Questioning Consciousness

[Sounder]

Thanks jakell, i was getting ahead of myself.

Yes objectifying live things abuses their being. But that is another symptom of materialism.

I used 'dead' casually as a metaphor, as in 'run their course'.

The other thoughts reflect on a book by Robert Sardello called Facing the World with Soul- The Reimagination of Modern Life

On pg. 112- 114 there is a short bio on Pascal, who had headaches his whole life because the bones at the top of his scull didn't close as a baby.

Robert uses that as a frame for some woolly, but maybe not so woolly speculations relating to finding the soul of the computer.

(Robert seems to hope for more activities of play as a means of allowing spirit to more readily work its magic on us.)

[jakell]

Actually, my description of scientific materialism as a tool is a little misleading, it's more of a lens on the world, an instrument, it's still not a live thing though. It's an instrument that only gives us useful information about the non-living world. (and peripheral or incomplete information about the rest).

There is a grey area though, where the living world interfaces with the non-living, an area that we possibly need to come at from both directions to find what works, and consciousness is probably one of these areas, especially if we are considering something like Hameroff's stuff where it is posited that we are tuning into something that is already there.

I think I baulked at your use of scientism alongside the phrase 'scientific materialism'. Scientism IMO is a questionable attitude to the latter, a reverence that is a little too dogmatic in nature to be called scientific and so actually is counter to its spirit. The latter tends to suffer from too close an association with the former.

On my previous forum, in looking askance at scientism, I described it as fundamentalist scientific materialism (and hence its adherents as fundamentalists) in order to highlight its religiosity, there were a few FSM's around at the time so this found its mark and the point was made, in this day and age there are usually quite a few to hand.
(ironically, the abbreviation coincides with that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I changed it to FuSiM)

[jakell]

I've just been viewing some of the latest output from the Electric Universe people. It's a talk by Wallace Thornhill with nothing much new in it but, disappointingly**, several times he alludes to notion that only material (obviously scientific in this case) that is readily understandable within our present physical framework is allowable.

This has been an underlying notion in a great deal of the more successful pseudoscience of the last decade, but usually is not expressed so starkly and readily finds a home amongst folk who like the appearance of stretching their minds, without any of the accompanying effort, time or discomfort (ie most of us). Something I linked pretty tenuously to consciousness earlier on:

Going back to Chalmers' exploration of how to broach a complex (and possibly controversial) issue in order to move past a logjam, I may adopt his phraseology, especially in reference to some of the stilted discussions here.

It's a given that we are naturally going to prefer our present frame of reference when looking at the world. the trouble with this is that, if we cleave too firmly to it, then we can look back over our mental development and wonder which state was the best... The 5yo, the 10yo, the youth, young adult etc etc.. ie, none can be seen as satisfactory, we can even project this into our future years.
The secret is not to cleave too firmly, but lightly.

Chalmers talks of 'the easy problem' and 'the hard problem', a division of something complex into something we feel comfortable with and something we don't. The 'easy problem' is understood by our present frame of reference, the hard one is where we have to make an extended effort, and which many may baulk at (probably producing all sorts of excuses). What is interesting here is, not so much how it is used as a conscious methodology, but how we do it unconsciously too....

I've regarded the Electric Universe people as the the pinnacle of pseudoscience over the last decade, the religious aspect is sort of played down under the cover of mythology. In my view they can now (temporarily?) take second place as bolder moves are being made under the banner of the Flat Earthers who don't mind giving Creationism a more central role.
Interestingly the two movements come from different directions. EU takes the relatively respectable Plasma Cosmology and then mythologises it whereas The Flat Earthers take a well known risible concept, not directly from the stable of religion, but of the same ilk, and then 'scientises' it. If one is starting from the religious end, there is no need to pick something respectable as a foundation, in fact it is sort of required to find something that needs a leap of faith.

** because each time he uses it as an convenient dismissal/avoidance of a direction of thought.

[jakell]

For an RI thread, there is a dearth of fascism mentions here (and antifascism, plus all the ghastly permutations created by the two)... until now. Ok, I'm really talking about antisemitism, but they all seem to come out of the wash in the same grey colour when given the antifa treatment.

This is leading on from my last post on personal frameworks and pseudoscience (and pseudoreligion), and here we have something from the same stable as the Electric Universe folks... a denunciation of Relativity saying that it was all plagiarised from earlier non-Jewish thinkers by Einstein who was aided in this by the Zionists.
This video is actually fairly watchable because, in the manner of EU/Flat-Earth type 'scepticism', it doesn't go too deeply into the actual science, it goes just deep enough to convince the casual viewer that it is scientific. Contrary to outward appearances, it actually doesn't question Einstein's work in much depth, just the political/ideological framework he was operating in, plus his personal integrity, and the wider intentions of world Jewry (the usual stuff in other words).

