Philosophy of Mind: Shared or connected consciousness

[Beers]

Philosophy of Mind: Shared or Connected Consciousness

I will preface this post by saying that this is in no way a formal thesis nor is it for anything interesting like my Doctorate etc. It is merely a term paper for my Philosophy of Psychology class.

This class has given me the opportunity to research and write on a topic that has fascinated me as of late: The idea that our consciousness is not as individual an action as it appears. I believe that our minds are connected in some fashion. Furthermore I believe this connection or sharing between individuals is a result of evolution and is considerably more adequate for survival using the ideas of Darwinian evolution. I have yet to really write down and clarify much of what my paper will include but this is the foundation. I intend to rely a great deal on Darwin.

It seems to me that for an animal that relies so heavily on social living and even more on communication that some form of subconscious communication would develop. Not in the sense of Jung's collective subconsciousness where ideas are passed down through our DNA, but in a much more active, yet equally subtle way. I need some help defining my ideas a little better.

I like William James' idea that consciousness is not a substance or an existence but an action, like breathing or a heart beating. It is an action and therefore is essentially motion. The new ideas of WSM make my idea of shared consciousness possible. If thought is motion then it too could be transferred through a wave medium. Even if this was done at a very basic, primal level such as through emotion. Music is a wonderful example of this. Music seems to communicate the emotions of the player to the listener. Perhaps this is a physical transfer through waves as opposed to being created internally in the mind.

Like I said, I am only beginning to define my ideas and would greatly appreciate any ideas, both in favor and contrary to my own. also, I have found much research on the philosophical side of this idea but very little on the psychological side, so any references would be appreciated.

Beers

Note from Geoff: I tidied up posts a bit - added heading to try and make page better for search engines - read my comments on this in top section of forum. See;
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/about60.html

[Philippe]

Hi Beers,

I have read your post to try to grasp better your ideas but I am afraid I will have to pour some cold water on some of these.

What you are talking about is something that was extensively discussed in the 19th century when people still had this idea that "consciousness" was something related to the soul or some other ethereal stuff but definitively could not be connected to a body.

Then the 20th century arrived and we started making great progress first in understanding behavior then in linking it to physical and chemical phenomenons in the brain.

If you are interested by a very up-to-date and accessible book on the subject, I strongly recommend to read "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker. You will understand better how our brain is organized and why we think the way we do. It is a book you can find anywhere in the US and I think a must read. But sorry: you will find no waves in it.

The problem is that there is no need. Coincidences are just that. Our need to look for "patterns" and find them anywhere we look is a deep human characteristics evolved over time, not an unknown continum of waves. How do I know? Simple. In science a basic principle is to always look for the most simple explanation for any phenomenon. If we find simple ones based on what we already know then we can discard the more complex explanations. For this again, read the book of Steven Pinker. It was a bestseller when it came out and for good reasons.

Now the waves. Here you are making a confusion between WSM waves which are physical waves associated with (or in place of) sub-atomic particules and hypothetical waves which would/could transport information. To WSM waves you can associate "field" equations or gravity but not "information" in the sense you imply. In other word, your brain is not and cannot be aware of the waves simply because it exist at a much higher level of organization (molecular) than the "waves" we are talking about. As for the guy next to you, no more "waves" will come out of him than out of the chair he is sitting on. Simply because even though consciousness is adding a lot of value to what we are, it adds absolutely nothing to the matter we are made of... the source or the waves.

Best regards,
Philippe

[haselhurst]

Philosophy of Mind: Shared or Connected Consciousness

Hello Beers,

I found your comments on the mind very closely reflect my own. So I admit to being a bit disturbed by Philippe's reply.
Below are a few comments on your post. Then I will reply again to Philippe's comments.
Geoff

I will preface this post by saying that this is in no way a formal thesis nor is it for anything interesting like my Doctorate etc. It is merely a term paper for my Philosophy of Psychology class. This class has given me the opportunity to research and write on a topic that has fascinated me as of late: The idea that our consciousness is not as individual an action as it appears. I believe that our minds are connected in some fashion. Furthermore I believe this connection or sharing between individuals is a result of evolution and is considerably more adequate for survival using the ideas of Darwinian evolution. I have yet to really write down and clarify much of what my paper will include but this is the foundation. I intend to rely a great deal on Darwin.

