Death is not the end

I like the correlation to physics. Subtle truth surrounding things of an unseen nature = Metaphysics. Nothing new under the sun.

Authentic Buddhism, Christianity (Esoteric I'd say), Taoism, Hinduism, non drug-dependent forms of Shamanism all share one important element in common which is Gnosis.

Gnosis doesn't belong to any form of spirituality/religion in the same way Jesus/Gotoma-Shakyamuni/Mohamed/Mary (etc) were not Christians/Buddhists/Islamists.

Gnosis is the birth-right of all humans who cultivate their Soul. Gnosis is worked to achieve, many authentic traditions have initiations which ultimately generate this inherent/dormant state in consciousness.

Some know where they come from and where they're going. Others debate about it passionately, many of us have varying beliefs which pale in comparison to genuine Gnosis (Knowing).

Objective Truth exists. There is a Reality Principle, Natural Law(s). Our ongoing lack of cultivation of our greater capacities/bodies ensure we remain in self-inflicted states of suffering/ignorance. Contemplation upon Death is without a doubt an important part of any Souls process of generating Gnosis. This contemplation is between oneself and one's Creator and is done in Silence.

That's my 2c, for what they're worth.

a reply to: elysiumfire

You're basing your entire premise on the presumption that the quantum field (spacetime) is fundamental. What if it isn't?

a reply to: socialmediaclown
Not really. Neither space or time have objective realities. Time is simply an abstract measurement of duration, whilst space (real space) has no interactive properties at all. Space is defined by the content within it, as it is the content that places vectors in space. Without content in space we would not perceive space. For example, if you were placed blindfolded in the middle of a sound-deadened perfectly pitch black room, and then took the blindfold off. You would not be able to vectorize (measure the size of the room). Time would not be helpful to you either as there is no means to measure the duration of your stay in the room. If you then allowed sound in the pitch dark room, you could then measure the duration of calling out as the sound you make will travel towards a wall of the room and return to you. This then introduces time and vectorization (between you and the wall), as you can now measure the duration of your call to the wall and back to you. Neither space or time, or spacetime are fundamental. Spacetime is a useful abstract construct for measuring both distance (space) and duration (time) between two or more things.

Clearly, throughout my little illustration you have retained your consciousness of body and self, but after taking the blindfold off in the sound-deadened pitch black room, you cannot have a consciousness (experience) of what is external to you. Your senses are incapable of picking up any external stimuli. You may have an internal sense of being in a void, but you cannot draw any measurable perspective of it. You need external stimuli to do that. Now, suppose you cease all molecular and electro-chemical activity in your body whilst in the room. Not only do you not have any measurable way of perceiving external reality, but also nothing of your internal reality either. There is no sense of being in a void, and no sense of body and self, awareness cannot detect itself, it needs and arises from proprioceptive data, but that is now absent. That is death.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

It's called the subconscious.

Whatever you wish to label it, I would be surprised if it was considered a "conscious" state. Though I can't really know in this instance, as despite repeated requests for a clear and succinct definition (so we are both talking about the same thing) you don't seem to have one available. I have been assured this phenomena "does not happen in the brain" but as to a definition of the specific phenomena "that does not happen in the brain"...well no, sorry lol.

The problem here is that without clear definition people can make any claims they like. I am beginning to think the most likely reason for this situation is that what you believe "consciousness" to be simply doesn't exist in reality (as anything more than a personal concept).

I consider my understanding of consciousness and quantum mechanics to be shallow at best but compared to my limited knowledge, yours appears to be pretty much non-existent. You're caught up in an incoherent loop of confusion where you keep repeating the same flapdoodle over and over again. You're redundant.

Perhaps, but that's hardly an argument in favour of your belief. There is enough critique that there is no need to be unaware unless you choose to. There is opposition to Penrose's interpretation of Godel to begin with and various claims have already been discredited. The coherence/microtubules finding that Hameroff hugely over states demonstrates nothing in it's own. If microtubules are so important, is the liver "conscious"?

What do you think of Hameroff's claim of quantum retro causality being involved in volition? Surely you would be aware of such tidbits? He thinks it "saves" free will (which he also doesn't define). I think it's just as likely to "save" unicorns and fairies (at least I could define them).

His definition of consciousness that I have seen (from papers he has been known to submit to fringe journals) is vague enough to be useless, which in the end he justifies with the claim that it can't really be defined. To personally not know or be able to define what you are offering all manner of exotic explanations for, is not a good place to start.

Their ideas are rife with speculation (accepted as fact by followers) and offer a glimpse into the world of confirmation bias as much as anything.

Which doesn't mean it's all useless, but it isn't what their fan club believe it to be. It will take experimental verification to gain any acceptance which shouldn't be impossible as the relevance of quantum effects have been demonstrated with other biological processes.

