Originally Posted by
Garrette
Yes, I paraphrased your presentation of that science as "weird stuff." You're smart enough to know the difference and gamey enough to try spinning it.
I'm not certain how I'm supposed to read your words any other way than what the words actually mean.
Quote:
That's fine. You are welcome to believe it all you like with no grief from me. What we are discussing here is the foundations of your belief; regardless how your belief itself modifies, your foundation remains non-existent while you claim it is solid.
My belief that there are other dimensions is based on the observations related to cosmology. This is where the mathematics was derived to explain the phenomena, which indicated the other dimensions.
Consciousness, as far as what it is, and how it might exist in these theoretical other dimensions is strictly my belief with no evidence to back it up.
Quote:
Admittedly there is no empirical way to verify that now, after the fact, but within the limitations of a forum there are ways to approach it. You have studiously avoided all those. This is made richer by the fact that you began by repeatedly insisting that we accept it as fact as opposed to something non-demonstrable.
It was in the context of being accused of lying and making the dream up, not that the dream was a factual piece of evidence for my theory.
Quote:
See the highlighted bit? That's you attributing various motives. When I do it -- and I absolutely do -- I am upfront about it. I am even upfront about it being speculation without real evidence.
I've said repeatedly that my idea of non corporeal consciousness that exists simultaneously in other dimensions is based strictly on my speculation.
Quote:
When you do it, you pretend you are not. That's how it's gaming.
What pretending?
Quote:
Ah. So you had not read it prior to reaching your conclusion. I still have not read it. If/when I get the chance I will do so.
I have to say Song being a fundamentalist, at least that's the impression I got, could have his own religious bias influencing his conclusions.
Quote:
So Song does not support your position?
Not exactly. I think he was looking for proof of a soul and trying to shoe horn that into consciousness. I tend to use the word consciousness to signify awareness and how that might exist outside the physical body. I guess it's splitting hairs, there might not be any major difference in how we are using the term "consciousness".
Quote:
And you grandly miss the point. Even if I were to say "Bryanton is absolutely right," it would still be caveated with "But it has sod all to do with Jodie's claim."
It was demonstrating perspective, and as applied to time, it is related to what I am claiming.
Quote:
I perform process analyses in regard to documentation and information flow for a living. This is not remotely in opposition to your idea. More importantly, it does not support your idea. That's the point.
Also to the point: Koch was in direction opposition to Song yet you posted both as if they support your position; that cannot be true. And Koch is in opposition to your idea because he posits consciousness as material while your idea relies on it not being so.
I think you missed my point. If the brain works as a receiver you need to understand how the receiver works in perceiving the 4 dimensions that we live in. Our individual consciousness very well could be a material manifestation that is only applicable here and have absolutely nothing to do with consciousness as a whole. I still think his research is relevant to my theory.
Quote:
And I found that when I perform my version of the zombie for children it gets more laughs to pretend to have the ball acting outside my wishes. My finding has as much relevance to your claim as does Tegmark's quantum findings.
I don't think so.
Quote:
Their math supports their conclusions. Their math does not support yours. It's that simple.
The math supports the theory of other dimensions. If the experience of consciousness as individual people is an illusion then that single awareness/being would have to be somewhere else besides here. The place where that could exist is supported. What isn't supported is that we aren't really individual people, but exist outside of our existence here as a singular being, if we exist at all.
Quote:
I could as easily say that Tegmark's math works therefore I have leprechauns in my desk drawer. It is as valid a conclusion as yours. You keep ignoring this.
Maybe you didn't understand his research??? When Tegmark speaks of integration he is referring to how we feel as we process a multitude of incoming information. Tegmark says if we ever invent a computer that is conscious, then cut off any input from the outside that could affect it's processing, then that computer will subjectively perceive itself as existing in a parallel universe completely separate from ours even though we can probe its internal state from outside. I think that's what is happening with us and why we perceive ourselves as separate entities. If we are not all one, and are truly separate individuals, then it would explain why you wouldn't necessarily be aware of the rest of yourself existing in these other dimensions.
Quote:
It's like the intelligent design trial in which the witness was forced to admit under oath that accepting his evidence for intelligent design would require loosening the standards of evidence to the point that one would also have to accept astrology.
I think your comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what I'm trying to describe. I admit that it is sometimes hard to find the words to represent what I feel to be true, or my belief, and that I am doing a very poor job here of trying to explain myself.
Quote:
None of which relates in the slightest to your claim about your dream whether you think it was your mother or your own higher consciousness.
The only significance that the dream really had was the message, and then only because it actually happened several decades after the fact.
Quote:
None of which relates to your claim.
As my theory evolves here, the dream does become irrelevant.
Quote:
I have been very up front about my own limitations. Those limitations do not extend to the point at which I have to accept someone in effect saying "The sky is blue, therefore I have a higher consciousness."
I don't think it's important in the grand scheme of things. Whatever shape or form that reality actually takes may or may not be dependent on the single independent observer such as you or me.