It does demonstrate how the EU/Flat-Earth method can also be used for ideological ends, although I do regard antisemitism to be more of a belief system. I've seen the same techniques used by Creationists to discredit Darwin, ie a shift away from his actual work into ad hominem territory, saying that he was just a plaguarist (or worse!).



He also denies the validity of Quantum Mechanics, very likely because of Jewish connections, but ostensibly because, as with his claims about Relativity, it is abstract and therefore not understandable in terms of familiar everyday things.. the yardstick of those who do not wish to alter their present framework. A preference often related to personal comfort, but here motivated by ideology.

[minime]

The first benefit is health. Ninety-nine per cent of us do not at all breathe properly. We do not inflate the lungs enough.... Regularity [of breath] will purify the body. It quiets the mind.... When you are peaceful, your breath is going on peacefully, [it is] rhythmic. If the breath is rhythmic, you must be peaceful. When the mind is disturbed, the breath is broken. If you can bring the breath into rhythm forcibly by practice, why can you not become peaceful?

When you are disturbed, go into the room and close the door. Do not try to control the mind, but go on with rhythmic breathing for ten minutes. The heart will become peaceful. These are common sense benefits that come to everyone. The others belong to the Yogi....

Deep-breathing exercises [are only the first step]. There are about eighty-four [postures for] various exercises. Some [people] have taken up this breathing as the whole [pursuit] of life. They do not do anything without consulting the breath. They are all the time [observing] in which nostril there is more breath. When it is the right, [they] will do certain things, and when [it is] the left, they do other things. When [the breath is] flowing equally through both nostrils, they will worship.

When the breath is coming rhythmically through both nostrils, that is the time to control your mind. By means of the breath you can make the currents of the body move through any part of the body, just [at] will. Whenever [any] part of the body is ill, send the Prana to that part, all by the breath.

-Vivekananda

[Sounder]

Thanks minime.

Intellect fails us as the modern mind discounts more subtle impacts on our being.

Thanks for the reminder.

[jakell]

Thanks minime.

Intellect fails us as the modern mind discounts more subtle impacts on our being.

Thanks for the reminder.

Are you evoking some sort of Golden Age here? ..because they are ten a penny (fifteen if you include imagined future ones too)

[Sounder]

Are you evoking some sort of Golden Age here?

No jakell, I like life to be 'messy' and do not expect it to ever be otherwise.

That way, there is always room for improvement.

But tough luck for those who cannot see the value in improving ones connection to more subtle influences on the shaping of being.

[jakell]

Are you evoking some sort of Golden Age here?

No jakell, I like life to be 'messy' and do not expect it to ever be otherwise.

That way, there is always room for improvement.

But tough luck for those who cannot see the value in improving ones connection to more subtle influences on the shaping of being.

I'm not sure what 'improving one's connection to more subtle influences' means, or how you extracted it from minime's copypasta. I'm going to have a go at pinning it down though for the sake of people who might be reading this.

It seems to go back to the talk of the extent to which we filter the maelstrom of data we get from the outside world into something that is meaningful and digestible.. 'a survival mechanism' was one of the handles I used to grasp this.
The trouble is that, as we increase the scope of that filter to more and more subtle influences, the number of those influences (when we step away from our personal preferences) increases exponentially, and I mean exponentially. In other words, the focusing on some arbitrary subtleties completely puts some (many) of the other ones out of the picture, given that we accept the limitation of our minds at the time**.

Trying to link this to consciousness, as I keep doing in as many posts as I can. it is not increasing or improving anything, just shifting focus from one area to another, very likely an arbitrary one based on the present social or physical environment. Personally I would say that there is nothing wrong with the way our modern mind works relative to sometime in the past, it certainly manages to pull meanings out of stuff that is virtually non-existent (like copypasta existing in a virtual realm), stuff that makes 'subtle' look pretty solid in comparison.


** One can always imagine we have David Icke's 'infinite awareness', or even the singularity consciousness of the transhumanists, but even those are conveniently always just around the next corner (future Golden Age), and I'm choosing to focus on our present capabilities

[minime]

I'm not sure what 'improving one's connection to more subtle influences' means, or how you extracted it from minime's copypasta. I'm going to have a go at pinning it down though for the sake of people who might be reading this.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... index.html

Shortly after the Hubble Space Telescope was deployed in 1990, the observatory's primary mirror was discovered to have an aberration that affected the clarity of the telescope's early images. Fortunately, Hubble, orbiting 353 miles (569 km) above the surface of the Earth, was the first telescope designed to be visited in space by astronauts to perform repairs, replace parts, and update its technology with new instruments. Astronauts repaired Hubble in December 1993. Including that trip, there have been five astronaut servicing missions to Hubble.

This comparison image of the core of the galaxy M100 shows the dramatic improvement in Hubble Space Telescope's view of the universe after the first servicing mission in December 1993. The original view, taken a few days before the servicing mission, is on the left.

[chump]

999

The Nine Code


https://youtu.be/dXMbS0ladWQ

https://youtu.be/dXMbS0ladWQ

Nine is embedded in all our lives

360 degree circle ...

There are 360 degrees in a circle. Why? Is this arbitrary?

(The video goes on to illustrate the following):

360 degrees: (3+6+0=9)
180 degrees: (1+8+0=9)
90 degrees: (9+0=9)
45 degrees: (4+5=9}
22.5 degrees: (2+2+5=9}
11.25 degrees: (1+1+2+5=9)
5.625 degrees: (5+6+2+5=18) (1+8=9)
2.8125 degrees: (2+8+1+2+5=18)(1+8=9)
1.40635 degrees: (1+4+0+6+2+5=18)(1+8=9)

The resulting angle always reduces to 9.
Is there a divine code embedded in our number system?
Vortex Based Mathematics says, yes.
Let's examine the sum of the angles in regular polygons:

60x3=180 (1+8+0=9)
90x4=360 (3+6+0=9)
108x5=540 (5+4+0=9)
120x6=720 (7+2+0=9)
135x8=1080 (1+0+8+0=9)
140x9=1260 (1+2+6+0=9)
144x10=1440 (1+4+4+0=9)

Meaningless numerology. Or divine symmetry.

We observe that when we bisect a circle, the resulting angle always reduces to nine. Converging into a singularity.

Conversely, our polygons revealed exactly the opposite. Their vectors communicate an outward divergence.

The nine reveals a linear duality.

It is both the singularity and the vacuum. Nine models 'every'thing and 'no'thing simultaneously...

... The sum of all digits excluding nine is 36. 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=36 (3+6=9)

Paradoxically, Nine plus any digit returns the same digit. i.e. 9+5=14 (1+4=5)

So nine quite literally equals all the digits (36) and nothing(0).

---------------

https://youtu.be/dXMbS0ladWQ (con'd)

Vortex Math and the Flower of Life (Many examples are beautifully illustrated in the video):

Every vector is the sum of its three nearest neighbors.

Where is nine?

Everywhere: (1+8=9, 2+7=9, 3+6=9, 4+5=9)

Every axis adds to nine.

Can you see the tetrahedron?

There are two. And each adds to nine.

Merkaba...

Doubling model of our circuit:

1 (1)
2 (2)
4 (4)
8 (8)
16 (1+6=7)
32 (3+2=5)
64 (6+4=10=1)
128 (1+2+8=11+2)
256 (2+5+6=13=4)
512 (5+1+2=8)
1024 (1+0+2+4=7)
2048 (2+0+4+8=14=5)
4096 (4+0+9+6=19=10=1)
8192 (8+1+9+2=20=2)
16384 (1+6+3+8+4=22=4)
32768 (3+2+7+6+8=26=8)
65536 (6+5+5+3+6=25=7)

(124875 repeats) To infinity and beyond

It works in both directions:

1
.5
.25 (2+5=7)
.125 (1+2+5=8)
.0625 (0+6+2+5=13=4)
. 3125 (0+3+1+2+5=11=2)
.15625 (0+1+5+6+2+5=19=10=1)
.078125 (0+7+8+1+2+5=23=5)
.0390625 (0+3+9+0+6+2+5=25+7)
.01953125 (0+1+9+5+3+1+2+5=26=8)
.009765625 (0+0+9+7+6+5+6+2+5=40=4)
(1578421 repeats)


Let's examine polarity:

If we reduce the diameter of our orbs we can see which are attracted to each other and which are repelling each other.

Let's assign a (+) charge to "1".

Assuming like charges repel, 4,7,and 6 would also be (+), leaving 2,5,8,and 3 negatively charged.

Notice we've maintained our tetrahedron relationship, and every vector is in equilibrium with its neighbors i.e +4 is balanced with (-2)+(-8)+(-3), the sum of which is (-4).

Similiarly, every axis has balanced polarity i.e (+1, -8)(-2, +5) (+4, -5) +6, -3)

In vortex math, 3 and 6 have a unique polar relationship. They are not part of the rotating doubling circuit (1,2,4,8,7,5). They form their own doubling circuit on an axis.

3 doubled is 6
6 doubled is 12 (1+2=3)
12 (1+2) doubled is 24 (2+4=6)
(24 doubled is 48 (4+8=3), 48 doubled is 96 (9+6=6)...)
Do you see the 3 to 6 relationship?

The same is true for halving.

Half of 6 is 3
Half of 3 is 1.5 (1+5=6)
Half of 1.5 is .75 (7+5=12) (1+2=3)
(Half of .75 is .375 (3+7+5=15) (1+5=6)

The cycle is infinite in both directions. Just like our rotating doubling circuit.

Knowing this, let's induce alternating polarity into 3 and 5.

Is this model for subatomic vibration?


Nine in the Fibonacci Series:

1+2+3+5+8+13+21+34+55+89+144...

The First Twelve Fibonacci Numbers

144 is the square root of its location 12 squared=144, and the first in the series with a digital root of nine. (1+4+4=9).

Let's reduce all twelve. 1,1,2,3,5,8,4,3,7,1,8,9

Now let's find the next nine in the series...

233,377,610,987,1597, 2584,4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368,
Reduce these too: Exactly twelve numbers later: 4+6+3+6+8=27=9

Then add them (1,1,2,3,5,8,4,3,7,1,8,9 and 8,8,7,6,4,1,5,6,8,1,9) together - and they all equal 9!

1+8, 1+8, 2+7, 3+6, 4+4, 8+1, 4+5, 3+6, 7+2, 1+8, 8+1, 9+9(9+9=1+8=9)

Suffice to say another infinite pattern again emerges.

Vortex Based Bath reveals a higher dimensional symmetry.

------------------

(10:51 mark in video)

1440 minutes in a day adds up to 9.
86,400 seconds in a day adds up to 9.
10,080 minutes in a week adds up to 9.
525,600 minutes in a year adds up to 9
Minutes and seconds in a day, week month or year will always reduce to 9.
Totally unaffected by the varying number of days in months and years i.e "leap years", the result will always reduce to a digital root of nine.
The number 9 seems to govern time and space.

---------------------------------

The number 9 also seems to be existent and non-existent at the same time.
It cancels itself out.

Using the digital root method you cannot distinquish between a nine and a zero...

... If we add up the digits of a number until there is only one number left, we have found what is called the "digital root" and used by the ancients called numerolgy and used as a shortcut for solving certain math equations by organizing numbers.

In other words, the sum of the digits of a number is called its digital root:

458=4+5+8=17=8
3954=3+9+5+4=21=3

But here's the trick. It's called "casting out nines". The important property to keep in mind aout digit sums is that you can remove any nines or any combination of numbers that add up to nine while you are summing up your numbers. Let's go back to our previous example.

3954=3+9+5+4. You can arrive at the sum faster if you drop the "9" and the "5+4" that adds up to "9" and get the sum of "3" directly.

In other words, nines and any combination of numbers that add up to nine, they just disappear. You can treat them as zeros and you'll arrive at the same result much faster. They magically disappear, just like right now. 3945=21= 3 is end result.

Numbers are alive and govern the universe and help create reality, form and symmetry. Numbers are the bots moving in and out of relaiuty alive and thinking, forming, giving thought to, creating events, ideas, amd they're always trying to get your attention. They themselves have power - "9" being the most powerful.

=====================

I found this to be a fascinating explanation of the relationship between geometrical shapes and musical tones that emerged from mathematics. At about 13 minutes the professor explains why even many musicians fail to understand this connection because musical grids, in which frequency is doubled for the next note, are now (apparently) derived from a "440" platform instead of the traditional "Factor 9" Grid built on "432".

https://youtu.be/SQRQEB67j2Y

https://youtu.be/SQRQEB67j2Y

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."
Albert Einstein

=====================


https://youtu.be/uENITui5_jU

----------------------


https://youtu.be/AS67HA4YMCs

---------------------


https://youtu.be/wvJAgrUBF4w

"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."
Nicola Tesla

---------------------


https://youtu.be/F95Oowfg4pA


The three pound universe.........discuss

[backtoiam]

[backtoiam]

https://youtu.be/O7x3LBWn-Ao

[backtoiam]

https://youtu.be/WkmPDOq2WfA

[SonicG]

Very interesting...Lots of interesting tidbits such as:

Many scientists have placed their hopes on big data, gleaned from new technologies that can record the buzzing of thousands of individual neurons, map their connections, and film the activity of entire brains in living animals. This hope is reflected in equally big budgets. In 2013, the troubled Human Brain Project nabbed $1.3 billion from the European Commission to try and build a simulation of the brain, while President Obama launched the BRAIN Initiative, an ambitious plan to develop new brain-imaging technologies.

Is inner space the new outer space??

Can Neuroscience Understand Donkey Kong, Let Alone a Brain?
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch ... in/485177/