[quanta07]

Originally Posted by dipayankar We all have consciousness but why is it that for the same situation we have different reasoning and observations?

Hi dipayanker,

I believe it is a matter of education, social influences, and personal goals in the pursuit of knowledge. If you grow up in a 'shoebox', then that box is all you know.
In a quest for the theory of everything, the scientic road leads to ANSWERS...
whereas the philosophical road leads to more questions.

The following is for everyone else.

I do not like discussing science with philosophers. Discusions never end, solutions never found. Invariably there are people that quote philosophers in a strange attempt to explain science.

The use of the term 'reality' is questioned in this forum.
Is what we see 'real' of 'illusionary'?
For me, Life, being alive, happiness is illusionary. Our environment from which we evolved is real.
Is what we see an illusion?.........NO. That tree you hit with your car is not an illusion.

There will never be a TOE from any philosopher.
They project uncertainty by their very nature of course study.
I believe Science has no use for these people.
Perceptions of our world are based in knowledge we aquire about that world.
Perceptions of mankind, such as conscious awareness, illusionary or real, have no place in the study of nature.
These two studies have been separated in our college courses, because they must remain mutually exclusive, two different subject matters.

Please stop projecting the results of one course of study onto another.
Study the mind if you wish, but do not project what this study yields into the study of environment. This is a serious falacy that has been minimized by philosophers down through the ages.

These are my views....
and to quote another philosopher...'and thats all I have to say about that'.....Forrest Gump

Happy Thoughts.............Q7

[not2too]

Originally Posted by quanta07 Hi dipayanker, I believe it is a matter of education, social influences, and personal goals in the pursuit of knowledge. If you grow up in a 'shoebox', then that box is all you know. In a quest for the theory of everything, the scientic road leads to ANSWERS... whereas the philosophical road leads to more questions. The following is for everyone else. I do not like discussing science with philosophers. Discusions never end, solutions never found. Invariably there are people that quote philosophers in a strange attempt to explain science. The use of the term 'reality' is questioned in this forum. Is what we see 'real' of 'illusionary'? For me, Life, being alive, happiness is illusionary. Our environment from which we evolved is real. Is what we see an illusion?.........NO. That tree you hit with your car is not an illusion. There will never be a TOE from any philosopher. They project uncertainty by their very nature of course study. I believe Science has no use for these people. Perceptions of our world are based in knowledge we aquire about that world. Perceptions of mankind, such as conscious awareness, illusionary or real, have no place in the study of nature. These two studies have been separated in our college courses, because they must remain mutually exclusive, two different subject matters. Please stop projecting the results of one course of study onto another. Study the mind if you wish, but do not project what this study yields into the study of environment. This is a serious falacy that has been minimized by philosophers down through the ages. These are my views.... and to quote another philosopher...'and thats all I have to say about that'.....Forrest Gump Happy Thoughts.............Q7

Q7...
It is partially for this reason (and to show the breadth of a bona fide innovator"s imagination) that I featured material about the work of distinguished physicist, John Wheeler, in my post just before your last one. I quote the beginning of that post:

"In order to expand the present discussion from the point of view of the scientific community rather than the philosophical one, I am including excerpts from two sources. I would particularly recommend reading the entire Discover Magazine article about John Wheeler's work." (link below)
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun...tart:int=0&-C=

A couple of other comments...if you can't question how the practice of science is done, evolves and improves (or not), how will the practice ever progress? I think that a TOE can only come from someone who is able to take the long view of what a true TOE should include. A TOE should not speak to physicists and mathematicians only.

Best,
not2too

[dipayankar]

Is science actually related to philosophy? Science is based on hard facts, philosophy is more to do with vague reasoning...

Originally Posted by quanta07 Hi dipayanker, I believe it is a matter of education, social influences, and personal goals in the pursuit of knowledge. If you grow up in a 'shoebox', then that box is all you know. In a quest for the theory of everything, the scientic road leads to ANSWERS... whereas the philosophical road leads to more questions. The following is for everyone else. I do not like discussing science with philosophers. Discusions never end, solutions never found. Invariably there are people that quote philosophers in a strange attempt to explain science. The use of the term 'reality' is questioned in this forum. Is what we see 'real' of 'illusionary'? For me, Life, being alive, happiness is illusionary. Our environment from which we evolved is real. Is what we see an illusion?.........NO. That tree you hit with your car is not an illusion. There will never be a TOE from any philosopher. They project uncertainty by their very nature of course study. I believe Science has no use for these people. Perceptions of our world are based in knowledge we aquire about that world. Perceptions of mankind, such as conscious awareness, illusionary or real, have no place in the study of nature. These two studies have been separated in our college courses, because they must remain mutually exclusive, two different subject matters. Please stop projecting the results of one course of study onto another. Study the mind if you wish, but do not project what this study yields into the study of environment. This is a serious falacy that has been minimized by philosophers down through the ages. These are my views.... and to quote another philosopher...'and thats all I have to say about that'.....Forrest Gump Happy Thoughts.............Q7

[melanie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar We all have consciousness but why is it that for the same situation we have different reasoning and observations?

The mind is the tool for social and environmental development, not consciousness, mind is an aspect of consciousness,
like minds think alike, use it or lose it, are some mind phrases,
When we are in no-mind like that of the masters or in meditation
there is still consciousness, so it is the mind that we use to advance our lives.

Hi dipayanker, I believe it is a matter of education, social influences, and personal goals in the pursuit of knowledge. If you grow up in a 'shoebox', then that box is all you know. In a quest for the theory of everything, the scientic road leads to ANSWERS... whereas the philosophical road leads to more questions.

Once again it is the mind that likes it's questions,
but the answers are already in the questions, the question is in the answer.
Where there is truth there are already lies, and where there are lies that is the truth.
Whether we grow in a shoe box or become a professor of science
it is still a part of this conception, and the grass grows all by itself.

I do not like discussing science with philosophers. Discusions never end, solutions never found. Invariably there are people that quote philosophers in a strange attempt to explain science.

Where there is separation there will always be confusion,
discussions certainly never end, and just as eternity never ends,
discussions will never end, in this never ending story. [Already Written]

These are my views.... and to quote another philosopher...'and thats all I have to say about that'.....Forrest Gump

Spoken like a true Master




Just some happy fragments of my thoughts..

Peace

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Is science actually related to philosophy? Science is based on hard facts, philosophy is more to do with vague reasoning...

Hi dipyankar,
Philosophy has been called a social science in colleges,
yet it is the study of the observer not what is observed.
Questions of perspective(objectivity/subjectivity) of observer views.

It seems that mixing this study with a scientific method study
has the effect of skewing and biasing the data observed.
A base reference can not be established for analytical purposes........................Q7

Hi not2too....

if you can't question how the practice of science is done, evolves and improves (or not), how will the practice ever progress?

I did not see in your posts where the practice of science is questioned,
the questioning is about the perspective of the scientist not about the scientific methods.
Real or illusion?

please note the link to discovery does not work

happy thoughts...........Q7
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html

[dipayankar]

Does minds really have a scientific validity? It is more of some particular group of neurons firing in Unison that creates thought and reasoning.

Originally Posted by melanie The mind is the tool for social and environmental development, not consciousness, mind is an aspect of consciousness, like minds think alike, use it or lose it, are some mind phrases, When we are in no-mind like that of the masters or in meditation there is still consciousness, so it is the mind that we use to advance our lives. Once again it is the mind that likes it's questions, but the answers are already in the questions, the question is in the answer. Where there is truth there are already lies, and where there are lies that is the truth. Whether we grow in a shoe box or become a professor of science it is still a part of this conception, and the grass grows all by itself. Where there is separation there will always be confusion, discussions certainly never end, and just as eternity never ends, discussions will never end, in this never ending story. [Already Written] Spoken like a true Master Just some happy fragments of my thoughts.. Peace

[dipayankar]

Again philosophy would be the creation of thoughts from a single mind. For example a TOE has to be proven and accepted by multiple people, but a philosophical thought does not necessary have to be accepted..

Originally Posted by quanta07 Hi dipyankar, Philosophy has been called a social science in colleges, yet it is the study of the observer not what is observed. Questions of perspective(objectivity/subjectivity) of observer views. It seems that mixing this study with a scientific method study has the effect of skewing and biasing the data observed. A base reference can not be established for analytical purposes........................Q7 Hi not2too.... I did not see in your posts where the practice of science is questioned, the questioning is about the perspective of the scientist not about the scientific methods. Real or illusion? please note the link to discovery does not work happy thoughts...........Q7 http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html

[melanie]

Does minds really have a scientific validity? It is more of some particular group of neurons firing in Unison that creates thought and reasoning.

Sorry about the lengthy reply Dip,
just make of this, how ever it appeals to you, with a pinch of salt

Does minds have a scientific validity?
not quite sure what is implied here but i'll say....
No because no-thing needs proof, the proof is self evident in
THIS appearing self- evident-ness .. which is it's only testimony
It is SEEN the one that sees .. is not separate from that which is seen.

As for science and philosophy these words are concepts
and have no meaning except as conceived.

The world appears through our senses on demand.

Thoughts are triggered by sensory data on demand causing 'us' to re- act to the data eg: movement.


A baby is conscious and aware, but it's mind has not kicked in yet
so it can have no identity .. the mind is the tool that creates
the illusion of a separate person, 'thoughts' creating an ID'entity'
before the mind .. there is no separation,
no awareness of a 'me' or world, only sensed and known instantly,
consciousness aware of [awareness presence] or [beingness]
the mind develops as more and more data is stored conceptual overlay,
causing the illusion of a 'me' a story is un-folding via memory/mind re-call
it is the mind that does this, thoughts turn into 'things'
and this only ever manifests in the immediate now moment.
Time being an illusion.

Consciousness arises in AWARENESS
via sensation sensing
giving rise to an apparent 'me' [phantom]
Consciousness born of sensation sensed.
Appearing in still silent AWARENESS


'We' apparently evolve via the mind this is the tool for growth,
although no-thing ever evolves it only appears to.
In this Conception.

These three aspects ...Awareness-Consciousness- Mind
Mutually arise together in concord with this ....
arising immediateness appearing and disappearing
happening and appearing through the mind body organism.
Creating a world .. a projection of itself.
In this eternal NOW.

Never moving
Never changing
only appearing to
'apparently'
All things appear in consciousness, mind re-cognizes data, and instantaneously
turns them to image ''things'
those 'things' are not separate from that which is imaging them.

So in theory there are no-things except as conceived.

Consciousness is how the mind body organism becomes aware of itself
The SELF aware of itself through consciousness

The MIND within the body organism is the TOOL for thought and reasoning not consciousness
The MIND is an aspect of consciousness,
consciousness is being AWARE of something ... ' i'm conscious of my being'
being conscious of something arises in awareness.
When in deep sleep there is no consciousness but there is awareness.
When we dream at night the dreams appear in our semi- consciousness
not in awareness .. when we slip into deep sleep [pure awareness]
there are no dreams .. for there is no-thing in awareness,
only in consciousness,does the world and things appear.


If we deduce matter down to subatomic / quark level it is no-'thing' .. but empty space
static and motionless.....[conceived data] how this is ? there is no-one to know.[mystery un-known] yet known. [one with the knowing]

The mind/thoughts causes movement/vibration/wave on demand within the stillness.

mel.

[not2too]

please note the link to discovery does not work

happy thoughts...........Q7
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathem...pace-time.html[/quote]

Q7,
I just checked the link in the post and it works for me. Here it is again:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun...tart:int=0&-C=
More later...

Melanie,
Thanks for your detailed reply, above. It adds a perspective to this discussion that is sorely needed.
All the best,
not2100

[not2too]

I have decided to change my personal TOE Quest into a TOME (Theory Of Maybe Everything) Quest at this point.

The search for GUTs and TOEs was originally initiated by physicists in an attempt to combine relativity theory and quantum theory into one unified predictive statement and that is not what I'm up to. I believe that a theory of EVERYTHING should attempt to go well beyond these issues.

I also believe that we humans are in no position, at this point, to even be able to say that its possible for us to come up with a TOE. Our doors of perception and doors of intelligence, even with all of our technology, which extends these to an almost incomprehensible degree, are still limited. Multitudes of phenomena, additional dimensions of reality, even other universes may exist outside our range of discernment and understanding and should be explored (even if they are, ultimately, fictions, Maya…). Despite these limits, however, I do believe that we can develop a useful TOME.

I am presently investigating several methods which could aid in this quest, three of which I am mentioning now and will discuss in detail in future posts.

One is physicist Nick Herbert's Quantum Tantra model and methodology for experiencing nature in a new way. An introduction may be found at:
http://southerncrossreview.org/16/herbert.essay.htm

Another approach comes from Jungian analyst's Hal and Sidra Stone's work with Voice Dialogue developed by Zen master Dennis Merzel into his Big Mind process:
http://www.kzci.org/Big%20Mind/aboutbigmind_page.html

The third, an I'm sure more controversial, approach to "opening up" reality is the controlled, experimental evaluation (outside the United States) of substances like ayahusca and DMT, which can possibly enable perception of dimensions which our usual "tuning" excludes.

All of this, of course, is open ended and full of may-be…

Further,
not2too