The nature of Reality.

Andrew4Handel · #1 by **Andrew4Handel** » Dec 26, 2011 4:22 am

It strikes me that it doesn't matter what the fundamental nature of reality is.

I don't see what difference it would make if reality was virtual like in the Film the Matrix. Our experiences like dreams are real regardless of what medium they are in.

Obviously there are different levels of existence and experience. For instance we don't taste atoms when we eat an Orange.

I don't see why some people think that basic physics is more fundamental then other levels of reality such as the relationship between consciousness and what is experienced. Perception is a complex area in which current theories suggessts that input from the hypothetical world have to be represented in the brain. Hence we are having secondhand revised experiences of what a fundamental reality might be like.

I have noticed and pointed out before that some people hide behind the notion of supernatural to define the natural. There is nothing inherently common sensical or easily understandable about existence. The existence of a ghost would be no more mysterious than the existence of matter per se.

Atheism seems to flourish around the idea that the nature of reality is one thing as opposed to another. But I have yet to here a coherent definition of matter and phsyicalism.

Essentially what we know exists we know solely through consciousness and hence we are talking about the contents of our consciousness primarily. There is no genuine objective perspective on reality or gods eye view.

Steve · #2 by **Steve** » Dec 26, 2011 4:47 am

I will await your response posted without using the physics that brought us the internet. Use a ghost, maybe. Or pray it on. Explain your technique in the post, perhaps. But please do nothing based on physics and see how that works for you.

LucidFlight · #3 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 4:56 am

Andrew4Handel wrote:Atheism seems to flourish around the idea that the nature of reality is one thing as opposed to another.

For example?

Andrew4Handel wrote:But I have yet to here a coherent definition of matter and phsyicalism.

matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

physicalism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Glad to help.

Edit: missing full stop.

crank · #4 by **crank** » Dec 26, 2011 5:02 am

I would posit that you could dream for a trillion lifetimes of the present universe and never directly influence anything outside of your body. Whereas a primitive with a bow and arrow and basic arrow-ballistics could permanently stop your brain's dreaming from 100 paces away. Put another way, why does everyone find the same science? Or, why do mystics come in a variety equal in number to the number of mystics?

SafeAsMilk · #5 by **SafeAsMilk** » Dec 26, 2011 5:09 am

Interesting to see you've been reduced to pure solipsism. Well, almost pure...I notice you make the unfounded assumption that there is actually anyone out here to listen to/respond to your posts. Here's my favorite part:

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Obviously there are different levels of existence and experience.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
There is nothing inherently common sensical or easily understandable about existence.

Templeton · #6 by **Templeton** » Dec 26, 2011 5:47 am

LucidFlight wrote:
Andrew4Handel wrote:Atheism seems to flourish around the idea that the nature of reality is one thing as opposed to another.

For example?

Andrew4Handel wrote:But I have yet to here a coherent definition of matter and phsyicalism.

matter
Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

physicalism
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Glad to help.

Edit: missing full stop.

Yes, though in general terms only. Matter is energy - and what I would rather do is answer this question without a prejudice - IE.

Atheism seems to flourish around the idea that the nature of reality is one thing as opposed to another. But I have yet to here a coherent definition of matter and phsyicalism.getting excited about

By setting the above quote aside -
It appears the question is directed more toward consciousness than atheism, and a perspective creates a prejudice that slants the response, which will end in the same creationist bashing that is unproductive, and boring.
Alas where do we define consciousness? Matter is energy in a base form, a wave :wave:

, if you will, and prior to a wave? A particle.

So I would ask; what causes a particle to become a wave? And further; what brings a collection of waves into matter that we build into a bridge, a tree or a Christ in Mass dinner?

What if consciousness is what molds reality?

crank wrote:

I would posit that you could dream for a trillion lifetimes of the present universe and never directly influence anything outside of your body.

You know that's the rub - where's the proof? But - What if there is a collective consciousness that believes the world is as we perceive it and reinforces that continually?
Something to contemplate I suppose. :think:

Of course if one were to alter reality individually then one would have to have an extremely strong consciousness, or will, if you will.

Free from a collective whole - like maybe Free Will :ask:

LucidFlight · #7 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 6:19 am

Templeton wrote:Alas where do we define consciousness?

Well, there are many places: the park, the library, the museum, in a lab, at the beach. Where did you have in mind?

Templeton wrote:Matter is energy in a base form, a wave , if you will, and prior to a wave? A particle.

