Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 2 of 18

[avedic]

I love this topic, but wish this guy didn't sound like he wanted to be anywhere but there.

[derekf08]

BOOORIIING. Live life and learn by experience. :-)

[avataratg12]

@derekf08 Haha, as someone who isn't so interested in this kind of stuff, that is a very good idea and outlook on life. However, know that if you come into contradiction with something or start to develop deeper and more philisophical ideas, come back to take a look. Such talks about metaphysics and the way of the mind can help humans establish truth and conciousness that lays outside of religious beliefs since it is a way of science. ^_^ Very nice comment indeed, live and learn.

[nielss4]

Time to hand over the throne to the real scientific leaders, reductionist materialists!

[tommybrown187]

how can you argue metaphysics when everything is subjective? every truth is relevant and can be countered. its very individual and personal

[twcjr44]

@tommybrown187,

Value is gained and truth discovered by experiencing, not arguing. The intelect can be effective as a guide and initiator, but not as a leader -- evolution/growth/ success in the big picture is gained at the being level, not the intellectual level.

[UterusSpacecraft]

assuming we live in a teleological universe is a HUGE assumption to build a theory of everything upon

[twcjr44]

@UterusSpacecraft,

Not so HUGE, in fact , I would say it is a rather small -- almost trivially obvious that our individual and collective existence (as well as the larger reality) has purpose as opposed to the purposelessness of determinism. Purpose implies goals. See the discussion on Free will in Book 2, chapter 11 for the argument pertinent to individual and collective goals within our local reality. (books are available for free on Google Books). Our goals derive from the larger system.

[balancingman]

"You can't judge a theory based on its assumptions; that falls under the heading of close-minded." Okay, I'm done with this guy. What's close-minded is to claim that all assumptions are equal and immune from criticism when used as the basis of a theory. With that, one can claim that Zeus created the universe, and the theory works provided that we assume Zeus exists. Is it really close-minded to judge that assumption? Of course not. That's ridiculous.

[balancingman]

"It doesn't take much faith to get there." *Any* amount of faith needed to support a case is too much. 

[twcjr44]

@balancingman

I agree completely.

[twcjr44]

@twcjr44

Yes that would be ridiculous. But if one judged a theory to be wrong because one was confused and ignorant an had irrational beliefs that ran contrary to the assumptions supporting this theory, then one would be closed-minded. Thinking that one's beliefs represent knowledge is the problem. The point was: one should judge a theory by what it can explain and predict -- by its verifiable results, not by assessing the assumptions of the theory according to one's beliefs.

[09088908]

lol

he looks like god

or he looks like the creator of the matrix Neo meets in the room full of tvs.

yup he looks like god

[mrblackaliens]

i see everybody has their explaination of the system of god/universe, this guy speaks on point with how to relate to whats true , it has to be experienced,for an example scientist swear the SUN is a big ball of gases, but if anyone knows about gases and heat temp, you know if it was by gases at the temp they say the sun is, it should be a diffrent color, they never went to the sun and landed there, when they go into space they can never find the sun,its always dark

[hotep89]

@mrblackaliens LOL more bullshit coming from you

[mrblackaliens]

@hotep89 noo i went up here and got 5 dollars cause i told my wife watch this nigga follow me , and look you did , you fell for the trap, next web page ima leave you at is gonna destroy your christ fagetry

[DrDrizzyDrops]

think of dreams. This is the one time you can visually touch on metaphysics and translate information from one system to be interpreted in another (our physical realm). In essence, physics still exists in a dream (you feel yourself falling), but the events happen entirely randomly. Nothing is off limits and it literally becomes impossible to define something as impossible.However what if your lack of visual interpretation of the subsystem (closed eyes) causes your conscious to refocus?

[DrDrizzyDrops]

What Im trying to say is how can you deny the existence of information beyond a scientific or mathematical understanding? That would be as foolish as to say there is no other forms of life in parts of the universe man has never even fathomed. The fact that your conscious alone while dreaming can place you in another location, completely fool all of your senses into believing it should be reason enough to inspire everybody to become one with metaphysics and the reality of other realities.

[bpaperu]

Why is the subsystem "the universe" INSIDE the "larger reality system"? Couldn't they be separate: objective and subjective reality sets that do not cross? Would this affect the analysis at all?

[twcjr44]

@bpaperu: "Why is the subsystem "the universe" INSIDE the "larger reality system"? "

Because of the way they are causally related. The same reason your liver is a subsystem inside the supersystem of your body -- it cannot exist or evolve on its own as an organ independent of the body --- it is a subset of a larger system. It has no function or significance outside the system. The PMR virtual universe is wholly dependent upon consciousness for its existence.

Tom

[chosop25]

@bpaperu My opinion is - if they are separate and do not cross, how do we see each other, how do we share the same moon, the ground we walk on, nature, colors...? Or even the language that we are communicating with each other with?

[HexicNexus]

how can i get out of the subsystem?

[DrDrizzyDrops]

@HexicNexus ... have an open mind and don't limit yourself to perceiving knowledge only from the subsystem. There is no certain way or path to get out, its a constant journey of wisdom.

[iwnmmfs]

Basically what he's saying is if you don't believe its true and you try it for your self and it doent work then keep trying...thats what so hard for people to get!

[socratus1]

The electron and the electromagnetic waves are physical reality

Electron produces electromagnetic waves

There isnt electromagnetic field / waves without electron

The brain produces some kind of electromagnetic waves

The source of these electromagnetic waves must be an electron

Consciousness is also physical reality, some kind of

electromagnetic waves ( Electroencephalography)

Every thought has a frequency The source of the consciousness must be an electron

Sadovnik Socratus

[Ruffsaarr]

Hello guys, sorry 4 my bad English, but please start thinking:

We are all "One" World? All religions are wrong?

Why not go to the "new world order" bullshit right the way?? there is the place to be for those Esoterical who pray to the devil!

[jasonextreme]

If we are all part if something bigger (which we are). then when can we assume all life might have originated from one being?

[VATICANCREATEDISLAM]

checkout 12 around 1 on crystalinks(.)com its a pretty cool site.

[Mikehaelife]

You can never describe a large system with information that's inside the sub system.

this is the reason you cant Explain god???

[atessmann]

Exactly. Thats why we will never have proof of the existence of God, because you can only check if it is real if you decide to experience in your own reality, the reality of your consciousness.

[AMENYAHEL32125]

I AM GOD

[KarameloKaramelo]

I AM GOD too.

[visualkei72]

@Mikehaelife

but religion makes metaphysical claims. most of those claims transcend the physical reality and make direct ties with an existence beyond our dimension and universe. this is how religion can "explain" to "know".

i personally think it's BS.

[Mikehaelife]

@visualkei72 I just tell people to try it out for themselves Ive been doing this for about four years now and its only getting better!!!

[ineedaname777777]

@visualkei72 religion and dogma, God doesn't like them either

[visualkei72]

@ineedaname777777 sorry, i couldn't tell if you actually claiming to know what God likes, or you were being sarcastic?

[ineedaname777777]

@visualkei72 beware of Dogma.

[solemnsoul17]

why would u wanna break ure toe .lol.

[MidnightDC696969]

morphine? XDD

[fireopalmo]

Hmm 1 min 30 to 1 min forty He says basically um The subsystem cannot no the real nature of the Whole system cuz its but a part and yes this does make intuitive sense thou completely untrue: As above so below- In the smallest lies the greatest and the reverse and inverse is also true. The universe is holographic and this couterintuition is sadly the case.

[MidnightDC696969]

i agree.

[Nightsurf59]

@fireopalmo ....Your assessment is essentially correct, but think of it in the following way. Think of it as information.The subset has less information, and any conclusion based on its information will be limited relative to one made with access to the information of the higher order or greater set. That is what the professor is alluding to. Remember, he is talking about consciousness and knowledge of a plan or operation.

[fireopalmo]

Or another view could be quantum entanglement if the data in the larger set was ever put together in the first place then a subset would of physical necessity have to have all the data points of the larger set regardless of when the larger and smaller were created in time as then the time slot would just be objectively real to a subjective viewer caught in a observational reference point--

[Nightsurf59]

@fireopalmo ...A point of awareness privy to the information of the more inclusive set , will of course be seeing the BIG picture....a more complete understanding is possible.......it would be like comparing the worldview of a worker doing his individual labors on a huge job sit.....and that of someone with access to the plans and or a view from an airplane.

[fireopalmo]

Yes i see ur point and in full disclosure I did not view the entire lecture so missed his alluding. But if we are strictly talking about consciousness in the ultimate sense of its awarness of self then the axiom remains consistent. The problem is more semantic in that just because most of us cannot see the large in the small does not mean that it is not there.....

[Nightsurf59]

Ultimately, when speaking of a closed system , disorder is the outcome simply because the energy loss(heat) will always be LESS than the amount of energy necessary to Recover that lost energy. To say it another way we can speak of it in terms of work. The energy necessary to recover lost energy in a closed system will always be capable of producing more work than the energy we are trying to recover. Thus, the system must eventually cease to function as it had. Any boos , hisses,yeas, nays?

[fireopalmo]

Closed systems are artificial contrivances and thus do follow those rules yes.

[fireopalmo]

The energy necessary to recover lost energy in a closed system will always be capable of producing more work than the energy we are trying to recover. ........The energy needed to create work will always be greater than the work created thus a net energy loss is unavoidable? Is that what u meant?

[cwmhyfryd]

Entropy many of those who say they know what it is, only have a very vague perception without any deeper insight - it's not taught in schools to a larger extend. Actually, there is no general agreement among scientists either and that may just be the cause why many teachers do not want to go too deep into the subject - they are unsure themselves.

