There is a dynamic between abnegation and affirmation of the self, with what it either identifies with or does not identify with. "My x,y,z," or "not my x,y,z." It's as if nature has endowed us with this binary module, and with it there is "freedom to be or not to be" (Shakespeare). This dynamic also has a complementary aspect in logic/language; so that we can argue over what is and is not (in the material world). There is a Stoic term for this capacity, but for the life of me I cannot remember how to spell it, and am unable to come up with it in google searches. ...Proharies? Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohairesis I just had to do a google search of Stoic terms.

What data you are obtaining here is personal belief or lack thereof in the premise "God exists." It only arrives at a statistical conclusion of what percent of people believe something. It is not the same as evidence for a proposition/hypothesis.

Using induction you can weigh the probabilities for and against the premise "God exists because (x)" and them somehow combine them mathematically to determine the final probability of a creator of the universe existing. This will be a final theory till evidence otherwise appears and adjusts the probability of a creator existing. Since I am too much of a sluggard myself, and do not come equipped with decent mathematical skills, I fail to do this inductive exercise.

Yes, there is a dichotomy between originality vs. conformity and it is entrenched in the education system as well as being part of other systems and even the nature of being human. It's all part of the program set in motion by history, education, culture, economics and the government.

You can: 1. "go to school to learn a trade" or 2. "go to school to learn how to run a trade." In either case education is for skill development, later applied in the economy.

As the economic industry becomes more automated, different jobs arise, causing the need for different education to arise. At the same time, some people come out of school with an idea, that they want to change the production lines with.

Some people bypass school altogether and gain experience or skill at their vocation.

It is important to teach children about education so they can see themselves as a vital part of society. where purpose is definable in "what you do".

I am really interested in how one could relate delusion and hallucination.

I am wondering if you think that schizophrenic auditory or visual hallucinations are not so much about the world becoming unreal as they are about a change in the language of reality.

The language remains the same. English brain language. The visual and auditory aspects of language are still in play, but they have become dysfunctional. Its like being on a bike with a bent tire. The ride wobbles but you are able to ride along.

The world experienced under hallucination is an unreal one, that is the inner visual and auditory aspects of it are altered to such a degree that they do not match sensation.

"Common sense" bizarre in light of objects?

An example of common sense is that: "some apples are red." We have a world in common in which we have "common sense" of it. That world is made of objects and events.

Realness is the sensation of some physical object(s). Those sensations are of a correlative. We understand this in neuroscience as neuro-correlates and in philosophy as correspondence.

I can distinguish between my hallucinations and my actual perceptions. One takes place in the brain without an external stimulus, while the others occur as a result of physical sensation.

I have quite a lot of first-hand experience with hallucinations as I am schizophrenic. As well, as the fact that I promote experimentation with psychedelic drugs (none of which I have taken myself). This advocacy I repute as some one that has done research into some of the benefits of the drugs.

Some people hallucinating whether it be a sublime experience, a symptom of mental illness, or the result of psychedelics are not able to distinguish between the hallucinations and the real. In which case, these people are said to have "poor insight" particularly common in schizophrenics.

This also brings to mind the case of "delusion" which is similar, and there are also some who know their delusions and others with poor insight.

- "Doesn't that depend on your interpretation of QM?" I don't know. I am not sure how to answer that. What do you think?

Assigning mathematical quantity to logic such that A=A would be 1=1, and A-->B would be A = B, shows that there can be quantities to be expressed as qualities and visa versa. In binary code 0=0 & 1=1.

This mathematically and logically specific quantifying of variables of cause (a) to effect (b), and variables equaling themselves and predicates, is of the world of classical physics and classical logic. .

The classical world breaks down at the quantum level, where a different set of logical and mathematical laws are deducible or express-able.

Indeed what causes this distinction, (quantum vs. classic) is a mystery in physics. However, they're both set within them deducible laws of math & logic.

Individualizing specific causes and effects, is the same as making variables logically necessary. That which is already individualized causation makes logic necessary.

I really don't know if that inspires a further understanding for anyone. I think I am just on the cusp of learning the nature of this (even with Aristotle/Hume/Kant and modern logic), and have yet to dive off into the deep end -- where abysmal complexity abounds. Perhaps, chaos theory or multiple-world theory, and its logical consequences are in those waters.

