Mental Research

New thread. Harris (Bobby) says:

Dear Brother/sister,

Don’t worry I’m not talking about getting saved. No, perhaps you can provide me an answer to my mental research:

Few years back my question of a supreme being in existence came in question, I’m a believer in evolution, I believe that science is the knowledge of this place (universe), what it consists of and how it functions to put it simply. So anyway I secluded my-self from all civilization and went into meditation. I meditated on this aspect: the four elements of creation on this planet: earth, air, water, fire. Now my question was that do we need these to survive or are we of these? After days of reflection I realized the fact that we need these to survive means that we are of these. Now our body is ninety some percent water, we have minerals that are in the earth consist within us, our body produces certain amount BTUs of heat, and we breath. Okay that was answered. Now what about us? Each one of us has come out of another human being, so we are of each other and we need each other to survive. If a mammal is placed in seclusion, will deteriorate physically and mentally and eventually perhaps death. Now all the elements discovered on the periodic table; metals non-metals, gases are in other physical bodies in space in perfect proportion. Now we being of each other as cognitive separate entities, us being of the four elements, the four elements being of this earth, the earth being of the universe….now what about this universe, following that same pattern, it must be of something and not only that, it needs it to function. This what I just relayed to you is a result of weeks of meditation and my mind was stuck here. Then one day it sort of clicked! But I want a second opinion to put it mildly. What is the answer to my final conjecture: This universe is of something and it needs it to function and/or survive. Once you feel you have the answer then we’ll perhaps discuss dreams and they are not a result of our voluntary or involuntary sensory nerves. Well thanks for your time, really, hope to hear from you soon.

Thanks and take care,

Harris

38 Responses to Mental Research

  1. The Atheist says:

    While it’s tempting to extrapolate our familiar world to the huge or to the minuscule or to the timeless, we have solid evidence that this kind of extrapolation is not always reliable. You observe that we require basic chemical elements to survive and that we are made of those chemical elements, and so on. However it doesn’t necessarily follow that the universe is made of something external to the universe, simply because everything we observe in our familiar world is made of something else.

    For example, since we only experience relatively slow velocities in our familiar world, we observe that time is constant, that it marches on at a steady pace. But we can’t extrapolate this observation to velocities approaching the speed of light because we know that time is not constant at those speeds. We only experience 3 spacial dimensions in our familiar world but we can’t extrapolate this observation to at a very very small scale, approaching the Planck distance, because there are 10 spacial dimensions at that scale.

    I think concluding that the universe must be made of something outside of the universe by extrapolating our observations of the familiar world may not work for the same reasons: we don’t know if the extrapolation holds on a much much larger or smaller scale. And based on scientific discovery, we have learned that extrapolations to the huge or minuscule are not necessarily reliable.

    Just my $0.02

  2. Bobby says:

    Bro/Sis,

    Well said, and your example while valid seems inconsistant of an analogy to my deduction. And it’s higly irregular for you to label this as an exrapolation because that is not what’s taking place here. I’m not saying that just because some humans in a particular population have died of a particular dieses, will consequently all be wiped out, c’mon! Yes that would be an extrapolation to the HUGE. And this is not presented in a negative domain with all nonneagtive values….I mean please do show some relevance. We are in agreement to the value of all the variables given and their equation. right? Execpt the last which has the similar equation but the value is unknown. Why can’t we use it for a particular inference? And I don’t think the answer is as complex as it is being made. This realm our abode is quite simple, true behind even the simplest of occurances there are great mathmatical systems taking place but those are simply to provide an explantion for them and to recognize smilarities and differences. Photosythises may explain functionality of the plant but not its taking physical form. There are factors OUTSIDE that came into play. Just being simple again. I do very much appreciate you taking time to respond, I do and please pardon my mis-spellings. But I’m still in the unknown on your part. Well let’s see…..

    Your brother,

    Harris

  3. The Atheist says:

    > Well said, and your example while valid seems inconsistant of an analogy to my deduction.

    You disagree with my categorization of your argument as extrapolation but I still don’t see where your disagreement is. You say you’re not extrapolating, and I would agree if you could show me how your conclusion, that the universe must depend on something else for its existence (if I have understood your conclusion correctly), is based on something other than observing that things within our familiar realm depend on something more basic then themselves.

    > We are in agreement to the value of all the variables given and their equation. right? …
    > Why can’t we use it for a particular inference?

    I’m not sure if we agree on the value of the variables or not. By “value of the variables”, do you mean science in general or do you mean the formula that, if we need something to function, then we are of the thing? If the former, then yes we probably agree. If the later, unless you mean it as a tautology, I reiterate my caution that it may not be correct to extrapolate rules of the familiar to rules of the extreme. In particular, I am referring to the extrapolation that ‘if all we observe is made of something else, then the universe is also made of something else’ (if that’s not your point, please forgive my misunderstanding and please clarify). One problem with the extrapolation is that it leads to an infinite regression of the form: “then what is the universe made from?

    > This realm our abode is quite simple

    I think “simple” is a relative term. It is simple if you can understand it easily and complex if you can’t. To me, an infinite regression is not simple.

    > I do very much appreciate you taking time to respond, I do and please pardon my mis-spellings.
    > But I’m still in the unknown on your part. Well let’s see…..