[fireopalmo]

Amen yea its the case but the non noing can be forgiven perhaps --as we are all simply guessing in normative states of critical analysis about realms that are not currently here or at least open to critical analysis by monkeys in the 3-4 dimension. Currently science says we have what

about 11 dimensions now? Was alot less than that when i was in school-- The masters

of old talk about infinite dimensions and so do the string people. I have no problem cutting these teachers sum slack.

[twcjr44]

The water is the system whose entropy is being discussed -- the jug is not relevant.  It was not the best example.

[Sueezedtight]

The example was fine. His vision was impaired.

The ordered state of the water molecules included energy to create and maintain the form. That energy is available to do work. (Forget about efficiency of transformation.) Once that energy has been used up to evaporate or otherwise displace the water molecules, it is no longer available to do other work.

That is why the form is secondary to the energy that goes into making it.

Entropy is at the low end of the consciousness scale but is fundamental.

[sassa07]

I find this lecture very interesting, and since I don't know much about this and the water example gave me a good understanding about entropy, can you provide another example that explains it more clearly? and why the jug is not relevant?

[twcjr44]

Entropy can only be specified for a specific system. In this simple example, the water was defined as the system -- thus, the jug, by definition, was not part of the system. The example was only about the entropy of the water.

[cwmhyfryd]

myyyy brannnne

[cwmhyfryd]

Ok am I missiing something here, he mentions that dropping a jug or bottle of water on your foot would hurt, but a bottle of water or jug with a hole in it wouldnt .

But the container still exists. and could still cause a pain if it drops on your foot.

[carpadeim]

Hi Patrick, good Videos huh?

[miamitattooco]

Neo and this guy have a lot in common. Very interesting but also very one sided. it makes sense the way he says it but it could also make sense if someone breaks it down in a different way.

[ToListen]

Neo? Can you refer me to some videos of what you are speaking of?

Thanks.

[oksoucanrap]

please elaborate im curious to what other ways u might understand this, might help me grasp the idea better.

[moyga]

how old is this?

i have to say i dont entirely agree with the way he breaks down the 'Systems'

[mynameisdantheman]

hes talking about mathematical systems that we all belong to, perhaps there are other systems higher then our own

[Mikeumus]

It was posted on April 12th, 2008 and that can been seen to the top right next to the video player.

[moyga]

thats just when it was posted on youtube.. not necessarily when the video was made...

[Boolze]

He wrote his book in 2003, so it would be a somewhat recent (years-wise) lecture.

[clevis9155]

Thank you Tom!

[sammimann]

6175 views since april 08 this video .

2141535 views for super obama girl since november 08.....

i rest my case on the society we live in

[desoan]

? of course anything with "obama" in it will receive much more attention than a video like this. i agree with you that our society is flawed but really, consider who would watch this video. its like a 3hour long series whereas the obama girl vid is only 1:30 minutes... i get what your saying, but your drawing a conclusion thats kinda... skewed lol.

[rcollinstotheface]

if its not about sex, drama, or catastrophy people don't care. Know one wants to expand the mind cause its to much work lol.

[RulesOfSecret]

I Started yesterday the mission is to " Master my inner self " and to know exaktly what i want in life and then doing it. Tried it?

[jokerbookshop]

dam it, i always feel part of the minority.

[twcjr44]

No.  That would be a foolish assumption.

[clevis9155]

thats funny :)

[evil221884]

what if there are other subsets in the larger reality that you can't experience either??? can we assume it doesn't exist??

[GordonMorrice]

Thomas, what are your thoughts on Alfred North Whitehead? Also, have you heard of Terence McKenna and his "Novelty Theory" ? Thanks!

[twcjr44]

It has been a long time since I have read either -- from memory I would say that both have substantial threads of truth running through their work but are missing the big picture.

Tom

[CounterActPsych]

Thanks for posting these. I am trying to get psychiatrists out of their own box

[twcjr44]

Yes and no.

You need to read the books for a more detailed response

Fundamental consciousness Isn't an epiphenomenon of neural processing. Fundamental consciousness is not physical (not part of this PMR reality frame or subset -- it belongs to the superset. However a small individuated subset of constrained consciousness temporarily "hosted" within a virtual physical being has its constraints modeled in that virtual reality frame by what might be generally called neural processing.

Tom

[jburt56]

Isn't consciousness an epiphenomenon of neural processing?

[mobbinthrudabay]

what is a wave pattern?

[twcjr44]

That same question was asked at the end of the first lecture by someone in the audience. You will hear it answered if you listen to the last several YouTube segments. It is a characteristic wave interference pattern that consists of alternate ligh tand dark bands. A well know pattern produced by coherrent light (million of in-phase photons) falling upon two slits. A little hard to explain in an email. Google "double slit experiment"

[mobbinthrudabay]

thank you for responding. this lecture is very educational and opens up the mind.

can you please upload more lectures of thomas campbell or his colleagues.

thanks .. have a great day sir.

[tristenmc]

Thank you so much for posting this!! 5 stars.