[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by not2too I reiterate my title for this thread...What is a Toequest? Some fragments... I am going off in search of some more of the fragments for awhile, hopefully to return with a puzzle...some pieces still missing, of course (I doubt we'll ever find them all)...that's beginning to look like something. Further, not2too

Come on home not2too,all is forgiven,unpack your bags,have an ice cold sasprilla,
then mosey on over to the computer corral thats okay by me,and get typing my friend.



regards michael.

[dipayankar]

Lets keep metaphysics and physics seperate. Though one might agree with both. My contention is.. before life evolved on earth (and with it consciousness) the Universe functioned perfectly a it is doing now..

[not2too]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Lets keep metaphysics and physics seperate. Though one might agree with both. My contention is.. before life evolved on earth (and with it consciousness) the Universe functioned perfectly a it is doing now..

Consciousness is not contingent upon life on earth. The reverse is true. "We" and our phenomenal world can only appear within consciousness. It seems obvious to me that consciousness is primary.

Best,
not2too

[dipayankar]

So how would you define consciousness scientifically???

Originally Posted by not2too Consciousness is not contingent upon life on earth. The reverse is true. "We" and our phenomenal world can only appear within consciousness. It seems obvious to me that consciousness is primary. Best, not2too

[not2too]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So how would you define consciousness scientifically???

There is no scientific definition of consciousness, although many scientists are trying very hard to come up with one. This is pointed to by David Chalmer's "hard problem", which, itself, points to the observation that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness…subjective experience. How do certain wavelengths become the experience "red" to us?

If there is to be a scientific explanation of everything then we know it must contain an undefined term…
“…since every word in a dictionary is defined in terms of another word…The only way to avoid circular reasoning is a finite language would be to include some undefined terms in the dictionary. Today we must realize that mathematical systems too, must include undefined terms, and seek to include the minimum number necessary for the system to make sense.” Leonard Mlodinow

To define something means that we are trying to relate this thing to other words and concepts that we already have defined. There are only so many words that we have to describe something. In order for there to be a scientific definition, we would have to have a collection of scientific concepts that we could build into a definition that would represent consciousness. It seems you'd need a reductive understanding of consciousness to do this…David Chalmer's "hard problem" again.

In my view, consciousness is primary…cannot be reduced to a set of mechanistic concepts.

As Gottfried Leibniz noted earlier on…
“Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, (we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception."

Best,
not2too

[dipayankar]

Not2too, unless anything can be described scientifically can we really debate on them?? In my view they are vague ideas...

Originally Posted by not2too There is no scientific definition of consciousness, although many scientists are trying very hard to come up with one. This is pointed to by David Chalmer's "hard problem", which, itself, points to the observation that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness…subjective experience. How do certain wavelengths become the experience "red" to us? If there is to be a scientific explanation of everything then we know it must contain an undefined term… “…since every word in a dictionary is defined in terms of another word…The only way to avoid circular reasoning is a finite language would be to include some undefined terms in the dictionary. Today we must realize that mathematical systems too, must include undefined terms, and seek to include the minimum number necessary for the system to make sense.” Leonard Mlodinow To define something means that we are trying to relate this thing to other words and concepts that we already have defined. There are only so many words that we have to describe something. In order for there to be a scientific definition, we would have to have a collection of scientific concepts that we could build into a definition that would represent consciousness. It seems you'd need a reductive understanding of consciousness to do this…David Chalmer's "hard problem" again. In my view, consciousness is primary…cannot be reduced to a set of mechanistic concepts. As Gottfried Leibniz noted earlier on… “Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, (we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception." Best, not2too

[melanie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So how would you define consciousness scientifically???

It is the mind, the delusion in the illusion, always digging up questions,
it points to itself only, there can only be one here, the illusional duality,
is it's own reflection,
the mystery is it's own mystery and can't possibly be solved.

The curiosity of the apparent ''entity'' is part of this game of hide and seek.
Always wanting to 'know' what can't be known.

It is consciousness asking itself what is consciousness.
Why it does this ? .. no idea.

It is and has become the the eternal dance of life ...
ONE .. masquerading around as an 'apparent' two
A perfect synchronized dance indeed.

= THIS

melanie.

[dipayankar]

Great explaination.. doesn't mean anything scientifically...

Originally Posted by melanie It is the mind, the delusion in the illusion, always digging up questions, it points to itself only, there can only be one here, the illusional duality, is it's own reflection, the mystery is it's own mystery and can't possibly be solved. The curiosity of the apparent ''entity'' is part of this game of hide and seek. Always wanting to 'know' what can't be known. It is consciousness asking itself what is consciousness. Why it does this ? .. no idea. It is and has become the the eternal dance of life ... ONE .. masquerading around as an 'apparent' two A perfect synchronized dance indeed. = THIS melanie.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Great explaination.. doesn't mean anything scientifically...

Every conceptual 'thing' is in itself meaningless,
the mind labels and separates this from that,
the mind gives meaning to it's reality, by doing this.

It is obsessed by it's persistence in having to prove it's existence, when it doesn't have to.

All part of the cosmic play it plays with itself.

Looking for meaning is meaningless, except as conceived.

The 'apparent' existence of the polarities are arbitrary in reality,
quite an illusion when really exposed.

A 'scientific' seeker runs parallel with that of a 'spiritual' seeker even though these concepts are in themselves meaningless.

The spiritual seeker does however, .. cut through the middle ground
and transcends all the worldly endeavors as vanity and amusement,
or as they say ... the ''self will never give up the self''
The 'spiritual' seeker cuts straight to the source from where it sprang.
Then realizes it is the microcosm of the macrocosm.

Metaphorically the kingdom of heaven is within
Not 'out there'
It is there to discover if we want to, it was always there.


People play their part via their own personal individual perceptions.
Many masks /roles / actors in this play.

APPEARING in CONSCIOUSNESS.

The appearances on the screen of AWARENESS have no reality
they are constructs of thoughts in action.

Like Gold ornaments may differ in shape and size, but are were made from the same substance. Gold.

melanie.

[dipayankar]

This is meaningful if you believe in the mind. For me there is nothing as the mind. Its only the brain that exists...

Originally Posted by melanie Every conceptual 'thing' is in itself meaningless, the mind labels and separates this from that, the mind gives meaning to it's reality, by doing this. It is obsessed by it's persistence in having to prove it's existence, when it doesn't have to. All part of the cosmic play it plays with itself. Looking for meaning is meaningless, except as conceived. The 'apparent' existence of the polarities are arbitrary in reality, quite an illusion when really exposed. A 'scientific' seeker runs parallel with that of a 'spiritual' seeker even though these concepts are in themselves meaningless. The spiritual seeker does however, .. cut through the middle ground and transcends all the worldly endeavors as vanity and amusement, or as they say ... the ''self will never give up the self'' The 'spiritual' seeker cuts straight to the source from where it sprang. Then realizes it is the microcosm of the macrocosm. Metaphorically the kingdom of heaven is within Not 'out there' It is there to discover if we want to, it was always there. People play their part via their own personal individual perceptions. Many masks /roles / actors in this play. APPEARING in CONSCIOUSNESS. The appearances on the screen of AWARENESS have no reality they are constructs of thoughts in action. Like Gold ornaments may differ in shape and size, but are were made from the same substance. Gold. melanie.