Is consciousness the fundamental reality?

[Rader]

Why would the properties of birth and death different? why would death be transitional and not birth? Would not death better be compared to the transition that ocurred when life first appeared in the universe? I confess, the question was a bit of joke, but I think that we must try to escape the structure and failures of languages and to think in terms of fundamentals entities and interactions if an accurate description of nature, including existence/conciousness is to be achieved. If an analogy might help to illustrate, and the universe were a computer, we are debating in VisualBasic, yet the computer functions in terms of logic operators and bits. I think the best proposition has been that from reductionists physicists like Penrose, by the way, even if it is not yet full.

I saw no joke, I thought you wanted a serious answer. From your answer back, you seem to. Why would the properties of birth and death be different? Well for one thing we observe it that way, our experience constitutes the way the world appears to be. The diffence is fundamentally in observation of how whatever we are observing behaves. We could switch the words live and dead around and use them as there oposite, to mean the same thing. But what do they really mean? I agree with what you say about language failure and agree a better way is with fundamentals entities and interactions. OK so let's do it. So what is life and death? Life is all that "is" and death is all that "is not anymore" The reason why I say death is tansitional, is that what was once life now becomes a probability wave again. Life and death is a transitional phase change between between being and not being whatever it "is". Life an death is like the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Neither and both at the same time. What begeeks me is, the universe maybe creating new particles while its expanding.

 

[Imparcticle]

1.) alive - a being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material.

There seems to be an error in this definition of alive. "A being able to multiply" should be "A being or its constituents being able to multiply". This was dutifully pointed out by my spanish teacher.

 

[Imparcticle]

I saw no joke, I thought you wanted a serious answer. From your answer back, you seem to. Why would the properties of birth and death be different? Well for one thing we observe it that way, our experience constitutes the way the world appears to be. The diffence is fundamentally in observation of how whatever we are observing behaves. We could switch the words live and dead around and use them as there oposite, to mean the same thing. But what do they really mean? I agree with what you say about language failure and agree a better way is with fundamentals entities and interactions. OK so let's do it. So what is life and death? Life is all that "is" and death is all that "is not anymore" The reason why I say death is tansitional, is that what was once life now becomes a probability wave again. Life and death is a transitional phase change between between being and not being whatever it "is". Life an death is like the chicken and the egg. Which came first? Neither and both at the same time. What begeeks me is, the universe maybe creating new particles while its expanding.

Do you then concur that there is no death? You said everything is alive on your first post on this thread.

 

[Rader]

Do you then concur that there is no death? You said everything is alive on your first post on this thread.

I most certainly do not. Death is the transitional phase of body and spirit, from whence, it will transmute to its next rebirth. Death is a word imposed by conscious beings, to describe a physcial state of not being alive. Not being alive in the sense that, what was priori is now not. There is a slight anadote to this, when the transitional process of life to death occurs, there is a slight weight loss that is measurable.

There seems to be an error in this definition of alive. "A being able to multiply" should be "A being or its constituents being able to multiply". This was dutifully pointed out by my spanish teacher.

Diga su maestra de Español, con todo respeto, que seres esteriles no se multiplica. La palabras que imponemos, para describir phenomena, no significa que sea cierto.

 

[Imparcticle]

Diga su maestra de Español, con todo respeto, que seres esteriles no se multiplica. La palabras que imponemos, para describir phenomena, no significa que sea cierto.

LOL. I am just a first year Spanish student. I only understood some of what you said: You said something about telling my spanish teacher, with all respect,[something, I don't know what esteriles means]...do not multiply. The words [imponemos?] for to describe phenomena, are not significant to [sea?] true.
This is a pre-high school class, I'm doubting I am very talented in my ability to learn this. (but on the bright side, I am told I barely have an accent when I speak it)
anyway, I may be repeating what you said, but here is my opinion concerning the revision of the definition I presented in my first post:
I pointed out to my teacher that the definition for "a being able to multiply" is actually okay, on [my] second thought. I asked him (my teacher, whom we will call Mr.) whether or not a cell is living (for they are the constituents of a living being) and he said yes. Then, I said, the definition "a being or its constituents being able to multiply" merely repeats "a being able to multiply" because, as Mr. agreed, a cell is living. Abeing that is unable to multiply is still alive because its constituents multiply. reproduction is not neccesarily reproduction through meiosis, but also through mitosis.

