What is your problem with "matter" ?

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Nowhere did i ever say "matter" was bad.

Of course you are saying "matter" is bad, or at least the belief in it. You have stated "matter" is illusory and any belief in it is delusional. That is a judgment call, by its very definition, lol. You even gave an example how belief in a illusion could not only be bad, but life ending. So just call it how you see it and don't try to play these semantic games with us. If you say the belief in "matter" is delusional, thus bad, then I am all ears to your argument. You might be correct. But you are going to have to give me something to work with for me to also conclude that a belief in "matter" is delusional. But you already said you can't do that, which is why this discussion is useless, as stated in the post above. Have a nice day.

Dude there is a very strong likelihood that there is no one reading our little discussion here.. So if there is some game going on it's unlikely there are any other players here.

"If you say the belief in "matter" is delusional, thus bad, then I am all ears to your argument. You might be correct. But you are going to have to give me something to work with for me to also conclude that a belief in "matter" is delusional."

I've given you something to work with but you are unable to discern it because you are focusing on our assumption of what matter is. What is matter? Sure if i use my sense of sight and touch then matter is quite real. With substance. It has mass. It's real. But if we extend our perception and experience of it beyond our senses the actuality of it begins to disintegrate.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ardent believers in science depend only on scientific authority for their truth. But do you think it's possible to experience the illusory nature of "matter" directly? Maybe? Is it possible that this experience can be communicated in a nomenclature outside of science? Something more pure and direct? Linguistics and information theory tell us that language is a very inefficient way of communicating in terms of information sent and received. But again, we don't need linguistics and information theory to know this. This experience of this discussion is proof enough for me.

So you might want to argue with my understanding of electron diffraction as a method of disproving the illusory nature of matter to me. But I'm telling you it's not possible. Why? Because i didn't find out about it's illusory nature through scientific America or the wiki article i posted. I experienced it directly so there is no question in my mind. FOR ME, believing matter to be actual is delusion.

There are other systems of understanding and experiencing truth that are not constrained to language and systems and bureaucracy. The idea of matter being without substance is elementary in terms of directly experiencing truth. I'm not fascinated that someone wrote a paper about some device that potentially "proves" it. The paper is not the experience. That is why all this constant demanding of proof is more a defensive tactic rather than a sincere attempt to understand.

reply to post by rwfresh

FOR ME, believing matter to be actual is delusion.

Yes, I'm glad we cleared that up, it is unfortunate it took two pages to do so. Perceiving matter to be real (even in a transitory sense) is bad, great, I got it. Just watch out for the walls when you're walking and that little thing your typing on too. Have a good one.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by chr0naut

 

ok,, so that leads you to believe the pulses are effecting brain sensors outside of the brain,,

because the time it takes the pulse to travel from the machine to the brain would have needed a delay? or its that the pulse is still in the area effecting the inner brain,, yet the person is fine at that point?
either way it is still odd because the inner brain is known to have a major role in ( ya know) yet the person is fine even when the pulse is still rattling around the brain....

unless im misunderstanding everything

It wasn't actually what I was getting at but the fault is mine and not yours. I have a significant background in computing and made assumptions that others were similarly experienced.

So, I'll start with a concept that underlies all computing and even neural processing: that of a Turing machine. This is a concept of a linear stripe or ribbon of data mixed with instruction code. As the processing "spotlight" passes over each number it must determine what to do with the number. The first number must be an instruction which instructs the processor what to do with the subsequent number or numbers. So, lets say the first instruction says to load the next number into a special piece of holding memory called a register. We'll call this one 'Register A'. The processor's spotlight then steps to the next position in the line of data and copies the number into Register A as instructed. The spotlight moves again and the next data is an instruction to copy the subsequent number into Register B. It does this moves on and receives another instruction to add Register A to Register B, storing the result in Register A and any overflow condition into a special Register called Flags (which has a particular bit location for an overflow status). The next instruction would usually be store the data to some specific location on the strip of data that contains both our data and instructions. This is a simplified snapshot of how a computing process works.

One thing that soon becomes obvious with a Turing machine is that if the data or the location of the processing spotlight gets corrupted or confused, the result is usually instant chaos. If it happens on our computers, this is the point that we reboot, re-loading default values and re-establishing a logical sequence for our instruction pointer to follow.

What I was getting at is that, despite the disruption TMS introduces, there is never a reboot process evident and paradoxically, the data (and instructions) in our cerebral Turing machines (there are many of them in a neural net) is restored from somewhere, somehow and despite the vast amount of data/instructions involved this seems to be almost instant.

Also while the TMS is being applied, the affected person is usually fully conscious, aware and observing the bizarre mental and physical results. Surely if one thing emergent from the structure and function of the brain is so affected, all others will as well. Why then is consciousness inviolate?

Originally posted by gosseyn
What is your problem with "matter" ?

I keep bumping into the damned stuff.

reply to post by chr0naut




ok i see,..,,. quick question about the first part of stuff you wrote.... how does the spotlight know which bit is instructional and what bit is data?


"What I was getting at is that, despite the disruption TMS introduces, there is never a reboot process evident and paradoxically, the data (and instructions) in our cerebral Turing machines (there are many of them in a neural net) is restored from somewhere, somehow and despite the vast amount of data/instructions involved this seems to be almost instant.

Also while the TMS is being applied, the affected person is usually fully conscious, aware and observing the bizarre mental and physical results. Surely if one thing emergent from the structure and function of the brain is so affected, all others will as well. Why then is consciousness inviolate?"

about this,,,,, what is the TMS disrupting if not consciousness? all the while the TMS is applied,, the person can function as normal? if not,,, you are wondering why when the disruption stops the consciousness that was disrupted does not need time to "gather" itself into coherence? i would say im not sure but i think of a cellphone momentarily loosing service,, not in a sense like consciousness is projected from outside of the body to the cellphone mind,,, but as if the mind and conciousness is the cellphone and producer of the signal,, the TMS would be a bridge interupting the signal,, and when stopped,, the signal and the service is returned to normal,. ,, I also think of the mushy mind of mornings when getting out of bed as a bit of a reboot process,,, I also think of getting knocked unconscious and coming to,, if no physical internal damage was done to badly, the person will be able to function quite well after ( may have a headache and other physical symptoms but yea)..,.,

reply to post by gosseyn


I just don't understand why people have to try and use philosophy to put meaning to something.. Why make it more of a mystery with fuzzy philosophical nonsense. One of my favorite quotes.. 'philosophy is over rated, experience is key'.

The mind was not born from the brain and all you have to do is research it. Physical reality is a very important experience where there are things possible here that are not possible 'outside' of the physical. However, our universe is just a subset of a larger and more encompassing reality. You can read all the quantum physics books you want to try and convince yourself of this if you subscribe to the idea, but you'll never really know until you experience it.

You would learn a lot from reading books by Bob Monroe and Thomas Campbell. Both have documented experiences and statistical analysis based on experiments done on consciousness as well as regularly disconnecting consciousness from the body that clearly suggests that for one, this universe is just a simulation of very important experiences (a school of learning and experience, consequences, duality, ego, structure, evolution, order)... two, consciousness doesn't need a physical container to exist, and 3, there is no such thing as death.

People keep pondering these things and asking these questions when the information and very strong evidence already exists if they just search for it. I don't even find it interesting anymore to watch most scientists babble about this or that because they look silly after reading Thomas Campbell's book (My Big T.O.E). Steven Hawking doesn't hold a candle to this guy and neither does anyone else unless they actually understand his theory and what it means. Don't believe me? Go read the book. It will be the most important book you'll ever read and all your questions will be answered. In fact, there is a logical and scientific answer to everything, including all things paranormal.

Plenty of experimentation has been done on this subject using scientific methodology, to the point of no denial. The two possible scenarios for people not knowing these things are, 1. They haven't been subjected to the data, or 2. They choose to ignore it.

reply to post by gosseyn


OP, I just read your initial post and Dr. Owen Flanagan's book came to mind immediately. I have no doubt that "The Problem Of The Soul" will become a classic in neuroscience.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345687132&sr=8-1&keywords=the+problem+of+the+soul

Being anti-matter myself, I see no reason to justify the unlawful actions of matter in this dimension. If I ever meet matter in person, there will be a huge explosion, I guarantee it.

Originally posted by benrl

Maybe its because even Neuroscience can not explain human Consciousness, or free will.

Or how two sections of the brain can activate near simultaneous, despite the impossibility of the signal traveling faster than Light to cause the activation.

Seems entanglement maybe at play, something that even Physicist still have a hard time reconciling.

The shear amount that we know, is nothing compared to all that we don't.

The precise cause of consciousness is still a question, but that doesn't mean the answer is at all interesting. Free will and consciousness are the same thing. Non-living matter has no free will and unless interacted upon by conscious matter, the non-living matter will continue in a perfectly determinable path until the end of its existence. Neuroscience will surely be the first field to identify the cause of consciousness, so I find your mockery of the scientific field amusing.

Neuroscience has already discovered that the two hemispheres of the brain are connected via corpus callosum. Utilizing that bridge of nerves the two halves communicate sensory, motor and cognitive functioning. The collective neurons in the average human brain can fire a possible 20 million billion times per second with their pulses traveling at up to 120 meters per second. However, people born without a corpus callosum actually show quite normal exchange of information. Some neuro-scientists have speculated that the brain hemispheres could be communicating through some kind of electro-magnetic field.

That is however very unlikely, seeing as the two halves of the brain are connected by more than just the corpus callosum. If anything, this shows just how unimportant the corpus callosum is in the overall functioning of the two halves of the brain and that they are intimately locked in close communication over the course of its lifespan. The two halves of the brain are also almost identical in structure and function. Any differences are so minute that they are practically untraceable. It seems wise to assume that the two halves would behave similarly, even if not in direct communication.

reply to post by spacemanjupiter


I'd think it obvious that the complex superstructure of our brain holds some significant relationship with what we call consciousness. Nothing is seemingly "outside" of reality. Our thoughts are very real pulses of energy and secretions of chemicals, but just because we're here, doing as we do, doesn't mean any of this is at all what we think it is. I personally believe that reality is far different from anything we will ever get the chance to experience. Reality feels a lot like a blanket covering my eyes.

reply to post by gosseyn


OP, my problem with matter is that it doesn't answer the big question about "free will". Matter is bound by the law of Cause and Effect. The observable physical universe operates under that eternal dance. One atom gets moved by another that was previously moved. This beautiful ballet has been going on since the big bang. The French mathematician Simon Laplace articulated the causal "demon" so brilliantly:

In the history of science, Laplace's demon was the first published articulation of causal or scientific determinism by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814.[1] According to determinism, if someone knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics.[2]

Source: en.wikipedia.org...'s_demon

Now, when you think about this to the bitter end Laplace's demon can by applied to the brain as well since we are "only" dealing with knowable states of neurons and synapses. (I'm extremely simplifying the problem here, but I believe the concept does apply.) So a brain that is based on grey matter should not be able to think freely and defy causality, but "free will" seems to exist.

Mary Poppins, Amstel, C-major scale, ventriloquist ... What in the world caused me to write down those words? It seems to me that we humans have an "agent" that operates beyond the constraints of causality.

Don't get me wrong. I think "matter" is beautiful! I'm in absolute awe when I think of what it took the universe to form planet earth, organic life, and consequently self-awareness. But I also think there is more behind the veil ...

OP I was wondering what was the matter with my problems ?Sorry.

SnF

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable. But you'd have to be me to experience the truth of it though.

reply to post by rwfresh


The cognitive dissonance in those two sentences makes my brain spin. Of course you can make up your own language and definitions, but then communication becomes rather meaningless. I have no patience for New Age mumbo jumbo. It's a waste of time for everybody. So, if only YOU can verify your statement it is a non sequitur.

Verificationism is the view that a statement or question is only legitimate if there is some way to determine whether the statement is true or false, or what the answer to the question is. It is a view mostly closely associated with the logical positivists of the early twentieth century, who established and applied this doctrine to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless assertive sentences.

reply to post by gosseyn


Wonderful thought-provoking article in phys.org.

phys.org...

Good night.

Originally posted by gosseyn
What is your problem with "matter" ? Why can't you agree when it is said, for example, that it is the brain which gives birth to consciousness ?

Because the brain does not produce consciousness, and I have witnessed this first hand, as have many others, through direct experience. You are merely deducing that the brain produces consciousness because of what you've read in books.

If you want to see the truth, then see it for yourself. Don't just "think" about things after listening to some guy you consider an authority figure.

This is something you can ACTUALLY SEE for yourself, through meditation or a psychedelic experience from something like '___'. Consciousness produces brain activity, not the other way around.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by chr0naut

 

ok i see,..,,. quick question about the first part of stuff you wrote.... how does the spotlight know which bit is instructional and what bit is data?


"What I was getting at is that, despite the disruption TMS introduces, there is never a reboot process evident and paradoxically, the data (and instructions) in our cerebral Turing machines (there are many of them in a neural net) is restored from somewhere, somehow and despite the vast amount of data/instructions involved this seems to be almost instant.

