What exactly is consciousness?

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
FreeThinking's picture
What exactly is consciousness?

My theory is that the only thing that truly exists is consciousness. Matter is merely a construct of consciousness...and a damn good one. This theory has had no blows to it and in my opinion is very possible. The contrary theory that somehow matter creates consciousness has no evidence whatsoever, so there is no reason why I should believe it is true.

Some of you may be thinking: "so you're telling me that all that stuff I see isn't real??", well in a sense, yes. It's only there because you have observed it as such. No consciousness = absolute nothingness. Really think deeply about this conundrum, how in the world would there be anything if there was no conscious being to observe it??? How would the chair be a chair if there was nobody to observe it?

Anything that YOU have ever known was because you are a conscious sentient being, and to try to explain your own consciousness as an illusion is laughable, and is highly unscientific, no evidence says this is such. If we had the ability to look at matter on smaller and smaller scales all the way down to the smallest allowable slice of space-time in the universe I guarantee you we will find that THERE IS NOTHING THERE. There is no floor, walls etc. It simply doesn't exist. But let's say we did find something...what exactly would that be? A tiny ball of vibrating energy?? Ok, that's cool, but what the hell is that tiny ball of vibrating energy?

It is absolutely proven, at this point that there is no form of matter or energy that is real or solid in any conventional sense, the Newtonian universe is absolutely and irrevocably proven to not exist, and there is no way to prove otherwise. What we essentially have discovered since QM is that there no longer is matter, no certainty, and no actual things or events anywhere throughout all of space-time. All things exist in a multitude, possibly infinite set of possibilities and physical locations through out space-time (potentiality)---my theory is this that this is the case, UNTIL WE LOOK AT IT. In addition, at the moment we look at it, all things tied together by any potentiality or possibility with this thing come into being. If I am not mistaken one interpretation (that has been disowned for some reason) is that consciousness collapses the wave function, now I am not saying this is the correct interpretation but it is in line with what I am saying. Also for example the quantum Zeno effect has shown that the observer controls the flow of time.

Regarding the double slit experiment:

Wikipedia- "The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself--even though there is only one photon present. (This experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too)"

The idea that single photon events seem as though the photon 'interferes with itself' is baffling. It is more baffling when you do it with small molecules that are supposed to be matter. Isn't matter solid?? Performed with particles, such as electrons, a new enigma emerges--the wave-particle dual nature of matter seems to 'know' that it is being measured by expressing itself as a wave in a wave experiment, but expressing itself as a particle in any particle experiment.

Wikipedia-" there is a variation of the double-slit experiment in which detectors are places in either or both of the two slits in an attempt to determine which slit the photon passes through on its way to the screen. Placing a detector in just one of the slits will result in the disappearance of the interference pattern."

Meaning that the particle aspect of the photon is expressed when we try to trick the photon by trying to measure its whereabouts. It thus ceases being everywhere and becomes a particle with a defined location and path. There is only probability and possibilities--no STUFF. When you take a close look at what everything really is, there is nothing there, only potentiality--even energy itself in any form is only probability.

Ultimately what I am saying is this: these phenomena are not any absolute property of the particle, but that it can only be expressed in terms of being a particle-observer system. This is, nothing exists because it is some ancient artifact of the Big Bang, no particle, no wave, no force, no energy, but everything exists in terms of Big Bang-observer systems.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
FreeThinking - "What we

FreeThinking - "What we essentially have discovered since QM is that there no longer is matter"

Electrons are matter. Don't get your science from New Agers.
----------

FreeThinking - "What we essentially have discovered since QM is that there ... is ..no certainty"

There are lots of experiments where the outcome is certain. Don't get your science from New Agers.
----------

FreeThinking - "and no actual things or events anywhere throughout all of space-time"

Special relativity is the description of events in space-time. Don't get your science from New Agers.
----------

FreeThinking - "All things exist in a multitude, possibly infinite set of possibilities and physical locations through out space-time"

You will never find the same particle in more than one location (hint: this is why they are called particles). Don't get your science from New Agers.
----------

FreeThinking - "In addition, at the moment we look at it, all things tied together by any potentiality or possibility with this thing come into being."

You don't need to look at something to change its state. States are changed when collisions happen. When looking at something, photons are colliding with the system. The system didn't change because a conscious observer look at it, it changed because of the collisions. Don't get your science from New Agers.

