BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Do we exist?
circastes
post Jul 25, 2010, 01:00 AM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Dec 09, 2009
Member No.: 32516



Is there really nothing there at all?

What proof do we have that anything exists?

I'm supposed to believe 'I' exist, that it's a foregone conclusion, but I don't feel that anymore.

If there is nothing there, then what is it that persists?

Does anything persist or are there only mental constructs?

I made Cinderella appear out of thin air. She walked down my street and I was too bewildered to follow. I regret not following her now.

Seriously.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 26, 2010, 01:28 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



So make her appear again and follow her! Let me know how it goes.

Do you need proof that anything exists? Mental constructs are things.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 26, 2010, 02:24 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 26, 2010, 10:28 PM) *
Mental constructs are things.
Don't 'things' have location (sic).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 26, 2010, 02:51 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Not necessarily. "Things" are that which have existence. There are mental things and physical things. Mental constructs are not necessarily conscious, but they still exist. Physical things have locations. Mental things may not depending on viewpoint. If one considers mental constructs to be neural activity, the involved neurons have locations. If one considers mental constructs as pure form, then they have no location. See what too much reason gets you? (no, not confusion!)

I'm pretty sure consciousness has no location, but it's not a mental construct. It's kind of a substance to fill the form, except those words are not really appropriate, merely a metaphore.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 26, 2010, 03:16 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 26, 2010, 11:51 PM) *

Not necessarily. "Things" are that which have existence. There are mental things and physical things. Mental constructs are not necessarily conscious, but they still exist. Physical things have locations. Mental things may not depending on viewpoint. If one considers mental constructs to be neural activity, the involved neurons have locations. If one considers mental constructs as pure form, then they have no location. See what too much reason gets you? (no, not confusion!)

I'm pretty sure consciousness has no location, but it's not a mental construct. It's kind of a substance to fill the form, except those words are not really appropriate, merely a metaphore.
Are all mental 'things' reproducible? If not then 'scientifically' can they be real, true, evidenced? You know why I brought this up again, the location issue.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 26, 2010, 04:19 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



That's precisely why the consciousness problem is so difficult. It doesn't lend itself to observation in the traditional scientific sense that one person's observations are independently verifiable.

Just because it's not science (in the conventional sense) doesn't mean it's not real. Science will have to grow somehow to get a handle on this. That's where philosophers might help. Maybe not.

It's fairly interesting (to me) to experience consciousness in itself and wonder "where is it?" I don't have an answer, but I know it's "there." But it seems like an important question, doesn't it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 26, 2010, 04:27 PM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 27, 2010, 01:19 AM) *

That's precisely why the consciousness problem is so difficult. It doesn't lend itself to observation in the traditional scientific sense that one person's observations are independently verifiable.

Just because it's not science (in the conventional sense) doesn't mean it's not real. Science will have to grow somehow to get a handle on this. That's where philosophers might help. Maybe not.

It's fairly interesting (to me) to experience consciousness in itself and wonder "where is it?" I don't have an answer, but I know it's "there." But it seems like an important question, doesn't it?
It's not so tough if it doesn't exist ... eh?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 27, 2010, 11:44 AM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Or if it exists and doesn't matter. Let's go back to sleep.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kennyS
post Feb 29, 2016, 08:51 AM
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Feb 29, 2016
Member No.: 38100



We do exist in the universe, tho our mind exists only in our body and whatever our thought or ideas are we may only implement them through actions of our body. Basically our physical part is a connector between our mind and the overall reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Mar 07, 2016, 10:01 AM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(kennyS @ Feb 29, 2016, 04:51 PM) *

We do exist in the universe, tho our mind exists only in our body
The mind and the brain are two identifiable counterparts that can be observed or witnessed.
For example the perceptions of Self, in out of body experiences, Near death experiences and altered states of consciousness. The mind exists regardless of the body and its state of health or capacity for functioning, as has been observed thru the study of people in coma or various states of paralysis.
QUOTE(kennyS @ Feb 29, 2016, 04:51 PM) *

and whatever our thought or ideas are we may only implement them through actions of our body. Basically our physical part is a connector between our mind and the overall reality.

Actually the brain, the heart and the gut are intimately connected in extending the mind into duality. Spiritual science and practice has given insight to the reality of mind as being the same for all individuals everywhere and anywhere within time and space. Time being a construct, it follows threads of thought as does individuality where perceptions of reality are unique to specific types of thinking and states of consciousness, such as waking dreaming and sleeping.

