Consciousness is not self-created.

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby jeffrey.sharpe » Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:31 am

It is commonly believed that our five experiential senses are self-created - colours, sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations are not believed to exist 'out there'. In other words, consciousness is believed to be metaphysical. Substances, therefore, do not possess colour, so their true nature must be invisible. We cannot even describe what we mean by 'substance' because one's tactile sensations of it are believed to be self-created. Similarly, vibrations of air molecules are movements, not sounds, and even movements cannot be known to exist with certainty as a sense of movement consists of changes in the positions of colours, which are self-created. It seems that man is condemned to spend his life locked in an inner world of experiential senses, cut off from the true nature of what exists 'out there'. Even his interpretations and speculations about what may exist 'out there' are futile because they can only be meaningful if they refer to his experiential senses, which do not exist 'out there'.

The modus operandi of science is to measure what seems to exist 'out there', according to what our sense experiences tell us, and to use mathematical equations involving time, force and mass etc., which attempt to describe such measurements. The problem for science is that it does not restrict itself to measuring what it can sense. For example, time, force and mass, etc. do not exist in our experiential world of senses because they cannot be shown to exist separately from the effects they seem to cause. These terms were created in medieval times to describe metaphysical phenomena, the causes of which were believed to be beyond the power of human beings to comprehend. Today, nothing has changed. What is the structure of a force, which most of us still believe is able to move objects? What is the structure of time, which is believed to control man's destiny? What is the structure of mass, which is believed to give substances weight, by making them susceptible to gravity? How can time, force and mass exist if they do not have structures?

Scientists point out that measurements called force, time and mass make accurate predictions possible. But how can one be certain about any scientific prediction if its cause is utterly unknown? The nearest that science can approach reality is to measure what seems to exist 'out there', and by using a process of trial and error, attempt to manipulate it, for better or worse.

But perhaps this is just a science-fiction nightmare scenario. Perhaps man's five experiential senses are not self-created. Perhaps they originate ‘out there’ in the form of five pulsating layers of an aether touching our five sense organs. Perhaps the universe 'out there' is exactly as we sense it.

If our senses were real, as opposed to being self-created, science would become much simpler, and so would our lives. Of course, science would need to incorporate them into the structure of the universe, which they currently believe is three-dimensional. It is not difficult to show that everything in the universe is part of a four-dimensional aether, including time and forces, which are movements of the aether, and particles of mass, which are rotating vortices of the aether - not forgetting our experiential senses, which are the vibrations of different layers of the aether. In other words, the different frequencies of vibrations, including light, radio and mobile phone waves, are not jumbled up together in three-dimensional space, which would cause them to interfere with one another, but are separated from one another fourth-dimensionally.

The aether can easily be visualised as a four-dimensional onion, which has many concentric layers. At the centre of this onion-universe lies its brain. We know five of its layers as our five sensory experiences. They are near to the outer surface of the onion. But the brain of homo sapiens seems to be evolving at an ever-increasing rate towards the centre of the 'onion' in a fourth-dimensional direction, increasingly tapping into the onion's brain.

This may also seem like science fiction. But the purpose of science is to find certainty or truth, which cannot happen if science is based on metaphysical unknowns, such as time, force and mass. Science has reached the stage where it needs to concern itself not only with manipulating our environment but also with investigating its fundamental nature.
jeffrey.sharpe
Dionian
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby wendy » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:19 am

Consciousness is a matter of self-ness. I mean, the only real consciousness ye can find is yourself. For every other thing, you have to make a kind of judgement on whether their actions amount to consciousness or reflex. It is or was, a matter of debate on whether animals have it, since by assuming it, you suppose some sort of 'self' involvement in their actions. The book 'Supernature' by Lyal Watson, deals with the notion of plants having an awareness of their environment.

What we percieve when we see and hear things, is massively preprocessed before we get it. For example ".ti ekil sleef erus ti tub ,ereh ton si sihT" is just a reversed english sentence, but that we need to labour on what it is made of, is due to that we process a good deal of text subconciously.

Colours vary from person to person. In the tropics, one is less likely to call something 'blue', these tend to migrate to colours near blue (eg grey). You can easily train the mind to join or divide colours: i see 'orange' as a shade of brown. The Russians see what we call blue as two distinct colours. If you see more of the spectrum, then the colours might stretch further.

