[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere “Definitions aside, whoever comes up with the quantum mechanics of Consciousness or the mechanisms of our Mind, shall eventually win the race, so as to comprehend the universal theory of Consciousness, or the TOE or Infinity.” [As to this above quote, he simply means the big idea wins all the marbles. This would be the true quantum mechanical explanation of the workings of the mind. The Russian bio-physicists are very close, in this area, as are many others.] With this latter I would like to give the following quote’s as a kind of introduction and consideration: “Consciousness must be part of nature. What means that we, completely apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as formulated in quantumtheory, must considar laws of a very different kind.” Niels Bohr. [True, this was Bohr's understanding, when the world was more under the sway of theism, the whole world was then. What would his views be today, when contrasted to such notables as Hofstadher who quoted; "The question is how does inanimate matter produce animate being?" I am in Hofstadher's camp of eventually finding the quantum mechanics of mind, as well as is this the position of many of the world's leading scientists, even such notables as Chrich and Watson, the DNA gurus. Their quote is; "DNA proves evolution", and neither know any true scientists who any longer believe in the beyond of anything.] “When life is brought in connection with consciousness, we see that we’ve landed in a completely different domain. For those that are at least somewhat confident with the laws of physics and chemistry, the idea that for the world of consciousness would account the same kind of laws, sounds as foolish as the suggestion that with the laws of grammar a country could be ruled.” A.S. Eddington [Again, from a true scientists perspective, this is another outdated opinion___the evidence is over-whelming against such thinking___today. Today, any scientist, after studying all the inter-disciplinary cognitive sciences would be hard placed to think the laws of physics are not truly compatible with all live processes. Just let me give you the largest novel law I can think of; The law of scientific philanthropy, i.e., the sun gives all life, thus is itself a philanthropic entity of science/nature. You see the line is now so blurred, there is no true difference, between quantum/relative processes and life, to many of us. Creativity, as you mention, is just a given of quantum, bio-chemical processes, etc. The test-tube proof is very near.] “Psychological properties are the all permuating principles of order of the universe, the brain included.” Karl Pribram [Yes true, all logic is essentially of the central matrices of the instinctual brain stem, reptilian brain, by way of its emotional core of all thought systems. Some of the newest findings of the inter-disciplinary sciences. It's moving so fast, it's hard to keep up. I would suggest just adding cognitive before most of what you use google for___it finds the most important, fast.]

regards, ......................

[Benedict Broere]

Hello Lloyd,

By looking on the internet I see in WIKIPEDIA, the internet ecyclopedia, in the lemma: quantum mind, that it says, I quote:

“The quantum mind or quantum consciousness is a protoscientific hypothesis that posits a connection between consciousness, neurobiology, and quantum mechanics. There are many gaps in current understanding of how consciousness arises, to the extent that we are uncertain whether it is strictly from the functioning of the human brain or if awareness involves more of our nervous system and/or other aspects of our totality. Some believe that the approach of strict reductionism and materialism does not adequately explain perception, cognition, or free-will in sentient beings, although it does account for our intelligence. It could be argued that a strictly classical interpretation of the Physics and Neurobiology involved does not even admit the possibility of free-will, or would assert that it is illusory, and has no clear explanation for the phenomenon of conscious awareness. Accordingly; the quantum mind hypothesis claims that only quantum mechanics is capable of explaining conscious experience.”

This really is your baby isn’t it? And it seems it’s not really without controversy also, isn’t it?

The universe presents itself - I try - as being a hierarchy of parts becoming wholes and wholes becoming parts, with on every level particular forms of order that determine the behaviour of parts and wholes in time and space, while throughout this hierarchy essential geometrical forms appear in the shape of things, with on top of that also the suggestion that real essential order is determent for phenomena like growth-development, decay-destruction and general direction.

In gaining knowledge of all this we see two kinds of approach:
Analytical: Knowing out of taking things apart (initially formalised by Descartes);
Synthetic: Knowing by taking part in something, or being one with, or searching for the Bigger Picture, or searching for the all explaining formula, traditionally the Logos.

For instance: We know water. We know it can express certain behaviour. Waves, vortexes. But do we know this by research on Hydrogen and Oxigen?

Question: Do you really think we can explain for instance twentieth century modern art out of the behaviour of quantum-waves moving about in our brains ? When attempting an explanation I would look for neurology, psychology, sociology, economy, politicology, philosophy, religion, even geography, and in general: history.

Of course this whole ‘Quantum Mind’-project is an exciting enterprise. And I hope all these mind-wizards will really get to something. Research! Try to explain things! Get as deep as possible!!!

But it all seems to be this bottom-up-approach, doesn’t it? In this case the explaining things out of it’s most tiny parts. It also seems driven by a certain kind of mind, an analytical-dominant mind, a mind that prefers to explain things out of it’s composing parts, a mind that looks for the deepest details in everything, and then says it can explain everything out of that. Ignoring anything else, ignoring other kinds of explanation, ignoring science even, seeming to be blind for that kind of science, that is trying to explain the bigger picture.

Niels Bohr and A.S. Eddington aren’t anachronisms. They saw deep into the complexity of the relation mind-reality.

I have another quote. And I’m sure you will also catagorise him as a non-true-scientist.