Geoff - I completely agree. According to the Metaphysics of Space / Wave Structure of Matter it is an illusion to consider matter in the naive real way that we sense it - as something discrete and separate from Space. The WSM agrees with Einstein's relativity, that Matter and Space are one and the same thing. Thus it is sensible to pursue your path, that this subtle interconnection of matter, due to the interaction of its spherical In and Out waves, can be used by evolution to evolve subtle forms of communication between human mind's.

It seems to me that for an animal that relies so heavily on social living and even more on communication that some form of subconscious communication would develop.

Geoff - Well said. There are evolutionary forces at work to enhance communication for social creatures, where this communication will enhance survival.

Not in the sense of Jung's collective subconsciousness where ideas are passed down through our DNA, but in a much more active, yet equally subtle way. I need some help defining my ideas a little better.

Geoff - I think it is likely that both forms of knowledge transfer exist. See page on Wave genetics.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Evolution-Biology-Wave-Genetics.htm

I like William James' idea that consciousness is not a substance or an existence but an action, like breathing or a heart beating. It is an action and therefore is essentially motion. The new ideas of WSM make my idea of shared consciousness possible. If thought is motion then it too could be transferred through a wave medium.

Geoff - I have thought of this too - that our mind / ideas are in motion, that when we think there is always the motion of matter, which according to WSM is really the wave motion of Space.

Even if this was done at a very basic, primal level such as through emotion. Music is a wonderful example of this. Music seems to communicate the emotions of the player to the listener. Perhaps this is a physical transfer through waves as opposed to being created internally in the mind.

Geoff - Again, well said. And here you have a direct connection, where sound / music is a well known as a wave phenomena, thus it is consistent that these waves can interact with wave structure of mind..

Like I said, I am only beginning to define my ideas and would greatly appreciate any ideas, both in favor and contrary to my own. also, I have found much research on the philosophical side of this idea but very little on the psychological side, so any references would be appreciated.
Beers

Geoff - The mind is very complex. And most people will agree with Philippe's view I suspect, so it is important to take his criticisms seriously, with the aim of learning enough to be able to answer them completely (your difficult task!). I can answer some of his comments, but there is still lots to explain.
Great post. Thanks.
Geoff

[haselhurst]

Hi Philippe,
This is a difficult post for me to write. If I offend you it is certainly not my intent, you know how much I respect your mind, appreciate your help. However, my reply is as a philosopher metaphysicist, thus it is probably going to be a bit blunt / absolute. This is the nature of the beast in a way, the WSM, and this Forum, are founded on the central metaphysical principle that One (and only one) thing exists, space (wave medium) and its waves that form matter. Thus humans and their bodies and minds must be explained from this foundation. There is nothing else.

I realise that many people will not like this constraint. However, having run a Yahoo group for a year on a fairly democratic basis, I know that without this constraint this forum will soon decay into endless arguments and make little progress.
I also know, from careful study of physics philosophy and metaphysics that this dynamic unity of reality is necessary.

I am not insisting that all people in this forum agree with this, I am though insisting that in this Forum, in general, the discussions must be limited to this foundation of Waves in Space. I think though that I could add another Forum / Section down the bottom as a 'Critics Corner' for Skeptics / Problems / things the WSM does not explain. (I certainly do not want to be accused of censoring knowledge as a way of promoting a cult view). It is a difficult balance - I hope that everyone understands this and tries to accommodate it in how they use this forum.

My further comments below. I dearly hope that I do not offend you too much with them.
Geoff


Hi Beers,

I have read your post to try to grasp better your ideas but I am afraid I will have to pour some cold water on some of these.

What you are talking about is something that was extensively discussed in the 19th century when people still had this idea that "consciousness" was something related to the soul or some other ethereal stuff but definitively could not be connected to a body.

Geoff - No. In the 19th century (or any other, except perhaps some of Buddha's ideas) I am unaware of anyone considering mind in terms of waves in Space / WSM. And the WSM's applications to the Mind are nothing like the ideas of Soul or something separate from matter / body. The WSM requires that both the body and mind are formed / caused by waves in space.
It is important to realise that the matter we see (like a person's body) is an illusion. Matter and Space are the same thing, because matter is caused by waves in space. Thus a human is actually a large thing, a structure of the universe.

