Thursday, November 21, 2024
Latest:

Similar Posts

43 thoughts on “Science of Consciousness”

  1. I very much appreciated your thoughts on the fundamental and irreducible nature of consciousness. It makes sense then, that the only way to approach the problem of consciousness is by consciousness. All true understanding must spring from realizing the true nature of consciousness because it's fundamental to all of our experience.

    -SwamiTripurari moderator

  2. Philosophy also is a hindrance to knowing consciousness. As is spiritual seeking. Because they all must come from the point of view of Consciousness as an object that can be known objectively or somehow obtained through certain action.

  4. I know where you are going with this thought of science hindering the ability, or the knowledge of the self and the universe we perseve together. But If we find the civilization in other worlds through which science has provided these possiblities. What would be the thoughts of conscious be? Not only for you but for the world…
    Until we are at the point of time of recognition. We wont understand the outcome of science.

  6. Like his own universe man is a creature and lifeform of increasing entropy: birth-life-death, with the killer hidden within the increasing disorder of his own replicating DNA. The goal of consciousness is to escape time – to perhaps find a universe of constant entropy without the irreversable arrow of time. To answer the question of eternity. Our scientific theories point to multiple universes. Our technology is taking us toward a shared single consciousness. Man has the potential to become god.

  7. Web 2.0 came into being around 2004 and has vastly increased man's ability to share information, analyze data and perceptions of events in time on a scale and at speeds never available to us before. We are creating a new form of shared consciousness that moves mankind closer to the reality of a single shared consciousness with the ability to know and process vast amounts of information occurring in a time based universe.

  8. Once multi-organisms develop simple forms of shared consciousness (i.e., information sharing and commonly held perceptions of events), the physical and social progressive evolution of the organism type occurred. Mankind being one example. When early man reached a point of simple forms of shared consciousness (again "information"), he developed early communities and continued the evolutionary process of his shared consciousness. Today mankind stands at a new evolutionary threshold.

  9. Your thinking on consciousness is a bit stuck, Matt, and needs to change course. Consciousness is simply the collective effort of corporeal matter existing in a universe of increasing entropy (i.e., time) to share, analyze and understand information on the progression of surrounding events in time. Darwin failed to include the effect of evolution of the collective consciousness of a single organism on the organism itself, so he only partly described life evolutionary processes.

  10. So if you watch that video I sent you with the new captions feature enabled, you'll see why I'm concerned about the text-to-speech… I try to choose my words very carefully, and …

    🙂

  12. The evidence is simple. Have your table talk to me to prove it is conscious. Go ahead and give your table the keyboard. I'd love to have an intelligent conversation with it.

  13. I do not need to prove the universe is not conscious, you do. I have plenty of evidence that it is not. My table — not conscious, my house — not conscious — the list is long.

    There are no super intelligent god believing aliens from space visiting earth. Any intelligent species out there are just like us.

    The rest of what you wrote was incoherent.

  14. Sorry, the universe is not conscious nor intelligent. The universe is not "living".Ultimate reality is that of unthinking particles moving in lines of force or whatever science eventually discovers to be the case. And that's it. That's all there is.

    But none of that means that consciousness is an epiphenomena nor that we are doomed to be crushed by state capitalism or whatever it is your worried about. You are deeply confused, rambling and nearly incoherent.

  15. Our universe is one of increasing entropy and the forward progression of the arrow of time. The evolution of life in this universe has had to learn how to deal with it for its own existence. Consciousness in life on earth has evolved as the various species have attempted to connect, analyze and understand more and more complex information about temporal events. Mankind's ignorance of the process is no justification to fall back on a "god model" rather than simply admitting "I don't know".

  16. Matt, you seem to have gone down a pathway of the bizarre over the past several months. The realities of the universe are not dependent upon the existence of scientists or mankind's understanding. When a tree falls, the sound wave is created and exists even if there is not an ear to hear it or a brain to interpret it. The arrow of time exists only in universes of increasing entropy. Our consciousness has evolved as a way to order events in time between the past and the future.

