How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?

[Altair]

Consciousness isn't the be all, end all of existence. It exists in living beings, and not even in all living beings, and not by a long shot. Spirituality is guilty of saying the same about 'love', that it's ''everywhere'' yet the way we understand, feel, and experience love is profoundly mammalian.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Altair

Consciousness isn't the be all, end all of existence. It exists in living beings, and not even in all living beings, and not by a long shot.

As always, this depends on what we mean by the term consciousness. Your definition of consciousness seems quite different to mine.

Originally Posted by Altair

Spirituality is guilty of saying the same about 'love', that it's ''everywhere'' yet the way we understand, feel, and experience love is profoundly mammalian.

Mammalian love? Again, you can only speak for yourself.

Peace

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Mammalian love? Again, you can only speak for yourself.

Peace

This prompts me to do something naughty:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k

Aahh...the many moods of Shivani...from playful to dead serious...and often alternating between the two without warning..

[Altair]

Originally Posted by iamthat

As always, this depends on what we mean by the term consciousness. Your definition of consciousness seems quite different to mine.

I see.

Originally Posted by iamthat

Mammalian love? Again, you can only speak for yourself.
Peace

Can speak for all humans because we are all mammals!

Mammals are quite different from non-mammals as the young are hopelessly dependent on their mother, they are clumsy and need to learn by doing, and form bonds that we don't always see in non-mammals. Strong attachments and ritualistic behaviour can be observed in other mammals, such as elephants, chimpanzees, and dogs.

'Love' is central to us from day 1, because we depend on it for well-being and growth.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

This prompts me to do something naughty:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k

Aahh...the many moods of Shivani...from playful to dead serious...and often alternating between the two without warning..

Soooooo naughty, Shivani Devi,

...Mammalian "backfields in motion? Gonna hafta penalize you!!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0AU5Mckb3Q

Speaking of "backfields in motion", the reason that "Looking for consciousness inside the brain is like looking inside the radio for the announcer" - Nassim Haramein"

...is counterproductive (to your excellent point!), is because (see reference)

A radio does not have to create the program it wishes to hear. It merely needs to receive an already-existing program. And it makes itself an effective receiver by matching frequencies, synchronizing frequencies - creating a similarity of vibrations - with the program it wishes to receive. Likewise, you don't have to create the reality you desire, because it already exists - among the infinite probable realities all simultaneously co-existing. All you have to do is make yourself an effective "antenna", so that by similarity of vibrations, you can receive that reality. And this makes it physiologically "real" for you.
First, you have to be that vibration. Then, you automatically receive that reality. You must "see" the reality you prefer as now existing in the moment. Then, it will become tangible in your outer reality. A radio uses a channel tuner to select & receive any one particular station - out of all the programs that are simultaneously existing all around the radio. Likewise, there are infinite probable realities that we could "receive" and experience at any moment. How do we select which one of these we wish to "pull" to the foreground to experience ?

We select and receive specific "versions" of reality by our beliefs.
We select and receive by our 100% trust in "what we know is so".

Just as a radio must first vibrate at a particular frequency in order to "receive" the one particular broadcast (from all of the possible simultaneous broadcasts) that happens to be vibrating at that same frequency, likewise...
Each belief gets you vibrating at a unique set of frequencies. These frequencies then attract, by sympathetic resonance, those holograms vibrating on the same frequencies.

That is, out of the "background" (i.e. backfield in motion!) universal matrix of infinite possible holograms (all of the infinite possible "versions" of reality that are simultaneously existing), those holograms and symbols that synchronistically vibrate at the same frequencies as the frequencies of your belief, get "pulled out" from this matrix and "received" by you as the actual "external physical experiences" that you then sense as "real" - that you sense as "objective reality". So each belief is a unique set of frequencies which is a template that determines which holograms you attract into your experience.

The announcer is our desire....the announcement is the resonant expression of the entire hologram of Creation "shouting it from the Heavens"!

The announcer and the announcement are One and the Same Consciousness acting as such holographically. (I think Nassim would agree) Per the following from the article The Unified Space Memory Network (2nd reference below):

Thus intelligence itself, and the mind’s ability for abstract reasoning, does not necessarily belong to the individual biological system, but may be understood as the result of this underlying non-local information field. The same may be true of memory: our brains behave much like electromagnetic transceivers which may be able to tune into our own resonance points left behind in four dimensional space. Yet, as both past and future are but resonance imprints and unrealized potential, they are both subject to your geometric perspective of the present moment, and may change and rearrange according to your ever new position in the cosmic fractal.

