I like to think of humans as a form of cancer--constantly spreading and growing in size (number) and choking the life out of the planet~

"A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens."

What makes us human rather than just another primate? We think we are special*

Good point, but stimulation of the cortex may cause growth of said cortex. I think we will see more bioengineering take hold of such things in the near future.

Formlessness does not become form - form and formless are the same thing, you only percieve a diffrence between the two.

I would say that matter has form, where as lets say a thought is formless. What is the percieved difference between the two? Now I have been told that matter cannot be created nor destroyed--is this because it never existed in the first place, but was only a perception?

Your not understanding fully. If matter has form then so do thoughts, thoughts - according to your logic, are matter.

Besides what about when matter and anti-matter collide?

Il have to explain further Flex, but il wait to see your take on this first.

Speaking of matter and anti-matter Stephen Hawking has a terrible joke on the subject I can't remember it right now I'll have to look it up (something about meeting his anti self and not wanting to shake hands). I am not to sharp on physics, but I imagine that when matter and anti matter meet, they destroy one another, but in the process leave behind energy. I personally believe that matter can be destroyed, or rather converted into energy, just as I believe that energy can inversely be converted to matter (just my hypothesis)

Anyways--thought I do not consider matter. I can think of say a hamburger. Where does the hamburger exist? It is certainly not a tangible thing, but I can smell it, taste it, see it. While some chemicals and electricity in my brain may exist, that hamburger sure doesn't.

alright this is total off topic, but I must recite one of the only poems I have ever memorized

There once was a lady in white
who traveled much faster than light
she departed on day
in a relative way
and arrived on the previous night!

I laughed histerically when I read that in A Brief History of Time~Stephen Hawking is just full of terrible humor I love it...Like the chapter entitled Black Holes Aint So Black.

I don't know about shapes per se, but there are four archetypal visual symbols:

1. Containing (symbolized by a circle, ring, or perimeter figure).

2. Radiating (symbolized by radial lines).

3. Branching (symbolized by a tree-branch form).

4. Flowing (symbolized by parallel lines, possibly curvy).

There may be others, but these are fundamental.

Thats correct, they destroy each other, matter and anti-matter cannot co-exist in the same space. I was up till 2 am yesterday looking over sub-atomic particle theory.

Matter, like anything in science, is not 100% definitive, science has been wrong before and will be wrong again because right and wrong are based on perception Flex.

Well I still do not consider that imaginary hamburger to be matter--otherwise I would surely have eaten it by now.

It is matter, even if the matter is existant within the neural synapses of your brain. Your just not looking at your consciousness as matter, for if all things are comprised of such then surely, so is your brain.

We need to keep brain and consciousness distinct. Brain has mass and is matter. Consciousness is a (possibly mysterious) substance that is not matter.

But my argument is that not all things are comprised of matter. Perception does not exist in tangible form. Chemicals and electricity might, but perception nay. This is part of the reason why I find imagination to be the root of "God".

You are using selective logic. Danger! Will Robinson Danger!

Lol I may be using selective logic, but you have still yet to come up with an answer as to how that formless hamburger somehow takes form in the tangible world~

Come on Max I need a good response. I have a lot more to gain from loseing a debate than winning...

Tangible and untangible dont exist buddy, its all the same.

How so? Why would we have a word for it if it didn't exist silly I can touch a real hamburger--I can't touch a percieved hamburger. The beauty of youth is that you are more capable of creating an intangible world; once you become bogged down with the real world you need illicit substances to allow you to return to that intangible world~

You are starting to sound a bit like the J-man...the tangible world is an illusion. This would leave us with the fact that everything is intangible. And if everything is intangible, well spacial constraints would not matter thus the first 3 dimensions would have no significance. All that would exist in an intangible world is time (and not time relative to rotations of the sun)

Feel free to pipe up Hey Hey and Rick I know you are diligently reading~

If there truely is not a distinction between the tangible and intangible, you should then be capable of creation by means of though--in other words, you would be capable of bringing thought into the physical world and actually have these thoughts materialize.

I am tired of using hamburgers as an example. I can imagine Skittles all I want, but they will not simply appear. I clould go out and buy sugar and get water etc and make my own Skittles, but the intangible Skittles will still exist in an intangible form, and the new tangible Skittles will be a completely new and seperate entity.

Ah you would think so wouldnt you? Yes you should be able to create things in the physical world with thoughts, but your forgeting one key point.

All reality has to have rules in order to make it seem real. Its the same reason why there can be gravity in your dreams, the gravity makes the dream seem more realistic ^.- Creating things with your thoughts destroys the realism aspect, think of it as lucid dreaming vs regular dreaming.

My dreams are never real~ I am often in a hot tub surrounded by gorgeous women, that just simply does not abide by the rules of reality; in the real world the hot tub would have me and my buddy fingers, not quite as enjoyable. The intangible world only as rules that you impose. I can create a world without gravity~

Yes, but there is no actual proof that what is being experienced now is not simply a long dream with strict rules.

Proof and knowledge are not exactly the same thing. The "long dream" hypothesis is unlikely because it's more complex than a straightforward theory of physical reality. It requires some kind of thing to do the dreaming, a super-complex computer or something, and what is the theory of that? Get back to basics and leave the idle speculation that can go nowhere.

Im not stating its a straight forward dream, but rather has properties of such. All reality is based on perception, where is your proof of true constants?

Tis not idle speculation, why could this world not be a result of the consciousness singularity?

without out I would probably be in prison, because with out that creative outlet my next favorite hobby was street fighting and kicking mtf ass'.... so I'm sure i would have killed someone by now. Cheers!

.... shit I can't even attach new works relavant to conversations. Shawn this really bites... So in a way we do know life without art.... brainmeta life..... it sucks, at least 4 moi.

Umm that is pretty cool. You know you don't have to fight in the street. I am a big fan of fighting, but in more organized means.

Reguardless--say this is a dream. Under the rules of this dream the formless and form are still two different entities~

Agreed, but from where comes the perception?

More details, please! What do we know about this "mysterious" substance so far? is it tangible at all? How big is it?

I think the lack of details is partly due to its mysteriousness

formed and formless cannot co-exist in the same space. How can a formless substance interact with a formed one, tis impossible. Its no diffrent than matter and anti-matter co-existing together.

Nay, a hamburger and my perception of a hamburger could co-exist perfectly. This is why we form opinions. If my expectations of a hamburger do not match what I am surved I get pissed~

Consciousness is not matter so it is intangible (in the sense that it's not like a brick that you can touch) by definition. Consciousness has some well recognized properties, however:

1. Non-locality. Consciousness has no location is physical space. The cartesian coordinate system is meaningless in regard to consciousness: no point location, length, width, or height.

2. Privacy. Consciousness in one individual is completely separate from the consciousness in another individual.

3. Unity. Consciousness is unified. A person doesn't experience fragmented consciousness. There are some weird clinical exceptions such as possible split brain cases.

4. Flow. Consciousness flows in time (the only dimension of physical reality that seems to apply).

Some philosophers consider consciousness the fundamental reality. It is, after all, the only way we can know anything. It may be the only thing we really know. Everything else is just models and inferences (observed via consciousness too).

Do we touch matter? Is there matter? I don't think so.

As a scientist, you must be kidding. We touch matter continuously. The air around us, our clothes, water, solid objects. I am referring to our skin interface in contact with things around us.

When the policeman pulls you over on the road to give you a sobriety test, he will ask you to close your eyes and touch your nose. Will you "argue" (begin a philosophical discussion) with him that nobody can touch anything? You might end up being arrested.

The electron shells in the atoms of my outer skin layer "contact" (exert forceful influence on) the electron shells of the atoms of the object I touch. The resulting pressure increase or heat transfer causes nerves to send signals to my brain so that I can feel the touch (pressure, warmth, pain, for example).

If you aren't kidding, then I would say a four-year-old knows more than you do.

Yeah... I did quite a bit of that too i.e. boxing, muay tai, and jui jitsu.... but you don't get the same kind of rush. Besides I'm getting too old for street fighting now anyway.

So, what happens to these properties of consciousness (especially # 4) during sleep?

Consciousness fades as we fall asleep. Dreams are never as full or as detailed as waking consciousness. Deep sleep is the absence of consciousness, but not permanent, like death.

Suppose we could perform artificial hibernation, perhaps freeze someone for 200 years and then revive him. He would have no memory of the period because he would have had no consciousness for the period. For him, there would be no passage of time.

That reminds me of another property of consciousness: it's necessary for memory formation (although Susan Blackmore told me she can remember things she was never conscious of).

Again, how on earth can something without substance interact with something with substance, until you show some real evidence, your claims are a theory at best.

I agree with Hey Hey. Rick, we do not touch matter, our consciousness percieves the touching of one material object to another i.e. skin to hamburger. Technically the consciousness never touches matter, only has an emotional attachment to certain matter (the body) which it percieves as touching it, the consciousness never directly interacts with it, in truth "we" never touch anything, parts of a body made of matter touch another object made of matter. In order for consciousness to interact it must have material substance.

Consciousness may interact if it is also comprised of matter OR if nothing is comprised of matter. Then matter, like time is a human creation.

How can something without substance interact with something with substance? An alternating electric field (radio waves) interacts with an antenna to generate electric current that is received by a radio.

We don't know much about the nature of consciousness, so to say that it's not possible for it to interact with matter is a bit premature. For one thing, we do know that matter (our brains) generates consciousness. So there is a causal connection there. We just don't know what it is. That's called the "easy problem of consciousness."

The easy problem isn't really easy, but it's not the hard problem, which is "why?"

Why should it be that there is something that it is like to be me? That's an exact statement of the hard problem of consciousness.

The answer to your question above also depends a bit on how we define "touch." I was defining it as our skin coming in contact with a material object and our nervous system sensing it. If someone appeals to me in a way that changes my view or behavior, I might also say I was "touched" by that person, even if no physical contact was made.

Rick, with your self-styled form of insults you have shown yourself to be the showman (= immature scientist?) I always hoped you were not. Of course we never touch matter. In the context of everyday events, how can electrons touch electrons? And what are electrons anyway? You don't know, but intelligent and visionary particle physicists know that they are not matter. You and I should agree to bury the hatchet as I find the upmanship approach inappropriate for our years. Let's start anew, including this particular discussion.

I am no expert on consciousness or dreams, but aren't you conscious of events within your dreams? Or else, who is watching/experiencing them?

Yes, dreams are consciousness. Unconscious sleep is not. I thought I had made that distinction.

I had actually thought you were kidding with your statement as to the impossibility of touching, in which case the ad hominem would not apply. I therefore did not expect you would take offense from it. But it was reckless of me to let even the appearance of ridicule slip in there.

The word "touch" does not apply in particle physics, rather the word "interact" is applicable. When we (at the macro scale) touch something, we feel the electronic interactions. I stand by my earlier statements as to the reality of touch.

I accept your offer to start anew. Fresh starts can be good at our advanced ages.

Hmm, Electrons interacting, prehaps the transfer of energy from one electron to another can be considered interaction?

Consciousness is very difficult to define, as is reality. When you dream, you believe that is reality, the only time you do not is when you are lucid dreaming. What about a "Matrix" style of reality? So many possibilities exist Rick, I wonder if we will ever truely know the nature of reality and consciousness. But I suppose we will always have our opinions right?

"How can something without substance interact with something with substance? An alternating electric field (radio waves) interacts with an antenna to generate electric current that is received by a radio."

Both have substance Rick, think of this scientifically before you start sounding religious. You cannot see the electrons but they are there, the radio waves exist, we just simply cannot percieve it with our visual sense. That is not formless interacting with formed, the radio waves have form and so does the antenna, Quantum Physics makes this easy to see.

Cedant arma togae.But then resumes as we enter REM? Physiological measurements suggest a lot is going on. Perhaps we do not remember. My life in my dreams has gone beyond what I could ever do in waking life - and that's only the bits I remember! But this would not be sleep, as, even though temperature drops during sleep it does not drop to the levels in hibernation. Freezing is quite different. Most of this is to do with lower temperatures affecting metabolism, with concomitant changes (reduction) of metabolic/physiological events, such as neuronal excitation and thus brain activity.

I think the most important thing about dreams is when we are dreaming, we believe it is real, only when we wake up do we stop believing it is reality.

This should at the very least, give us some insights into our own reality.

What about daydreams? Or are these just distracted thought?