18 replies to this topic

[Professor T]

Hi,
I would like to share this wonderful lecture on consciousness..

I watched this about 8 months ago and it changed my life and is why I am now so very interested in subjects like Meditation,
Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, and all things that I would have otherwise dismissed as rubbish new-age hippie talk brought on by bad chemicals.

I can Honestly say that I am not the same person I was after viewing this.

Is he right? Is Conciousness more fundamental than Space/Time/Matter??

I'm interested in hearing your views on this. And I hope you find it as enlightening as I did.  

[232]

I think he is onto something.  Only watched the short version, but I think I will be finding time to watch the full one when I can.
Whether or not he is right will quite likely never be proven, especially so if our viewpoint of the universe and 'life' never changes.
But it is definitely going in the right direction.

I'd imagine such talk would be considered 'ludicrous' in todays scientific community. But our understanding of the universe/life will never advance until people open their minds to things like this and beyond.

[Rlyeh]

Professortaylor, on 12 July 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Is he right? Is Conciousness more fundamental than Space/Time/Matter??

You can tell us next time you're unconscious.

[Rlyeh]

232, on 12 July 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

I think he is onto something.  Only watched the short version, but I think I will be finding time to watch the full one when I can.
Whether or not he is right will quite likely never be proven, especially so if our viewpoint of the universe and 'life' never changes.
But it is definitely going in the right direction.

I'd imagine such talk would be considered 'ludicrous' in todays scientific community. But our understanding of the universe/life will never advance until people open their minds to things like this and beyond.

Science is about supporting hypotheses and theories, not conveniently ignoring evidence when it contradicts magical thinking.

[232]

Rlyeh, on 12 July 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Science is about supporting hypotheses and theories, not conveniently ignoring evidence when it contradicts magical thinking.

That's nice. Never said anything that states otherwise. If anything my post reflects exactly what you said.

Just because one keeps an open mind, doesn't mean they are ignoring science. But such thinking doesn't work very well for starting arguments I suppose.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 12 July 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

Science is about supporting hypotheses and theories, not conveniently ignoring evidence when it contradicts magical thinking.

What evidence might that be?

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 12 July 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

What evidence might that be?

This isn't rocket science. What you do think refutes the idea conciousness more fundamental than space-time? Can you think of any instance when you weren't conscious?

BTW please don't make up your own definition of consciousness as you attempted in the other thread.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 13 July 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

This isn't rocket science. What you do think refutes the idea conciousness more fundamental than space-time? Can you think of any instance when you weren't conscious?

BTW please don't make up your own definition of consciousness as you attempted in the other thread.

No.

The definition of conciousness has been debated for a very long time. You don't get to be the one to define it....sorry. I know you want it it to be purely a medical definition divided between awake and not awake,  so you can continue in Rleyh world but many are going to disagree.  

Conciousness does not go away when you are asleep or altered it merely changes. Yes .... You are aware when you are asleep.

[lightly]

I've always liked the idea that ' consciousness ' preceded  physicality.    Not long ago the idea of an entirely different form of energy, like  dark energy, was unheard of.   This 'dark' energy (if it exists)  doesn't conform to any previous notion of energy.  So, what's so far out about another sort of energy that doesn't conform to our ordinary everyday interpretations of how energy should behave??   I think their is something more fundamental than the  "physics"  we now claim to partially understand.

Rlyeh, on 13 July 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:
This isn't rocket science. What you do think  refutes  the idea conciousness more fundamental than space-time?

  You are "refuting"  the idea.  Actually, repudiate would be more accurate,  It's not rocket science,  it's English

Edited by lightly, 13 July 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 13 July 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

No.

The definition of conciousness has been debated for a very long time. You don't get to be the one to define it....sorry. I know you want it it to be purely a medical definition divided between awake and not awake,  so you can continue in Rleyh world but many are going to disagree.  

Conciousness does not go away when you are asleep or altered it merely changes. Yes .... You are aware when you are asleep.

Can you look up the word unconscious? Are you capable of that?

I can't take you seriously when even after being corrected, you still repeat the same drivel. It's been pointed out to you once before sleep is not unconsciousness, so why are you still accusing me of saying it is? You and your straw men.

[Rlyeh]

lightly, on 13 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

You are "refuting"  the idea.  Actually, repudiate would be more accurate,  It's not rocket science,  it's English

No, refuted is correct. You might like the idea, but "like" is just convenience, it's neither evidence or science.

[lightly]

Rlyeh, on 13 July 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

No, refuted is correct. You might like the idea, but "like" is just convenience, it's neither evidence or science.

Uhhhh ya ..  that's why i said i like the idea.. and not  .. i can prove it.    ***

Edited by lightly, 13 July 2012 - 12:27 PM.

[constantine_337]

(start at 10mins)

[Professor T]

Quote

(start at 10mins)

I Actually found the first 10 minutes just as interesting. Thanks..
I liked the ideas presented, even the ones I dont fully understand or entirely agree with.

You know there seems to be an overall picture emerging from all these studies and theories on soul/conciousness but it's just so illusive.
It reminds me of a programming Job we once did with some computers/robots. We wanted to get the robots to display some information, but couldn't just program them to do it easily because the information just wasn't there to pick up on. Instead we had to basically write/create a program that took into account all physical robot actions and sensor knowledge to get the infomation needed.. Basically it was like circling the information with question after question and inputs and outputs and calculations to get an estimate of the truth, took forever.... Bah!

It's a bit of a shame science cant study the issue introspectively like that Man in the first 10 minutes of the program.

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Why do you present yourself in your avatar as a grey ? lol I'm serious.