*I'm fascinated by such fringe inquiries. Great discussion, looking forward to more.

*Grabs life-jacket.

- "Matter contains something non-material." Can you say what that something is, other than that it is immaterial? And how is one to extract information about that thing from observation? I still don't understand what this immaterial thing has to do with dreaming, from what you have vaguely divulged?

- "Conscious dreaming?

Are you asking if the dream-world is conscious?

Are you implying that consciousness is the soul?

Do the two inter-relate, in your conceptions? And by the two I mean the soul and the dream-self?

@Jackson"Does a person with Dementia experience consciousness?" Butting in, I'd say yes. Some awareness of their environment and their own-self remains intact.

One of my ventures in life is the "search for spirit." I ask myself, is this a physical, brain function, or is it some kind of "soul" that is doing it? So far, I have yet to find any evidence of a "spiritual material" or "spiritual quality" in the brain.

I do have some interests in para-normal phenomena, but this hasn't aided anything in my previous mentioned venture. I suppose we are waiting for the next Darwin to write, "On the origins of the soul." If there is such a thing.

Here's another problem, "How are we supposed to measure or find evidence for the existence of something non-physical, if all we have is physicality to apprehend it by?"

Existence is energy and its modes of being. The more scientific question is not where did existence come from, but where did the constitutions of energy, that is atoms, come from? We can deduce back to a point in time known as a singularity, where all energy in the KNOWN universe started to expand. What was before this, is really the job of the particle physicists to compute.

If we ran a simulation of our universe it might be proven that it is a CYCLICAL event. That time is perpetual. That this energy and that energy comes from some other energy. There are principles in science that point to this 1. Conservation of energy principle. 2. Expanding and contracting energies of the universe. 3. Impossibility of absolute zero.

So we might be able to know where atoms (and their parts) originate through simulation, and we'd know whether time is perpetual or not through simulation.

We are probably even thinking about this wrong, "where do things come from if they come from themselves?" Huh? It seems language is causing this linguistic problem when talking about causality and ontology.

Here is an account of simulation theory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrhDaM4C5c

Here ( https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/3496762-josh-alfred ) are my first number of books I read from about 2007-2010 on goodreads.com . I didn't post more on this site since then. Kind of lost interest in keeping track of everything I have read over the years.

Here are some other suggestions:

Self-Reliance by Emerson
Everything by Steven Pinker.
Everything by Dawkins.
Everything by Hawking.
Everything by Jack Kornfield
Everything by Ken Wilber
Everything by Aristotle
Everything by Hume
Everything by Locke
Everything by Smith
Meditations by Aurelius
A history of Western Philosophy by Russell, Durant, Voltaire. I would suggest my own one, but removed it from the net.

There is probably 400-500hrs of reading here. And to think that I've read so much more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_the_sciences

Would you care to try to conceptualize how the "cubic advantage" takes place within Holistic Science or separately say in any field of science?

Lewin Genidentity -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genidentity

I have yet to read a book in my Kindle Library called, "Transfer." It deals with such imagined technology and philosophy. There is, however, real progress being made towards productions of this sort.

Extensive development on this type of technology remains undone

There would need to be similar cognitive architectures, brain and machine wise

. What would such a machine look like?

1. As noted, it would have to emulate the brain. Starting from scratch, the emulated brain would have to mimic most if not all neuro-structure and neuro-chemical behavior. It would basically be a computerized copy. This is the copy concept of mind-uploading.

2. The second type of mind uploading is direct brain to machine insertion. In the prequels to the Dune series, there are beings known as Cymeks who are machines with human brains. These implanted brains are in a fluid and connect through various outlets to the machine body.

3. Thirdly, there is machines being put in brains, rather than brains put into machine(see 2) There is multiple patent devices and actually constructed one's that in theory can be implanted in the brain that would replace some specialized brain function. As in the case of the "artificial hippocampus", Elon Musk's neurolink, and some others.

There are metaphysical conundrums with this kind of technology but I will not elicit further obstacles or posit solutions in this comment. Why? I am sure its been done here before.

Yes. I have written a blog devoted to philosophical psychology.

https://philospsy.blogspot.com/

There are some good articles in there.