We never finished the conversation because class started as soon as I finished talking. But, on Monday, I will ask him if he would like to reply to any of your arguements and mine.

I most certainly do not. Death is the transitional phase of body and spirit, from whence, it will transmute to its next rebirth.

So in your opinion, there is a reincarnation, an afterlife?

a word imposed by conscious beings, to describe a physcial state of not being alive.

If there is indeed a rebirth, then following the rebirth, the being is alive again. So what time period does death describe? According to the above quote, a possbile definition for "alive" is being "conscious"?

Not being alive in the sense that, what was priori is now not. There is a slight anadote to this, when the transitional process of life to death occurs, there is a slight weight loss that is measurable.

weightloss?

 

[Rader]

LOL. I am just a first year Spanish student. I only understood some of what you said: You said something about telling my spanish teacher, with all respect,[something, I don't know what esteriles means]...do not multiply. The words [imponemos?] for to describe phenomena, are not significant to [sea?] true.

Well you fooled me. I thought you might be a senior in H.S. So look up what piropo means and you will understand what my comment means.

As for what I said to tell your teacher. Tell your Spanish teacher, with all due respect, sterile beings do not reproduce. The definition does not fit the scenario.

alive - a being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material.

I also said: The stamps that we put on words to describe phenomena, does not signify, that its meaning, is certain.

This is a pre-high school class, I'm doubting I am very talented in my ability to learn this. (but on the bright side, I am told I barely have an accent when I speak it)

If what you say, about your accent, is true, you have talent. Spanish is one of the easiest languages to learn. Like anything else of you want to learn, you will learn, if you do not, you will not learn. The best and quickest way to learn is to speak and live with the language. I leaned in 45 days, the basics. When you dream in Spanish you will have dominated the language, to the point of not having to think in Englsih first, and then translate into Spanish, in your mind before speaking.

anyway, I may be repeating what you said, but here is my opinion concerning the revision of the definition I presented in my first post:
I pointed out to my teacher that the definition for "a being able to multiply" is actually okay, on [my] second thought. I asked him (my teacher, whom we will call Mr.) whether or not a cell is living (for they are the constituents of a living being) and he said yes. Then, I said, the definition "a being or its constituents being able to multiply" merely repeats "a being able to multiply" because, as Mr. agreed, a cell is living. Abeing that is unable to multiply is still alive because its constituents multiply. reproduction is not neccesarily reproduction through meiosis, but also through mitosis.

Yes I understand what you mean but my meaning of "alive" goes well beyond the comprehension of things.

We never finished the conversation because class started as soon as I finished talking. But, on Monday, I will ask him if he would like to reply to any of your arguements and mine.

Fine if you like, do it.

So in your opinion, there is a reincarnation, an afterlife?

Yes i do, but not in the way you probably understand what reincarnation means, notwithstanding whatever meaning is put to the word, does not negate its reality, only how reality really is.

If there is indeed a rebirth, then following the rebirth, the being is alive again. So what time period does death describe? According to the above quote, a possbile definition for "alive" is being "conscious"?

You realize we are talking about two very distinct things, or at least I am, that in reality maybe the same. When I refer to the physical property the dead rabbit, its particles were once, are now and will be something else. Forms may be only inventions of the mind. Death describes the moment when there is no life, in the form that was observed. A live rabbit can be only conscious, if it were dead, then it would not be conscious of being a rabbit. The other thing is the spirit of the rabbit, which gives it life and consciousness. Reincarnation of particles we can understand more clearly, reincarnation of the spirit is not known.

weightloss?

Yes when a form dies, a measurable physical wieght loss can be measured. When a form dies, the spirit has been also measured leaving the body.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

You can be alive and not posess the capabilites of reproduction. You can be dead and have hereditary material (plant dead but seed alive).

In it's most used sense of the words 'dead' and 'alive', they probably don't mean what you consider to be states of death and life. You can redefine the word for everyone or you can use those sentences instead i.e.

