--- In [email protected], "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: >> --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: >> >>> Xeno, >>> >>> It appears that Mlodinaw is just as confused as Hawking is about the >>> importance of consciousness in the field of quantum physics. Let me >>> present you a simple thought experiment: If you were the only sentient >>> being in a given universe, and you died, would the universe still exist? >>> The answer is NO. The universe will disappear to nothingness. Why? >>> Because you are the only person who is capable of conceiving the dimensions >>> of space and time. Without your presence, how is it possible for the >>> universe to exist? >>> >> According to Chopra, he and Mlodinaw have been communicating after the >> debate, and even seem to have become friends, but just what they have >> discussed subsequently is unknown to me. They appear to be planning debates. >> Mlodinaw clearly had, as of the debate I posted a link for, not really >> considered the *hard problem* of consciousness, that is, how can something >> at seems immaterial be found in conjunction with that which is material, the >> universe? >> >> It seems they have participated in conferences. >> http://www.saybrook.edu/node/7690 >> >> Your thought experiment is a great situation, but I do not see how the >> answer could be known. If, for example, the current physical view of the >> beginning of our universe is 'real', then there were no sentient beings >> then, but they evolved later on. If this reasoning is valid, then upon the >> death of the last sentient being, awareness of that universe would end, but >> the universe would not end. If I were that being, my universe and perception >> of it would end. Maybe this is not the right question. If you were to die, >> your world would end, but mine would not, if I remained living. The question >> I have for myself is, if the most abstract value of existence is called >> 'being', is this value conscious or not? If it is not conscious, does it >> have the possibility of becoming conscious, and how would that happen? This >> has to do with whether the basic value of existence is dualistic or not. >> Another way to view this - if the most abstract value of existence is 'x', >> is it the seed value for unconsciousness *and* consciousness, or is it just >> consciousness, or is it just unconscious? Is it something neither conscious >> nor unconscious but the potential for both? This seems both a logical >> problem and a semantic problem. >> >> My own sense of this is the material universe and consciousness are >> identical, they are not separate entities, and that *being* is the potential >> for these. This would mean that spirituality and materialism are not in >> opposition and not distinct realms of experience. Therefore, you could >> explain the problem in either language (materialist or spiritual), but >> because of the bifurcating value of language and intellect, when you mix the >> two realms of thought you end up with logical impossibilities. This is >> because language of materialism connects with perceived entities and >> attempts to describe them, while *metaphysical* is essentially not >> descriptive of anything, but represents emotional states, and abstract >> states of experience in a kind of poetic way. When you listen to music >> (without words) the music seems only to represent itself, it does not depict >> the world. That is, we can use language to depict spiritual states but it is >> not factual like science depicts materialist states. If we use scientific >> language to describe consciousness, we will always come up with an >> evolutionary emergent property of matter when it is organised in a >> particular way. >> >> When we mix the two modes of language, it is like taking apples for oranges, >> but it does become apparent that as far as apples an oranges we can have the >> concept of fruit. We could image that a language that can encompass science >> and spiritual language would have to be something that neither currently can >> navigate separately or together. >> > > The fruit and music analogies are good and helpful. > > Do you recall the post number where you used the equations, x,y, and z to > prove nothingness >
No, I do not recall the post number, but I can look it up and the answer is: #310242