Do you mean sentient?

No, I meant exactly what I said.

Both consciousness and sentience are components of self-awareness. Sentience is usually considered the capacity to sense feelings, perceptions, and experiences such as suffering and enjoyment, pleasure and pain—sensations. Consciousness is also awareness, but at a much higher level—the ability to think and use reason to solve problems and make sense of the world around an individual.

This is vague. So you believe that "consciousness" is required to solve problems or to reason, while also claiming (previously) that consciousness doesn't require the brain and is also beyond definition. That's some clarity right there.

The higher the level of consciousness, the greater is the intellectual capacity of a being to contemplate phenomena and events, as well as to integrate knowledge from diverse fields, together with causes and effects and the development of novel solutions. The highest levels of consciousness allow an animal or human to question their own existence—the whys, purpose and their own futures.

You seem to have made a remarkable u-turn? How were you able to define and measure "consciousness" to know the above. In view of what you have claimed previously?

Consciousness is immeasurable.

a reply to: elysiumfire

What I mean by spacetime being fundamental is you believe that nothing exists outside of our 3D reality? That everything in existence emerges from the quantum interactions within the universe which is a closed system? That would mean the quantum field within spacetime is the foundation of all creation.

Also, you claim that time is an abstract measurement of duration. Or:
"Time is nothing more than a perception of the duration of motions and non-motions…or to put it more succinctly, the perception of the duration of changes."

You also claim that:
"External reality exists in spite of our existence, it did so long before we arrived, and will do so long after we are gone. External reality, in all its expressions and forms, is predicated on its own existential presence, and does not require a conscious observer for its existence."

Here's my question -- if the external reality exists independent of our existence yet, time requires a perception or a measurement of duration, who or what is taking that measurement or making that perception in the absence of a conscious observer? Is the universe measuring its own time duration? Or does time simply not exist in the absence of an observer. Frequencies require a flow of time in order to vibrate. Without that continual motion, there is no external reality.

a reply to: Quintilian

What is your definition of consciousness?

a reply to: socialmediaclown

Thanks for the question.

...if the external reality exists independent of our existence, yet time requires a perception or a measurement of duration, who or what is taking that measurement or making that perception in the absence of a conscious observer?

In essence, no measurement is being taken in the absence of a conscious observer. Time only exists to beings that are conscious. In the absence of a conscious observer, external reality continues as it has done due to quantum interactions taking place. Time is not required for external reality to exist.

Is the universe measuring its own time duration?

The simple answer to this is no. The universe isn't measuring anything, unless if you count conscious beings as one expression the universe gives. If so, one could state that the universe is measuring time through the consciousness of conscious beings. In doing that, one is almost allotting a consciousness to the universe itself. Wouldn't that be a discovery?

Frequencies require a flow of time in order to vibrate.

No they don't. Frequencies (having amplitude) are simply the flow of energies, emissions of radiations from a density in space.

Without that continual motion, there is no external reality.

I agree.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Time is not required for external reality to exist.

That depends on what type of external reality you're referring to. If you're talking about a physical reality made up of matter in 3D spacetime (the 3 dimensions of space + time) then time absolutely is required. If there's no time then there's no "flow of energies". There's no emissions, there's no interaction, there's no motion, no evolution, no entropy, no nothing. Physical reality would exist in a frozen state. Like a still shot or a single frame in a movie.

Amplitude: the maximum extent of a vibration or oscillation, measured from the position of equilibrium.

a reply to: socialmediaclown

You know that feeling we all seem to have that there is a little "myself" or "I" inside of our heads? The part that actually seems to be having subjective experience (and perceiving that it exists as something separate from the experience itself), narrating, making choices and decisions with apparent "freedom", is capable of volition and motivation and basically seems to be in charge of things? That IMO, is consciousness.

Without this we are meat robots. As they say "the lights are on, but no one's home" without it. It isn't always there of course and cognition in general, problem solving, emotion and consequent reactions, sensory perception and so on are all possible without it. But some things aren't.

Whether it really has the qualities and abilities I have outlined and in which way it exists is another thing, the point is that we identify with it and seem convinced that it does (and therefore that we do).

It's generally referred to by philosophers as "subjective experience" which seems fair enough, but I think really it (consciousness) is the basis for subjectivity. A pov (internally) from which subjectivity occurs. I know Graziano refers to it as "subjective awareness" which he tries to explain (mechanistically) and which also seems fair enough as he is talking about a very specific type of awareness (more a type of "attention") in his "attention schema" model.

I also like Jaynes's definition, of an "analogue "I" narratising in a mind space" although I don't entirely agree with it. He also defines it far more broadly as "introspection" or "that which is introspectable" and while I can understand why (especially from his pov) I don't entirely agree with that either.

There are all sorts of definitions. Mine would be the following "the part of the psyche/mind that we identify with (the "I", psychologically) and which seems capable of subjective experience".

This does have one problem, in that certain conditions there can be the feeling of something that people don't identify with occupying the psyche in a similar way and especially consciously narrating (schizophrenia for instance). It can be an unfortunate and sometimes horrendously debilitating condition for the 1% or so who suffer with it (also because of attitudes towards mental illness in general), ultimately it has explanation at least in principle that doesn't conflict with the definition.

Similar to other conditions such as those generally described as "bipolar".

So I think people such as Hameroff are unlikely to explain this quantum mechanically. It seems more likely they will arrive at the "quantum correlates of the neural correlates" of the mind. Which is still worthwhile of course, if it increases knowledge.

a reply to: Quintilian

Aside from being extremely vague, all you did was describe aspects of behavior that consciousness allows us to do. This does not define what consciousness is.

This is like saying electricity allows us to turn on a light, watch TV, use a computer. This describes what electricity does. It doesn't define what electricity is.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

Aside from being extremely vague, all you did was describe aspects of behavior that consciousness allows us to do. This does not define what consciousness is.

This is like saying electricity allows us to turn on a light, watch TV, use a computer. This describes what electricity does. It doesn't define what electricity is.

Of course. I can see where you and vagueness are no strangers. lol

Still, it's a definition. From the above I think you might have missed it but I never expected it would be accepted by someone with a closed steel trap belief that it can have no definition.

As to your particular (surely non vague) version of consciousness, holding belief in something that probably doesn't exist might be part of the problem if vagueness is your enemy.

Assigning properties to consciousness of being both "non definable" and "definable" at the same time (it's awareness apparently)...and of being both "immeasurable" and "measurable" (has different levels or something) probably doesn't help either.

As to your analogy, I could have a lot of fun there using similar category errors. To that extent I doubt you have a hope of defining what electricity itself is. Why not give it a go? Should be fun.

Consult that immeasurable and indefinable consciousness. Should get an answer around the time decoherence in those microtubules collapses the wave function lol.

a reply to: Quintilian

Consciousness is immeasurable. It has no physical measurable properties (that we're aware of). That doesn't mean its qualities or aspects can't be described according to what we are able to perceive as you and I have demonstrated. You seem to be extremely confused.

originally posted by: socialmediaclown
a reply to: Quintilian

Consciousness is immeasurable. It has no physical measurable properties (that we're aware of). That doesn't mean its qualities or aspects can't be described according to what we are able to perceive as you and I have demonstrated. You seem to be extremely confused.

Yet I'm not the one who made claims that it can be measured. You did that.

All I'm saying is that whatever you are trying but failing miserably at explaining probably doesn't exist.

"Consciousness is immeasurable."

"The higher the level of consciousness, the greater is the intellectual capacity of a being"

Consciousness is immeasurable.It can't be deduced to a quantifiable definition.

My simple definition is that consciousness is awareness.

Consciousness is the awareness or the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction.

Not bad going. I might be confused (wonder why lol) but you're full of it.

a reply to: Quintilian

Your problem seems to be that you don't understand the idea of consciousness. It is an abstract concept. Like emotions. We have no way of conceiving hate or love with our physical senses. Love and hate have no concrete values to be weighed or measured. There is no love or hate "molecule" to be examined. Yet, we are aware of their existence because they are expressed through physical demonstrations. Those demonstrations can be described. Do you understand now?

a reply to: socialmediaclown

That depends on what type of external reality you're referring to.

There is only one external reality, not multiple realities. Whatever is 'external' to you is all that exists.

If you're talking about a physical reality made up of matter in 3D spacetime (the 3 dimensions of space + time) then time absolutely is required.

Please understand that dimensions (height, length, and width) are simply vectors that a physical object takes up in space. Time is an abstract human construct by which we measure 'duration', how long an object lasts, how long it takes for an object to undergo change, or how long it takes to move position from 'A' to 'B'. Time has no influence on anything. Time is not a 'force', and it absolutely does not interact with anything because it cannot have any interactive property. Time, the measurement of duration is only meaningful to a conscious observer.

If there's no time then there's no "flow of energies".

Please could you explain how there can be no 'flow of energies' if there is no time? How is 'time' able to influence and act on anything? If there is no time, how does this negate emissions, interactions, motions, evolutions, entropy, etc? I'd really like to understand how you arrive at these assumptions?

Physical reality would exist in a frozen state. Like a still shot or a single frame in a movie.

Not at all.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Better yet, how about you explain how motion or movement can happen if there is no spacetime gradient for that motion or movement to happen in?