Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think we would misrepresent the chemistry exactly. The meanings of the binary language don't change the chemistry. What we would be doing is failing to comprehend the sign nature of the activity. In super simplistic terms, it would be like looking at smoke without realizing that it is a sign of fire. Or like studying the peaks and valleys of cosmic radio waves, without realizing that we are observing extraterrestrial communication. Bottom line: we would be missing information that is implicit in the patterns of activity.
sounds like exactly what we are doing with the brain right now. We do not know the machine langue. We do not know how to look at the chemistry and say "hey, thats picture of a bus he saw.". Blurry as it may be.
when we can do that, that will be a huge leap in understanding.
Like you say, I think we are getting the chemistry correct.
At this point, I think we are talking about different "lines." Yours comes a little later: can we define ANY space that is not a part of a biological organism as "life" is, not certain for me, and I have not really delved into the nature of "spirit" in relation to "life." I'm out wondering where the line is between metaphysical and spiritual. Not at all sure that spiritual requires consciousness, though some form of directed self-sustaining activity seems to be essence.
SO, I am open, for instance, to the idea that AI could be on a par with biological self-awareness. The conclusion to me is that the mechanism that produced it would have to be classified as "alive" for as long as it operates. You are out of my league on the other.
we are not that far off. I only claim that if I compare the biosphere to a cell, a virus, and a fancy computer. That the biosphere's interactions match up best with the cell. we classify a cell as life. I predict that most people would record the same answer.
Its like holding a meter stick, compare it to a pole that you can't reach the top of, and saying it looks like its about 50 meters tall. some might say 47 meters, others may say 52 meters. A three year old might whip out 78. maybe, with my bad eyes, 45-55 is reasonable.
To me, there is nothing wrong with being as honest as possible. if we are, then the details work themselves out. and yes, an innocent person is going to get hurt no matter what we say.
Yes, you stated that perfectly. A living cell is not made up of living cells. I think a similar principle applies to consciousness. A conscious being does not have to be made up of conscious beings.
We can see, in principle, how life emerges from chemistry, because chemistry and the behaviors of life are all objectively observable phenomena. "Proto-life" can be somewhat comprehended in the principles of chemistry.
The subjectivity of consciousness makes it extra tricky. The Proto-qualitative aspects of subjective conscious experience don't logically follow from the quantitative objective principles of physics or chemistry. So we need to reconsider physics in terms that address the logical gap. But once we do this, we probably won't need consciousness to create consciousness, any more than we need living cells to be composed of living cells. We won't need conscious intelligence with a purpose to design intelligent beings who experience meaning and purpose.
Intelligent beings can emerge from the elements of the Earth and bring consciousness, meaning, and purpose along with them.
What you seem to gloss over with the "separate things" perspective is that life must be made up of life establishing all the mandatory processes making our entire reality living. That our reality manifests as different vibratory "things" in our observations and measurements that do not appear to be alive is the illusion. All the processes, chemical or physical, are living (vibratory) processes of the ONE living entity - God. The vibratory composite that is our consciousness enables us to subjectively observe and measure and understand God.
What you seem to gloss over with the "separate things" perspective is that life must be made up of life establishing all the mandatory processes making our entire reality living. That our reality manifests as different vibratory "things" in our observations and measurements that do not appear to be alive is the illusion. All the processes, chemical or physical, are living (vibratory) processes of the ONE living entity - God. The vibratory composite that is our consciousness enables us to subjectively observe and measure and understand God.
we don't know if life MUST be made up of life. We do know that life seems to be a whole of work being done for the volume that its in. "heft", is a good word used in geology and by gray.
the universe, if the volume is correct, is hefty in terms of a complexity/volume ration. Certiantly the earth is.
from our perspective, we seem to be alive in alive. I don't know one thing that we have, that the universe doesn't have more of. From mass, to energy, to the "vastness" (to steal a phrase) of consciousness. I still stay withing the earth because its empirical and flat denial of it is a indicator to brain state, thus consciousness, that we are communicating with.