It goes like this, I’m translating it out of Dutch, please have patience:

“’The Lord is ingenious but not maliscious’, said Einstein. We are only on the brink of developing a science that can explain the evolving, appearing order that I see out of my window, of the spider weaving her web, the prairywolfe hidden on the mountaintop, until my friends and my self at the Santa Fe institute and elswhere(…) We are all part of that process; it created us and we are creating it. In the beginning there was the Word – the Law. The rest follows out of that and we are taking part in it.”
Stuart Kauffman.
"'De Heer is vernuftig, maar niet kwaadaardig,' zei Einstein. We staan nog maar aan het begin van het ontwikkelen van een wetenschap die de evoluerende, opduikende orde kan verklaren die ik uit mijn raam zie, van de spin die haar web weeft, de prairiewolf die op de bergtop verscholen zit, tot mijn vrienden en mezelf op het Santa Fe-instituut en elders (...) Wij maken allemaal deel uit van dat proces; het heeft ons geschapen en wij scheppen het. In den beginne was het Woord - de Wet. De rest volgt daaruit en wij nemen daaraan deel." Stuart Kauffman, Eieren, straalmotoren en paddestoelen. Zelforganisatie als de verborgen sleutel tot evolutie, Contact, Amsterdam/Antwerpen, 1996, p. 335.

[dleviwing]

Until you apply the science, you will never KNOW – you will only philosophize to meaningless ends of belief and conjecture.

[Benedict Broere]

Hello Lloyd,

Yes, yes, Yes. I'm listening to music right now. You could think: what the f... will this mean? But it means experiencing something music my Lloyd, something even Paul McCartney was baffled with, something wonder, something whole, something only to be understood by taking in as everything, digesting it as everything, all around, everywhere, this revolutionary, history marking, all in music overwhelming, everything transcending: 'Heroes and villains', by this group, called: the Beach Boys!

If you don't dig this Lloyd, you aren't an Irishman, I'm sorry.

[Benedict Broere]

Whit this I see some expession of the moderator, the 'god' up there. I will respond.

[Benedict Broere]

Hello God, you seem to know what's going on. Tell me whats the meaning of life, what's there in the afterlife, what's there at all. Tell me god. If you don't exist God, please tell me!!! Please!!! Please!!! Why you dont' exist God, why you don't exist.

[Benedict Broere]

Just give me any prove, give me anything for considaratian, attack me in any way you can think of, I will just love it. Come on, give the best you've got !!!!

[Benedict Broere]

Attack me on the science I use, try to destroy me, give me any meaning to be your worst nightmare, in explaining your materialism, in explaining your limited view on reality. And just realise we all got to live on this planet, besides our differences, in how we see things, essentially.

[Graybeard]

Theory of Everything is considered to give a mathematical description of the universe, integrating it's fundamental forces - gravity, electromagnetical force and the strong and weak nucleair forces - to subsequently explain everything within this universe, including for instance the human brain and consciousness and it's expression in various cultures and worldviews.

Also within this worldview it is assumed that initially the fundamental laws and constants, energy and elementary particles/waves, have come to be all by themselves, while their essentially aimless and meaningless interaction in a process of roughly 14 billions of years has lead to the complex universe we humans now inhabit.

In other words: from the very beginning the universe was able to organise itself according to this TOE in such a way that the present universe could be it's result. So this universe came to be all by itself, as a cooperation of energy and information, and that developed itself into it's present state.

This is the modern worldview, dominant in circles of scientists and philosophers, intellectuals and others: reality reduced to ordered motion, and totally alien to the human experience.

All this above is good. The fact that it is alien is understandable ... its of the universe ..

as a participant of culture my mind is constantly bombarded with the notion that things - buildings, bridges, machines, works of art, etcetera - are not by themselves, but are the result of invention, effort and expression. They are the result of creativity, our human creativity.

creativity is a wide spread phenomenon in organic nature. And because organic nature is deeply rooted in anorganic nature, it very well can be assumed that creativity is something very essential in this universe in general.

Whereby we can tell a more plausible story about it's origin. That there's creativity involved, fundamental creativity, that has invented mathematics, laws and constants, quarks, atoms, etcetera. And that has made all this to evolve in ever more splendid manifestations of creation, with the present universe as it's provisional result. Thus seen creativity seems to be at the bottom of all things.

You do say it can be 'assumed' but you can't know ... all that can be known is that there is 'creativity' on earth. If the earth disappeared tomorrow the universe would not reflect any measurable change ... creativity would be gone .. but the physics would continue to predict the universes' diurnal course ??

In fact, if the earth and all within its cosmic horizon disappeared it would make no significant difference ... we could 'assume' somebody would lament it if parts of our cosmic horizon was shared with them...but we can't know

But we can know the physics ...

I think you can only 'assume' the TaTaTaTaa of a different TOE

no offence, honestly

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hey Benzi, the meaning of life, is simple___to have meaning in your life___absolutely true and honest meaning___science over bs...

regards

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Hello God, you seem to know what's going on. Tell me whats the meaning of life, what's there in the afterlife, what's there at all. Tell me god. If you don't exist God, please tell me!!! Please!!! Please!!! Why you dont' exist God, why you don't exist.