The supposition that we do not know the fine scale of gravity or electricity or medicine, does not mean that we can't deal with them at a large scale. Medicine was done many thousands of years with the notion that arteries and veins are two different blood systems (where de ye think 'blue blood' comes from). Likewise, we have sent man to the moon, without knowing the exact nature of what 'causes' gravity, or what the value of G is. The value GM for the earth was 398600.4 km3/s2 in the 1960's and it's still that. This is *much* more accurate than it is known today.

Krishnamuti wrote a book on 'actuality and reality', wherein he supposes that we can never access actuality without denying all realities. What happens, is that the mind sees things, and groups various sensations into 'objects', (like trees and houses and people), and then has an expectation on how these objects ought behave. It is well known in the art world, that a more accurate copy of a picture is made by hand, if the original is inverted. This, like the sentence above, breaks the narcessant realities, and makes one more direct access to the underlying actuality.

You are supposing a fourth dimension aether to separate different wavelengths, because ye are imposing one of your realities that things can not intersect without disruption. You are extending your notion of hard objects to radio waves. However, it is perfectly possible for different things to hold the same space at different frequencies. This is usually one of the model of the ghosts: that they are with us, but at a frequency we can't see.

Glass and water are transparent at the frequencies we see them, but this does not mean that they are transparent to all frequencies. They may appear as opaque as steel or china. Things that we hold to be opaque, may likewise become invisible at different frequencies.

It's worth remembering that early in the present century, we abandoned that on a fine scale, 'particles' and 'waves' were approximations to the fundemental quanta. They are somewhere in between. They exist in discrete packages, but behave like waves.

Because we bring with us our 'realities' about how things ought behave, it is somewhat difficult to explain something that is beyond this. If the actuallity is just too much for the mind to cope with, it will just simply blank the stimulus off: the signal is rejected at the level of the senses. If the signal is read as no concern, a similar counter-signal will be created. It is known that closure of the "subway" lines in New York, had cause people living along the routes, to still process a counter-signal to a non-absent signal, and be alarmed by the unexpected absence of noise.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby jeffrey.sharpe » Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:14 pm

The 'self'' does not exist. If you disagree, please open up a brain and show it to me, or describe it for me.

On the other hand, consciousness does exist. It consists of pulses of energy received via an organism's sense organs.

These continue to reverberate in an organism's nervous system over a range of higher fourth-dimensional levels, depending on how evolved the organism is.

The higher the level, the higher the level of awareness that can be attained by an organism.

These are the same energy levels that determine the nature of the physical world. For example at progressively higher levels, time slows down more. At the centre of our four-dimensional universe time slows down so much that it becomes timeless and all-knowing.

Read all about it in my book 'The Fourth Dimension'.
jeffrey.sharpe
Dionian
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby ICN5D » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:45 pm

What consists of a higher vs. lesser evolved organism? Brain processing power? Sensitivity to environmental observation? Length of time spent speciating into a specific organism? A human is in fact much less evolved than a horseshoe crab. Those things have been around since Precambrian Explosion times, far before any mutant fish-frog crawled out of the water onto land.

Homonids are only 4,000,000 years old, a far cry from insects, or jellyfish for that matter! Is a jellyfish, then, any less evolved than a human? They can adapt extremely quickly to any environment in ways we cannot. If homonids were suddenly deprived of food and oxygen, we simply die off. But, for a jellyfish, they mutate, and start producing offspring with symbiotic algae in their cells. I don't know about you, but that ability seems to be a very highly evolved survival trait, if I've ever seen one!
in search of combinatorial objects of finite extent
ICN5D
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:25 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby jeffrey.sharpe » Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:37 am

I'm upset that you cannot distinguish between adaptation, awareness, evolution, brain power, survival, mutation.

These are all fully discussed in my book 'The Fourth Dimension'.

Man is aware that everything can be reduced to a lowest common denominator, which could be an aether, dust, numbers, particles etc.

But he must be just as aware that he can travel in the opposite direction.

Maybe, just maybe, this alternative direction consists of evolving awareness.
jeffrey.sharpe
Dionian
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby Klitzing » Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:09 pm

Isn't it a bit kind of unfair, comming in rather recently only, having already written a book on your perhaps quite specific usages of common-sense terms, and then assuming everyone, you'll discuss to, having not only read your book, but also to have to agree with you on your assumptions, which then only lead you to the topics discussed?

Btw., did you even mention how to get a copy of it? What's its title? its topic at all?