Then the 20th century arrived and we started making great progress first in understanding behavior then in linking it to physical and chemical phenomenons in the brain.

Geoff - And all physical / chemical reactions are caused by wave interactions - Quantum Theory is founded on these waves.

If you are interested by a very up-to-date and accessible book on the subject, I strongly recommend to read "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker. You will understand better how our brain is organized and why we think the way we do. It is a book you can find anywhere in the US and I think a must read. But sorry: you will find no waves in it.

Geoff - I have this book but have not read it yet. The fact that it does not contain waves confirms that it is not fundamental in explaining the mind, is working only on higher levels of knowledge.

The problem is that there is no need. Coincidences are just that.

Geoff - Your evidence for why that is true!? Sure, some things are just coincidence, does not mean they all are. That in a group of people two of them suddenly think the same idea, coincidence or subtle communication of knowledge by waves? Hard to say - needs more study and experimenting.

Our need to look for "patterns" and find them anywhere we look is a deep human characteristics evolved over time, not an unknown continuum of waves. How do I know? Simple. In science a basic principle is to always look for the most simple explanation for any phenomenon. If we find simple ones based on what we already know then we can discard the more complex explanations. For this again, read the book of Steven Pinker. It was a bestseller when it came out and for good reasons.

Geoff - And the most simple explanation must be founded on One thing existing. The WSM is the most simple explanation of matter interactions in Space, in time I think you will find it is also the most simple explanation of Mind (but it is early days yet). It is certainly NOT simple to assume both mind and waves in space exist as different things.
And the reason why we look for patterns, because all knowledge is ultimately stored as patterns, formed by interacting standing wave patterns.

Now the waves. Here you are making a confusion between WSM waves which are physical waves associated with (or in place of) sub-atomic particles and hypothetical waves which would/could transport information.

Geoff - There are no hypothetical waves. All knowledge requires transfer of energy / change in energy state of matter. All knowledge, no exceptions. The WSM explains this transfer of energy through wave interactions. It does this in a mathematically / logically precise manner that deduces fundamentals of Quantum Theory and Einstein's relativity.

To WSM waves you can associate "field" equations or gravity but not "information" in the sense you imply.

Geoff - As above, all knowledge / information requires energy exchange, which is perfectly explained due to wave interactions. I have knowledge of the universe because my In-waves flow in through it, and as they do they interact with other matter waves, changing their velocity, and ultimately causing the wave-center 'particle' to move in ways that can be related to this knowledge of the universe around me.

In other word, your brain is not and cannot be aware of the waves simply because it exist at a much higher level of organization (molecular) than the "waves" we are talking about.

Geoff - In one way I agree, our mind does not directly sense these waves, but represents knowledge from many trillions of wave interactions of very complex wave patterns / structures. However, we can imagine these waves, where our imagination correctly corresponds to these real waves that physically exist in Space. And our brain / mind, at a real level (according to WSM) must exist as waves in space, though as you say, it functions at a higher level of organisation, based on the formation of large molecular structures (but still made of waves in space).

As for the guy next to you, no more "waves" will come out of him than out of the chair he is sitting on. Simply because even though consciousness is adding a lot of value to what we are, it adds absolutely nothing to the matter we are made of... the source or the waves.
Best regards, Philippe

Geoff - The WSM says the opposite, waves are travelling In and Out of all the matter of both the chair and the human on it (which obviously explains why we can see these things in the space around us). And when a human thinks, some of their matter in brain and body moves in certain ways, thus due to Out Waves this does necessarily have some affect on all other matter around them (limited by velocity of waves in space, and a very tiny subtle effect).

Philippe, I wish i did not have to write things that disagree with you. It disturbs me. But in this Forum I am going to enforce this central principle of the WSM, the Dynamic Unity of reality, founded on One thing, Space and its Wave motions. This applies equally to all of us. In this way opinion plays no part. If people really object to this principle, cannot live with it, then they have a democratic right to leave this forum. But i think most people will understand why it is necessary to impose this, and even if they don't completely agree, they will agree with enough things to stay in group and share ideas that are in harmony with this.

Finally, I have written this fairly quickly as I have quite a few more important posts from you (which I really agree with!) and from Chris and Robert that i want to try and reply to today. So the above may get re-written a bit over time, I do want to be nice, but also abide by the rules of science / metaphysics (and this forum).
I hope that you will understand.
Sincerely,
Geoff

[Philippe]

No offence whatsoever but quite a few disagreements, that's for sure. As I said earlier I am interested in the concept of WSM but a believer I am not or rather not yet.

The concept of WSM is interesting as a physical and Philosophical idea but whenever you try to apply it beyond these borders you have to be careful to incorporate current knowledge or risk loosing credibility.

"Thus a human is actually a large thing, a structure of the universe. " That is OK but then again what does it mean? "a structure of the universe" but a very small one at arms' lenght and a vanishingly insignificant one beyond.

"And all physical / chemical reactions are caused by wave interactions - Quantum Theory is founded on these waves. " Might be true but physical / chemical reactions are rather well described by our current science (Quantum is another story altogether). As in the past, the discovery of relativity revolutionized physics but it didn't make Newton's physics irrelevant.

"The problem is that there is no need. Coincidences are just that.
Geoff - Your evidence for why that is true!? Sure, some things are just coincidence, does not mean they all are. That in a group of people two of them suddenly think the same idea, coincidence or subtle communication of knowledge by waves? Hard to say - needs more study and experimenting. "

My evidence? Statistics. (My job or one aspect of it.) If you want to argue otherwise then you must prove the reality of this "communication". The problem here is that everytime this has been tried it has failed. (Nothing was proved or we would know about it by now.) Of course we all agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But still.

"I have knowledge of the universe because my In-waves flow in through it" I do agree with that but for the word of Knowledge. You have physical knowledge but nothing else otherwise it is a wide open door to all kind of wacky ideas. Communication with other "minds", the deads, UFO, you name it! I am open minded to say the least but as Carl Sagan once said. "An extrordinary claim needs an extraordinary proof".

"And when a human thinks, some of their matter in brain and body moves in certain ways, thus due to Out Waves this does necessarily have some affect on all other matter around them" Maybe, but lost in trillions of trillions of interactions. The effect must less than nothing.

As you can see, I am not arguing against the theory but on the other hand, unless proven, I do no think we can use this idea of wave to wander around (unless of course there is tengible proof based on well prepared experiments).

But history being what it is (and since it is now recorded we can learn from it), it is well known that people with close but not quite conform ideas are the first to be branded "heretics". I am therefore ready to accept banishment to the "Joke" section only of the site where I will sign as "Lucifer" (the one who brings light) ;-)

Best reards,
Philippe

[haselhurst]

This mind needs time to think

Hi Philippe,
I am glad I have not offended you, and I understand why you disagree, how you see the world / science. My Dad was a science teacher, i grew up with it. My brother, who like you is very smart and aware, would reply in a similar manner to your comments above.
It is only over the past ten years, as I have more carefully studied physics philosophy and metaphysics, did I realise that Science is inclined to be mislead, as it is founded on empirical knowledge, which both metaphysics and philosophy tell us is a naive real representation of our senses, our idea of the thing, not the 'thing in itself' (Kant).
There are further problems because you can deduce things from principles where you assume all sorts of things exist, and the results can correspond to our senses / empirical knowledge, and yet the foundations can be quite wrong. Partial reflection of light of the surface of glass is an example of this (you can search this on website).
The following page has a lot of good quotes on metaphysics from Aristotle, Leibniz, Hume, Kant and Einstein that are useful, explains the above far better.
The basic conclusion is that reality is / must be a Dynamic Unity. This is why it is the foundation for knowledge on this forum.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Metaphysics-Principles-Reality.htm

I will continue this discussion tomorrow, as I want to think about my reply to your comments, which are important and deserve careful comment.

I will also try and read Pinker's book so that I can discuss this with you in time.

I do not expect anyone to believe in the WSM. What i want is for this idea to be explored. To think about it, see what it has to say. No opinions, pure science of deducing from one principle, Space and its Properties as a Wave Medium. Clearly the most simple science theory / language, clearly explains a lot of things, so to me at least, it seems sensible as a scientist, to have a think about it and test it a bit. (It would be strange not to!)

I think that you ultimately agree with that view, I hope so, because I know that you have knowledge and talent that is very useful to what I am trying to organise / achieve (getting WSM seen on Internet / considered by many people). But most importantly to me, you have a sense of humour, a sympathetic understanding of the world and its problems, awareness of the bullshit, and polite manner that make discussions very interesting, useful and pleasant.
So to me it would be a tragic waste to see you banished to the jokes section. There are many interesting things to discuss, lots to learn as I see things. And while we may disagree on some things, hopefully we will also have some agreement and success, and some fun with other things along the way.

I am off to light a fire, as the chill of the evening sets in. And when i chop the wood, I realise that it does not really exist as a brownish solid body (how I see / sense it), that I can burn it and convert it into heat and light (energy) and ash. To me the WSM explains how this is all possible, how I can interact with the fire and get warm lying next to it.
I also like to listen to music, and i use an Infra Red remote to skip songs. Again, the WSM enables me to clearly understand how this is all possible, by understanding how matter interacts with other matter in the space around us.
To me the WSM is both simple and sensible. So I am convinced, given current problems of both knowledge and society, that it is important that this knowledge is considered by society. That's why I devote a fair whack of my life to working on it and trying to get it 'up their' in the public view.

I hope that you will have some sympathy to this point of view, and perhaps even enjoy the audacious challenge of it all!

This was a bit of a ramble reply, to me I think these ideas are important. Anyway, I hope it helps a bit, will enjoy responding to your post tomorrow.
Geoff

[Beers]

It has become apparent to me that in the short time I have been on this forum that I need to clarify my own ideas. All of your posts have been wonderful to read and they all make clear points and distinctions. I feel as though I have studied philosophy for 10 years and know next to nothing, but I suppose I may always feel that way. I have no great proof to back up my claims, but that is mostly because I have only recently begun my research. These ideas of connection between individuals are not cemented in me. They are merely young ideas which I believe merit some research. (Hopefully my professor will agree) Both of your posts have been beneficial to me one agreeing and one disagreeing.
I have just tracked down Milo Wolff’s book and I intend on using it as a serious reference in my paper. I think as my research progresses I will have contribute ideas which are much clearer.
I think the evidence for energy transfer (either in waves or otherwise) is available everywhere; from electricity to heat transfer (Geoff’s Fire example was wonderful)
Again, my first area of research must be music. It seems that music must either transfer emotion from the musician to the listener or else create the emotion internally in the listener. Either way, something must be transferred as a cause or catalyst.
Unfortunately I do not have time at the moment to dissect both of your posts ( I have to pretend to be working) but This is a wonderful first discussion for me and I’m sure this forum will help my paper immensely.

[Philippe]

Hi Beers,

I was pleased to read your answer because re-reding my note I found it much too blunt especially as a first answer.

The reason I answered this way is that you mentioned shared consciousness and WSM in the same sentence. Clearly Geoff think there is something to that, I do not.

The most simple reason I can find for our "shared consciousness" is that our brains are wired the same way and therefore react similarly to the same stimuli. (music - feelings - whatever) In other words, our shared consciousness is our shared "humanity".

This is a subject I was very interested in and the best way I found to learn more about it was to travel literally to the edge of the world to meet people in the high hills of Laos and Indonesia with almost no contacts with our culture. (There are fewer and fewer such tribes but if you look carefully after a few days of walking (boating really) you'll find them. There, you quickly learn what makes us human .Our shared characteristics or ways of thinking - It is actually startling to find how "primitive" people can actually be "modern" i.e. just like us in their ways of thinking. But the differences are also telling. Especially in the ways we "interprete" and understand things. Sometimes you feel very close but sometimes the distance becomes huge.

Would you have the courage, just try it. It requires quite some preparation but you may learn more than through reading another 5 books on philosophy (no harm meant to philosophers ) Just ask them what "they" think about consciousness. They will tell you about their legends then they will ask you questions. You will probably be surprised how relevant these are. 10,000 years of civilization away, different answers but same patterns to look for answers. Waves? maybe but before all just a shared humanity or so I think.

Best regards.
Philippe

[Chris Wright]

Hi Beers, Geoff, Philippe.
You know, the more I read of Philippe's interactions with the WSM, the more it reminds me of my interactions with it. These discussions seem so familiar to me, because I have had them with Geoff before. IT is the Circle of Life, except Philippe is much better at arguin than I am (he is in marketing after all, so has to be pursuasive).
It is in this concept od sharing emotions that I think there is a severe flaw in your logic, Geoff, as Philippe has recognized.

[haselhurst]

Hi Chris,
Four thoughts come to mind when reading your comments (probably more later).

1. You are not taking resonant coupling into account. Empirical evidence shows that two electron on opposite sides of universe can resonantly couple (emit and absorb photons of light with one another.)
So incredibly tiny effects, repeated billions of billions of times can build up into a significant effect (resonance).
Thus it is not far fetched at all that two people in same room can have an effect on one another by how they think, through this process of resonance (and genetic structures are resonant structures - see page on wave genetics).

2. I do not know if how one person thinks affects another - i suspect it does, the WSM explains a physical (rather than magical / mystical) mechanism. As a responsible scientist it would be irresponsible not to explore this possibility.

3. There are some reputable science studies that show that how people think can affect the properties of nearby matter (the experiment I remember was to do with PH of water). Will search them out (from Frontier Perspectives, science journal of Temple University).

4. What Quantum Theory and Einstein's Relativity both tell us is that matter is subtly interconnected with other matter in universe. Relativity is founded on the principle that matter and space are the SAME thing. The WSM explains how this can be possible. Thus there is no such thing as two separate people in a room, there is only one common Space. So our naive real sense of the world is very deceptive, thus Science tends to deceive us without this knowledge of metaphysics, the underlying dynamic unity of reality.

A skeptical open mind is a good mind. I think you would agree. And even better if it is founded on true knowledge of reality!
Cheers,
Geoff

[Beers]

I'm glad to see that my first topic has created such a rich debate. I feel as though I don't have much to add yet to my own creation but I am enjoying reading the posts back and forth.

I would like to find some research that has been done on Mob psychology. It seems that in large groups, especially, individuals tend to accept the mental states and share the emotional levels of the group.
I would also like to find some research on stories of twins sharing thoughts or pain. These are not concrete evidence of course but they do open the possibility.
Emperical examples mixed with the possibilites that WSM makes possible at least merit some serious thought on this manner. Perhaps all of the coincidences ( which I call shared thought coincidences or STC) are not merely coincidences after all but rather communication of some sort. The idea may seem far fetched and difficult to prove, but then most ideas do in their infancy.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to research such events begins will William James' "Principles of Psychology" where James refutes the long held idea that the mind is a substance of its own. He thinks that mind is a function of the brain just as breathing is a function of the lungs. If we view any function as an action then it does not seem so far fetched to think the "action" of thinking would be completely limited to the inside of our heads.


Just a very raw idea....

Beers

[Chris Wright]

I just don't see why chemical reactions in A's mind should somehow mirror those in B's mind, nor why there should be a need to explain empathy in this way.
Empathy is a social function - it allows humans to share emotions so that they can live together in harmony. It is widely accepted that there are special neurones (mirror neurones) that facilitate empathy, by connecting the image input of a given signal of emotion (say when you see someone smiling) to the emotion centres in your own brain. It is a simple neural function, just like any other, with incredibly important social reprecussions. But what does WSM add to this?
My fear is that the basis for this idea is somehow spiritual, rather than scientific. People feel that we should empathize with others (since people want other people do do things that lead us to social cohesion), so there is a motive to invent 'spiritual' reasons why empathy is necessary to appease the one God, be part of the one universe, become truly human, enter the kingdom of Heaven, etc. The truth is, it is a natural function that doesn't require intellectual encouragement, and doesn't benefit from it.
The only reason empathy is not as powerful as it should be is becaseu of the class structures that have evolved. These dissolve, for example, when there is war - people sitting in underground stations together while bombs fell on their country would not have needed religion to feel at one with their community, and they would not have needed the WSM either.
Chris

[Beers]

Making this relation of minds something spiritual is certaintly not my goal. I do not want anyone to think that I am making mind some sort of metephysically odd substance. I don't think mind is a substance at all. I see it as action and as action is must act on something, Some other substance. So if all matter is connected then it would seem possible that this action could affect other things in its general vacinity. Certaintly empathy is caused internally in certain brain centers but that doesn't mean that outside factors have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Action is action and motion is motion and if thought is action it must act upon something. Although I do find Chris' explanations compelling I don't find them to be the ONLY possibilites there are, they are currently the most accepted.


Beers

[Chris Wright]

Hi Beers,
I absolutely support any challenge to current understandings in any field, including the neural science behind empathy. But in order to attack a standard view you must first show why you think it is flawed, and then - if you can - propose a less flawed alternative.
I might theorize that the heart, in actual fact, does not beat in order to pump blood around the body, but because it likes rap music. I wouldn't expect me to believe you if I did, so on what basis do you feel that your idea is more plausable than the standard one, and in what sense is that standard view flawed? I would, incidentally, put the same question to Geoff.
My example is a little frivolous of course, and I do not mean to suggest the idea is ridiculous, just a bit unconvincing, as far as I can see.

[Philippe]

Hi, Let me confess that on this subject, I "feel" close to Chris position ;-)

I agree with Geoff that no presupposition should be discarded up-front. They are needed to build-up experiments. But then it is dangerous to have a result in mind for then it becomes religion not science.

In religion you know what there is to know by definition. In science you use a specific method to look for it. The mixing of the two is a dangerous exercice fraught with pitfalls.

I do not think it is right to just tell people they are wrong followed by believe me even if I find reasons to agree with some of the ideas of WSM. Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong but "incomplete" and just in certain circumstances. Likewise WSM may eventually overcome Einstein ideas but it probably won't prove General Relativity wrong.

To progress we need to highlight to weakness of the current theories. Nobody will find much to argue with that. Then comes the hard part, finding experiments which can confirm WMS. Only then will it become possible not only to talk about truth but also to find relevent people ready to listen. This is not easy but who said it would be?

Philippe

[freelight]

Greetings all,

I have engaged a little with Geoff in the Introductions section...and find this section to be ideal as it is exploring the relation of Mind with Matter. I have previously been exploring metaphysics as it relates within a theo-philosophic purview.....'consciousness' and 'Being' being innate features of 'God'. But I shall leave that for the theology/religion section - If I mention 'God' please dont put too much stress on any pre-conceived notions of what the term signifies....but for me I have been using the word as a reference for 'Consciousness' and 'Being'. (Theontology-physics)

I find that WSM certainly simplifies things as positing one substance existing. If this substance is essentially Space......with all visible manifestations of matter and invisible motions of mind being wave-fluctations of Space....we would have to figure out the innate frequency of consciousness itself and its unique properties in relation to Space or as specialized space-frequency.

I have been studying within some schools of Absolute Philosophy which posit that All is essentially 'Mind' or 'Consciousness'. If WSM holds that Space is the One thing existing.....can we identify space as having the properties of consciousness as innate within Itself...or is there an outside or distinct component of Intelligence co-existent with Space as a constitutive coordinate? It would appear that Infinite Space may equate with Infinite Mind......as 'awareness' of being appears to be an innate feature of Existence. Our very study of these matters bears evidence of consciousness, this mentation transpiring via wave-fluxations of space in a relative-energy-matrix.

If we explore whether Mind is a shared or connected consciousness...it must be both depending on inflection. If we equate Consciousness as infinite space in motion affecting cognition in any number of dimensions...then there is only One Consciousness in Existence....as a spatial infinity. Does Intelligence spring from Space or is it innate within Space? These questions naturally force one to explore the nature of mind, consciousness and even spirit. (oops,...there goes the theologian)

WSM would have to further explore and explain how Mind relates to Matter and vice versa.......then probe the very properties of Consciousness relative to Space. Sure we can propose that matter, consciousness are phenomenas of space-energies in motion, but what is the nature of space and consciousness? If indeed all that exists inheres within One Existing Space...and there is no real, absolute seperation from any other matter-ial things, beings, bodies, minds, etc......then indeed there is only One Essence being shared thru which all things, beings, bodies, minds are connected.

In certain dimensional perspectives then......Consciousness is matter! One effects the other within the expanse of Space. (we'll leave the technical computations to the mathmaticians ) Actually one thing I like about WSM is its simplicity...as I am not big on the more complex physics with all those numbers....being more of the artistic philosopher-theologian. giggles.

Looking forward to infinite journeys,


paul

[haselhurst]

Hi Paul,
I like your curiosity and your posts.

[freelight]

[haselhurst]

Hi Paul,
Boy this post is getting long! Will lock it soon and break it up. But a few things.

I find that you write things as if they are true, then go on to argue from these foundations, yet I do not see any evidence that your foundations are true. A few examples;