All that standard bullshit lays far behind me already. Show some courage. Calling something just bullshit before even trying to comprehend is the most irrational thing to do. But I understand.

1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus

Very nicely put! I wouldnt stay unmoved, silent, and word free though. I would make contact. And shout it out! Let my thoughts give me a song.

"that's all you're interested in doing here."

Whats all?

And what have you seen? I cant help it that you dont understand.

Yeah I'm not interested in making shit up,

Thats clear! You only repeat existing shit!

"it seems quite implausible that "there was nothing before the Big Bang"

There WAS something before the big bang. Or better, way ahead of it.

Man!!! Show some imagination. "There is no theoretical framework". Non true.

"What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human"

And he even had the decency not to reduce people to the brain: human. I dont like choosing sides though.

The universe is eternal. Its easy to speak about time before the big bang. The big bang that preceded ours has already accelerated away to infinity on a 4d curved space. Negatively curved that is. This is the reason that the universe SEEMS to expand. The distances between the galaxies grow because they move away from each other on a negatively curved 4d space (or 5d spacetime). Thats the funfact of negatively curved space. It gives repulsive gravity. The question is: what curves spacetime negatively? If matter/energy curves positively, then what curves negatively?

It is ASSUMED in GR that curvature is internally only. But space can be part of a larger dimensional one. If matter sticks only to 3d space it can expand in a 4th. This is not-done or not-said or non-spoken off though. But there is nothing to principally forbid this. But saying this costs your job.

And gods created it.

Well, I dont mean litteraly a small universe. I mean forms in the physical world can all flow in the brain too. On the neural network. How can this give rise ti conscious exlerience. Thats where the essengial, magical, uncomprehensible content of matter, particles, excitations of quantum fields, given form by mediating fields, comes in handy. This would "solve" the hard consciousness priblem. Jesus. Im getting tired of myself...

I dunno, but our brains are at the top as far as we know. — Mark Nyquist

Why do you think that? The brain can be the universe in small.

Finally a second answer actually adressing the brain question! But I have to say that Im on the side of Corvus still. Grainy as the currents in the neural network might be there is stil an analogue process flowing on the network. Massive parallel non-externaly-driven flows representing external processes. Or externally driven by the senses. The huge variety of possible flowpaths creates the opportunity to represent virtually all processes in the universe. The number of possible paths is about a 1 followed by 10exp30 zeros!

Damned! How can that universe have come to be that perfect?

Holding non-physicals is a capability of our brains and unique to our brains. — Mark Nyquist

Cant the physical world contain non-entropic information too? Imagine 100 different words or geometrical figures writen on a piece of paper. Or ten different Naturally occuring forms are present on stone. The entropic information (S=lnN) are the same. But the variety of forms is huge. Like there is a huge variety of animals all containing the same entropic infofmation. They are tbe result of the rotating Earth between the hot Sun and the cold universe. Heatflow can make different forms evolve. Likewise, the whole neural network can accomodate all forms present in the universe.

. A physically non-existing thing is a general catagory of information (or brain state). Holding non-physicals is a capability of our brains and unique to our brains. — Mark Nyquist

:100:

I get that a lot.
I use non-physical as a noun but it's more commonly used as a adjective. Does that help at — Mark Nyquist

Yes, I get that. I use the term magic stuff that is the content of matter.

I was asking about physically non-existing things. Is that form, information, in matter, on our neural network and physical matter out there?

but I am a bit taken aback by the nature of your interaction on the site in the last few days. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I can understand. But llease dont get me wrong. Its not the quantity that counts. And please dont get me wrong (Im not psychotic or anything like that; just wanna express myself; exercise for a book)
And dont get me wrong when saying that its like the universe has revealed itself. Finally. That MF universe...And its a beautiful sight. It feels as if I have full understanding. No knowledge but understanding (of course knowledge is involved; quantum fields, curved spacetime on a higher dimensional substrate, magic content of matter, information whirling around in my neoron network, etc. Seems there has fallen in place a cohierent whole. To be written up in a book, as one small part of it. :wink:

I already expected such reaction. You big bang guys are so predictable. Thanks for wishing me luck tough.

So non-physicals can't exist (that's my philosophical opinion) but mental content of things that are physically non-existent can exist. — Mark Nyquist

Im not sure I understand this:

"mental content of things that are physically non-existent can exist"

What are physically non-existent things? Patterns in matter?

it makes exactly as much sense as the analogy of the selfish gene — unenlightened

Exactly. Thats why Dawkins is not teliing us any truth. Contrary to what he writes in his book. He writes that he had found an objective truth.

Clearly. — Manuel

See that it can be done?

the unlucky few survive and replicate for a few million years — unenlightened

Unlucky? Replicate? Manage? None of both three.

You mean Dawkins?

Supernaturalism is hard to even articulate — Manuel

Aaaaaeoeeeiiorgggghhrrfrŕrrrrhum!!!

It really something. I have seen the whole spectrum of philosophy come by here. What a virus can do...

that brain content representing the non-physical can control physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

If brain content represents the non-physical, is the brain content just physical matter than? What is the non-physical?

What the reason NOT is, a view propagated by "bioLOGIS" Rchard Dawkins:

We are mere machines dictated and ordered around by selfish genes. We are the vessels containing them and our purpose is to pass them on to new vessels by means of sexual intercourse.Idem dito for memes. But without the sexual part.

So that it can be. — Fine Doubter

That's the best answer!

:100:

He was badly treated because he was a sexual liberal, anti-authority, communist, and loud-mouthed trouble-maker. But also a genius, and still worth reading for his psychological insights. — unenlightened

No more answers needed!

with paranoid schizophrenia — unenlightened

This is very true. I listebed to his regitered musings. He saw the enemy everywhere. But maybe rightly.

I bet you're "pretty sure" your eyes 'see things directly as they are' — 180 Proof

Indeed!

I dont see how this comment says why consciousness is an illusion. Mh eyes can deceive and my eyes can tell me the truth. What has consciousness being an illusion gotta do with that?

Life' is, at the very least, a dissipative system constituted by self-replicating machinery 'energized' by (still) being on a low (enough) entropy'gradient. In other words, 'life' is biochemically programmed to metabolize and replicate / reproduce constantly self-regulated by homeostasis as its primary driver (i.e. strange attractor). Also, vide Spinoza's conatus. And try not to piss in the gene pool — 180 Proof

Excuse me for saying that this is a very limited view on the state of affairs. But as I can't deliver any relevant stuff I'll shut up.

What does it mean to say consciohsness is an illusion? Im pretty sure that Im conscious.

The first thing I looked to were the shops. But couldnt read. The film was slightly accelerated. FF. But the cars in Paris at morning I knew. Then the Notre Dame (I think) occufed. There were two people on the street with a dog. Tbey were Kaukasian. It would have been different in Asia indeed although I wouldnt be able to guess the city. My girlfriend doesnt mind. She's my wife... But I dont really like to call her like that. Though it could get difficult if she read this! :grin: Luckly shes not interested in my musings here...

Without a bikini there is no democracy. — gikehef947

Thats why I cant argue on equal footing with my wife on the beach!

Non sequitur. I studied physics as a engineering undergrad in the early 1980s and fail to see the relevance of your post to anthing I've posted or the broader thread discussion — 180 Proof

Did I say I have relevance? Thats what YOU make of it.The lack of it that is.

I cant help it that you fail to see the obvious. I like your comment though. Its nice to feel negative feelings once in a while. Thanks!

"I wish this jokers dead was a joke"

Thats the problem with all fundamentalists. They have no humor. They seek refugee in a fundamental way. Thats not restricted to religion though. There are physicists, taking recugee in fundamental models of the universe. Kindacreepy... But nevertheless they are people.

You can’t fully quantify brain information — Possibility

We simultaneously posted the same answer. What does that say about initial conditions?

Any "energy" that interacts with physical systems is also physical and therefore scientifically measurable. — 180 Proof

Gauge fields in quantum field theory represent the mediating, pure energy (not grounded in mass) the means of mass interacting. Mass can be seen as emerging from massless sub-quark rishon fields but these are fundamentally different from the massless mediating fields. Their spins differ. 1/2 vs 1. 1/2 for the particle fields, 1 for the energy particle gauge fields. There is a graviton spin 2 gauge field too. The graviton field. The reason why its spin is 2 is a bit more complicated but not important.

It's the question if you can say that gauge fields are measurable. They are the means for measurement.