True to an extent, we currently do not understand consciousness. All I am saying is that with time, we probably will. Algorithms that display the halting problem have certain distinct results.

Also, I was not responding to the quote about consciousness that you posted, it was this one.



See that one word bolded, underlined, italicized, and with stars around it? My point is, you cannot say that word, and expect anyone to take it seriously. Why? Well because you simply do not know.

I got that from the rest of the thread, which is why I posted it the way it was written. I do believe we will never understand it, as I outlined in the post. To be more clear, using the instrument of understanding to understand itself appears to me to be an unsolvable paradox. This goes beyond every other form of understanding, for other forms of understanding employ tools (including our senses) outwardly, into the world of mass and objects, to arrive at quantifiable and illustrative descriptions of things that exist (theoretically ) beyond ourselves. Asserting that the same tools may be used to examine the inner world seems to me counter-intuitive and paradoxical.

A hammer can drive a nail, pull a nail out of concrete, make a house, make a city, make a civilization and can kill a person, but a hammer cannot make a hammer. Silly analogy, perhaps, but I thought my first one was demonstrative - clearly not!

And, yes, we cannot know. I agree. Which is my point. So we are in agreement that there are things we cannot know. Where we disagree is the timeframe. I AM going out on a limb saying we will never fully understand consciousness, but the assertion that we will, or may, is a more precarious and fragile limb to be on. Oftentimes closing a door with a word like "never" can limit and blind; other times, eschewing its use can give a false sense of openness and further occlude the mystery of our existence. NEVER is a powerful word, and in this instance, I employ it with full thrust. And fully recognize the contentious nature of my stance!!

JBArk

BTW, sorry for continuing the derailment of this thread. I would be remiss if I did not at least say that I fully enjoyed the OP, although I disagree with many of its premises. Interesting and creative, particularly the description of the 11 dimensions!!

The problem here is that we attribute so much to consciousness. We romance the idea that it is something marvelous, beautiful, and mysterious (It is, but y'all know what I am refering to). We may find out in the future, that if you combine such and such chemicals in such and such environments that consciousness will be born. We then might find out a manner of observing the subjective conscious experience.

We also might never do any of the above.

I'm not against the idea of never being able to understand consciousness, I'm against the idea that we're saying never at this point. None of us know, gibran2 said ignorance opens us up to more learning (In more/less eloquent words, I do not want to go get the quote right now). Why do y'all have such a hard time saying that you are ignorant of the future? Why attach a word like 'never' to a concept that none of us even understand?

There will never, NEVER, never, never, NEVER be a scientific explanation that is sufficient to prove that anyone has subjective conscious experience.

This is due to the nature of subjective experience itself. Because we can only experience reality from a subjective point of view, there are certain things that we can’t ever be sure about.

For example, although distasteful, solipsism may be true: you – Skizm – may be the only conscious entity in existence. Everything else may be a dream or an illusion. There is no way to know for sure.

Existence as science approaches it (as science must approach it) is a closed system. As a result, science cannot address anything outside of the system, since science itself is contained within the system. Yet reality may not be closed. Here are a few things that science can’t ever prove or disprove, because they would exist outside the closed system:

----- Existence as we know it is a computer simulation (think Matrix) and “reality” is unlike anything we can experience or know.

----- Similar to the above, existence is a virtual reality “game”, and what you experience as your consciousness is actually the consciousness of a “player” of the game.

----- A being of some sort is dreaming, and in it’s dream it has become a human being called “Skizm”.

----- There is a singular consciousness, and that singular consciousness has “thought” our existence into being, and all conscious beings are simply thoughts of this singular consciousness.

Use your imagination, and I’m sure you can come up with many other scenarios about which science must remain silent.

There is that word never again. I have no problem with science never understanding something. That was never my qualm (It might have been, but I've thought about this a lot ), my qualm is the word never. Only because you do not know, you're under-estimating human ingenuity. To cave-men, the idea of electricity was beyond their comprehension. Fast forward several hundred thousand years and look at what we have accomplished. If we are still around in several million years, IMAGINE what we will have discovered and created. We might have technology or methods to study a human's subjective observation of reality.

All I am saying, is that none of us know. We can say it is not likely, but we can never say never.

Sometimes “never” is entirely appropriate. A logical tautology will NEVER be false. Using our conventional arithmetic, 1 + 1 will NEVER equal 3. Someone within a closed system will NEVER be able to say something with certainty about what lies outside the system.

It has nothing to do with intelligence, evolution, cognitive capacity, or human ingenuity. There are some things we can’t know, but there are other things that, by definition, we can and do know. We know with absolute certainty that what lies beyond any closed system cannot be known by something within the closed system.

I stand corrected, never is occasionally acceptable, yet this is not a time for it. The probability that there are things we will never understand does exist. Yet the certainty that there are things we will never understand does not.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. You can’t know about things that are impossible to know about. It is not possible to know about what lies outside of any closed system of which you are a part.

I’ll take the simplest and most obvious example: As a living human being, you can’t know about what, if anything, happens to your subjective conscious experience after death. Ever.

All we have accomplished in the line of fire (pun intended! ) is OUTSIDE of us. You are talking about another thing entirely - as Gibran2 so aptly puts it, you are asserting that, for the first time EVER, we will someday understand something beyond our closed system. And I see no mechanism, no aptitudes nor any potential approaches on our part to support such a claim. Furthermore, I really do believe it is beyond our capacities, by sheer definition.

YOU WILL NEVER SEE DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU WITHOUT TURNING YOUR HEAD. Nor will we ever be able to peer inside our heads and see more than the sum total of a series of circuits. This does not, in my world view, mean that that is all there is...

Our difference of opinion is a fundamental philosophical one. You are taking an epiphenomenalist point of view (which is of course a valid and heavily buttressed line of argument), and I, we, are not. Unless we (you OR us) experience a radical paradigm shift as a result of this thread, I am afraid we may just have to agree to disagree.

JBArk

Agreed. Although, with a little help from certain pharmacological agents I have been able to see behind me without turning my head

I just think that, given enough time, we can explain and understand anything.

If we can't possibly know what Reality is, then that means that everything could be possible (including understanding things that are seemingly "proved" to be unexplainable). No one can say that there is no way to prove that anyone has subjective conscious experience and AT THE SAME TIME say that we will never, never, never (whatever you want to put here) without falling into a serious logical contradiction.


basically what gibran2 is saying is: "We can't know* ANYTHING for certain, but I know* SOMETHING for certain."

*in logical scientific rational terms.


So:

1. If we can't know ANYTHING for certain, then we can't know ANYTHING for certain. So we can't use words like "never" and "always".

2. The visionary phenomena is not the halting problem. There is now way to prove that it is impossible to understand visionary phenomena.

3. Science is not limited. If a new scientific model appears and proves to be more functional, it is still Science. Science studies Nature and nothing is supernatural.

If I indeed had said that we can’t know ANYTHING for certain, then most of what you say would be reasonable. But I didn’t say that. Here’s what I did say:



I said there are “certain things” that we can’t ever be sure about. Somehow you translated that to “we can't know ANYTHING for certain”. Hmmm…

Then everything is only your opinion. And still, you can't say anything about reality or what can't happen because you are affected by your own subjective consciousness.

Also, I see you didn't address points 2 and 3.

I don't understand what you mean. Everything is only my opinion? How does that follow?

(And I'll edit this post to add a reponse to 2 and 3. Don't rush me! )

edit:



Regarding #2, you are correct. But I never said that it is impossible to understand visionary phenomena. I said that understanding visionary phenomena will be unlikely without a major paradigm shift in science.

Regarding #3: Science exists within a closed system and is therefore limited to studying and investigating existence within that system. Science is silent concerning the possibility of things outside of the closed system. In that sense it is limited.

Let’s take a simple example to illustrate:

Suppose reality as you experience it is in fact a computer simulation (like the Matrix, except no one is aware of “outside”). “You” in fact are a conscious entity of some sort, experiencing “reality” in the simulation. Science can tell you many things about your apparent reality. Science can describe reality as presented by the simulation. As science within the simulation advances, it will be able to tell you more and more about apparent reality.

But there are some things science can’t ever do: Science can’t prove or disprove that “reality” is a simulation. Science can’t say anything about the nature of reality outside the simulation. Not ever.

This doesn’t mean that the greater reality is “supernatural”. It just means that there is no access to it from within the simulation.

We can't know anything for certain because, as you correctly said, we are having a subjective experience. We are not "perfect".

Therefore, maybe the only thing we can know is that we are are having a subjective experience. (I don't really believe that, though)


So if we are not "perfect" then how is it possible that we use absolute perfect terms like "Always" and "Never".

If we are not "perfect" (because we are having a subjective experience) we could be wrong about ANYTHING, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.


In other words... if we "only know that we don't know", then we don't know.


On the other hand, if we "know that we can know some things, and know that we can't know some things" we must prove them.


Your arguments are not proving that no one will ever understand visionary phenomena.

Thanks. I agree.


My whole point since the beginning of this thread has been this.

I believe that there are some things that Science will probably never know, but I'm not sure visionary phenomena is one of them.

Yes! You are finally getting it!

The only thing we can know is “real” is that something has subjective conscious experiences (we generally call that something “self”). However, this doesn’t prevent us from examining those experiences and discerning patterns and structure within them.

We can then compare patterns and structures and define terms like “true” and “false”. We can describe the patterns and structures and generate “rules” and “laws” and “theories”. We can predict what patterns may occur in the “future”, and deduce what patterns may have occurred in the “past”. This is science.

Science describes the patterns and structures of subjective conscious experiences. But science doesn’t, and can’t, say anything about what is real.

High Folks,

Wow, what a heady discussion!!! The whole thing is starting to resemble a Zen koan, like; "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Or something along those lines? From my windowsill, it looks like Science is trying to craft a logical formula to catch something that is outside of it's capacity to grasp? Like Ouroboros devouring his/her own tail? Frankly, after three pages, my mind is tied in a knot! Or at least, it appears to be tied in a knot, to the illusory sense of self, which I perceive myself to be. Who am I?

I certainly can't speak for gibran2 (nor does he/she need anyone to do so) but I agree with much of his/her ideas. I have discovered, that without learned behavior and the accumulation of subjectivity... no reference point can be found that has any degree of certainty, let alone REALITY. True enough? Therefore, no real lines of boundary or differentiation. Without a witness to the phenomenon, there is nothing happening (which can truly be discerned as real). A fixed point of ego consciousness can be temporarily dissipated, thank God for psychedelics!!! Thus, allowing for a perception of the Void. So, obviously, consciousness still exists without definitive parameters or fixed solidity of perspective. Strip away everything else and consciousness still exists, yearning for awareness. awareness of... EVERYTHING. Or everything that is perceivable as having being and substance. It has often been described, that the Creator brought the universe into being, as an effort to see himself/herself. Obviously an anthropomorphic projection of Humanity but there is something of the truth in its implications. Existence, ITSELF, is searching for itself (within itself). Again, the paradox of it all, eh?

If I may join gibran2 on such philosophical thin-ice, I would choose to utilize the term "never". Especially in terms of a God Theory or any human formula to encapsulate Infinity within a rational, mathematical equation. The level of an undifferentiated frequency of indivisible (GOD) consciousness, is not perceivable through subjective analysis, rather... can be experienced through conscious merging and ego-death, alone. Now, this indivisibility can NEVER be proven or theorized about, with sentient mortal MIND, as the human brain, which processes data within individuated mind, is itself part of the very illusion that manifests self as finite awareness. Finite self (ego) cannot see Infinite Self, nor the reverse case scenario. Right? These polarities exist within the duality of individual perception and are illusory, at best.

I think Ram Das/ Richard Alpert said it best (and I heavily paraphrase), "You can't prove God exists with the human mind, as it is composed of subjective interpretations. Now, the concept of God is the polar opposite of the concept of individual self/ego. You can't prove the existence of a Divine level/frequency of consciousness BUT... you can BE such a state of consciousness, (as we all truly are)."

Or something rather similar to that? It's been 30 years and I haven't re-read any of the old materials for a stretch. And I also agree (whoever I am) that there is only ONE being, irregardless of the seeming appearance of the many (within the confines of a subjective reference of self-orientation). It's an unreachable goal, to seek to pin-point self, reality or eternity... with the human brain. Why? Because within the mirage of time-space-dimension, much will remain unknowable, as the mystery will exist with or without our awareness of it.

The simplest truth is this... that all we know for a certainty (or at least believe we know) is learned by our attachment to the symbolic meaning and solidity we accept as reality. Now, that state/frequency of absolute awareness, is the opposite of all that can be recognized or theorized about. In complete objectivity, the only reality is the Void. Except, we would not use the term "reality" for it has no meaning, without an isolated perspective to view it from. You know, an ego-orientation to project thoughts from. The funny thing I keep discovering, is that I am aware of something spiritual, undefinable and unbound (hidden within the play of light and shadow). And this is a paradox, which can "never" be bridged. Why? Again, because I do not really exist as a specific form or partial aspect of universal being. In my nothingness, I am everything. At rare moments of great inspiration... an infinity of limitless Light. I am trying to see myself in the emptiness of the indivisible ONENESS, yet, cannot locate any real self, with which to perceive THAT which is not myself. Sort of??? Oh, I give up! I will now sit quietly, with a big smile on my face. My face? Well... who am I? Whose face? My face? Your face? Our ONE face?

Peace, Love & Light... Rising Spirit

if you want a theory of everything this is a good place to start. I've gobbled up 4th+ dimensional books since i started DMT, these videos are exactly what is on the other side. its a pity more people dont follow these mathmatical facts.

This surfer dude living in a van figured it out. lol. Seriously, he's a physicist that lives in his van.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ple_Theory_of_Everything


Check out this vid(skip to 2:30)
http://www.youtube.com/w...f_70&feature=related