Re: Science Microthreads
Posted: Mon May 24, 2021 8:53 pm
Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lp6fss_iyQ
Phillip Goff (the basis of the Author interview) overattributes the sensory experience with that of consciousness; suggesting that materialism exist extant throughout the universe by default of it existing manifest in nature, whereas in the microcosm of being lifeforms inhabiting a small portion of the universe we presume our experience of being present is not ontologically sound as being the only form manifest as an experience of reality.
That consciousness is based on a premise of observer bias (ergo Descartes believed 'God' exists because he is aware of the idea that such a thing exists as an ideological construct,) cannot--in reality--presume that such a thing actually exists
For consciousness to manifest as an experience it expects from a materialism perspective to depend on the facility of the human brain to be aware that it itself exists as an entity capable of reflection based on "consciousness" as an experience; things like starfish which may only react to what the environment around it dictates might not have the facility of consciousness, just as plants are considered merely a program of biofeedback, the same as any person might be in a vegetative coma (hence the claim by OBE experiencers has been hypothesized to suggest that consciousness becomes exogenous to the "experiencer" if they are considered incapable of having anything more than an autonomic response to the environment.)
Perhaps I'm assuming that perception of physical matter is a heuristic of observer sensing that physical space exists, because we ourselves affirm by our interaction with matter that "only matter exists," which by all accounts when examining physics we realize that our experience of the physical world is very finite compared to the vastness of dark matter/energy.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... 20universe.
Putting it another way, if interpreting the concept of dimensions outside of theoretical mathematical constructs, from a "user perspective" our interface of time and space is relative to our concept of the physical construct of reality. A 'Flatlander' would only interpret the shadow cast from our three-dimensional presence, and vice-versa we could not interpret anything which resides outside of how our brains interpret physical matter.
A spatial construct of time and space is relativistic and perhaps if time is merely a construct of that experience, what is to say that 'identity' and thought are no different from an illusion of egoic constructs? Is God an egoic construct we use to justify the limitations of our observation of reality, which people identify with vicariously, as we are not able to perceive what is otherwise unattainable? If Descartes assumed that an idea of 'God' was good he would have been neglecting to identify with passages in the Bible which clearly illustrate a dualistic construct.
The idea that god--ergo universe--is a binary self-replicating fractal might be believed to have begun as an idea by Jacob Boehme, though the idea really seems to have begun with the Vedic mythologies, and Indras "net of jewels" which seems to resemble how people perceive the appearance of the universe. A Physicist named Ken Hughes further illustrates a binary construct and perceives a binary code is embedded in the "fabric of the universe" wherein 'reality' is illustrated as a holographic construct.
This post on Quora seems to identify with the human perception being a construct of what we believe is a physical space, and for all anyone really knows, we could be experiencing one component of a "fractal."
https://www.quora.com/I-was-wondering-w ... &srid=HPgR
A better article on the subject of panpsychism examines the history of such ideas (which I neither agree nor disagree with, though I am convinced that consciousness seems to exist after the physical body ceases to function.) I consider consciousness a byproduct of sensory experience and assume that how nature works on a quantum level, explains some aspects of how matter interacts.
Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff review – a new science of consciousness
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... off-review
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lp6fss_iyQ
Phillip Goff (the basis of the Author interview) overattributes the sensory experience with that of consciousness; suggesting that materialism exist extant throughout the universe by default of it existing manifest in nature, whereas in the microcosm of being lifeforms inhabiting a small portion of the universe we presume our experience of being present is not ontologically sound as being the only form manifest as an experience of reality.
That consciousness is based on a premise of observer bias (ergo Descartes believed 'God' exists because he is aware of the idea that such a thing exists as an ideological construct,) cannot--in reality--presume that such a thing actually exists
For consciousness to manifest as an experience it expects from a materialism perspective to depend on the facility of the human brain to be aware that it itself exists as an entity capable of reflection based on "consciousness" as an experience; things like starfish which may only react to what the environment around it dictates might not have the facility of consciousness, just as plants are considered merely a program of biofeedback, the same as any person might be in a vegetative coma (hence the claim by OBE experiencers has been hypothesized to suggest that consciousness becomes exogenous to the "experiencer" if they are considered incapable of having anything more than an autonomic response to the environment.)
Perhaps I'm assuming that perception of physical matter is a heuristic of observer sensing that physical space exists, because we ourselves affirm by our interaction with matter that "only matter exists," which by all accounts when examining physics we realize that our experience of the physical world is very finite compared to the vastness of dark matter/energy.
Dark Energy, Dark Matter
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... 20universe.
Putting it another way, if interpreting the concept of dimensions outside of theoretical mathematical constructs, from a "user perspective" our interface of time and space is relative to our concept of the physical construct of reality. A 'Flatlander' would only interpret the shadow cast from our three-dimensional presence, and vice-versa we could not interpret anything which resides outside of how our brains interpret physical matter.
A spatial construct of time and space is relativistic and perhaps if time is merely a construct of that experience, what is to say that 'identity' and thought are no different from an illusion of egoic constructs? Is God an egoic construct we use to justify the limitations of our observation of reality, which people identify with vicariously, as we are not able to perceive what is otherwise unattainable? If Descartes assumed that an idea of 'God' was good he would have been neglecting to identify with passages in the Bible which clearly illustrate a dualistic construct.
The idea that god--ergo universe--is a binary self-replicating fractal might be believed to have begun as an idea by Jacob Boehme, though the idea really seems to have begun with the Vedic mythologies, and Indras "net of jewels" which seems to resemble how people perceive the appearance of the universe. A Physicist named Ken Hughes further illustrates a binary construct and perceives a binary code is embedded in the "fabric of the universe" wherein 'reality' is illustrated as a holographic construct.
This post on Quora seems to identify with the human perception being a construct of what we believe is a physical space, and for all anyone really knows, we could be experiencing one component of a "fractal."
https://www.quora.com/I-was-wondering-w ... &srid=HPgR
A better article on the subject of panpsychism examines the history of such ideas (which I neither agree nor disagree with, though I am convinced that consciousness seems to exist after the physical body ceases to function.) I consider consciousness a byproduct of sensory experience and assume that how nature works on a quantum level, explains some aspects of how matter interacts.
Galileo’s Error by Philip Goff review – a new science of consciousness
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/ ... off-review