How Close is Science to Understanding Consciousness?

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Altair

Instead of having to buy books to understand someone else I'd much rather hear from your own words what you mean.

I did a quick search under the name for the book and auther mentioned and came up with these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYzfuyq6Xes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFPhNV5a_3g
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Brennan

Originally Posted by Altair

Where is it said that matter is mind?

In the book Light Emerging on page 31-32 written by Dr Barbra Brenna in reference to the work of Dr Willis Harman of his book Global Mind Change. In Light Emerging on page 31 the title reads "The Metaphysics Underlying Our Scientific Models", subtitles follow as: "M-1. Materialistic Monism (Matter Giving Rise to Mind)", "M-2. Dualism (Matter Plus Mind)", and "M-3. Transcendental Monism (Mind Giving Rise to Matter)". In one of the scentences on page 31 "Mind" is give meaning as: "Mind or consciousness...." For more detailed info go to Barns and Nobles and read those two pages then put it back on the shelf.

Also I attached a link in which steven Hawkins (the famous physisit, not sure if I spelled his name rite) talks about how currently there is not one model capable of explaining all natural phenomia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

Matter is Mind is my own work, it's a proposed fourth basic metaphysical model of reality.

Originally Posted by Altair

You believe consciousness is the origins of everything if I understand you correctly. Why do you think that is the case?

Yes you understand me correct. Personal experience, I attached a couple links you can check out if you like which also relate to the subject.

“In a scientific paper published in 1989, and again in 1993 in The Self-Aware Universe, I arrived at the paradox-resolving proposition that the domain of potentiality is our consciousness–not in the form of ordinary ego-consciousness, but as a higher consciousness in which we are all one.” - Amid Goswami
The domain of potentiality is the space in which quanta emerges from and dispears into.

https://emerj.com/ai-podcast-intervi...-amit-goswami/

http://taggedwiki.zubiaga.org/new_co...989c7e9879b139

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Guthrio, well said, agreed. And these quotes explain it nicely from a rather more technical perspective on consciousness.

Consciousness (including individuated consciousness from the point of individuation) exists outside of spacetime, and therefore certainly is antecedent to it. Spatially, it would be better to conceive of it more concentrically, such that it is the "infinite background" which fully contains (and fully permeates) this material multiverse.

Consciousness is what we would call "eternal", meaning, it has always existed, and is not essentially or ultimately bound by the materiality of this universe or multiverse.

We might say, very narrowly, that our individuated consciousness moves in and out of incarnation in the material realm (multiverse), with momentary transitions between these stages or phases. Which gives the illusion to some of incarnations being isolated and solitary. Of being materially reductionist (where some purport that we "cease to exist" as eternal consciousness when the temporal body passes away).

To those who desperately and often slavishly cling to some form of material reductionism...I'll grant that it does seem emotionally far simpler and thus easier for many. That is, material reductionism does seem to promise no consequences to anything we do or say (or think or intend) and (by means of misdirection) it does offer freedom from deeper transformation and growth.

But alas, regardless of what we purport or believe -- and regardless of how these beliefs may seem to aid or misdirect us -- the fact remains that we are sentient, self-aware consciousness. And ultimately, regardless of our current form (sex, size, colour, etc.), we can never be other than what we are, no matter how we try to resist or thrash against this foundational truth.

To those who have difficulty accepting big truths...and for certain, that is understandable enough...then I say, very kindly, if we think it's one and done, and no consequences or ownership.... hahahahahaha!!! Sigh...sorry mates, but that's not how it works. Your load is always there for you till you deal with it...at core, no one else can do that for you but you, although we can support one another on our journeys. This is why the present moment is always the only time, the right time, and best time to awaken and to live from centre in authentic love toward self, others, and all that is.

No matter how long you require, in this multiverse or the next (LOL)...you are always and only ever what and who you are. If you are sentient and self-aware, then you will grow into your emotional and spiritual maturity and evolve more or less quickly. Or, you will remain wherever you need to be in order to grasp those key lessons at the level of the "soul", or, your eternal, individuated, fractal consciousness.

