A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:18 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:25 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:11 pm
Talk about diversionary tactics AND lies. SHOW where you asked me simply to explain to you what I think Consciousness is?

Consciousness IS thee Awareness of ALL things, above and beyond just what 'you', human beings, think, believe, and see.

For example, Consciousness is the Awareness to find and SEE all faults and failings in what 'you', human beings, see and say. Just like what I have done and exposed here.

To 'measure' Consciousness, thee Awareness in one, is to find and SEE fault and correctness, right and wrong, truth and falsehoods in the words and writings of each "other", "ourselves".

Find the fault, the wrong, and falsehoods in what I say and expose them, so that 'we', readers, can measure and see the amount of Consciousness that is able to get through and past the writings under the label of "steveklinko".
Thank you for the Explanation. So how does your Explanation eliminate the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
For me to explain this, I first NEED to KNOW what the "hard problem of Consciousness" IS exactly.

Now, some could say, "if you do not know what it is, then how do you know it can be eliminated", or, some might say, "go and look it up", to which I would say, "I can look at many different writings and gain many different interpretations of what the so called "hard problem of Consciousness" IS, but then I am stuck with, which one do I solve and explain first. Also, I could solve and explain one interpretation that is NOTHING like the interpretation that 'you', "yourself", have.

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.

By the way, thank you profusely for the clarifying and challenging question/s. They are most welcome, and are refreshing.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:25 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:55 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:24 pm
To Know that Consciousness cannot be Known is to Know something about Consciousness.
Consciousness is a concept KNOWN. To know a concept, to know a KNOWN, you first have to BE.
To BE or BEING is just another word for consciousness which is the only knowing there is. Consciousness does not depend on a concept to BE...consciousness is primary and fundamental. On the other hand a concept depends on consciousness to be KNOWN.

Consciousness does not claim or take the position of the concept it knows. A 'person' is a known concept of the formless. The concept known knows nothing of it's existence because it doesn't have an existence apart from the consciousness in which is it KNOWN.

A concept cannot know anything because A CONCEPT is already known by consciousness. There is no separation or split between knower and known..There is no other knower/knowing apart from consciousness itself, you are that.
Consciousness does not need a concept in order to BE - but a concept needs a consciousness to be known, consciousness is the only knowing there is. The only reason consciousness which is formless becomes known to itself is when it artificially takes on the shape of it's own known concept, pretending to be that in the form of ''otherness'' albeit illusory, since the concept is no thing other than the formless appearing as an illusory form.

I cannot make any more clearer than that.


SteveKlinko wrote:
Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:24 pm
You must Know something about that unknowable Consciousness. How do you come to Know that Consciousness cannot be Known?
Consciousness cannot be known by what conciousness knows, aka a concept. Consciousness is the only knowing.

See above.


.
What you are saying might all be true, but it requires a complete surrender of any kind of Logical or Scientific thinking.
I would NEVER suggest surrendering or getting rid of 'logical thinking', I would, however, completely agree with surrendering and getting rid of "scientific thinking".

What I found even better than 'logical thinking' though is 'logical reasoning' instead. This way Truth comes to the forefront so much quicker and easier.

"scientific thinking" can ONLY LOOK AT "theories" to SEE if they can be falsified or verified. There is, however, way to much 'biases' involved in this, which obviously will sway the results one way or the other.

The "scientific method" thus "scientific thinking" has absolutely NO concern on what IS True, Right, and Correct. "scientific thinking" is based solely off and from assumptions and theories, and continually only makes more assumptions and theories. However, if EVERY assumption/theory, hitherto, which has been verified or falsified, was based off of or from a previous verified or falsified assumption/theory, but along the way just ONE of those assumptions/theories and its findings were WRONG, then the rest of them also can be just as WRONG as well. Add this dilemma to the fact of how strong and influential 'confirmation bias' plays a part, then, as they say, "all hell could break loose".

Now, for example, it is presumed, assumed, or theorized that what is known as a "big band" was the start/beginning of IT ALL, which is a HUGE assumption to even 'begin with', and because of a lot of people BELIEVE that it was 'thee beginning', these people will ONLY LOOK from the perspective that 'it all', "had a beginning", which will then influence how the "read" and "see" so called "data", which is then called "evidence" for "other conclusive" results, outcomes, and/or findings.

Whereas, through just plain 'logical reasoning' to begin with, which means leaving out ALL assumptions and beliefs, then from this Truly OPEN perspective, then what IS thee actual Truth of things is discovered, learned, SEEN, and understood, and very quickly I will add. For example, one Truth being the Universe NEVER began with a big bang. That bang, which is generally known as a "big" one, is just another part of thee One and only infinite-eternal Universe in action-Creation.

To be able to SEE what IS actually True, Right, and Correct, then there NEEDS to be NOTHING muddying, blurring, distorting, preventing, blocking, closing, nor stopping a completely OPEN and CLEAR view of ALL things.

Assuming and believing are the main and worst things for NOT being ABLE TO SEE crystal CLEAR.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
That might not be such a bad thing. I just can't reboot my Brain yet to think the way you do. But I am still trying to understand that Oneness thing that you are so sure of.
Imagine that Oneness is the Universe, Itself.

Just LOOKING AT the Universe, from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the text books and taught lessons from school or anywhere else up to this point. How could the Universe 'logically' begin or be confined?

Obviously some thing created EVERY thing, therefore there was ALWAYS some thing existing before another thing was created, and also obvious is even if there was a ring of furthest stars and/or objects, which we could imaginary draw a line from each one to form a completely closed system, the same 'stuff', the emptiness in between those "furthest" stars/objects does not also just stop and form a boundary. It would HAVE TO go on never-ending.

Now, we have, unless of course there is some thing to be questioned and/or disputed here, which I THINK I could very easily and very simply answer and/or overcome, very logically and reasonably, but anyway, now if we have this One infinite-eternal Universe, then what makes this One Universe a Oneness Thing is that it can ONLY be separated in thought. 'Try to' actually physically separate or split in any way possible.

Obviously in thought we can say and "see" that human body over "there", which is separate and split from this human body over "here". Now, of course, the "two" very distinct and separate things, which we have just created in thought, are "separated" and "split" from each "other". But this is just in 'thought' ONLY. If we are to LOOK AT this at what is called the "quantum scale" or LOOK AT this from the "quantum level", then the actual smallest known particle of matter, at any particular moment throughout human history, is separated from another particle of matter by what is known as space or nothing. Every 'thing' is separated by 'no thing' and this 'nothing', which is also goes by the name of 'space' is equally a part of the Universe as other (physical) things are. Now we might be able to see and/or separate physical things from each other but they are ALWAYS joined together by this 'space', which although is known as 'nothing' because it is not a physical thing, it is in and of itself 'some thing'. So, although physical things can be separate from each other the space that surrounds them and is between them can NOT be separated from the physical thing. Therefore, absolutely EVERY thing is joined together in and as One Thing. This One Thing, with is just the Universe, as the Universe is, literally, defined as ALL-THERE-IS, and this One Thing is what Oneness, Itself, IS. Inseparable and unable to be split, in the Truest sense of the words.

This then leads onto revealing and showing other Truths, but for now does this make sense at all, and if not, then I am able to explain in other ways so that it will make sense. Just as long as I am made Aware of what is not understand and/or what needs clarifying and what does not.

Also, to just 'reboot' the brain, 'you' just NEED to become more noticeable and Aware of the the words that 'you' are telling "yourself" and keep an 'Eye out on this' by just keep 'watching' what 'you' say. For example, above you wrote, "I just can't reboot my Brain "yet" ". This is only because you do not "yet" know how to. Once 'you' learn this very simple "trick" of how to do it, then 'you' will NEVER have to say those same words to "yourself".

If 'you' are LOOKING at things, without absolutely ANY assumption nor belief of what is true, right, nor correct of ANY thing, then HOW are 'you' SEEING things?

Are 'you' able to LOOK AT any thing as though it is right or wrong, true or false, or correct or incorrect, or are you just SEEING things for how they Really and Truly ARE?

If 'you' can ONLY SEE things for how they Truly ARE, then this is HOW discovering, learning, understanding, and SEEING the actual Truth of things can be done almost immediately.

This leads onto what Consciousness actually IS. Consciousness is the ability to SEE and KNOW ALL things for what 'they' Truly ARE, 'instantly'. Having this ability comes from a Truly OPEN Mind, which when FULLY discovered and understood what comes with this is the ALREADY KNOWING of ALL meaningful Answers in Life. Consciousness is BE-ing Aware of ALL things at ALL times, and KNOWING ALL-OF-THIS.

Consciousness is just the Oneness of Life, Itself, Self-actuated into KNOWING that It, Itself, is just God, Itself, in another name.

Consciousness has just NEEDED a species with enough intelligence for Itself to emerge into and BE-come Self-realize and to BE Its True Self.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:46 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:13 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
What you are saying might all be true, but it requires a complete surrender of any kind of Logical or Scientific thinking.
Logic and intellectual reason pertains to the thinking mind which is the dream of separation, an appearance within consciousness.
When it comes to truth about the subject of consciousness, you can only relate to what is true for you as consciousness itself.

'' In the begining there was desire,
which was the first seed of mind.
Sages having meditated in their hearts,
have discovered by their wisdom
the subtle connection of the existent with the non-existent. ''



Consciousness is Everything and No thing.
The Universe, Itself, is literally made up of EVERY physical thing and the No thing, between the physical things. Literally Every (separate) thing AND All of no thing combined together, or United together as One, is the One Everything, or Oneness.

Consciousness just a non visible part of this Oneness of absolutely Everything, (which obviously includes the Nothing).

Also, just like there are human beings, who are just the physical human body, with a non visible thinking/emotional part of that one, which when combined together makes up the one human being. The 'human' part is just the visible part. The 'being' part is, literally, just the 'being' part, which is obviously the non visible personality 'you' part, which again is obviously just the non visible thinking and emotional part of a 'human being'.

Just as there is a non visible being, thinking/emotional (spiritual as in not visible) part to a human being, so to there is Being part to the Universe, Itself also.

There is the obviously visible physical parts, and there is a Spiritual Being part. This is just Consciousness/God, Itself.

Just like a human being needs a working processing human brain to become conscious of its self, or self-aware. So to does the Universe, Itself, need a working processor, like a computer, which is just what a human brain is and does, to become Conscious of Its Self. The Universe just had to wait till a species had evolved enough to become Aware of its True Self.

See it is only just now, relatively speaking, when this is written that thee Answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' has just been discovered and is being better understood by more and more 'people'. Consciousness, like human beings, just takes time to evolve into discovering and KNOWING Its True Self. Once this is done then 'we' can BE, who and what 'we' were ALWAYS meant to BE. That is; just God, Itself.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:55 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:18 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:25 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:11 pm
Talk about diversionary tactics AND lies. SHOW where you asked me simply to explain to you what I think Consciousness is?

Consciousness IS thee Awareness of ALL things, above and beyond just what 'you', human beings, think, believe, and see.

For example, Consciousness is the Awareness to find and SEE all faults and failings in what 'you', human beings, see and say. Just like what I have done and exposed here.

To 'measure' Consciousness, thee Awareness in one, is to find and SEE fault and correctness, right and wrong, truth and falsehoods in the words and writings of each "other", "ourselves".

Find the fault, the wrong, and falsehoods in what I say and expose them, so that 'we', readers, can measure and see the amount of Consciousness that is able to get through and past the writings under the label of "steveklinko".
Thank you for the Explanation. So how does your Explanation eliminate the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
For me to explain this, I first NEED to KNOW what the "hard problem of Consciousness" IS exactly.

Now, some could say, "if you do not know what it is, then how do you know it can be eliminated", or, some might say, "go and look it up", to which I would say, "I can look at many different writings and gain many different interpretations of what the so called "hard problem of Consciousness" IS, but then I am stuck with, which one do I solve and explain first. Also, I could solve and explain one interpretation that is NOTHING like the interpretation that 'you', "yourself", have.

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.

By the way, thank you profusely for the clarifying and challenging question/s. They are most welcome, and are refreshing.
You're Welcome.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness was first described by David Chalmers 20 years ago. So if you want to look into it you should start with the Chalmers take on it. When I think about the Hard Problem I am always putting it in the context of Conscious Sensory Experience. I have tried to reverse engineer the Human Visual system and can trace the Experience of Redness to the fact that certain Neurons will fire for a Red Experience. We know 2 things:

1) Certain Neurons fire.
2) A Redness Experience happens.

Science has not been able to Explain how the firing of those certain Neurons can result in an Experience of Redness. This is my favorite illustration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Can you Explain what happens between the Neurons firing and the Redness Experience? You will have solved the Hard Problem if you can.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:59 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:13 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
What you are saying might all be true, but it requires a complete surrender of any kind of Logical or Scientific thinking.
Logic and intellectual reason pertains to the thinking mind which is the dream of separation, an appearance within consciousness.
When it comes to truth about the subject of consciousness, you can only relate to what is true for you as consciousness itself.

'' In the begining there was desire,
which was the first seed of mind.
Sages having meditated in their hearts,
have discovered by their wisdom
the subtle connection of the existent with the non-existent. ''



Consciousness is Everything and No thing.
I agree. But Science might be able to deal with Consciousness someday if it would only keep a more open Mind.
I do not mean to be to annoying but words are just SO IMPORTANT in how we LOOK AT and SEE the "world". 'science', itself, can NOT keep an "open Mind". 'science' is just an activity done by human beings.