I think an understanding of personal meaning comes from deciding what One ought to do when thinking of reality/nature/economy/society.

"General human intelligence is declining."

That's the thesis here. I haven't read any proof. Anyone with common sense could compare our current level which we harness our own minds to communicate, engineer, economize, etc.. and it will be evident that this is far more intelligent than the primitive mode of our species.

The Flynn Effect, is a calculated anti-thesis. Any age before google search, was surely an age of human beings being less intelligent than they are now.

If I were to posit that we are more conscious than we were in the past, that is also evident, given the circumstances in which scientific notions are available to think "about reality" (consciousness) more so than ever before.

A more interesting inquiry, would be "why are we more intelligent than our ancestors?" I think I even answered that vaguely here.

Whose to say if we won't discover a class of physics (mathematics) for what the mind is doing when it generates images, as a result of this amazing tech? A hyper-reality, in a hyper-reality? Sounds like a dream to me.

Simply, there I mean one of the most fundamental equations in physics that google has here (let me get that) "To solve for time use the formula for time, t = d/s which means time equals distance divided by speed."

Else-while, there is something called time dilation (TD) it works with Einstein's relativistic mechanics. In such a state, my time is a variable of my reference frame compared to the reference frame of some one else. There is a widely known example of this. Its a great thought experiment to run, if you don't want to get into just the hard math, and simply stay with the visual aspects of TD.

With TD in mind, time is "very, very, very, varied." :)

Where can I find more examples as precise as this?

"Google Define Hyper-reality." Hyper reality is defined as an image or simulation, or an aggregate of images and simulations, that either distorts the reality it purports to depict or does not in fact depict anything with a real existence at all, but which nonetheless comes to constitute reality.

Done and did.

This is the inception of hyper-reality. It blows my mind. Automatically generating virtual realities through the use of this technology will be a major advent in the near future. So ()ing awesome.

I tried reading the book, but it was mostly fluff, and the rest was non-sense. I did this years and years ago, when it first was on my library shelfs. I know I didn't get much from it. I bide by the logicians of history, and other scientists when thinking about the nature of time.

I also have some of my own ideas, as classifying time into domains. Such that there is 1) Cosmic time, the Big Cycle 2) Rotation and Revolution Cycles, 3) Relative time 4) Atomic time and 5) Time as a variable that can be reached by mathematical expression and equation.

Did you learn something with your time reading this? Certainly more than you will gain from Krauss's "flat universe" and "zero-point beginnings" concepts.

If I could I would write a polemic against Krauss, spare with him, if you will. But I don't think that's very likely. I am sure you can access positive and negative reviews online, no need to debase the fool further, here.

I bumped up against a theory called "Constructor Theory". In essence everything must be explained in 0's and 1's, ons and offs. It looks to show promise. Given that I got a whiff of a book about this theory too, it may just one day be that all of us know how to talk in binary code, or even more endearing, have our native tongue be simulated that such 0's and 1's are its basis. I know binary is computer language, but there are actually people that can read it. The goal of improving language comes hand in hand with representing as accurately as possible all domains of phenomena. How? It is the true language, the absolute language, where ideas as they are, visual and audio are correlated perfectly with reality. As it stands our language is sketchy at best when trying to speak about phenomena. Hell, its gotten us this far. But I will also have this idea of languages and mathematics ultimate potential and ultimate power.

Dear rabbit, I have personally written a blog or two and collected and published data on the topic (non-being) of nothing. You may also find L.M. Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" an intriguing read.

I have not learned much from reading three pages of comments on here. I will tell you my vote is that time is perpetual and infinite in both directions.

Our newest Telescope, Webb's, will reveal more about the nature of time and the beginning of our universe (cosmology). .

Hm."...anymore than an amoeba can study humans." Great use of analogy.

"...who knows what is being transferred through culture?" I think Jung really went at it. Now we have more modern culture studies. I kind of grasp what you are saying, though.

Is science evolving? To what end? Does it to have some kind of shape, structure? I'd answer, yes to all. But I too am an amoeba in the larger scheme of things. Its hard enough to conceptualize all that goes into a single organism, let alone the whole system. It's partially due to the limited sensory apprehension an individual has. I do think there is plenty more to discover, we just need new tools that upgrade human or non-human (AI) senses as well as cognitive capacities. That sounds like a thematic for a sci-fi. How many works are there are the supernatural mixed with artificial intelligence? Lol. Definitely gets those cogs turning.

