• A Quest for a Theory of Everything - Spirit
    The Spirit is the possibility of an unseen reality beyond our physical reality, beyond the limits of our technology. It is ToeQuest's view that the Spirit will, in time, be subsumed by the fields of Physics, Philosophy, and Biology. As the Spirit is subsumed, the knowledge gained will be vital in our Quest for the Theory of Everything.
    Do you dare look behind the curtain and view the backstage? If so, join our TOE Quest today!
  • One of the Hardest Scientific Problems in the World to Solve

    elephantjournal.com -- There is not a single scientist from the most prestigious university in the world who can tell us how a piece of matter called the brain produces consciousness.

    The current scientific paradigm is based off of materialism, and this paradigm treats the brain as if it is mechanical. The present thought in neuroscience is that consciousness is nothing more than the result of activity going on within the brain.

    This problem called “The Hard Problem of Consciousness,” in scientific circles, is one of the hardest problems to solve. Maybe even harder to solve than Einstein’s theory of relativity. There are hundreds if not thousands of theories and books on this topic. A lot of the books and scientific journals are bogged down with very heavy scientific jargon, but at the end of the day this question is still elusive.

    My argument is as follows: The first person to measure the energy system in the human body will have the missing link to understand how the brain produces consciousness. The brain is no doubt the orchestra, but the conductor of the orchestra is elusive—it’s hiding, it’s a magician, and it’s playing the greatest sleight of hand to any scientist who is looking for it.

    Continue reading ...
    Comments 25 Comments
    1. mkirkpatrick's Avatar
      mkirkpatrick -
      As I see it the brain is a biological computer,it does NOT produce consciousness the very idea of that is absurd,it produces electrical energy yes,consciousness is a universal absolute and relative medium that in human form acts on the brain and allows it access to higher frequencies
      when meditation is practised. The "field" of consciouness penetrates the phyical brain via electromagnetic impulses which marries up with the brains electomagnetic discharges and produces the potential for enlightenment at infinite depth if one were able to accept ones inner reality at great depth
      and persieve the truth of Beingness.

      regards michael.
    1. AntonioLao's Avatar
      AntonioLao -
      The field of consciousness is equivalent to the physical field of intelligence. Since every physical field must be associated with a real particle, the intelligence particle is an idea. Once this idea is actualized then it becomes a real particle. For example, the idea of a paper clip, this idea becomes real once the actual paper clip is made. In science and technology, ideas are the same as inventions. However, only original ideas can be patented. Legally, each patent has a statute of limitations. Unfortunately, bad ideas can also exist. The least they are actualized the better it is for humanity. One of the historical bad ideas is the idea of war, the legalized idea of killing human beings. In the personal level, this idea is called murder or homicide. On the global level, it is called genocide. Nature is dual, this implies that both an intelligence field of evil and an intelligence field of good exist. The sole purpose of the first is to destroy, of the second is to create.
    1. jamison2000e's Avatar
      jamison2000e -
      Exciting times when we begin to grasp evolution...
      René Descartes could pretend he had in a nonexistent “universe” nobody(only mind;) because first he learned, then while able to see, closed his eyes.
    1. melanie's Avatar
      melanie -
      Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao View Post
      The field of consciousness is equivalent to the physical field of intelligence. Since every physical field must be associated with a real particle, the intelligence particle is an idea. Once this idea is actualized then it becomes a real particle. For example, the idea of a paper clip, this idea becomes real once the actual paper clip is made. In science and technology, ideas are the same as inventions.
      All ''things'' exist as idea only, including the one that is the knower of all things.

      Therefore no thing exists ... pretty neat trick huh?

      Btw, your post is of a relative context.... relativity is an illusion.
    1. melanie's Avatar
      melanie -
      Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
      My opinion on this not so hard problem is that no human being / brain is conscious.

      Rather, consciousness appears as human being / as and through the brain machine. Machines are not conscious,they are decoders of information that is streaming through them.That information is then projected as 3D images, although no 3D object as ever been seen, because we live in a holographic reality, we are inside our own simulation.The human body mechanism is like a computer, a computer is not conscious, it is a 2D projected screen of imaged information. That's how our reality works as well, as michael describes in his post.

      The idea that consciousness exists as a literal 'human' is an illusion.
    1. jamison2000e's Avatar
      jamison2000e -
      Good article, I believe in Jing Qi Shen as I sk8 to meditate.

      I think it's all hearsay, trial and error, or just plain fun until the best dissolves... But, on a lighter note
    1. jamison2000e's Avatar
      jamison2000e -
      Confusing? I had to get back there\here (6 comments (now 8) to 3 (now 4)) by using my History?

      Think I get it, it was first posted somewhere then the main page or vice versa?

      Never mind I don't get it, now 3 comments not this 1 where now here not there?


      Should post (more clearly maybe) to a bug(?) section rather than rambling I know??? Sorry.
    1. everymansmedium's Avatar
      everymansmedium -
      Simple answer: IT DOES NOT. NOT SO SIMPLE IS THE EXPLANATION. It is an interface between our single dimensional existence and a 3 dimensional existence medium. This interface is within the soul of the creator as is the collective consciousness residing within the souls of all the observers. Experience = Creation , We create our single dimensional strand of space that is our soul that is formatted by our experiences in time. The experience process is at the polarity reversal point. The twist in the Mobias. Thus the creating of space as a result of experience / time occurs within the opposite existence medium. When the collective experiences our souls its creation is a three dimensional creation wave as it exists within three dimensional time.
      ours is the creation of our soul and is single dimensional as the time experienced is single dimensional. We are the observers for the collective to create a three dimensional creation wave that occurs at the point of all observers and travels outward at a speed equal to the smallest quantum Planck length times the smallest quantum Planck instance, so as to define the constant C. This is continuous dynamic creation. All of this comes from an understanding look at my published Predicate.

      bipole[Eden{(space,matter,energy)^3,(time,consciousness,c reation)^1}, Elsewhen{(time,consciousness,creation)^3,(space,ma tter,energy)^1}].

      This predicate will not be complete until the interface is modeled to result with 11 dimensions.

      Eden might be called elsewhere to keep in it more understandable.
      There is here and Elsewhere.
      There is now and Elsewhen.
      Likewise Elsewhen might be called here.
      and
      Elsewhere might be called NOW!
      I have not had much luck modeling the interface between the existence mediums as this I believe to be the Trinity and is a collective of membranes shaped as the mobias. Each separate observer must have a separate membrane. I had hoped that there are people that could pick up on that thought.
      Each existence medium is 4 dimensions
      The interface is 3 dimensional as the majority of M theory results are 11 dimensional.
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      The PSYCHE is the Conductor of the thoughts which arise in consciousness, the unconscious and even though we may not be able to recall it, the unconscious or Bardo state of the mystic/genius. Thus have I heard. . . Intent/Soul is the Rider Of The Will..
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      [QUOTE=wnfshr;181411]I believe the PSYCHE is the Conductor of the thoughts which arise in consciousness, the sub-conscious and even though we may not be able to recall it the unconscious or 'Bardo state' of the mystic/genius. Thus have I heard. . . Intent/Soul is the Rider Of The Will..QUOTE]
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      I think we should all inculcate and digest A.C.I.M. [A Course In Miracles], then, when we're all speaking the same language meet here to share our knowledge and any wisdom gleaned...
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      [QUOTE=wnfshr;181412]
      Quote Originally Posted by wnfshr View Post
      I believe the PSYCHE is the Conductor of the thoughts which arise in consciousness, the sub-conscious and even though we may not be able to recall it the unconscious or 'Bardo state' of the mystic/genius. Thus have I heard. . . Intent/Soul is the Rider Of The Will..QUOTE]

      I think we should all inculcate and digest A.C.I.M. [A Course In Miracles], then, when we're all speaking the same language meet here to share our knowledge and any wisdom gleaned therefrom...
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      Quote Originally Posted by jamison2000e View Post
      Exciting times when we begin to grasp evolution...
      René Descartes could pretend he had in a nonexistent “universe” nobody(only mind;) because first he learned, then while able to see, closed his eyes.
      Which I is the I I Am???
    1. SSDS's Avatar
      SSDS -
      (Re-post from an other forum, the thread “The genesis of consciousness in a developing organism”)

      The couple posts above are some typical for the common philosophy: firstly some propositions are stated and further some inferences are followed. But in any case, including this (when the origin of consciousness is considered), it is rather useful to remember, that in any science, including philosophy, any indeed new proposition, postulate, etc., is non-provable principally. Though the difference between the natural sciences and the philosophy exists – the natural sciences deal with the principles/ postulates that follow from some experiments and so the postulates or corresponding theories’ predictions are testable, when the philosophy as a rule deals with the postulates that are non-provable and testable.

      Again – there is only one exclusion from the statement above – the informational conception (“The Information as Absolute conception, http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 ”),
      which – as any other – starts as empirical, but further is proven.

      One of the conception’s inferences is as – all/ everything that exists in our Universe and outside is/are some informational patterns that exist in the fundamental absolutely infinite Set “Information”. The Set is very interesting and paradoxical, including – all/ everything simultaneously have happened and – for changing patterns – is happening in the Set in the absolutely infinite long time.
      Including Matter and Consciousness in a sub-set of the Set – in our Universe, where both (+ “Alive”) are subsets in the subset Universe.

      And these subsets are DIFFERENT – the main trait of Matter is that all/ every interaction (in depth – informational exchange) here happens as exchange by only true information, when any element of the set “Consciousness”, i.e., any individual consciousness can produce/ apprehend false information. So material and consciousness objects are principally different and so the consciousness cannot arise from some material structure. But – since material objects use only true information, they can constitute, at least comparatively, stable systems and the consciousness can use some material systems – i.e. for humans that is human’s organism – to exist stably and with some comfort.

      Nonetheless consciousnesses interact with material objects, for that there are yet more then 7 billion examples, where consciousnesses’ products, i.e. human’s thoughts, govern the material bodies by using some, unknown now in physics, forces.

      So in the informational conception the consciousness doesn’t “arise from Matter”,

      quite contrary – any consciousnesses, as some “program” existed always, including before the Matter Beginning. When the natural conditions on Earth became comfortable enough, the program, which outside material matrix worked as a set of only very simple “resident subroutines”, was able, by using the forces above, to construct from C, H, O, N, etc. first biocells; further the program “connected up” next and more complex subroutines – up to the human’s consciousness.

      This process we call as biological evolution and it is, very probably, will continue when the human consciousness will expanse in other regions (sub-sets) of the Set.
      See also
      SSDS Posted 9 July 2013 - 01:12 PM
      http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7...-3#entry755627

      Cheers
    1. Steve Agnew's Avatar
      Steve Agnew -
      Why is consciousness so hard?

      For example, I am conscious because I am conscious, right? Or maybe I am conscious because I act like I am. Or maybe I am conscious because I act like other people who are conscious. There are actually lots of easy definitions for consciousness.

      What the author really argues is that consciousness is more than just the neural activity of the brain, and so that makes it hard. Well, even if consciousness were actually due to the action of 100 billion or so neurons of our brain, I think that it would still be a hard problem. Evidently language is also hard, and by the way why leave it to just cognition. Lets include all the hard problems of breathing and digestion and heartbeats and all of our other organs...and why not include the hard problems of our emotions and neurochemicals and cells and the DNA and glycoproteins, etc. Let's face it, these are all still really hard problems in any case.

      It is true that consciousness is more than just the matter of our brain and that consciousness is more than just the action of thought. Consciousness is both the action of thought and the matter of memory. Sensation, feeling, and action represents a neural packet of information that is the action of thought, but that action still needs to relate to the matter of memory in order for that neural packet to converge and make sense. Once it makes sense, it may then become a memory of that action. If we see a red object, that sensation generates a feeling along with an action, but that information packet will only converge and make sense if there is some relation for that red object with the memories of our lifetime. Once stable, that neural information packet is ready to become the matter of memory.

      This is simply one of many hypotheses for consciousness, but since it does seem likely that we have an innate mechanism in our brain for language, why is it such a stretch to imagine that there is also an innate mechanism for consciousness as well? It is true that human consciousness is definitely tied to our biology and to the physiology of emotion and feeling. So a machine will never really act like a person acts...nor would they really want to when it comes right down to it.

      Now, what is so hard about that?
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Steve Agnew View Post
      Why is consciousness so hard?

      For example, I am conscious because I am conscious, right? Or maybe I am conscious because I act like I am. Or maybe I am conscious because I act like other people who are conscious. There are actually lots of easy definitions for consciousness.

      What the author really argues is that consciousness is more than just the neural activity of the brain, and so that makes it hard. Well, even if consciousness were actually due to the action of 100 billion or so neurons of our brain, I think that it would still be a hard problem. Evidently language is also hard, and by the way why leave it to just cognition. Lets include all the hard problems of breathing and digestion and heartbeats and all of our other organs...and why not include the hard problems of our emotions and neurochemicals and cells and the DNA and glycoproteins, etc. Let's face it, these are all still really hard problems in any case.

      It is true that consciousness is more than just the matter of our brain and that consciousness is more than just the action of thought. Consciousness is both the action of thought and the matter of memory. Sensation, feeling, and action represents a neural packet of information that is the action of thought, but that action still needs to relate to the matter of memory in order for that neural packet to converge and make sense. Once it makes sense, it may then become a memory of that action. If we see a red object, that sensation generates a feeling along with an action, but that information packet will only converge and make sense if there is some relation for that red object with the memories of our lifetime. Once stable, that neural information packet is ready to become the matter of memory.

      This is simply one of many hypotheses for consciousness, but since it does seem likely that we have an innate mechanism in our brain for language, why is it such a stretch to imagine that there is also an innate mechanism for consciousness as well? It is true that human consciousness is definitely tied to our biology and to the physiology of emotion and feeling. So a machine will never really act like a person acts...nor would they really want to when it comes right down to it.

      Now, what is so hard about that?
      http://nisargadatta.org/photos2/nisa..._photo_91.html

      The difference between consciousness and awareness.

      http://www.prahlad.org/disciples/pre...0AWARENESS.htm
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      Quote Originally Posted by Steve Agnew View Post
      Why is consciousness so hard?

      For example, I am conscious because I am conscious, right? Or maybe I am conscious because I act like I am. Or maybe I am conscious because I act like other people who are conscious. There are actually lots of easy definitions for consciousness.

      What the author really argues is that consciousness is more than just the neural activity of the brain, and so that makes it hard. Well, even if consciousness were actually due to the action of 100 billion or so neurons of our brain, I think that it would still be a hard problem. Evidently language is also hard, and by the way why leave it to just cognition. Lets include all the hard problems of breathing and digestion and heartbeats and all of our other organs...and why not include the hard problems of our emotions and neurochemicals and cells and the DNA and glycoproteins, etc. Let's face it, these are all still really hard problems in any case.

      It is true that consciousness is more than just the matter of our brain and that consciousness is more than just the action of thought. Consciousness is both the action of thought and the matter of memory. Sensation, feeling, and action represents a neural packet of information that is the action of thought, but that action still needs to relate to the matter of memory in order for that neural packet to converge and make sense. Once it makes sense, it may then become a memory of that action. If we see a red object, that sensation generates a feeling along with an action, but that information packet will only converge and make sense if there is some relation for that red object with the memories of our lifetime. Once stable, that neural information packet is ready to become the matter of memory.

      This is simply one of many hypotheses for consciousness, but since it does seem likely that we have an innate mechanism in our brain for language, why is it such a stretch to imagine that there is also an innate mechanism for consciousness as well? It is true that human consciousness is definitely tied to our biology and to the physiology of emotion and feeling. So a machine will never really act like a person acts...nor would they really want to when it comes right down to it.

      Now, what is so hard about that?
      Rat brain neurons fly jet simulator.
      http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=44745
    1. wnfshr's Avatar
      wnfshr -
      Consciousness and Awareness; What's the difference?
      http://www.gpdawson.com/blog/2010/09...he-difference/
    1. ChuckR's Avatar
      ChuckR -
      Quote Originally Posted by wnfshr View Post
      Consciousness and Awareness; What's the difference?
      http://www.gpdawson.com/blog/2010/09...he-difference/
      When a life starts(not a discussion item) the physical entity acquires the need for SURVIVAL. This need NEVER stops and is the basis for knowledge that will
      help it survive. The failure of MAN is want versus need.
      It is the difference in MAN that some spend their lives going after WANT and others are satisfied with NEED. Those satisfied with NEED are able to investigate
      that place where their NEEDS were met.
    1. StevenH's Avatar
      StevenH -
      Melanie makes the most sense.
      Look, let's drop back 10 and see what we have.
      Starting at the "Big Bang" (not sure I agree with the "exploding singularity") , but let's say that from the "beginning" of the physical laws we now refer to as the universe .. until the first living thing, the universe had no meaning.
      Prior to that life form erupting into existence, not only wasn't there meaning, there wasn't any awareness either.
      So until the point where life began (if it can be separated from the beginning), the universe had NO meaning (no value) and no awareness.
      And here's another simple observation that might be valid (might not too): without awareness of change, there is no sense of time. So does that mean that life began at the instance of "creation"?
      In retrospect, we can presume a time frame based upon known event periods, or can we?
      We don't know much and what we do think we know is often changing as we speak. So it seems to make sense to start at the beginning to see what has been overlooked.
      Sometimes we race to the finish line before the race even starts.
  • Spirit Navigator

  • Video - Spirit

  • Latest Spirit Discussions