Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 6 of 18

[alexeevic]

I thought you said that a system cannot be fully understood from "inside the box". You stated that "consciousness can't be understood from outside", it's a subjective experience. Why can consciousness be studied subjectively, from "inside", and the "rest" has to be researched from the "broader system"? It seems to me that you just moved the box to another perspective, from the objective to the subjective.

[twcjr44]

@alexeevic,

Consciousness is fundamental -- it is neither physical nor virtual like "the rest". Sims characters cannot study the server that produces their virtual world and we cannot study consciousness from inside the virtual physical box (our virtual world). We can study consciousness from the inside because, unlike Sims characters, we are individuated units of consciousness. We are subsets of the server (not just data produced by the server)

[ineedaname777777]

nassim haramein explains metaphysics in 450 short minutes.

[Dunderfut]

I was wanting to ask you Tom, you had said consciousness is non-physical. Would it be safe to say that it would be spiritual experience then? I was watching a video, can't remember which one it was now that I think about it, but I know the person was Alex Collier. I'll have to go through his videos again. He basically said that "consciousness is your spirit manipulating your reality on a physical level." What is your take on this? Would appreciate any feedback on this.

[twcjr44]

@Dunderfut

Many folks use lots of different metaphors to describe the larger consciousness system as they experience it. There is but one truth but thousands of useful and therefore valid ways to express portions of that one truth. The metaphors used reflect the individuals experience base and beliefs. The metaphors you expressed are as good as many others, I have n0 problem with them.

[Dunderfut]

@twcjr44 Thank you very much for your feedback. I've just started watching this series of videos, and most likely be picking up your book "My Big Toe" after I'm done with this series. Until this past year I kind of just glanced at these subjects, not thinking too hard onto them. But after listening to speakers like Alex and yourself, my thirst for knowledge in these subjects seems unquenchable. Thank you for being the catalyst to send me down this road of exploration and enlightenment!

[imhotepsol]

Tom; could you pm me an email address by any chance? I've been experimenting with consciousness myself for a number of years and have a few ideas I'd be very interested in bouncing off you.

[HigherPlanes]

I like his analogy of being dropped into a hole and presented with data which in turn reproduces the experience. But I have hangup... what would happen if you wanted to interact with objects in your experience? Since in reality you're in a hole

[twcjr44]

@HigherPlanes,

As you expressed intent to interact, the incomming data stream would change to support your "perception" of that interaction. It is a multi[player game so you can also interact with others. Think of how a server runs a multiplayer game when you (your character) decide to interact or do sometthing like turn around.

[HigherPlanes]

@twcjr44 I find this presentation truly fascinating, I must say. I've heard similar ideas before but never quite how you describe them. So is your take on a physical reality is that there is no physical reality? It's just pure consciousness receiving data hence processing that data therefore experiencing reality?

[twcjr44]

@HigherPlanes,

Boiled up to just a few words -- Thats it.

Tom

[HigherPlanes]

@twcjr44 Thanks for the replies, Tom- I'm definitely going to pick up a copy of your book for further learning.

[frankche1]

ONE LOVE

[acuaman42]

Consciousness can not be experienced because is the basis of everything and there is nothing out of it. If someone EXPERIENCES CONSCIOUSNESS it means the "I" or "EGO" is experiencing it, then are two the subject "I" and the object "CONSCIOUSNESS". This is impossible Mr. Campbell.

[twcjr44]

. It is true that you (as well as the LCS) experience/interpret only the data and not the source of the data, but the data is the substance of consciousness, the information, the content, the meaning. We, as consciousness, create data (are the source) that others (including the LCS) can only interpret. All that says is that consciousness/awareness is individual, thus subjective. Trying to make consciousness objective creates the logical inconsistency of us not being ONE with the LCS.

[HigherPlanes]

@twcjr44 What's your take on what occurs during deep meditative experiences where ego death is involved? How is consciousness perceived during that stage?

[twcjr44]

@HigherPlanes,

Consciousness is not perceived, it is somthing you are -- one would experience being consciousness -- being one with all.

[twcjr44]

In contrast, it is my opinion that all individuated units of consciousness can (have the potential to) directly experience (become aware of) the larger consciousness system (LCS) of which they are a part. There is nothing but consciousness, and it is self-aware/sentient.

[twcjr44]

You said that consciousness cannot be experienced by anyone, yet everyone is nothing but consciousness. Thus you must believe that consciousness cannot experience itself, which implies that consciousness is not self-aware, i.e., not sentient, i.e., dead like a rock, then consciousness, or you, or both, must be like a rock i.e., not self-aware.

[twcjr44]

@acuaman42,

You misinterpret my words. That is easy to do.

[rt76054]

Consciousness is not dependent on meaning. Consciousness is. Meaning and experiencing are products of mind functioning.. or brain activity.. of which Consciousness is aware.. but Consciousness is always prior. Even a bug or a baby is consciousness. a brain is not dependent on Consciousness.

[GrowABrainstem]

"Consciousness is neither physical nor dependent on the physical."

This intuitively makes complete sense. And it also makes me wonder whether the 11 dimensions of string theory have something to do with the fact that we cannot currently devise a "test" for consciousness. Our physical "tests" are focused on the 3-4 dimensions of our own local experience; there could be so much more to it that we cannot even fathom.

Frustrating as hell.

[Drastam]

Neurons and sensations are data, they are not experience. Experience arises when the data is witnessed; experience is awareness being aware of data.

Everything you say is insightful in respect to the content of consciousness and the processes of the content of consciousness.

However it seems to me the 'hard problem' remains unaddressed...thus far.

But stirring material all the same.

[twcjr44]

Awareness is not something different -- a separate independent thing. Consciousness is aware, that is its nature, like liquid water is wet. There is no such thing as unaware consciousness. Perhaps you are confusing consciousness the thing with unconsciousness the state of a comatose virtual body. A comatose body is no longer able to express its consciousness in PMR. Consciousness is neither physical nor dependent on the physical. Physical reality is an interpretation of data.

[Drastam]

The word consciousness is sometimes used to designate the content (or objects) of awareness; and sometimes to designate the awareness of awareness. So I think the confusion arises from the variability of usage of the word.

[xbr123]

Consciousness is dependent on awareness, awareness is not dependent on consciousness.

Whether there is consciousness or unconsciousness, something is always aware of everything and no-thing.

[twcjr44]

I generally make no distinction between the two -- I sometimes use both to describe Big Picture consciousness. I very seldom ever mention little picture PMR intellectual awareness. However, I agree, one should not confuse PMR intellectual awareness with consciousness. Consciousness creates virtual PMR intellectual awareness (which is probably what you are calling consciousness). Guessing what others mean by the words they use is often difficult. I should define my words better.

[xbr123]

The words are limited indeed when speaking of such matters. 'PMR intellectual awareness' is just body consciousness. You have this knowledge 'I AM', so you are conscious, even without body which makes you know that you are, there is 'I AM', lets call it pure consciousness. Experience, time, space, subject, object is in the domain of Consciousness. What i am pointing at is that even this 'I AM' pure consciousness (or universal) is dependent upon something. That something is not even Consciousness

[thewinesmith]

@twcjr44 Connotation vs. denotation

[Drastam]

Seems to me the essential ground of consciousness is not included in this theory;

I mean awareness.

Everything you describe is the content or the experience in or of consciousness; but content or expereince requires something that has the experience - awareness.

Subjective does not just mean inside a head or even inside a mind; it means from the perspective of an awareness; it is radically subjective.

Your theory seems to be about the content of consciousness...not consciousness itself

[fandango65ok]

Think about what you said in your last posting,-"Your theory seems to be about the content of consciousness...not consciousness itself"-. The fact is consciousness itself is the Experience, there are no words in an experience.If it could be expressed in words then you surely would understand.The fact is words only get in the way and serve to confuse matters. You must understand that there is no truth in words,all language is a construct of the Ego and as such has high entropy, disorder.

[Drastam]

Hi. Does your point about words apply to your comment also?

My experience is there is conscious awareness and there is the experiential content of which awareness is aware.

This distinction is rarely realised because most people never examine their actual experience of consciousness; they discuss it as a topic in consciousness; but awareness is not an object in consciousness; and as a word in a sentence it is only a signpost, not the thing itself.

I am aware that language is semiotic.

[fandango65ok]

Hi.Yes,unfotunately,it does apply to my comment also. Unfortunately, i can't give you the experience.Moreover, it is not my place to force any of my Knowledge onto you, not only would this be wrong but actually impossible. Take care-happy hunting.

[samann95014]

Yes, the Advaita concept from Indian vedic literature has lot to common with your thoughts.

[fedupx5900]

"Consciousness is the Media of reality"

Don't you mean;

Consciousness is the Medium of reality.

Media is plural. Medium is singular.

[twcjr44]

Yes, I know of several 17 year olds who have read it and got a lot out of it..

[flash452]

anny other 17 year olds other than me intrested in this kinda stuff??

[StickKingProductions]

I'm 15...anyone can get interest out of knowledge.

[lmaines]

@flash452

that means you are off to a good start :)

[nightvisiongoggles1]

@flash452

I was 16 or 17 when these concepts caught my attention.

[Gamerbrotherhood]

i have not read any books on these, but i certainly wish to sooner or later,

but what i can tell is that this concept was more or less explained in matrix movie, the "other reality" being governed by machines and AI as they put it.

So was the movie inspired by these studies or was the imagination of the W brothers so great.

[twcjr44]

As far as I know, there was no direct connection between MBT and the Matrix.

[Gamerbrotherhood]

I understand,

i always thought the core concept of the movie matrix was a phenomenal concept and was wondering whtr it was due to them writers dwelling into already discussed and published scientific work or the product of brilliant imagination. Most People just took matrix for another scifi action style mix and failed to see the core

[MrSigma]

All this is really "Advaita" (non-duality) philosophy of 5000 years ago! You can do some research using this cue.

[successpayswell]

highly interesting. Thanks for sharing

[Pearljamkicksass]

Have you seen the Matrix?

[Pearljamkicksass]

Tom have you read the book Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan?

[twcjr44]

Yes, I read "Understanding Media" by Marshall McLuhan many years ago -- "The medea is the message". Also I enjoyed each of the matrix movies as they became available on DVD.

Tom

[twcjr44]

Yes, a long long time ago.

[yesokdogod123]

the more people you tell the joke to/ make fun of, the more you exist. ask any egyptian