--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You are the one getting confused. Rishi, devata and chhandas > > > > > -observer, process of observation and observed. That is all > > > > > consciousness is. ELectrons are conscious, by that definition. > > > > > > > > Then scrap that definition as it confuses you, electrons > > > > are just negatively charged whirly things bound to the > > > > atomic nucleus they surround, there isn't any way they are > > > > aware which is what consciousness means. > > > > > > You are confusing "aware" with "self-aware". ANything that interacts with > > > other things, is, by the above definition, conscious. > > > > Good way of wriggling off the hook but we both know that isn't > > what Hagelin & co are talking about. And it was you who said > > consciousness guides evolution which is how we got started, > > big difference between interacting and guiding as the latter > > shows intelligence and intent and there aint none of that on > > display as we clearly both agree. > > > > > > > Hmmm? > > I was quoting Hagelin's own stuff. And, "intellect" at this fundatmental > level is the ability to note distinctions and NOTHING more. That is the > defining characteristic of consciousness and the first thing that manifests. > Or rather, consciousness manifests due to its ability to note distinctions. > THe first distinction being that it notes its own existence. > > Note that electrons don't note their own existence. It is only at the most > fundamental level that there is only one thing. > > > [...] > > Interesting ideas. Shame intuition can't be trusted on subjects > > like this and it seems like it could be testable, all you'd have > > to do is catch it out doing something non-random and the game > > would be up. > > The universe almost always behaves in a non-random way.
As we seem to be saying the same things, apart from the laguage used and emphasis on That's one of the main objections to quantum consciousness, that if it could act in such a way it would > > violate it's own ultra predictable behaviour. If it looks like > > it doesn't why speculate? Other than that it's fun of course. > > > > You're confusing consciousness with decision-making. This is a pointless conversation as the TMO makes all sorts of claims about consciousness that are easy to understand but it when pressed it turns out they don't mean anything! Why make big deal about the spiritual world and cosmic awareness if it turns out that you are saying the same thing as everyone else. I'm not going to phrase that as a question as the answer will most likely be another step back from what MMY originally meant by us experiencing the home of all the laws of nature. Which is what I'm disputing and you are agreeing with but using MMYs language. So let's forget it, at least until Hagelin says something stupid again. > > You do know there doesn't have to be a unified field? > > > > Most scientists are reductionists, but yes, science doesn't require that all > fields of inquiry converge towards a single TOE. > > > K, K?
