Could consciousness be a particle??

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TarunP

A better question is - are there any particles at all?

If you study QM (and the history of it), a particle is just a mathematical model.

A particle is a set of equations that describe certain physical phenomena. A model that represents what is actually there and its behaviour.

So there are no "real" particles there. For example a Photon is not a tiny ball that bounces around, it is not even a "wave-packet". A Photon is described by some mathematical equations. A hypothesized entity, a model to describe something. Experiments, like the double slit experiment (100 year old!) demonstrate that there is no matter, its the consciousness that creates the phenomena. (Also know as the "observer", responsible for the "collapse of the wave function" - google for more). Its "mainstream" science, not a fringe.

So can we equate consciousness, which is a direct experience, with some theory? Is this you are asking? I'd surely say no.

There is another assumption there, that the mind must have a location. Mind, a collection of processes, memories, thoughts etc, does not need a location, it creates location. An illusion to place objects in. Mind does not exists in space, space exists in mind. It is very easy to see it directly. Just sit and observe, while keeping all beliefs on the side for a while.

Happy exploring ...

The way I understand wave function does no assume a prior observer, and it could equally be said that a collapse creates the observation as it could be said that the observation causes the collapse. This is the problem where we have a single function which uses three components, as the singularity of the function implies an instant event with no prior component. I think the main assumption is the wave function is continuous, and a collapse of it manifests as the observation, which is then assumed to be both the observer and observed. Yet these occur as a collapse, neither being the prior cause of it.

[TarunP]

Originally Posted by Gem

The way I understand wave function does no assume a prior observer, and it could equally be said that a collapse creates the observation as it could be said that the observation causes the collapse.

Wavefunction does not need an observer, that is clear. However, there is no particle when there is no observer, it is just a distribution of probabilities. I agree with you that the arrow of causality is somewhat arbitrarily pointed from observer to the observed, and the process can be acausal. But the direction of the arrow was chosen by the scientists, and after much debate, so it is somewhat traditional to assign that direction.

From a PoV of non-duality, it'd be more accurate to say that the event and the consciousness of it are one and the same. A collapse is seen in the consciousness, there is no other way to see it.

[wolfgaze]

Originally Posted by BMD.KKS

It even states that in a liberated state the soul still maintains it's individual existence and cognisance while simultaneously being one with everything. Everything acts in perfect harmony and love as if being of one mind, while I still stay me and you still stay you. Two opposing and contradicting realities exist simultaneously. The Sanskrit word "achintya" is used to describe the situation, which means it is inconceivable.

Love this...

Thanks

[organic born]

Originally Posted by AlexDF

well lets put it this way
you can share theories
or you can share realities

the sharing of theories is fun

the other are as realities implies more real :-)

Isn't this pretty-much what everyone on the forum is saying in their posts? The perspectives that come with such assumptions-of-reality-involvments are quite diverse and are often-enough in contrast with anothers. And yet there is an insistence on "reality" in each case. :)

[Gem]

Originally Posted by TarunP

Wavefunction does not need an observer, that is clear. However, there is no particle when there is no observer, it is just a distribution of probabilities. I agree with you that the arrow of causality is somewhat arbitrarily pointed from observer to the observed, and the process can be acausal. But the direction of the arrow was chosen by the scientists, and after much debate, so it is somewhat traditional to assign that direction.

From a PoV of non-duality, it'd be more accurate to say that the event and the consciousness of it are one and the same. A collapse is seen in the consciousness, there is no other way to see it.

I don't see any basis for causality because the collapse is the sole event. If we take the philosophy that consciousness is fundamental, then the equal distribution of the wave function is consciousness (if we assume the equations represent the real and are not entirely an arbitrary exercise in pure math). The collapse, then, would be the 'appearance in consciousness' which manifests as observer and observed in the same moment.

This model precludes corpuscular consciousness as a rule, but allows for, and pretty much predicates, conscious particles - if we assume the particle physics model.

[r6r6]

Anything, is not possible.

We have a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo what is possible can only occur within the parameters of those laws/principles.

Ex there can only exist five regular/symmetrical polyhedra.

Bilateral twoness is key to the most complex mind accessing creatures of Universe, woman { Xx } and man { Xy }.

Minimal consciousness-- aka twoness or otherness ---means that particle needs at minimal two interrleating parts/aspects.

