if we are of the universe, then we must be making our own path through the multi-verse? The people we are aware of are real, I suppose when we talk of "others" (other human sentient beings) they are an approximation of a template being of that "other self" that we happen to cross paths with in this multi-verse. I suppose we may be seeing some reflection of ourselves when we interact with others, for we see our behaviour via reciprocity in others.
my take is, when trying to think on the level of "either ,or,of", we don't take into account the quantum level of universe, which we can only think about or unconsciously experience, Even when we sleep, we are still experiencing the universe as we are of it and of it's processes, the chemical evolutionary scientific processes, even on a quantum level as it shapes the perceivable universe, I also see the paradoxical as only counter to a common experience.
The self exist only in language: it's a variable O. It's substitute depends on how we want to 'see' ourself: cultural, scientific etc. How we define ourself is temporally. But if..a theorist of physics find the code of the universe, is he (she) finding him (her) self? Is finding the total code including the self? T. McKenna said: everything, uni-verse, is code and made of language. A fundamental 'human all too human' projection. Substitute O? Head physics bites tail metaphysics: dog hunts god...
@spunkets You're falling victim to presuppositions about experience and basing your comment/question in that frame of reference. If you can loosen up on your assumptions you can look at experience in many ways. For instance the "body" (and everything else) is merely composed of a cluster of sensations... tactile, visual. And waking "consciousness" is the presence of sensual experience. Ergo body is consciousness and there is no body apart from conceptualization so only boundless consciousness is
gr8 vid Corey. Escher's pic behind U is an analogy abt how we are OF the world rather than IN the world; the universe is creating itself. 2nd, a NOVA prgrm gave an airtight argument abt how traveling in space, on sum kind of ship, for more than a year or 2, given R present level of technology is just NOT possible. We R so much OF the earth that it will B hundreds of years & many scientific breakthroughs before we'll B able 2 travel in space. But eventually we will b/c we are OF the universe.
I just a have a problem if you brought down to the body argument then my blood or my brain is looking out with a understanding that its is of my body and therefore aware of itself by doing this
We are of and in, however we can only stream (realize and respond awareness) consciousness of being in and not of, which is where the compendium of sensory experiences takes full effect. Of is a hidden process to which we are incapable of fully grasping, much like the realization of infinity, for we as individuals cannot externally control that which is greater (connecting multiple unlike forms) than us. This process is eerily akin to reading of Spinoza's views on Cartesian Philosophy.
at 9:25 this is the way it is presented in science documentaries. We are a part of not separate from looking from the outside from an entirely alien point of view..
as sophisticated as we want to get in our understanding and or explanations of our existence, the one questions that will always remain in the end is "WHY?" if it's even relevant to ask such question. If there is no answer to such question then there is no need ask such question to begin with. crazy shit.
@favoritemoneymakers True enough, but unfortunately there is no way to know the answer, and how it turns out, without at least first asking the question. Life, and the several concepts of awareness pertaining to our existence for that matter, does not play out like a game of Jeopardy. Crazy shit (circular paradox) indeed.
Absolutists are often phobic of notions that do not embrace their absolutes.
There is zero woo, in saying that we are part of the universe. Only an absolutist is so phobic of woo, as to declare themselves as separate from the universe. Doing so makes them utter hypocrites, and practitioners of the very woo they fear.
Your assertion that a continuum may be established between a human organism and the wider universe - for they both possess the same fundamental components - is in contrast to claims you have forwarded in the past; in which you have asserted that slight genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans, for example; provides sufficient justification to establish a substantiated "difference in kind". The universe is of the same ilk as humanity; but a chimpanzee is not?
I don't like the term "self" since that's more psychology, I think the phenomena of experiencing is something more fundamental.
I think even the smallest quanta "experiences" through its natural laws (as "sensory organs"), the ability to experience I think stems from an aspect of the building blocks for the physical- the lower dimension.
How "experiencing" manifests itself has to do with the structure of the system in question. Which is why it's hard to compare a human to a rock in this sense.
