It is intrinsic of matter as it perpetually quantum entangles to also superposition, its wavelengths blending into hybrid structures of variable dimension. The nature of these superpositions is not only to occupy space but to feel in some primitive, fragmentary sense. Most of these entanglements discompose as rapidly as they form, but in conscious entities superposition persists long enough and achieves sufficing organization to supply the fundamentals of mind. — Enrique
Have you seen the kind of posts that are made on a regular basis? — Enrique
what you've written is not legitimate science in any way that I can recognize. — T Clark
The basics of consciousness are almost fundamental. — Enrique
An aspect of science is formulating hypotheses, and this is a hypothesis. — Enrique
So, divest yourself of consciousness, and then tell us what really is fundamental. — Wayfarer
Quantum superpositions amongst entangled wavicles are fundamental, which give rise at a very basic level to percepts, which eventually reach enough emergent organization to constitute consciousness. — Enrique
The observer exists already, you can't explain what you're seeing without reference to the observer. So you can't explain the observer in terms of what is observed. — Wayfarer
Then what do you think an observer is? Its got to be a substance, which makes it at least analogous to matter. — Enrique
Yājñavalkya says: "You tell me that I have to point out the Self as if it is a cow or a horse. Not possible! It is not an object like a horse or a cow. I cannot say, 'here is the ātman; here is the Self'. It is not possible because you cannot see the seer of seeing. The seer can see that which is other than the Seer, or the act of seeing. An object outside the seer can be beheld by the seer. How can the seer see himself? How is it possible? You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the Thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the Understander of understanding. That is the ātman."
Nobody can know the ātman inasmuch as the ātman is the Knower of all things. So, no question regarding the ātman can be put, such as "What is the ātman?' 'Show it to me', etc. You cannot show the ātman because the Shower is the ātman; the Experiencer is the ātman; the Seer is the ātman; the Functioner in every respect through the senses or the mind or the intellect is the ātman. As the basic Residue of Reality in every individual is the ātman, how can we go behind It and say, 'This is the ātman?' Therefore, the question is impertinent and inadmissible. The reason is clear. It is the Self. It is not an object.
"Everything other than the ātman is stupid; it is useless; it is good for nothing; it has no value; it is lifeless. Everything assumes a meaning because of the operation of this ātman in everything. Minus that, nothing has any sense.
Then Uṣasta Cākrāyana, the questioner, kept quiet. He understood the point and did not speak further.
You cannot explain ‘the observer’, because ‘the observer’ is implicit in any observation. — Wayfarer
Quantum superpositions amongst entangled wavicles are fundamental, which give rise at a very basic level to percepts, which eventually reach enough emergent organization to constitute consciousness. It seems as obvious to me as evolution was in Darwin's seminal account, but the research that proves exactly how it all works is yet to be performed. — Enrique
No classical, quantum mechanical, electrodynamic, chemical, thermodynamic or emergent equation contains a term for the smell of a rose. — SolarWind
An aspect of science is formulating hypotheses, and this is a hypothesis. Its where science starts. I purposely made it as easy as possible to understand, so your claim that it's some kind of word salad is consternating. — Enrique
The basics of consciousness are almost fundamental, emergent from material properties, essentially the superpositions amongst entanglement that I described. So soul exists, but has a mechanistic sort of explanation. — Enrique
This doesn't mean anything. It's just some technical and spiritual terms juxtaposed to sound profound. How do you test this? — T Clark
It’s not that your model is necessary wrong , just that your account ends just where the real scene of consciousness begins. — Joshs
If you are saying that human consciousness is constituted with the workings of the molecules and particles in physical and biological forms, then it should be possible to replicate, and even clone the consciousness into other beings. That would be clear proof that the theory is true. If it cannot replicate, then the theory does not have a physical or biological basis. — Corvus
I think it will be possible to introduce features of organic subjectivity into electronic devices for instance. This is an application that proves the theory is accurate. The full gamut of perceptual processes will take a while to figure out, but it should be possible to arrive at a model of percepts as detailed as our model of the brain's reward system (dopamine, nucleus accumbens etc.). — Enrique
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.