On Consciousness

[CCoburn]

Re : Alzheimers' and Aging Machinery


I did notice the original snippet as well, and wrote a reply last night but didn't get around to posting it at the time. This type of argument against duality has come up a few times before and it's nothing new.

It doesn't matter whether the animating principle is a material flow of electrons or conscious energy, or whether the machinery is biological or otherwise. This is kind of like saying that one of these animating forces cannot be a distinct and unchanging property because if it were then an aging machinery would never cease to function properly.

When a mechanical non-biological machinery degrades over time you wouldn't normally question the electricity that drives it. The electricity is fine, but it's one or more other mechanisms that are failing.

This "duality" is more akin to a partnership(or union) where both aspects require an unfettered state for proper functioning as a whole.

[CCoburn]

Re : The Biological Non-Biological Analogy


The biological/non-biological analogy isn't perfect since with a biological machinery the conscious energy operates at an even more rudimentary level than the electricity as the initiator of electrical impulses although in the case of non-biological machinery it could be said that a machine or device is 'dead' in the absence of the electrical much in the same way that a biological machinery is "dead" in the absence of its conscious animator...

And yes, there are times when one single long-ass sentence seems appropriate, and this would be one of those times.

Also, even with non-biological devices and machinery an operator is usually required that extends their own mental faculties to a non-thinking device or machine which adds another layer of needed functionality, so the conscious animator would often be a fundamental driving force in either case not to mention also the creator/designer of such machinery.

[Swada]

My Father has alzheimers. Started off slowly now he's getting worse and worse. Apart from being sad, If his consciousness was a manifestation of beyond the physical it wouldn't deteriorate with his physical brain.

Perennial wisdom suggest its the seat of consciousness itself (aka I AM or our pure awareness) that isn't physical.  The nervous system and thinking consciousnesses certainly is physical explaining why they are prone to decay and disease.

From a scientific viewpoint it may be hard to prove that our seat of consciousness isn't physical but from personal viewpoint, we can experience nothing by pure awareness in deep states of meditation. Opening the door to higher states of consciousness (144,000)

My sympathies for your Father.

[CCoburn]

That doesn't make the "causal agent" a "fucking sadist." (You are so eloquent!)

He really is, you should see him on some of the other sites, and he's actually exercising quite a bit of restraint here, and like Anna once said: "There's no one like Canis; I couldn't mistake him for anyone else.", and I agree.

[Karl12]

This Oxford man and his work with dogs and parrots definitely deserves a mention.


https://youtu.be/XqWbIVlnmNM

[l0st]

On time: time is real; time is change time is movement, and without it nothing ever changes or moves.

Well, if you take a look back at ancient cultures, for instance the Mayans, they had systems for keeping "time" that are entirely different from our own. I actually wrote and delivered a presentation on this topic back in college.

If time truly exists and is not a man-made construct, then surely each group must be able to measure it in the same way. Yet, they don't. Several ancient cultures with entirely different takes on what time is and with differing systems of measurement that are not equivalent to each other.

We currently use the Gregorian calendar. I think many (perhaps even most) aren't even aware that alternate systems for measuring time even exist. I realize the audience here is likely to know this, but most people just take for granted that "it is what it is" because that's what they were taught.

Taking it a step further, the Mayans believed that the calendar ends, and would have ended some time around December, 2012 on our Calendar. Clearly, time did not end. Their system of measurement also accounted for only 260 days, not 365.  Their concept of a day spanned multiple sun cycles, and also had waypoints built in for seasonal changes, as well as an astrological element. Their perception of time is clearly different from our current system. This seems impossible if time itself as an immutable, always-existing element.

[CCoburn]

Well, if you take a look back at ancient cultures, for instance the Mayans, they had systems for keeping "time" that are entirely different from our own. I actually wrote and delivered a presentation on this topic back in college.

If time truly exists and is not a man-made construct, then surely each group must be able to measure it in the same way. Yet, they don't. Several ancient cultures with entirely different takes on what time is and with differing systems of measurement that are not equivalent to each other.

We currently use the Gregorian calendar. I think many (perhaps even most) aren't even aware that alternate systems for measuring time even exist. I realize the audience here is likely to know this, but most people just take for granted that "it is what it is" because that's what they were taught.

Taking it a step further, the Mayans believed that the calendar ends, and would have ended some time around December, 2012 on our Calendar. Clearly, time did not end. Their system of measurement also accounted for only 260 days, not 365.  Their concept of a day spanned multiple sun cycles, and also had waypoints built in for seasonal changes, as well as an astrological element. Their perception of time is clearly different from our current system. This seems impossible if time itself as an immutable, always-existing element.