Also, the Mind is ALWAYS Truly OPEN. Human beings just some/most times LOOK AT things from the already held views/thoughts, which are within the brain, which then distorts/closes of the Truly OPEN Mind, which the prevents/stops the ability to SEE things CLEARLY as can be. This is not about keeping an open or more open Mind, but just about learning how it is one's own previously gained and held thoughts, which is what closes one's "self" off from thee Truly OPEN Mind.

Instead of LOOKING AT things, from previously gained thoughts and just confirming or verifying biases and/or just falsely falsifying what is not believed, which is just a recurring theme, from the brain, and instead LOOKED FROM thee One and only Truly OPEN Mind only, and then using past experiences, which is just where ALL thoughts come from, to verify what you are now SEEING is True, Right, and Correct, then that is part of HOW thee actual Truth of things is discovered and/or learned.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:34 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:55 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:18 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 1:25 pm

Thank you for the Explanation. So how does your Explanation eliminate the Hard Problem of Consciousness?
For me to explain this, I first NEED to KNOW what the "hard problem of Consciousness" IS exactly.

Now, some could say, "if you do not know what it is, then how do you know it can be eliminated", or, some might say, "go and look it up", to which I would say, "I can look at many different writings and gain many different interpretations of what the so called "hard problem of Consciousness" IS, but then I am stuck with, which one do I solve and explain first. Also, I could solve and explain one interpretation that is NOTHING like the interpretation that 'you', "yourself", have.

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.

By the way, thank you profusely for the clarifying and challenging question/s. They are most welcome, and are refreshing.
You're Welcome.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness was first described by David Chalmers 20 years ago. So if you want to look into it you should start with the Chalmers take on it. When I think about the Hard Problem I am always putting it in the context of Conscious Sensory Experience. I have tried to reverse engineer the Human Visual system and can trace the Experience of Redness to the fact that certain Neurons will fire for a Red Experience. We know 2 things:

1) Certain Neurons fire.
2) A Redness Experience happens.

Science has not been able to Explain how the firing of those certain Neurons can result in an Experience of Redness. This is my favorite illustration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Can you Explain what happens between the Neurons firing and the Redness Experience? You will have solved the Hard Problem if you can.
Since you did NOT ask any question about what the "hard problem of Consciousness" is, to you, I will NOT reply to that. I explained WHY in my previous post.

However, I first suggest NEVER associate a 'neuron' firing with an assumed thought.

The speed of how quickly thoughts come and go, appear and disappear, and just change can NOT be kept up with. So, hitherto, when this is written, I would question if there is a machine that can accurately keep up to, and with, thoughts themselves?. Even the time lag between human beings to inform each other about what thought is appearing at each precise moment is lost by the time it is relayed to the "other". But, honestly, in saying this I have NOT been involved in any experience that I could have 'tried' this out for "myself", so I could be completely WRONG on this point. But the accuracy of neurons firing on a screen and what actual thoughts are coming and going within the body I would put into great questioning. I also wonder why human beings are so fascinated about the brain itself and the neurons firing, when what the MOST IMPORTANT thing here IS 'thoughts', themselves.

Thoughts ARE what controls human behavior, and it is human behavior and misbehavior that Creates ALL we do. What would be much better studied is THOUGHTS, themselves, rather than any other thing. But adult human beings do NOT like to LOOK AT and STUDY 'thoughts', themselves. This is because they FEAR the Truth that they will reveal about "themselves". LOOKING AT 'thoughts' is literally LOOKING at 'you', and who wants to LOOK AT and SEE their True "selves"?

As for the 'redness' what I KNOW IS, the experience of 'redness' is NOT because of neurons firing, but because of the plain and simple FACT of past experiences. However, 'you' might be thinking of or talking about some whole completely different issue in regards to 'redness', as I said I NEED to KNOW one's own personal perspective in order to make things CLEAR to them and/or to CLARIFY things, for them. Each person SEES things differently. But anyway, in regards to 'redness', from another perspective, 'redness' is NOT some actual indisputable thing. 'redness' is just consensus. Whether absolutely ANY thing in the Universe is true or false, right or wrong, and/or correct or incorrect is solely due to consensus.

The Truth IS we will NEVER know if your 'redness' is actually my "blueness" but if we both AGREE that it is the SAME color, then there is NOTHING to worry about, and there will be Peace and Harmony in this regard.

So, the experience of 'redness' is solely due to past experiences, and how 'you' were taught to see or experience things. Whether 'redness' remains or not is then due solely to agreement.

I can NOT explain what happens between the neurons firing and the redness experience, but I still have NO clue as to WHAT any one wants explained. All I can say is neurons fire and there are thoughts. WHY does there have to be or need to be an explanation for each and EVERY firing and each and EVERY experience or thought?

There is NO human being that can keep up with thee own thoughts coming and going within that body, let alone being able to separate each one and distinguishing it with one of how many neurons are firing at any given moment?

Thoughts exist SOLELY because of past experiences. What adult human beings expose younger human beings to exactly, would best be of far more concern and best be of far more importance if adults were really interested in fixing and solving "problems" in the world.

You finished off by saying, "You will have solved the hard problem if you can". I still have absolutely NO idea in the world what the so called "hard problem" IS, from your perspective?

Maybe if I repeat what I said earlier this might help in being better understood;

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:46 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 8:55 am

Consciousness is a concept KNOWN. To know a concept, to know a KNOWN, you first have to BE.
To BE or BEING is just another word for consciousness which is the only knowing there is. Consciousness does not depend on a concept to BE...consciousness is primary and fundamental. On the other hand a concept depends on consciousness to be KNOWN.

Consciousness does not claim or take the position of the concept it knows. A 'person' is a known concept of the formless. The concept known knows nothing of it's existence because it doesn't have an existence apart from the consciousness in which is it KNOWN.

A concept cannot know anything because A CONCEPT is already known by consciousness. There is no separation or split between knower and known..There is no other knower/knowing apart from consciousness itself, you are that.
Consciousness does not need a concept in order to BE - but a concept needs a consciousness to be known, consciousness is the only knowing there is. The only reason consciousness which is formless becomes known to itself is when it artificially takes on the shape of it's own known concept, pretending to be that in the form of ''otherness'' albeit illusory, since the concept is no thing other than the formless appearing as an illusory form.

I cannot make any more clearer than that.




Consciousness cannot be known by what conciousness knows, aka a concept. Consciousness is the only knowing.

See above.


.
What you are saying might all be true, but it requires a complete surrender of any kind of Logical or Scientific thinking.
I would NEVER suggest surrendering or getting rid of 'logical thinking', I would, however, completely agree with surrendering and getting rid of "scientific thinking".

What I found even better than 'logical thinking' though is 'logical reasoning' instead. This way Truth comes to the forefront so much quicker and easier.

"scientific thinking" can ONLY LOOK AT "theories" to SEE if they can be falsified or verified. There is, however, way to much 'biases' involved in this, which obviously will sway the results one way or the other.

The "scientific method" thus "scientific thinking" has absolutely NO concern on what IS True, Right, and Correct. "scientific thinking" is based solely off and from assumptions and theories, and continually only makes more assumptions and theories. However, if EVERY assumption/theory, hitherto, which has been verified or falsified, was based off of or from a previous verified or falsified assumption/theory, but along the way just ONE of those assumptions/theories and its findings were WRONG, then the rest of them also can be just as WRONG as well. Add this dilemma to the fact of how strong and influential 'confirmation bias' plays a part, then, as they say, "all hell could break loose".

Now, for example, it is presumed, assumed, or theorized that what is known as a "big band" was the start/beginning of IT ALL, which is a HUGE assumption to even 'begin with', and because of a lot of people BELIEVE that it was 'thee beginning', these people will ONLY LOOK from the perspective that 'it all', "had a beginning", which will then influence how the "read" and "see" so called "data", which is then called "evidence" for "other conclusive" results, outcomes, and/or findings.

Whereas, through just plain 'logical reasoning' to begin with, which means leaving out ALL assumptions and beliefs, then from this Truly OPEN perspective, then what IS thee actual Truth of things is discovered, learned, SEEN, and understood, and very quickly I will add. For example, one Truth being the Universe NEVER began with a big bang. That bang, which is generally known as a "big" one, is just another part of thee One and only infinite-eternal Universe in action-Creation.

To be able to SEE what IS actually True, Right, and Correct, then there NEEDS to be NOTHING muddying, blurring, distorting, preventing, blocking, closing, nor stopping a completely OPEN and CLEAR view of ALL things.

Assuming and believing are the main and worst things for NOT being ABLE TO SEE crystal CLEAR.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
That might not be such a bad thing. I just can't reboot my Brain yet to think the way you do. But I am still trying to understand that Oneness thing that you are so sure of.
Imagine that Oneness is the Universe, Itself.

Just LOOKING AT the Universe, from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the text books and taught lessons from school or anywhere else up to this point. How could the Universe 'logically' begin or be confined?

Obviously some thing created EVERY thing, therefore there was ALWAYS some thing existing before another thing was created, and also obvious is even if there was a ring of furthest stars and/or objects, which we could imaginary draw a line from each one to form a completely closed system, the same 'stuff', the emptiness in between those "furthest" stars/objects does not also just stop and form a boundary. It would HAVE TO go on never-ending.

Now, we have, unless of course there is some thing to be questioned and/or disputed here, which I THINK I could very easily and very simply answer and/or overcome, very logically and reasonably, but anyway, now if we have this One infinite-eternal Universe, then what makes this One Universe a Oneness Thing is that it can ONLY be separated in thought. 'Try to' actually physically separate or split in any way possible.

Obviously in thought we can say and "see" that human body over "there", which is separate and split from this human body over "here". Now, of course, the "two" very distinct and separate things, which we have just created in thought, are "separated" and "split" from each "other". But this is just in 'thought' ONLY. If we are to LOOK AT this at what is called the "quantum scale" or LOOK AT this from the "quantum level", then the actual smallest known particle of matter, at any particular moment throughout human history, is separated from another particle of matter by what is known as space or nothing. Every 'thing' is separated by 'no thing' and this 'nothing', which is also goes by the name of 'space' is equally a part of the Universe as other (physical) things are. Now we might be able to see and/or separate physical things from each other but they are ALWAYS joined together by this 'space', which although is known as 'nothing' because it is not a physical thing, it is in and of itself 'some thing'. So, although physical things can be separate from each other the space that surrounds them and is between them can NOT be separated from the physical thing. Therefore, absolutely EVERY thing is joined together in and as One Thing. This One Thing, with is just the Universe, as the Universe is, literally, defined as ALL-THERE-IS, and this One Thing is what Oneness, Itself, IS. Inseparable and unable to be split, in the Truest sense of the words.

This then leads onto revealing and showing other Truths, but for now does this make sense at all, and if not, then I am able to explain in other ways so that it will make sense. Just as long as I am made Aware of what is not understand and/or what needs clarifying and what does not.

Also, to just 'reboot' the brain, 'you' just NEED to become more noticeable and Aware of the the words that 'you' are telling "yourself" and keep an 'Eye out on this' by just keep 'watching' what 'you' say. For example, above you wrote, "I just can't reboot my Brain "yet" ". This is only because you do not "yet" know how to. Once 'you' learn this very simple "trick" of how to do it, then 'you' will NEVER have to say those same words to "yourself".

If 'you' are LOOKING at things, without absolutely ANY assumption nor belief of what is true, right, nor correct of ANY thing, then HOW are 'you' SEEING things?

Are 'you' able to LOOK AT any thing as though it is right or wrong, true or false, or correct or incorrect, or are you just SEEING things for how they Really and Truly ARE?

If 'you' can ONLY SEE things for how they Truly ARE, then this is HOW discovering, learning, understanding, and SEEING the actual Truth of things can be done almost immediately.

This leads onto what Consciousness actually IS. Consciousness is the ability to SEE and KNOW ALL things for what 'they' Truly ARE, 'instantly'. Having this ability comes from a Truly OPEN Mind, which when FULLY discovered and understood what comes with this is the ALREADY KNOWING of ALL meaningful Answers in Life. Consciousness is BE-ing Aware of ALL things at ALL times, and KNOWING ALL-OF-THIS.

Consciousness is just the Oneness of Life, Itself, Self-actuated into KNOWING that It, Itself, is just God, Itself, in another name.

Consciousness has just NEEDED a species with enough intelligence for Itself to emerge into and BE-come Self-realize and to BE Its True Self.
I have tried to understand the Oneness thing for many years. Thank you for your help but I still don't get it. I will continue to think about what you say. There is always that thing and this thing and all the other things out there. I cannot just sit and assume Oneness because I don't perceive Oneness but rather I perceive Multiplicity. I am stuck right from the beginning of your argument.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm

Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:34 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:55 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:18 pm


For me to explain this, I first NEED to KNOW what the "hard problem of Consciousness" IS exactly.

Now, some could say, "if you do not know what it is, then how do you know it can be eliminated", or, some might say, "go and look it up", to which I would say, "I can look at many different writings and gain many different interpretations of what the so called "hard problem of Consciousness" IS, but then I am stuck with, which one do I solve and explain first. Also, I could solve and explain one interpretation that is NOTHING like the interpretation that 'you', "yourself", have.

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.