"1) Alive: A being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material
2) Death: The absence of the characteristics of alive"

 

[Rader]

You can be alive and not posess the capabilites of reproduction. You can be dead and have hereditary material (plant dead but seed alive).

In it's most used sense of the words 'dead' and 'alive', they probably don't mean what you consider to be states of death and life. You can redefine the word for everyone or you can use those sentences instead i.e.

"1) Alive: A being able to multiply and therefore posses hereditary material
2) Death: The absence of the characteristics of alive"

Contradictions can be found for both words alive and dead. The best description I can come up with is.

Being alive and concsious is "behaving like" and "being like" whatever it is that is observed. Do we need a more complicated description of forms?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Being alive and concsious is "behaving like" and "being like" whatever it is that is observed. Do we need a more complicated description of forms?

What do u mean by "whatever it is that is observed"?

 

[Imparcticle]

Well you fooled me. I thought you might be a senior in H.S. So look up what piropo means and you will understand what my comment means.
As for what I said to tell your teacher. Tell your Spanish teacher, with all due respect, sterile beings do not reproduce. The definition does not fit the scenario.

my spanish teacher read your comment and did not quite understand what you meant by "scenario". I'm not sure either. Is this scenario related to my rabbit anology? I believe that has been disproved, and that we are now concerned with the definition of life in general?

I also said: The stamps that we put on words to describe phenomena, does not signify, that its meaning, is certain.

So it is an approximation then?

If what you say, about your accent, is true, you have talent. Spanish is one of the easiest languages to learn. Like anything else of you want to learn, you will learn, if you do not, you will not learn. The best and quickest way to learn is to speak and live with the language. I leaned in 45 days, the basics. When you dream in Spanish you will have dominated the language, to the point of not having to think in Englsih first, and then translate into Spanish, in your mind before speaking.

I know what you mean, when learning a new language, the best thing to do is merely think, feel the meaning of words, not traslate them in your head.
You learned in 45 days? Then spanish is not your first language? How many do u know?

Yes I understand what you mean but my meaning of "alive" goes well beyond the comprehension of things.

What do you mean?

Yes i do, but not in the way you probably understand what reincarnation means, notwithstanding whatever meaning is put to the word, does not negate its reality, only how reality really is.

Reality is how we concieve it to be. I believe there is no other way of defining it. Are you familiar with the philosophy of the Solphism (something like that; I am not referring to the Sophists [who taught sophistication])

You realize we are talking about two very distinct things, or at least I am, that in reality maybe the same. When I refer to the physical property the dead rabbit, its particles were once, are now and will be something else. Forms may be only inventions of the mind. Death describes the moment when there is no life, in the form that was observed. The other thing is the spirit of the rabbit, which gives it life and consciousness. Reincarnation of particles we can understand more clearly, reincarnation of the spirit is not known.

I do not understand how reiencarnation (in the Buddhist sense, I would like it if you would define your view on it) is possible.

A live rabbit can be only conscious, if it were dead, then it would not be conscious of being a rabbit.

So is a plant alive? Is it conscious of its own being?

Yes when a form dies, a measurable physical wieght loss can be measured. When a form dies, the spirit has been also measured leaving the body.

Okay, this is all supposing there is a spirit. That two entities constitute the body.

 

[Rader]

What do u mean by "whatever it is that is observed"?

What I mean is that when something is alive and conscious, we observe that phenomenom. Rabbits act like rabbits and only rabbits.

 

[Rader]

my spanish teacher read your comment and did not quite understand what you meant by "scenario". I'm not sure either. Is this scenario related to my rabbit anology? I believe that has been disproved, and that we are now concerned with the definition of life in general?

You said: There seems to be an error in this definition of alive. "A being able to multiply" should be "A being or its constituents being able to multiply". This was dutifully pointed out by my spanish teacher. This can also be falsified.
Alive is when something acts alive, not its capabilities, to be alive. You can be dead and have the same capabilities of being alive.

So it is an approximation then?

An assumed approximation only.

I know what you mean, when learning a new language, the best thing to do is merely think, feel the meaning of words, not traslate them in your head.
You learned in 45 days? Then spanish is not your first language? How many do u know?

English Spanish Latin

What do you mean?

Things do not really exist. Mind may be the only real construct of reality.

Reality is how we concieve it to be. I believe there is no other way of defining it. Are you familiar with the philosophy of the Solphism (something like that; I am not referring to the Sophists [who taught sophistication])

Yes our reality is the way we assume that it exists, that does not prove what reality really is. Do you think atoms bacteria plants animals humans all experiene the same reality?
Much of our philosophy has its roots in ancient Greece.

I do not understand how reiencarnation (in the Buddhist sense, I would like it if you would define your view on it) is possible.

I do not believe in the Buddhist sense of reincarnation. What I do believe is that we are here for a purpose. After death comes and the spirit leaves the body, it goes on to higher plane. The merit we earn is this life is given to those who earns it. Existence would be senceless if it were not so. I do not think judgement is left to us but from, who hence we came.

So is a plant alive? Is it conscious of its own being?

Its conscious of what direction the sunshine comes from. Everything is conscious in its own way.

Okay, this is all supposing there is a spirit. That two entities
constitute the body.

The assumption that bodies exist, is as great, as the assumption the spitirt does so also.

 

[Imparcticle]

Alive is when something acts alive, not its capabilities, to be alive. You can be dead and have the same capabilities of being alive.

That is dependent on what you mean by "acts" alive.
You can be dead and still be able to reproduce? (both in meiosis, and mitosis) You know, it is possible to run an electical current through a dead body, and make it act alive.
Acting and being are two different things. I can act like I'm crazy, brainless, annoying...but that doesn't mean I am like that in my natural state (which is the exact opposite).
In order for something to act alive, it must have the capabilities in order to do so.

English Spanish Latin

Wow, 3. Me too(except not quite 3 ): Amharic, English, and a bit of Spanish.

Things do not really exist. Mind may be the only real construct of reality.

And because the mind and body are separate entities, the body is not real? Real is subjective, Rader. You said it yourself rhetorically:
"Do you think atoms bacteria plants animals humans all experiene the same reality?"
Atoms have no way of expriencing anything by our assumed aprroximation of alive, BTW.

Yes our reality is the way we assume that it exists, that does not prove what reality really is.

If reality is subjective, then it is impossible for us to have one, and only one, defined reality for all things able to exprience it.

I do not believe in the Buddhist sense of reincarnation. What I do believe is that we are here for a purpose. After death comes and the spirit leaves the body, it goes on to higher plane. The merit we earn is this life is given to those who earns it. Existence would be senceless if it were not so. I do not think judgement is left to us but from, who hence we came.

Y yo. Pero, no entiendo como' es possible. haha. If you didn't understand that, here is a translation of my gibberish: "And I. But, I don't understand how this is possible."
How would a spirit live? What would sustain its life?

Its conscious of what direction the sunshine comes from. Everything is conscious in its own way.

But is it conscious of its own BEING?

The assumption that bodies exist, is as great, as the assumption the spitirt does so also.

But there is physical evidence that physical bodies exist; on the other hand, there is no evidence at all (as far as I know) concerning the existence of spirits.

 

[Rader]

That is dependent on what you mean by "acts" alive.
You can be dead and still be able to reproduce? (both in meiosis, and mitosis) You know, it is possible to run an electical current through a dead body, and make it act alive.

NO, you can act alive if you are alive, if you are dead you can not act alive. Can you put electric currents in a cadaver and make it eat pizza?

Acting and being are two different things. I can act like I'm crazy, brainless, annoying...but that doesn't mean I am like that in my natural state (which is the exact opposite).

No, acting and being are exactly the same things just two words that refer to the "being alive". You can have the same capabilities live or dead, only when you are alive do you act alive.

In order for something to act alive, it must have the capabilities in order to do so.

Yes, and something dead with the same capabilities can not be anything else but dead.

Wow, 3. Me too(except not quite 3 ): Amharic, English, and a bit of Spanish.

What is the country of origin of Amharic, is it your first language?

And because the mind and body are separate entities, the body is not real? Real is subjective, Rader. You said it yourself rhetorically:
"Do you think atoms bacteria plants animals humans all experiene the same reality?"

The key to understanding this is my opinion is. Everything is conscious and all things have experience. Not that the physical complexity of the form produces the consciousness to have experience. But that the level of experience is directly related to form complexity. Consciousness needs complexity to experience itself. In the sense that total consciousness and full experience exists, forms experience only the level of experience possible, depending on the forms level of complexity.

Atoms have no way of expriencing anything by our assumed aprroximation of alive, BTW.

Do they, then you think that particle wisdom is an illusion? Yet particles found a way somehow to build forms of higher and higher complexity with no reason at all.

If reality is subjective, then it is impossible for us to have one, and only one, defined reality for all things able to exprience it.

I think that, there may be "One Reality" that is the composite of the sum of all experience. We only experience our individual realities.

Y yo. Pero, no entiendo como' es possible. haha. If you didn't understand that, here is a translation of my gibberish: "And I. But, I don't understand how this is possible."

I understood. La vida es un milagro. El universo y todo dentro, es un milagro.

How would a spirit live? What would sustain its life?

Would a spirit need to sustain its life if it was life itself?

But is it conscious of its own BEING?

Good question, look at it this way, could we humans evolve it we were not conscious? I think not. Everything has to be conscious of something or forms would not evolve.

But there is physical evidence that physical bodies exist; on the other hand, there is no evidence at all (as far as I know) concerning the existence of spirits.

Yes bodies exist of almost complete empty space. The question is, if no one was present to observe a body, would it exist? Yet the body is conscious and alive and neither is surely the body.

 

[Imparcticle]

NO, you can act alive if you are alive, if you are dead you can not act alive. Can you put electric currents in a cadaver and make it eat pizza?

My point exactly. Que' es el "cadaver"? (What is "cadaver"?)

No, acting and being are exactly the same things just two words that refer to the "being alive". You can have the same capabilities live or dead, only when you are alive do you act alive.

No, acting and being aer 2 different things. Acting does not neccesarily reveal the true reality, but rather an illusion or a false reality. No siempre cierto.
On the other hand, being may reveal the true reality. Just because something is acting does not mean that is its true state. I will act like a mad person, if you wish, to prove to you that what I act like is not the same as what kind of person I really am.

Yes, and something dead with the same capabilities can not be anything else but dead.

Ah, so you are asserting that a dead body has the potential to act alive? If this is true, then this would indicate that it is possible (in your opinion) to ressurect (sp?) a dead body.

What is the country of origin of Amharic, is it your first language?

Ethiopia( In East Africa) si'. Y tu'? Adonde usted?

The key to understanding this is my opinion is. Everything is conscious and all things have experience.

Do you realize you are asserting that a rock is aware of its surroundings? It is called inanimate for a reason.

Consciousness needs complexity to experience itself. In the sense that total consciousness and full experience exists, forms experience only the level of experience possible, depending on the forms level of complexity.

I agree with the aforementioned quote.

Do they, then you think that particle wisdom is an illusion? Yet particles found a way somehow to build forms of higher and higher complexity with no reason at all.

Atoms are inanimate, Rader. You are implying that atoms are alive, and therefore conscious. Esta' no possible. They do not act independently. Particles do not find ways for complexity. The complexity that arises is a product of cause and effect sequences. If particles acted on their own, it(there would be particle civil rights issues ) would be almost (hablo "almost" por que we would have to make peace treaties and tons of compromises about how we are really not making particles our slaves... :tongue: ) impossible to make computers. Computers primarily work by manipulating particle reactions, like electrons.

I think that, there may be "One Reality" that is the composite of the sum of all experience. We only experience our individual realities.

Excellente. Estoy de acuerdo.

I understood. La vida es un milagro. El universo y todo dentro, es un milagro.

bueno. Nicely put.

Would a spirit need to sustain its life if it was life itself?

They are simoltaneous.
Then why does a body die? Because it is worn?

Good question, look at it this way, could we humans evolve it we were not conscious? I think not.

No entiendo. If what could evolve? I don't understand what the predicate for your second usage of "it" is.

Yes bodies exist of almost complete empty space. The question is, if no one was present to observe a body, would it exist? Yet the body is conscious and alive and neither is surely the body.

That is like asking "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, will it make a sound/noise?". Something will exist, even if thre is no one to observe it.
Of course, alive and conscious are mere characteristics of the body.

