Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Maybe first determine the event horizon of consciousnes to determine what it entails.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is consciousness?
- Thread starter Rick O'Shez
- Start date
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
I am not familiar. It is not anything I've ever considered.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I think you would find him quite illuminating. He is a Christian/Zen mystic monk.
Particles are fields in modern physics. Rather, they are the localized detection, measurement, observation, or interaction of fields. Classical field theory, in which we find actual "fields" described, are as relevant to "today's physics" as is Galilean relativity or Newtonian gravitation. Modern field theories involve the quantization of classical fields, making particulate what was classically described by and understood in terms of fields.
godnotgod
Thou art That
So fluctuations in the field are what essentially creates the particle, is that correct?
No. There are no fields or particles. Fluctuations of quantum fields can be and often are called particles, but they do not create particles. We cannot ever detect, observe, or confirm the existence of fields directly. We can only detect particulates. However, such particles cannot exist as such independent of measurement. So-called fluctuations can create or annihilate fields, particles, waves, matter, energy, etc., because all of these are linguistic simplifications of mathematical components of formal theories. Fluctuations of fields are particle fluctuations
godnotgod
Thou art That
So is it this field that Planck may have been referring to as the 'force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration"?
Last edited:
No. Planck thought his contribution to quantum theory to be a fix, not reality. He distrusted and disbelieved the whole of atomic physics and particle physics.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
And particle fluctuations are fluctuations of fields...
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
Logical Positivist
and from there the entire problem spirals into errors of increasing magnitude.
godnotgod
Thou art That
It is for this very reason that the mystic transcends Reason, Logic, and Analysis which operate within the sphere of perceptual reality, and seeks higher ground in Ultimate Reality
godnotgod
Thou art That
That 'agreement' is based on pure conjecture, something they want to call 'Emergent Theory', when it does not qualify as a true bona fide scientific theory.* At best, it is a hypothesis, but the emergent theorists cannot tell us how non-material consciousness arises from the material world. At which point exactly does this miraculous transformation occur?
Mystics, OTOH, tell us that the so-called 'material' world arises from consciousness, as illusion. Now, Quantum Physics is showing us that all of the mass of the atom is virtual in nature, rendering all of reality a virtual reality, confirming what mystics have told us for over 4000 years.
*A scientific theory is not the same as 'theory' in layman's terms; it is, for all practical purposes, a fact, as in 'the theory of evolution', or 'the theory of gravity'. Anything science throws at the theory works. Emergent 'theory' does not qualify.
bnabernard
Member
It's unsettling for people to think they are a 'program' and should respond to the advice of the programmer.
It's harder still when the possibility of a re-boot is on the horizon.
Damn viruses.
It's harder still when the possibility of a re-boot is on the horizon.
Damn viruses.
godnotgod
Thou art That
The program people follow is a script in a drama written by others. We call this condition 'Identification', in which the person actually believes the fictional character he is playing to be real. The realization of this fictional condition aka 'Waking Sleep', occurs only upon a higher Awakening from the state of Identification to that of Self-Transcendence.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
What it entails is the realization that the observer of consciousness is consciousness itself. IOW, there is no observer of the observation; no experiencer of the experience: there is only the experience of consciousness itself. All attempts to create a subject/object split result in duality and thus, delusion.
bnabernard
Member
When the common denominator of all things is nothing then I find it difficult to describe what might or might not be.
Perhaps I will understand more when I become nothing, or will I?
I think therefore I AM, common cliche, and I never thought of that is another.
Perhaps I will understand more when I become nothing, or will I?
I think therefore I AM, common cliche, and I never thought of that is another.
godnotgod
Thou art That
You will 'become' nothing when you realize that there is no 'I' that becomes anything, and that is because your true nature is already nothing, and because it is nothing, it is everything. How can it be any other way?
Descartes' logic, unfortunately, was flawed.
The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard provided a critical response to the cogito. Kierkegaard argues that the cogito already presupposes the existence of "I", and therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial. Kierkegaard's argument can be made clearer if one extracts the premise "I think" into two further premises:
- "x" thinks
- I am that "x"
- Therefore I think
- Therefore I am
Here, the cogito has already assumed the "I"'s existence as that which thinks. For Kierkegaard, Descartes is merely "developing the content of a concept", namely that the "I", which already exists, thinks.
Kierkegaard argues that the value of the cogito is not its logical argument, but its psychological appeal: a thought must have something that exists to think the thought. It is psychologically difficult to think "I do not exist". But as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument is that existence is already assumed or presupposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.
Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia
godnotgod
Thou art That
So there was this man who died and went to heaven. He knocks on the Pearly Gates and a voice from within asks: 'Who is it?', to which the man replies: 'Me, Lord...it's ME', to which the voice replies: 'There are no 'me's' here....go away!' The man, now confused, goes away to ponder the question for a week, after which he returns and again knocks on the Gates. 'Who is it this time?', the voice asks. 'ME, Lord!...you know...ME!...ME!....ME!", at which the voice responds: 'Begone!...We have no such 'ME's' here!'. Now the man goes away for an entire year to think on the problem. He then returns and softly taps on the Gates. 'Yes? Who is it this time?', the voice asks.
'Why, it is none other than YOU, Oh Lord', at which the Gates swing wide open.