FreeThinking's picture
None of my science was from

None of my science was from new angers.

#1 know what your talking about before you sound like a condescending little fuck.

"Electrons are matter". Ok yes, but matter is 'particle' as well as 'wave' that is called wave particle duality. You have no comprehension of the subject at hand so get lost..scrat..be gone.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You are the one who said

You are the one who said there is no such thing as matter, and agree that electrons are matter. Leading to the conclusion there is no such thing as electrons. That is where the new age religion as led you.

FreeThinking's picture
I'm not saying there is no

I'm not saying there is no matter...merely that matter is not solid...it only appears it is. The only thing that makes matter appear in any way solid is the Pauli exclusion principle

Nyarlathotep's picture
FreeThinking - "I'm not

FreeThinking - "I'm not saying there is no matter"

FreeThinking - "What we essentially have discovered since QM is that there no longer is matter"

Sure seems like you are.

FreeThinking's picture
Ok now you're just trying to

Ok now you're just trying to get nit picky...what I meant was that the Newtonian views of matter being solid and composed of little billiard balls has been proven to been incorrect. And fundamentally what I'm saying is that matter wouldn't exist if consciousness wasn't there to perceive it as such. How would anything in this universe be known if there was no consciousness...

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
If we assume consciousness

If we assume consciousness for the moment.

That humans have some level of control on matter, and also assume that there is no god particle but matter continues to divide itself at infinatum.

What is that you want to conclude from this?

If you are interested in this Check this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqdcdky9wR4

However I still do not see what is your argument here?

FreeThinking's picture
Yes I've seen haglins stuff.

Yes I've seen haglins stuff. But my argument is that, consciousness causes order out of chaos by determining one single outcome. (Wave function collapse?). Most scientists prefer models that exclude consciousness, but not all. Around 10-20% of QPhysicicts still entertain the idea. In physics the only definition for consciousness is an observer. Also, to try and eliminate consciousness from any system is impossible because...well, how would you do that? It is the one common denominator in every experiment, measurement, piece of data collected etc. to say it is a mundane process causes by the whirling of particles is downplaying it, and there is no proof that this is so.

I'm sure that you are more sure your own consciousness exists than the chair you are sitting on...so why in the world does science try to explain you out of existence...when you are more certain of your own existence than anything else.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"I'm sure that you are more

"I'm sure that you are more sure your own consciousness exists than the chair you are sitting on...so why in the world does science try to explain you out of existence...when you are more certain of your own existence than anything else."

Science deals with things we can test repeatedly BY ANYONE.
"your own consciousness" does not fit in this criteria since none can test if someone else consciousness exists.

You can confirm your own existence but not someone else.

I still miss the point of where do you want to go with this?

FreeThinking's picture
I'm saying this universe is a

I'm saying this universe is a mere construct of consciousness...nothing more. The reasons why you don't realize that you literally create the world around you are due to yours and my cognitive limitations.

Things such as the double slit experiment, and the quantum Zeno effect allude to the fact that this might be a possibility.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"The reasons why you don't

"The reasons why you don't realize that you literally create the world around you are due to yours and my cognitive limitations."

Maybe I do realize more then you think.

"I'm saying this universe is a mere construct of consciousness...nothing more."
And i disagree.

The way you are phrasing it is incorrect, there is no evidence that you can create matter or not but there is some evidence that suggest that you can effect matter, like the double slit experiment.

And the universe might not be "a mere construct of consciousness".

You are jumping to conclusions here.

Consciousness is maybe just part of what there is in the universe, like the keyboard to a computer.

"I'm saying this universe is a mere construct of consciousness...nothing more."
It is like saying that the keyboard is the computer just because it effects it.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
A clarification:

A clarification:

Also, matter is just a label we give to things we can see, thus when matter disappears we say that matter was destroyed.

But we do not really know if it was actually destroyed or just that we can't see it.

At the Quantum level, everything is vibrations of energy and since energy cannot be created or destroyed (but transformed from one form to an other), then matter might just be one of those forms which we did not really understand correctly.

FreeThinking's picture
So you acknowledge that

So you acknowledge that somehow consciousness effects matter...how so?? I thought consciousness was just the result of mundane electrochemical processes (even tho this theory holds no water whatsoever).