So I would ask; what causes a particle to become a wave? And further; what brings a collection of waves into matter that we build into a bridge, a tree or a Christ in Mass dinner?

My guess, in general terms, is these are interactions of energy/matter and constructions of physical reality. I'd love to elucidate on the details. Alas, my physics knowledge is a little rusty. What's your take on the situation?

Templeton wrote:What if consciousness is what molds reality?

Indeed. What if? Perhaps you could put your mind to it and indulge me.

Templeton wrote:crank wrote:
I would posit that you could dream for a trillion lifetimes of the present universe and never directly influence anything outside of your body.

You know that's the rub - where's the proof? But - What if there is a collective consciousness that believes the world is as we perceive it and reinforces that continually?
Something to contemplate I suppose.

Indeed. What if? Would you care to indulge us?

Templeton wrote:Of course if one were to alter reality individually then one would have to have an extremely strong consciousness, or will, if you will. Free from a collective whole - like maybe Free Will

So, uh... what exactly are you trying to say? When you say strong, do you mean more forceful? Why use a physical term? How does that work in terms of consciousness? Does one squeeze the eyes shut tighter?

LucidFlight · #8 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 6:52 am

Templeton wrote:Matter is energy in a base form, a wave , if you will, and prior to a wave? A particle.

So I would ask; what causes a particle to become a wave? And further; what brings a collection of waves into matter that we build into a bridge, a tree or a Christ in Mass dinner?

Would you mind if I posted this in the Physics forum? I'm interested to get some further input in terms of the current model and thinking on this... uh... matter.

Templeton · #9 by **Templeton** » Dec 26, 2011 8:45 am

LucidFlight wrote:

Where did you have in mind?

Exactly.

You see the conflict in defining something as intangible as consciousness is that the greater collective defines reality as something tangible - only existing if it is measurable, by the tools of science, which we employ.
It only exists if we can touch it, feel it, smell it - etc.
So in mind - or more precisely, that which is the result of consciousness on the brain, Mind - is where we define consciousness. (Yeah, the wibble police will be out in force with this.) You know we have this great big brain, and there are some that say it is full of junk DNA - I find that amazing. What if our brains are capable of doing so much more than operating the physical body?

LucidFlight wrote:

My guess, in general terms, is these are interactions of energy/matter and constructions of physical reality. I'd love to elucidate on the details. Alas, my physics knowledge is a little rusty. What's your take on the situation

Well it would be difficult to converse outside of the realm of Newtonian physics on a site such as this, but Stanford University has a site: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/> this is a free site (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that offers some interesting reads, and some of the latest research.

LucidFlight wrote:

Indeed. What if? Perhaps you could put your mind to it and indulge me.

Again that big ole brain all filled with junk DNA - The Mind - what a terrible thing to waste. But for the sake of this discussion, lets say that the collective consciousness agreed and confirmed the reality that man cannot fly. (Simply an example), but we know that man has created apparatuses that allow us to fly. So can we fly or not? ...

LucidFlight wrote:

So, uh... what exactly are you trying to say? When you say strong, do you mean more forceful? Why use a physical term? How does that work in terms of consciousness? Does one squeeze the eyes shut tight

Figure of speech - and yet indicative of the collective consciousness - because that would be the consciousness that we (collectively) think - in a Newtonian consciousness. Though to rephrase I would say; a singular focus, as in an analogical mind ...

LucidFlight wrote:

Would you mind if I posted this in the Physics forum? I'm interested to get some further input in terms of the current model and thinking on this... uh... matter.

Not at all, though I would caution to remember the consciousness of the site, which will effect the flavor of the responses.

Gallstones · **#10** by **Gallstones** » Dec 26, 2011 8:53 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:Interesting to see you've been reduced to pure solipsism. Well, almost pure...I notice you make the unfounded assumption that there is actually anyone out here to listen to/respond to your posts. Here's my favorite part:

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Obviously there are different levels of existence and experience.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
There is nothing inherently common sensical or easily understandable about existence.

Are you capable of managing anything other than worthless snark?

Ihavenofingerprints · **#11** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Dec 26, 2011 9:56 am

If reality wasn't consistent Andrew, science wouldn't work. And you wouldn't be sitting there on a computer conveying these silly ideas to the world.

chairman bill · **#12** by **chairman bill** » Dec 26, 2011 10:01 am

A brain filled with 'junk DNA'? What the fuck has he been smoking?

LucidFlight · **#13** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 10:58 am

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
Where did you have in mind?