He's right in a way though, we're aware of our orientation sort of in a concept of everything must be one thing ultimately =) But it still holds the statement "We're the part of the universe that is conscious of it's self(self as an orientation among things that ultimately are unified =)" This again my problem with consciousness of! We're aware of things within our consciousness. We are conscious of our self(which fluctuates!), so we have a conscious awareness of our self image in our mind.
My son (age 5) has a story he tells himself which ends with 2 Universes walking upside down and the Earth walking upside down inside. I keep trying to get him to tell me the story, but other than that punchline, it is some secret.
I sympathize with the materialist point of view... I really do... All they are saying is give logic a chance...
Consciousness is a result of a complex recursive cascading biochemical electrical process. Any notion individual consciousness is somehow part of a sort of single awareness is totally illogical and has no scientific basis.
I agree with the logic.
However, I suffer from cognitive dissonance when my experience clashes with the expectations of science. I can't logically explain it.
"Consciousness is a result of a complex recursive cascading biochemical electrical process."
...well, you better tell the scientists! They've been trying to figure out consciousness forever with no luck, and here you've summed it up in a sentence.
I apologize if I gave the impression I know exactly what scientists say they know or don't know. It was not my intention. To the best of my limited knowledge on the matter, which is remarkably slim, this is what I can reflect as to what leading scientists are saying consciousness is.
Please forgive my lack of precision on the matter.
@5:50 The Sun is not important as the skin, one can take Vitamin D supplements to replace it. Just imagine those who stay in sunless environments for a long time, as in some scientific experiments.
When people say "they way X Y's itself" they are insinuating that X has a purpose in Ying, but that isn't the way the universe works. There is no volition, it just happens to be that replicator molecules eventually became sentient to better replicate themselves.
Speaking of the body and conscious boundaries... Isn't it fascinating how we don't even have to think about making our body function? For example we don't have to consciously control our heart to pump or forget to breath with our lungs.
The lungs are very strange indeed. We can consciously take control and then seemingly forget about that control and they start working on their own again.
What about digestion? We only consciously control the intake of food and hopefully the defecation.
@batfly Or how about the troubling aspect of bodily instinct verses conscious intelligence when faced with something like drowning. Try as you might, you know if you inhale the water your dead. But your bodies instinct to breath will override your desire to live, unaware that taking that breath will lead to the same conclusion. So in that regard, our intelligence is futile.
Regardless if the lungs inhale the water or not you would be dead because of a lack of oxygen, unless somehow your body could wait a couple more minutes after you pass out to get to air.
I am reminded of the movie The Abyss where there was a liquid that could be breathed by the lungs... that would be cool.
"We are of the universe not just in it" Is basically word play that makes as feel good. Because that that even means is quite empty. Problem with that kind of philosophy is that it is epistemically unsound and hence actually ontologically dismissible. Ultimately it's an obfuscation with the rather trivial fact that we are physical entities hence bound by physics. But that doesn't say anything about stuff like consciousness.
@socrates856 "...word play that makes as feel good" - it doesn't make me feel good even though I believe I'm of the universe. And I feel like that not because I've read a philosophical book talking about it, but simply came to this understanding after studying a bit of physics, math, and electronics at the university, and reading of technical and scientific stuff.
Could it be scientifically fine while "epistemically" unsound?
@wholethinker What I'm saying that the word "in" just about as much can convey the very same science. But to make a big deal of the wordage "of" versus "in" is not something that is epistemic, well unless you do give me an epistemic mechanism why that word distinction is critical here and does relate to some difference in the science not in language use. Certainly I for example understand "I am in the universe" to include my brain and all its functions. So what is that extra mystery of words?
@socrates856 For me using "in" means considering the two interacting (exchanging energy/matter and information) systems that have certain location. That is, I can tell that I am located on a chair in front of the computer. There is a border between me and the universe.
"Of" means that I am distributed over the whole universe with the maximum density on the chair. In this case I'm interacting with myself, just another part of myself, and the apparent separateness of myself is illusive.
@wholethinker And yes that is precisely woowoo without any epistemic grounding. You are not distributed over the whole universe, at least not as long as there is absolutely no evidence that you are, while there is plenty of evidence that your consciousness can be well localized to where you currently are located.