You won't get a flat denial of your claim based on your use of the word "god". I stick with the observations to determine the validity of the claim. semantics is a trick best used by the fundy-mental atheist. Like fundy theist, they have to trick people into following them, the use of facts tend to dismantle the shackles of 1/2 truths and containment.
What you seem to gloss over with the "separate things" perspective is that life must be made up of life establishing all the mandatory processes making our entire reality living. That our reality manifests as different vibratory "things" in our observations and measurements that do not appear to be alive is the illusion. All the processes, chemical or physical, are living (vibratory) processes of the ONE living entity - God. The vibratory composite that is our consciousness enables us to subjectively observe and measure and understand God.
I'm not sure what "separate things" perspective you are referring to, since you are I are basically in agreement about a "One Stuff" ontology. Where we disagree is over the primordial nature of this One Stuff. I'm fine with the "vibratory" approach, but I think that objective empirical evidence and phenomenological evidence both point toward the primordial stuff being essentially unconscious and proto-intelligent, rather than being foundationally conscious and intelligent.
And, as I've said before, I'm not necessarily talking about temporal priority. I suspect that there was probably never a "time before" intelligent consciousness existed. Consciousness and intelligence are probably both eternal in the sense of "no first moment of" either of them in the multiverse. But for any given moment of consciousness experience there is always already a context of unconscious processing out of which the qualitative character of that conscious moment of experience evolved.
Conscious moments are probably like integers on the number line. There are an infinite number of them, but prior to each one there is an infinity of unconscious rational and irrational numbers (as well as previous integers) that, in some sense, "lead up to" the specified integer.
Phenomenologically, I'm not aware of most of the brain activity that leads up to any particular conscious experience. I have this feeling that there's always a lot of "behind the scenes stuff going on." Empirical evidence from psychology, neuroscience, and just plain everyday life confirms this. In fact, if it were not for this empirical evidence, I would not even know that I had a brain so, clearly, I wasn't conscious of all this unconscious brain activity feeding into my conscious experience.
I believe this idea of conscious moments always being embedded in a historical context of unconscious moments is an essential feature of consciousness in general - not something specific to just some particular forms of consciousness. I see absolutely no good evidence or logical reasons to think that there are some types of conscious moments (say, for example, in the "mind of God"?) that are exceptions to this rule. I believe this tracks back to the logical paradox of self-reference. In other words, it's not just a contingent feature of consciousness, but a logically necessary one - even for God. It is in the very essence of consciousness to find itself always already immersed in a largely unconscious historical context, and some of this historical context is of an "inner" dynamics - i.e., it stems from the self itself.
I'm not sure what "separate things" perspective you are referring to, since you are I are basically in agreement about a "One Stuff" ontology. Where we disagree is over the primordial nature of this One Stuff. I'm fine with the "vibratory" approach, but I think that objective empirical evidence and phenomenological evidence both point toward the primordial stuff being essentially unconscious and proto-intelligent, rather than being foundationally conscious and intelligent.
And, as I've said before, I'm not necessarily talking about temporal priority. I suspect that there was probably never a "time before" intelligent consciousness existed. Consciousness and intelligence are probably both eternal in the sense of "no first moment of" either of them in the multiverse. But for any given moment of consciousness experience there is always already a context of unconscious processing out of which the qualitative character of that conscious moment of experience evolved.
Conscious moments are probably like integers on the number line. There are an infinite number of them, but prior to each one there is an infinity of unconscious rational and irrational numbers (as well as previous integers) that, in some sense, "lead up to" the specified integer.
Phenomenologically, I'm not aware of most of the brain activity that leads up to any particular conscious experience. I have this feeling that there's always a lot of "behind the scenes stuff going on." Empirical evidence from psychology, neuroscience, and just plain everyday life confirms this. In fact, if it were not for this empirical evidence, I would not even know that I had a brain so, clearly, I wasn't conscious of all this unconscious brain activity feeding into my conscious experience.
I believe this idea of conscious moments always being embedded in a historical context of unconscious moments is an essential feature of consciousness in general - not something specific to just some particular forms of consciousness. I see absolutely no good evidence or logical reasons to think that there are some types of conscious moments (say, for example, in the "mind of God"?) that are exceptions to this rule. I believe this tracks back to the logical paradox of self-reference. In other words, it's not just a contingent feature of consciousness, but a logically necessary one - even for God. It is in the very essence of consciousness to find itself always already immersed in a largely unconscious historical context, and some of this historical context is of an "inner" dynamics - i.e., it stems from the self itself.
yup, we are in the image of the periodic table. jesus said "I and the father are one". Not bad for what they didn't know.
of course nothing can be validated until such time we record the chemical equation and know what equation, or set of equations, is mary's red. Just like we can tell a set of 1's and 0's will produce a red dot on a monitor.
I'm not sure what "separate things" perspective you are referring to, since you are I are basically in agreement about a "One Stuff" ontology. Where we disagree is over the primordial nature of this One Stuff. I'm fine with the "vibratory" approach, but I think that objective empirical evidence and phenomenological evidence both point toward the primordial stuff being essentially unconscious and proto-intelligent, rather than being foundationally conscious and intelligent.
And, as I've said before, I'm not necessarily talking about temporal priority. I suspect that there was probably never a "time before" intelligent consciousness existed. Consciousness and intelligence are probably both eternal in the sense of "no first moment of" either of them in the multiverse. But for any given moment of consciousness experience there is always already a context of unconscious processing out of which the qualitative character of that conscious moment of experience evolved.
Conscious moments are probably like integers on the number line. There are an infinite number of them, but prior to each one there is an infinity of unconscious rational and irrational numbers (as well as previous integers) that, in some sense, "lead up to" the specified integer.
Phenomenologically, I'm not aware of most of the brain activity that leads up to any particular conscious experience. I have this feeling that there's always a lot of "behind the scenes stuff going on." Empirical evidence from psychology, neuroscience, and just plain everyday life confirms this. In fact, if it were not for this empirical evidence, I would not even know that I had a brain so, clearly, I wasn't conscious of all this unconscious brain activity feeding into my conscious experience.
I believe this idea of conscious moments always being embedded in a historical context of unconscious moments is an essential feature of consciousness in general - not something specific to just some particular forms of consciousness. I see absolutely no good evidence or logical reasons to think that there are some types of conscious moments (say, for example, in the "mind of God"?) that are exceptions to this rule. I believe this tracks back to the logical paradox of self-reference. In other words, it's not just a contingent feature of consciousness, but a logically necessary one - even for God. It is in the very essence of consciousness to find itself always already immersed in a largely unconscious historical context, and some of this historical context is of an "inner" dynamics - i.e., it stems from the self itself.
I know you see the unconscious/conscious distinction as relevant. I see it as an artifact of our unique perspective from within the production of consciousness on its way to becoming our unconscious Self. Everything we know about our consciousness points to it being a delayed replay of our actual consciousness as recorded within our brain. Our actual consciousness is an amalgam of our accumulating unconscious Self and our current consciousness as played back through our brain. We do not have direct access to our accumulating unconscious but it influences and is changed by the current production of consciousness that we experience in delayed fashion as our current awareness.
As I see it, our brain transforms the energy into neural firings that accumulate in "quantum time" as a resonant neural field composite across the entire brain that we experience as our awareness. The tricky part is we do not directly experience this transformation while it is happening. We experience it as a "delayed playback" that we THINK is our current awareness. So in a sense, we believe we are currently experiencing what we already have actually experienced some "quantum time" earlier as our awareness was forming the neural field composite that does the experiencing. The finished product (actual consciousness field) is and remains part of what we consider the unconscious (unified field) because we have no direct access to it. I see it as we experience a playback of our "in-process" consciousness as it is en route to becoming part of our accumulating "finished product" unconscious.
As you can see, under my view of things the unconscious substrate of our Reality that you want to attribute proto-qualia to is nothing more than the locus of what we are producing within the consciousness of God (unified field).
With 131+ pages I'll take your word. I'll jump in some time
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