Exactly.

You see the conflict in defining something as intangible as consciousness is that the greater collective defines reality as something tangible - only existing if it measurable, by the tools or science, which we employ.
It only exists if we can touch it, feel it, smell it - etc.
So in mind - or more precisely, that which is the result of consciousness on the brain, Mind - is where we define consciousness. (Yeah, the wibble police will be out in force with this.) You know we have this great big brain, and there are some that say it is full of junk DNA - I find that amazing. What if we our brains are capable of doing so much more than operating the physical body?

Are you not capable of imagination, prose, internal narrative, creative thought, abstract thinking, mental representation and spacial visualisation of objects in Euclidean space?

If you're talking about spoon bending, well then, offer a workable model and we'll be happy to consider it. Until then, it is mere speculation.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
My guess, in general terms, is these are interactions of energy/matter and constructions of physical reality. I'd love to elucidate on the details. Alas, my physics knowledge is a little rusty. What's your take on the situation

Well it would be difficult to converse outside of the realm of Newtonian physics on a site such as this, but Stanford University has a site: <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/> this is a free site (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that offers some interesting reads, and some of the latest research.

I understand the philosophy of consciousness can be beneficial in providing a framework of questions for the scientific study of it. However, beyond a point, one starts to venture beyond the measurable phenomena of physical reality and into the nether regions of metaphysics, and while this can be a most curious adventure, it remains one filled with the brightly-coloured candy treats of untestable speculation. Unless there is something in it we can reliably measure and show to have a recognisable effect upon reality, it is but wishful thinking at best and fruitless navel gazing at its very best.

I'm not entirely against such pursuits, but I am rather wary of those who would promote them as being of equal worth and consideration as the body of practical knowledge and understanding we have gained through the scientific method. Neuroscience, despite its relatively recent beginnings, has provided unprecedented and valuable insight into the workings of consciousness. Presuming or suggesting having knowledge beyond this, and without providing a model or means of verification - or even useful, specific foresight into potential and measurable outcomes - might be viewed as somewhat arrogant and dismissive.

If you can bend a spoon with your mind, then explain to us how. Otherwise, please be more forthcoming about the fact that you are entertaining mere speculation.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:

Indeed. What if? Perhaps you could put your mind to it and indulge me.

Again that big ole brain all filled with junk DNA - The Mind - what a terrible thing to waste.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?

Templeton wrote:But for the sake of this discussion, lets say that the collective consciousness agreed and confirmed the reality that man cannot fly. (Simply an example), but we know that man has created apparatuses that allow us to fly. So can we fly or not? ...

If it is possible to fly, then show us how. Make a prediction. Do some math. Show us a formula. Develop a model. All the nudging and winking does not help your cause. "Hey! Pssstttt... What if, eh? What if?" *nudge nudge* *wink wink* *flap flap*. Anyway, who are the members of this collective consciousness you speak of, and why are they so keen to deny reality? They sound like some sort of church or religion, enforcing their doctrine. Those who simply deal with the reality that is before them should have no such agenda to promote.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
So, uh... what exactly are you trying to say? When you say strong, do you mean more forceful? Why use a physical term? How does that work in terms of consciousness? Does one squeeze the eyes shut tight

Figure of speech - and yet indicative of the collective consciousness - because that would be the consciousness that we (collectively) think - in a Newtonian consciousness. Though to rephrase I would say; a singular focus, as in an analogical mind ...

So, it would appear that your words reflect a succumbing to this collective consciousness you speak of. What is a Newtonian consciousness? Are you trying to express disappointment at having a physical brain that produces consciousness — or that the collective consciousness insists that you do? Are these the words of a desire to be a "free-spirited" consciousness. Do you wish that consciousness really did mould the physical world rather than being an integrated phenomenon of it? If so, why?

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
Would you mind if I posted this in the Physics forum? I'm interested to get some further input in terms of the current model and thinking on this... uh... matter.

Not at all, though I would caution to remember the consciousness of the site, which will effect the flavor of the responses.

Thank you. Oh, you mean the collective Newtonian consciousness of the members here? Yeah, I'll be sure to look out for that. Thanks for the heads-up.