By the way, thank you profusely for the clarifying and challenging question/s. They are most welcome, and are refreshing.
You're Welcome.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness was first described by David Chalmers 20 years ago. So if you want to look into it you should start with the Chalmers take on it. When I think about the Hard Problem I am always putting it in the context of Conscious Sensory Experience. I have tried to reverse engineer the Human Visual system and can trace the Experience of Redness to the fact that certain Neurons will fire for a Red Experience. We know 2 things:

1) Certain Neurons fire.
2) A Redness Experience happens.

Science has not been able to Explain how the firing of those certain Neurons can result in an Experience of Redness. This is my favorite illustration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Can you Explain what happens between the Neurons firing and the Redness Experience? You will have solved the Hard Problem if you can.
Since you did NOT ask any question about what the "hard problem of Consciousness" is, to you, I will NOT reply to that. I explained WHY in my previous post.

However, I first suggest NEVER associate a 'neuron' firing with an assumed thought.

The speed of how quickly thoughts come and go, appear and disappear, and just change can NOT be kept up with. So, hitherto, when this is written, I would question if there is a machine that can accurately keep up to, and with, thoughts themselves?. Even the time lag between human beings to inform each other about what thought is appearing at each precise moment is lost by the time it is relayed to the "other". But, honestly, in saying this I have NOT been involved in any experience that I could have 'tried' this out for "myself", so I could be completely WRONG on this point. But the accuracy of neurons firing on a screen and what actual thoughts are coming and going within the body I would put into great questioning. I also wonder why human beings are so fascinated about the brain itself and the neurons firing, when what the MOST IMPORTANT thing here IS 'thoughts', themselves.

Thoughts ARE what controls human behavior, and it is human behavior and misbehavior that Creates ALL we do. What would be much better studied is THOUGHTS, themselves, rather than any other thing. But adult human beings do NOT like to LOOK AT and STUDY 'thoughts', themselves. This is because they FEAR the Truth that they will reveal about "themselves". LOOKING AT 'thoughts' is literally LOOKING at 'you', and who wants to LOOK AT and SEE their True "selves"?

As for the 'redness' what I KNOW IS, the experience of 'redness' is NOT because of neurons firing, but because of the plain and simple FACT of past experiences. However, 'you' might be thinking of or talking about some whole completely different issue in regards to 'redness', as I said I NEED to KNOW one's own personal perspective in order to make things CLEAR to them and/or to CLARIFY things, for them. Each person SEES things differently. But anyway, in regards to 'redness', from another perspective, 'redness' is NOT some actual indisputable thing. 'redness' is just consensus. Whether absolutely ANY thing in the Universe is true or false, right or wrong, and/or correct or incorrect is solely due to consensus.

The Truth IS we will NEVER know if your 'redness' is actually my "blueness" but if we both AGREE that it is the SAME color, then there is NOTHING to worry about, and there will be Peace and Harmony in this regard.

So, the experience of 'redness' is solely due to past experiences, and how 'you' were taught to see or experience things. Whether 'redness' remains or not is then due solely to agreement.

I can NOT explain what happens between the neurons firing and the redness experience, but I still have NO clue as to WHAT any one wants explained. All I can say is neurons fire and there are thoughts. WHY does there have to be or need to be an explanation for each and EVERY firing and each and EVERY experience or thought?

There is NO human being that can keep up with thee own thoughts coming and going within that body, let alone being able to separate each one and distinguishing it with one of how many neurons are firing at any given moment?

Thoughts exist SOLELY because of past experiences. What adult human beings expose younger human beings to exactly, would best be of far more concern and best be of far more importance if adults were really interested in fixing and solving "problems" in the world.

You finished off by saying, "You will have solved the hard problem if you can". I still have absolutely NO idea in the world what the so called "hard problem" IS, from your perspective?

Maybe if I repeat what I said earlier this might help in being better understood;

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.
I use Redness as a shorthand for thinking about Color Experience in general. It does not matter if you see Blueness when I see Redness. The issue is how do we have a Color Experience, whatever the Color might be?

The Illustration of the Hard Problem that I gave you is my best shot. I cannot give a better Illustration. If that does not show you what the Hard Problem is then we are at a standoff.

Ill keep trying to understand Oneness and you can keep trying to understand the Hard Problem.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:06 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:46 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:25 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm

What you are saying might all be true, but it requires a complete surrender of any kind of Logical or Scientific thinking.
I would NEVER suggest surrendering or getting rid of 'logical thinking', I would, however, completely agree with surrendering and getting rid of "scientific thinking".

What I found even better than 'logical thinking' though is 'logical reasoning' instead. This way Truth comes to the forefront so much quicker and easier.

"scientific thinking" can ONLY LOOK AT "theories" to SEE if they can be falsified or verified. There is, however, way to much 'biases' involved in this, which obviously will sway the results one way or the other.

The "scientific method" thus "scientific thinking" has absolutely NO concern on what IS True, Right, and Correct. "scientific thinking" is based solely off and from assumptions and theories, and continually only makes more assumptions and theories. However, if EVERY assumption/theory, hitherto, which has been verified or falsified, was based off of or from a previous verified or falsified assumption/theory, but along the way just ONE of those assumptions/theories and its findings were WRONG, then the rest of them also can be just as WRONG as well. Add this dilemma to the fact of how strong and influential 'confirmation bias' plays a part, then, as they say, "all hell could break loose".

Now, for example, it is presumed, assumed, or theorized that what is known as a "big band" was the start/beginning of IT ALL, which is a HUGE assumption to even 'begin with', and because of a lot of people BELIEVE that it was 'thee beginning', these people will ONLY LOOK from the perspective that 'it all', "had a beginning", which will then influence how the "read" and "see" so called "data", which is then called "evidence" for "other conclusive" results, outcomes, and/or findings.

Whereas, through just plain 'logical reasoning' to begin with, which means leaving out ALL assumptions and beliefs, then from this Truly OPEN perspective, then what IS thee actual Truth of things is discovered, learned, SEEN, and understood, and very quickly I will add. For example, one Truth being the Universe NEVER began with a big bang. That bang, which is generally known as a "big" one, is just another part of thee One and only infinite-eternal Universe in action-Creation.

To be able to SEE what IS actually True, Right, and Correct, then there NEEDS to be NOTHING muddying, blurring, distorting, preventing, blocking, closing, nor stopping a completely OPEN and CLEAR view of ALL things.

Assuming and believing are the main and worst things for NOT being ABLE TO SEE crystal CLEAR.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
That might not be such a bad thing. I just can't reboot my Brain yet to think the way you do. But I am still trying to understand that Oneness thing that you are so sure of.
Imagine that Oneness is the Universe, Itself.

Just LOOKING AT the Universe, from a Truly OPEN perspective, and NOT from the text books and taught lessons from school or anywhere else up to this point. How could the Universe 'logically' begin or be confined?