Also while the TMS is being applied, the affected person is usually fully conscious, aware and observing the bizarre mental and physical results. Surely if one thing emergent from the structure and function of the brain is so affected, all others will as well. Why then is consciousness inviolate?"

about this,,,,, what is the TMS disrupting if not consciousness? all the while the TMS is applied,, the person can function as normal? if not,,, you are wondering why when the disruption stops the consciousness that was disrupted does not need time to "gather" itself into coherence? i would say im not sure but i think of a cellphone momentarily loosing service,, not in a sense like consciousness is projected from outside of the body to the cellphone mind,,, but as if the mind and conciousness is the cellphone and producer of the signal,, the TMS would be a bridge interupting the signal,, and when stopped,, the signal and the service is returned to normal,. ,, I also think of the mushy mind of mornings when getting out of bed as a bit of a reboot process,,, I also think of getting knocked unconscious and coming to,, if no physical internal damage was done to badly, the person will be able to function quite well after ( may have a headache and other physical symptoms but yea)..,.,

OK, the "processing spotlight" has no way (except to check if the instruction would be an impossible, unmapped or illegal step which would create some very specific error conditions) to determine if the number in any location is an instruction or just data. The whole process is built around the idea that if the processor is not doing an instruction at the time, then the number in the spotlight must be an instruction. If it is doing an instruction at the time, the number in the spotlight must not be an instruction. That is why it is so important for the data to be exactly right. The slightest disruption and it all falls to pieces.

How the TMS disrupts the neural signals and the effect of TMS was shown on last years Royal Society Christmas Lecture (science lectures targeted at children but containing the latest in science topics and presented in an entertaining way) which was about Neuroscience (it was called "Meet your brain"). In this, the presenter, a neurologist himself, attempted to speak while his brain was being disrupted by a TMS machine. Instead of what he was trying to say, all that came out was a random jumble of structureless talk noises. It almost sounded like language but wasn't. When he removed the TMS signals he burst out laughing at the nonsense sounds he had just been induced to make and proceeded to describe how the experience felt.

So he was conscious, i.e: able to observe himself rationally, while his brain was being disrupted.

reply to post by IAmD1

The point is that a visible, material finger is just as useless as an invisible one when trying to point at what cannot be perceived by material means. What you need is something that makes the invisible visible.

*

reply to post by rwfresh

Dude there is a very strong likelihood that there is no one reading our little discussion here.

This is not the only thing about which you are wrong.

I didn't find out about it's illusory nature through scientific America or the wiki article i posted. I experienced it directly so there is no question in my mind.

How do you know your experience was not an illusion?

Nice Celine Dion avatar, by the way.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

My declaration that my consciousness precedes my brain is 100% verifiable. But you'd have to be me to experience the truth of it though.

reply to post by rwfresh

 

The cognitive dissonance in those two sentences makes my brain spin. Of course you can make up your own language and definitions, but then communication becomes rather meaningless. I have no patience for New Age mumbo jumbo. It's a waste of time for everybody. So, if only YOU can verify your statement it is a non sequitur.

Verificationism is the view that a statement or question is only legitimate if there is some way to determine whether the statement is true or false, or what the answer to the question is. It is a view mostly closely associated with the logical positivists of the early twentieth century, who established and applied this doctrine to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless assertive sentences.

"Of course you can make up your own language and definitions, but then communication becomes rather meaningless".

It's only meaningless if those doing the communicating are unable or unwilling to understand one another.

no·men·cla·ture/ˈnōmənˌklāCHər/
Noun:
The devising or choosing of names for things, esp. in a science or other discipline.

So the statement from me you quoted was part of a discussion where i was pointing out that simply declaring me wrong could not discount my personal experience. It's a conclusion to the potential of understanding.

Peace!

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by IAmD1

 

The point is that a visible, material finger is just as useless as an invisible one when trying to point at what cannot be perceived by material means. What you need is something that makes the invisible visible.

*

reply to post by rwfresh

 

Dude there is a very strong likelihood that there is no one reading our little discussion here.

This is not the only thing about which you are wrong.

I didn't find out about it's illusory nature through scientific America or the wiki article i posted. I experienced it directly so there is no question in my mind.

How do you know your experience was not an illusion?

Nice Celine Dion avatar, by the way.

edit on 23/8/12 by Astyanax because: brevity is the soul.

How do you know your experience was not an illusion?

It is an illusion. That's how i know. Maybe you are an illusion. Every think of that? HUH? Eh? hahaha Some real gold in this thread..

I love Celine Dion. I run all night to her and she said it best when she said "It's a way of looking at that wave and saying 'Hey Bud! Let's Party!!"

Peace!

reply to post by chr0naut


You are jumping the gun. When Dr. Hood applied the TMS he did not shut down the entire brain. He disrupted the part(s) responsible for speech. Watch the video again and you will see. The auditory system was not affected, hence the subject was able to understand language.

The strong electromagnetic current disrupts the pathways that carry the electrochemical currents. To use your computer reference, the CPU, or the software that is running, is NOT affected at any given time. So your analogy with the "no reboot time" doesn't apply.