 

[Rader]

My point exactly. Que' es el "cadaver"? (What is "cadaver"?)

A cadaver is a dead body. Dead bodies can not eat pizza no matter how much current you put into it.

No, acting and being are 2 different things. Acting does not neccesarily reveal the true reality, but rather an illusion or a false reality. No siempre cierto.
On the other hand, being may reveal the true reality. Just because something is acting does not mean that is its true state. I will act like a mad person, if you wish, to prove to you that what I act like is not the same as what kind of person I really am.

Acting alive is part of being alive, I do not understand why you do not see this.
I am referring to acting alive not behavior of living. There is only one way to act alive, there are many ways of behaving alive.

Ah, so you are asserting that a dead body has the potential to act alive? If this is true, then this would indicate that it is possible (in your opinion) to ressurect (sp?) a dead body.

The dead body had the potential for being alive, in its previous form, when dead it becomes a new potentiality for a new physcial life form. You realize that we are made of star dust, we have in us the particles of all forms, that might have existed before us. No one as far as I know has ever resurected from the dead in the same physcial life form except Jesus Christ but then I was not there to see it, it is third person knowledge.

Ethiopia( In East Africa) si'. Y tu'? Adonde usted?

Born in Chicago Illinois.

Do you realize you are asserting that a rock is aware of its surroundings? It is called inanimate for a reason.

Ya and do you realize, that I could be as correct as, one who says it is not. Words mean nothing except to those who use them.

Atoms are inanimate, Rader. You are implying that atoms are alive, and therefore conscious. Esta' no possible. They do not act independently. Particles do not find ways for complexity. The complexity that arises is a product of cause and effect sequences. If particles acted on their own, it(there would be particle civil rights issues ) would be almost (hablo "almost" por que we would have to make peace treaties and tons of compromises about how we are really not making particles our slaves... :tongue: ) impossible to make computers. Computers primarily work by manipulating particle reactions, like electrons.

Nobody has ever seen an atom, yet we stick adjectives, on them, that they are inanimate, not alive or conscious. Physics has shown us that, all matter is composed of sperical waves. All forms have evolved from sperical waves, we observe that evolution of forms, by an increase in complexity, consciousness and behavior.

Then why does a body die? Because it is worn?

In a physcial sense it has a clock, that indicates when it will be worn out and break done and die. In a spirtual sense, why does a body die?, is the same question, why did the body come into existence? A unknown purpose, that is revealed to each individual, its something that is felt not known.

No entiendo. If what could evolve? I don't understand what the predicate for your second usage of "it" is.

We were discussing flowers. If the flower was not conscious of which way the sun was, could the flower survive? If it could not, could any higher form ever evolve from what is dead.

That is like asking "If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, will it make a sound/noise?". Something will exist, even if there is no one to observe it.

I am not so sure. Forms seem to exist because we are here to observe them.

Of course, alive and conscious are mere characteristics of the body.[/

Only if you want to use the words that way. If alive was spirit and consciousness was life. At anyrate those words are independent of physcial reality.

 

[Imparcticle]

I am not so sure. Forms seem to exist because we are here to observe them.

We don't see quarks, yet, but we still know they exist.

Why do you think atoms and other particles are alive? Is there any supporting evidence, anything that would cause such a suspicion?

 

[Rader]

We don't see quarks, yet, but we still know they exist.

We do not see many things, and we assume they exist. Are quarks any different from the love you have for your mother? The dream you dreamt last night? The idea you came up with to start this thead?
Your conscious experience of being a schoolgirl? My point is that, it is not the eye that sees, but consciousness, does the seeing. The conscious experience is the reality.

Why do you think atoms and other particles are alive? Is there any supporting evidence, anything that would cause such a suspicion?

Because we are alive. Because we are atoms. Because once all those particles were all once "one". Because particles have an inate nature of knowing how to build complexity. Because words make a fowled a attempt to describe what just "Is". Because consiousness just might be the basic building block of reality. Because no one has demonstated the contrary.

You might want to read this entire thread, it has usefull information on the EPR experiments and Bells Theorum. Some of the reasons, why my thoughts, have gone in this direction, has to do with this information.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12311