An off topic comment:
Kudos to the moderator that finally cleaned up the Garbage that has landed upon this website. Hopefully the spammers have been blocked and sent to some place they cannot return? rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Mar 19, 2016, 04:20 PM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Joesus @ Mar 07, 2016, 06:01 PM) *

The mind and the brain are two identifiable counterparts that can be observed or witnessed.
For example the perceptions of Self, in out of body experiences, Near death experiences and altered states of consciousness. The mind exists regardless of the body and its state of health or capacity for functioning, as has been observed thru the study of people in coma or various states of paralysis.
Out of body experiences are anecdotal and thus ephemeral 'evidence' for mind, consciousness or other extracorporal phenomena.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Botell0
post Jun 13, 2016, 06:16 AM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 26, 2016
Member No.: 38214



I've also been thinking about this when I was younger, but there, I guess, are enough proofs to make us fully believe that YEAH, we do exist. we don't know everything by far, but this does not mean that we do not exist.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jun 13, 2016, 07:22 AM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Mar 20, 2016, 12:20 AM) *

Out of body experiences are anecdotal and thus ephemeral 'evidence' for mind, consciousness or other extracorporal phenomena.

Science in general often disregards anything they cannot repeat within the realms of corporeal repetition. Scientists don't often meditate with any intention of Self exploration or spiritual insight, unless they are spiritual scientists. However there are scientists (who claim no familiarity with spirituality) that collect information regarding the aspects of NDE's and Possible Reincarnation cases, where children remember their past lives, and in detail explain their lives and deaths prior to their present living experiences. In fact they explain things in such detail that they are able to lead the researchers to their past life homes and relatives to converse in details that both astonish and establish belief within the families they visit, that the child is their long lost relative.

Dr. Ian Stevenson has compiled some interesting facts and details.

Science and Atoms:
Q: If atoms are 99.99% space, what “kind” of space is it? Is it empty vacuum?
Posted on July 4, 2015 by The Physicist

Physicist: This is a bit of a misnomer.

When we picture an atom we usually picture the “Bohr model”: a nucleus made of a bunch of particles packed together (protons and neutrons) with other particles zipping around it (electrons). In this picture, if you make a guess about of the size of electrons and calculate how far they are from the nucleus, then you get that weird result about atoms being mostly empty. But that guess is surprisingly hard to make. The “classical electron radius” is an upper-limit guess based on the electron being nothing more than it’s own electric field, but it’s ultimately just a gross estimate.
The picture gives you an idea of more or less where things can be found in an atom, but does a terrible job conveying what those things are like.

The picture gives you an idea of more or less where things can be found in an atom, but does a terrible job conveying what those things are actually like.

However, electrons aren’t really particles (which is why it’s impossible to actually specify their size); they’re waves. Instead of being in a particular place, they’re kinda “smeared out”. If you ring a bell, you can say that there is a vibration in that bell but you can’t say where exactly that vibration is: it’s a wave that’s spread out all over the bell. Parts of the bell will be vibrating more, and parts may not be vibrating at all. Electrons are more like the “ringing” of the bell and less like a fly buzzing around the bell.

Just to be clear, this is a metaphor: atoms are not tiny bells. The math that describes the “quantum wave function” of electrons in atoms and the math that describes vibrations in a bell have some things in common.
Where exactly is the ringing happening?
[i]
Where exactly is the ringing happening?


So, the space in atoms isn’t empty. A more accurate thing to say is that the overwhelming majority of the matter in an atom is concentrated in the nucleus, which is tiny compared to the region where the electrons are found. However, even in the nucleus the same “problem” crops up; protons and neutrons are just “the ringing of bells” and aren’t simply particles either.

The question “where exactly is this electron/proton/whatever?” isn’t merely difficult to answer, the question genuinely doesn’t have an answer. In quantum physics things tend spread out between a lot of states (in this case those different states include different positions).[/i]

Physicists have studied the relationship of matter to conscious activity and have found that matter can be influenced by consciousness in what is called the "observer effect"
The term "observer effect" means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.

In simple terms, whatever you focus on grows in both accessibility and plausibility and becomes available for belief. What science searches for is within the belief system of those who claim to be attached to the label and definition of science, spirituality or whatever title you choose to administer to yourself.
Basically a scientist who studies with the outward senses and believes only that which can be measured with physical instruments will only accept what can be repeated on the bench. Even if he/she has an experience of something that cannot be captured or measured with such physical instruments, his or her belief system will set aside any such experience that cannot be captured and remain focused on what he/she calls "real" because they can't have it verified by someone else, essentially giving away any credibility to ones own abilities to consciously recognize ones own self/Self, beliefs, thoughts and abilities.

Unfortunately this greatly diminishes ones validity to make any kind of statement towards anything without finding validation thru others and their belief systems.

If something isn't universally accepted then it remains suspect, and in probability something that isn't REAL!

Imagine if you would, that no one progresses in knowledge and experience and everything remains the same. What everyone accepts is real is all there is. The wheel which was potentially available would not have been discovered because the mind didn't reach the potential to accept its reality.

Consciousness is a strange thing. It's too bad the east and the west can't get together to talk about what they know without putting up a wall to divide something into your belief and my belief.

What the east knows is often in short supply in western culture, and what is strictly held in boundaries within the west is often just too rigid to appeal to the east.

The mind is ultimately flexible, yet society seeks to restrain it because it fears it will get out of control without such restraints.

Pity
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
correlli
post Jun 14, 2016, 05:28 AM
Post #14


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Apr 12, 2009
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 32044



QUOTE(Joesus @ Jun 13, 2016, 07:22 AM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Mar 20, 2016, 12:20 AM) *

Out of body experiences are anecdotal and thus ephemeral 'evidence' for mind, consciousness or other extracorporal phenomena.

Science in general often disregards anything they cannot repeat within the realms of corporeal repetition. Scientists don't often meditate with any intention of Self exploration or spiritual insight, unless they are spiritual scientists. However there are scientists (who claim no familiarity with spirituality) that collect information regarding the aspects of NDE's and Possible Reincarnation cases, where children remember their past lives, and in detail explain their lives and deaths prior to their present living experiences. In fact they explain things in such detail that they are able to lead the researchers to their past life homes and relatives to converse in details that both astonish and establish belief within the families they visit, that the child is their long lost relative.

Dr. Ian Stevenson has compiled some interesting facts and details.

Science and Atoms:
Q: If atoms are 99.99% space, what “kind” of space is it? Is it empty vacuum?
Posted on July 4, 2015 by The Physicist

Physicist: This is a bit of a misnomer.

When we picture an atom we usually picture the “Bohr model”: a nucleus made of a bunch of particles packed together (protons and neutrons) with other particles zipping around it (electrons). In this picture, if you make a guess about of the size of electrons and calculate how far they are from the nucleus, then you get that weird result about atoms being mostly empty. But that guess is surprisingly hard to make. The “classical electron radius” is an upper-limit guess based on the electron being nothing more than it’s own electric field, but it’s ultimately just a gross estimate.
The picture gives you an idea of more or less where things can be found in an atom, but does a terrible job conveying what those things are like.

The picture gives you an idea of more or less where things can be found in an atom, but does a terrible job conveying what those things are actually like.

However, electrons aren’t really particles (which is why it’s impossible to actually specify their size); they’re waves. Instead of being in a particular place, they’re kinda “smeared out”. If you ring a bell, you can say that there is a vibration in that bell but you can’t say where exactly that vibration is: it’s a wave that’s spread out all over the bell. Parts of the bell will be vibrating more, and parts may not be vibrating at all. Electrons are more like the “ringing” of the bell and less like a fly buzzing around the bell.

Just to be clear, this is a metaphor: atoms are not tiny bells. The math that describes the “quantum wave function” of electrons in atoms and the math that describes vibrations in a bell have some things in common.
Where exactly is the ringing happening?
[i]
Where exactly is the ringing happening?


So, the space in atoms isn’t empty. A more accurate thing to say is that the overwhelming majority of the matter in an atom is concentrated in the nucleus, which is tiny compared to the region where the electrons are found. However, even in the nucleus the same “problem” crops up; protons and neutrons are just “the ringing of bells” and aren’t simply particles either.

The question “where exactly is this electron/proton/whatever?” isn’t merely difficult to answer, the question genuinely doesn’t have an answer. In quantum physics things tend spread out between a lot of states (in this case those different states include different positions).[/i]

Physicists have studied the relationship of matter to conscious activity and have found that matter can be influenced by consciousness in what is called the "observer effect"
The term "observer effect" means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.

In simple terms, whatever you focus on grows in both accessibility and plausibility and becomes available for belief. What science searches for is within the belief system of those who claim to be attached to the label and definition of science, spirituality or whatever title you choose to administer to yourself.
Basically a scientist who studies with the outward senses and believes only that which can be measured with physical instruments will only accept what can be repeated on the bench. Even if he/she has an experience of something that cannot be captured or measured with such physical instruments, his or her belief system will set aside any such experience that cannot be captured and remain focused on what he/she calls "real" because they can't have it verified by someone else, essentially giving away any credibility to ones own abilities to consciously recognize ones own self/Self, beliefs, thoughts and abilities.

Unfortunately this greatly diminishes ones validity to make any kind of statement towards anything without finding validation thru others and their belief systems.

If something isn't universally accepted then it remains suspect, and in probability something that isn't REAL!

Imagine if you would, that no one progresses in knowledge and experience and everything remains the same. What everyone accepts is real is all there is. The wheel which was potentially available would not have been discovered because the mind didn't reach the potential to accept its reality.

Consciousness is a strange thing. It's too bad the east and the west can't get together to talk about what they know without putting up a wall to divide something into your belief and my belief.

What the east knows is often in short supply in western culture, and what is strictly held in boundaries within the west is often just too rigid to appeal to the east.

The mind is ultimately flexible, yet society seeks to restrain it because it fears it will get out of control without such restraints.

Pity


Pity?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jun 14, 2016, 05:51 AM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4066
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



Yes, Pity.

Not a lot of open mindedness when it comes to thinking. People have a tendency to cling to what they have been told, by whatever authority they bow to without ever seeking direct experience and understanding.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 08:48 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles