Right - your unconsciousness experience was an example of "Fastforward", a series on TV (evidently the screen writers learned about your experience)...where people have simultaneous experiences of blackouts in which they have precognitive dreams of some future date. Then they try to work their current lives into the future: some accepting the future as a "given" while others not accepting it and trying to change it in advance. Concerning the "intractable" nature of some paradoxes, I suspect that the simultaneous Unity/Diversity aspect of Brahman may be a genuine Paradox in which case it may difficult if not impossible to prove that PC (Pure Consciousness) plays a "role" in the universe (to use Scharf's term). It's obvious that Shakti plays a role. Nothing happens without Shakti; but if one says PC operates "here" in some occurrence "A"; then why not B, C, D,...all the whole ball of wax; and is this an equal application of role playing? The intractable nature of mathematics has been catalogued into dozens of types of indeterminat or unpredictable operations; chief among them, the HALTING question. Using a set of certain equations that may or may not have solutions, we use a computer to test possible solutions to each equation The results can be:
a. The computer solves the equation in a finite amount of time, although we cannot in any particular case predict that length of time in advance, or even if the equation can be solved. b. The computer can run for a very long length of time, again how long we don't know. c. The computer can run forever, never solving the equation. The problem with the equations is that we don't know (given a particular equation), which of the categories the computer's solution will be; but ironically, we do have a precise constant of the percentage of the pgs will HALT in finite time, vs run forever. Without going to Wiki, (I could be wrong about some of my details); but the constant is known as Gregory Chaitin's OMEGA - arguably the most "important" constant in the universe. Unfortunately, it can't be "used" for anything practical since we still don't know which pgms will halt and others run forever. The implication/idea is that Chaitin's OMEGA may apply to real world "programs"; although in math it can be only tested on a formal set of Diphantine equations. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Having read a bit more of Scharfs article I'm intruiged > > > by two things: Why do people think that because > > > consciousness hasn't been fully explained that it must > > > be some sort of fundamentally unknowable QP sort of > > > weird phenomenon rather than another mystery like so > > > many others that got explained eventually? > > > > I don't think they necessarily think that, actually. > > Clearly it's what they do believe, I wouldn't wonder why > they go on about it so if I hadn't read so much to this effect. > > > But have you ever read anything by David Chalmers on > > what he calls "the hard problem" of consciousness? > > I noticed that Scharf referenced Chalmers and not Dennett > in his argument. I've read many theories on the hard problem. > Some think it's not going to be expained ever. Which is weird > as it isn't like no other mystery has ever been solved. And > how can you know whether something is intractible or not? > It's like the TM argument that at a certain level the > universe disappears into a field of subjectivity so you can't > ever objectively know the fundamental level. I'm sure > we'll see about that. > > Others like Dan Dennett, think that the mystery of > consciousness will be explained by understanding the brain > better. Given the evidence of human ingenuity I'm with > Dennett and not the mystics. Happy to be proved wrong though. > > I'm convinced consciousness is generated in the brain > simply from my own experiences. I got knocked out once, > very nasty, fell off a large John Deere tractor going 20mph > and landed on my head. Lost four hours of my life, total blank > and had no memory of where or who I was when I woke up. The > funny thing is though, I wasn't just lying on the ground > out cold I was apparently walking around and picking fights > with people, which is most unlike me. So where was consciousness > then? How does that, and things like LSD which radically alter > consciousness, fit in with the idea that consciousness is somehow > seperate from the brain? If we need a certain degree of functioning > to maintain consciousness then why are the mystics so sure that > the whole thing *isn't* generated within the brain? > > The way we experience the world is an illusion. That's about > the only thing we know about it. The illusion is that there is an > "us" sitting in the middle of the mind looking at a stereoscopic > view of what's out there. We know that the brain *isn't* wired up > like that simply by looking at how it works, it creates this field > of perception to help us get around. For some reason it added an > observer which is obviously also dependent on healthy functioning. > > How much of a problem is it going to be? I have no idea. But then > I frequently have to sit down because I'm so astonished there is > anything here at all let alone a universe like this with things > in it capable of (perhaps) understanding it! Which is the most > amazing part of that? > > > > Before he became a reductionist, Francis Crick was > > deeply intrigued by the problem of consciousness. > > He told a story about trying to convey to a friend > > why it was such a difficult problem. She didn't see > > why it should be. > > > > He asked her how she envisioned her own consciousness. > > She said she imagined it was something like a little > > TV set in her head. > > > > "But who," he responded, "is watching it?" > > > > He says she then got the problem immediately. > > I get the problem just not the conclusions that perhaps make > more out of it than necessary. Simple fact is no-one knows. > > > > > It seems to me that as long as you're pursuing > > a linear cause-and-effect explanation, you're > > just going to have an infinite regress. Here I > > think MMY has nailed it, in terms of "self- > > reference." In effect, it's circular rather than > > linear; consciousness folds back on itself. > > Is there any evidence that it's more than a cause > and effect problem? > > > > Another way of looking at the problem is that if > > you're going to work with *observational* data > > about consciousness, what is it that's doing the > > observing? Consciousness is inextricably involved > > in the process of figuring out what consciousness > > is; you can't extract whatever you come up with > > from consciousness. > > Ah, but you won't need to extract it. Once the hard > problem is solved we'll just have a new model to get > to grips with. If awareness of qualia are caused by > the sheer size of neuron connections then we'll be able > to accept that the idea of an "us" is just that, an idea. > > > > > Why does Hagelins GUT have to have something to do > > > with this mysterious level of consciousness when > > > others don't? > > > > I took a stab at this in my previous post; it seems > > that, according to Scharf, at least, it doesn't. It's > > entirely preliminary. > > But used as justification for MMYs unified field theory > of the mind and all manner of nonsense. And he hasn't > finished Einsteins work. I was a bit amused by Scharfs > appraisal of Hagelins career, reading it you'd think he > was one of 20th century sciences great heroes. My over- > riding memory is of him trying to justify yogic flying > using quantum probability equations. Flipped SU5 > might turn out to be important but the other 90% is BS. > > In fact, all I've ever heard is MMY and JH using QP > theories to justify their brand of mysticism. I was > offered a set of JH lectures recently but I turned it > down. Why oh why! They would come in extremely useful > here, but I saw two of them and thought they were so awful > I didn't want to give them houseroom. Just ranting about > how all mysteries have been solved by Marshy's ideas and > then more ranting involving loosely or unconnected theories, > don't know anyoe who enjoyed watching them. >