@socrates856 There is a site: quora dot com where you can find answer to the question:"If the wavefunction is defined for all x, does it mean that the probability density for a particle is greater than 0 even far away from its location".
Looks like a small part of me could be found everywhere, including the tea you are drinking. Also, if you have "The great design" by Hawking, there is exactly the same assertion made by a physicist.
@wholethinker Rather than using quora as source, I would suggest actually learning quantum mechanics and special relativity. Those two pieces you need to understand to have a grasp of the claims you are making. Adding some general relativity and quantum field theory doesn't hurt, but what really matters is understanding decoherence and the limits special relativity places on transport of quanta.
You may also want so swing by your reading of The Great Design by Hawing and Mlodinow ...
@socrates856 You are making me a great compliment if you believe I can understand physics better than Hawking and some physics PHD student at quora. Well, I will try the best. Can you recommend something to read?
@wholethinker I think what I would recommend is an attempt at not forming to strong a judgment from short expositions by people, and cross-check if your interpretation is indeed the one that was intended. But yes if you do want to learn quantum mechanics I would recommend picking up a textbook on it or enrolling in a class.
@Nagneto It's not only that though. The boundary between what is us and what is not us is hard to draw. As Anton was saying, we have "external organs" that are vital to us. But also, if you get down to the molecular level it becomes even more difficult. We become like a cloud close up. We fade into the molecules that surround us. And what happens to our food and drink and breath? It literally becomes part of our bodies.
@TheLaughingOut : well it's the fact I can't remember shit I was thinking about not five secs ago, hence why I'm stuck here at this dead end job. To most I can say is I care about people a seeing that everybody gets a fair shot at living life, while my country turns into a theocratic police state. O_o
So yeah, I'm miserable as fuck, but I'm alive GODDAMNIT!
@Nagneto For the most part yes, but the differences of "being of" and "being conscious of being of", or in general "being conscious (aware and in control) of of" are what need to be distinguished. This is where the syntax starts to get muddied up. Nobody rightfully denies that we are a part of this universe, at least in our physical form, however it is another matter altogether and quite bold to profess that we are quite literally the representative conscious extension of the Universe.
if we are of the universe, then we must be making our own path through the multi-verse? The people we are aware of are real, I suppose when we talk of "others" (other human sentient beings) they are an approximation of a template being of that "other self" that we happen to cross paths with in this multi-verse. I suppose we may be seeing some reflection of ourselves when we interact with others, for we see our behaviour via reciprocity in others.
shrodingersman 1 month ago
my take is, when trying to think on the level of "either ,or,of", we don't take into account the quantum level of universe, which we can only think about or unconsciously experience, Even when we sleep, we are still experiencing the universe as we are of it and of it's processes, the chemical evolutionary scientific processes, even on a quantum level as it shapes the perceivable universe, I also see the paradoxical as only counter to a common experience.
Afterfauve007 6 months ago
all mind stuff, nothing to do with beingness
musicallysmitten 6 months ago
The self exist only in language: it's a variable O. It's substitute depends on how we want to 'see' ourself: cultural, scientific etc. How we define ourself is temporally. But if..a theorist of physics find the code of the universe, is he (she) finding him (her) self? Is finding the total code including the self? T. McKenna said: everything, uni-verse, is code and made of language. A fundamental 'human all too human' projection. Substitute O? Head physics bites tail metaphysics: dog hunts god...
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
The boundaries of consciousness go somewhere beyond the boundaries of the body? Prove it (you'll still had to have a body to make a video response).
And is the term, "ambiguous" the new, "relative," "deconstructionist," or "existential?"
spunkets 7 months ago
@spunkets You're falling victim to presuppositions about experience and basing your comment/question in that frame of reference. If you can loosen up on your assumptions you can look at experience in many ways. For instance the "body" (and everything else) is merely composed of a cluster of sensations... tactile, visual. And waking "consciousness" is the presence of sensual experience. Ergo body is consciousness and there is no body apart from conceptualization so only boundless consciousness is
LyfeCentenz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
gr8 vid Corey. Escher's pic behind U is an analogy abt how we are OF the world rather than IN the world; the universe is creating itself. 2nd, a NOVA prgrm gave an airtight argument abt how traveling in space, on sum kind of ship, for more than a year or 2, given R present level of technology is just NOT possible. We R so much OF the earth that it will B hundreds of years & many scientific breakthroughs before we'll B able 2 travel in space. But eventually we will b/c we are OF the universe.
directspirit 7 months ago
Comment removed
directspirit 7 months ago
I just a have a problem if you brought down to the body argument then my blood or my brain is looking out with a understanding that its is of my body and therefore aware of itself by doing this
startasicklegroup 8 months ago
Excellent video response, Corey.
Yamikaiba123 8 months ago
We are of and in, however we can only stream (realize and respond awareness) consciousness of being in and not of, which is where the compendium of sensory experiences takes full effect. Of is a hidden process to which we are incapable of fully grasping, much like the realization of infinity, for we as individuals cannot externally control that which is greater (connecting multiple unlike forms) than us. This process is eerily akin to reading of Spinoza's views on Cartesian Philosophy.
crimsonsamuraiftw 8 months ago
at 9:25 this is the way it is presented in science documentaries. We are a part of not separate from looking from the outside from an entirely alien point of view..
pgm98387 8 months ago
as sophisticated as we want to get in our understanding and or explanations of our existence, the one questions that will always remain in the end is "WHY?" if it's even relevant to ask such question. If there is no answer to such question then there is no need ask such question to begin with. crazy shit.
favoritemoneymakers 8 months ago
@favoritemoneymakers True enough, but unfortunately there is no way to know the answer, and how it turns out, without at least first asking the question. Life, and the several concepts of awareness pertaining to our existence for that matter, does not play out like a game of Jeopardy. Crazy shit (circular paradox) indeed.
crimsonsamuraiftw 8 months ago
Absolutists are often phobic of notions that do not embrace their absolutes.
There is zero woo, in saying that we are part of the universe. Only an absolutist is so phobic of woo, as to declare themselves as separate from the universe. Doing so makes them utter hypocrites, and practitioners of the very woo they fear.
DonQuixotedeKaw 8 months ago in playlist A-4-I
Your assertion that a continuum may be established between a human organism and the wider universe - for they both possess the same fundamental components - is in contrast to claims you have forwarded in the past; in which you have asserted that slight genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans, for example; provides sufficient justification to establish a substantiated "difference in kind". The universe is of the same ilk as humanity; but a chimpanzee is not?
IdaMiaDot 8 months ago
I don't like the term "self" since that's more psychology, I think the phenomena of experiencing is something more fundamental.
I think even the smallest quanta "experiences" through its natural laws (as "sensory organs"), the ability to experience I think stems from an aspect of the building blocks for the physical- the lower dimension.
How "experiencing" manifests itself has to do with the structure of the system in question. Which is why it's hard to compare a human to a rock in this sense.
WiseWeeabo 8 months ago
SMILES FROM THE SUN~!
thesunshon 8 months ago
So it's bottom up rather than top down?
brokennarcissist 8 months ago
Fifty seconds in and I already agree.
Nyder 8 months ago
He's right in a way though, we're aware of our orientation sort of in a concept of everything must be one thing ultimately =) But it still holds the statement "We're the part of the universe that is conscious of it's self(self as an orientation among things that ultimately are unified =)" This again my problem with consciousness of! We're aware of things within our consciousness. We are conscious of our self(which fluctuates!), so we have a conscious awareness of our self image in our mind.
GoldenFinchFellow 8 months ago
professor A-philosopynerd-nton.
greenghost2008 8 months ago
My son (age 5) has a story he tells himself which ends with 2 Universes walking upside down and the Earth walking upside down inside. I keep trying to get him to tell me the story, but other than that punchline, it is some secret.
paxguerilla 8 months ago
@paxguerilla Maybe he somehow remembered early days when he saw everything turned over as the newborn usually see for a while?
wholethinker 8 months ago
Nice vid. Evolution + Survival instinct (nature) + Language + Consciousness = People (nurture arguable). idk. Nice vid.
PawnBACM 8 months ago
The I is a very specialized neural module which has been tagged by function
into a bizarre set of interpretations of what its utility is.
To repeat Mach there is no way to determine any of the global aspects of the universe, we just lack the necessary equipment to make those inferences.
tyrbolo 8 months ago
valid points in this vid.
g1981c 8 months ago
so the universe does have B.O. then. Interesting.
bikemessenger7 8 months ago
These types of conversations never go anywhere and cannot go anywhere.
theDracoIX 8 months ago
@theDracoIX
Whatever doesn't kill us can only make us stronger... If you could only hold your nose. :-\
batfly 8 months ago
I sympathize with the materialist point of view... I really do... All they are saying is give logic a chance...
Consciousness is a result of a complex recursive cascading biochemical electrical process. Any notion individual consciousness is somehow part of a sort of single awareness is totally illogical and has no scientific basis.
I agree with the logic.
However, I suffer from cognitive dissonance when my experience clashes with the expectations of science. I can't logically explain it.
batfly 8 months ago
@batfly
"Consciousness is a result of a complex recursive cascading biochemical electrical process."
...well, you better tell the scientists! They've been trying to figure out consciousness forever with no luck, and here you've summed it up in a sentence.
xy11xy 8 months ago
@xy11xy
I apologize if I gave the impression I know exactly what scientists say they know or don't know. It was not my intention. To the best of my limited knowledge on the matter, which is remarkably slim, this is what I can reflect as to what leading scientists are saying consciousness is.
Please forgive my lack of precision on the matter.
batfly 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5:50 The Sun is not important as the skin, one can take Vitamin D supplements to replace it. Just imagine those who stay in sunless environments for a long time, as in some scientific experiments.
Neueregel 8 months ago
When people say "they way X Y's itself" they are insinuating that X has a purpose in Ying, but that isn't the way the universe works. There is no volition, it just happens to be that replicator molecules eventually became sentient to better replicate themselves.
StabbyRaccoon 8 months ago
@StabbyRaccoon
But that wasn't volitional either, that's just the way a non-volitional law worked.
StabbyRaccoon 8 months ago
Comment removed
Neueregel 8 months ago
Comment removed
Neueregel 8 months ago
Speaking of the body and conscious boundaries... Isn't it fascinating how we don't even have to think about making our body function? For example we don't have to consciously control our heart to pump or forget to breath with our lungs.
The lungs are very strange indeed. We can consciously take control and then seemingly forget about that control and they start working on their own again.
What about digestion? We only consciously control the intake of food and hopefully the defecation.
batfly 8 months ago
@batfly hopefully... lol
2ruthfox82 8 months ago
@batfly Or how about the troubling aspect of bodily instinct verses conscious intelligence when faced with something like drowning. Try as you might, you know if you inhale the water your dead. But your bodies instinct to breath will override your desire to live, unaware that taking that breath will lead to the same conclusion. So in that regard, our intelligence is futile.
wasamatterwicha 8 months ago
@wasamatterwicha
Regardless if the lungs inhale the water or not you would be dead because of a lack of oxygen, unless somehow your body could wait a couple more minutes after you pass out to get to air.
I am reminded of the movie The Abyss where there was a liquid that could be breathed by the lungs... that would be cool.
batfly 8 months ago
"We are of the universe not just in it" Is basically word play that makes as feel good. Because that that even means is quite empty. Problem with that kind of philosophy is that it is epistemically unsound and hence actually ontologically dismissible. Ultimately it's an obfuscation with the rather trivial fact that we are physical entities hence bound by physics. But that doesn't say anything about stuff like consciousness.
socrates856 8 months ago
@socrates856 "...word play that makes as feel good" - it doesn't make me feel good even though I believe I'm of the universe. And I feel like that not because I've read a philosophical book talking about it, but simply came to this understanding after studying a bit of physics, math, and electronics at the university, and reading of technical and scientific stuff.
Could it be scientifically fine while "epistemically" unsound?
wholethinker 8 months ago
@wholethinker What I'm saying that the word "in" just about as much can convey the very same science. But to make a big deal of the wordage "of" versus "in" is not something that is epistemic, well unless you do give me an epistemic mechanism why that word distinction is critical here and does relate to some difference in the science not in language use. Certainly I for example understand "I am in the universe" to include my brain and all its functions. So what is that extra mystery of words?
socrates856 8 months ago
@socrates856 For me using "in" means considering the two interacting (exchanging energy/matter and information) systems that have certain location. That is, I can tell that I am located on a chair in front of the computer. There is a border between me and the universe.
"Of" means that I am distributed over the whole universe with the maximum density on the chair. In this case I'm interacting with myself, just another part of myself, and the apparent separateness of myself is illusive.
wholethinker 8 months ago
@wholethinker And yes that is precisely woowoo without any epistemic grounding. You are not distributed over the whole universe, at least not as long as there is absolutely no evidence that you are, while there is plenty of evidence that your consciousness can be well localized to where you currently are located.
socrates856 8 months ago
@socrates856 There is a site: quora dot com where you can find answer to the question:"If the wavefunction is defined for all x, does it mean that the probability density for a particle is greater than 0 even far away from its location".
Looks like a small part of me could be found everywhere, including the tea you are drinking. Also, if you have "The great design" by Hawking, there is exactly the same assertion made by a physicist.
wholethinker 7 months ago
@wholethinker Rather than using quora as source, I would suggest actually learning quantum mechanics and special relativity. Those two pieces you need to understand to have a grasp of the claims you are making. Adding some general relativity and quantum field theory doesn't hurt, but what really matters is understanding decoherence and the limits special relativity places on transport of quanta.
You may also want so swing by your reading of The Great Design by Hawing and Mlodinow ...
socrates856 7 months ago
@socrates856 You are making me a great compliment if you believe I can understand physics better than Hawking and some physics PHD student at quora. Well, I will try the best. Can you recommend something to read?
wholethinker 7 months ago
@wholethinker I think what I would recommend is an attempt at not forming to strong a judgment from short expositions by people, and cross-check if your interpretation is indeed the one that was intended. But yes if you do want to learn quantum mechanics I would recommend picking up a textbook on it or enrolling in a class.
socrates856 7 months ago
Damn, really like your fast efficient speech
sistavinter 8 months ago
So...since the universe is made up of matter, and so are we, we are part of the universe
^My primitive understanding. If so I agree.
Nagneto 8 months ago
@Nagneto It's not only that though. The boundary between what is us and what is not us is hard to draw. As Anton was saying, we have "external organs" that are vital to us. But also, if you get down to the molecular level it becomes even more difficult. We become like a cloud close up. We fade into the molecules that surround us. And what happens to our food and drink and breath? It literally becomes part of our bodies.
TheLaughingOut 8 months ago
@TheLaughingOut : well yeah. I try not to think too much about these things. As humbling as it is, it makes everything seem so pointless. lol
Nagneto 8 months ago
@Nagneto Really? It makes me very happy. I guess we all look at it from different perspectives.
TheLaughingOut 8 months ago
@TheLaughingOut : well it's the fact I can't remember shit I was thinking about not five secs ago, hence why I'm stuck here at this dead end job. To most I can say is I care about people a seeing that everybody gets a fair shot at living life, while my country turns into a theocratic police state. O_o
So yeah, I'm miserable as fuck, but I'm alive GODDAMNIT!
Nagneto 8 months ago
@Nagneto For the most part yes, but the differences of "being of" and "being conscious of being of", or in general "being conscious (aware and in control) of of" are what need to be distinguished. This is where the syntax starts to get muddied up. Nobody rightfully denies that we are a part of this universe, at least in our physical form, however it is another matter altogether and quite bold to profess that we are quite literally the representative conscious extension of the Universe.
crimsonsamuraiftw 8 months ago
Internal + external organs = great insight.
OuTofJoY 8 months ago
Great job mate!!!
blackmanorigins 8 months ago
loving this discussion, this is where I get "phantasmagorical". heh.
boobootoob 8 months ago