Peace & blessings
7L

7Luminaries,

....well said, as well....even without the "naughty bits" I included in my response to Shivani Devi's naughtiness. Soooooo much fun, isn't this?

My attempts to grasp the technical, if I can, comes from a deep-seated need to incorporate a rational "Why" to the "What"-ever is offered as "one and done" explanations for worldviews I find interesting (such as yours, and others in this thread and throughout SF).

Its one of the reasons I enjoy seeing these offerings through the perspectives of similar explanations for WHY such and such is so, i.e. from Nassim Haramein and Bashar....

Speaking of which, from Haramein: "From this perspective, we may approach the phenomenon of consciousness as the process of expression and encoding of information in space-time. We are not separate from this system; consciousness co-appears as space-time coordinates are embedded within our own being – which is the fabric of space-time! A human entity is not “more alive” or “more conscious” than an atom – they both serve the same function of processing information, albeit at very different relative scales of dimension; such is the only logic in this non-local universe. In the end, the information dynamics involved in the processes of consciousness and the dynamics involved in engendering the defining characteristics of space, time, energy and matter are one and the same. As we bridge physics with meta-physics – the science of consciousness with the spiritual perspective – we may surmise that consciousness does not only arise from the information dynamics of spacetime, but is actually fundamental to the ordering and dynamics of reality itself." See http://holofractal.net/2015/09/01/co...phic-universe/

And from Bashar: "All "things" are the same one thing vibrating at different rates" See https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/#one

See what I mean?

It's been a while since I saw "Being Here", but your mention of it brought to mind something I read in Jonathan Livingston Seagull, spoken by the Elder Gull, Chiang...moments before Jonathan was galvanized to see him actually demonstrate instantaneous thought-speed flight on the sea shore. Chiang said “You will begin to touch heaven, Jonathan, in the moment that you touch perfect speed. And that isn’t flying a thousand miles an hour, or a million, or flying at the speed of light. Because any number is a limit, and perfection doesn’t have limits. Perfect speed, my son, is being there.” See the PDF in my signature, below.

Considering the progressive march of numerous discoveries that have made a huge difference in how we see ourselves over the millenia (yep, we've been at this discovery game even longer!), I've found one thing that remains consistent: "Perfection does not come from projecting our own ideas, but from awakening to the knowledge that it is already the established order of things."....per the reference, below.

If this were not immutable Truth, we would not know what isn't so.

For me, that is worth the journey to be similarly galvanized by my own confirmations of Perfection why "Being There", is soooooo much fun!!

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...97&postcount=2 Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East (see Vol 4 page 28, last sentence in para 6)

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Altair

natural selection simplified: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evoli...article/evo_25

I finally got around to checking out the two links you had attached; ya I had been familiar with the basic process of natural selection, I did take Biology in High School; the decription of natural selection provided by the link was too simple to have any meaning in our conversation; the only thing it described was the basic process and didn't go into the greater specific and unknowns of how genes work.

I did however, just did a bit of research into gene's and came up with this quote: "Another theory that had some support at that time was the inheritance of acquired characteristics: the belief that individuals inherit traits strengthened by their parents. This theory (commonly associated with Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) is now known to be wrong—the experiences of individuals do not affect the genes they pass to their children,[11] although evidence in the field of epigenetics has revived some aspects of Lamarck's theory.[12]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics quotes from the history section

So basically the quote states in a simply way that you are rite about gene's, but I still maintain that genetics is a complicated subject and … there's a lot to look into in it and there is a lot to learn still, even though much is known about it.

Here's a link to an interesting article I was reading, out of time but I want to read more later but within it it was starting to flow in the direction in which the cellular biologist I had mentioned had been talking to, here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics JFYI - epigenetics, the link, is from the earlier quote.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Dustin

I finally got around to checking out the two links you had attached; ya I had been familiar with the basic process of natural selection, I did take Biology in High School; the decription of natural selection provided by the link was too simple to have any meaning in our conversation; the only thing it described was the basic process and didn't go into the greater specific and unknowns of how genes work.

Yes, it is natural selection simplified, but it actually is rather important because it shows that appeals to design are fallacious. It's a very simple example but you can go and study any other organism to observe the same phenomenon.

So whatever way we define 'mind' or 'consciousness', we cannot escape this reality. If mind or consciousness ''created'' matter than what of it? Did it deliberately put itself asleep for billions of years, to wake up later and ''go on a deliberate, conscious journey''? Or perhaps (more likely) it could be one massive experiment without deliberate or original intent, purpose, and goal.

[Dustin]

Originally Posted by Altair

So whatever way we define 'mind' or 'consciousness', we cannot escape this reality. If mind or consciousness ''created'' matter than what of it? Did it deliberately put itself asleep for billions of years, to wake up later and ''go on a deliberate, conscious journey''?

That is the question, something I often think about.

There are answers proposed by various guru's and one can choice to except their experience which resulted in such an answer; and even though I like the answers I have heard, the question is still there.

Originally Posted by Altair

Or perhaps (more likely) it could be one massive experiment without deliberate or original intent, purpose, and goal.

I could not possibly say that such would be more likely, from my perspective that would be presumptuous.

Originally Posted by Altair

Yes, it is natural selection simplified, but it actually is rather important because it shows that appeals to design are fallacious.

Ya natural section is very important and prevalent; however it doesn't in and of it's simplified version show that appeals to design are fallacious. What it does is it creates and defines a box and within that box things only happen in a very specific way; the issue however is that the box is not the full picture.

[Claude]

What about this?

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/20...consciousness/

https://www.sciencealert.com/harvard...-consciousness

https://www.buzzworthy.com/harvard-r...-in-the-brain/

There are also some scientists who claim that consciousness is just an illusion arising from our need for explanations.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Claude

There are also some scientists who claim that consciousness is just an illusion arising from our need for explanations.

Which is also connected to concepts and language. If you grew up alone and without learning a language than how would you make sense of the world?

You'd be a confused, wild animal..!!!

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by guthrio

7Luminaries,

....well said, as well....even without the "naughty bits" I included in my response to Shivani Devi's naughtiness. Soooooo much fun, isn't this?

My attempts to grasp the technical, if I can, comes from a deep-seated need to incorporate a rational "Why" to the "What"-ever is offered as "one and done" explanations for worldviews I find interesting (such as yours, and others in this thread and throughout SF).

Its one of the reasons I enjoy seeing these offerings through the perspectives of similar explanations for WHY such and such is so, i.e. from Nassim Haramein and Bashar....

Speaking of which, from Haramein: "From this perspective, we may approach the phenomenon of consciousness as the process of expression and encoding of information in space-time. We are not separate from this system; consciousness co-appears as space-time coordinates are embedded within our own being – which is the fabric of space-time! A human entity is not “more alive” or “more conscious” than an atom – they both serve the same function of processing information, albeit at very different relative scales of dimension; such is the only logic in this non-local universe.

Hello there Guthrio and yes, it is all very interesting, isn't it?

As to the above from Haramein, my response is that it's as true as it is non-specific
That is, the degree to which it (anything) is true for all tends to vary with the degree to which it is non-specific or non-individuated.
Put another way, truth applies both to the general and to the specific...but this may reflect very different aspects of truth

In the end, the information dynamics involved in the processes of consciousness and the dynamics involved in engendering the defining characteristics of space, time, energy and matter are one and the same. As we bridge physics with meta-physics – the science of consciousness with the spiritual perspective – we may surmise that consciousness does not only arise from the information dynamics of spacetime, but is actually fundamental to the ordering and dynamics of reality itself." See http://holofractal.net/2015/09/01/co...phic-universe/

We may surmise (and/or conflate) a great many things, eh? Hahaha... ;)

Here, the "origins" of consciousness are ...
1) presumed to be quantifiable and perhaps to ultimately "arise" from the fabric of spacetime [this takes mainstream scientific dogma on consciousness but extended back to the origins of this local or latest instantiation of the universe. Rather than at the level of the organism where bio sciences focus. In any flavour, it is as yet wholly unsubstantiated start to end].
2) and then consciousness is "also" purported to be fundamental to the reality/existence of spacetime. In a sort of "integral to the soup", melting-pot ingredient sort of thing [this bit is not well accepted by much of mainstream science, although it is arguably baked into quantum mechanics, or cannot be fully parsed from it, whichever...