    My pleasure and thanks for posting! I’m a terrible speller too and rely completely on my spell checker!

    Should we rename the thread and begin it with your first post? If so, what would you like to name it?

  4. Bobby says:

    We shall indeed, and it is completely at your discreation since i”m just a guest here. Thank you.

  5. The Atheist says:

    Ok! I managed to “move” the comments — actually, I had to copy them. I coundn’t find a way to just move them. Let me know if I’ve messed anything up in the process. Anyway, let’s continue this thread if you have more. Thanks again for posting!

  6. Bobby says:

    Hey Bro/Sis,

    I certainly have “more”. But I guess we are going about it a sort of dead-end way and I’ll tell you why. I’ve learned if one wants to really “know” something (can I be any more general?), reagrding this life that is, it could be your work, your home, your relationship with others,etc. You have to step out of it and have an external view at it to see it from a different point of view which is why I removed myself from the daily happnings of life and modernization. So if there’s something beyond this universe, and I will say if again for I don’t want to seem as if I’m imposing; if there is we cannot use the knowledge of this place to explain what is beyond because the two would not relate different realms. First and farmost time, I don’t think it would be subjected to it. The only thing that I can identify as being “divine”, if I’m allowed to term it that is “LOVE”, in general. Now if you’re an advocate of AI we can go there too! When one gets an embrace from a person that he/she hasn’t seen in a while and “loves” that individual those neorons firing up are an effect of a cause, a reaction to an action within, because a hug can be from anyone and the neural process will not be the same. Meaning the neural responce is the effect not the cause. When the dreaded day of 09/11/2001 took place, we saw our brothers and sisters…oh I can’t even describe it, but there were variations of neural activities within us depending on who we were. And that and the prior I gave an example of cannot be classified as premeditative behaviors or prelearned behaviors. If they are not, where do they come from? I mentioned dreams in my initial comment, if they are a reflection of our perception of the outside world than how are they produced when there’s no sensory input, none! Some so close to reality that they cause sexual climaxes (I love those); one example. Do you know John Searle and his “Chinese Room”? For those who don’t in a nut shell: a person sits in a room with cards with Chinese characters on them. There’s a person out side that has cards with Chinese characters on them, the person outside inserts the cards in the room and the person inside manipulates those characters and gives responses with his cards, now is the box speaking Chinese? Or better yet the person inside the box speaking Chinese? I think I will leave it here for today. Thank you again. take care.

  7. The Atheist says:

    > if one wants to really “know” something … You have to step out
    > of it and have an external view

    Agreed. I never really understood what it was to live in the US and to speak English until I lived in a different country and learned to speak another language.

    > …if there’s something beyond this universe …we cannot use
    > the knowledge of this place to explain what is beyond
    > because the two would not relate different realms

    If there is indeed anything beyond this universe, say another universe, it may be physically impossible to know of its existence, much less know anything about it. On the other hand, if by “beyond this universe”, you mean some sort of a spiritual realm, then (presuming one exists) we don’t know if we can know about it or not, since we really don’t even know what spiritual means, other than it’s beyond the physical. If we have some sort of “spiritual” dimension, then if might follow that we could experience the spiritual realm. But unless we do have the experience or see some other evidence for its existence, then it remains pure speculation.

    > The only thing that I can identify as being “divine”, if I’m
    > allowed to term it that is “LOVE”, in general

    I think other animals feel love as well, at least they seem to as much as people seem to. But I don’t see any reason to presume that love is beyond the physical. In fact, the only thing to me that seems beyond the physical is sentients itself. No mater how complex a bio-chemical “robot” becomes, sentience seems beyond the functions of the robot. But, even though it seems that way to me now, I also recognize that throughout our history, science had found, and continues to find natural explanations for phenomena that earlier seemed magic or divine

    > if [deams] are a reflection of our perception of the outside
    > world than how are they produced when there’s no sensory
    > input, none!

    I think we have to recognize that memories, and imagination, are of themselves the sensory input to dreams. They usually deal with familiar surroundings and familiar people. Even new surrounding are of a familiar nature — that is they are the type of surroundings one finds in the real world, or in the world of our imagination. I worked with a guy once who actually dreamed he was Foghorn Leghorn! He could look down and see his big white-feathered belly! I was so jealous — I wish I could have dreamed that one!

    > Or better yet the person inside the box speaking Chinese?

    Let me understand the puzzle: do the person inside the box and the person outside the box understand Chinese?

  8. Bobby says:

    Well go to a search engine and type John Searle [(this might back fire :)]. And check up his Chinese room argument on “a thinking machine”. Argument is that machines cannot think for they merely manipulate symbols to provide appropriate responces. And if that’s not us then where does the understanding and thinking come from?

  9. Bobby says:

    Well okay, yet again perhaps there’s another angle to look at this. I’m going to provide point of view exothermically; notwithstanding my understanding is -endothermic ally. I suppose for the sake of general understanding one gains understanding of the self first then the relation and response to the physical. I learned the other way. As Jim Morrison once tried to explain that one should understand the outside (physical) and work our path to the inside (mental). And I always wondered how that was possible. Then finally there was realization. The evolution of the human essentially is The Response to the physical. Anyway let’s do it from the mental to the physical. But one must approach it scientifically based on the ‘what if?” factor. And also have the “what if?” attitude. If Neils Bohr never did what if? Then I don’t know when the particular subatomic particles be discovered. And I guess this would merely be an experimental exercise.