( * * ) = consciousness

\* */ = 2D, secondary, texticonic symbolism as triangle consciousness representing female woman,
..physically internalized....

*Y* = 2D, secondary, texiticonic symbolism as triangle consciousness representating male man.
..physically externallized....

Female has more bilateral hemi-spheric action in lab experiments. Also there appears to be 6:1 ratio of idiot savant men to idiot savant women ergo this leads me to believe, that, men tend to be more easily focused on this or that, whereas woman has more broad bi-lateral considerations of any task or problem set in from of them. Again this generality neccessarily true in all cases. imho

The minimal particle is quanta of gravity or dark energy. imho

However, since there appear to exist at ultra-micro scales, we are left to explore those particle we can quantify, and many of those we find a the topology of sine-wave associated with them.

Ive made clear, that, Fullers jitterbugging cubo{6}-oct{8}hedron infolds in a sine-wave configuration, as well as 6 or more other exotic shapes of space, including negative and positive space, as found with a torus.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...igs/f6008.html

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...igs/f6108.html

My personal numerical explorations led to each and every particle of Universe, being composed of a set of tori. This set of tori being likend to Fullers great circles ergo great toroidal tubes.

The following is a bi-secting cross-section of one of these tori, that, are derived from four level/line numerical explorations, that, isolated all prime numbers--- except 2 and 3 ---onto one line.

Or in hexagonal geometry onto two lines and since the the cubo-octahedron is defined by its four equatorial great hexagonal planes, we would presume the existence 8 radii of prime numbers, along with the other non-prime numbers also on those radii.

(^v)(v^) = cross-section of one great tube.

(><)(><) or this way the better--- tho still not exactly ---how the postive and negative curvature invert/invaginate to create the internal topology of a sine-wave.

Here below is the set of numbers that define that sine-wave topology.

0........6.......12...........18........24...
.....3.......9..........15.........21..........

This sine-wave is based on a triangular set ergo triangulation is stability integrity i.e. all particles have enough triangulation going on, that, the have a pattern integrity for their life span, irrespective of how short or how long.


Bilateral twoness is key to the most complex mind accessing creatures of Universe, woman and man.


(> <) and this twoness is only one side my Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )( torus.

( ** )

( ^v )

The twoness is fundamentally inversion of;

..1} gravity (>,

..2} dark energy <)

r6

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Anything, is not possible.

We have a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo what is possible can only occur within the parameters of those laws/principles.

And yet when you die do not the rules change? So we can say "while focused in this lifetime, within this physical context, then our options are limited based on the current rules as we now find them". It would seem that other rules may apply once we die.

Now if the rules are different, once we pass-on, wouldn't those rules already be in existence while here? We're just not realizing them because we're physically focused via physical senses and memorized assumptions. And yet anyone can see that a physical lifetime is limited so our experience with physical rules are clearly limited as well.

So the rules may be rules but they're contingent on our being wired in such a way to experience those limitations. Outside of this constrained context I would comfortably suspect that all bets are off...

[r6r6]

test test test

[r6r6]

Here again, OB, you do not offer us any rational, logical common sense or valid evidence your conclusions.

Cosmic laws/principles exist eternally ergo are irrelevant to existence of humanity or specific peoples being existent i.e. alive or non-existent i.e dead.

r6

Originally Posted by organic born

And yet when you die do not the rules change? So we can say "while focused in this lifetime, within this physical context, then our options are limited based on the current rules as we now find them". It would seem that other rules may apply once we die.

Now if the rules are different, once we pass-on, wouldn't those rules already be in existence while here? We're just not realizing them because we're physically focused via physical senses and memorized assumptions. And yet anyone can see that a physical lifetime is limited so our experience with physical rules are clearly limited as well.

So the rules may be rules but they're contingent on our being wired in such a way to experience those limitations. Outside of this constrained context I would comfortably suspect that all bets are off...

[metal68]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Here again, OB, you do not offer us any rational, logical common sense or valid evidence your conclusions.

Cosmic laws/principles exist eternally ergo are irrelevant to existence of humanity or specific peoples being existent i.e. alive or non-existent i.e dead.

r6

Are you familiar with Robert Lanza's Biogenesis theory? It postulates consciousness as fundamental and primary

Im surprised really to find a hardened materialist on a site like this. although you do give balance to all the nonsense about pleideans & fairies for sure