I'll expand upon my original theory. (This is all speculative, and I'm just throwing things out there because it's fun). Since we know that this universe is finite (it is bound on one side, the Big Bang and is therefor not infinite). To solve the paradox of how this universe was created, I will assert that this universe was created from a truly infinite domain. One without beginning and without end. A finite cosmos, cannot be the origin of this one...it must be an infinite 'universe' for lack of a better word. This finite cosmos when compared to this infinite domain existed in the blink of an eye...it is infinitesimal. What then is this infinite domain I speak of, it is here that I turn to the bible. This infinite domain is the domain of God and is the source of all, this is the Kingdom of God... Without beginning and without end.

To expand upon my whacky theory, I will turn to NDErs who in my opinion, have caught a fleeting glimpse of the kingdom of god, and come back absolutely dumbfounded by it and lacking words to describe their experience. Here are several quotes from different NDErs:

"How do you explain infinity in words? Here is a very feeble attempt; you are an individual ice cube and you are dropped into an infinite ocean of water. Upon entering the ocean you immediately become the entire ocean, including all of the life forms within it, aware of all that is going on all at the same time"

"I was lying, suspended, drifting in nothing but light. Everywhere around me was light. There was nowhere that was not light. Light as far as I could see. Light, I knew, further than I could see. This light was very bright but in no way at all did it hurt my sight. This light had a singular property that is utterly indescribable in the extent and scope of its sheer magnitude. The singular property of this light was one of absolute love. This love was utterly unreserved, completely unbounded, and utterly infinite in its scope."

Lastly, I think that 'you' your true self never left heaven in the first place, you are there at this very instant, your current human perception is just a construct that the real you...the infinite being...created in order to experience what you are experiencing now. A good metaphor would be this life is looking into a microscope, this tiny finite cosmos, upon death, your perception returns to the infinite domain to be with god. NDErs who have died and come back report these things, and oddly MANY com back with a deep sense of familiarity from 'the other side' of death as if they were home.:

"I was HOME and I was so appreciative of how REAL 3D human life seemed! I zoomed to the ceiling, 'faced' all directions simultaneously. I was aware of my body below and felt zero remorse, attachment, fear or sadness for leaving. I became ONE with ALL IN EXISTENCE, yet, I had a firm knowing that I was me. ALL was okay, all was LOVE, the purpose of human life is solely for experience and expansion"

They also report that their consciousness was FAR greater than what we are experiencing on planet earth:
"
There is no way to compare my consciousness when I was in the Light with my consciousness here on planet Earth. It's like asking someone to compare the difference between the light from a thousand suns exploding at the same time and the light from a match stick. Yes, they are both light, but beyond that, there is no comparison. I can only say that I was in a complete state of love and knowing. The love of a billion home-comings all rolled up into one instant, and the knowing of every aspect of the complete universe, to become one with God. I had all of my earthly senses only heightened by a million times."

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
big bang theory explains how

big bang theory explains how matter came to be, it does not explain the origin in the universe.
First of all, there could have been multiple big bangs like there are multiple starts that go supernova.

From all the things you have mentioned, nowhere even close comes to what is written in the bible, nowhere even close comes to a dictator in throne that punishes you for thought crime with an eternity in hell.

So after you start using you head again get back to this topic.

FreeThinking's picture
Yes the bible alludes to

Yes the bible alludes to those things. But it says that all things on this earth end in oblivion, but that which is with god in heaven is eternal. Yes, it also alludes to hell being eternal but I, like many others, refuse this, because saying an unconditionally loving god throws his own beings...his own creation into hell for eternity is non-sequitur. It logically makes no sense. So if there is a hell, I think you put yourself there, and yes, you can chose to leave too. The view of the God I am referring to is more in line with the Hindu Brahman, and we are, according to Hinduism, atman, essentially of the same stuff as Brahman. Here is a quote from a well loved Hindu yogi swami Sivananda:'

"My dear brothers! Remember that you are not this perishable body of flesh and bones. You are the immortal, all pervading, Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman. Thou art Atman. Thou art living truth. Thou art Brahman. Thou art absolute consciousness"

The Big Bang is by far the best explanation. Cosmologists can even see the background infrared radiation left over from it. I am saying, that the Big Bang, was indeed an act of creation, not something out of nothingness, but a new universe created by an eternal force. I think it is logical to conclude that there are other universes that are far wackier than anything any science fiction writer could ever imagine too :)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"It logically makes no sense.

"It logically makes no sense."
Do we agree on this, that the bible contains lies or illogical things?