Not to harm you by intend in any way. Just asking to being perhaps a bit more self-contained within such discussion threads, which are open to unbiased audience, and thus per se cannot premise having read all your related treatises...

Not that you'll have to type in longish posts now. Just being verbose on the specific required prerequisites, definitions, etc.

Suppose that could help to avoid future misunderstandings.

--- rk
Klitzing
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:16 am
Location: Heidenheim, Germany

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby jeffrey.sharpe » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:16 pm

Sorry.

Let me make myself clear.

Awareness,in my book, means being able to experience a bigger picture. For example a chess-player can see a chess-board and its pieces, which enables him or her instantaneously to become aware of the potential moves of the various pieces. Awareness could therefore be described as a 'dynamic observation', and requires four dimensions, not three.

Evolution, in my book, means developing into a more complete state. For example, an embryo evolves into a baby etc. For this to happen a blue print for the baby must pre-date the embryo.
Once again, I believe the mechanism for this to happen i.e. DNA, has to be four-dimensional.

I believe awareness is central to all evolution. For example, a crab is not as aware as a mammal. The former relies entirely on its instinctive repertoire for survival whereas the latter can add to its instincts by learning new survival strategies from its parents. Man has progressed even further up the evolutionary scale. He is aware of his awareness, which allows him to choose to keep or reject aspects of his instinctive behaviour. However, he is not yet very adept at this. For example he tends to hang on for dear life to his traditions and habits regardless of how outmoded or harmful they may be. There is a simple reason for this, namely the delusion that he possesses a 'self'.

Further evolution of awareness (and a consequent reduction of delusion) is, I believe, the next stage for man, even if perhaps not for other species.

My book is called 'The Fourth Dimension', and is published by Amazon. (No other publisher would touch it with a barge pole, understandably.)
jeffrey.sharpe
Dionian
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby ICN5D » Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:51 pm

Well, Jeffrey,

Every time I ask you a question, out of pure curiosity in your reasoning, I keep getting circumvented back to your book. I must apologize. I don't have the patience to thumb through 226 pages as a replacement for your reply, which could happen in minutes to hours. We are children of immediate gratification, in light of our fast-paced world. A-men!

I am also a salesperson and mechanic in a bicycle retail store, I am familiar with baiting techniques, quite well. I am extremely aware ( there's that word again ... ) of your tactic in this respect, and I totally respect that. I also ran a small mobile repair business for a little bit. One has got to network to get the word out there, I get it, trust me :) !

In your recently vocalized definition of awareness, then, I suppose certain mammals will be more aware than crabs. I'm willing to bet a crab doesn't ponder about how to split atoms, nor an orangutan or cat. Though, I see this as an artifact of the crab having to address immediate survival needs. Growth of culture happens when one has got the free time to do so. If all biological requirements have been secured, then there's nothing else left to do, than to day dream about how the world works, and what it's made of.

If we have to go out and hunt for food, get water, etc, then we simply won't have the spare time to think about such things :) This is more than simple anecdotal evidence, it's how it actually ends up working! Take the primitive tribes in the Amazon, or Africa. They must address their needs to survive, and so their cultures and religions are very simple, including language. Now take us: we can go pick up food at the nearest grocery store in mere minutes. Those hours and hours that would have been spent getting this food, are now freely available, for whatever comes to mind.

Now, consider the cuttlefish. This thing is waaaaay smarter than one would think. Way smarter. In fact, its neuron architecture is completely different from ours, giving it a sort of " alien intelligence " to our own. These creatures are cunning tricksters, and figure out puzzles really fast, if physically possible. If a male is born much smaller than other males, it disguises itself as a female during mating time. It then sneaks in, past the larger dumber males, hanging out with females. Crazy thing is, the female actually notices this as a male in disguise, and will procreate with him, along with the large males. The female recognizes this maneuver, and determines it as a desirable trait. Talk about awareness! If cuttlefish could drive to the grocery store and get some scallops, I bet their cultures, religions, mathematics, art, and governments would be just as sophisticated, if not more, than ours. Perhaps in time.


Evolution, in my book, means developing into a more complete state. For example, an embryo evolves into a baby etc. For this to happen a blue print for the baby must pre-date the embryo.
Once again, I believe the mechanism for this to happen i.e. DNA, has to be four-dimensional.


