Jean-Dominique Bauby & The Hell We Exist In

[Arising_uk]

.

Got taken to the woodshed.

No-eyed deer what you are talking about?

Changes everything for you. [/size].

What does?

[Dontaskme]

''True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.''

[Arising_uk]

Yes, that's all I'm saying dear one, there is only consciousness, that's it. You could say that The Source Of All is an infinite information field, and that the conscious part of Source seeks to identify read understand or give meaning to the information it is comprised of. ...

Slippery as ever pumpkin, as there is not only consciousness, there is the body with senses in an external world that allows consciousness to be. Now there may well be a 'The Source Of All' and many metaphysicians have claimed it is so but just about the best and most reasonable metaphysician we've had, Kant, pointed out that we can know bugger all about it, so this 'infinite information field' is just your attempt at updating whatever 'eastern' thought you have read about into a new-agey type 'physics' or 'computational' explanation. You might be better off trying Spinoza's route to this 'God'. Still, lets say it is all some planck-bit 'computer' creating the show, why do you have the hubris to think that it is actually running for the purpose of creating consciousness? Why might it not just be running something else and this is all just a by-product of that calculation? Conway's Game of Life appears to point to that being a possibility(ignoring of course that he excluded all the calcs that did not produce patterns).

This is the very first manifestation of the Yin/Yang dichotomy. ...

The Dao is it now?

Now, in order to understand, Source created in it's own consciousness, so there's nothing mechanical about it , ...

No-eyed deer what this means?

the second dichotomy, namely that of Creator and Creation, and as such, also the dichotomy between Self and Other, and all other additional dichotomies, because in order to identify and understand infinite information, there has to be a subjective experience. ...

I'd have thought that you could not appeal to 'subjective' experience? And Searle in your link clearly poo-poo's such a 'thing'. For myself I agree, there are no qualia.

And that is the reason for the existence of everything: it is all a subjective experience , a constant interaction between Self and Other, helping Source to identify and understand all the information it is comprised of. ...

Sounds all metaphysics to me and I'm pretty sure that you said somewhere that Philosophy should only be concerned with Consciousness, i.e. Philosophy of 'Mind'? Again, it appears completely hubristic to me to assume that 'it' is all about 'us'. Especially since it appears reasonable to assume that our 'self' and 'other' can be explained by being this body in an external world with others just like it?

This sounds like a sequence, but time is irrelevant at the level of Source, and is why I am now ageless, so it is only a sequence in the logical sense, not in the temporal sense.I had an awakening at the age of 8, thought nothing else about it until I reached the age of 20 and from then on in I was constantly being blown away by one epiphany after another,because I opened my mind to the broader picture and saw through the illusion of duality, prompting me to an endless study of consciousness.

What point an endless study?

Once the penny drops you realise you are literally nothing being everything. This is what the sages call ''the peace that passes all understanding'' or enlightenment. A ''seer'' is just someone who has had an wakening to oneness, who has seen through the illusion of duality. There is only ''seeing'' : to understand, see that, is known as the seer. The one who sees the seer disappears in that realisation. ...

Sounds all a bit too visual for my tastes and definitely smells of wishful thinking.

That's what is meant by the saying ''if you see the Buddha on the road kill him'' because there is only one 'I'

I disagree, it's a koan to remind onself that there is no 'I'.

You might also be interested in reading the following essay.....here is a snippet.

''Modern science hypothesizes that the manifestation of life on Earth is nothing but a mere increment in the complexity of matter — and hence is an outcome of evolution of matter (chemical evolution) following the Big Bang. ...

The really is no such thing as 'Modern science', there are just subjects that use a scientific methodology. Now there are scientists and philosophers in various subjects who do wish to show that living things and consciousness are rational products from the laws of Physics and good luck to them.

After the manifestation of life, modern science believed that chemical evolution transformed itself into biological evolution, which then had caused the entire biodiversity on our planet. ...

Not quite I think, as you'd be pushed to say that this "manifestation of 'life' " came before biological evolution?

The ontological view of the organism as a complex machine presumes life as just a chance occurrence, without any inner purpose. ...

Who says its a 'machine'?

I'd have thought the purpose proposed was reproduction and survival?

This essay also appears to contradict what it said earlier as how can it be chance if it is an increment in the complexity of matter?

This approach in science leaves no room for the subjective aspect of consciousness in its attempt to know the world as the relationships among forces, atoms, and molecules. ...

Searle's point I think but as he points out this is a confusion about the terms 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' and levels of description.

On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that the origin of everything material and nonmaterial is sentient and absolute (unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious. And, consciousness, which is fundamental, manifests itself in the gradational forms of all sentient and insentient nature. In contrast to the idea of objective evolution of bodies, as envisioned by Darwin and followers, Vedānta advocates the idea of subjective evolution of consciousness as the developing principle of the world.''

Seems to assume what it wants to prove? But for myself I'd like them to show me these 'non-material' things and puzzle how they can have a insentient nature when they say such a thing does not exist?

read more here ..... http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 15.1085138

I'll take a gander.

[Dontaskme]

''True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.''

[Dontaskme]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... technology

[Walker]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... technology

“Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, …” – Pearson

Since light speed indicates that a very large amount of data cannot deliver awareness to the present
we can say that no amount of data delivers awareness to the present,
and obviously the data-dependent awareness of an aware computer would be limited by its data-dependent form
which defines its existence but it cannot experience the present because of that limitation.

[Obvious Leo]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... technology

“Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, …” – Pearson

Since light speed indicates that a very large amount of data cannot deliver awareness to the present
we can say that no amount of data delivers awareness to the present,
and obviously the data-dependent awareness of an aware computer would be limited by its data-dependent form
which defines its existence but it cannot experience the present because of that limitation.

Correct, although bloody obvious. We cannot be aware of anything until after it's actually occurred.

[Walker]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... technology

“Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, …” – Pearson

Since light speed indicates that a very large amount of data cannot deliver awareness to the present
we can say that no amount of data delivers awareness to the present,
and obviously the data-dependent awareness of an aware computer would be limited by its data-dependent form
which defines its existence but it cannot experience the present because of that limitation.

Correct, although bloody obvious. We cannot be aware of anything until after it's actually occurred.

Only for dualistic awareness which by definition is data-dependent, bloody obvious. A computer’s function is solely data-dependent and therefore dualistic. Non-dual awareness by any other name is the present (as opposed to the time lag for dualistic memories of the past to appear as past data to present awareness). This means that the present moment which is independent of time-lagged dependent data is inaccessible to a limited data-defined and restricted machine. This makes AI incapable of self-awareness, though with a big old data base and super duper processor will progress to calculations and cleverness enough to pass Turing tests.

Stock Trades at the Speed of Light
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/a ... ktrade.cfm

I wonder how current computers would fair in track wagering and Texas Holdem tournaments.

[Obvious Leo]

Only for dualistic awareness

It makes no difference whether one adopts a monist or dualist model of consciousness because the time lag still applies. Awareness is not consciousness itself but rather a perception of consciousness and obviously we can't be aware of a thought until after we've thought it. Neuro-chemical processes occur at a finite speed.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Consciousness is a state of being.


The intellect is one function of being human.





.

[Walker]

Only for dualistic awareness

It makes no difference whether one adopts a monist or dualist model of consciousness because the time lag still applies. Awareness is not consciousness itself but rather a perception of consciousness and obviously we can't be aware of a thought until after we've thought it. Neuro-chemical processes occur at a finite speed.

The linear dimension of light moving from A to B is all well and good for its predictability until recognition precedes event in unpatterned and disjointed ways of unique causation independent of the known.

[Walker]

.



Consciousness is a state of being.


The intellect is one function of being human.





.

That's right.

[Arising_uk]

The linear dimension of light moving from A to B is all well and good for its predictability until recognition precedes event in unpatterned and disjointed ways of unique causation independent of the known.

No idea what this means but I thought that QED showed or hinted that Light travels all the path's possible from A to B and then 'chooses' the shortest? So not quite linear(although could be misunderstanding what you mean by "linear" here).

[Obvious Leo]

No idea what this means but I thought that QED showed or hinted that Light travels all the path's possible from A to B and then 'chooses' the shortest?

Correct. This is how the SM is conventionally interpreted because it is an inescapable feature of both the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formalisms used by Feynman to model QED mathematically. Nowadays the fact that this interpretation makes not the slightest sense is merely regarded as a a trivial inconvenience but Feynman himself was more deeply committed to the principles of his science. He realised that, useful though his "sum over possibilities" idea might be, it could only ever be seen as a convenient mathematical heuristic and NEVER as a physically real description of the sub-atomic world. Particles do not "decide" where they're going to be at some future time.

[Walker]

The linear dimension of light moving from A to B is all well and good for its predictability until recognition precedes event in unpatterned and disjointed ways of unique causation independent of the known.

No idea what this means but I thought that QED showed or hinted that Light travels all the path's possible from A to B and then 'chooses' the shortest? So not quite linear(although could be misunderstanding what you mean by "linear" here).

Linear … the distance between here and there, often assumed to be the briefest or shortest, comprised of connecting points in space each of which must be passed over in set sequence to traverse the time and distance.

Leo, did Feynman speak literally or figuratively about electrons moving through time?

Feynman on not understanding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sAfUpGmnm4