Without the "backfield" of the entirety of Consciousness "in motion", there is nothing in Creation to be expressed, not even naughtily!

Reference: https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/#Receiving

Reference: http://holofractal.net/2015/02/20/th...field-of-life/

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Since we're talking fractals...

Here's an interview with Stuart Hameroff on the Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) hypothesis of consciousness. Roger Penrose is arguably the top theoretician on the fine scale geometry of space.

https://youtu.be/YpUVot-4GPM?list=PL...XfywQvhBzzdrQA

"Dr. Stuart Hameroff is a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona. Together with British quantum physicist Sir Roger Penrose, Hameroff is the co-author of the controversial Orch OR model of consciousness."

Roger Penrose is a mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He's absolutely brilliant.

Hi JustASimpleGuy,

I enjoyed finally looking at the YouTube video of Dr. Hameroff's work with Sir Roger Penrose.

It occurred to me that the persistent "blind spot" in many scientists', and my own (not being a scientist), work to understand consciousness is the tendency to forget (IMO) that, like Einstein's "happiest moment of my life", upon encapsulating years worth of effort in the "simple" formula E=MC2, describing the relationship between light, mass, and matter,

....the effort to do so occurred within Consciousness...not without it. The answer(s) to the question(s) being explored have awaited them (and us)....since the foundation of time, in Creation.

....within us. The real answers still hinge upon discovering Who is this being (that I am) that is conscious of being conscious?

Discover the Who within, and the How and Why answers will make themselves known.

...as I continue seeking to understand...(I think Nassim would agree) Per the following from the article The Unified Space Memory Network (per reference below):

Thus intelligence itself, and the mind’s ability for abstract reasoning, does not necessarily belong to the individual biological system, but may be understood as the result of this underlying non-local information field. The same may be true of memory: our brains behave much like electromagnetic transceivers which may be able to tune into our own resonance points left behind in four dimensional space. Yet, as both past and future are but resonance imprints and unrealized potential, they are both subject to your geometric perspective of the present moment, and may change and rearrange according to your ever new position in the cosmic fractal.

Reference: http://holofractal.net/2015/02/20/th...field-of-life/

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Altair

Consciousness isn't the be all, end all of existence. …. Spirituality is guilty of saying the same about 'love', that it's ''everywhere'' yet the way we understand, feel, and experience love is profoundly mammalian.

I understand things, such as that of love and consciousness, as relating to a dimensional framework relevant to the structural creation and current moment within the universe, everything relating to a scale of consciousness which for me resolves the issue in trying to equate human experience of consciousness and love with structures and experiences which to us can seem quiet different; but I'm curious how it is that you understand it all? If "consciousness isn't the be all of existence" then what are your thoughts?

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by guthrio

....the effort to do so occurred within Consciousness...not without it. The answer(s) to the question(s) being explored have awaited them (and us)....since the foundation of time, in Creation.

within the quote the word time greatly stood out to me, reminded me of the Yugas as they relate to objective human consciousness and to the following quote of continually, minutely (subjective), realized human potentiual: "Such is the great influence of Time which governs the universe. No man can overcome this influence except him who, blessed with the pure love, the heavenly gift of nature, becomes divine; being baptized in the sacred stream Pranava (the holy Aum vibration), he comprehends the Kingdom of God. - pg. 15, ph.2, The Holy Science, Swami Sri Yukteswar

[guthrio]

Please ignore this post, as a duplicate of the one immediately below...

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by Dustin

within the quote the word time greatly stood out to me, reminded me of the Yugas as they relate to objective human consciousness and to the following quote of continually, minutely (subjective), realized human potentiual: "Such is the great influence of Time which governs the universe. No man can overcome this influence except him who, blessed with the pure love, the heavenly gift of nature, becomes divine; being baptized in the sacred stream Pranava (the holy Aum vibration), he comprehends the Kingdom of God. - pg. 15, ph.2, The Holy Science, Swami Sri Yukteswar

Dustin,

...long time no see!

I agree with your quotation of Sri Yukteswar's words in The Holy Science, and the words of his guru Lahiri Mahasaya "...Meditate unceasingly, that you quickly behold yourself as the Infinite Essence, which our friend, Miss Hepburn uses in her own signature.

....beholding one's Self to be as one has always been is the gift that eternally awaits our acceptance that I AM THAT.

Even while we question, the answer remains the Same for All, and for all Time.