Templeton · **#14** by **Templeton** » Dec 26, 2011 7:14 pm

Oh come on bill you have more sense than this.
chairman bill wrote:

A brain filled with 'junk DNA'? What the fuck has he been smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

. Junk DNA remains a label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function had been identified. According to a 1980 review in Nature by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, junk DNA has "little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism"

The operative word being identified. This phrase is accepted as common knowledge, and in fact used on this site regularly, and as is common in human nature when we do not understand something we tend to label it as useless - much to our disadvantage. Thankfully there are those that work in the scientific fields that are not so narrow minded, and understand that our knowledge base is expanding - and just because we do not understand something does not mean it is useless. Its a perspective sort of thing. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

LucidFlight wrote:

Are you not capable of imagination, prose, internal narrative, creative thought, abstract thinking, mental representation and spacial visualisation of objects in Euclidean space?

All of us are capable of imagination - some use it more so than others - thankfully.

LucidFlight wrote:

If you're talking about spoon bending, well then, offer a workable model and we'll be happy to consider it. Until then, it is mere speculation.

Nope, you are talking about spoon bending, yet if you would like that could be discussed on another thread.

LucidFlight wrote:

I understand the philosophy of consciousness can be beneficial in providing a framework of questions for the scientific study of it. However, beyond a point, one starts to venture beyond the measurable phenomena of physical reality and into the nether regions of metaphysics, and while this can be a most curious adventure, it remains one filled with the brightly-coloured candy treats of untestable speculation. Unless there is something in it we can reliably measure and show to have a recognisable effect upon reality, it is but wishful thinking at best and fruitless navel gazing at its very best.

Nothing exists in our reality unless it is first imagined. This is how the brain or more specifically the mind, works - our understanding of our world expands because we take what we think we know and overlay that upon new discoveries. Does it fit here, or does is fit there in our knowledge base, our mind - images it, and then expands it. When faced with a new understanding we often describe a thing based on our past knowledge - IE. this new thing is like that old thing, but different.
When you say, "Unless there is something in it we can reliably measure and show to have a recognisable effect upon reality, it is but wishful thinking at best and fruitless navel gazing at its very best.". Know that this is what I am talking about with Newtonian Physics - How do we expand what we know? We do this by pushing the envelope of our knowledge base, a base which wallows in Newtonian Physics - Only what we can measure.

This is why consciousness has such a "wibble factor" especially on this site, which is steeped in the absoluteness of Newtonian Physics. Yet I would remind those that get so up in arms over this subject that at one time what was considered "wibble" was such topics as; atoms, electrons, a nucleus, photons, neutrons, quarks ... do you get where I'm going with this?

I offered a site for those that are interested. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/> A good starting point. I'm not going on about something that isn't being discussed by other people with letters after their names. This is fun, and it pushes the envelope.

LucidFlight wrote:

Anyway, who are the members of this collective consciousness you speak of, and why are they so keen to deny reality? They sound like some sort of church or religion, enforcing their doctrine. Those who simply deal with the reality that is before them should have no such agenda to promote

Have you ever been to a sporting event? Most likely - were you into it? How did it feel? Was the crowd electric, rabid as is so often at a football match? Does the crowd have any effect on the players? When asked they'll answer with an emphatic yes!
The consciousness of the crowd is a collective consciousness, but how do we measure that? I don't know yet, but it should be and will be I'll bet.
The collective consciousness of this site is a congregation of like minds (brains effected by consciousness) I am part of this too. I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't find some sort of agreement with the consciousness here, but "Those who simply deal with the reality that is before them" are boring. They derive comfort in a world where the utensils are always in the correct placement, yet how often do they offer a new thought? The collective consciousness I speak of is all of us, and yet that changes from one crowd to another. Do all of your friends/acquaintances think the way we do here on Ratskept?
Probably not.

LucidFlight wrote:

Do you wish that consciousness really did mould the physical world rather than being an integrated phenomenon of it?

Do you?

LucidFlight wrote:

Thank you. Oh, you mean the collective Newtonian consciousness of the members here? Yeah, I'll be sure to look out for that.

You're welcome.

Teuton · **#15** by **Teuton** » Dec 26, 2011 7:17 pm

Templeton wrote: Matter is energy…

No!

"Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either 'matter' or 'fields'. The distinction between 'matter' and 'fields' in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of 'conversion' seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a 'conversion' between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy. Finally, our observation obtains even in so-called 'annihilation' reactions where the entire mass of the incoming particles seems to 'disappear' (…). Of course, the older terminology of 'matter' and 'anti-matter' does not really help our philosophical understanding of mass-energy equivalence and is perhaps partly to blame for misconceptions surrounding E = mc2."