    By this aspect the body is a tool, the best metaphor I can give is, imagine there’s a life size android and you can control it by sitting before a control panel in its head. There are speakers that interpret external sound waves for you, there are mini electrode sort of two-way sensors on your body which allow you to sense what ever the android senses and respond accordingly your eyes are fixed to cameras etc. With this perception, to understand the tool and the self separation (you know what if?) try this exercise. Hold up your left thumb and say to yourself “this is my left thumb”. And then take your thumb and place on an object anything…the desk. Now say to yourself “it’s not me that’s touching the desk but my thumb is”, and do it with a couple of objects. Now also there is preemptive multitasking in such a manner where the understanding returns to an origination point while the multitasking is taking place for other tasks to be implemented I suppose. To see that, wave your left thumb left to right gently, take your attention of it as its moving, as you would
    if you were about to do something with the right hand while the left is moving, but don’t take it that far just remove focus, and try to provide no input (you may have to close your eyes). The attention and focus returns to an initial origination point. You must do this without distraction to really see it. That is why I referred to the Chinese Room. The Chinese Room: The man inside does not know anything about Chinese, he doesn’t even know if the symbols that are being inserted in the box to him are “Chinese”. He just sort of has a matrix graph which depicts these symbols and their appropriate response. So man looks at the symbol according to a set of rules and responds accordingly. Now does that mean he “understands” Chinese? No he’s just manipulating the symbols as a machine mind would, that’s John Searle’s Chinese Room. But we don’t do that we actually “understand”. So I ask can a machine mind develop Anorexia Nervosa, Depression, OCD, etc. If yes then one single tablet should be able to “tune-up” the altered neural activity. So we must question the “what if?” we’ve already devoted plenty to “the most likely not”. What if there’s an entity beyond this Universe and there’s an entity within this tool, and the two perhaps have a relation, we don’t know what yet. We’ll leave it here for now. So I’ll wait to see what you experienced and then we’ll continue from there, take care.

    Harris

  10. The Atheist says:

    > Chinese room argument…

    Found it. Yes, that’s the same concept I was trying to describe with the bio-chemical “robot.” If I understand you correctly, the exercise with the left thumb is intended to help differentiate between the physical and the consciousness self, sort of by a process of elimination.

    Clearly there is a quality beyond the bio-chemical “robot” that we do not know how to describe physically. That might be because consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, or it could be that consciousness is completely physical but our physics isn’t good enough to describe it yet. Or it may be like the wave-particle duality where the problem isn’t that we can’t understand how a particle could be a wave or how a wave could be a particle, the problem is that we don’t really know in any intuitive sense what a particle or wave really are. Maybe it’s the same with consciousness and the physical. Maybe the problem is that we don’t know in any intuitive way what consciousness and physics really are yet, even though they be the same thing. The bottom line is that we don’t know what consciousness is and all we can do for the present is to speculate. But it is one thing to speculate and a totally different thing to assert our speculations as firm beliefs.

  11. Bobby says:

    I think electricity has something to do with it, I have a theory on it being the fifth element.
    But no not by a process of elimination its done again by a particular understanding. I’ve been gifted with the understanding of the harmony within time measure and I create musical pieces. Now music a particular form of art is an emotional expression and while exressing a piece there are in my thoughts daily hurdels of life sometimes and I”m sorting them out. What an awesome form of preemtive multitasking! That’s just one example. One can’t even imagine what thoughts are going through a poets poor mind, or a painter, Edgar Allan Poe. I mean wow. Dreams are not purely imagination.
    Anyway in some scriptures demons are discribed as having a physical body of fire. But its not a fire which results by burning something it’s described as a smokeless fire. And the only smokeless fire I can identify is electricity so. And we operate on electricy and the area where most of the electric current takes place, apears to be the most causatious area… That’s reflection on my electricity theory need no responce.
    Also yes there may not be “physical” explantion yet but do we need one if so I need a physical explaination describing the taste of a hamburger, coca-cola, or water. And you know the explaination sometimes is given as that there are “internal” neural processes taking place where this originates from which we don’t know yet (we’ve practically minced the brain and studied each piece), all of that “feeling” comes from “there”. When one prouds him/herself at a particular circumstance that “feeling” originates in some underlying neural cluster in our brain. We don’t know what that is yet. I don’t know if you’ll accept that or consider that. But as you said speculation is not enough for something concrete as conviction and belife. And again let me reenforce my approach, we must test the “what if?” factor. And go about it . Good input, thank you.

    Harris

  12. Bobby says:

    If you would like to sample my music, you may do so at:
    http://www.myspace.com/solonotitle
    also
    Personal page:
    http://www.myspace.com/diviner2021

    Later,

    Harris

  13. The Atheist says:

    Nice groove :) I especially like the way the snare tempo morphs throughout the piece.

  14. Bobby says:

    You got it man!