Now, it's just my opinion, but I forsee the 4th dimension in this case to be that of time. Take the Eryops, for example:

Image

This creature, that lived about 300 million years back, is believed to be the precursor to all mammalian life forms today. It was the first of a kind, to be a large walking 200 lb animal, air-breathing, yet still amphibious in nature.




Now, fast forward 150 million years, and we get this little guy: Megaconus.


Image


This squirrel sized critter lived alongside dinosaurs, 100 million years before T.Rex. It's a much closer pre-mammalian ancestor, even for Eryops.


So, as time progressed, a ridiculous amount of it, the DNA of these animals evolved, carrying traits with it, mammalian traits, that we see in all current-day mammals. Something related to this creature survived the Chicxulub impact, and possessed sufficient enough adaptation skills, in order to carry on the DNA that made you, me, and all of us.



But, we could also be descendants of enhanced intellect human/alien hybrids. Originally created to mine for gold 200,000 years ago, after the working class Anunnaki rebelled against the ruling class. Why else would mankind be so obsessed with gold? It's pretty, and doesn't corrode, but has no real uses other than high-tech electronics. We can't build structures with it, make tools out of it, or anything else other than make computer chips. So, why such a long-held worshipping of gold, before the advent of the computer age? Pretty wild idea, right? Funny thing is, ancient African Zulu tribal lore also tells the same exact story.

If that sounds too crazy to be true, then what the heck are all these stone formations, 200,000 years old, sitting in the richest gold deposits found on earth?

Image


But I digress. Of all creationism theories out there, this one is the coolest!

More of those stone formations can be found all over that area, google earth/map :

-25.845755,30.213143
-25.820551,30.176214
-25.790009,30.196481
-25.747825,30.263606
-25.752377,30.277569
-25.694451,30.303673
-25.618901,30.315045
in search of combinatorial objects of finite extent
ICN5D
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:25 am
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby jeffrey.sharpe » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:12 am

I mentioned my book details because the previous blogger asked me.

This particular blog is about consciousness. I have offered a some definitions and possible explanations, which you have not disputed or chosen to comment on.

You have offered nothing, except distractions like repairing bikes and horse shoe crabs.

My original proposition therefore stands. Consciousness is not self-created.
jeffrey.sharpe
Dionian
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:54 am

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby Hugh » Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:16 am

jeffrey.sharpe wrote:You have offered nothing, except distractions like repairing bikes and horse shoe crabs.

My original proposition therefore stands. Consciousness is not self-created.


Seeing an attitude like that, I have chosen to create a consciousness of not wanting to contribute anything at all.
User avatar
Hugh
Tetronian
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby wendy » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:18 pm

quote: The 'self'' does not exist. If you disagree, please open up a brain and show it to me, or describe it for me.

It is possible to test for 'consciousness'. It is also possible to test for 'self'. Being conscious does not mean having a process of 'self'. We have interacted with species long enough for an interesting observation to be noted: nowhere in all of our conversations has an animal asked questions of 'mind', even though they have made questions and demands of 'self'. So, self does exist, it exists as an intensity of conciousness.

quote: These continue to reverberate in an organism's nervous system over a range of higher fourth-dimensional levels, depending on how evolved the organism is.

The supposition that it's a higher level, does not imply four dimensional. The inclusion of 4d is extraneous and not supported, even in the teachings of the occult. What happens is that it is by these folk, sufficient to have higher levels without the 4d.

quote: The higher the level, the higher the level of awareness that can be attained by an organism.

You really got to laugh at this one. It's sort of like "Man is at the top of the tree, and the world is our oyster". No, human senses are quite poor relative to those of animals. Humans make up for their abysmal levels of senses by having a fairly large energy-consuming organ which requires more energy per weight than animals with only a double-deck brain.

quote: These are the same energy levels that determine the nature of the physical world. For example at progressively higher levels, time slows down more. At the centre of our four-dimensional universe time slows down so much that it becomes timeless and all-knowing.

Energy *is* the physical world. Our measurements of atoms are now so precise, that E=mc² is not seen just of atomic energy, but of chemical energy. The mass of a proton and an electron exceeds the mass of a hydrogen by the ionisation level.

Disscussions elsewhere on this forum, tell us that a fourth dimension modeled on our understanding of three dimensions, would collapse catastrophisticly.

quote: The modus operandi of science is to measure what seems to exist 'out there', according to what our sense experiences tell us, and to use mathematical equations involving time, force and mass etc., which attempt to describe such measurements.

