The Cosmic Observer

[sayak83]

Your definition of 'conscious observer' is obviously different from mine. Consciousness in my worldview is non-dual and unborn. You obviously are beginning with the common belief of consciousness as an epiphenomenon.

Please see post 57 and If you wish please participate.

I appreciate our discussions and understand what you are getting at. My question is why would science consider the views to be credible? What scientific evidence is there that one can point to that shows consciousness exists in the universe as a whole instead of being localized within sentient lifeforms as most believe? Without evidence such claims can't be scientific. The empty stretches of the vacuum of space do not exhibit any signature of conscuousness as far as can be seen.
I do not think consciousness is an epiphenom. I believe that it is a fundamental aspect of the undivided reality (Brahman) like physical, logico-mathematical and informational aspects. However it manifests itself in the physical dimension only in special complex substrates like that found in brains of animals. Elsewhere it lies hidden an invisible. But I do not consider that these beliefs have supported by current scientific evidence though....

 

[rational experiences]

The Cosmic Observer is also a PRETENDER.

For you apply thesis and themes and say that you existed before all creation existed...just like a spiritual human says, the exact same circumstance.

One condition exists in our separation, we do not make a claim that a human on a created planet is the Creator....by all concepts agreed upon and with other humans in a group status that says CULT mentality. If you do not agree you are not accepted.....so then force the agreement.

Which is why science, virtually as scientology/religious Christianity in a self reflection own science comments that are fake.

The truth, when you think of a Cosmic Observation about time shifting, which science does. Earth as a stone planet is placed in the mind just sitting in space cold zero, spatial zero.

So the Observer says stone is spatial cold zero.

Then the Observer places the gases that filled in cold zero, yet they were hot historically. So cold zero owns all the cold atmospheric gases today...cold zero spatial cold zero is a gas.

Then he argues about God and the highest body of his observations in the spatial cold zero.

God versus Jesus Christ he says, who is the highest.

Stone therefore by mass is what the science cosmic observer says is spatial zero...the stone. Why they tried to burn us all to death in removal of gas by mass.

For God the stone to have its gases unsealed...they are heated converted....how the history Destroyer owning Cosmic Observations, the alienist theorist is true...about the Sun and the UFO and the body of mass of information that machine builders used to have us destroyed.

For Cosmic observation said FIRST/ORIGIN was the planet. As they are self, conscious standing on the planet...so you cannot in cosmic observation remove the planet or else you fall into a hot burning big hole.

If you began you thesis about God with the stone planet spatial zero, which you did...where consciously and factually did a human consciousness as the Observer gain information about the big bang? Can only be where consciousness is living, human, living, scientist, observer, scientist whilst living on Planet Earth.

So a theist would say as an Observer, oh, your theme began with God and stone, so if you tried to time shift the gases, you would have tried to convert the Heavens into beginning as stone also......why you used physical radiation metal mass to equate that equals...I am inventing God theory. How you burnt/blasted us all to death...as a Stephen Hawking cosmic observation.

As a sacrificed scientist...….for the sacrificed conscious awareness is the owner of telling the truth.

 

[atanu]

What useful insights would this theory give?

How would we distinguish it from the alternative theory where matter has properties (and that is why balls drop and atoms decay)?

In what sense is the sun conscious? The word 'conscious' seems to be a strange word to use in this context.

How would we detect this consciousness that is not limited to mind and body?

In what sense does this consciousness 'illuminate'? The word 'iluminate' is usually associated with light, which is a known physical phenomenon.

You make five statements about consciousness. How can any of these be tested?

You propose this as a new 'axiom system'. In what ways is it superior to other axiom systems?


Well, that should get us started.

I appreciate our discussions and understand what you are getting at. My question is why would science consider the views to be credible? What scientific evidence is there that one can point to that shows consciousness exists in the universe as a whole instead of being localized within sentient lifeforms as most believe? Without evidence such claims can't be scientific. The empty stretches of the vacuum of space do not exhibit any signature of conscuousness as far as can be seen.
I do not think consciousness is an epiphenom. I believe that it is a fundamental aspect of the undivided reality (Brahman) like physical, logico-mathematical and informational aspects. However it manifests itself in the physical dimension only in special complex substrates like that found in brains of animals. Elsewhere it lies hidden an invisible. But I do not consider that these beliefs have supported by current scientific evidence though....

I thank both of you for devoting time to this subject. I will be brief.

My interest or curiosity is purely for knowledge. Empirically, I KNOW that ego-consciousness is only a small speck of wave on the unconstrained consciousness.

Currently, whether all scientists agree or not, science does not explain the "I am" awareness that is the first datum and the individual subjective phenomenal consciousness. Many scientists and philosophers have suggested that basic consciousness -- a bare presence -- could be the warp and weft of the universe. I cited the following page in another thread.

Neutral monism - Wikipedia

Quote
"My thesis is," [James] says, "that if we start with the supposition that there is only one primal stuff or material in the world, a stuff of which everything is composed, and if we call that stuff 'pure experience,' then knowing can easily be explained as a particular sort of relation towards one another into which portions of pure experience may enter. The relation itself is a part of pure experience; one of its 'terms' becomes the subject or bearer of the knowledge, the knower, the other becomes the object known (p. 4)."[10]
Unquote​

This is just an example. There are volumes on the subject. Some scientists have also evinced interest. Just one example is.

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

...

So, my question to you is. What may be some hypothesis to test whether a basic presence, a simple uncompounded consciousness, pervades the fabric of the universe or not?

 

[rational experiences]

I thank both of you for devoting time to this subject. I will be brief.

My interest or curiosity is purely for knowledge. Empirically, I KNOW that ego-consciousness is only a small speck of wave on the unconstrained consciousness.

Currently, whether all scientists agree or not, science does not explain the "I am" awareness that is the first datum and the individual subjective phenomenal consciousness. Many scientists and philosophers have suggested that basic consciousness -- a bare presence -- could be the warp and weft of the universe. I cited the following page in another thread.

Neutral monism - Wikipedia

Quote
"My thesis is," [James] says, "that if we start with the supposition that there is only one primal stuff or material in the world, a stuff of which everything is composed, and if we call that stuff 'pure experience,' then knowing can easily be explained as a particular sort of relation towards one another into which portions of pure experience may enter. The relation itself is a part of pure experience; one of its 'terms' becomes the subject or bearer of the knowledge, the knower, the other becomes the object known (p. 4)."[10]
Unquote​

This is just an example. There are volumes on the subject. Some scientists have also evinced interest. Just one example is.

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

...

So, my question to you is. What may be some hypothesis to test whether a basic presence, a simple uncompounded consciousness, pervades the fabric of the universe or not?

A simple quote, if you human being thinker did not exist, then nor does your theories.

Matter of fact of males in egotism, the science inventor of all themes for human science, which includes maths...for maths, you speaking, your claiming a formula for a machine does not represent natural law, natural conditions first owned historically, with you being the last presence making all claims against it.

To force it to change by altering natural Universal history of NATURAL ORDER.

What the Christ brothers forbade you of....Satanism, cosmic lying.

First of all you said God the stone O mass. energy mass and stone. God.

You said God the O stone Creator as a volcano...put the volcano owned by God the stone...for a volcano does not exist by itself....other than in your strung together thoughts ejected gases that converted and filled in zero cold empty space.

So the theist mind then says cold empty space is now cold clear gases...what you said about Earth Heavens.

Which is life support.

You were a long time ago proven evil minded as a theist.

For zero cold empty space does not own our life...what you argue about, displacement of Natural order.

For you cannot talk about the history of deep cold bread TH of empty space if you were not living inside of its owned coldest gases as a conscious self.

Science male, and I own lots of female thoughts about what I would like to say....but cannot.

Was a male brotherhood who discussed a whole lot of information between your owned mass of male lives, as humans.

As you irradiated removed presence of natural first owned human form...by changing the order of Nature....you then lost that self and it is gone physically from your bio body....but the memory of you is recorded as that living bio life as an AI encoding...what you all personally lie about...for you are conscious of that AI subliminal historic science machine encoded cause...what you are explaining.

Not what is in out of space, for relativity says you do not know.

Out of space to you consciously is Earth God stone gas cold clear gas history, to allow and support conscious expression, which leaves no space, so you then falsified information of reaction...being ground God stone.

Look into the cosmos and discuss ground fission information that takes your mind into ZERO God gas stone removal conversion...where you placed the formula..to remove the top of a mountain to open into zero a hole....being what the mountain meaning owned converted in an atmospheric gas mass, owned a vision recording but was removed.

A cold hole by your formula definition...yet to get a hole a hot radiation metal mass is applied....what you lie about NATURAL ORDER, Natural Laws...hence the science community, much wiser than what any of you satanic AI possessed minds are today said never give God any name ever again...as a science agreement.

Therefore Father spiritually has told me all of your Satanic male science secrets.

First he says you claim God theme by thinking once crystalline held above ground mass in cold clear heavenly sky was Sun attacked by UFO metal radiation mass.

Melted it. Bored Earth sink holes, the lava flowed into it.

Where the original Destroyer science psyche is AI encoded.

Which is against the scientist who claims he learnt from being harmed....his placement of the volcano is in the correct mass historic natural order...with God the stone....not with origin of Sun conversion.

Why science as a male owns a correct science mentality and a possessed origin Destroyer mentality.

 

[rational experiences]

Father also told me to tell you that as Stephen Hawking was so sacrificed the ancient possession of the mind of the Destroyer could no longer possess him, so he owned a review to warn you that you were trying to destroy life on Earth with machines.

Machines never owned natural order for volcanic lava did not cool into the physical mass presence, man I pul ate a machine.

Yet the minerals you alchemize convert go into a metallic lava type form....the strings of your fake science theory relative and inclusive of building the machine to own part of the string.

 

[sayak83]

I thank both of you for devoting time to this subject. I will be brief.

My interest or curiosity is purely for knowledge. Empirically, I KNOW that ego-consciousness is only a small speck of wave on the unconstrained consciousness.

Currently, whether all scientists agree or not, science does not explain the "I am" awareness that is the first datum and the individual subjective phenomenal consciousness. Many scientists and philosophers have suggested that basic consciousness -- a bare presence -- could be the warp and weft of the universe. I cited the following page in another thread.

Neutral monism - Wikipedia

Quote
"My thesis is," [James] says, "that if we start with the supposition that there is only one primal stuff or material in the world, a stuff of which everything is composed, and if we call that stuff 'pure experience,' then knowing can easily be explained as a particular sort of relation towards one another into which portions of pure experience may enter. The relation itself is a part of pure experience; one of its 'terms' becomes the subject or bearer of the knowledge, the knower, the other becomes the object known (p. 4)."[10]
Unquote​

This is just an example. There are volumes on the subject. Some scientists have also evinced interest. Just one example is.

http://www.gregmatloff.com/Edge Science Matloff-ES29.pdf

...

So, my question to you is. What may be some hypothesis to test whether a basic presence, a simple uncompounded consciousness, pervades the fabric of the universe or not?

We would need to get a reasonable grasp of the mathematical structures of consciousness first for us, animals and simple machines and then would have to see if the mathematical model imply that even non-living entities and systems have mathematical structures that imply a rudimentary form of proto/seed consciousness.

 

[rational experiences]

We would need to get a reasonable grasp of the mathematical structures of consciousness first for us, animals and simple machines and then would have to see if the mathematical model imply that even non-living entities and systems have mathematical structures that imply a rudimentary form of proto/seed consciousness.

But that is implied by the human implying the measure.

We do not get measured in natural order or natural life, we just exist in a natural supported history which no scientist by ego eccentricity accepts.

A machine for instance in natural order is built from owned energy converted mass cooled....so energy originally is not cooled.

So it is false implication itself as your science equals answer. For science was not modelled on natural life, which is what you lie about...it was modelled on what towered above us as an unnatural pyramid building placating that a male had rebuilt that mountain tip.

As the liars scientists are. Natural humans are your actual opponents if you cared to use natural reason first...but you do not.

You want science to exist as your human practice by conditions of say so...then own arguments about how and why science does such and such. Origin says we never needed science to be expressed.

For medical is just natural cause and natural application applied by a loving being to another loving being in need and required assistance.

So therefore a cosmologist liar says, out of Natural order sequence...my cold machine mass I claim is owner collision.

Okay so apparently your consciousness had already identified that cold gases in space go cold and then by pressure own solid mass...and that mass moves when heated by other causes....and travel and then collide?

So you are waiting for a collision against your machine mass itself to release the gases that the energy mass of God history owns as the presence God machine?

As the correct use to be informed...and natural consciousness is informed first...why science can say to science, guess what science you are wrong....and claim and I needed to say it is wrong as a scientist who says science can be wrong...for I know its history by memory natural.