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME)

Templeton · **#16** by **Templeton** » Dec 26, 2011 7:54 pm

Perhaps I should have been clearer for the more literal minded.

Abstractly energy can be defined as "the ability to do work"
My reference is more particular to be precise. Matter is made of particles - the building blocks - generally associated with atomic structure, and it's subsequent correlation with energy. :picard:

Please forgive me.

Should I brace myself for the onslaught of quibble? :mob:

followed by :crucified:

and start speaking in Latin?

LucidFlight · **#17** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 9:50 pm

Templeton wrote:Oh come on bill you have more sense than this.
chairman bill wrote:
A brain filled with 'junk DNA'? What the fuck has he been smoking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA

. Junk DNA remains a label for the portions of a genome sequence for which no discernible function had been identified. According to a 1980 review in Nature by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick, junk DNA has "little specificity and conveys little or no selective advantage to the organism"

The operative word being identified. This phrase is accepted as common knowledge, and in fact used on this site regularly, and as is common in human nature when we do not understand something we tend to label it as useless - much to our disadvantage. Thankfully there are those that work in the scientific fields that are not so narrow minded, and understand that our knowledge base is expanding - and just because we do not understand something does not mean it is useless. Its a perspective sort of thing. Like not seeing the forest for the trees.

If there is a forest to be seen, we shall see it. While it is continued to be alluded to and speculated about, it remains a brightly decorated conifer - replete with unicorn ornaments and multi-coloured, sparkling balls - in your living room.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
Are you not capable of imagination, prose, internal narrative, creative thought, abstract thinking, mental representation and spacial visualisation of objects in Euclidean space?

All of us are capable of imagination - some use it more so than others - thankfully.

So, indeed, we can use our minds to do more than operate the physical body? I thought perhaps you were suggesting we couldn't — or perhaps that Newtonian physics does not allow it. Well then, that's one "what if" suggestion out of the way.

Templeton wrote:Nothing exists in our reality unless it is first imagined.

This sounds almost like idealism. You really need to clarify what you mean here. Are you talking about independent physical reality or its representation in your mind?

Templeton wrote:This is how the brain or more specifically the mind, works - our understanding of our world expands because we take what we think we know and overlay that upon new discoveries. Does it fit here, or does is fit there in our knowledge base, our mind - images it, and then expands it. When faced with a new understanding we often describe a thing based on our past knowledge - IE. this new thing is like that old thing, but different.
When you say, "Unless there is something in it we can reliably measure and show to have a recognisable effect upon reality, it is but wishful thinking at best and fruitless navel gazing at its very best.". Know that this is what I am talking about with Newtonian Physics - How do we expand what we know? We do this by pushing the envelope of our knowledge base, a base which wallows in Newtonian Physics - Only what we can measure.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but things have advanced somewhat from the days of Newton. Your posts speak of some strange obsession with Newtonian physics.

Templeton wrote:This is why consciousness has such a "wibble factor" especially on this site, which is steeped in the absoluteness of Newtonian Physics. Yet I would remind those that get so up in arms over this subject that at one time what was considered "wibble" was such topics as; atoms, electrons, a nucleus, photons, neutrons, quarks ... do you get where I'm going with this?

Again, you mention this weird thing going on about Newtonian physics. You seem to be under the impression that there is some Newtonian-physics based conspiracy to suppress investigation into the workings of the conscious mind. I'm not sure where you get this notion.

If we are to discover and investigate how things work, then we do so in a methodological manner. Until we have a sufficiently explanatory and reliable model about such things, suggestions as to the actual workings of reality - while possibly beneficial as a gauge to evaluate success - are simply, well, suggestions. Some may be well-founded and close to the answer and some may be complete and unsubstantiated fantasy. It's all very well to think about "what if". That's fine. However, people actually investigating and dealing with reality (whatever it may be), with an intention to successfully engage it in productive and novel ways, would probably be more interested to have reliable and useful information. I could be wrong, though. Perhaps brain surgeons do work solely based on mere speculation.

Templeton wrote:I offered a site for those that are interested. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/> A good starting point. I'm not going on about something that isn't being discussed by other people with letters after their names. This is fun, and it pushes the envelope.

Yes, I am familiar with the literature. Thank you again for the recommendation. I am well aware of the philosophical framework and its implications for investigation.

Templeton wrote:Have you ever been to a sporting event? Most likely - were you into it? How did it feel? Was the crowd electric, rabid as is so often at a football match? Does the crowd have any effect on the players? When asked they'll answer with an emphatic yes!
The consciousness of the crowd is a collective consciousness, but how do we measure that? I don't know yet, but it should be and will be I'll bet.
The collective consciousness of this site is a congregation of like minds (brains effected by consciousness) I am part of this too. I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't find some sort of agreement with the consciousness here, but "Those who simply deal with the reality that is before them" are boring. They derive comfort in a world where the utensils are always in the correct placement, yet how often do they offer a new thought?

If one considers those who use methodological approach to gaining knowledge about reality to be boring, then they may in fact find it is reality itself that they find boring, wishing instead for something beyond what we have already discovered to be reality. Personally, I find the reality before me to be astoundingly fascinating and interesting. If you are bored, I would suggest taking up skydiving.

My point was, initially, that science is about studying the reality before us, rather than studying whimsical notions and conjecture. This does not, however, preclude a scientist from going home and writing a series of science fiction novels detailing the extraordinary adventures of trans-dimensional, cosmic zombie-pirates who seek out transcendent mind-spirit-unicorns for pleasure and nourishment.

Templeton wrote:The collective consciousness I speak of is all of us, and yet that changes from one crowd to another. Do all of your friends/acquaintances think the way we do here on Ratskept?
Probably not.

My friends and acquaintances are varied, just as the members here are. The collective consciousness you speak of sounds more like the psychology of group dynamics, a well documented and known system of behaviour that occurs in social groups.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
Do you wish that consciousness really did mould the physical world rather than being an integrated phenomenon of it?

Do you?

I think that would be pretty cool. It'd be something, I imagine, like the movie Inception. However, I'd be more interested in bending universes and creating entirely new realities than folding streets in Paris.

Templeton wrote:LucidFlight wrote:
Thank you. Oh, you mean the collective Newtonian consciousness of the members here? Yeah, I'll be sure to look out for that.

You're welcome.

chairman bill · **#18** by **chairman bill** » Dec 26, 2011 10:04 pm

Templeton wrote:Oh come on bill you have more sense than this.
chairman bill wrote:
A brain filled with 'junk DNA'? What the fuck has he been smoking?

But the brain is no more filled with DNA, junk or otherwise, than any comparably sized part of the human body. So what is he on about?

LucidFlight · **#19** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 10:28 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Templeton wrote:Oh come on bill you have more sense than this.
chairman bill wrote:
A brain filled with 'junk DNA'? What the fuck has he been smoking?

But the brain is no more filled with DNA, junk or otherwise, than any comparably sized part of the human body. So what is he on about?

I think it's meant to be poetic. :dunno:

That could be the RatSkep collective consciousness talking, though. :think:

SpeedOfSound · **#20** by **SpeedOfSound** » Dec 27, 2011 12:41 am

Andrew4Handel wrote:It strikes me that it doesn't matter what the fundamental nature of reality is.

I don't see what difference it would make if reality was virtual like in the Film the Matrix. Our experiences like dreams are real regardless of what medium they are in.

Exactly. It makes no difference.

Obviously there are different levels of existence and experience. For instance we don't taste atoms when we eat an Orange.

I don't see why some people think that basic physics is more fundamental then other levels of reality such as the relationship between consciousness and what is experienced. Perception is a complex area in which current theories suggessts that input from the hypothetical world have to be represented in the brain. Hence we are having secondhand revised experiences of what a fundamental reality might be like.

I have noticed and pointed out before that some people hide behind the notion of supernatural to define the natural. There is nothing inherently common sensical or easily understandable about existence. The existence of a ghost would be no more mysterious than the existence of matter per se.

Atheism seems to flourish around the idea that the nature of reality is one thing as opposed to another. But I have yet to here a coherent definition of matter and phsyicalism.

Essentially what we know exists we know solely through consciousness and hence we are talking about the contents of our consciousness primarily. There is no genuine objective perspective on reality or gods eye view.

Yes. An I have given a coherent description of physicalism based on what you say above. Only the truly confused idealist or physicalist thinks there is something deeper to this reality business. If you are a brain in a vat your reality is all in your vat-head. But the brain and the vat, even if you think you know about them, ares still referring to your vat-head objects.

You can imagine a level above, god or vat, and then you can imagine that the real vat is a simulation in another vat-brain and so on.

Your mom and pop may have said to you "Face reality! and get a job!". You may say "that was not real it was an illusion". Has it occurred to anyone that these are the only proper uses of the concept?