Obviously some thing created EVERY thing, therefore there was ALWAYS some thing existing before another thing was created, and also obvious is even if there was a ring of furthest stars and/or objects, which we could imaginary draw a line from each one to form a completely closed system, the same 'stuff', the emptiness in between those "furthest" stars/objects does not also just stop and form a boundary. It would HAVE TO go on never-ending.

Now, we have, unless of course there is some thing to be questioned and/or disputed here, which I THINK I could very easily and very simply answer and/or overcome, very logically and reasonably, but anyway, now if we have this One infinite-eternal Universe, then what makes this One Universe a Oneness Thing is that it can ONLY be separated in thought. 'Try to' actually physically separate or split in any way possible.

Obviously in thought we can say and "see" that human body over "there", which is separate and split from this human body over "here". Now, of course, the "two" very distinct and separate things, which we have just created in thought, are "separated" and "split" from each "other". But this is just in 'thought' ONLY. If we are to LOOK AT this at what is called the "quantum scale" or LOOK AT this from the "quantum level", then the actual smallest known particle of matter, at any particular moment throughout human history, is separated from another particle of matter by what is known as space or nothing. Every 'thing' is separated by 'no thing' and this 'nothing', which is also goes by the name of 'space' is equally a part of the Universe as other (physical) things are. Now we might be able to see and/or separate physical things from each other but they are ALWAYS joined together by this 'space', which although is known as 'nothing' because it is not a physical thing, it is in and of itself 'some thing'. So, although physical things can be separate from each other the space that surrounds them and is between them can NOT be separated from the physical thing. Therefore, absolutely EVERY thing is joined together in and as One Thing. This One Thing, with is just the Universe, as the Universe is, literally, defined as ALL-THERE-IS, and this One Thing is what Oneness, Itself, IS. Inseparable and unable to be split, in the Truest sense of the words.

This then leads onto revealing and showing other Truths, but for now does this make sense at all, and if not, then I am able to explain in other ways so that it will make sense. Just as long as I am made Aware of what is not understand and/or what needs clarifying and what does not.

Also, to just 'reboot' the brain, 'you' just NEED to become more noticeable and Aware of the the words that 'you' are telling "yourself" and keep an 'Eye out on this' by just keep 'watching' what 'you' say. For example, above you wrote, "I just can't reboot my Brain "yet" ". This is only because you do not "yet" know how to. Once 'you' learn this very simple "trick" of how to do it, then 'you' will NEVER have to say those same words to "yourself".

If 'you' are LOOKING at things, without absolutely ANY assumption nor belief of what is true, right, nor correct of ANY thing, then HOW are 'you' SEEING things?

Are 'you' able to LOOK AT any thing as though it is right or wrong, true or false, or correct or incorrect, or are you just SEEING things for how they Really and Truly ARE?

If 'you' can ONLY SEE things for how they Truly ARE, then this is HOW discovering, learning, understanding, and SEEING the actual Truth of things can be done almost immediately.

This leads onto what Consciousness actually IS. Consciousness is the ability to SEE and KNOW ALL things for what 'they' Truly ARE, 'instantly'. Having this ability comes from a Truly OPEN Mind, which when FULLY discovered and understood what comes with this is the ALREADY KNOWING of ALL meaningful Answers in Life. Consciousness is BE-ing Aware of ALL things at ALL times, and KNOWING ALL-OF-THIS.

Consciousness is just the Oneness of Life, Itself, Self-actuated into KNOWING that It, Itself, is just God, Itself, in another name.

Consciousness has just NEEDED a species with enough intelligence for Itself to emerge into and BE-come Self-realize and to BE Its True Self.
I have tried to understand the Oneness thing for many years. Thank you for your help but I still don't get it. I will continue to think about what you say. There is always that thing and this thing and all the other things out there.
Yes there will always be a 'this' and a 'that', but they only exist because they are separated in concept. Thought, itself, categorizes Oneness into groups of separate things. This happens so quickly and so simply because eyes see a different collection of physical particles of matter as one separated group, so there will be a perception of 'that' thing and 'this' thing. And, TELLING "yourself" there will ALWAYS be 'this' thing and 'that' things, literally MEANS, to you' there ALWAYS will be 'this' thing and 'that' thing, and all the 'other' things out there, no matter what happens and which way you look.

'you' obviously would not and could not do what 'you' TELL "yourself" is the Truth of things, and especially so when 'you' BELIEVE wholeheartedly that 'it' IS TRUE. For example; If you BELIEVE there will ALWAYS be some 'thing', then there will ALWAYS be 'that' thing. As long as 'you' BELIEVE some thing is true, then 'it' MUST BE TRUE.

The actual words we use to "ourselves" play a far more important role in what we actually SEE, PERCEIVE, and BEHAVE/ACT than is fully realized yet, when this is written. So, for example, if we say some thing like; "I have 'tried to' ...", then that MEANS we have not just 'done it'. i, for example, could 'try' and 'wash up the dishes', but it is only when i really WANT TO do it, when i can actually do it, and then by actually 'doing it', is when i have actually done or achieved some thing. This applies for 'understanding', ONLY when one really WANTS TO understand some thing, is when they actually can understand some thing, and then by just learning how to understand 'things', is when understanding, itself, is actually being done or is achieved.

Obviously what is not rational, not logical, and not reasonable is not expected to be understood, but once 'learning how to understand', and that knowledge and KNOW-HOW is gained and understood, then understanding ALL things, just comes naturally and just naturally flows as well. Also, if what is not being understood, then it is because it is not rational, not logical, and/or not reasonable, and if that is the case, then that just needs to be pointed out to the one who is WANTING some thing to be understood by "another". And, if some thing is not being understood just because how it is being explained is not clear, then all that needs to be done is just ask clarifying questions or make known WHAT is not understood and WHY, then WHAT needs to be explained and HOW it needs to be explained can be done.

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:46 pm
I cannot just sit and assume Oneness
That is great, I suggest to NEVER 'assume' ANY thing at all.

Now imagine looking at a human body. Is it one human body?

If you can see the Oneness of that, then in reality it can not be separated, correct? (Unless of course we cut it up into pieces and split it up into separate bits or groups.)

But in concept, or in thought, that body can very easily be "cut up" and split into different separate groups, for example; arms, legs, torso, head, fingers, toes, toe nails, knees, elbows, heart, liver, kidney, lips, nose, eyes, eye lashes, eye brows, the hair, each individual strand of hair, which is different and separate from each other, but EACH of those now individual separate things were only a few seconds ago just One human body, which could not actually be separated (without a knife) from the Oneness, of the human body.

That 'thing' and this 'thing' are only conceptually separated 'things', which make up the WHOLE 'thing', whatever that may be. The Universe, Itself, is One Thing, which can not be separated in any way, (even with a knife), but It can very easily be separated in concept, or in thought.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Mon Dec 16, 2019 12:56 pm
because I don't perceive Oneness but rather I perceive Multiplicity. I am stuck right from the beginning of your argument.
Did you notice, or are you Aware of, the words just used here you "don't perceive one thing but rather you perceive the "other" thing". 'you', through concept, and/or thought, have created a separated " 'one' or the 'other' " situation. So, the next concept/thought is there HAS TO be SEPARATION between those "two things", and so they can NOT be just One, or Oneness.

