Consciousness is the "fifth dimension".

[G.T.]

Time and spaced existed before man.
Homo sapiens have been in existence for about 300,000 years.
An individual's conscience is formed by their environment and culture.
Time and space exists before, during and after your individual conscience exists.

I was with you until the last clause of the last sentence. That assumes facts not in evidence because, even in neuroscience, the conscience is not yet fully understood.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Certainly, consciousness is the unique 'thing' the existence of which we cannot doubt.

Yes, but does it exist without material beings is the question.

Respectfully, it is suggested to be a 'wrong' question. Yes, the words can be constructed in such a way as to pose the question, but the resolution is impossible.

I argue that we can, but putting that aside, what do you believe. I’m not asking you to prove it. I am asking you for your belief. Do you believe that consciousness can exist without material beings.

"Belief" would be impossible to state. The closest I might come would be to say that any perceptual center, any 'sentient being', effectively imposes a state of "this/not this" on a universe that is a whole, an entirety that cannot be broken up. Yet, that is exactly what happens when perception comes along and has itself for a center and the rest of the universe for "being out there". The universe becomes pieces that the 'perceiver' identifies.
Even if or when the perceptual center takes itself for an element of the universe, only complete fusion with 'the all and everything' would collapse this 'superposition', and that would mean the consciousness was no longer aware of itself.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Wasn't god conscious before your beings existed?

Again, there is no way to tell, no way to prove one way or the other. This type of question is the trap of language; because we can ask it, we can be deceived into thinking it has validity.

 

[there4eyeM]

Time and spaced existed before man.
Homo sapiens have been in existence for about 300,000 years.
An individual's conscience is formed by their environment and culture.
Time and space exists before, during and after your individual conscience exists.

Now, this is conjecture. All our perceptions tell us it's probably true, but there is no way to prove it and, after all, it makes no difference. Something existing if nothing perceives it is a kind of absurd proposition.
All we can prove is that we are conscious.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Wasn't god conscious before your beings existed?

'God' would have to have been. We are leaving 'God' out of this as 'God' is something else we cannot establish.
The possibility that consciousness affects, and may even effect, the other dimensions is more what's on the table.

 

[Taz]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Wasn't god conscious before your beings existed?

'God' would have to have been. We are leaving 'God' out of this as 'God' is something else we cannot establish.
The possibility that consciousness affects, and may even effect, the other dimensions is more what's on the table.

Consciousness doesn't affect anything, it can simply perceive it to be there or not.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Wasn't god conscious before your beings existed?

'God' would have to have been. We are leaving 'God' out of this as 'God' is something else we cannot establish.
The possibility that consciousness affects, and may even effect, the other dimensions is more what's on the table.

Consciousness doesn't affect anything, it can simply perceive it to be there or not.

That is a widely held view. It is far from universally held.

 

[Taz]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Wasn't god conscious before your beings existed?

'God' would have to have been. We are leaving 'God' out of this as 'God' is something else we cannot establish.
The possibility that consciousness affects, and may even effect, the other dimensions is more what's on the table.

Consciousness doesn't affect anything, it can simply perceive it to be there or not.

That is a widely held view. It is far from universally held.

It's reality, doesn't matter what you believe. Show me some proof that says otherwise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Kind of an interesting take on the old "I think therefore I am" deal. If you can perceive the world around you, then you and the world exist. If you cannot perceive the world around you, do you even know if it exists?

And, another question..................is a child who is still in the womb, and therefore not capable of perceiving the world around them capable of being conscious, or, do they have to wait until after they are born to achieve that state?

 

[there4eyeM]

My opining about the consciousness of another would be a pitiful thing. Without knowing what "consciousness" is in the fullest sense, its limits as to presence is not in my ken.
Knowing one exists does not establish that what one perceives corresponds to anything that could be proven to be objective reality. It certainly would not oblige an objective reality to conform to one's interpretations.

 

[there4eyeM]

When the science of physics is observing that observation itself determines outcomes, we are confronted by this enormous question. Since observation is only conducted by a conscious being, what is the extent of the power to observe/determine?

 

[ding]

When the science of physics is observing that observation itself determines outcomes, we are confronted by this enormous question. Since observation is only conducted by a conscious being, what is the extent of the power to observe/determine?

If you are referring to the uncertainty principle particles are constantly being forced to choose.

You are applying a principle to an application which has no relevance.

The power of observation is fundamental to science. Science is the study of the order within nature to better understand the order of nature to make predictions about nature.

If it were as you say science would have no purpose because it would never be able to discover the order within nature.

So the answer to your question is the extent is far reaching. We have come a long way in our understanding of the order within nature.

 

[ding]

Certainly, consciousness is the unique 'thing' the existence of which we cannot doubt.

Yes, but does it exist without material beings is the question.

Respectfully, it is suggested to be a 'wrong' question. Yes, the words can be constructed in such a way as to pose the question, but the resolution is impossible.

Agreed.

Hey, what is your fundamental axiom?

There is no such thing as a wrong question.

Here's (another example) of why you're just hot air.

Of course, a right or wrong question depends on the goal of the conversation, and whether or not said question contributes to achieving said goal.

All you do is say dumb as shit tautological crap, like "bad behavior leads to bad outcomes" - - that's just saying "bad is bad"- and you wonder why you're a waste of time. Do you know why tautologies are vacuous? Because you're adding nothing by restating them.

There are no wrong questions because all questions are designed to gain understanding. You might as well be saying it is wrong to gain understanding. We ask questions to get information that we don’t know. If you don’t ask the question then you would be forced to make an assumption. Sometimes is is necessary to make assumptions but the goal shoul always be to try to limit assumptions. In this case I was seeking information about his belief so that I could better understand what he was trying to convey.

So there really is no such thing as a wrong question. There may be better questions but even in that regard one should not discourage questions as people do usually get to asking better questions as long as assholes don’t try to discourage people from asking questions.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, but does it exist without material beings is the question.

Respectfully, it is suggested to be a 'wrong' question. Yes, the words can be constructed in such a way as to pose the question, but the resolution is impossible.

Agreed.

Hey, what is your fundamental axiom?

There is no such thing as a wrong question.

Here's (another example) of why you're just hot air.

Of course, a right or wrong question depends on the goal of the conversation, and whether or not said question contributes to achieving said goal.

All you do is say dumb as shit tautological crap, like "bad behavior leads to bad outcomes" - - that's just saying "bad is bad"- and you wonder why you're a waste of time. Do you know why tautologies are vacuous? Because you're adding nothing by restating them.

There are no wrong questions because all questions are designed to gain understanding. You might as well be saying it is wrong to gain understanding. We ask questions to get information that we don’t know. If you don’t ask the question then you would be forced to make an assumption. Sometimes is is necessary to make assumptions but the goal shoul always be to try to limit assumptions. In this case I was seeking information about his belief so that I could better understand what he was trying to convey.

So there really is no such thing as a wrong question. There may be better questions but even in that regard one should not discourage questions as people do usually get to asking better questions as long as assholes don’t try to discourage people from asking questions.

bye, ding.

 

[ding]

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Certainly, consciousness is the unique 'thing' the existence of which we cannot doubt.

Yes, but does it exist without material beings is the question.

Respectfully, it is suggested to be a 'wrong' question. Yes, the words can be constructed in such a way as to pose the question, but the resolution is impossible.

I argue that we can, but putting that aside, what do you believe. I’m not asking you to prove it. I am asking you for your belief. Do you believe that consciousness can exist without material beings.

