Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Consciousness

Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter

A "state-of-matter(soma)"? HMMM! For many, this is old news. Of course, as one of the three essential components, or TRI-pods, of life, it IS!

Now may I ask: Is not a "state of mind (psyche)" an essential component? I certainly believe that it IS.

And, what ought we to do about our, "state of SPIRIT (pneuma)"?

As the third pod, or component of life, is it not, theologically speaking, The most essential state of all?

In my opinion, it is The One that guides our physical and the mental states when, because of ignorance, our lack of Faith, Hope, Love, Courage, Wisdom and Will allows ourselves to get trapped in ignorance and chaos.

Again, in my opinion, it IS certainly what Paul had in mind well over 2000 years ago, See 1 Thess 5:23.
========================
ABOUT OPEN-MINDED & RATIONAL ATHEISTS/AGNOSTICS
By the way, for years I have been having an open and friendly dialogue with many of them, in the following thread:
========================
http://forums.about.com/discussions/Agno...26?nav=messages

Not sure I really want to join in any discussion that involves Max Tegmark, as one of his senior colleagues once said to him

Quote: "Max your crackpot papers are not helping you."

I think the whole discussion and Max Tegmark belongs in the "not quite science" section but if you must there is a more balanced writeup here

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blo...as-5e7ed624986d

I stick with the original janitor view as I am not hip enough for this new science

Quote: "For as long as the discipline has existed, physicists have been reluctant to discuss consciousness, considering it a topic for quacks and charlatans."

I can also guarantee you it is only spreading like wildfire thru a very specific crowd in the physics community

Personally Rev K I am with you, that you might as well invoke GOD at that point it makes more sense. Poor Max isn't even smart enough to work out that he just defined GOD in a different way, you immediately made the connection. It probably says volumes about your intelligence compared to poor old Max.

1)Is uncertainty a reflection of your consciousness, a state of mind or position in belief and understanding?
2)Do you see consciousness, state of mind and belief and understanding as the same thing?

Evidently not all those who practice science or physics as a religion are unified within a single viewpoint, experience or hold the same beliefs, nor do they think the same.

Is this a state of mind, or a reflection of the possibilities in that if the Universe is infinitely flexible or finite there must be a formula to derive final determination?

Out with the old and in with the new.

Similar to the introduction of the Papanicolaou test. Those who embraced it in the times that it was introduced were consicered quacks. Scientists as well as religionists are often resistent to change. This is a psychological stress rather than a condition relative to a particular belief or vocation.

For those many, it would appear then, that consciousness is still misunderstood, for knowing about something is still not the same as experiencing it.

If belief as a state of mind is an essential component, then it would stand to reason it will either hinder or enhance as a lens would either focus or obscure the potential of that which IS, into that which is experienced thru belief or state of mind.

Spirituality is the study of spirit. It in its essential reality is without the blemishes that belief projects upon its infinite potential. However with religion having its basis in original sin or the defects relegated within the filters of belief and limits of relative personalities and states of mind and consciousness, what one can see with limited senses is going to be... relative to opinion and what one experiences in any particular moment within the conditions of time and space as they exist.

You're placing blame for sin or any defects within life (in your opinion) on the condition of spirit.

Based on your idea that consciousness is a condition of matter then you are assuming these conditions are either a result of the spirit, or the condition of spirit as it is either perfect or imperfect based on whether its image (Man) is capable of altering it?

Based on the history of faith hope love, courage, wisdom and will, opinion is what led the masses thru religious wars, witch hunts, and division in beliefs and religious practice.


Pretty much says one has to have an experience of God, rather than just an opinion or idea.

Kinda like having sex. One can have an opinion without having experienced it, or explore it and have a completely different experience with it, as one could have an experience of spirit by exploring it rather than making an assumption its all messed up because you're having a bad day.

They are all the same thing to me a category of "stuff" that can not be measured or tested via science.


I care little what anyone thinks at all .. in GOD we trust the rest of you bring data

Science is not a democracy and it doesn't care what anyone thinks or for any sort of consensus or group agreement. Bill G might agree with you he likes his science consensus but it won't get you far with me. I don't blame Bill he obviously came thru a science education that taught science as an authority (they told him it was true) and he honestly believes that is how it works.

I come from a very different science world where if you want to convince or influence me show me a logical argument supported by facts. That is how my science world works and to those of my ilk, everything else is just noise and drivel. Appeal to authority and consensus and I will show you someone who obviously doesn't really understand what they are dealing with and is having to fake it.

If some scientists (and or layman) want to try to fall into the "stupid consensus hole" it is not for me to save them. Poor Max's problem is none of this garbage is falsifiable so it isn't science by definition and it doesn't matter how many he recruits in his new cult.

When Einstein first published his work on relativity there were probably under 100 people in the world who actually accepted and understood the concept. We still have scientists who don't accept the work and science doesn't care

Depending on your country the level of belief in evolution varies somewhere between 40% and 80%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

Again science doesn't care and no-one gets a vote, much as Paul would like one


Yep and that fine just don't call it science or pretend it is because it's a religion at that point

Enjoy your discussion as I said from a science point there isn't anything that can be discussed it's just other "stuff".

Yet without consciousness those same physicists would not be able to consider anything.

I'm not suggesting that consciousness is necessarily a subject that physicists might want to discuss; but to dismiss those who do study it as "quacks and charlatans" shows a degree of unreasonable prejudice unworthy of any intelligent person.

Right. I get that as the mindset for "scientests" that derive reality by all that can be seen heard, and felt by current states of awareness and the technology derived from such a state of mind. The "I don't care" about anything else is part and parcel to the "Janitorial" state of mind (maintaining whatever creative endeavors someone else has qualified and quantified) that you identified yourself with in the previous post.


Part of my reasoning in the above statement about the Janitorial point of view. Easier to cling to the mainstream dogma than to test, stretch, and evolve.
That wouldn't appear to be the definition of peer review which would substantiate a scientific discovery based on what or who science is.

I fail to see how anyone's point of view regarding the show me and I will believe (as you stated earlier in regards to your acceptance of reality), sets you or science apart from anyone subscribing to a belief system.

This world you claim to be privy to, is not so private or unique. It applies to the ego and it's need to validate reality with what can be understood. Anything outside the realm of validation with the human senses is virtually non existent to most. However the conundrum that exists within these claims as they pertain to science, is that the scientific man also claims to be a discoverer of things that were previously unknown and scientifically identified as not real. Go figure. Why would science pretend not to care, but then search for more than whatever is known within current historical and scientific belief?

I'd say by your own admission, that you are no scientist but rather, a troll. Just gotta say something about everything and pretend to be someone that someone cares to listen to even tho you say you don't care. If you really don't care why bother living breathing or coming here?


Right, until it's not.
The I'm just a janitor, go talk to someone who cares point of view?

Every piece of the puzzle wants to claim to be the authority of every other piece of the puzzle. That is the way the ego works. Instead of finding value in all things it's easier to claim sovereignty over the whole as the authority over someone else's idea of authority.
I get that. The need to be valued usually starts with a history of not being validated as important. So there is always competition for importance based on who or what you are in accord with the status quo.

Science and religion are both filled with those who rely on belief, in something.
You yourself cannot deny what you hold true within science or what you call science, because you yourself have not done every single science experiment to quantify your position as a scientist. Tho you might claim to be able to validate anything that has been scientifically derived thru scientific process, you wouldn't have the time to perform every scientific experiment that validates reality (or what's in it that you can validate with a logical argument) by yourself. In fact a scientific argument would indicate an opposing thought stream or point of view.
I suppose for arguments sake you could idealize a scenario where you could play all possible scenarios within your own mind, but I would like to hear you make that claim (for entertainment purposes) .
Would you attempt to take the "I don't care what anyone else says or thinks" attitude as the authority to what your outcomes were if there were only yourself to argue or discuss theory and practice?

You would have depend on others to accept what you say in order to validate yourself, simply because if there were no one to listen or hear what you had to say, there would be nothing to refer to in the understanding of yourself or what you do.
You reveal this when you use arguments such as:
To make a point in reference to your choice and opinion having validation, by referencing someone else's opinion.
Which is why you are participating and discussing it from a point of view defining who you are, by first defining science and a scientist?

From the above NEWLY advertized website promoting his divine presence (guess he burnt out wondercafe and wondercafe2)..



I like this guys comments: