Eternal, absolute medium

[Mohan.C]

From r.p.bibra's blog:

mind is not the medium

Just a thought...

Assuming that every cause and its effect have a medium. The following questions be analysed.

The cause and the effect are relative. What about the medium?
The cause and the effect are temporary. What about the medium?

???

[labelwench]

From r.p.bibra's blog:

mind is not the medium

Just a thought...

Assuming that every cause and its effect have a medium. The following questions be analysed.

The cause and the effect are relative. What about the medium?
The cause and the effect are temporary. What about the medium?

???

First thought that occurs to me is to question the medium which supports 'mind', regardless of how one cares to define 'mind'.

Such a medium may be capable of transition within itself, and the causes and effects relative and temporary, yet it seems plausible from my perspective that we cannot fully appreciate either of the scope or the capacity and properties of the medium.

Like that helps a lot, lol....

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks my brother for starting this thread,lets hope it leads to a better understanding of how the universe works,as far as I can see the medium is consciousness,this pervades all relativity in this universe including cause and effect as well.


warmest regards michael.

[Mohan.C]

First thought that occurs to me is to question the medium which supports 'mind', regardless of how one cares to define 'mind'.

Such a medium may be capable of transition within itself, and the causes and effects relative and temporary, yet it seems plausible from my perspective that we cannot fully appreciate either of the scope or the capacity and properties of the medium.

Like that helps a lot, lol....

Hmmm, that does help a lot ... Well, if we define mind objectively, does that even require a medium to exist ???
Then the only objective medium is 'body'.
If we define it subjectively, then; is there a cause for mind to exist? And if mind is the effect? Then the medium that perpetrated this effect is ... ???
Or if mind is the cause, then what is its corresponding effect? And what is the medium that supports this effect produced by mind???

Too abstract ???? It is, for me. Hmmm, may be I should've left this alone. :P ... ...

[Mohan.C]

Many thanks my brother for starting this thread,lets hope it leads to a better understanding of how the universe works,as far as I can see the medium is consciousness,this pervades all relativity in this universe including cause and effect as well.


warmest regards michael.

Then this medium is absolute? So, consciousness is absolute. We can measure everything else in consciousness. But, we cannot measure consciousness itself(Or is it, we shouldn't?) Hmmm ....

[austintorn@aol.com]

Unfortunately for the "Consciousness is All" movement, consciousness comes arrives last not first, requires a brain and its doings, and can be turned off; so, it couldn't be any further from the truth.

A medium for anything is always of the most basic stuff.

[mkirkpatrick]

Then this medium is absolute? So, consciousness is absolute. We can measure everything else in consciousness. But, we cannot measure consciousness itself(Or is it, we shouldn't?) Hmmm ....

Consciousness is energy,living intelligent energy,so the most basic medium is energy,and energy is relative when expressed within the physical universe,and absolute potential when NOT expressed within absoluteness.

warm regards michael.

[labelwench]

Consciousness is energy,living intelligent energy,so the most basic medium is energy,and energy is relative when expressed within the physical universe,and absolute potential when NOT expressed within absoluteness.

warm regards michael.

If I am interpreting what you have said even near to correctly.....

The medium is energy.

I suggested in post 2 that the medium is capable of transition within itself.

The means by which this is accomplished remains unclear, as well as what decides the potential, latent within the medium, to undertake the transition.

We are able to observe and measure but some of the causes and effects, relative to each other, with far more circumstances as yet not satisfactorily verifiable or understood.


(Rereads what she has written........yes.......them's the words that match the picture in my m----, better make that brain, as brains are considered verifiable........ Whether the words match the picture in anyone else's brain remains ever in doubt, but it's fun to try to match the blocks to the cut-outs, lol....)

[mkirkpatrick]

If I am interpreting what you have said even near to correctly.....

The medium is energy.

I suggested in post 2 that the medium is capable of transition within itself.

The means by which this is accomplished remains unclear, as well as what decides the potential, latent within the medium, to undertake the transition.

We are able to observe and measure but some of the causes and effects, relative to each other, with far more circumstances as yet not satisfactorily verifiable or understood.


(Rereads what she has written........yes.......them's the words that match the picture in my m----, better make that brain, as brains are considered verifiable........ Whether the words match the picture in anyone else's brain remains ever in doubt, but it's fun to try to match the blocks to the cut-outs, lol....)

The medium is energy or consciousness or the aether,three words for the very same thing.
Some would suggest that the aether is "the field" in which all interactions are made possible,and that consciousness arises out of this,as does energy.I feel that it is all one field with several names which in turn cause confusion.

regards michael.

[PeteJ]

Unfortunately for the "Consciousness is All" movement, consciousness comes arrives last not first, requires a brain and its doings, and can be turned off; so, it couldn't be any further from the truth.

If you could prove this you'd become famous overnight. If you can't then it's no use stating it.

A medium for anything is always of the most basic stuff.

Maybe. Eddington notes that it is a mistake to think of what is basic as 'stuff.' I would say it's a mistake even to try to think of 'it' as extended.