    Science explains the mathmatics behind it all and yes science had proved the side of the opinion where things are either magic or divine wrong. Execpt for this, stuff we’ve been discussing. And conscienceness is hardly a phenominal, its common. Even the dimmest of individuals, animals present a level of conscienceness. Yes there’s no physical explaination yet. In my initial post I mentioned that we need each other to survive. We are not connected physically but mentally/emotionally we need each other. And this need derives from where? It’s not a need as in I need a warm jacket, you know? And in what aspect are you mentioning sentients? Please elborate. This what I’ve mentioned and discussed with you is just the tip of the iceburg, we have a lot to cover. I’m telling you there’ll be no speculations, deductions perhaps. One inquiry disturbed me in the past: is this all a coincidence? The I started to notice little things. Also some numbers seem, what do you say….consistent. 9 for example, you know about 9. 7 for example, music relies on seven notes. We are planet number 3 there are nine, 3×3=9. In some ancient text the divine has 99 manifestations, 99 a multiple of 9, 9+9=18, 1+8=9. Our hands if one holds the palms facing up, you’ll essentially see (the lines) upsidedown v with I and on the right I with upside down v. In persian and/or arabic text these are numbers: left-81, right 18. I’m not kidding and look what do they equal. One can’t even speculate about this stuff. Man we have quite a bit to discuss. Well thanks again take care.

  15. The Atheist says:

    > Even the dimmest of individuals, animals present a level of conscienceness. Yes there’s no physical explaination yet.

    So do you have an explanation of where it comes from or what it is? Or do you, like me, adopt a wait-and-see approach?

    > We are not connected physically but mentally/emotionally we need each other. And this need derives from where?

    I believe it derives from our evolution as one of many species of social animals. Where do you think it derives from?

    > And in what aspect are you mentioning sentients? Please elborate.

    I think that we are more than biochemical machines, at least in the way that we understand what a machine is. For example, imagine that you could build a computer that was programmed to respond to external stimuli (vision, speech, etc.) in exactly the same way that a human does. It is not theoretically impossible, we just don’t have the skill to pull it off yet. But imagine that we acquire the skill and that we build one. Is there someone “in there” that can “perceive” the vision and “hear” the thoughts? My guess is that no one would be “in there.”

    What’s more, how could you possibly tell if this robot was indeed sentient? I don’t think you can by simply observing him – in the same way that you can’t tell if a person is sentient by observing him. We only presume people are sentient because we are a person presumably like others and we perceive our own sentience.

    > One inquiry disturbed me in the past: is this all a coincidence? …

    My guess is that it is coincidence. But if it’s not, what do you think it is?

  16. Bobby says:

    Wait and see approach? What will you be waiting for? Is this the same individual that I’ve been having a discussion with? And social animals what is that? What sort of a classification is that? I’m not interested in the definition. This planet earth, the mass and weight, gravity and inertia in relation to the sun and other celestial bodies around it is precise for it to exist. Now for the inhabitants, the axis is exactly at 23 ½ degrees for the change of seasons. There are things coming out of the ground that produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide. The moon has an exact 30 day cycle. What else? What I’m getting at is what one would classify this planet as.
    I wanted to ask this in our earlier discussions, does a camera “look” or does it “see”? That’s the case with an android, its intelligence will be limited meaning it will have a measure, can we measure ours? The intelligence of the mechanical humanoid will only be to the extent of its creator.
    A coincidence, well my friend if there were a few to address then perhaps, but there are almost infinite in numbers.

  17. The Atheist says:

    > Wait and see approach? What will you be waiting for? Is this the same individual
    > that I’ve been having a discussion with?

    Indeed I am! :)

    There is a lot of work in progress in the are of neuro-psychology, mapping brain activity to concious perception. For example, researchers have found a specific area in the brain (I would have to look up the name of it) that when damaged, the person does not perceive vision – the person believes he is blind. However, this same person can walk across a crowded room without bumping into other people. I am waiting to see what ongoing work will show about who Searle’s man in the Chinese box really is.

    On one hand, we don’t really know who the “man” is. Is he supernatural? Immortal? We don’t know that he is not. On the other hand, we can see that throughout human history, we have had the tendency to replace our lack of scientific knowledge with supernatural explanations. We have also seen that, as time progresses, science continues to narrow the knowledge gaps. The gaps in our knowledge of our own consciousness are still narrowing. I’m waiting to see how narrow those gaps get.

    But by your tone, I’m guessing you already know what the “self” is? What is it?

    > And social animals what is that? What sort of a classification is that? I’m not
    > interested in the definition.

    Then I’ll spare you ;)

    > This planet earth, the mass and weight, gravity and inertia in relation to the sun
    > and other celestial bodies around it is precise for it to exist. Now for the inhabitants,
    > the axis is exactly at 23 ½ degrees for the change of seasons. There are things
    > coming out of the ground that produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide. The
    > moon has an exact 30 day cycle. What else? What I’m getting at is what one would
    > classify this planet as.

    All those facts to tell us things — but I’m not sure what they tell us that is relative to this discussion. Why would I need to classify the planet in order to explore the “self”? We don’t just chose random facts to inform our understanding, we use relevant facts.

    > I wanted to ask this in our earlier discussions, does a camera “look” or does it
    > “see”? That’s the case with an android, its intelligence will be limited meaning it
    > will have a measure, can we measure ours? The intelligence of the mechanical
    > humanoid will only be to the extent of its creator.

    Are you referring to my earlier description of the “bio-chemical robot” or is this an original concept?

    > A coincidence, well my friend if there were a few to address then perhaps, but
    > there are almost infinite in numbers.

    Cool! Can you give me expand on your point about the numbers 9 or 7 – what do you think the occurrences of these numbers mean? Why do you think they are special numbers? What do you think they mean?

  18. Bobby says:

    Hi, well I percived some sort of disconnected conformity to my ideas, that’s why I asked. I was happy at first thinking I’ve cracked the surface but then I questioned. Anyway good then. Searle’s Chinese room is not an entity, you’re thinking too deep. Its sort of an analogy, well it is. Logically we have to work with what’s given. The man may be wearing red high heels, what does that have to do with anything? And you’ve mentioned in the past regarding mans speculative nature, no need to reenforce, I agree with you a 100%. Which is why my beliefe or anyone else’s has nothing to do with the truth. That is why I’m here. And you want to hear something funny, John Searle doesn’t support the idea of duality of the brain, which is why I said, “…this might backfire”. And yes I was reffering to the bio/machine, well not bio because I can’t see sythetic tissue that has life being created, so it will be a sylicone based based machine to which I was reffering. So can a mic listen or does it hear? Do cameras look or can they see? Address this.

    And I “feel” that I do have the answer to the what the self is, but I’m not here to impose. Instead…I don’t know. Hey you don’t check out the other posts?

  19. The Atheist says:

    > And you want to hear something funny, John Searle doesn’t
    > support the idea of duality of the brain, which is why I said,
    > “…this might backfire”.

    Ah! Makes sense. I wondered what you meant when you said it might backfire but I forgot to ask…

    > So can a mic listen or does it hear? Do cameras look or can
    > they see? Address this.

    I thought I did but I will again.

    The mic, the camera, and our minds only look. Only “we” can see. The question is “who ‘we’ are.” Even if we don’t know who “we” are (and maybe we’ll never know), we do know that every bit of our perception of the world and of ourselves is the result of brain function. Anything we hear, see, touch, taste, smell, and even think are a function of the brain. Even feelings of oneness and no-self are caused by well-understood brain function. But the fact that there is “someone in there” to experience any of these things is the unexplained. That is the “we”, or better, the “I” is unexplained. Even if we don’t know what the “I” is, we do know what it isn’t. Thus we can understand the “I” better by process of elimination.

    We know that the “I” is not our vision; the “I” is still present when vision is impaired. It’s not taste, touch, hearing or smell either. The “I” is still present when those senses are impaired. It’s not memory, the “I” is still present in complete amnesiacs. It’s not in our thought (at least not our thought as a whole). Certain areas in the brain control different aspects of thought; for example, the perception of where our body ends and where everything else begins, our language when we think to ourselves, our ability to perceive causal relationships, etc. But none of those things are not the “I” either; the “I” is still present in the absence each of these abilities to think. Is the “I” supernatural? I don’t know. But I do know that we humans have a bad habit of believing that something is supernatural when we can’t explain it. And throughout history, we have watched the number of things that we once thought were supernatural steadily wane.

    I’m simply more reluctant than others, who are more inclined to believe in the supernatural, about putting to much stock in this bad habit.

    > Hey you don’t check out the other posts?

    Which posts? Did I miss one? (if so, sorry — it wasn’t intentional) Or if you mean your comment on the Value of Atheism thread, I just didn’t have anything to add. I thought you had an interesting perspective and it was a good addition to the other views expressed there.

  20. Bobby says:

    The “I” will always always be there…kidding man, we gotta get more people participating. I contacted PROF. Searle and no reponce yet. No we will never speculate, man I don’t know why you keep reinforciong that option. Speculation is what destroys relationships, is the back bone of the media, has shackled our brothers and sisters in ignorance, speculation has made scriptures superficial. Speculation is real, and most if it negative. But do note the mention of the “I” and its attributes in your responce. From days gone by ’till today the quasi peak of scientific discovery, learned men blessed with reason have devoted lives to this search to this day-still nothing. But ones focus is-see found nothing. One must notice the provacative “absence” of it. My invtation is simply to explore the what if factor. Thats all.
    My perspective is proportionate. The ethical norms that I mentioned are the general ones in any scriputres. And they are supposedly in written form as a guide to adapt certain attributes. If one is there without thier refference then who cares? You know?

  21. The Atheist says:

    I’m not sure why you view speculation as bad; especially since you yourself have invited me to speculate by asking me to explore the “what if factor”. I view speculation as a positive endeavor; it is the means by which we may explore the unknown and the means by which we may discover the as yet unknown.

    That would be GREAT to have Searle’s input here! Great idea to contact him!

  22. Bobby says:

    In todays realm of consiousness we have the ethical/moral lables right, wrong, good bad, etc. And these are relative; as our opinions. Ok I think I got! I’m trembling with excitement. Imagine the speed of conciousness, speed fo thought, not the speed neural transfer thats a few hundred miles per hour. Fastest speed that we know of is the speed of light, which is why the representation of reality is relative to the “mind”. The knetics of consiouness that represent, feelings, objects, etc; anything “real” are at that speed. A barin of a chem-robot not bio because artificial tissue, I don’t know. Nevertheless the brain of this robot will not have the concept of relativity, because its brian processes will have a measure. A minute will exactly be a minute to it and an hour will be an hour to it. When one is with someone he/she likes “time flies”, when one is with someone he/she dislikes “time slows” its relative. The artificial consiousness will not have the properties to hold time and space as relative. This connects so many gaps in my mind, wow. I’m still working on this so bare with me, please. And are you messing with me? In your past posts you mentioned speculation as a “no-go” to formulate ideas and beleifs. I don’t know, but if speculation is followed by curiosty then I see what you’re saying. Anyway let me get back to this, take care…..

    Harris

  23. The Atheist says:

    I hate to disappoint you but, if I understand you correctly, if what you are saying is that our reality is limited by what the brain is capable of perceiving, then I agree completely! Sorry, maybe you were hoping to debate that issue. :) Time is relative; so are our labels of good and bad.

    In any case, this sounds like it could be developing into a new thread. Let me know if you agree and if you want me to start a new one with the title of your choosing.

  24. Bobby says:

    The flood gates are now open, this explians the connection of so many things that I wondered about. No, no keep this where it is, for it is still evolving, thanks. And if we start a new with “Time is relative; so are the labels of good and bad”, we’ll have bros and siss talking about: “well I understand completley ’cause once I had these pair of pants, they fit me perfectly, everyone said that they didn’t like them….” You know where I’m going with this. Notwithstanding: To consciousness: time is relative and so are our lables of good and bad. I mean art interperations, perception, the result of these things: are all relative to consciousness. Now here’s the premiss.

    The animation of human consiousness takes place at light speed or faster for time and space are relative to it.>> A brain that is merely “power and parts” cannot support consiousness at light speed or faster for time and space are not relative to it.

    I’m talking about Relativity! Time and space are realtive at the speed of light or faster. Again make reference to my previous post for examples. Any way I’ll get back to you, take care, think about the homo erectous and the neandrathal brain regarding this. Awright take care.

    Harris

  25. Bobby says:

    ….And here my recent entery on my site:

    “To scientifically support the idea of the qualitative properties behind our consciousness we have to refer to what the great thinkers of science have resulted by it. Einstein wondered as a kid that if he could run as fast as a ray of light what would happen. Later from curiosity and research thereof he realized that time and space is relative when one is at that speed. Thus the theory of relativity formulated. Meaning when one watches a T.V. show which is sixty minutes long that is “incredibly boring” to him/her: “it lasts forever.” If one watches a show which is sixty minutes long and is “incredibly fun” to him/her: “it lasts few moments”. Or take an occurrence in daily life and associate it with this example. Or is it “bad” to like the color black or is it “good”. It is all relative. Or when one meets a person for the first time their particular reserve demeanor(s) leads them to believe that this person is “rude” or “stand-offish” but later learns through mutual friends that she/he is shy in nature. Our perception of time and space is relative. Look at an abstract piece of art, the interpretations will be many>>relative. There’s relativity here in human consciousness. This could only mean one thing that: Human consciousness animates itself at light speed or faster for time and space is relative to it. If the human brain was simply parts that are running by power, it couldn’t support consciousness at the speed of light or faster because time and space wouldn’t be relative to it. Meaning if we create an android and give it an artificial brain it (it can even have an emotions chip) will not have the concept of relativity, its consciousness and its animation will have a measure. Sixty minutes will be sixty minutes to it regardless. Our brain is as a processor for consciousness not consciousness itself. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed or you know moved from one place to another, then even when our brain is shut-off our consciousness [energy(@light speed)] still remains and is transformed and/or moved. Now the question is where does it go and what happens to it?”

  26. Bobby says:

    Hence the formula is formed:

    Consiousness equals energy times light velocity squared. This is it for now until I discover something later.

    N=EVsquared

    Can’t square on the keyboard?!

    Anyway this is it

  27. Bobby says:

    Correction! Sorry, forgive me father Albert, no this is it:

    N=EC squared.

    Thank you.

  28. The Atheist says:

    > Thus the theory of relativity formulated. Meaning when one
    >watches a T.V. show which is sixty minutes long that is
    > “incredibly boring” to him/her: “it lasts forever.”

    I don’t think that Einstien’s relativity supports the notion that time shrinks or expands depending on the ability of some event to hold our interest. However I do agree that our experiences depend both on the subject (us) and the object (that) of the experience.

    > Human consciousness animates itself…

    Let’s set aside the idea of light speed for the moment (since we can show clinically that the mind is very slow relative to light speed — more on that next time if you like) and talk about the ability of anything to animate itself. By “animate itself”, do you mean to bring itself into being?

    > even when our brain is shut-off our consciousness [energy(@light speed)]
    > still remains and is transformed and/or moved. Now the question is where
    > does it go and what happens to it?”

    That is indeed an interesting question! And to explore it further, let me ask for some clarification: how do we know that the consciousness continues after the brain dies? Further, if consciousness continues, what are its components? In other words, does it include our memories? Our personality? Does it think and if so, does it think in the languages that we speak while living? If it does not contain any of these attributes, then how can we say that the thing that survives our death is really “us”?

  29. Bobby says:

    A busy work day compared to a non-busy work day, I mean I want to simplify for everyone’s understanding. I can give a lengthy, full of fluff example but the general masses perhaps may find it peculiar. Doesn’t matter if an attribute of a particular place or a thing is interesting, time is relative to perception i.e., consciousness. Now check this out we have separated consciousness within the physical, emotional and reasonable; consciousness is both. We notice regularly within a given physical body the prevalence of one or both, it doesn’t matter which-consciousness is still the ultimate prevaior. Therefore to hone the potential of one of these seems out of control, “our minds are out of control!”. Ask a tactile kinestic child to sit still and stare at a dot on the wall for two minutes, nine out of ten times it won’t happen. It seems to shoot out at different directions at all times. But also remember that tenth time the child will do it, thus a fraction of it can be honed to serve a given purpose. And I don’t know if it’s suspended or has a connection to something like gravity, so I have to say “animates itself.” The meaning is relative dude; I don’t know what type of energy! It’s definitely energy. I guess I have to research on the fact that explains the brain of a fetus thoroughly; at what time during development it actually represents a conscious entity. And the terminology I use such as potential and kinetic, which describe movement (wait does consciousness move?), is known terminology. But don’t confuse yourself by the terminology, try to absorb my point. It’s silly but remember in “Enter The Dragon” Bruce Lee says to the kid, “it’s as a finger pointing to the moon, don’t concentrate on the finger….”

    So when it’s separated from the physical, what happens? You know I can’t describe it yet but I will. Only thing I don’t know yet is whether it’s connected or not, to another entity that is

  30. Bobby says:

    Hey man, I hope this finds you in good health. So that’s it you have no more, we’ve just begun! Well a new interesting occurence(s): What are your thoughts on the paranormal. I know its kind of silly to ask you this but nevertheless. I wasn’t a beleiver till about a week ago. Although I’m still skeptical but I may not have much room to be. I just moved into a new home, my mother also lives with me and my wife, she had been mentioning that someone shakes her about during her sleep, I alsway laughed about it, one day she was looking for her keys that disappeared out of nowhere, they appeared in my coat jacket at work, I never entered her room that day, I don’t have an explaination for that. Few days ago I got back home from work and my room was turned upside down meaning the bed covers were on the floor, the lamps were knocked down, books, CDs on the floor! No one was at home that entire day, and no sign of a break-in. And if there was a break in why only my room and no theft? I’m dumb founded! I’ve asked a paranormal reserch team to pay a visit at my house and I’ll update you on what is discovered. In the mean time what are your thoughts towards this? My family is freaked out but I’m still searching for an explaination. Well I hope you’re doing okay, hope to hear from you soon, THIS may be a new thread!

  31. The Atheist says:

    Wow! That’s pretty wild!

    I don’t have any reason to believe in the paranormal to date – but I hope I will find a reason. That would rock! But nothing I’ve heard to date suggests a paranormal to me. Now that doesn’t mean I can explain any strange thing that happens; it only means that I don’t have a reason to prefer a paranormal explanation over other possibilities.

    Your story reminds me a little of a story Reggie Finley, a.k.a. The Infidel Guy told. Reggie and his wife were in a hotel and his wife kept waking all freaked out, swearing to Reggie that someone or something was pulling on her legs. Reggie kept reassuring her that that was impossible, it had to be her imagination. Then finally, Reggie woke up and felt it – and HE was all freaked out! Now if you’ve been following The Infidel Guy Show, you know that it would have to be pretty hairy for Reggie to get freaked out. He finally figured out that what he and his wife had felt was static electricity that was slightly lifting up the sheet they had over them.

    Now, having said all that, I don’t know for a fact that there is no paranormal, and who knows, could be you found it. But it does warrant a good bit of level-headed investigation before deciding that the occurrence could not be due to something more mundane; like someone for some reason, moving stuff around.

    Just my $0.02 worth.

  32. Bobby says:

    Hey, I hope this find you in good health. Referring back to the “Chinese room”, if an entity such as the (human) MAN inside the room has been (taught) programmed the syntax of Chinese, all the grammatical rules and regulations, would then he after given repition will develop the semantics (all of what I mention and support, goes all back to one thing, later…) eventually. Simple question why is that? I mean eventually his responses will be in idioms and metaphors, humor, etc. Why is that? Now replace the human with an artificial (brain system) entity do you think that entity will develop the need to understand the semantics? Hell no! Will it understand that while “I play under the generous sun three inches away….” is a grammatically correct sentence and a statement, but it’s more than likely nonsense? What will be the driving force in the system to try understanding that? You know our brain has been documented as being completely developed at the time when there were artistic drawings discovered in Homo sapiens caves. The Neanderthal system hadn’t represented that and finally was obsolete. Thousands of years ago, why did those modern humans see the need for that particular expression, and why does that represent a complete brain system? You know what I’m saying? And so perfect! Our consciousness is not self animating granted, I meant to say previously: a consciousness at homeo stasis; the universe cannot be self creating also, extrapolation again, no just make the chain. The earth moon is precisely the distance away from the sun (in rthymic succession) breaking in thirty fractions by using light and shadow. This system “science” could not have been implemented by a powerful entity? There’s no chance? For me it’s difficult to see otherwise, it’s too damn perfect! Now look at us, the syntax by which evolution is taking place, by which nature abides, we feel the need to break it and in some places we have been successful at it. Would an artificial system be interested? You have to give these things some open minded reflection.

    I will have some paranormal investigators come by my home and place equipment to check it out; I will update you when that happens. Now I don’t know if they will find anything but I’m in my life waiting for the real paranormal experience where it is concrete that paranormal exists, that is the only thing left to place icing on the cake. If the supernatural is real then there is something beyond this. And my purpose is true.

    Also in (music) myspace page I have this intereting post on this discovery NASA has made in SE Asia regarding India and Sri Lanka, and new songs are there also.

    Take care,

    Your brother.

  33. Bobby says:

    Since we haven’t yet identified what’s beyond our comprehension, errgo it must be identified as nothing.
    That may be logical, but cannot be valid.
    Imagery:
    View our understanding taking place such as, one that’s being guided through a long corridor and there are doors in that corridor. Some of them one can open and go inside and come back with what is gathered idealy use what is learned in other doors, and continues to walk the corridor. But some doors are locked and theres a sign: “NO ADMITTANCE”. Thus our understanding. Should one continue the (mental) walk then under the impression that there must be nothing behing that particular door?
    I remembered something: “There’s the ‘known’ and there’s the ‘unknown’ and in between are The Doors.”
    The individual that made that comment knew what they were talking about. Okay imagine the two in your mind: the known and the unknown and a door in between. Now which is which? You’ll see from particular perspective that they are the same. Which is why it was also said that if the doors of perception are cleansed, everything will appear to man as it is, infinite. Make sense?

    later.

  34. The Atheist says:

    This sounds like the same thesis we’d discussed earlier but you added one thing that I thought was a really nice addition to the original outline: “Would an artificial system be interested?” And I think our earlier answer still applies: the hydro-carbon computer (the physical brain, the processor, the biological computer – even if devoid of “self”) might well be interested. In fact, you and I are proof that it is! But who is it that experiences that interest?! That is the “self” we are talking about.

    As far as perfection in nature – I’m not sure if that helps. If you think about it, we have evolved to be perfectly suitable to our environment (as perfect as possible anyway). We would therefore consider our environment perfect – when in reality, we have perfectly adapted.

    I can’t wait to hear the results of the investigators! I would advice to keep an open mind (I would like nothing better than proof of the paranormal!!), but at the same time, be appropriately skeptical – there are a lot of charlatans out there, and to date, there is no good evidence that I know of to support the paranormal (at least none that stands up to scrutiny). Could your recent experience the first? I hope so! But the odds are stacked against it. Keep me posted!

    We’re blogging on an atheist blog – and since it’s my blog, I’m obviously an atheist – but I don’t think you ever said what you thought about the existence of God. Do you think there is one? If so, what kind of god(s) is He/She/It/Them? I ask because I can conceive of someone who believes in something beyond the natural or the physical but still does not believe in a god per se.

  35. The Atheist says:

    I think I’ll need a bit more couching to follow that one! :) But in the mean time, I really like the statement you made: “That may be logical, but cannot be valid.” I think something should be logical to be considered valid, but I agree in principal that something is not necessarily valid just because it is logical!

  36. Bobby says:

    Indeed I do, believe in a power greater than us. My basic belife:

    There’s a great energy source greater than our comprehension and consiousness, that source is our creator, that source is the only thing worth prasing or worshiping, and finally we will be accountable for what we do and don’t here at a given hour in this transition. This is a transatory phase of our consiousness, meaning when we travel we stop at a location temporarley as transits, thus is this universe, a transition. Everything is of that source hence my perception of every person as my brother or sister. Because essentially we are “One”.

    That’s my basic belife and then it branches out from there.

    And you know this is the only fact where my mind and brain are synchronized in agreement. Interesting huh?

  37. Anonymous says:

    It appears that I’ve brought upon myself another how do you say, a pickle, seem to be in another pickle please indulge:

    Since energy can never be destroyed or illiminated to its entirety then by causality what is death, a cause or an effect?

    And please man don’t arrive with something like “a microwave may have multiple levels of energy but as soon as its unplugged theres no energy to be transformed” You are kinda agreeing to it aren’t you! The microwave is not self subsisting, please. Well okay does that mean that we are plugged metaphysically to a source of energy? And at death we are unplugged? Hmmm? Either way man, if death is a reactant then the product? Or if death is a product then the reactant? We have X + 1 = X + 1 OR X – 1 = X – 1; X + 1 = X OR X – 1 = X.

    ????

    _Bobby

  38. The Atheist says:

    Hi, Bobby. Welcome back! It took me a while to get this – I’m on vacation this week and I don’t have easy access to the internet.


    Since energy can never be destroyed or illiminated to its entirety then by causality what is death, a cause or an effect?

    You are correct: energy-Mass can neither be created nor destroyed. However, energy-mass can be transformed and they are all the time. Energy can be transformed into mass, mass into energy, and energy into other types of energy. Potential energy becomes kinetic energy, heat becomes chemical energy, light becomes heat when photons are absorbed, and so on.

    Life is a certain organization of energy. When that organization breaks down, no energy is lost – only the organization of energy was lost. Organization of energy changes all the time in nature. Crystals form and they melt. Ocean waves form and subside. Fires ignite and then burn out. In none of these examples is there any loss of energy – just change in organization.

    There is a relatively new field of scientific investigation, called Emergence, that seeks to understand how energy organizes. You might find some of the ideas helpful in thinking about the relationship of death (or life) and energy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: