Re: How

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:26 pm

jackles wrote:the ability to experience the outside world is not actually consciouseness its self. ...

Ok, so not sensing.

consciousness can completly detach its self from the body and remain of its self away from the body and brain in super space which is non locality. ...

What are you talking about? Show me one of these disembodied consciousnesses?

If it's 'super-space'(whatever that is?) then it can't be a 'non locality'(whatever that is?).

How does this 'disembodied self' sense itself in this 'super-space' if it can't experience an outside world? As this 'super-space' must surly be the outside for this 'disembodied self' you talk about.

its like the super egos identity is size less. ...

Freud must be spinning in his grave. This kind of use of his ideas is exactly why he was horrified to find the common man reading his theories.

the problem is how dose this sizeless and nonlocal super space fix to a local brain and different brains at that including animal brains.its like the brain is a localising machine or something.like you say the moment theres a direct link it nonlocality becomes local so i cant figure it. ...

Could it just be that it's wrong? That consciousness needs none of this metaphysics to be explained.

You keep talking about the 'brain', it's not the 'brain', it's the CNS which is all over the body. It's a gigantic neuronal-net with clumps that feedback and interact with each other and given the capabilities we've discovered of just simple computational 'neurone' is, in my opinion, more than enough to be going on with to explain consciousness.

man and woman local beings share the exact same super space identity. ...

Are you now abusing Jung?

so good and evil is the exact same for men and women. ...

No idea why this bit is here? Nor what you are saying by it.

it is like the brain is a bridge between a happening location which has a history which goes back billions of years and a future which hasnt happened.to a super space which is eternity where nothing ever happened.the brain some how mixes the both of them .if you figue out how please tell me.ha ha

Not likely as I think using this kind of metaphysics to explain consciousness is not just misguided but wrong, so there will be no figuring it out.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:35 pm

jackles wrote:you seem very contradictory blags .there is a spoon but the spoons an illusion as is everything else in location.hence the true self is nonlocal and therefor sizeless this is how the light duality ex works.the experimentor is trying to see his own creation via a brain this collapses the wave function into particals.

That's just waffle Jackles, no offence.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

This might help explain the following images are from that site and are a pretty good summation of the issues.

The duality experiment produces an interference pattern when a single photon is shone onto a screen. It is not magic, but it is pretty odd.

This is the actual result produced by the various two slit experiments.

As you can see the interference patter is a matter of constructive and deconstructive interference of light waves.

In this example this is a water wave and the detector is a bucket.

It's not a bad attempt to analogise a classical system with a quantum one though...

This flash image might help you become less confused:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralI ... eSlit.html

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:54 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
jackles wrote:the ability to experience the outside world is not actually consciouseness its self. ...
Ok, so not sensing.
consciousness can completly detach its self from the body and remain of its self away from the body and brain in super space which is non locality. ...
What are you talking about? Show me one of these disembodied consciousnesses?

If it's 'super-space'(whatever that is?) then it can't be a 'non locality'(whatever that is?).

How does this 'disembodied self' sense itself in this 'super-space' if it can't experience an outside world? As this 'super-space' must surly be the outside for this 'disembodied self' you talk about.
its like the super egos identity is size less. ...
Freud must be spinning in his grave. This kind of use of his ideas is exactly why he was horrified to find the common man reading his theories.
the problem is how dose this sizeless and nonlocal super space fix to a local brain and different brains at that including animal brains.its like the brain is a localising machine or something.like you say the moment theres a direct link it nonlocality becomes local so i cant figure it. ...
Could it just be that it's wrong? That consciousness needs none of this metaphysics to be explained.

You keep talking about the 'brain', it's not the 'brain', it's the CNS which is all over the body. It's a gigantic neuronal-net with clumps that feedback and interact with each other and given the capabilities we've discovered of just simple computational 'neurone' is, in my opinion, more than enough to be going on with to explain consciousness.
man and woman local beings share the exact same super space identity. ...
Are you now abusing Jung?
so good and evil is the exact same for men and women. ...
No idea why this bit is here? Nor what you are saying by it.
it is like the brain is a bridge between a happening location which has a history which goes back billions of years and a future which hasnt happened.to a super space which is eternity where nothing ever happened.the brain some how mixes the both of them .if you figue out how please tell me.ha ha
Not likely as I think using this kind of metaphysics to explain consciousness is not just misguided but wrong, so there will be no figuring it out.

Incidentally the human digestive system has almost as many neuronal links and neurones as the human brain when you take into account the lymphatic system. You are what you eat.

Just thought that would be interesting.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:42 pm

yes but its how sizelessness relates to the neuron.we have to get into the atom of a neuron.then we have to get inside that atom to find consiousness.energy has scale to its eventness .has consciouness got scale i dont think so.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:23 pm

jackles wrote:yes but its how sizelessness relates to the neuron.we have to get into the atom of a neuron.then we have to get inside that atom to find consiousness.energy has scale to its eventness .has consciouness got scale i dont think so.

That's gibberish Jackles..?

We don't have to get into an atom to find consciousness, if we did the hard problem would never be solved, since we can't get into an atom as such, we can't see quarks for example because they are held by the strong force. All we can do is smash atoms together and observe the results, the results are not some fundamental sub atomic particle because we can only infer that particle by the nature of the atom. Quarks are a natural result of energy concerns, suffice to say it would be impossible to go into why we infer them without maths that not even I understand, not having studied it yet. Quarks do at least explain why particles have different properties and masses and so on.

Firing electrons or photons at the atom shows us this:

We can't see the atom in finer detail because that would require particles smaller than the atoms constituents and smaller even than the photon which as far as we know is massless, and dimensionless hence.

Consciousness has a scale limited by the universe, so yeah it has a scale just as energy does it is never 0 throughout the limiting constraint of the size of the universe, although frankly I would not expect the same non zero law to apply to consciousness judging by some people I have met.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ectrum.PNG

This spectral system is predicted by the Dirac and Schroedinger equation which give us these energy expectations according to the probability of an electron being at any one place in hydrogen.

Arising_uk · Post by **Arising_uk** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:22 pm

jackles wrote:yes but its how sizelessness relates to the neuron.we have to get into the atom of a neuron.then we have to get inside that atom to find consiousness.energy has scale to its eventness .has consciouness got scale i dont think so.

Yes it does, its the amount of connections and interconnections in the CNS and between the systems. We have no need to reduce consciousness in the way you want, as what point for consciousness to do such a thing? Would it explain anything? Let us think better? No, so far its all just layman physics based metaphysics with a religious base and pretty much waffle. If we're going to reductively explain consciousness with science then Biology is more likely to be the better bet but then the religious are not going to like that much as Darwin appears to be anathema to them.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:39 am

can you blame the religious for rebuffing darwin when all there natural instincts push them to that rebuffing.and there instincts are right.not that darwin was wrong but that dawins theories bring us to a critical point.darwin is right religions are right.both are right.how can they both be right.nonlocality as omni presents thats how.just because you cant comprehend that doesnt make it wrong.it has to be right.the un moving thing moves the moving things.befor e time and space was the unmoving thing was.the unmoving thing existed before the moving thing existed.the nonlocal pre existed the local.that is logic.the unmoving thing is the consciousness of the relativity between objects..and the consciousness of qm as an indistinguishable omni presents to all events.regs jackles.consciousness has awareness of its sizeless self .crikey !

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:02 pm

jackles wrote:can you blame the religious for rebuffing darwin when all there natural instincts push them to that rebuffing.and there instincts are right.not that darwin was wrong but that dawins theories bring us to a critical point.darwin is right religions are right.both are right.how can they both be right.nonlocality as omni presents thats how.just because you cant comprehend that doesnt make it wrong.it has to be right.the un moving thing moves the moving things.befor e time and space was the unmoving thing was.the unmoving thing existed before the moving thing existed.the nonlocal pre existed the local.that is logic.the unmoving thing is the consciousness of the relativity between objects..and the consciousness of qm as an indistinguishable omni presents to all events.regs jackles.consciousness has awareness of its sizeless self .crikey !

The Catholic faith doesn't rebuff Darwin in fact they accept the whole of evolution it's the protestant faith that seems to have the most trouble.

This stuff about omni and present however is inconsistent and makes absolutely no sense. If you are trying to say consciousness is infinite it seems you are talking about Buddhism or more closely Hindu ideas of atman the one that is all the soul rather than Christianity.

om tatsatiti nirdesho brahmanstrividhah samratah
"OM, tat and sat has been declared as the triple appellation of Brahman, who is Truth, Consciousness and Bliss."