  21. Our technology will not save us from nature if nature decides humanity needs to go. I'm certain that nature is conscious and makes such decisions about itself.

  22. What somewhat worries me about your philosophy is that you don't seem to encourage free-thinking, butrather promote a very specific set of metaphysical assumptions which have to do with an entity called 'God'. This is why I have trouble seeing how it differs from religion.

  23. Additionally, if we are to have any hope for sustainable living, the 'special sciences' are not only going to be indispensable, but we are going to need even more out of them than they've already given us. You mentioned you think results need to be interpreted differently than they have been, I'm just asking for an example of that difference.

  24. edit: YOUR agenda*
    If you hold that some claim you make about 'God' is 'True', where does that leave the people who disagree with the certainty of your assessment?

  25. I'm not so sure that as whole we've regressed, because I don't think we were ever that great. The difference, which you've pointed out, is that now we have the power to do some actual damage to the entire planet. So yes, I think reflection on what is Good, True, and Beautiful is a vital part of hopefully getting our collective shit together. Where I have trouble with our agenda is seeing how it differs from standard religion.

  26. We live in an era of marvelous techno-scientific achievment, but also terrifying moral ambivalence and ecological catastrophe. These are not unrelated issues. Am I nuts, or isn't it obvious that another 50-100 years of "scientific progress" uninfluenced by philosophical reflection on the Good, True, and Beautiful can only lead to the extinction of our own and a great deal of other species?

  27. I'm not so much concerned with the methods and results of the special sciences. Obviously, more has been gained in the way of knowledge of and technical power over specific domains of external nature during the course of the past century than in the whole prior history of humanity. But I think we have only regressed so far as knowledge of ourselves and of our relation to the universe. We've made little progress in this respect since the period of philosophy between Kant and Hegel, imo.

  32. BTW I am learning about different MRI scan sequences right and it's blowing my fucking mind! It is amazing that it even works considering all the conceptual details and inferences which need to applied.. but it does work!

  33. What about when current interpretations are powerful enough to yield amazing technological advances? Say what you want about your feelings on technology, but the proof is in the pudding. If you can make something very complicated (like an MRI machine) work based on the understanding of a conceptual entity (like proton spin-packet behavior), what exactly needs to be reinterpreted?

  35. I wouldn't change the scientific method, I'd change what has become the metaphysical common sense of our age (what Whitehead called scientific materialism). The method is doing just fine. It is the interpretation of its results that needs work.

  37. Science is about more than replication of experimental conditions. Experiments are given meaning only by the theoretical contexts used to interpret them. New experiments are devised to increase our scientific understanding by conceptually reworking this context in light of surprising data (and it almost always is). Science has never been solely empirical. We understand what the results of experimental observation mean because of our conceptual capacities to theorize.

  38. What other causes would operate in nature but natural causes? What frustrates me about methodological naturalism is that it backgrounds the conceptual activity of the scientist, which is just as objective, just as real, just as much a part of the universe as the laws and principles being conceptualized. Science must consider not just what is observed, but the intelligence doing the observing. Metaphys. is inevitable; the danger is forgetting this and pretending to be purely empirical.

  40. Interesting point made of the universe being conscious and intelligent. One would think the universe would have to be conscious if it has the ability to produce consciousness here on Earth.

  41. Is'nt this, reality, supposed to be a holograph being played back from the future?
    If this is real and also holograph, does'nt it follow that there is no difference between a holograph and reality

  42. You should have titled this "science of conscience". 🙂

    I concur with almost everything you say here, Matt. But I still hope to move you to a more advanced understanding of what a "planet" is.

  43. All of your words have already been textualized by a remote speech to text translator. And some future person will probably archive a searchable version of your video transcripts. Not long after I started yting I found pages with spanish translations poor speech to text english. I almost stopped at that point.

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com