The study of "spiritual entities" is part of a pseudo-science, like parapsychology.

From my take there are possibly
1) Spiritual entities, or "other realm beings" that have not existed in a mortal vassal.
2) Spiritual entities that have existed in the mortal world.

The science behind it doesn't offer a lot to go on, (as far as I am aware) and so such a level is has been left out of what is known as "THE HEIRARCHY OF THE SCIENCES." If such beings do exist, evidently there will be evidence based edits to the Hierarchical model. Meaning, as far as I am concerned much more investigation, experimentation, and reporting are due.

"are there possibly other levels?" Not certain.

Single celled organism do not have a neuronal structure (No CNS). They DO participate in "life" and react to the external environment. That ability is much less complex than our own. When studying neuroscience it is best to start with the simplest known living things, and work one's understanding upward to more complex life forms (and thus more complex nervous systems). At least this has been the trend in the discipline.

Back to your question, any living thing will fall under the science of the biological. A living thing exempt from biology is most unlikely. Yet there are "structure complexities" that permit for higher levels interacting with each other, as in the case of man using telescopes compared to amoeba reacting to some environmental stimuli.

Both are biological, but when presented to a neuroscientist will not meet criteria or the stats necessary to be considered a sample of study for the neuroscientist. They are incommensurable in such a respect.

May I suggest the book, "Quarks to Cosmos: Linking All the Sciences and Humanities in a Creative Hierarchy Through Relationships" by J. Mailen Kootsey Ph.D. You can also check out my layout of the framework in my blog, "Levels of Lucidity." This being accessible here: http://lucidityhaslevels1.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to topic 3 there for a direct ordering.

The fields are held in lock by the biological circuity of the brain. Just in the same way an electric circuit holds the current of an electric field. Yet the brain also happens to be pliable; simulatable by neuro-networks, but I do not not know of a perfect rendition of the mechanisms (specifications) at work for pliability in the biological counterpart. There are probably connections with what @Enrique posits as "phase lock" with memory and neuro-plasticity.

I have been thinking about consciousness and how it might be explained using atomics.

Consider the A) fact the the universe's visible energy is made up of three particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). Consciousness must then be, like all other fluid yet material things, composed of such parts. These parts are held together by forces.

Too, B) those forces must in some way frame conscious experience. Therein there is force explanation and particle explanation. We can measure particles as waves of energy, (ems and bws) rather than just particles (ions of k, Na, C).

There is seemingly a dualism here in neurology or mind science as well, popping up the question, "Is consciousness wave or particle in nature?" Obviously it depends on what you are measuring, just like the quantum world theories that communicate to us such a nature of wave-particles.

These are just some of the thoughts I have on the matter as of recently. I do expect like any good theoretical frameworks they will develop in further examination and contemplation.

I have been trying to observe the world and its contents through the lenses of material continuity as of lately. Asking myself: What lasts the longest? What can I have that I will have for a long period of time?

This comes concurrent with what I own as a human being... part of an economy. I think its very important to ask yourself what things can I have of what value and for how long? The answers so far that I have come to acknowledge is that "physical properties" as in land, houses, or cars, are probably the most valuable and have the highest potential of being changeless.

One modern philosopher said, if you don't own property you don't have much at all.

Its very relevant from a personal view-point to see things and their continuity (in space).

I'd also like to add that physics started out as the "method of calculating change." There is something to that when applied. Things change, and you have to focus in on them, to view their place in space-time, having a past, present, and future. All things are cut into those time dimensions.

Where there is phenomena there is the possibility for its -ology.

Its a principle that is applicable or manifested in most every level of the universe/existence. From the symmetry of electrons and protons (ratios) to the symmetry of binary star systems, it is a universal contingent. Anatomically, the brain and the body working as one, are a symmetrical structure with binary function.

Oh yeah, there's all sorts of work done by philosophers on the topic of "The Present." One I would suggest, that amuses me, is George Carlin's bit on The Now We might get into further discussion on this thing "the present".