[BuShinJu]

I googled 'Does Consciousness Create Matter' and lookee what popped up!


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


He makes some interesting points and clarifies some of my laymans understanding of philosophical and quantum mechanic issues

"Oh, an egg comes out of a chicken,
Oh, a chicken comes out of an egg"
Mike Patton - Mr Bungle

[Tahiti]

If AI can interact with the world, does that count to disprove this argument?

[Zsych]

An AI would not have consciousness, it would simulate it.

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An AI would not have consciousness, it would simulate it.

Therefore meaning?

[Zsych]

That if consciousness creates things, it would still only be us or some other consciousness *creating and maintaining* anything, with the AI being a product of what we create
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tahiti]

"Does Unconsciousness Create Matter?"

[Zsych]

Well, its not like matter or energy, or the laws of physics have any actual reason to come into being by themselves.

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, its not like matter or energy, or the laws of physics have any actual reason to come into being by themselves.

Subjective.

[Ray9]

This question has religious implications. That's why I've converted from being an agnostic to an Orthodox Pedestrian.

[Zsych]

Fine, what reason does matter or energy or the framework that causes gravity to exist and limits movement in the way it works in our universe, actually have to exist at all?

I'd go more with... Nothing should exist. There should be no such framework, because there is no reason for it to exist. We should not be here.

[Tahiti]

God should do a product recall for the Human Race, or maybe God should recall himself.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I have no answer to your question.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Maybe nothing does exist. Maybe something does exist? Maybe both are truth. Maybe both are not true.

The framework is developed from our understanding of the universe.

If an alien race was designed differently, their understanding could be on a level of comprehending let's say, 30 dimensions.

Who knows...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 03-30-2010 at 11:20 PM ----------

I suppose that's what Einstein was thinking when he said there has to be a designer.

[BuShinJu]

Isn't he saying the act of observing creates?

The reason anything exists is because we are observing it.

[Azen]

	Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't he saying the act of observing creates? The reason anything exists is because we are observing it.

I would agree that this is essentially what he is saying, except that there was a reason why it took him so many more words to say it.
Personally I was intrigued by the article, as there was something behind all the words that I could hear, but that could not be fully articulated with language.

Since this kind of topic is so very strange, and there was no question asked in the initial post, I'd just like to comment.

Firstly, orthodox pedestrian is hilarious.

Secondly, I love the honest confusion in the past posts, as I feel the same way. AI, being brought up first, and unconsciousness later are both such wonderful alternate perspectives through which to test hypothesis.

For myself, I would have to say that AI, being a system of rules set by "us" to interact with the same world that we perceive would by comparison be essentially the same as what we have found of our own systems and organs. After all, we build based on our own 'image', and use what we find in our biological studies in recreating the same pathways via electronics. So AI, assuming sophistication, should by all rights fall under the same rules as our own makeup, or at least that of what we assume plants/animals to have. It would be an observer, like living things, that could take in data, process it, and react to what we have noted as external stimulus.

But beyond that lies the essence of the article. Whether AI, consciousness, unconsciousness, dreams, life, and death, living matter and 'inanimate' matter, all these things must be taken into consideration when peering into the question of reality, mind and matter; for within 'reality' does everything exist.

The ebb and flow. The constant state of flux. We seem to exist within/'as a part of' something that we call real. From these shifting moments and perceptions we come to draw our own framework. We say "this is how it works". We give what we perceive names and order. We have created things like mathematics and space and time based on how we ourselves work. But where we become confused is in thinking that what we perceive, is what is. Only recently have we come into quantum theory and begun to reconcile the fact that the world which we have been studying and documenting, trying so desperately to understand, is ultimately bound by our methods of perception. It is becoming apparent that the order and 'intelligent design' that we perceive in our so called objective world is simply the machinations of our own design. The singular 'we' is god creating the world in his own image.

I cannot deny the frigid bite of winter, or the fact that I bleed when cut, but some can, and we call it miraculous. I do not know the inner thoughts of dogs or insects, but I perceive them to be aware of me. Me. The seat where we all reside. The article touched on this as well in terms of where we believe our selves to exist.

The mind...the brain. This human form gives us a perspective to observe, but only in this form does living and death mean anything. In this form, if the brain is destroyed, the heart stopped, the liver killed, a 'life' seems to end. It is something both terrifying and mysterious to us as it marks a finality to 'everything'. But I say that what we perceive is by no means everything. We are only these things we call human while we are here. We are made of iron and carbon, zinc and gold, peaches and cream, chicken and beef, and water...so much water. All these things continue to be used by those left alive. We return to the earth, trees grow from our flesh (well...not really since we mostly rot in a coffin or burn in a fire), and our living actions ripple throughout eternity (as far as we understand time).

So to sum up in the same way you summed up the original article,

Things don't exist because we perceive them, things exist in the way we perceive them.

[Tahiti]

	Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Isn't he saying the act of observing creates? The reason anything exists is because we are observing it.

What about a blind person?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I honestly doubt consciousness creates existence. It does however let use perceive existence.

Consciousness and unconsciousness would allegedly create existence. I'm guessing that's the same as saying existence exists.

I might not fully understand either. If I perceive another being, does that mean I create them?

Seems irrelavent in design.

How would anyone even define consciousness?

---------- Post added 03-31-2010 at 02:32 AM ----------

Conscious: The ability to sense and process reality
Intelligence: The ability to decide according to perceived/judged existences. Logic.
Genius: To discover what isn't known
Motivation: To give a greater reason behind decisions
Will: To give a greater reason than motivation
Emotion: The reason to exist

[Azen]

Consciousness: Existence
Intelligence: The ability to decide/process according to perceived/judged existences. Logic. Subjective to context of field. eg A brain surgeon can be an idiot when it comes to home repair.
Genius: To look beyond, make conclusions, and be accepted by peers...otherwise you are just crazy :P
Motivation: Point of intent that affects action
Will: Single minded Intent
Emotion: By product of temporal awareness.

[Rovan]

I am, therefore.......







I am

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	An AI would not have consciousness, it would simulate it.

That is one presumption, the other presumption is it would, and his name is AI Guy. You should meet him, I have ;-)

[BuShinJu]

Originally Posted by GeniusPr0 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What about a blind person? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I honestly doubt consciousness creates existence. It does however let use perceive existence. Consciousness and unconsciousness would allegedly create existence. I'm guessing that's the same as saying existence exists. I might not fully understand either. If I perceive another being, does that mean I create them? Seems irrelavent in design. How would anyone even define consciousness?

I think the article is talking about a different 'consciousnesses'. (I haven't formed it properly in my head, so let me re read the article again).

I don't think he is talking about thoughts. I think he is talking about the 'tao' or what we are all immersed in, the communal awareness, think about Yodas speech to Luke on dagobah, the force is in this rock, this tree, it pervades everything.

When you ask about unconscious, are you talking about an unconscious person, or void and nothingness? (because unconscious people are still conscious of stuff, but like I said, I don't think this is the consciousness he is talking about)

Right, his initial paragraphs are talking about shunyata and emptiness, like those magic eye pictures, where everything is mashed together but when you look at it the right way you make out things, like a chair and a desk. The point he is making is that it is all a continuum (sic?), the chair you look at today is not the chair you were looking at yesterday (atoms have fallen off).

So any label we place on a thing is arbitrary, placed there by consciousness of the thing, doomed to change.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the article is talking about a different 'consciousnesses'. (I haven't formed it properly in my head, so let me re read the article again). I don't think he is talking about thoughts. I think he is talking about the 'tao' or what we are all immersed in, the communal awareness, think about Yodas speech to Luke on dagobah, the force is in this rock, this tree, it pervades everything. When you ask about unconscious, are you talking about an unconscious person, or void and nothingness? (because unconscious people are still conscious of stuff, but like I said, I don't think this is the consciousness he is talking about) Right, his initial paragraphs are talking about shunyata and emptiness, like those magic eye pictures, where everything is mashed together but when you look at it the right way you make out things, like a chair and a desk. The point he is making is that it is all a continuum (sic?), the chair you look at today is not the chair you were looking at yesterday (atoms have fallen off). So any label we place on a thing is arbitrary, placed there by consciousness of the thing, doomed to change.

a universal extra sensory perception? Either way, good luck to anyone proving any conclusion. This is where this shit gets left up to the imagination, or the level of beyond genius.

I'm talking about unconscious in all/any meanings though. Mostly a void though-- nothingness.

I'll read it again.

[BuShinJu]

Yeah, it's one of those things that you need to experience for yourself and is really hard to explain to others (not that I know whats fully going on).

Do some hardcore mediatation for a few years. Daniel Ingram has a free e-book on the interweb.

[blueback]

I think the gist of his article is that there is no mind-body duality. He seems to be basing this conclusion on our understanding of quantum mechanics, which is that a thing doesn't have any properties until it interacts with something else. Thus, one thing couldn't have existed before another, so everything must be the same "stuff."

It's one theory. Personally, I don't think we understand enough about how the universe works to definitively answer the mind-body question. Also, there's the very real possibility that whatever the answer is will be somehow beyond our ability to work with.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think the gist of his article is that there is no mind-body duality. He seems to be basing this conclusion on our understanding of quantum mechanics, which is that a thing doesn't have any properties until it interacts with something else. Thus, one thing couldn't have existed before another, so everything must be the same "stuff." It's one theory. Personally, I don't think we understand enough about how the universe works to definitively answer the mind-body question. Also, there's the very real possibility that whatever the answer is will be somehow beyond our ability to work with.

Hmmm, that's odd in design, it would be logical to have some predefined factors/laws, otherwise everything would more or less be... unstable. Everything would more or less have to have some type of framework (isn't that what quantum is?), or maybe there's another level beyond/beneath/parallel. In other words, a level beyond the abstraction of quantum mechanics
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. wtf?

This would supposedly not involve math at all... *does not compute*


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 01:31 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by BuShinJu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, it's one of those things that you need to experience for yourself and is really hard to explain to others (not that I know whats fully going on). Do some hardcore mediatation for a few years. Daniel Ingram has a free e-book on the interweb.

Let's say for example one dreams/imagines, and actually dies within the dream world AND within our reality. That would be an exmaple of consciousness creating matter?

It seems are if there are different depths to consciouness, alternate "universes". wtf... This shit is beyond me for now.

Infinite dimensions
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
*head explodes*

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 01:53 PM ----------

brb committing suicide

[Lord Shadowbane]

In a nutshell: no. Consciousness allows for one to know that one is. Any perception of the outside world is simply perception. It is easy to be deceived. Objects don't need to be seen or perceived in some way to exist- they still have measurable effects on the universe. (Gravity, weight, volume, etc). We cantell the difference between ourselves (feeling) and things that are not part of the part of the universe that we always (unless injured, etc) feel. I must agree that he makes a perfectly valid argument- I just prefer to think that everything always exists in one form or another, etc. (It makes it easier to make my plans... evil chuckle...)