3
   

Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 06:49 pm
@fresco,
Alas that you finally understand what a function is and why it is truthful !...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Apr, 2011 10:25 pm
@fresco,
Oh yes...quiesence.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 03:40 am
Quote:
"Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?"
Shoud we think of Nature as being the RESULT of consciousness?

"Is all that we see
and seem, but a dream within a dream ?" Poe
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 04:25 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I wouldn't say "result", because it still is what it is and alway was. But I like the perspective of Amit Goswami and John Hagelin that the "ground of being" is consciousness.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 01:43 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
I wouldn't say "result", because it still is what it is and alway was.
I take it that u reject the Big Bang Theory ?





David
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 01:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No. At least not the facts that support it. But it may be that the big bang theory is merely a perspective; how it seems from our macrocosmic perspective. It may be more a theory of the origins of the universe as it appears to us.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 01:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
"No" means u DON'T reject it ???
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 02:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It does. But I do not think it is the explanation of the origins of the universe, like I said. It is perhaps a theory of the origin our our (human) universe.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 02:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, you are surely familiar with the fact that "scientific theories" are vehicles of "best fit", and are always open to modification based on new data.
It therefore makes little sense to demand acceptance or rejection.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 03:52 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
It does. But I do not think it is the explanation of the origins of the universe, like I said.
It is perhaps a theory of the origin our our (human) universe.
I don 't understand what u said.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 04:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Maybe you lack the conceptual background to make sense of it, as I might lack the conceptual background to make sense of something that is perfectly obvious to you.

The core of this issue, as I see it, is not in the theory itself but in how we percieve and experience. The big bang theory is part of a materialistic worldview that ignores consciousness, even though we have come to understand that perception is not passive.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 May, 2011 05:08 pm
@fresco,
Fresco said: "David, you are surely familiar with the fact that "scientific theories" are vehicles of "best fit", and are always open to modification based on new data.
It therefore makes little sense to demand acceptance or rejection. "

A critical point. It's what saves us from the rigidity of Scientism. As I see it science proper is open-ended, progressive (or self corrective) and fundamentally pragmatic. It lacks the sentimental value of art and much philosophy because it has the humility to pursue what IS rather than what OUGHT to be the case.

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2011 02:58 am
@JLNobody,
This is true of science, but not always of scientists, as they have the same "handicaps" as the rest of us; our subjective perspectives. The best scientists, however, manage to work around this and produce results that are universally useful.

Another thing we can consider is that scientific inquiry requires funding, and alot of science is done with a specific goal in mind, and this tends to influence the direction inquiry takes.
0 Replies
 
justintruth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2011 03:14 am
@JLNobody,
What is interesting is to see that no objective theory is alone capable of forming the predictions required to test the theory in experiment.

For example take Newton's theory and consider an apple that is dropped. According to the theory the apple will fall. Now we must construct an experiment. So we will drop the apple and see what happens. But to do that we must make sure of some things. First there must be light in order to be able to see the apple. Second we must position ourselves so that our eyes are pointing toward the apple so that the reflected light will enter our eye. The color (spectrum) of the light must be in the visible range. But then the objective theory will state that the light will reflect off of the apple into our eyes and along the optic nerves to the brain where its momentum and energy will do something to the brain. But it does not predict experiencing will occur. It requires another principle to do that.

What is necessary is another principle that says something like "If you position a head with eyes and there is sufficient illuminations....etc... then an experience of the object will occur". This principle is assumed in all science and without it the possibility of experiment is not there (Ok you could use your other senses but the point is the same). Since all of the theory itself is based on experiment this shows that the objective view is incapable of explaining science itself.

However it is also true that once this is admitted, science is possible and when we do the science we find not just the big bang but also evolution and we also find, by looking in the mirror for example, or by drinking a few beers, the association of the objective existence of our evolved bodies with our consciousness. These facts are real.

This could have been otherwise but isn't. Logically this could in the future become otherwise but should it, the physical and neurological scientific theories would be invalidated. All scientific theories have the possibility of this invalidation as inherent in them.

