, except for the very last line. Consciousness is unbounded, and timeless. Timlessness and infinite time are not the same; they could be called opposites even though they aren't that either. Consciousness is not confined by space or time. Therefore it is 'nothing' in terms of physical reality. Infinity is a physical concept. It means 'unendless quantity'. you are describing an unquantifiable existence in terms of unending quantity. Infinity is a linear concept that doesn't apply to the non-linear picture you are painting. Infinity means "this goes on forever". A laser beam pointing off into unending space is called infinite, even though it isn't. Infinity isn't a real state of being, even though boundlessness still is.

Couldn't one then argue that both infinity and nothing are identical? Both infinity and nothing can be contrasted with physical concepts too. Do I need to say there is no true non-linear concept? If not, then my view is that this is all just a semantic argument, while we're essentially in a mutual agreement. There is a great limitation in wording when talking about very encompassing concepts such as this. You probably know of the classic "both everything and nothing and yet neither" concept in non-duality; well that has links with consciousness.

I'd stress that by saying infinity I mean: an absolute oneness that encompasses all things, but that doesn't mean it is unendless quantity because it is independent, yet inclusive of quantity.

If you say something is finite and yet boundless (what I would term infinite), then what of the terms finite and infinite: Is consciousness simultaneously both and yet neither terms?

Man, you haven't even defined consciousness. Something can only be either "finite" or "infinite" if it is a number.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Man, you haven't even defined consciousness. Something can only be either "finite" or "infinite" if it is a number.

You must have completely missed my post here:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...33#post1420533