It wasn't created to make sens but so that the preacher had the right words for the right audience.
The gospel is just a tool for the preacher, they were never supposed to be united in 1 book and the sheep should never had access to the gospel since they could not read Latin.

The authors took elements from paganism (where the Hindu-like philosophy comes from) and mixed with Judaism to create a religion that unified all the provinces of that era under 1 ruler/god.(this is why the totalitarian belief system was needed and inserted in Christianity)

Here is a documentary on who where the authors and why Christianity was created:
http://vimeo.com/69145519

"I am saying, that the Big Bang, was indeed an act of creation, not something out of nothingness, but a new universe created by an eternal force."
The big bang could simply be something out of something else, nothing comes out of nothingness, we do not know what nothing is.
As I said before, we are swimming in infinite energy right now and matter(which is displayed by the big bang) could be just a transformation of energy which was always there.

There could be no creation at all, just an infinite cycle that never ends.
Remove from your head the bias of having some divine god that thinks or has a character and imagine being part of something bigger and eternal.
Infinity is part of nature, embrace it and remove your bias that there must be a first creation.

CyberLN's picture
Hey Jeff, if you've said it

Hey Jeff, if you've said it before and I don't remember it, please excuse me. Why do you say that energy is infinite?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
“…present day quantum field

“…present day quantum field theory “gets rid by a renormalization process” of an energy density in the vacuum that would formerly be infinite if not removed by this renormalization.” (Gravitation, p.426)

CyberLN's picture
So it got rid of density that

So it got rid of density that would show infinity if not gotten rid of? Perhaps because it is such a small snippet I'm not tracking correctly. But it sounds like the antithesis of infinite matter.
Is this infinite matter dependent on an infinite universe?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
It is saying that the energy

It is saying that the energy density of vacuum is infinite.

The "Renormalization Process" means cutting the number so it is not infinite anymore.

Though in that sentence it is explaining that a "Renormalization process" was needed to use the number in the physics formulas which do not cater for infinities.

Mathematicians are OK with infinities but physicists hate them, so they just try to remove them when they can.

In this case, after renormalization the number was so big that they decided to put it under the carpet to keep their jobs.
Today it is getting more acceptance since this is quite something which was tested over and over again from the first time.

To give you an idea of how big the energy density of 1 cm cube of vacuum is:

If you Squash all the suns, black-holes, quasars and all the energy in the visible universe INTO 1 cm cube of space, You would still be short of some 30 orders of magnitude.

That means 30 more ZEROS added to that number after Renormalization/cutting of a formally infinite number.

"Is this infinite matter dependent on an infinite universe?"
matter or energy?
If energy;
Not really, this is related on the energy in the universe, not how big it is.
Like having a ball with infinite energy in it, it is not dependent on how big it is.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAJinQL2c0

watch this if you are interested in the subject.

At one point he says that there is about 96% between dark-matter/dark-energy.
I contend that they are both different forms of energy.

FreeThinking's picture
"We are swimming in an

"We are swimming in an infinite amount of energy". As I said THIS universe is non infinite, it will either end from heat death (probably thousands a of trillions of years from now) or it will re-collapse back in on it self, the Big Crunch theory. Once you realize that the universe is bound on both sides and non infinite and that a finite thing cannot create other finite things for infinity...this is logically refuted. My theory is that this finite universe is #1 a construct of consciousness #2 consciousness is infinite and eternal, and therefore cannot exist "inside this universe". An infinite thing cannot fit inside of a finite system. What you are currently perceiving is the result of the real you (an infinite bing) 'peering' into a finite system . You are never actually here this is just a perception. You true 'self' resides in an infinite domain.

And...Christianity is related to Judaism, but the heart of the religion is solely based on Christ and his teachings.

Nyarlathotep's picture
There is a lot of bs being

There is a lot of bs being thrown around in this thread.

1: No one has ever managed to calculate the vacuum energy theoretically without renormalization, because it contains an infinite number of divergent integrals some which contribute positive values, some which contribute negative values (notice this may or may not result in an infinite total). The calculations with renormalization are about 120 orders of magnitude larger than experimental values. This is where people get these crazy values for vacuum energy (by using the theoretical renormalized value instead of the observed value!).

2. In exactly the same way no one has ever managed to calculate the mass of the higgs theoretically without renormalization (which clearly is not infinite). Again the calculations with renormalization are about 33 orders of magnitude larger than the experimental results.

3. This situation has happened many times before in physics: where theoretical calculations differ wildly from observed values, it just means some part of the story is missing from the theoretical calculation. When theoretical values differ wildly from observed values, you should use the observed values!

4. Renormalization is just the removal of distance scales too small to matter to your problem at hand (often times that are probably not even physical) combined with good old fashion dimensional analysis. For example, chemistry is just renormalized atomic physics: where the nucleolus of every type of atom is considered a fundamental particle. It is not sweeping something under the rug, to keep your job, lol.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
As always you jump in to

As always you jump in to sprout more nonsense and prove how ignorant in the subject you are.

"1: No one has ever managed to calculate the vacuum energy theoretically without renormalization"

Did I say that you can calculate the amount of infinity?
You have some serious mental issues.

"2. In exactly the same way no one has ever managed to calculate the mass of the higgs theoretically without renormalization (which clearly is not infinite). Again the calculations with renormalization are about 33 orders of magnitude larger than the experimental results."
Who cares, it has nothing to do with the subject.

3
"When theoretical values differ wildly from observed values, you should use the observed values!"
This is what they usually do when there are "observed values", this was not the case with vacuum energy so go hide under a rock.

"4. Renormalization is just the removal of distance scales too small to matter to your problem at hand (often times that are probably not even physical) combined with good old fashion dimensional analysis."
If you consider a finite number= infinite number "too small to matter" then you have mental issues.
They would not have re-normalized it if it wasn't for use in formulas that could not handle infinity.

GRAVITATION by Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler, clearly says that the number is formally infinite, now if you disagree, go complain to them, that they got their physics wrong and you know more then them.
You cannot be more stubborn and biased then this.

"It is not sweeping something under the rug, to keep your job, lol."
Yes, remember i said IN THIS CASE, they put it under the carpet because it was a job breaker, I did not generalize, like you seem to imply. The result did not change the formulas in physics but was considered some kind of mistake and forgotten for some 30 years or more.
Now it is being accepted more as a valid result then before.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff - "Did I say that you

Jeff - "Did I say that you can calculate the amount of infinity?"

Getting a result of infinity is a calculation. No one has ever done this because the calculation involves preforming a rather nasty calculation, an infinite number of times, and summing the results from each step. But since some of the results are negative, the total is unknown.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
What negative results?, we

What negative results?, we are talking about infinity here, no negative results acceptable.
Can you support this claim?

They are saying that the energy in the vacuum is formally infinite according the the Quantum field theory.
Go and read the book, because clearly you do not know what you are talking about.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff - "What negative results

Jeff - "What negative results?, we are talking about infinity here, no negative results acceptable."

Fermions contribute a negative amplitudes, bosons contribute positive amplitudes. The total is the absolute square of sum of all possible combinations of them. Without renormalization this sum can not be calculated or even estimated since it is the sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities (some positive, some negative). With the renormalization that is typically done, the result is not infinite, but it is still way to big as compared to observation.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
the number is infinite in

the number is infinite in space time, it keep going, negative or positive in amplitudes have nothing to do with the total being unknown at all.
"But since some of the results are negative, the total is unknown."

You said that space-time could be negative thus the result is unknown.

The amplitude having mostly positive, assuming an infinite continuum the result can be estimate as infinite positive.
That is why when it is cut it gives such a huge number, else when you cut it it should give zero it they have as much positive vs negative amplitudes.

"Without renormalization this sum can not be calculated or even estimated since it is the sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities (some positive, some negative)."
Here it is saying that it cannot be calculated because IT IS INFINITE

I repeat so maybe it gets in your head:
It is saying that it cannot be calculated because IT IS INFINITE

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Here is the problem I was

Here is the problem I was mentioning before:

Physicist cannot handle infinity so if the answer is infinite, they say such terms as:
"can not be calculated or even estimated since it is the sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities"

When dealing with infinities they just says it cannot be calculated to a finite number.

You misunderstood what the meaning was, and claimed it is an unknown.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jeff - "Without

Jeff - "Without renormalization this sum can not be calculated or even estimated since it is the sum of an infinite number of divergent quantities (some positive, some negative)."
Here it is saying that it cannot be calculated because IT IS INFINITE

No Jeff, even worse, the sum of an infinite number of only positive terms is not always infinite. You care confusing the number of terms, their sum, and their absolute square.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.