Therefore belief in the big bang to the extent that the big bang is understood as a fact of an empirical natural science does not contradict the implication of being conscious but in fact is based on it. I suggest also the obvious fact that the big bang is a fact deduced from the empirical physical science of nature.
0 Replies
 
pixelvision
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 02:38 am
@Cyracuz,
I just read an incredible book about Ettore Majorana (the neutrino/disappeared maybe).. anyhow - and i kept wondering what ettore would think of the higgs-boson being discovered. and tonight i found your reply by looking up exactly what you state. Yes of course consciousness is the force (natural force like gravity) they've been looking for all of these years and even einstein knew it was true. but it was so out there that it didn't make sense. it seemed an unbelievable connection. but it is more powerful than gravity. i can tell you that. how do you quantify consciousness - and why does consciousness create matter? think of it like this - (a gross funny way) we are all matter. and what does matter eat? more matter. (plants grow - we eat and it turns to poop then we grow plants - we eat it/ and poop. but what we have really discovered is that consciousness needs a vessel. Why? why are we creating ourselves over and over again. multiplying and multiplying. we are the sacred geometric pattern. all matter is contained in a "vessels" made of trillions of littler spirals contained in a vessel making up all the objects we use in our everyday lives - in this force - this force is consciousness. im certain that objects are held together with consciousness... but why? now we know what matter is made of - we found the higgs-boson - the proof that there's a force holding us all together. the god particle - and soon we must realize that it is all infinite - these particles they find - one set after another set after another. it will keep going and going. over time they'll discover smaller and smaller bits. We can never find the end. we are a spiral. all matter contains inside it these infinite spirals - some people call them possibilities. because contained in each particle is a billion different possibilities. it really is choose your own life - choose your own adventure. it is your consciousness -you control your vessel. how amazing! you give it this reality or that reality - you can stayu in touch with your friends and family or you can live in the woods - each would bring you a totally different life (or potential reality). you cant be living a different life in some other parallel universe that makes no sense and it doesnt match the model of the spiral - our nature. it can't work that way. and in the end ettore was right - he saw that we were stacked on top of each other - he knew it - but he just didn't know to look at it from the side instead - 3 dimensionally - science at the time could only think flat (2d) so ettore didnt realize that we are the spiral. everything is the infinite spiral. he was right and wouldve known he was right if he had turned his model to see the spiral instead of a straight line or stack. which becomes a point - the start of it all if you look at it from a certain angle. but we are all one and we are infinite... we come in all shapes, colors, and sizes - but we are all one.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 02:46 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

Of course you can --- you just did! The question is whether this way of thinking of consciousness yields any insights for you that you wouldn't have by thinking of it in some other way. From what I've seen so far in this thread, I don't see that this is the case.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 03:25 am
I agree with Thomas that this discussion doesn't establish any advantage in considering the question. To the extent that we are a part of nature, certainly consciousness is a natural product. Whether or not it deserves to be considered a force of nature in the sense that weather, the tides and swell of the oceans, volcanoes and earthquakes are considered to be forces of nature is, to my mind, a dubious proposition. In that regard, it seems a conceit.
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 03:47 am
I agree with what Mr S says, I think.

Is a fart is a force of nature?.

Now excuse me, I'm off to stare at goats.
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 06:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
of course not, r u crazy??? since when animals represent the force of consciousness or earthquakes or volcans, it is amazing how u invent anything just to mean smthg else u never say

look at ur ways, how u step on all what u know and is there for billions of times generations just to gain smthg from now chaotic present destroying all reasons known
u prove the absolute lack of conscious u r, yes u r natural indeed but obviously that prove nature have never any relation to what conscious is

even women as natural intelligent free reactions, it is known from their condition being always liars
how conscious could lie|/// it proves how u have no idea what conscious is
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2012 06:59 am
conscious or consciousness when it becomes constant fact, is the absolute recognition to else as an objective fact existing, so the free stand out of everything

nature by definition believe being itself before everything so the opposite to conscious existence which is always from recognizing else existence as the reason of self freedom
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 05:04:46