Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
I've grown up since.
P.S. It's nice what they've done to this site isn't it.
P.S. It's nice what they've done to this site isn't it.
How did consciousness manifest?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
I was petty in proving to Ron sarcastically, that I'd read the whole thread... but that's in the past now. My contribution to this subject though, is merely to explain that we can actually attempt to explore the most impossible yet ultimate truth that we (as a conscious entity), don't exist, as our imaginations are not physical - logically speaking.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that our consciousnesses don't exist though, as it's on par with nothingness, or "nirvana". So it's all well, still an energy, but perhaps one that's not recognised by our external senses.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
But you're attempting to understand it yes?
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
Initially, it has a riddle-like complexity to it, but by fully accepting that you are nothingness yourself, invites your own consciousness in unlocking an entity you/we have always been. This entity is ultimately locked, as you say, in the logical sense, but remains the very bases for everything. By paying attention to this instinctive and most primordial route of thought, will enable us to fully appreciate the abundance of reality we all tolerate on a day-to-day basis.
There exists in space-time a potential for abstracts to exist.
This potential is therefore obviously a component of space-time itself.
It is somehow manifest in a subjective striving for anti-entropy. The subject feels (an abstract) that it must persist.
Given enough time and the proper space, variation and consequence have yeilded consciousness.
With the capacity for subjective awareness and the compulsion to persist in existence, ego results.
What an ego believes is an integral part of the egos relation to existence. It becomes fact to the subject. It becomes an integrated part of them, affecting every pertinent (in consideration of context) stimulous they encounter.
IMO, the term "nothingness" is quite short of describing "what one is". It can be utilized however, in that "what you are" is the capacity for determining the difference between something and nothing. Without consciousness, no such differentiation is possible.
This potential is therefore obviously a component of space-time itself.
It is somehow manifest in a subjective striving for anti-entropy. The subject feels (an abstract) that it must persist.
Given enough time and the proper space, variation and consequence have yeilded consciousness.
With the capacity for subjective awareness and the compulsion to persist in existence, ego results.
What an ego believes is an integral part of the egos relation to existence. It becomes fact to the subject. It becomes an integrated part of them, affecting every pertinent (in consideration of context) stimulous they encounter.
IMO, the term "nothingness" is quite short of describing "what one is". It can be utilized however, in that "what you are" is the capacity for determining the difference between something and nothing. Without consciousness, no such differentiation is possible.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
I think you are trying to integrate an abstract, mysterious, supernatural, transcendental religious view into what we know is scientific fact.
"Fully accepting that you are nothingness yourself, invites your own consciousness in unlocking an entity you/we have always been."
Would you care to explain this statement in rational and logical, rather than mysterious, scientific terms? I know that I am not "nothingness." I am a physical living entity existing here and now on earth. I am conscious of this fact. And being conscious of my existance, and by being conscious of my consciousness, I am able to fully appreciate the abundance of the enlightening and beautiful reality that surrounds me on a day-to-day basis.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
Yes it is a rather (non-religious) spiritual take on the matter of existence I know... but when thinking out of the box, sometimes that's all we have left. How far can one go with the unromanticising of science before we finally end up being unexplainable (nothingness) ourselves. Being spiritual is all we have left on the matter. Energy - all remains to be.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
Would you care to explain this statement in rational and logical, rather than mysterious, scientific terms? I know that I am not "nothingness." I am a physical living entity existing here and now on earth. I am conscious of this fact. And being conscious of my existance, and by being conscious of my consciousness, I am able to fully appreciate the abundance of the enlightening and beautiful reality that surrounds me on a day-to-day basis.[/QUOTE]
Are you irate in your question? If so, there's no reason to be. Writing has its drawbacks in our take to each other, I know. So I'll apologize if I seem arrogant... Anyway - back to the question in hand. I'm going off the logical commonsense principle that if you're to reduce yourself or anything down to its simple form, (matter) what are you left with (dark energy)? And beyond that? A primitive method all the same, but one that stands up pretty well. One reason why people could dispute this is for the reasons that our nervous systems are the substance of gullible complexity (emotion - to feel love etc.).
Are you irate in your question? If so, there's no reason to be. Writing has its drawbacks in our take to each other, I know. So I'll apologize if I seem arrogant... Anyway - back to the question in hand. I'm going off the logical commonsense principle that if you're to reduce yourself or anything down to its simple form, (matter) what are you left with (dark energy)? And beyond that? A primitive method all the same, but one that stands up pretty well. One reason why people could dispute this is for the reasons that our nervous systems are the substance of gullible complexity (emotion - to feel love etc.).
I already DO understand it. Review my above posts that have always been criticized. But now the thread goes into Buddhist philosophy and Nirvana??? If anything, Nirvana is a state of "extinction" of consciousness - not of understanding how it evolved, or manifested. Nirvana is an elimination of desires and a state of consciousness where you are oblivious to the external world: been there, done that.
I have no question about how consciousness manifests itself except in terms of deep neural pathway structures and the imbedded levels of the multiple layers of consciousness, but this forum has drifted far away from that into nether-nether land.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
How did consciousness manifest? = What is consciousness exactly? It's always better to have a bit more than what you asked for. Isn't it... I think from how this thread has turned out, we atleast know there's no simple answer to this subject, which is why it will always remain here, in this forum, forever (echo).
I think from how this thread has turned out, we atleast know there's no simple answer to this subject, which is why it will always remain here, in this forum, forever (echo).Space time isnt real, it's an expression of consciousness. This is why consciousness controls time. There is really no such thing as distance on the quantum level, only on the level of perception. There is distance in the level of thoughts too. There is size, and shape of thoughts too. There is no such thing however as time/space without consciousness, as consciousness created time/space, not the other way around. If there is no consciousness then theres just energy and nothing else.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
...our imaginations imagine on...
Please provide at least some sort of support for this. I've not seen lick of evidence to support it in my entire life.
*sigh* You're not very convincing... especially when you...
It seems that you contradict yourself - though perhaps accidentally. Would you please choose... is there distance or not and why do you think that?
I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.
*shrug* I would agree that time/space have no meaning and in that capacity, cannot exist without an observer to invoke the meaning of existence... but you're taking "the chicken or the egg" and saying "sheezus it's the chicken you dolt". This is wrong IMO... (not the chicken thing, but the universe thing). It's because "space-time" is the vehicle in which consciousness exists, or through which it garners meaning. Structurally speaking, it seems to me that the container (the universe, which contains unkown properties) is not created by the contained, and the contained spawned from it.
Actually, it seems to me that the model in question "consciousness creates the universe" is basically useless to me, so I reject it on that basis. It sounds like gobbledy gook to me.
? Pardon but I mostly agree with that, and energy isn't really energy with no consciousness. It just "is". It's part of a homegenous blob of meaningless unspeakables. This however, completely contradicts the statements you made above. Your statement above implies there's nothing, no energy, no matter, nada zip zilch until consciousness creates it physically.
Further, if consciousness "controlled" time, then one could travel to the past or future on a whim. In reality, we can project or reflect on a whim... but not really travel.
How did consciousness manifest? = What is consciousness exactly? It's always better to have a bit more than what you asked for. Isn't it...
From how this thread has turned out, apparently people are oblivious to any rational scientific explanation, no matter how well it be, and prefer to conclude that there is something mysterious and supernatural about consciousness, and therefore are forced to turn to religious and other paranormal mysterious views to explain what is alrready known and explained.
Chris_Smith
Registered Senior Member
I think from this exercise - I hope we've understood that there's no definitive answer to even the simplist of things, and that all is subjective right down to the mere energy that makes it so.
It is objective and called a "theory" when it can be shown to occur as hypothesized under all experiences that find no fault, as I have stated it as. Over time, if the theory continues to hold under all scientific observations and experiments, we begin to call it a law or a principle.
I don't believe that anything I've posted has been subjective, though I'd have to review to definitively state this.
I don't believe that anything I've posted has been subjective, though I'd have to review to definitively state this.