Philosophy Now Forum

What creates matter? Is matter a product of consciousness? Does the recreation of consciousness create matter. Is matter condensed consciousness?

If you consider matter as energy and consciousness as also being energy then maybe energy is the common denominator of matter and consciousness.

Hi friends,

Although i cannot prove it neither by reasoning nor by evidence here on the forum, but, the order is perhaps as below-

consciousness- mind- will- will to exist-existence of astral form and matter- will to act- existence of subtle form and matter- will to feel and learn- existence of physical form, energy, universal forces and matter.

with love,
sanjay

monads?

-Imp

NO to all of this.

Matter is. It is neither created, nor is it destroyed. It is interchangeable with energy, but that also cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

This can be demonstrated and verified.

Hi friends,

The interchangeability and un-destroyable principle is proven within the limits of matter and energy only.

But, this thread asked about the consciousness also.

with love,
sanjay

No, it asks "what creates matter?" and, as you say , the answer is shown to be nothing.

Hi friends,

As i said earlier, i am not able to proof what i said, right now and here on the forum.

But, i said just what i felt and think is right.

Others may refute it and i would neither mind nor try to defend myself. On the contrary, i would like to be a patient listener.

All i want to remind that this issue is far from being settled.

with love,
sanjay

Here is a question for you, then.
Why would you want to support a theory/ idea, which is indefensible?
Why would you hold onto a thing just because you 'feel' is right, and yet refuse to defend it?

Hi Chaz,

I would like to answer what you asked.

My friend, just look at the words carefully of my first post that-

Although i cannot prove it neither by reasoning nor by evidence here on the forum,

I very categorically mentioned ' here at the forum'.

It simply means that it is possible but not on the forum. I can prove it to some extent if you and i would able to have conversation physically, otherwise not.

It can also done by the text or reasoning, but for that, i have to write a very long reply (about 20-30 pages or so) and that is difficult for me. Furthermore, others also would not be patient enough to read that.

The reason is that, for enable any one else to understand my perspective, i must have to carry him all along my person journey, get him familiar with all bits and pieces of my thinking and experiences. That is the only way to imbue any one else with my perspective and thus, cogitations.

But, my friend, i am not running away. I am doing this in a form of a book which is under process.

If destiny allowed me, then, i shall reply comprehensively exactly what this thread asked and with the ways to get all that proved physically too.

with love,
sanjay

AFAIK, scientists haven't worked out all the details, but isn't matter more or less a condensed form energy of the big bang?

There are great many steps between the big bang and consciousness. Here is my attempt at listing some of them:
Big Bang -> atomic particles -> hydrogen -> suns -> carbon atoms -> organic molecules -> replicating organic molecules -> cells -> organisms -> complex, competing organisms.

It is obvious that awareness is a great benefit to any organism in competition with other organisms, and in general, the more awareness the better. Consciousness is - at least in large part - a way that large quantities of sense-data is organised and made usable.

I think it's safe to say the mechanism by which consciousness 'works' is poorly understood today. There are (broadly) two schools of thought about that. One holds that the mechanism underlying consciousness depends on nothing outlandish or bizarre, but only on physical principles of the sort we know (fairly well) today. The other school holds that consciousness is so strange a phenomenon that it must include some element or principle that is not only unknown to science, but 'outside science'.

Most people here are of the former sort. So am I, but I am less confident in the correctness of the purely physicalist view of consciousness than I was a few years ago!

So when are you going to answer my questions?

Hi chaz,

you asked- So when are you going to answer my questions?


May be sometime in 2012.

with love,
sanjay

Hi kp2,

you said- There are great many steps between the big bang and consciousness. Here is my attempt at listing some of them:
Big Bang -> atomic particles -> hydrogen -> suns -> carbon atoms -> organic molecules -> replicating organic molecules -> cells -> organisms -> complex, competing organisms.

Agreed. Without going into the technical detail, your order seems to be fine in the broad sense.

But my friend, a layman in me, who respects science as relies on facts and rejects spirituality as it is based on superstition, wants to ask a very simple and primary question-

Is the trail concludes at the BB?
Why science is taking the state of BB for granted?
Why it does not want to explore that from where that singularity came, in which BB occurred?

People like Hawkins tends to make a joke of spirituality and even philosophy too. I have read his book 'the history of time'. He very categorically stated that there is absolutely no need to look beyond the BB as it is useless and impossible too.

Science wants each and every notion to be proved physically and i am total agreement with this principle. Thus, it surprises me when a noble prize winner scientist like Hawkins says that we can assume without any problem that that singularity existed there before BB.

Is it empiricism?

IMHO, it is an out and out metaphysical assumption; not a scientific one.

If science can take the existence of that singularity for granted, then, does it have any right to object when religions take the existence of the God for granted?

IMHO, there is no difference between the two assumptions.

At least my common sense says that. I am not sure about the others.

you said- The other school holds that consciousness is so strange a phenomenon that it must include some element or principle that is not only unknown to science, but 'outside science'.

Most people here are of the former sort. So am I, but I am less confident in the correctness of the purely physicalist view of consciousness than I was a few years ago!

I can sense what you mean.

But, there is nothing strange or extraordinary about consciousness. Actually, it requires a different type of approach or effort.

let me put it differently-

It takes more than 10 years to clear high school. Add two more years for 11th and 12th. Now add three years of bachelor's and two for master's degree. The tally is 17 without PH.D.

Thus, it takes a hard work of about 20 years to acquire some serious knowledge of any stream; let us roughly assume six hours a day.

Now, if one is ready to devote even 1/10 of this effort seriously into meditation, he will be able to start understanding the consciousness and all this stuff which falls outside science.

But, my friend, the basic problem is that we want to bypass this process and relies on thinking and thinking ends at thought. Thinking cannot follow the trail of thought up to its origin and thus, tends to fail.

Let me tell you a very simple fact. The more you think seriously along these lines, the more are the chances of negation and refutation of all you learned throughout your life. A different kind of feeling of helplessness tends to overcome. This stage is bound to happen to all those who reach here only by thinking; intellectuals and philosophers.

But, if you have something else like a belief or some sort of guidance besides thinking, it will help immensely during the course and keeps you away from all negative thoughts.

It does not even necessary that your belief must be right. It will severe the its purpose even if it is wrong.

with love,
sanjay