The Theory of Mindlessness - A polemic

Post Reply New Topic

It is impossible ultimately that something comes from nothing so the universe did not originate but is in the constant of creation.

Well yes there is an approach such as the one you are trying to develop. . I know that feeling very well , there has to be something, one unified model where the whole beautiful puzzle clicks together. And knowing it exists drives us crazy.
I doesn't drive me crazy anymore becuse I've more or less fitted the pieces , what I haven't time for I just accept.

Hmm I'm not sure you want to go here,

Edgar mitchel went here and he didn't come back Egdar Mitchell.

Steven Hameroff went 'out there' in his mind and he came back the same as Mitchell.

I think guys like this experienced different aspects of the same thing. It's cognitive deep space, actual or the representation of it in the mind which has the same effect.

Answers the question ,but you can't communicate the answer, and that drives you just as crazy as not knowing the answer
or even being able to formulate the questions to approach it. Now imagine adding that to AS .
If you really want to ,google Hameroff/ Penrose - they have a hard science model - and don't get hung up on microtubles- the critics used the wrong measurement of the gaps . I think this is pretty strong contender in the hard science model you are trying to develop. Everything else could be theoretically fitted around and into this.

Personally I wouldn't bother , If wanted to understand I stick to 'softer' stuff like Howard Becker, and all those guys, but if you want to go into cognitive deep space , please don't get mad at me when you come back if I don't understand what you are trying to tell me straight away. Yep there is a model of human consciousness that can be represented in a variety of different ways that all simultaneously make sense.- I got one model, you'll come back with another. That how it goes.


Meme.

Guy's I'm off to bed-

One bone to chew over- according to Stephen Hawkin-"nothing is a very unstable state" - its dynamic appraently, somehow,

Now how on earth can that be?

It doesn't matter then because as long as it is a unified reason then it makes enough sense to me. You did give one explanation here right?

Well I wouldn't say that any physicist has ever been completely right. Einstein doubted the existence of black holes you know.

Night

This is the theory based on common sense reality summed up.

1. Origination complex.

a.) Comparatively so as the mind perceived the Earth more so flat then a sphere it was once known as flat with mountain bumps.

b.) The mind too is stuck in a bubble. This mind originated and then there was sudden sound(s).

c.) The mind confuses all of matter as having similarly originated from the nothing before awareness to that of consciousnesses.

d.) Mind projects universe origins as similar as the mind simply.

2.) Something From Nothing.

a.) A something must come from something else.

b.) Something cannot come from nothing even if that something mind does not comprehend from it's sphere.

I am a wise butt

I think humans are screwd on understanding this one intuitively. For us to think of nothing is no existence , death prebirth, Nothing is not the same as this state.

Anyway I am going to work - if anyone is around later on and wants to go on the pre-language/symbolism journey and ask the question if a lot of theory like that of Wittgenstein/TOM etc. leads us in one big circle back to the moment in our evolutionary history that our minds started chatting to themselves. Then if we have time , and I'm not boring everyone I would like to examine some of the theory about langauge and coevolution.

I don't know maybe I will get into social trouble if I explained my theory more.

Maybe just trouble will suffice.

Hmmm unforseen complication- I might have to go out and socialize tonight. Kids -pub etc.

So- I have written a playful Email which I propose to send to the Cambridge research team inviting them to send a couple of SBC's postgrads here and see if they can argue their case with us. The stick is they have
published in the Financial Times and we have the right to reply. The carrot is we are going to help them reslove some issues we have with their approaches (for flippin' free) and if they respond to our invite to come to WP we will not use our right to reply in the FT and make them look a bit silly in NT terms.


Please let me know what you think . Trouble can be constructive.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt168510.html

If you want them to come here then I have a strategy to increase those chances. And all without a vindictive spirit which I don't claim you have. Just I know a better strategy. If interested a few PM me and we will get started on the brief strategy for those better chances. In any potential debate I will not participate that much if at all. I will for sure observe it.

You are wrong. I wish you knew more science.

Even the statement something coming from thin air does not denote it came from nothing. Please prove in all of the world as it is now that a something ever comes from a nothing. Can you prove it? whereas credible science continues to denote something before it? It is my theory any theory deriving a universe came from a nothing is speaking simply about minds origination.

You don't have a clue what 'theory' means, you have no basis for having an opinion on this subject, and I invite you to learn enough science so that you can read up on the subject that you are spouting nonsense about.

This will take work and dedication, but it is something that you have to do for yourself.

Many on this forum could take a shot at explaining it to you, but you are not receptive and ready to learn about this. I won't waste my time trying. As I've told you before, while I think it important to call out your errors, I don't have any desire to converse or debate with you.

I'm learning to ignore the objection as a whole that you keep putting across because of the impatience. One could say however the universe never began in the absolute period and I'd be happy. Just if proposed a universe began from strictly a nothing then was I'd think people that believe like so are quite stuck in the idea like folks thought the earth was flat. It appears to be with some bumps but after-all it's 3d and quite like circular.

Eh?