[...however, many of the most groundbreaking theorists do variously acknowledge that at core, consciousness is both fundamental and potentially beyond the scope of spacetime physics to explain causally -- which is quite frankly liberating in its humility and its search for the truth of what is...]

Haramein takes the position that consciousness is foundational to spacetime yet that its origins are located within the origins of spacetime, which seems circular. Though I appreciate his macro take on consciousness rather than the bio sciences focus on consciousness in the organism. It's a different scale, like looking at all physical life on earth versus whether or not you or I are alive.
However it still makes rather less sense to me than the deepest theorists' straightforward admission of the potential limits of the scope of a material science which is bound by spacetime. This admission resonates with wisdom traditions and observed data, both.

I would say it is far simpler. Consciousness is ...
1) clearly unbounded by and thus outside of (and thus again is antecedent to) spacetime.
2) and thus, yes, we may reasonably assume that it is therefore fundamental to either 1) the reality/existence of spacetime, 2) our experience of the reality/existence of spacetime, or (my vote) BOTH ;)

It will take time for mainstream science to accept what many of the greatest theorists have...which is that if consciousness is antecedent to spacetime then certain definitively causal data on the origins or boundaries of consciousness will not ever exist in spacetime. At that point, I believe we will be well on our way to better addressing some of the most fascinating questions on consciousness, spacetime, and our existence within these realms.

And from Bashar: "All "things" are the same one thing vibrating at different rates" See https://iasos.com/metaphys/bashar/#one

See what I mean?

It's been a while since I saw "Being Here", but your mention of it brought to mind something I read in Jonathan Livingston Seagull, spoken by the Elder Gull, Chiang...moments before Jonathan was galvanized to see him actually demonstrate instantaneous thought-speed flight on the sea shore. Chiang said “You will begin to touch heaven, Jonathan, in the moment that you touch perfect speed. And that isn’t flying a thousand miles an hour, or a million, or flying at the speed of light. Because any number is a limit, and perfection doesn’t have limits. Perfect speed, my son, is being there.” See the PDF in my signature, below.

Considering the progressive march of numerous discoveries that have made a huge difference in how we see ourselves over the millenia (yep, we've been at this discovery game even longer!), I've found one thing that remains consistent: "Perfection does not come from projecting our own ideas, but from awakening to the knowledge that it is already the established order of things."....per the reference, below.

If this were not immutable Truth, we would not know what isn't so.

For me, that is worth the journey to be similarly galvanized by my own confirmations of Perfection why "Being There", is soooooo much fun!!

Reference: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...97&postcount=2 Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East (see Vol 4 page 28, last sentence in para 6)

Perfect speed is being there...yes, nicely said

Peace & blessings,
7L

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Altair

Which is also connected to concepts and language. If you grew up alone and without learning a language than how would you make sense of the world?

You'd be a confused, wild animal..!!!

Mankind once did not have a language but somehow, developed not a language but many languages. Which leads to the question "Why are some languages tonal and others are non-tonal?" Another mystery.

Grasping how mankind has overcome certain obstacles such as language, usage of fire, wheel, etc. probably would help us to understand who we really are.

[guthrio]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Mankind once did not have a language but somehow, developed not a language but many languages. Which leads to the question "Why are some languages tonal and others are non-tonal?" Another mystery.

Grasping how mankind has overcome certain obstacles such as language, usage of fire, wheel, etc. probably would help us to understand who we really are.

BigJohn,

Your post is very intriguing. I would say, however that man has not overcome language, but has instead, been trapped by its use....thusly: "In your terms, the use of language began as man lost this kind of identification. I must stress again that the identification was not symbolic, but practical, daily expression. Nature spoke for man, and man for nature." —NotP Chapter 6: Session 776, May 17, 1976 (per the reference)

....which may point to an answer to Who we remain, even after our over-reliance on spoken language to substitute communicating the ineffable Truth:

We have always been Who we truly are awaiting our own remembrance on Earth that I AM THAT I AM as in Heaven. Guthrio

Think about it. There is little else that "Nature spoke for man, and man for nature." could mean.....

Reference: https://findingseth.com/q/session:776+languages/