You're looking at it a little differently. What you're talking about is organizing time. What I'm talking about is the 'nature' of time.

You have time being organized as various calendars, and then you have 'cosmic time' which gets to the crux or root of the matter concerning the very essence of time which is basically 'change'.

Time IS change. You may sow a seed, but in the absence of 'time' it will never germinate.

[Maxmars]

At the risk of pissing people off....

"Time" is a perception.
Like all perception we are driven to "measure it" by our nature as thinking creatures.
'Measuring' means translating the concept into language... 
'Language' is a tool... not always directly suited to every concept equally.

We'll get to the meaning eventually, when we get to the reality of the perception... it's a journey, not a destination.

[l0st]

You're looking at it a little differently. What you're talking about is organizing time. What I'm talking about is the 'nature' of time.

You have time being organized as various calendars, and then you have 'cosmic time' which gets to the crux or root of the matter concerning the very essence of time which is basically 'change'.

Time IS change. You may sow a seed, but in the absence of 'time' it will never germinate.

I'm unsure how one would use the scientific method to prove the existence of time as an existential element from the future through antiquity. It cannot be turned on and off. It cannot be directly measured or observed - only using tools and methods of measurement devised by humans - and those tools and systems do not generate equivalent measurements, and therein lies the problem.

To flesh out what I am saying here, the Mayan Tzolkin clearly measures a completely different span of "time" than what the Gregorian system does. No matter how you add it up, there are no equivalent measures between the two systems. Ergo, the systems were devised based on two distinctly different perceptions of the passage of time.

Indeed, the system we use today utilizes the birth of Christ as its starting point. Absent the existence of the Bible, what would be the basis of our system of keeping time? Similarly, the Mayan system is also a reflection of spiritual beliefs. They used 3 calendars that run simultaneously, and even believed that being born on certain days or combinations of dates was a certain forbearing of misfortune in ones life, or even that certain things should not be accomplished on certain days due to the potential likelihood of success as dictated by the calendar. In a way, its almost reflective of far-eastern Zodiac mythology. Still, it seems impossible that both systems could possibly be correct simultaneously, yet when viewed from the perspective of the relevant culture, makes perfect sense.

For those things that can be measured and verified... Metric & the English systems of measurement have equivalent values. One can clearly state that 12" is 30.48 cm. These observations can be duplicated by others, and verified. There are no equivalent measures in these calendaring systems. They seem to measure different things entirely. Yet, both systems are representative of their respective cultures' perceptions of time.

If time is a truly immutable constant, then it seems to me that every culture would come up with similar units by which to measure it. However, circling back to what I stated earlier on about the possibility of central consciousness, the ideal perhaps could make sense if one widens their scope and recognizes all of these things as part of the larger whole, and the ways in which these perceptions differ are simply pieces of a larger picture we do not yet fully understand. It offers some explanation yet no explanation at all at the same time.

[schuyler]

This conversation on "time" remains perplexing to me. So many people seem so very sure of themselves when they declare that "time doesn't really exist." It's not just on these posts, of course. Physics has declared that "time" is the "fourth dimension" and has supplied us with elaborate mathematical equations that seek to prove the issue. I'm not good enough at math to understand the arguments, but I know, for certain, that in logical discourse (the kind you find in departments of philosophy) it is absolutely possible in symbolic logic to prove "A" or "not-A." I'm sure I could not do that now because it has been too long, like fifty years too long, but it has left me with a life-long impression that you can prove anything, including its opposite, depending on how you reduce the elements of a proposition to a conclusion. All you have to do is replace the symbols of logic with declarative statements. This issue is unassailable. Those who don't believe this may want to check out "Introduction to Logic" by Copi and Cohen. I think it is now in its 15th edition. It's all in there.

It is a basic tenant of anthropology that different cultures think in different ways. This goes beyond using different methods of measurement. Yes, OF COURSE metric and Imperial are different. Don't embarrass yourself or others by "pointing out" something so intellectually trivial. But beyond the tools of measurement, different cultures view time in different ways, some of which may not be understandable to the "Western" mind set. OK. That's fine, too, but that's just as trivial. Diminishing the argument to these levels of minutiae feels like the question is being avoided. None of this disproves the existence of time.

I'm not sure how this subset of the conversation relates to consciousness. My original proposition is that consciousness is the program; the brain is the TV set, which allows consciousness to express itself in physical form. That's all you really need to know.