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:46 pm

its omni presents blagsy boy.it means what ever the event is thats taking place be it the universe or part of an atom.it omni presents is there as a sizeless witness.hinduism buddism taoism all the religions speak of this un moving mover that existed before time and space began.aristotle spoke in the same way of this beginner of beginings.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:38 pm

jackles wrote:its omni presents blagsy boy.it means what ever the event is thats taking place be it the universe or part of an atom.it omni presents is there as a sizeless witness.hinduism buddism taoism all the religions speak of this un moving mover that existed before time and space began.aristotle spoke in the same way of this beginner of beginings.

I prefer at least more orthodox Buddhism personally the source of everything need not be a God, the source could just as easily be energy an eternal universal wheel of fate. Once you start getting involved with some divinity you start getting in fighting and my God is bigger than your God. When was the last time you saw Buddhists go to war, they practice combat sure, but only in defence.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:17 pm

buddism and chrstianity are the same thing.they are both talkin nonlocality.nirvana is the kingdom is nonlocal consciousness.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:47 pm

jackles wrote:buddism and chrstianity are the same thing.they are both talkin nonlocality.nirvana is the kingdom is nonlocal consciousness.

Er no they are not Buddhism or at least orthodox or original Buddhism says there is no God or gods, Christianity does not.

Nirvana is the state of bliss attained through the extension of the self, usually achieved by deep meditation, it is not non local, sorry Jackles but you do talk a hell of a lot of shit.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2500/2500-h/2500-h.htm

If you want to understand the foundations and beliefs of Buddhists this isn't a bad place to start and it's a free book and it's more importantly quite short, I can assure you though Buddhism is no more Christianity than Taoism is.

In Christianity you place your faith in God, in Buddhism there is no faith exactly but you place your faith in yourself to understand why you are not at Nirvana, if you should achieve that state of bliss you are freed from the wheel of fate that is life or your karma, what happens then Buddhists do not know, you are free from the cycle of being reborn though.

Buddhists see life as a sort of test although that doesn't really do it justice, all life from a flea to a man, and the only way to escape it is to move beyond the self and attain a higher form of the self, when that is achieved if it ever is you are in that state that is detached from the worldly concerns of other men. You have been said to have found a heaven on Earth if you will, and you have passed the "test" if not then you will be reborn again accordingly to your karma and how you behaved during your life. Various Dalia Llamas claim to have achieved this state, although the irony is that their soul is reborn in the next Dalai Lama, I suppose as a guide to lead others to the bliss they may have or have had, although they can only be a guide for each mans path to Nirvana is his own. Heaven or Nirvana is a mortal concern amongst mortal men, and you can find it on Earth. Where the atma goes after attaining bliss is only something those who have done so know, and they don't come back.

A Dalai Lama was once confronted with a man who asked "what is the path to Nirvana?"

The Dalai Lama said "it is your own."

"But what if a man came to you and said he had discovered the secrets of Nirvana and could teach them to all so that all might achieve it as he had."

"I would shoot that man, he is an imposter." was the Llamas reply.

It's a Buddhist joke, their respect for all life forbids it, I suppose it is an indication of how much they believe all peoples search for Nirvana is their own.

In Siddharta the link above he meets himself or at least himself as he would like to be, but even The Buddha Gautama, can not teach himself how to reach Nirvana, it is a path that must be travelled by the self.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:26 pm

blags google taoism holagrams.then you will understand nonlocality.

Blaggard · Post by **Blaggard** » Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:42 pm

jackles wrote:blags google taoism holagrams.then you will understand nonlocality.

No I don't think I will, I think even those religions had some sort of reason, yours has none, it's just word salad.

It doesn't matter what I Google, nothing is ever going to explain your weird stuff. You seem to just be inured in your odd non local belief, which is fine but it makes no sense to me or anyone else. You do that though I am sure one day it will make sense to someone, if not anyone who has any sense.

jackles · Post by **jackles** » Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:13 pm

blags you have a way of localising all philosophy to your experience.this habit is a test for any one trying to find a common .you seem to be assuming .