matter/energy and awareness - skeptics most eagerly invited

[river-wind]

Everyone who is reading this, I can only assume, is a human being. Therefore you are made of matter, which is animated by energy, according to popular scientific theory.

If matter and energy can combine to make you conscious and aware of your surroundings, can matter do the same on it's own? can energy do the same on it's own? Is the combination of matter and energy required?



Thought 1: matter and energy are just different forms of the same thing, according the Einstein, and backed up by the functional existence of the atomic bomb.

Thought 2:can matter exists w/o energy? I guess if an object is at absolute zero, it could be considered to have no energy. Or would it have 100% potential energy? The law of the conservation of energy would make the latter more likely. so I'd say no, you can't have matter w/o energy.

Thought 3: can energy exist without matter? Yes, that is the definition of a photon- a particle of pure energy.



So we have energy by itself, and combinations of energy and matter at varying degrees, each step defined by adding one more quanta of matter to the combination until you end up with the maximum amount of matter. Somewhere in that range, humans exist.


So if you can have conscious humans at one point on the scale of matter/energy balance, is there any reason why consciousness couldn’t exist on another point of that scale? Is there only one attracting point on the scale that allows for thought?


Until someone can prove that consciousness can only exists at the one particular balance of matter/energy that humans live in, I say that it is just as likely that conscious beings outside of humans exist as not (though I have never personally met one). Any thoughts, arguments, or proofs to eliminate the possibility of other consciousness outside of human?

Note: I personally consider most animals to be conscious, but I would say that they fall into a similar matter/energy balance as humans. I am regulating this argument to humans for the sake of removing an additional variable.

 

[Scrap@lot]

How come you seperate matter and energy, I thought you said matter and energy are two sides of the same coin.
I thought when matter is moving it creates energy.
Energy cant be created or destroyed only changes.
Can matter exist without energy? Potential energy and kinetic energy.. both energy just , still and movement.
If energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. There is always going to be a balance isnt there?

 

[river-wind]

because the universe seperates them into two different forms of the same thing, and can mix the two forms at different levels (according to current physics theory).

 

[Scrap@lot]

Ahh okay
Hmmm if you are interested in learning about matter/energy/and consciousness then I got the perfect site for you!!

www.theodynamics.com

Some stuff from it:
This chapter was added after realizing how Einstein’s matter theory relates to a previous chapter, The Eternal Vital Flow. It is lifted from a channeled book Einstein Returns. The previous article deals with collective growth, the phylogenic growth of great swirling and boiling forces. Einstein explains the swirling as moving mental matter into astral matter and then into etheric matter and finally into physical matter. In Einstein’s example, each cycle of this churning raises the level of matter from new matter to a more mature state. “In this way, it becomes grounded in physical and begins to transmute and vivify the dense matter of that level. As progress is made, it then begins to work its way back through the subtler planes of matter towards its original level of being, having been enriched by experience of transmuting matter.” Interviewer: “So as you improve the quality of consciousness, you create a corresponding change [in matter]?” Einstein: “Of course. The emphasis should be to improve our consciousness, rather than get so involved in matter.” Even if you have no concern for others, if you believe in reincarnation, you should contribute to the enhancement because each swirl can provide a higher state for you to return to.
Much of the information in this chapter was gleaned from Einstein Returns by Robert R. Leichtman, M.D. Einstein explains that everything is matter in different stages of development: ranging from subtle (unseen) to gross (3D). Further, there are two species of magnetism - each following different laws at different levels of maturity.

“Jewels and precious minerals would be examples of the higher quality, more developed matter. And similar observations can be made about the matter being used by human beings, the more evolved animals, and the more evolved plants. The more evolved the being who is using the matter, the more refined the matter.” Also, Leichtman adds, “So as you improve the quality of consciousness [mental matter], you create a corresponding change [in physical matter].” Theoretically, matter should be enriched each trip through gross 3D matter. It would appear as though the real purpose of 3D-life is for matter to become more responsive to life, as Einstein reports, more responsive to a higher note. “As progress is made, it then begins to work its way back through the subtler planes of matter toward its original level of being, having been enriched by the experience of transmuting matter.”

As matter transitions, its magnetic counterpart shifts attributes: “...nonferrous matter also has the magnetic properties which ferrous matter does.” Einstein, “The magnetic properties I am referring to here are more likely to be found in the bodies of the higher plants, animals, and humans.” Subtle magnetism is not the type which attracts iron filings. Likes attract in the former while likes repel in the latter. Many humans have become frustrated attempting to reconcile the two, excusing life effacing acts as necessary, the yin and yang theory. There is still contrast in the higher order but there is no extreme lower order: hate, greed, killing, etc.

Until now, the goal of subtle mental matter has been illusive. People have devised reasons from Its purpose that ranged from their own self-aggrandizement to creating parking places. Intelligence is beginning to reveal itself. As it pushes into matter, matter becomes more enriched perhaps pointing to a time when ultimate knowledge will be an attribute of form.

We know a lot of reasons why this should be the thrust. The other hand clapping; consciousness acquiring the apparatus to be aware of its own consciousness, etc. Other reasons might be found in some off hand remarks by those who have experienced an BO or an NED. In Beyond the Light by Marisa St. Claire, One woman reported to Kenneth Ring after being knocked down by a car and leaving her body, “I was devoid of emotion. It was as though I was pure intellect.” This leads one to conclude that in spite of the advantage of ‘no pain’ and perhaps no emotion on the other side, there is an advantage in Bo-cellular senses. Another NED case study revealed, after meeting her sister-in-law, “We hugged in mid-air. It wasn’t like hugging ordinary flesh - we sort of merged.” As someone else has said, as the blending light of two lamps in a room.

Perhaps earthlings have it all wrong, perhaps the deal is to raise the level of matter rather than escape it. To resound to a higher note: Dr. Leichtman, “Now, according to esoteric literature, matter in the past millions of years has become more responsive to the principle we recognize as magnetism or cohesiveness. It has become more organizable and more responsive to what we call natural or physical law than it once was.

Einstein, “This is true. The entities or beings who are ensouling matter become more organized themselves and more able to organize matter and transmute it into something greater.”

These laws are just as responsive as a computer program, when one gets the syntax and logic right, it works every time (unless the power goes off). Otherwise one encounters undesired results.

It is the indwelling consciousness which must initiate the fundamental work of improving the quality of life - meaning us.

The ultimate purpose is to acquire the “peace which passeth all understanding” - while in form.

The question was asked of Einstein, will this transition begin to occur in the foreseeable future? “No. We are still at a point where we are far too selfish and greedy.”

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by river-wind
If matter and energy can combine to make you conscious and aware of your surroundings, can matter do the same on it's own? can energy do the same on it's own? Is the combination of matter and energy required?

So far as we know at the moment, yes, the only form of conscious we know of requires both matter and energy working together, there is as of yet no evidence of a "Pure energy" being. How such a being would sustain itself, or attain any sort of cohesion is open to debate, though everything suggested would likely need to be scifi jargon, there just isn't any precedence for this sort of thing.

Originally posted by river-wind
Until someone can prove that consciousness can only exists at the one particular balance of matter/energy that humans live in, I say that it is just as likely that conscious beings outside of humans exist as not (though I have never personally met one).

This line of thinking is fallacious. You should be saying that "until someone can prove that consciousness can exist without the particular balance of matter/energy that humans live in, it is unlikely that such exits." That is, until there is proof I can't have reason to believe it. What you are saying now is that "Because there is no proof I believe it." Surely you can see how this simply can't be.

 

[river-wind]

Re: Re: matter/energy and awareness - skeptics most eagerly invited

Originally posted by Mystech

This line of thinking is fallacious. You should be saying that "until someone can prove that consciousness can exist without the particular balance of matter/energy that humans live in, it is unlikely that such exits." That is, until there is proof I can't have reason to believe it. What you are saying now is that "Because there is no proof I believe it." Surely you can see how this simply can't be.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I see my position as: since I don't have any real eveidence that this outside consciousness exists (except the circumstancial evidence of "I've never seen one"), that it is just as likely that they do as it is that they don't (complete 50-50 chance).

To assume that it is "unlikely" that they exsist because of a lack of evidence either way seems more fallacious to me (fallacious is a new word for me thanks!)- it apears that because you have no evidence, the chance of the existance should be set to 40-60.

Given that I have never met an outside consciousness, I would say that one of three things is the case:
1) consciousness can only exsist in our matter/energy balance, therefore further exploration of the topic is useless
2a) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, but we are unable to note their presence because our main senses focus on the balance in which we exsist
3) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, and it is possible for us to note their presence, but for some reason, we as a culture have not done so.
[edit2] there should be a fourth item in this list:
2b) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, but we are unable to note their presence because of some other reason


Given that all the evidence I can think of is either circumstancial or heresay ("I have not met one" or "this lady says she sees dead people"), I have no reason to make a claim either way. Would you agree? Have I forgotten or missed anything?

edit:
Scrap@lot: thanks for the link, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Do they mean what I think they do with the word "channeled" in the summary you inlined? I would put channelling into the same group as energy only consciousness, as I have not expirienced it myself, and it is not reproducable through the scientific method. Possible, and as likely not possible. I'm sure I'll get alot of information out of it, I just don't want to throw the scientists quite yet

 

[Scrap@lot]

hehe


Yes they do mean what you think you do when they used the word "channeled" LOL
very interesting isnt it?

 

[river-wind]

Originally posted by Scrap@lot
hehe


Yes they do mean what you think you do when they used the word "channeled" LOL
very interesting isnt it?

I guess, yes, I'd call it interesting.

However I can't incorperat most of the information in that page (I read 90% of book I) into my world view because there is a huge amount of evidence *against* his ideas.

Logical breaks, such a FF particles causing the rotation of the earth (if they were pervasive, then they would be hitting every point of the earth simultainiously, or at least at complete random, which would not force a rotation), hurt the theories credibility.

misuse of scientific data and terms kills the whole thing.
For instance. 8, 16, 32, 64, etc are not "binary numbers", as is stated in Book 1. they are base ten numbers which can be *represented* in binary, but almost all integers can be represented in binary (which is part of why computers can use binary as their number base).
DNA is not "commonly known" to be partially "unbonded" in human cells; if current science is correct, then DNA is only unzipped during the procceses of replication and transcription - after which, the DNA gets completely re-zipped. The idea of histone binding to base pair groups makes no sense - the chemical make up of both molecules is not compatable. An Adenine base has no matching histone that would bind to it. Thymine, however, *does* bind to it, which is why Adenine and Thymine are called a base 'pair' -there are always found paired together in the two strands of nuecleotides that makes up the double helix of DNA. Similarly, Guanine and Cytocine make up the other DNA base pair.

Thanks for the link, anyway, I always learn from reading other people's perspectives on the world, but sadly, this one would require a face-to-face debate with the author before I could really get down to what he is trying to say...he is assuming the reader knows too much to really convinse anyone who doesn't already belive in what he is saying.

 

[Scrap@lot]

LOL
Well... I dont know what to say.. LOL
your a smart one. hopefully you might get some info you might actually like from it though

TAKE CARE
PEACE

 

[Mystech]

Re: Re: Re: matter/energy and awareness - skeptics most eagerly invited

Originally posted by river-wind
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I see my position as: since I don't have any real eveidence that this outside consciousness exists (except the circumstancial evidence of "I've never seen one"), that it is just as likely that they do as it is that they don't (complete 50-50 chance).

To assume that it is "unlikely" that they exsist because of a lack of evidence either way seems more fallacious to me (fallacious is a new word for me thanks!)- it apears that because you have no evidence, the chance of the existance should be set to 40-60.

Given that I have never met an outside consciousness, I would say that one of three things is the case:
1) consciousness can only exsist in our matter/energy balance, therefore further exploration of the topic is useless
2a) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, but we are unable to note their presence because our main senses focus on the balance in which we exsist
3) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, and it is possible for us to note their presence, but for some reason, we as a culture have not done so.
[edit2] there should be a fourth item in this list:
2b) consciousness can exsist at different points along matter/energy scale, but we are unable to note their presence because of some other reason


Given that all the evidence I can think of is either circumstancial or heresay ("I have not met one" or "this lady says she sees dead people"), I have no reason to make a claim either way. Would you agree? Have I forgotten or missed anything?

edit:
Scrap@lot: thanks for the link, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. Do they mean what I think they do with the word "channeled" in the summary you inlined? I would put channelling into the same group as energy only consciousness, as I have not expirienced it myself, and it is not reproducable through the scientific method. Possible, and as likely not possible. I'm sure I'll get alot of information out of it, I just don't want to throw the scientists quite yet

You are incorrect in this line of thinking, again it is fallacious. The burden of proof in instances like these, does not lie with who would refute your claim, instead it lies with you, the positive claimant. Think of it this way, nothing can be believed to exist until proven otherwise, you however have gotten it backwards, and by your own line of thinking would be able to make the claim that everything exists until proven otherwise. This idea is one which has been recognized, proven wrong and disregarded for as long as critical thinking, and critical thinkers have existed.

By this line of thinking you could rationalize unicorns, leprechauns, and secret global conspiracies dedicated to pairing your socks in a mismatch fashion while you sleep, so that you never have a matching pair of socks to put on. There is no evidence for any of these things, and for some reason you seem to wish to insist that because of this fact they MUST be true. The simple fact is that a lack of evidence for a thing, is significant evidence against it, this does not work the other way around, however your argument is based on the idea that it dose, hence your argument is wrong.

Also, the idea of consciousness, as we know it made possible through a combination of matter and energy, both are inseparable parts, if one were removed, then the idea of consciousness as we know it would not exist, any process which could would resemble consciousness, yet deals only with energy is not consciousness as we know it, but instead would have to be some other process which we have never seen, nor could we at this time fathom or understand, (unless of course presented with it). As such what you are trying to do is put forward a theory, saying that a process which you know nothing about, for which no evidence exists, and who’s end result is the same as a process we already are familiar with, exists, and that you believe it, on the basis that there is no evidence for it. Please read over the last sentence a few times, if it does not immediately ring in your mind as being completely arbitrary.

I’m not trying to be mean here, I’m just trying to help you understand the error you’ve made, please feel free to ask any questions about this.

 

[Scrap@lot]

hehe
Good thing I'm not the one stuck in between or into this
Hey what happend to the psychic test thread LOL!

 

[fishfaceshares]

I see dead people

Or energy without matter, also can feel them without seeing them..so in my world energy and matter can be separated and still exist..Although I really hate seeing matter without energy..it's so depressing and a little freaky..Anyway, I hope someday you two can experience this for yourselves..after the initial shock of it all, it can be a liberating experience.

 

[Scrap@lot]

.. heh
What makes you think I cant?
Whats so liberating about seeing dead people... lol

 

[fishfaceshares]

Sorry, I was referring to Mystech and Riverwind

Originally posted by Scrap@lot
.. heh
What makes you think I cant?
Whats so liberating about seeing dead people... lol

It was liberating to me, once I got over the fear of it, because it opened my eyes to a different way of looking at things..I didn't believe in ghosts or spirits before I saw one..I didn't really believe in death either though, just assumed people went somewhere far away..a happy place..why would someone linger around here when there was a happy place to go to..but some do..so for me it was liberating, because my horizons had widened, and now I don't disbelieve things for lack of proof, my mind is open to all kinds of things, just because I've never experienced it doesn't necessarily means that others can't

 

[Mystech]

Re: I see dead people

Originally posted by fishfaceshares
Or energy without matter, also can feel them without seeing them..so in my world energy and matter can be separated and still exist..Although I really hate seeing matter without energy..it's so depressing and a little freaky..Anyway, I hope someday you two can experience this for yourselves..after the initial shock of it all, it can be a liberating experience.

Oh, I see now, haha, you're crazy!

Tell me, what the hell are you trying to say here, it doesn't make any sence.

 

[Mystech]

Re: Sorry, I was referring to Mystech and Riverwind

Originally posted by fishfaceshares
It was liberating to me, once I got over the fear of it, because it opened my eyes to a different way of looking at things..I didn't believe in ghosts or spirits before I saw one..I didn't really believe in death either though, just assumed people went somewhere far away..a happy place..why would someone linger around here when there was a happy place to go to..but some do..so for me it was liberating, because my horizons had widened, and now I don't disbelieve things for lack of proof, my mind is open to all kinds of things, just because I've never experienced it doesn't necessarily means that others can't

Get your occultism right, ghosts aren't made of energy they are made of ectoplasm. See, because we know what energy is and what it's all about, but ectoplasm is just some makebelieve, thing that we can assign any properties we want to, hence there's no possability of contradicting a natural law when we talk about ghosts, and we can continue to shout "Oh yeah well you can't DISprove it!"

 

[fishfaceshares]

hmmmm

You're not very convincing for a smarty pants..I still think ghost/spirts are made up of energy and vibrations...so there

 

[Mystech]

What kind of energy, and vibrations of what? And how can something be composed of an action as opposed to some sort of noun?

 

[river-wind]

Re: Re: Re: Re: matter/energy and awareness - skeptics most eagerly invited

Originally posted by Mystech
You are incorrect in this line of thinking, again it is fallacious. The burden of proof in instances like these, does not lie with who would refute your claim, instead it lies with you, the positive claimant. Think of it this way, nothing can be believed to exist until proven otherwise, you however have gotten it backwards, and by your own line of thinking would be able to make the claim that everything exists until proven otherwise. This idea is one which has been recognized, proven wrong and disregarded for as long as critical thinking, and critical thinkers have existed.

By this line of thinking you could rationalize unicorns, leprechauns, and secret global conspiracies dedicated to pairing your socks in a mismatch fashion while you sleep, so that you never have a matching pair of socks to put on. There is no evidence for any of these things, and for some reason you seem to wish to insist that because of this fact they MUST be true. The simple fact is that a lack of evidence for a thing, is significant evidence against it, this does not work the other way around, however your argument is based on the idea that it dose, hence your argument is wrong.

Also, the idea of consciousness, as we know it made possible through a combination of matter and energy, both are inseparable parts, if one were removed, then the idea of consciousness as we know it would not exist, any process which could would resemble consciousness, yet deals only with energy is not consciousness as we know it, but instead would have to be some other process which we have never seen, nor could we at this time fathom or understand, (unless of course presented with it). As such what you are trying to do is put forward a theory, saying that a process which you know nothing about, for which no evidence exists, and who’s end result is the same as a process we already are familiar with, exists, and that you believe it, on the basis that there is no evidence for it. Please read over the last sentence a few times, if it does not immediately ring in your mind as being completely arbitrary.

I’m not trying to be mean here, I’m just trying to help you understand the error you’ve made, please feel free to ask any questions about this.

Don't worry, I don't take it as mean- I thank you for your input.

It seems, though, that you are putting more into what I'm writing that I am. In refference to your sock drawer analogy, I don't mean to say that because there is no evidence that unicorns are not going through my sock drawer, then it MUST be true. I'm saying that because there is no evidence, it may be true. or it may not be true. I don't know.

I'd also add that the analogy is subtly different, because the unicorns/elves/whatnot are mostlikely psysical beings, so I should be able to see, hear, or touch them or the effects they have on my sock drawer and it's surroundings. The elves/unicorns/what have you, vary well *may* be coming into my room and nicking my socks, however I'd say it's unlikely because after nearly 24 years of life, I've never seen one or seen any physical evidence of one (hoofprints, dropped bags of gold, etc). In this case, the lack of physical evidence gives us a fairly strong case against the idea that my sock drawer is being rummaged through every night (or strong evidence that these elves are *very* crafty I've never met an elf-if they exsist maybe they *are* very sneaky). I could live my entire life, and just by pure chance and timing, never catch a unicorn in my sock drawer.

Lack of evidence certainly doesn't mean it's happening.
But it doesn't mean it isn't, either. All it means is *I have never seen it happen*, nothing more. there is still a chance that it is happening, and I am just missing it when it does. There is an even more likely chance that it doesn't happen at all.

For a more down to earth example- I will most likely live my entire life never actually seeing a proton. however, I've got pretty good evidence that they exsist, so I believe that they do. That does not mean that they do exist, however. It could be that all the evidence pointing to the exsistance of a small, positivly charged particle based at the center of a negativly charged cloud is just coincidence- caused by something completely unthought of. The evidence I have for the existance of protons doesn't mean that they exsist,it just means that the psysical evidence suggests that they do. the proton *theory* is pretty solid, but it's still just a theory. Even electron microscopes can truely "see" protons, they can just detect the precence of positively charged area in a localised position.


When talking about consciousness and energy/matter combination levels, there isn't any telltale muddy hoofprint to point the direction towards outside consciousnesses exsisting. It's also possible that the average human is simply not able to notice any pure energy consciousnesses since we do not have, as you stated in the empathy thread, a physical sensory organ to pick up the energy signatures that this sort of patterned energy would give off.

Unicorn- most likely not the case, as the chances of a full sized horse entering my room while I sleep, stealing some socks, and leaving again w/ leaving any physical evidence and/or waking me up are pretty low. Still possible, however.
energy/matter consiousness beyond ours-if humans are only able to percieve the presence of matter/energy in our own realm of exsistance, then maybe everyone exsist on a slightly different point on the matter/energy scale. Maybe there are different consciouses along the scale- everyone around us. hoever, the more into the matter end of things we are, the less able we are to note the energy presence of other beings.
pure energy consiousness- maybe ghosts, maybe gods, maybe nothing. there is only spotty evidence for this at best, so that suggests that they don't exsist. However, given that we are talking about things outside of how the average human perceives the world, it could just be that we are unable to notice these things.


All I mean is this:
Yes or no: you have evidence that the matter/energy combination that the averge human has is the only point along the scale (in units of one quanta of energy) where consiouness can exsist.

If Yes, then I would seriously like to see it.
If No, then my follow up question is this-is there any credible evidence that is could exist?

I am not trying to claim that consicousness exsists anywhere. I'm trying to logically work through the exsisting evidence, and lack of evidence, to come to a framework of likely possibilties. I don't think I have enough evidence to make a final determination about consiousness at all. I'm just looking for specifically what questions I cannot (or simply have not) answer yet, so that I can then research in that direction next.

Thanks again for the thoughts, everyone!

 

[river-wind]

Mystech- have you ever used dichotomous keys to identify animal or plant species? the books that go "are the leaves serrated? yes..goto page 4a, if no, go to page 4b"


That's what I'm in the middle of building. Starting out with as few asumptions about the world as possible, and working logically from their.
basic assumptions
1)I exsist
2)I am alive
5)I am conscious
4)I am logical

dicotomous key"
1)does the current state of physics thoery accuratly define the universe
a)Yes...goto 3
b)No....goto 2

2)this branch cannot be filled until science more accuratly maps the natural state of the world

3)take one Kilo of solid hydrogen, and steadily add energy to it (in one quanta units) until it is equal parts energy and matter. then remove matter (in one quark units, I guess, though one hydrogen (1p+,1e-) units may be better) from it until only the energy is left. plot the scale of matter/energy over time.
find where humans exsist on this scale.
a)is it a single point (ie all humans have the same matter/NRG ratio)....goto 4
b)is it a range(ie each person has their own personal ratio)....goto __

4)In the terms of Chaos theory, is this ratio an attractor point?(is this particular ratio stable -if energy is added to a human, will the energy disspate until they have regained this current ratio?)
a)if yes....goto 5
b)if no.....goto 100

5)Are their any other attractor points along the scale? (I don't know how one might test this)
a)if yes....goto __
b)if no.....goto __


100)does each person's ratio change over time (over the course of a day, a year, a lifetime?)
a)if yes...goto 101
b)if no....goto 102

101)can a person's energy level be changed via internal or external influences?
a)if yes....goto __
b)if no.....goto __

102)Are chimpanzees conscious (evidence points to them being self aware)?
a)if yes....goto 103
b)if no.....goto __

103)Do chimpanzees exist at the same NRG/matter ratio as humans?
a)if yes...goto __
b)if no....goto __
...
..
.
..
...
1004)can consciousness exsist outside of energy ranges 1,3,7,12,16,34 (as labled on the scale)?
a)if yes...goto 1005
b)if no....goto 2365


I have currently items 3b) 5a) 5b) 101a) 101b) 102a) 102b) and thousands more to work through. I am trying not to make any more assumptions that I have to- any question that can be asked, should be asked.

Given what you are saying, it seems you think I have already decided that consciousness can exsist outside of the human ration, when in fact I've assumed nothing of the sort. that's part of question 1004 or so.