I am not sure if my example of the human body worked, but it is extremely possible, and very easy and very simple also, to just SEE and perceive Oneness and multiplicity as both being, or playing, a part in the actual Truth of things.

I totally understand and agree that there is a perception of multiplicity, as there is a large number or variety of named or labelled 'things' existing, and each of these visible things are separated by nothing or space, from the smallest particles of matter all the way up to the largest objects there are, this perception of multiplicity and separation exists. But what joins ALL these visible named 'things' together is 'space'. The space between physical objects, however, can not be separated, itself. So, the edge or boundary of separation of physical named 'things' is where the space "touches" or interacts with the physical object/matter, itself. The Universe is made up equally of the visibly, separately named physical 'things' AND the perceive nothing named 'space'. But, if there is NO way to separate space from the boundary of each visibly, separated named 'thing', then there is NO way that thee Universe could be separated in any way. Not being able to be actually separated, other than in conceptual thought is Oneness. The Universe, Itself, is unable to be actually separated into 'things', other than in conceptual thought.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:32 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
Age wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 4:34 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:55 pm

You're Welcome.

The Hard Problem of Consciousness was first described by David Chalmers 20 years ago. So if you want to look into it you should start with the Chalmers take on it. When I think about the Hard Problem I am always putting it in the context of Conscious Sensory Experience. I have tried to reverse engineer the Human Visual system and can trace the Experience of Redness to the fact that certain Neurons will fire for a Red Experience. We know 2 things:

1) Certain Neurons fire.
2) A Redness Experience happens.

Science has not been able to Explain how the firing of those certain Neurons can result in an Experience of Redness. This is my favorite illustration of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. Can you Explain what happens between the Neurons firing and the Redness Experience? You will have solved the Hard Problem if you can.
Since you did NOT ask any question about what the "hard problem of Consciousness" is, to you, I will NOT reply to that. I explained WHY in my previous post.

However, I first suggest NEVER associate a 'neuron' firing with an assumed thought.

The speed of how quickly thoughts come and go, appear and disappear, and just change can NOT be kept up with. So, hitherto, when this is written, I would question if there is a machine that can accurately keep up to, and with, thoughts themselves?. Even the time lag between human beings to inform each other about what thought is appearing at each precise moment is lost by the time it is relayed to the "other". But, honestly, in saying this I have NOT been involved in any experience that I could have 'tried' this out for "myself", so I could be completely WRONG on this point. But the accuracy of neurons firing on a screen and what actual thoughts are coming and going within the body I would put into great questioning. I also wonder why human beings are so fascinated about the brain itself and the neurons firing, when what the MOST IMPORTANT thing here IS 'thoughts', themselves.

Thoughts ARE what controls human behavior, and it is human behavior and misbehavior that Creates ALL we do. What would be much better studied is THOUGHTS, themselves, rather than any other thing. But adult human beings do NOT like to LOOK AT and STUDY 'thoughts', themselves. This is because they FEAR the Truth that they will reveal about "themselves". LOOKING AT 'thoughts' is literally LOOKING at 'you', and who wants to LOOK AT and SEE their True "selves"?

As for the 'redness' what I KNOW IS, the experience of 'redness' is NOT because of neurons firing, but because of the plain and simple FACT of past experiences. However, 'you' might be thinking of or talking about some whole completely different issue in regards to 'redness', as I said I NEED to KNOW one's own personal perspective in order to make things CLEAR to them and/or to CLARIFY things, for them. Each person SEES things differently. But anyway, in regards to 'redness', from another perspective, 'redness' is NOT some actual indisputable thing. 'redness' is just consensus. Whether absolutely ANY thing in the Universe is true or false, right or wrong, and/or correct or incorrect is solely due to consensus.

The Truth IS we will NEVER know if your 'redness' is actually my "blueness" but if we both AGREE that it is the SAME color, then there is NOTHING to worry about, and there will be Peace and Harmony in this regard.

So, the experience of 'redness' is solely due to past experiences, and how 'you' were taught to see or experience things. Whether 'redness' remains or not is then due solely to agreement.

I can NOT explain what happens between the neurons firing and the redness experience, but I still have NO clue as to WHAT any one wants explained. All I can say is neurons fire and there are thoughts. WHY does there have to be or need to be an explanation for each and EVERY firing and each and EVERY experience or thought?

There is NO human being that can keep up with thee own thoughts coming and going within that body, let alone being able to separate each one and distinguishing it with one of how many neurons are firing at any given moment?

Thoughts exist SOLELY because of past experiences. What adult human beings expose younger human beings to exactly, would best be of far more concern and best be of far more importance if adults were really interested in fixing and solving "problems" in the world.

You finished off by saying, "You will have solved the hard problem if you can". I still have absolutely NO idea in the world what the so called "hard problem" IS, from your perspective?

Maybe if I repeat what I said earlier this might help in being better understood;

So, to make this process as quick, and as simple and as easy as possible, What do 'you' see is the "hard problem of Consciousness"?

Then I will be able to SEE if I can explain how MY explanation could or would eliminate YOUR version/interpretation of the "hard problem of Consciousness". Then, if MY explanation can NOT eliminate that "problem", then I will tell 'you', and if MY explanation can eliminate that "problem", then I will also tell you, and tell you how.

Also, remember to me, EVERY "problem" is just a question posed for a 'solution'. Therefore, I can NOT solve a "problem" if it is, for example, just expressed as "the hard problem of Consciousness". I NEED to KNOW what the actual question IS before I can answer and/or solve it.
I use Redness as a shorthand for thinking about Color Experience in general. It does not matter if you see Blueness when I see Redness.
Okay.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
The issue is how do we have a Color Experience, whatever the Color might be?
I still do NOT see any issue here, nor WHY there would or could even be an issue here. Besides the fact that an issue is being made here, when one is NOT at all needed anywhere.

However, HOW we have a 'color experience', or ANY other experience for that matter, is quite simply BECAUSE there are up to five senses of the body, these senses relay the outside of the body "world", into the inside of the body "world". These experiences, become thoughts. The information transferred from the 'out' to the 'in', through any of the five senses, gets transformed into knowledge, and stored as thought, which then influences how we then 'experience' the "world".

As I said earlier 'color experience', or ANY particular experience, itself, is due to past experiences. All experiences occur because the body has up to five senses, which from the inception of those senses, 'experiencing' began.