"Belief" would be impossible to state. The closest I might come would be to say that any perceptual center, any 'sentient being', effectively imposes a state of "this/not this" on a universe that is a whole, an entirety that cannot be broken up. Yet, that is exactly what happens when perception comes along and has itself for a center and the rest of the universe for "being out there". The universe becomes pieces that the 'perceiver' identifies.
Even if or when the perceptual center takes itself for an element of the universe, only complete fusion with 'the all and everything' would collapse this 'superposition', and that would mean the consciousness was no longer aware of itself.

No offense but that is horse shit. Of course you can have beliefs. In fact that is a fundamental starting point for science. We observe nature and make inferences. Those inferences are essentially beliefs that we then test. So while your belief may not be correct, you can still have them. Only time and observation can confirm if that belief is correct.

In fact, I believe you do have an opinion on whether or not you believe consciousness can exist without material beings. Furthermore I believe you believe it can but that is me making an assumption. Something that would be entirely unnecessary if you would just answer my simple question. Then we could move on to more weighty and better questions.

 

[ding]

My opining about the consciousness of another would be a pitiful thing. Without knowing what "consciousness" is in the fullest sense, its limits as to presence is not in my ken.
Knowing one exists does not establish that what one perceives corresponds to anything that could be proven to be objective reality. It certainly would not oblige an objective reality to conform to one's interpretations.

That would be true for other conscious beings that are not human. But you do have inside knowledge so to speak of human consciousness as you are human.

You may not be aware of what they perceive but you are aware that they have a consciousness similar to yours.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Remember quaaludes?

 

[ding]

If we take up/down, forward/backward, right/left and time as the four classic dimensions, consciousness can be considered as another. Without it, the others are meaningless, even arguably non-existent. Even reducing things to 'time/space', without awareness, the universe wouldn't matter. There would be nothing to notice that anything existed. To our manner of reasoning, it is almost as if consciousness exists in order to validate the universe.
This could be philosophical, it could be religious, but does not have necessarily to be either. It could be regarded as simply fundamental to reality.

Kind of an interesting take on the old "I think therefore I am" deal. If you can perceive the world around you, then you and the world exist. If you cannot perceive the world around you, do you even know if it exists?

And, another question..................is a child who is still in the womb, and therefore not capable of perceiving the world around them capable of being conscious, or, do they have to wait until after they are born to achieve that state?

Yes, but it is the consciousness that is appropriate for that stage of the human life cycle. At some point they are capable of sensing a threat as we can see them recoiling in ultrasound images in response to the instruments used for abortions.

 

[ding]

Remember quaaludes?

Yes. 714’s. Rorer.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are you assuming that consciousness exists in and of itself? That it exists independent of beings that know and create? That before there were conscious beings there was consciousness?

Certainly, consciousness is the unique 'thing' the existence of which we cannot doubt.

Yes, but does it exist without material beings is the question.

Respectfully, it is suggested to be a 'wrong' question. Yes, the words can be constructed in such a way as to pose the question, but the resolution is impossible.

I argue that we can, but putting that aside, what do you believe. I’m not asking you to prove it. I am asking you for your belief. Do you believe that consciousness can exist without material beings.

"Belief" would be impossible to state. The closest I might come would be to say that any perceptual center, any 'sentient being', effectively imposes a state of "this/not this" on a universe that is a whole, an entirety that cannot be broken up. Yet, that is exactly what happens when perception comes along and has itself for a center and the rest of the universe for "being out there". The universe becomes pieces that the 'perceiver' identifies.
Even if or when the perceptual center takes itself for an element of the universe, only complete fusion with 'the all and everything' would collapse this 'superposition', and that would mean the consciousness was no longer aware of itself.

In trying to avoid too many personal pronouns, the 'my' was left off before "belief". Of course people can have beliefs; that I took for obvious.
Also obvious is that there are certainly 'wrong' questions. They lead nowhere. They increase no knowledge. They frustrate and detour. They have no answer or, worse, infer false conclusions. Perhaps incorrect avoids the moral sense of 'wrong', but they are counter productive questions.