Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Anders wrote: Where does your consciousness end and the world begin? If your cosnciousness was truly separate from a tree, would the tree then appear in your consciousness? /AL Pete wrote: P: Yes, Michael, there is an underlying indivisible X going on. But why your insistence in calling it consciousness? This insistence to call it the big C, points to a need in you that you should investigate. You should farther investigate why you consider naming that important. Has naming any power beside distinguishing an object from another for communications purposes? It's easy to see how convenient it's to have a name for apples and another for pears, but does naming concepts such as souls, atman, spirit, and Consciousness gives them any reality, aside from a conceptual one? Hi Pete/Anders, Pete you asked me why I insist on giving the indivisible mystery the name of consciousness and whether this might not be the conceptual analogue of the blue comfort blanket and that I should do what Mummy did and cut off little bits at a time till there's nothing left. What Anders is saying there, is a germ of the reason why sages and philosophers, the one knowing directly and the other by metaphysical algebra, have claimed consciousness as the one without a second. If the truck is 'in' me as an item of mental awareness then mustn't the truck be capable of being represented as that. The idea then arises that at the non-sensory level, the unimaginable level, the truck resolves into the idea of a truck. Consciousness is chosen as what it resolves into, being more fine grained than matter. The intuition that accompanies this is that reality progresses from the subtle to the gross. That is why I say consciousness or Pure Consciousness in the Advaitic jargon is the substratum of reality with this proviso that it is known only as 'moulded' into its myriad forms of limitation. Michael p.s. interesting insert from Dan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/05 11:28:07 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Al: We need not go into creation and stuff like that. Consciousness is > > what makes us aware of stuff. > > > > P: Exactly! > > > A: From a philosophical point of view we > > cannot say if there can be matter without consciousness. > > > P: From a philosophical point of view anyone can advance any theory they > want. > Of course, that's the problem with philosophy and why it needs logic to > weed > out the nonsense. Well, logic is a part of philosophy. > > A: From a > > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > > mechanics. > > > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations > by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. > The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing to do > with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to observe > a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of > electricity to observe something so small your observation is going to have > a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. But what is energy? Can there be energy without collapsing the wave function? You assume there is energy existing as separated from quantum phenomena, and then say that this energy is what collapses the wave function. Talk about a chicken-and-egg problem! > > > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I don't know. > > > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with > quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as crystals. Atoms, crystals, that are real objects, right? You jump from quantum physics to the macro world of atoms, as if they were two separate worlds. They cannot be. There are no atoms separate from the collapse of the wave function. Atoms are not separate things. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Nisargadatta , Richard <richarkar> wrote: > > > Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/05 11:28:07 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > Al: We need not go into creation and stuff like that. Consciousness is > > what makes us aware of stuff. > > > > P: Exactly! > > > A: From a philosophical point of view we > > cannot say if there can be matter without consciousness. > > > P: From a philosophical point of view anyone can advance any theory they > want. > Of course, that's the problem with philosophy and why it needs logic to > weed > out the nonsense. > > A: From a > > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > > mechanics. > > > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations > by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. > The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing to do > with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to observe > a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of > electricity to observe something so small your observation is going to have > a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. > > > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I don't know. > > > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with > quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as crystals. > > > > To all who answered my question about life after death---thanks, most helpful. > > About solidity: Aren't humans 99.9999% empty space due to the space between atoms and also the space within each atom? > > Quote for today: If you come to a fork in the road, take it. Yogi Berra. > > richard > > What is the relationship between space and matter? Is there fundamentally any difference between space and matter? Is space made of nothing, and matter made of stuff? Is an atom a separate object, a billiard ball floating in nothingness which we call space, a nothingness with 3 dimensions?! We look at the world of physical matter as if it exists without consciousness. But does it? And empty space? Check out: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 In a message dated 3/14/05 9:39:21 PM, anders_lindman writes: > > A: From a > > > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > > > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > > > mechanics. > > > > > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations > > by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. > > The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing > to do > > with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to > observe > > a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of > > electricity to observe something so small your observation is going > to have > > a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. > > But what is energy? Can there be energy without collapsing the wave > function? You assume there is energy existing as separated from > quantum phenomena, and then say that this energy is what collapses the > wave function. Talk about a chicken-and-egg problem! > > > > > > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > > > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > > > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I > don't know. > > > > > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with > > quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as > crystals. > > Atoms, crystals, that are real objects, right? You jump from quantum > physics to the macro world of atoms, as if they were two separate > worlds. They cannot be. There are no atoms separate from the collapse > of the wave function. Atoms are not separate things. > > /AL > P: Al, what I'm trying to make you see is that when it comes to subatomic physics what scientists observe is their own experiments, and not the particles as they are and behave when not smashed in an acceleration tunnel. With those experiments scientists learn how to manipulate matter, but nothing about the nature of subatomic particles in the " wild. " Suppose an alien race the size of a solar system decides to study humans by smashing them against a wall at nearly the speed of light, and then draws conclusions about human nature and behavior by examining the gruel splattered on the wall. Would they learn anything about humans besides their chemical components? That's why Physicists say the act of observing helps create the quantum phenomenon being observed. There might not be real quantum particles in un-smashed atoms, as there is no human gruel in a human being who had not been smashed to gruel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 3/14/05 9:39:21 PM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > A: From a > > > > scientific point of view we can see that some form of observer seems > > > > to be needed in order to collapse the wavefunction in quantum > > > > mechanics. > > > > > > > P: There you go! Science is not immune to nonsense interpretations > > > by would be scientist who read and understand want they want. > > > The observation physicist talk about regarding quamta has nothing > > to do > > > with a conscious act of observation, but with the energy needed to > > observe > > > a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a million plus volts of > > > electricity to observe something so small your observation is going > > to have > > > a very large disrupting effect on what you observe. > > > > But what is energy? Can there be energy without collapsing the wave > > function? You assume there is energy existing as separated from > > quantum phenomena, and then say that this energy is what collapses the > > wave function. Talk about a chicken-and-egg problem! > > > > > > > > > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as solid > > > > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse probability soup. If > > > > consciousness is needed in order for this collapse to happen I > > don't know. > > > > > > > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity has nothing to do with > > > quanta and observation. It's a property of the bonding of atoms as > > crystals. > > > > Atoms, crystals, that are real objects, right? You jump from quantum > > physics to the macro world of atoms, as if they were two separate > > worlds. They cannot be. There are no atoms separate from the collapse > > of the wave function. Atoms are not separate things. > > > > /AL > > > > P: Al, what I'm trying to make you see is that when it comes to subatomic > physics what scientists observe is their own experiments, and not the > particles as they are and behave when not smashed in an acceleration > tunnel. With those experiments scientists learn how to manipulate matter, > but nothing about the nature of subatomic particles in the " wild. " > Suppose an alien race the size of a solar system decides to study humans by > smashing them against a wall at nearly the speed of light, and then draws > conclusions about human nature and behavior by examining the gruel splattered > on the wall. Would they learn anything about humans besides their chemical > components? That's why Physicists say the act of observing helps create the > quantum > phenomenon being observed. There might not be real quantum particles in > un-smashed atoms, as there is no human gruel in a human being who had not > been smashed to gruel. > You are talking about destroying holons. If we for example destroy a cell, then the cell (a holon) is destroyed, but the molecules (holons on a lower level) in the cell are not destroyed. If we destroy a molecule, that molecule (a holon) is destroyed, but the atoms (holons on a lower level) in the molecule are not destroyed. We could use a big particle smasher like CERN to go lower into the world of particles. But what is a particle fundamentally made of? And what is the relationship between a particle and space? What is space made of? Is a particle stuff and space nothingness? We will maybe not come to a conclusion about these questions here, but the main question remains: Can matter exist without consciousness being there observing it? We don't know. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2005 Report Share Posted March 15, 2005 --- Pedsie2 wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/05 9:39:21 PM, > anders_lindman writes: > > > > > A: From a > > > > scientific point of view we can see that some > form of observer seems > > > > to be needed in order to collapse the > wavefunction in quantum > > > > mechanics. > > > > > > > P: There you go! Science is not immune to > nonsense interpretations > > > by would be scientist who read and understand > want they want. > > > The observation physicist talk about regarding > quamta has nothing > > to do > > > with a conscious act of observation, but with > the energy needed to > > observe > > > a quantum phenomenum. When you need to use a > million plus volts of > > > electricity to observe something so small your > observation is going > > to have > > > a very large disrupting effect on what you > observe. > > > > But what is energy? Can there be energy without > collapsing the wave > > function? You assume there is energy existing as > separated from > > quantum phenomena, and then say that this energy > is what collapses the > > wave function. Talk about a chicken-and-egg > problem! > > > > > > > > > A:This collapse is what makes matter appear as > solid > > > > well-behaved stuff instead of a diffuse > probability soup. If > > > > consciousness is needed in order for this > collapse to happen I > > don't know. > > > > > > > P: More nonsense and wild speculation. Solidity > has nothing to do with > > > quanta and observation. It's a property of the > bonding of atoms as > > crystals. > > > > Atoms, crystals, that are real objects, right? You > jump from quantum > > physics to the macro world of atoms, as if they > were two separate > > worlds. They cannot be. There are no atoms > separate from the collapse > > of the wave function. Atoms are not separate > things. > > > > /AL > > > > P: Al, what I'm trying to make you see is that > when it comes to subatomic > physics what scientists observe is their own > experiments, and not the > particles as they are and behave when not smashed in > an acceleration > tunnel. With those experiments scientists learn how > to manipulate matter, > but nothing about the nature of subatomic particles > in the " wild. " > Suppose an alien race the size of a solar system > decides to study humans by > smashing them against a wall at nearly the speed of > light, and then draws > conclusions about human nature and behavior by > examining the gruel splattered > on the wall. Would they learn anything about humans > besides their chemical > components? That's why Physicists say the act of > observing helps create the > quantum > phenomenon being observed. There might not be real > quantum particles in > un-smashed atoms, as there is no human gruel in a > human being who had not > been smashed to gruel. Hahahahaha! Nice imagery for explaining the physicists' problem in trying to observing quantum level phenomena and the problem of knowing anything about it. Being a story lover, it may turn out that " bsf's " will explain it all for a while. All we need is the multidimensional observation of bosons, fermions and superstrings. Superstrings are hypothezied to be about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. See stuff on M-Theory. Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.