No, the mode of science is to posit models of the world that lead to predictions on other events. The failure of an event to happen means the model might need to be adjusted. Force, masses, equations, etc are recent additions to creating models. Mathematics is simply about from X comes Y, but it's up to someone else to observe X.

For example, the 'charge/field' model of electricity and magnetism, is modeled on gravity. The model is accurate enough that we can compare results over thousands of years of human history. Electricity is different to gravity, because the charges repel, and come in opposite signs, but in general, gravitational equations apply for electricity. The magnetic charge model was abandoned, not because the charge theory is wrong, but because when applied to magnetism, gives different results to what is observed. The theory isn't wrong: it just does not work with magnetism.

quote: I mentioned my book details because the previous blogger asked me.

It's really not our role to read every book that comes our way. Really. What has to happen, is that you have to walk the walk, and if you do that really well, then we'll listen to the talk.

People are not listening to Wendy Krieger because she wrote a fancy geometry that's utterly different to the common stream. People are listening to her because she's digging up lots of interesting polytopes, and lots of simpler ways of doing things and they ask, "How does she do it". And that's when they might find out how Wendy is doing these things. That's how you get your idea out. I mean, people are prepared to forgive þ's and random twelfty-numbers to answer 'how does she do it'. They seek it because she's making interesting noises in areas they are interested.

Reading pages of tedious philosophy is not likely to engage a great number of people. There's plenty of them around. What's likely to arrouse people's interest is being able to give convincing answers to questions without having to grovel through pages of mind-numbing theory.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.
User avatar
wendy
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Consciousness is not self-created.

Postby ICN5D » Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:01 pm

jeffrey.sharpe wrote:My book is called 'The Fourth Dimension', and is published by Amazon. (No other publisher would touch it with a barge pole, understandably.)


And, nonetheless, you're getting a lot of responses from us, dude! Not only are we touching on your ideas, but with much more than just a barge pole! And, with the inclusion of the " understandably ", you self-admit the radicalism. No one here has any issues with that, at all.


This particular blog is about consciousness. I have offered a some definitions and possible explanations, which you have not disputed or chosen to comment on.

You have offered nothing, except distractions like repairing bikes and horse shoe crabs.


Really? You'd be great at dry-humor stand up comedy, because that's genuinely funny. You say " It's like this, and like that, because it's four dimensional". But, there are so many ways to be 4D, non-geometrically. We ask you to elaborate your idea, but you say " It's all in my book". You know our disposition there. Plus, you don't want me to read your book. I'll end up coming back on here, with a 100,000 word essay on repairing 4D horseshoecrab bicycles :lol:



You say DNA of a " highly evolved " organism is four dimensional. What's 4D about it? I didn't see an explanation, so I made one in it's place. I opened up the timeline of evolution, for you. I qualified it as my opinion, too. I made the distinction that time may be a better definition of this four dimensional extent. But, only because I didn't see any other explanation. I have to post guesses, and wait for your reply, to answer my own question. I'm okay with that, though.




You say a mammal is more aware than a crab. I didn't see an explanation, so I made one in its place. I elaborated on the side effects of securing survival needs. The side effect is that culture, religion, math, art, science all suffers when we have to constantly go out and get food.

Ours is advanced due to agriculture, among many more systems of water treatment, food distribution, etc. It's a matter of having enough spare time, and not so much as being more evolved than any other organism. I also provided so many other kinds of ideas and theories that you probably haven't thought about, or read about yet. You can think of them as "lateral alternatives".

I elaborated on how a female cuttlefish understands the usefulness of deception. She sees the small male as a worthy mate, and chooses to replicate that trait. She has to make an assessment, a judgement call. She has to assess the potential uses for what the smaller male is doing, by it's awareness of not being able to put up a fight with a large male.

This non-mammal is conducting and reasoning based on awareness of self, far greater than the vast majority of mammals today. This non-mammal has the forsight to predict the usefulness of deception for future generations, much like how a chess player assumes future moves on the board.



But, Wendy is right. The most important thing one can do for their cause, is to conduct oneself with tact, politeness, eloquence, and patience. And, to elaborate on your ideas in the face of opposition. I must apologize if my inclusion of pictures, in addition to my tangential outpouring of ideas, is distracting. I also get distracted with cool things I didn't know about. But, I have no other recourse, since I can't seem to find any further elaborations on your later-posted ideas.
in search of combinatorial objects of finite extent
ICN5D
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 4:25 am
Location: Orlando, FL


Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests