Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

If good/evil comes from within, then everyone's good/evil is different. My good could be your evil, for example. And we do see this at work in politics. There isn't disagreement; there is only good v evil. It's damaging and dangerous.

But even worse, it leads you to accept evil because it leads you to tolerance and non-judgmentalism on a grand scale. You might find a murder evil, but what if the next guy does not? How many of our current issues with crime are caused by people who don't see the evil in it or are reluctant to speak against people who don't see the evils?

Whoa, I didn't mean that's everything within us only a small part we all have to grapple with - choices, we have choices. We can unprogram, relearn, research, experience, investigate, choose again, start again, reboot, chill, accept, become one with the 'all', let it all roll off our backs or not.

Google "Religion and the Brain".

I decided not to post anything on that myself.

But it is interesting.

Ugh, do I have to?

a reply to: SLAYER69

I am going to give this a shot although it's probably too late in this thread.

Maybe I've got the terminology incorrect however as far as consciousness is concerned I think of it this way.

"Consciousness is the ability to know one's self as a distinct and unique "self" all the while knowing that one is knowing one's self as self".

Put another way, it's "You knowing you as you while knowing that you are knowing you as you".

Think about that for a moment.....it's a twister, but it's worth the effort.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, we have choices, but choice implies we are more than our biology. Of course, that is the supposition of this particular thread - we animate the thought pattern in the brain, not the other way around. It argues against us being mere prisoners of our meat sack.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: quintessentone

If good/evil comes from within, then everyone's good/evil is different. My good could be your evil, for example. And we do see this at work in politics. There isn't disagreement; there is only good v evil. It's damaging and dangerous.

But even worse, it leads you to accept evil because it leads you to tolerance and non-judgmentalism on a grand scale. You might find a murder evil, but what if the next guy does not? How many of our current issues with crime are caused by people who don't see the evil in it or are reluctant to speak against people who don't see the evils?

Whoa, I didn't mean that's everything within us only a small part we all have to grapple with - choices, we have choices. We can unprogram, relearn, research, experience, investigate, choose again, start again, reboot, chill, accept, become one with the 'all', let it all roll off our backs or not.

Google "Religion and the Brain".

I decided not to post anything on that myself.

But it is interesting.

Ugh, do I have to?

LOL

Here's one to ponder.

Is the brain intentionally wired by its "creator" or just happenstance in "stirring the soup"?

I still maintain that the mysteery of consciousness is a lot more involved and complex than just the biomechanical and chemical processes that allow it to animate and make descisions in this particular dimension with it's particular set of laws and fundamental forces and principles.

Seeing as how we can't see how the consciousness would manifest and behave given in a universe based on different Fundamental Laws and Chemical interactions we can't make a singular and Universal declaration of KNOWING the truth behind the mystery of Consciousness.

Environment still has a lot of play in this respect.

In short, we have an explantion how consciousness can be directed through a physical and biological matrix, but we still can't explain the origin of such.

originally posted by: Annee

NO - atheism is not faith based -- it is a lack of belief.

Let's try this then first:

If you could prove god exists I would believe it.

The original meaning of agnostic is: god can not be proven or disproven.

Atheists have only one thing in common -- lack of belief in a god.

Read yourself again, Annee, you're either Agnostic or suffered a failure to elucidate your position. Not being mean here, just exact. I understand the "lack of belief" wordplay but that's all it is wordplay. You would, you assert, believe in God if I could prove it. Your definition of Agnostic is God cannot be proven or disproven. Your thesis, as related here anyway, has inherent contradiction. It's not internally consistent.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Annee

NO - atheism is not faith based -- it is a lack of belief.

Let's try this then first:

If you could prove god exists I would believe it.

The original meaning of agnostic is: god can not be proven or disproven.

Atheists have only one thing in common -- lack of belief in a god.

Read yourself again, Annee, you're either Agnostic or suffered a failure to elucidate your position. Not being mean here, just exact. I understand the "lack of belief" wordplay but that's all it is wordplay. You would, you assert, believe in God if I could prove it. Your definition of Agnostic is God cannot be proven or disproven. Your thesis, as related here anyway, has inherent contradiction. It's not internally consistent.

I, me, myself -- lack belief in any god in the religious sense of a god. I am in my head -- you are not.

The words you are placing on this forum are yours -- your thoughts -- not mine.

Atheist/Atheism means ONE thing only -- lack of belief in a god/deity. The only common denominator between atheists is lack of belief in a god/deity (in the religious sense).

Atheists are individual. They have their own thoughts and beliefs (other than lack of belief in a god/deity). Those beliefs of the individual atheist would be that person's atheist philosophy.

There are Hard atheists, Spiritual atheists, etc.

A spiritual atheist is someone who, unlike a religious person, does not believe in any “God”. Instead, they believe in a higher consciousness that cannot be represented as a physical being. They believe the universe governs itself through actions and intentions.

Ancient Aliens -- if an off-planet being came to this earth sometime in the past -- people of that time might have thought he/she was a god. But if this was the case -- god would be a title -- not a supreme being (in the religious sense).

Unlike atheists, agnostics are still considered theists. Some people who identify as agnostic may not have a dedicated title for their belief system, thus utilizing the term agnostic. They believe that the essential nature of deism is unknowable, but they acknowledge that the existence of a higher power is possible. thewordcounter.com...

OP -- Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness -- atheism is not the subject of this thread.

originally posted by: Annee

A spiritual atheist is someone who, unlike a religious person, does not believe in any “God”. Instead, they believe in a higher consciousness that cannot be represented as a physical being. They believe the universe governs itself through actions and intentions.

That's as faith-based as it comes is it not? If it's not please explain how it's not.

As for the thread topic: Any serious conversation of consciousness always raises metaphysical questions.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you. Someone is finally starting to talk science again instead of feelings.

If good/evil comes from within, then everyone's good/evil is different. My good could be your evil, for example.

What you describe, the relativistic inner defining of good and evil, is based in a poorly developed spiritual intelligence. Think of it this way:

When we are born, we have the maximum instinctive intelligence we will ever have. Almost everything a newborn does is based on instinct alone. The only chance that child has had to learn behavior was in the womb, and that environment was generally isolated from the outside world. Certain things like the sound of the mother's heartbeat may have become our normal, some sounds from outside the womb may filter through. but in general we are quite protected.

When born, a child is thrust into a new, strange environment. That is, in the sense of my definitions, "pain." The result is that the child cries, which normally triggers the mother's dormant instinctual intelligence to pick up the child. Biology has placed a food source at that point close to the child's mouth, and it begins to feed. So we now have all those sensory signals, the clear sound of the mother, the visual cues (even though they are blurry at birth), the smell of the mother, the tactile sense of her breast, etc., etc., etc., all contributing to a Pavlovian learning that associates that pattern of sensory input with "pleasure," instinctually defined in the brain as a lack of hunger.

This continues throughout life. Those patterns which lead to pleasure eventually become a source of pleasure themselves, leading people to repeat them. The patterns that lead to pain eventually become in themselves a source of pain, leading people to avoid them (this is where phobias lie).

An example: when I was young, my mother loved Captain D's fish... so did I. She would often bring home food instead of cooking it here. Well, one day I was in my room feeling very sick from some sort of bug... fever, upset stomach, body aches, and just a general sense of being sick. Mom brought in the fish, saw I wasn't feeling well, and sat it down for me when I felt like I could eat it. Being too sick to eat, I instead went to sleep. When I woke up, that unique smell had permeated the room and all I could smell was Captain D's fish. I was also even sicker than when I went to sleep. The smell got associated with the sickness in my mind, and to this day I cannot even walk into a Captain D's without throwing up.

It wasn't Captain D's that made me sick, but my brain still associated the sensory pattern it had with the sickness ("pain") and learned to avoid that pattern. Conversely, I rarely got hamburgers growing up; they were a special treat because we were poor. Over time, I associated hamburgers with being satiated with protein ("pleasure") and a reward for good behavior, and now just watching a hamburger commercial makes me both happy and hungry at the same time.

That Pavlovian intelligence applies to every aspect of our lives.

Our spiritual intelligence appears to develop differently. The analog to a Pavlovian sensory pattern from spiritual influence is internal as opposed to external, as well as being less potentially traumatic. The human propensity therefore is to develop a Pavlovian intelligence well before developing one's spiritual intelligence (even though both are available before birth). Also, since the Pavlovian responses are already somewhat cemented when we begin to discover the spiritual intelligence we all possess, it is easy to interpret spiritual intelligence through Pavlovian intelligence.

This is what leads to the blanket rejection of religion we see. Faith is real, but it often opposes what we think we know about the world we live in. Faith (and I speak from a Christian perspective since I am a Christian) tells us that Jesus was able to walk on water; Pavlovian experiences tell us this does not happen. Faith tells us that Jesus rose from the dead; Pavlovian experience tells us that such is impossible.

In short, Pavlovian intelligence concerns science: observable, repeatable phenomena. Spiritual intelligence concerns the why behind the Pavlovian experiences. Pavlovian experiences can be proven physically; spiritual experiences cannot. As a result, spiritual intelligence becomes harder to accept without constant teaching and personal experience of it becomes interpreted through the incompatibility of Pavlovian intelligence. Drug use in childhood, especially psychoactive drugs like Ritalin, also shortcut the Pavlovian learning process, substituting pleasure when the result should be pain, and this changes our Pavlovian responses toward "evil" instead of "good." Social media as well, where societal pleasure can often result from agreement with peers of things that would normally be considered "pain," is responsible. In turn, we then develop our spiritual intelligence in the light of that twisted Pavlovian response.

That is one example where this type of study can be helpful to society: want to know why school shootings are so common? Look no further than the overuse and misuse of drugs like Ritalin and over-indulgence on social media in school age children.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

Your link states:

Instead, they believe in a higher consciousness that cannot be represented as a physical being.

That is an assumption that religious people believe in a physical God. That is simply not the case. The myriad of images of the old white-bearded, wise man in the sky are all created by non-religious people. No one else seriously believes God has a physical body. God is a spirit, not a physical presence. He is, in other words, what that link claims atheists believe in.

Jesus had a physical body. But when Jesus had that physical body, He was not God. He had shed His divinity to walk among men. He regained that divinity when He lived a perfect life, yet was subjected to death unjustly. That is the very basis of Christianity.

That statement is nothing more than intentionally tripping someone and then laughing about them not being able to stand up. It's a juvenile, childish effort at the social equivalent of masturbation. If you're reading such tripe, it's no wonder you are so confused about the religion you hate so much.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

When we are born, we have the maximum instinctive intelligence we will ever have. Almost everything a newborn does is based on instinct alone. The only chance that child has had to learn behavior was in the womb, and that environment was generally isolated from the outside world. Certain things like the sound of the mother's heartbeat may have become our normal, some sounds from outside the womb may filter through. but in general we are quite protected.

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I have to point out that the womb is not always a place of safety and sanctuary.

There are sometimes genetic variables such as differenting blood types between Mother and Child that can become life threatening to both the Mother and developing child, there are Mother's with substance abuse issues and innocents born addicted to drugs, there is Alcohol Fetal Syndrome (one again, from indiscriminate or wholly ignorant Mothers) and a whole plethora of variables that can seriously damage the developing fetus that cannot always be prevented, even when the Mother does everything in her power to protect the unborn child.

I am a devout Christian myself, but not every womb is hospitable due to various genetic variables and environmental factors affecting the Mother during the term of the pregancy. Some children are strangled by the unbilical cord during a difficult birth and are unable to be saved with even the most proficient and considerate doctors on hand during the delivery. Some stressors can damage the child in utero, studies have shown that unsupportive or abusive environments to the Mother can have an affect on the developing child within her womb, the little developing brain being aware of the Mother's distress and experiencing it while still in utero.

There are a weath of variables that can (and sometimes do) go wrong, no matter how hard we try to ensure the delivery of a healthy newborn. Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is a sad fact of many womens lives and while I appreciate your optimistim as a Honorable Christian Man, please take time to consider the realities of many Women who have been through many unfortunate hardships and losses in their attempt to bring a healthy child into the world through no fault of their own.

I believe God is capable of a great many miracles, but I have also seen so many cases where His Grace failed to touch the life within.

God is merciful, Nature is not.

As a woman who cannot carry to term and had to made hard decisions out of mercy and for her own survival I had to comment on this issue.

Please don't hate me for pointing out these harsh truths.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Annee

A spiritual atheist is someone who, unlike a religious person, does not believe in any “God”. Instead, they believe in a higher consciousness that cannot be represented as a physical being. They believe the universe governs itself through actions and intentions.

That's as faith-based as it comes is it not? If it's not please explain how it's not.

As for the thread topic: Any serious conversation of consciousness always raises metaphysical questions.

Lack of belief in a god is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. That is the only criteria for atheism.

There's nothing saying atheists can't have a personal philosophy.

I've had paranormal (for lack of better word) experiences since first memory. Something more is going on. But I am not required to "believe" it's a god (in the religious sense).

Fact is -- none of us know anything for sure.

OP -- Physicist Claims To Have Solved the Mystery of Consciousness

Again -- this thread is not about atheism.

An adopted child often relates more to its birth parent (even if never met) -- than its adopted parents.

There's more to the brain and genetics -- than nurturing.

PHYSICIST SAYS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST

"LIKE PEELING AN INFINITE ONION, THE MORE WE PEEL, THE MORE THERE IS TO PEEL."

Pointing to the concept of the multiverse, or an infinite number of universes, Sarma ponders how humans could have such hubris as to imagine that the apparent rules that seem to govern our reality would apply in every universe.

Raising a theoretical argument, Sarma adds that even in the face of a theory as substantial as quantum mechanics, which he describes as being "more like a set of rules that we use to express our laws rather than being an ultimate law itself," there remain too many mysteries and variables to ever consider this so-called fundamental theory sacrosanct. futurism.com...

a reply to: Annee

Of course once you get to a certain level conventional understanding of fundamental forces cease to exist.

It's a form of personal copyright protection.

In what way have human beings shown they are ready to understand the ulimate secrets of the Universe?

We are still barabaric and egocentric monkeys on this rock and even scientists want the secrets so they can "become like God".

At some point the Creator loses patience and reminds us of the immortal words of Socrates:

"True Wisdom Consists in Knowing That You Know Nothing."

A little humility goes a long way.

a reply to: Annee

Well, we invented math and all the other sciences to make sense out of chaos, so in reality that is true.

The same can be said for the Holy Spirit; invention and layers:

Is the Holy Spirit Jesus's Spirit?
The Holy Ghost may be considered Christ's “Spirit” in the sense that the Holy Ghost “beareth record” of the Savior and of his doctrine, which is “the doctrine which the Father hath given” to his Son (3 Ne. 11:32).

"beareth record" - after reading this it struck me that this is exactly what consciousness is - a receptable of some sort for holding record and what form that takes it's anybody's guess. I can't help switching back and forth from science, religious belief, Jesus' teachings and spirituality - it's my reality.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Well, we invented math and all the other sciences to make sense out of chaos, so in reality that is true.

The same can be said for the Holy Spirit; invention and layers:

Is the Holy Spirit Jesus's Spirit?
The Holy Ghost may be considered Christ's “Spirit” in the sense that the Holy Ghost “beareth record” of the Savior and of his doctrine, which is “the doctrine which the Father hath given” to his Son (3 Ne. 11:32).

"beareth record" - after reading this it struck me that this is exactly what consciousness is - a receptable of some sort for holding record and what form that takes it's anybody's guess. I can't help switching back and forth from science, religious belief, Jesus' teachings and spirituality - it's my reality.

im proud
[im always proud at souls like you]

you may be interested to know that the Spirit is a 'she'

as the second person of the trinity

she is described in Ezekiel
as 'fire from her waist upwards and fire from her waist downwards'

the ultimate care
and ultimate love

though the scroll has been corrupted by Esau ,
the word "she" survived in the Ezekiel chapter

... in the pre-Hindu Rg-Veda
[so , the original Veda's , not the joke called 'hinduism']
She is called NRRTI

and even the evil realm has no insulting word for her
just writing "Go Back"

when she goes to bring messages to the souls that God loves

the scroll does not talk much about her
likely to protect her
[against silly and wrong ideas etc , as not to hurt her]

but She is the one crying about our destroyed eden paradise
saying to God to please restore it ,
"are you not my lord from the beginning of time ?"
please look it up

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Well, we invented math and all the other sciences to make sense out of chaos, so in reality that is true.

The same can be said for the Holy Spirit; invention and layers:

Is the Holy Spirit Jesus's Spirit?
The Holy Ghost may be considered Christ's “Spirit” in the sense that the Holy Ghost “beareth record” of the Savior and of his doctrine, which is “the doctrine which the Father hath given” to his Son (3 Ne. 11:32).

I can't help switching back and forth from science, religious belief, Jesus' teachings and spirituality - it's my reality.

I understand that perfectly. I actually wanted to be a Christian minister at one time. That's when I started searching/researching the factual history of Jesus. Resulting in the realization there isn't any.

As I said -- I simplify -- it took many years to get to where I am today. Remember, I was 71 when I finally let it all go.

a reply to: Annee

I can't believe you let the teachings go as well.