Showing posts with label Thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thinking. Show all posts

Sunday, February 18, 2024

CONSCIOUS THINKING

 


CONSCIOUSNESS AND THINKING

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so!” - William Shakespeare, in Hamlet, Act II, Scene 2.

Je pensedonc je suis!” (I think, therefore I Am.) - René Descartes, the “first principle of philosophy” in Discourse on the Method.

 

According to these two famous quotes, the ability to think is an amazing gift from God that we have as human beings! Our ability to think implies existence and gives meaning to everything. But, what exactly is thinking? And who, or what is it, that thinks? Physicist Max Planck shed important light on these questions when he said:

We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we [think and] talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

So, thinking is a function of consciousness. But then, we have to ask: ‘Exactly what is consciousness?’ The dictionary definition of consciousness is: “The state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings.” But upon analysis, we see that this doesn’t suffice as a definition because awareness and consciousness are not the same thing. One can be conscious without being aware of one’s surroundings. We find no definition of consciousness as a thing in and of itself, without reference to the physical senses, yet we know that a person who is asleep and deprived of all sense stimuli is still conscious.

Are consciousness and biological life the same thing? No. Verified OBEs and NDEs are proof that they are not. Our very best scientists and philosophers admit that they do not know what consciousness is in the same way we know what awareness and cognition are. We can see why this is the case, when we realize that the process of trying to investigate consciousness scientifically is like an eye trying to look at itself without a mirror. As Planck’s statement implies, we cannot look at consciousness from a point outside of consciousness.

Is thinking and being the same thing, as Descartes implies? I don’t think so. Thinking in the words of a language of some sort is just one function, perhaps just one of the simplest functions of consciousness after the act of drawing the distinction of self from other-than-self. Other functions of consciousness include identifying with the distinction of self, focusing and organizing distinctions in self and other-than-self into logical patterns, and experiencing a range of qualia. Note: Qualia (Latin singular: quale, meaning kind of experience) is a term that philosophers use to describe the properties of our conscious experience of objective phenomena. In other words, qualia are the details that we are aware of in reality and/or in our personal model of reality, based on memories of personal experience.

Attempting to define consciousness is an exercise that very quickly leads to a spiral of circular reasoning into the heart of creativity and a new understanding of language, mathematics, and logic. It’s like looking into a dictionary to learn what a particular word means and finding, within the definition given in the dictionary, another word, the meaning of which is also unknown. Then, of course, you have to look up the definition of that word, only to find that it is defined using the word we were looking up in the first place!

There actually is no ultimate definition of consciousness possible because, as Planck says, we cannot get behind consciousness. We can talk about what consciousness feels like, what it enables us to do, what it is similar to, what forms it can take, but not what it actually is, because everything else we experience depends on the existence of consciousness, and ultimately, the existence of consciousness in objective reality is a paradox. I am motivated to paraphrase quantum physicist Niels Bohr: How wonderful it is that we have uncovered a paradox, because now we have an opportunity to make some real progress! The paradox of the ‘a prior’ existence of consciousness is the key to understanding the nature of reality and even to understanding the nature of human existence.

Considering the nature of human existence, I want to encourage you to read Extracts from Adam’s Diary by Mark Twain. Not only is it a very humorous commentary on the biblical book of Genesis and the meaning of words, but it is also an entertaining look at the basic man-woman relationship. Adam blames everything on Eve at first, but by the end of the brief look into his diary, we see that she has convinced him that he was actually to blame for everything all along. At the end, he says: “I see that I was mistaken about Eve in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden with her than inside it without her. At first I thought she talked too much; but now I should be sorry to have that voice fall silent and pass out of my life. Blessed be the chestnut that brought us near together and taught me to know the goodness of her heart and the sweetness of her spirit!”

It will only take you about ten minutes to read Twain’s Excerpts from Adam’s Diary. So please go to https://www.online-literature.com/twain/3264/ and read it, and then go to my blogsite at www.ERCloseTPyhsics.com for more about consciousness, thinking, and the nature of reality.

CONSCIOUS THINKING, LOGICAL SUSTEMS AND THE NATURE OF REALITY

As I said, the paradox of the ‘a prior’ existence of consciousness is the key to understanding the nature of reality. This is so because the organizing function of consciousness is found existing as what Dr. Vernon Neppe and I call gimmel, the measurable third form of reality in the heart of the proton, the most stable object in the universe, and in the energy of the electron shells surrounding the nucleus of all stable atoms. That stability is created by the organization by gimmel of the total angular momentum in every atom of the physical universe, completing the stability of atoms of the physical universe as basic unitary logical systems. In the composite forms of reality, gimmel also completes the physical universe as a finite 5-D logical system consisting of three spatial dimensions, one temporal dimension, and one dimension of consciousness. The logic of this system is the reflection of the logic of the 9-D infinity of Primary Consciousness, which is the infinite Mind of God, within which everything is embedded.

The form of each 4-D atom is a toroidal energy vortex with the triadic content of mass, energy, and gimmel as its total quantized substance. The form of the cosmos is a 5-D toroidal vortex, expanding out of, and back into itself periodically. The energy form of each conscious thinking individual is also that of a torus of dynamic spiritual energy rolling through the cosmos and expanding into or contracting away from the 9-D domain of Primary Consciousness as a consequence of that individual’s conscious actions. 9-D Primary Consciousness is forever mathematically self-referential without beginning or end. (Coincidentally answering Leibniz’s most important question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”: There is something rather than nothing because there never was, and never will be a state of absolute nothingness!)

Physical reality, as the form of the finite manifestation of Primary Consciousness, also exists without beginning or end, constantly changing in form, creating the illusions of beginnings and ends, but with no creation or destruction of the substance of reality. This is reflected in the natural law of the conservation of substance, measurable in quantum equivalence units of mass, energy, and gimmel. The inclusion of gimmel, the conscious portion of physical reality linking individual quantized consciousness to the conscious substrate of Primary Consciousness, assures the spiritual immortality of our souls. Finally, we see that reality is a self-referential continuum ranging through all dimensional domains from finite quantized physical reality to the infinitely continuous infinity of the consistent logical system of the Spiritual Reality of Primary Consciousness in God.    

Friday, April 6, 2018

THE ANSWER



A Brother of the Self-Realization Fellowship at an SRF World Convocation


What is the Answer to the Question: Is there an Answer for Which There is no Question??


A few days ago, in a post titled “Questions and Answers” I proposed an exercise: I suggested writing a list of all the questions you could think of that have relevance for you, along with all the answers for them that you could provide.  I suggested that this could yield clues about who and what you are.

 When I wrote my list, one of the questions I wrote was: “Are there answers for which there are no questions? My answer was: “Yes, and here are two of them: your consciousness, and the universe.” My question today is: Is there an Ultimate Answer, one answer for which, and about which, there is absolutely no question?


Think about that for a moment. If there is an answer for which there is no question, then it is beyond question. To be beyond question, it has to be self-evident. If it is self-evident, then it is beyond argument and debate. If you find such an answer, it is The Answer, and then there is no need to question, no need for any other answer, no need to seek further. You have achieved the end of all quests, and you know your reason for being.


I think the most important question for anyone who has not yet found The Answer for which there is no question is: Has anyone found The Answer?


I am disagreeing with one of the most renowned thinkers of all time, a man considered by many to be the last person who was able to know everything that could be known during his lifetime, the un-rivaled polymath, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz. I am disagreeing with him because he said the most important question is “Why is there something instead of nothing?” and I am saying, no, the most important question is: “Does anyone have The Answer?”.


In fact, I answered Leibniz’s most important question in my Questions and Answers post:


Q: Why is there something rather than nothing? A: Because by definition, nothing does not exist.


To elaborate: If nothing does not exist, then something must exist, because if something does not exist, we have nothing, which by definition, does not exist. Therefore, something does exist, and I think that is something we actually knew all along.


The present discussion is a continuation of the Questions and Answers post. In that post, I suggested that the questions you pose, and the way you pose and answer them, provide clues as to whether you are a thinker or a doer. This question: “Does anyone have The Answer?” carries the dichotomy a bit farther. Your answer to this question may identify you as a believer or a dis-believer.


Notice that I did not say believer or skeptic. A skeptic falls in between believer and dis-believer, and I suspect that most people are not really believers or dis-believers. I think most people alive in the world today, regardless of what they say they believe, are probably skeptics. But, the question of whether anyone has the answer is of paramount importance to everyone, whether believer, skeptic or dis-believer. Until you ask and answer it for yourself, you have no way of knowing who you are.


Be careful, this is a tricky question. It has two parts: First: Is there an answer for which there is no question? And second: if so, does anyone have that answer? I have suggested that there is an Ultimate Answer, and that it has something to do with the indisputable self-evident existence of consciousness, the universe and the non-existence of nothingness. But, what is The Answer?


You have to be careful, because what may seem to be an easy one-word answer to the ultimate question, an answer like: God, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc., is not an answer for the “thinker”, and is irrelevant for the “doer’. The doer says: “Don’t bother me with such questions, I’m busy doing.” and the thinker says: “Don’t ask me to do something right now, doing anything is just meaningless activity until I have The Answer”!


The skeptic, on the other hand, goes on thinking and doing without knowing whether his/her thoughts are true or false, and/or her/his doing is purposeful or meaningless. The scientist is the ultimate skeptic. The scientist knows that what appears to be true today may be overturned by new evidence tomorrow. There is no ultimate answer in science. But extreme skepticism is very dangerous because it often leads to the belief that there are no ultimate answers, and such a belief can lead to lack of integrity, dishonesty and deceit.


If there is no unquestionable answer, then no one can have found it, and we descend into chaos. But, my consciousness, your consciousness and the universe actually do exist. Not only that, they persist and appear to have persisted in some form for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps even billions of years, in a completely ordered manner, suggesting that there is meaning and purpose, i.e., an ultimate answer.


So, what’s the answer?



…To be Continued.



Monday, July 25, 2016

THINK FOR YOURSELF



WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?


I just read a National Geographic article about how science is redefining death:



I found the comments following the article more interesting than the article itself. Readers labeled it everything from “beautiful” and “inspiring” to “pseudoscience” and “crap”. Most of the comments say a lot more about the people who wrote them than they say about the article. My advice, especially to the non-scientist is take time to think a little before commenting on an article like this, and judge not, lest ye be judged.


If you find it necessary to belittle someone else’s point of view in order to defend yours, you probably are not that sure of your own thoughts. It takes some real effort to think for yourself and test ideas that you question, and not just defend a borrowed belief system because it sounds good to you. Use of emotion-charged pejoratives is a sure sign that the user finds his/her belief system threatened.


Anyone who resorts to name calling and abusive language is really only displaying intolerance and/or trying to elevate his/her own views by denigrating others. Politicians do this a lot. Think about the current political conventions. But don’t just blame the politicians. They do it because they know that it works to fire up their supporters emotionally and recruit voters. But think for a minute what this says about us as voters. Unfortunately, the average voter often seems to know very little about the candidates or issues, but votes primarily on the basis of the hype being broadcast by one side or the other.


Does a belief system have to be based on faith?

Does science rule out the existence of God, or life after death?

Do we just have to believe one way or the other, or can we find the truth by thinking for ourselves?

Can we ever know with absolute certainty?

DO YOU REALLY THINK FOR YOURSELF? 

THINK ABOUT IT.
.