(September 27, 2014 at 12:47 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 27, 2014 at 12:44 am)psychoslice Wrote: The ocean is the wave, the mind separates it. no mind, then there is just the ocean, no mind, then there is no separation.

The ocean as in the Cosmos? The wave as in the self? And the mind as...what exactly? You have me confused in your gibberish.

The mind cannot get it, so I'm sorry I cannot tell you anymore than that.

(September 27, 2014 at 1:00 am)psychoslice Wrote:

(September 27, 2014 at 12:47 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The ocean as in the Cosmos? The wave as in the self? And the mind as...what exactly? You have me confused in your gibberish.

The mind cannot get it, so I'm sorry I cannot tell you anymore than that.

WTF are you guys talking about?

(September 27, 2014 at 12:57 am)Hezekiah Wrote:

(September 27, 2014 at 12:37 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Of course we're not separate from the Cosmos, but myself and the Cosmos are not synonymous and have very distinct definitions and qualities. I am a "wave in the ocean," so to speak, but the ocean is not in the wave in a sense that suggests contingency, and I am not using ocean analogously for "One Consciousness," whatever that is even supposed to mean.

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that what psychoslice is suggesting with idea of "One Consciousness" is mankind as a whole, being aware (aka not dead).

I see what you mean though, the ocean is not synonomous with the waves. We as individuals don't make up the collective consciousness of every human being that is alive at this very moment.

As far as us being our bodies, obviously our bodies are contingent on the properties of the unvierse we live in. But when someone dies, their body is left behind, still bound by the laws of gravity and of the universe, but the person is no longer the person who was alive. A dead person is no longer conscious, so where did that consciousness go?

We were never really born and we cannot really die, the mind body organism dies and is born, but we are not the mind body organism. When I say we, I mean we as one, so its not really plural, even to say that we are one isn't correct, for that makes it sound like there is more than one. Like our lungs, they don't really just stop in our bodies, they extend outward, they are one with the tree's where the oxygen comes from, the tree's are one with the sun where they get their sunlight to be able to produce oxygen, and so it goes on and on right back to the so called beginning, or the big bang, yes its all One.

(September 27, 2014 at 12:44 am)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 26, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Hezekiah Wrote: Lately I've been fascinated with the idea of consciousness. I've been reading a bit on quantum physics, and have come to the idea that the conscious state of mind is completely seperate from the brain.

In other words:

1) I feel as though I am not my body. For instance, if I cut my own hand off, my hand is no longer me, I'm still in the larger portion of my own body (of course I know that's mainly because my brain is still communicating with the rest of my body).

Well, if you cut off part of the brain, you could have a completely different personality.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/prof...nge-part-i
This suggest that the mind and the brain are heavily intertwined.

Quote:2) It takes the brain roughly 80 milliseconds to process new stimulus, including getting that information to the brain via the nervous system. Which introduces the idea that time may not exist if it is all according to how fast the brain can process whats going on.

I'm sorry but time not existing is just rubbish. A friend of mine was in a car accident several years back. He didn't wear his seatbelt and was thrown out of the side window. In that 80 milliseconds, his brain didn't process the collision until he was in midair. If time didn't exist, then how did went from car to air, teleported? Plus, other people who witnessed the accident did see him fly through the air.

FYI, my friend perfectly fine.

Quote:3) Finally, there are all types of optical, tactile and auditory illusions that can play tricks on the brain. We can only perceive our world through our senses, even certain animals can percieve colors invisible to the naked eye. Which, too me, all says that the brain is a magnificent instrument, but is not perfect. And instruments aren't autonomous.

I completely agree with you that the brain is magnificent, but it is not perfect. I disagree with you that the brain is an instrument. This presupposes that something else is using the brain.

I am curious on how you came to this conclusion from quantum physics.

First off, really glad you're friends ok. You had me worried for a minute haha.

Secondly, I agree with your first point and acknowledge that the brain and mind are indeed heavily interwined.

Third, on the topic of "time not existing": I agree, I don't think your friend teleported, time still carried on "normally", if you will, because there were people alive percieving time accurately. But what I'm suggesting is if it takes billions of years for the universe to fall into this exact moment as you read this. Those billions of years happened without anyone to percieve a second of them. In that since, our lifetimes are less than specs on that spectrum of time. And on the spectrum of several billion years we percieve the universe incredibly fast at an amazing rate of information because of our brains. Time, as we know it in seconds, minutes, days, years, etc., is practically non-existent on this spectrum as well. The idea of time not existing because of this effect seems to pop into my head.

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”- Albert Einstein

(September 27, 2014 at 1:14 am)Hezekiah Wrote: Third, on the topic of "time not existing": I agree, I don't think your friend teleported, time still carried on "normally", if you will, because there were people alive percieving time accurately. But what I'm suggesting is if it takes billions of years for the universe to fall into this exact moment as you read this. Those billions of years happened without anyone to percieve a second of them. In that since, our lifetimes are less than specs on that spectrum of time. And on the spectrum of several billion years we percieve the universe incredibly fast at an amazing rate of information because of our brains. Time, as we know it in seconds, minutes, days, years, etc., is practically non-existent on this spectrum as well. The idea of time not existing because of this effect seems to pop into my head.

First off, I don't know what you mean by "we percieve the universe incredibly fast."

Second, the small percentage of our lifetime we exist compared to all the billion of years the universe existed doesn't make it zero. Non-existence would be 0.

---

(September 27, 2014 at 1:11 am)psychoslice Wrote: We were never really born and we cannot really die, the mind body organism dies and is born, but we are not the mind body organism. When I say we, I mean we as one, so its not really plural, even to say that we are one isn't correct, for that makes it sound like there is more than one. Like our lungs, they don't really just stop in our bodies, they extend outward, they are one with the tree's where the oxygen comes from, the tree's are one with the sun where they get their sunlight to be able to produce oxygen, and so it goes on and on right back to the so called beginning, or the big bang, yes its all One.

Where are the arguments for these claims? I can make counter arguments for these claims. For example, our lungs do not extend outwards to trees. Our lungs are made out of cells, and non of our cells are make a connection to a tree.

(September 27, 2014 at 1:28 am)Surgenator Wrote:

(September 27, 2014 at 1:14 am)Hezekiah Wrote: Third, on the topic of "time not existing": I agree, I don't think your friend teleported, time still carried on "normally", if you will, because there were people alive percieving time accurately. But what I'm suggesting is if it takes billions of years for the universe to fall into this exact moment as you read this. Those billions of years happened without anyone to percieve a second of them. In that since, our lifetimes are less than specs on that spectrum of time. And on the spectrum of several billion years we percieve the universe incredibly fast at an amazing rate of information because of our brains. Time, as we know it in seconds, minutes, days, years, etc., is practically non-existent on this spectrum as well. The idea of time not existing because of this effect seems to pop into my head.

First off, I don't know what you mean by "we percieve the universe incredibly fast."

Second, the small percentage of our lifetime we exist compared to all the billion of years the universe existed doesn't make it zero. Non-existence would be 0.

My apologies, by "we percieve the universe incredibly fast" I simply meant that we are consciously aware of time at a certain rate, and that rate is "faster" than the length of time it took the universe to fall into place. The flip side would be that we percieve it incredibly slow because we are witnessing things moving slower now than how fast they'd move if you fast forward through those billions of years in five minutes. (If I further confused you, I'm sorry, it's not an important point to make)

Also, I agree any fixed number into a billion it wouldn't be zero. But any fixed number into infinity becomes zero. And its that effect that is responsible for why I would think of it as zero.
In other words, the fact that we discovered space, a system that runs on a timeline greater than our own, makes me wonder if there's another system that our universe, as we understand it, works under. One whose timeline is on an even grander scale. Then what holds that system, and so on and so on.
If that's too "out-there" what about the fact that if life was suddenly wiped off the planet, the universe will continue to go on. And on. And on. And maybe the universe does "die", what happens to time after that? Does it continue to go on? If so you've got an infinity there too.

What does the OP question have to do with atheism?

(September 27, 2014 at 2:07 am)bennyboy Wrote: What does the OP question have to do with atheism?

I assume atheist don't believe in an after-life. And the idea of consciousness being seperate of the body could suggest such notions, so I figured it would be a good discussion piece.

(September 27, 2014 at 1:47 am)Hezekiah Wrote: My apologies, by "we percieve the universe incredibly fast" I simply meant that we are consciously aware of time at a certain rate, and that rate is "faster" than the length of time it took the universe to fall into place. The flip side would be that we percieve it incredibly slow because we are witnessing things moving slower now than how fast they'd move if you fast forward through those billions of years in five minutes. (If I further confused you, I'm sorry, it's not an important point to make)

I maybe understand what your saying. Are you suggesting that to percieve the universe as it is now, we have percieve it from its beginning to now? If this is what you claim, I have to disagree. There is nothing I'm aware of that suggest this.

Quote:Also, I agree any fixed number into a billion it wouldn't be zero. But rather its the effect that I would think of it as zero. In other words, the fact that we discovered space, a system that runs on a timeline greater than our own, makes me wonder if there's another system that our universe, as we understand it, works under. One whose timeline is on an even grander scale. Then what holds that system, and so on and so on.

Space's timeline and our timeline are not two different things. Space and us are in the same timeline. We are just born later and die earlier while space continues on existing.

Quote:If that's too "out-there" what about the fact that if life was suddenly wiped off the planet, the universe will continue to go on. And on. And on. And maybe the universe does "die", what happens to time after that? Does it continue to go on? If so you've got an infinity there too.

As far as I know, time will continue to exist to infinity.