'you' experience because of the up to five senses of the human body, and 'you' 'color experience' because of those past experiences that the body has had. This is really this simple and easy to understand.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
The Illustration of the Hard Problem that I gave you is my best shot.
But you NEVER gave an illustration of the absolutely wrongly worded and so called "hard" "problem". 'you' did, however, direct me to the name of some human being and expected me to work out what it is that you are looking for and wanting solved.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
I cannot give a better Illustration.
I am SURE you could if you really WANTED TO.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
If that does not show you what the Hard Problem is then we are at a standoff.
Lol

If you can not pose a question to some one, then what is it that you want them to answer or solve?

For example, I want you to solve the "problem of Life", and now it is up to 'you' to guess and/or work out what that so called "problem" is exactly.

That was the best illustration I can give of the "problem" that I want you to solve, I can not give a better illustration, and if that illustration does not show 'you' what the "problem of Life" is, then we are at a standoff, okay?
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 6:19 pm
Ill keep trying to understand Oneness and you can keep trying to understand the Hard Problem.
But I do NOT care one iota about any so called "hard problem", so there is absolutely NOTHING that I want to understand in relation to "it". Therefore, I will NOT even look into it anymore here now.

Remember it is 'you' that appears very concerned about some "problem" and cares about "it". I do NOT. So, if you WANT TO pose a question in relation to this or any thing else, then I will respond. But if you do NOT, then I have no issue nor care about some perceived and made up "hard problem".

Also, as I mentioned earlier instead of just 'trying to' understand some thing, and just 'doing it' instead, then that will speed the process up, for you, considerably.

There is, after all, nothing hard nor complex at all in understanding Oneness, Itself.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:58 am

Age wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:32 am

But I do NOT care one iota about any so called "hard problem", so there is absolutely NOTHING that I want to understand in relation to "it". Therefore, I will NOT even look into it anymore here now.

Remember it is 'you' that appears very concerned about some "problem" and cares about "it". I do NOT. So, if you WANT TO pose a question in relation to this or any thing else, then I will respond. But if you do NOT, then I have no issue nor care about some perceived and made up "hard problem".

Also, as I mentioned earlier instead of just 'trying to' understand some thing, and just 'doing it' instead, then that will speed the process up, for you, considerably.

There is, after all, nothing hard nor complex at all in understanding Oneness, Itself.
You say you don't care about the Hard Problem and will not look into it anymore. Since I thought this conversation was about the Hard Problem I guess that is the end of this conversation. I'm done. Bye.

Dontaskme
Posts: 8066
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:01 am

SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
I agree. But Science might be able to deal with Consciousness someday if it would only keep a more open Mind.
Only when that open mind is concept free will it see what is Consciousness.

In ''thought free'' awareness it can be seen that Consciousness cannot see Consciousness, it will see that Consciousness is the seeing that cannot be seen.

Same aplies to KNOWING. Consciousness is the knowing that cannot be known.

This is ONENESS.

Science already knows this knowledge, it is a knowledge that can only inform the illusory nature of reality.

.

Age
Posts: 4396
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by Age » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:49 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:58 am
Age wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:32 am

But I do NOT care one iota about any so called "hard problem", so there is absolutely NOTHING that I want to understand in relation to "it". Therefore, I will NOT even look into it anymore here now.

Remember it is 'you' that appears very concerned about some "problem" and cares about "it". I do NOT. So, if you WANT TO pose a question in relation to this or any thing else, then I will respond. But if you do NOT, then I have no issue nor care about some perceived and made up "hard problem".

Also, as I mentioned earlier instead of just 'trying to' understand some thing, and just 'doing it' instead, then that will speed the process up, for you, considerably.

There is, after all, nothing hard nor complex at all in understanding Oneness, Itself.
You say you don't care about the Hard Problem and will not look into it anymore.
Yes this is true. I will not look into what you want me to look for, and then describe and explain for you, for two reasons;
1. because I am not going to do for you what you obviously have clearly shown that you can not do for "yourself".
2. To me there is NO so called "hard problem" because I already have the solution. That so called "problem" has already been solved, and thus also Answered as well.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:58 am
Since I thought this conversation was about the Hard Problem I guess that is the end of this conversation. I'm done. Bye.
Another "one" out.

By the way, this conversation was never about some silly little so called "problem" until you brought that into the conversation.

The discussion here started out being about a theory of pretty much everything, which, by the way, has already been provided, and has already been proven and verified as being thee Truth of things, but anyway that discussion then moved onto talking about Consciousness, Itself, which then 'you' started talking about that "problem" which has already been solved by some, but which 'you' find and consider is "hard".

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:44 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:49 pm
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:58 am
Age wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:32 am

But I do NOT care one iota about any so called "hard problem", so there is absolutely NOTHING that I want to understand in relation to "it". Therefore, I will NOT even look into it anymore here now.

Remember it is 'you' that appears very concerned about some "problem" and cares about "it". I do NOT. So, if you WANT TO pose a question in relation to this or any thing else, then I will respond. But if you do NOT, then I have no issue nor care about some perceived and made up "hard problem".

Also, as I mentioned earlier instead of just 'trying to' understand some thing, and just 'doing it' instead, then that will speed the process up, for you, considerably.

There is, after all, nothing hard nor complex at all in understanding Oneness, Itself.
You say you don't care about the Hard Problem and will not look into it anymore.
Yes this is true. I will not look into what you want me to look for, and then describe and explain for you, for two reasons;
1. because I am not going to do for you what you obviously have clearly shown that you can not do for "yourself".
2. To me there is NO so called "hard problem" because I already have the solution. That so called "problem" has already been solved, and thus also Answered as well.
SteveKlinko wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 1:58 am
Since I thought this conversation was about the Hard Problem I guess that is the end of this conversation. I'm done. Bye.


Another "one" out.

By the way, this conversation was never about some silly little so called "problem" until you brought that into the conversation.

The discussion here started out being about a theory of pretty much everything, which, by the way, has already been provided, and has already been proven and verified as being thee Truth of things, but anyway that discussion then moved onto talking about Consciousness, Itself, which then 'you' started talking about that "problem" which has already been solved by some, but which 'you' find and consider is "hard".
I thought you would understand that I'm done only with our particular conversation. I'm not done with the larger conversation of the OP.

SteveKlinko
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: A Theory of Pretty Much Everything

Post by SteveKlinko » Thu Dec 19, 2019 12:47 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:01 am
SteveKlinko wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
I agree. But Science might be able to deal with Consciousness someday if it would only keep a more open Mind.
Only when that open mind is concept free will it see what is Consciousness.

In ''thought free'' awareness it can be seen that Consciousness cannot see Consciousness, it will see that Consciousness is the seeing that cannot be seen.

Same aplies to KNOWING. Consciousness is the knowing that cannot be known.

This is ONENESS.

Science already knows this knowledge, it is a knowledge that can only inform the illusory nature of reality.

.
If that's what Science has to do then it's going to be a long time before Science knows Consciousness.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest