Gees

Are you sure you are not projecting? What was it that was so horrible that you needed to learn humility? I only ask because you have mentioned it twice now, and it appears you want to discuss it. I apologize as I did not mean harm; although, I don't see why you should be devalued because of my actions/thoughts. I looked up Zeno. He was a smart guy, but was overly fond of paradoxes and thought experiments. I like thought experiments, but when they lead to paradoxes, I doubt them. I don't like paradoxes as they seem to be an indication of something missing or misunderstood in the thought experiment. I found the following explanation in Google: So these guys were arguing about the foundations of reality. Is it all one thing? Does it change? Is it continuous? What about space and time? Lots of questions and many of them contradicting others. I have thought of these concepts just as many others have. My thoughts are simple. Balance is evident in each and every aspect of reality from our bodies, to ecosystems, and from atoms to solar systems. Balance is real, so what does balance require? Well it requires more than one thing in order to have something to balance with and it requires a wholeness that the balance takes place within. Like a child's teeter totter, it needs two ends that move up and down, but also a connection that it balances from. What can explain all of these concepts? Water. Earlier I stated that I saw motion as the foundation of reality, but what I was talking about was the motion that is obvious in the properties of water. Think of an ocean. It is one thing, but is also constantly in motion and constantly changing. Waves keep it in motion, and the water evaporates, becomes clouds and rain, falls back to earth maybe freezes into snow and ice, maybe sits in place for decades, then melts and returns to the ocean. Water is constant motion within a wholeness and emotion shares those properties. So when I saw Federico's video, and he stated that consciousness (emotion) is outside of us and outside of time, it interested me. So it looks to me as if Zeno and Parmenides were both correct. But I am really tired now and am falling asleep on my desk. Happy St. Patty's day. Gee

Damned me. I thought the video WAS a citation. LMAO First you said that the video made it so that this was a science thread, so you moved it out of the religion/philosophy subforum into speculations. Now you are saying that the video "does not exist", but I must provide a citation for a video in a thread that I did not create. This started out as Sinclair's thread, then you hijacked it and made it your thread, but somehow I am responsible for it. Can these forum rules be 'cherry picked' because some of this does not make any sense. After high school? I studied law. You are wrong, because I have repeatedly given information as to quantum physics -- I have stated very clearly that I know nothing about it. I am not the one bluffing here. You have little respect for philosophy and a serious disgust for religion, and this thread is about consciousness, which is studied by philosophy, and it is about emotion, which is studied by religion. It is not about science and has never been about science. But you have way to much power in this forum, so you win even if you are dead wrong. Arguing with you is like arguing with Trump. Gee I was not aware that rust is alive. Can you provide a citation? I know. People do it with computers and robots all of the time. Never said it did. There is DNA and there is awareness. Are you saying that they are the same thing? It looks like you are stating that life is a metaphysical conjecture. So you are convinced that there is no awareness without a nervous system and/or brain. So why do HeLa cells continue to nourish themselves and reproduce without a brain or body? Since you are a biologist, you should be aware of HeLa cells. One does not find what they are not looking for. Our greatest strengths often cause our greatest weaknesses, so since faith is religion's greatest strength, blind faith is it's greatest weakness. Philosophy's greatest strength is learning new ideas, and its greatest weakness is imagining what is not real. Science's greatest strength is testing, so its greatest weakness is confirmation bias. If you do not look past the neural structure, then you will not find an answer past the neural structure. I know damned well how the site works. If you are advocating for science, you can be dismissive, rude, off topic, and quite insincere in your posts and will often receive an up vote for it. But if you are not advocating for science, or accepted science, you will be down voted and eventually banned. I was never very politically correct. If you mix MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cancer, radiation treatment, and the vagaries of life, it can make a person tired. The surgeon did not think that surgery was an option in my case. The oncologist does not want to use chemotherapy because of my MS, so the only option is radiation, which I don't expect will beat the cancer -- maybe it will slow it down. So there does not appear to be anything that anyone in this forum can do that will discourage me from thinking. Gee

The phrase is 'piss and vinegar'. But if what you say is accurate, then I must have been a "great" rider, as I have most definitely crashed. I rode for a few years, made two cross country trips by myself, the first from Michigan to Florida and the second from Michigan to Arizona, and was very very careful while riding. My 'piss and vinegar' did not extend to being careless. Well, I can't teach much as I am still learning. I am not sure that you know "exactly" as much as I do about consciousness, but if you know nothing about quantum physics, then you may know "exactly" as much as I do. Gee

Sinclair; I don't know if you have left permanently, or if you occasionally come back to review what is happening in this thread. On the off chance that you occasionally visit, I wanted to leave you some information about Matte Blanco as he is not well known. Blanco was a psychiatrist, who also studied psychology and worked under Anna Freud. He is credited with unraveling the illogical and irrational thought processes of the unconscious aspect of mind. He likes to call this understanding bi-logic as it is two different ways of using "logic", one that works within time and one that works without consideration of time. We have known for a long time that emotional thinking is NOT rational. We also know that emotional thinking actually changes memory -- adding, changing, and subtracting memories from our knowledge -- which would be why science does not like emotional thinking. It is too unstable; although, if you understand how emotional thinking actually works, you can find ways to make it dependable. My point is that Federico used math to find that some consciousness is outside of time; you used math to find that some aspects of consciousness are outside of time and physical reality; and Blanco used math to learn that some aspects of consciousness are outside of, or ignorant of, time. He used math to break the unconscious into five stratums or levels. I know very little about math, but these are three entirely different studies and way too much coincidence for me to ignore. This is probably why I had no problem accepting the possibilities that Federico considered, but you should know that most of what Federico is discussing is not what most people refer to as consciousness, it is what we refer to as the unconscious -- or more specifically as emotion. You would probably be more successful if you could reach psychiatrists/psychologists with your ideas. Anyway, look up his work and think about it. I am not very good at posting websites, but you can learn more about Blanco at Wiki, and then go from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacio_Matte_Blanco Thank you for introducing me to Federico. Gee

I can go along with the idea of feelings, but have problems with the idea of "desires" as Google says that desires include wishes, so I am not ready to accept that terminology as to bacteria. Did you view the video at the start of this thread? And what is your area of expertise? I ask because if you did not view the video, then it is unlikely that you will consider any citation that I provide. And if you have no training in quantum fields or consciousness, then you are unlikely to understand anything that might be posted -- even if you take the time to look. I am not new to forums and have many times watched an older established member demand citations of a new member -- that no one reads. It is like a game that the older members play with the newbies for entertainment purposes. I am too old and too tired to entertain you. But my grandson just showed me an article in the National Geographic about Dust Bears (tardigrade) that have been classified as "animals" and live all over the world. My grandson stated that these tardigrade actually have emotions, but I disagreed stating that they would have to have brains in order to have emotion. Apparently they do have brains, are multi-cellular, and have some emotion, which means that they have self-preservation instincts. What a surprise. If you really were interested in this thread, you could ask more intelligent questions. All cellular life is aware to some degree, so it is conscious of its need to survive and has self-preservation instincts -- this is one of the things that qualifies it as life. Do viruses qualify as life? Not really. They are more a quasi-life that can come to life when in a host. Do viruses have self-preservation instincts? These are only noted when viruses are in a host body. What about seeds? Are they alive? Are they aware? They can die if not planted within a certain time, so something that can die is alive. How are they aware of the amount of time that passes? This brings us to the really fun one, endospores. Endospores have been found that are millions of years old, they have been misidentified as fossils, then they come back to life. Following is an excerpt from Wiki: Why don't they die? Apparently bacteria will go through a lot to survive -- looks like self-preservation instincts to me. I used the term "wants" because Federico did, but I usually use the terms attraction/repulsion to explain very simple awareness. Studiot was right when noting that terminology is going to be a problem because of new understandings. Gee

I am never going to get it from you. You seem to be interested in insulting people, but give no real information. Maybe you don't know anything? What is your area of expertise? You seem to know very little about consciousness and have given no information as to quantum physics. Actually, I don't think that you gave any relevant information in the Nothing v Creation thread that this split off from, except to state that Maimonides was in some way relevant to the ending of the Dark Ages. Asking me to accept that a Jewish scholar worked to change and rewrite Christian church doctrine and influence the ending of the Dark Ages is just a little too much of an absurd idea for me to accept it. Maimonides was off topic there and is also off topic here. I don't believe that you are making a sincere effort to communicate with me. Gee

Zapatos; I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid. I can only guess that you are trying too hard to be funny with your above comment. But I am still trying to understand how you attached emotion to bacteria and am wondering if you have a very limited understanding of survival instincts. Many people see instincts such as "fight or flight", or they see hormones relating to sex as highly emotional activities, so if this is where you got that idea then you could simply go to Wiki and look up hormones. You will find that they are much more diverse than most people think and are involved in every cell in every body. But in case I am wrong about your understanding, I will explain that when a person uses the "/" symbol between words, it means 'either or possibly both' of the words that surround the "/" symbol may apply. So when you read "feeling/want/emotion" what it means is that either feeling and/or want and/or possibly emotion are involved. It does not mean that ALL are involved. Now consider that of the three, 'want' is the weakest having only a straight attraction/repulsion ability, much like a magnet, but 'feeling' is more complex as it can involve varieties and strengths of attraction/repulsion. Emotion is the strongest feeling of all as it includes ideology along with the feeling, so I suspect that only species that have a brain, and therefore have access to ideology are advanced enough to be capable of emotion. E coli is bacteria, so I do not believe it has a brain and so would not be capable of emotion. If I am wrong, please provide a citation that states E coli has brains. Gee

OK. So you are happy with the idea that recognition/acknowledgment of "self" is evidence of consciousness. I agree with you, but do you realize that you have just stated that all life is conscious? Well, this is awkward. I am not sure about that. Federico is a well respected scientist and may have a reason for saying that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. Since want/awareness/emotion all source through the unconscious aspect of mind and are also not plottable, and emotion specifically ignores time, they don't seem to be physical. Maybe you could look at the first half hour of his video so you can understand what he means. Then you could explain it to me. An analogy is used to clarify an idea -- promote understanding. Comparing two "silly" ideas does not do that, so I wouldn't call it an analogy. It is more like being dismissive. Since you did not view the video, you are getting your information second hand from me -- an uneducated person as to physics -- which is not really a reliable source to make a judgment on. I don't think that Federico saw quanta as having familiar attributes of conscious beings. I think he saw quanta as being part of life and recognized that a computer, AI, was not going to gain consciousness without quanta. If I understood him correctly. I don't think Federico would agree with you. He said that he spent 30 years working in quantum physics before he realized he was wrong. He needed to flip-flop his ideas. He said that people think of particles as being physical/material, but they are not. This is why they pop in and out of existence, because they are not really matter. He said that we enhance them so that we can see them, but it is more like shadow boxing (my terminology, not his). 'Instincts' is not an umbrella term; it is more like the name of a trash bin that we put ideas into. It has a sister trash bin called 'imagination". Few people have the ability to analyze abstract mental ideas, thought, emotion, awareness, etc., so when they come across unknown or unsourced ideas, they throw them into one of those bins. If it is an automatic reaction, they throw it into the 'instincts' bin; if it is a thought, experience, or knowledge that is unsourced, they throw it into the 'imagination' bin. Having studied consciousness most of my life, I am very aware of this, which is why I specifically stated that I was talking about self-preservation instincts, or you could call them survival instincts. These instincts have been pulled out of the trash bin and linked to various hormones/pheromones that promote the instincts. And yes, they apply to ALL life. If moss is alive, then they apply to moss, as these instincts apply to all live cells. I didn't say they were. That is more of a "God" idea. What I said is that emotion, some feeling, and want do not work in physical reality. The unconscious aspect of mind, that is reactive and ruled by emotion, does not work in physical reality. The unconscious does not think rationally because it ignores time, and therefore can not use logic. This is all clinically validated. "So-called minds"? "in all likelihood"? I suspect that you can't make a better job of explaining it because you, like most of us, don't really understand it. Gee

No. I Googled him just now and found some of his ideas interesting. Although he did not seem to understand that consciousness is divisible, he did a good job of describing the unconscious aspect of mind as "a blind, unconscious, aimless striving devoid of knowledge, outside of space and time, and free of all multiplicity." This explanation is also very close to Federico's explanation regarding the foundation of quantum fields as they relate to consciousness. Schopenhauer also saw the conscious aspect as the source of ideas, knowledge, or the ability to represent reality. But there was a great deal about consciousness that he did not appear to know, could not know, in the early 1800's. Science hadn't even started to study consciousness at that time. He also did not seem to be aware of the bonding that forms through some levels of the unconscious, which would leave consciousness very cold. Maybe this is why he was thought to be such a pessimist. I like Spinoza, but don't like it when people use the word "imagine" so loosely. It implies that every idea that exists, but we don't know the source of, is imagined. What is the source of the projection that moved the rock? If it were 'will', then the source would come from the rock. Sorry, I seem to have an extra box. Gee

First, what do you mean when you say "consciousness"? Second, Federico (in the video) mentioned something about parts and the whole being connected, or part of each other, or an explanation of each other much like DNA in a cell is the part but it represents the whole body. Mat Blanco, who was the psychologist, who found the logic in the unconscious aspect of mind also mentioned parts that 'represent?' the whole? So I would like to understand what they were talking about. I have not yet done any research to try to learn more, but I had my radiation treatment, and of course, being an attack on my body, it activated my MS (Multiple Sclerosis), so I have been lax at responding in this thread. Please understand that I have no idea of what "quantum fields" are, and would never limit my study to humans as that is unbelievably arrogant and may be a little religious -- it smacks of, we are conscious because (we are made in "God's" image). Not long after I realized that there are two aspects of consciousness, the digital conscious rational mind (thought) and the analogue unconscious, I realized that the unconscious (awareness/emotion) actually works outside of the body. It works between bodies, things, species. Years ago I was explaining my thoughts to someone and stated that it was much like a magnet, where a force or field (awareness) that is outside of the magnet does the attracting/repulsing. The person told me that I had no idea of what a quantum field is, which was true, so I dropped the subject and never brought it up again. Then I saw Federico's video. Federico also recognizes that want/awareness/emotion works outside of the body. He called it fields. You are making me smile here. It sounds like you are envisioning little word bubbles like in cartoons. Federico did mention free will and his doubt about a deterministic reality, but I did not interpret it that way. I thought that the variable that he was describing could possibly explain and maybe actuate evolution because it is activated by "want". He sees the foundation of reality as being want/emotion/feeling. I see the foundation as motion. All species, ALL of them, every life form, has self-preservation instincts. We are talking plants, insects, fish, birds, animals, probably even fungi and moss -- all have self-preservation instincts -- and all of those instincts are activated through hormones and by feeling/want/emotion. This is not my opinion -- this is scientific fact. All multi-cellular species have hormones that work within the body and pheromones that work between bodies and between bodies and things. All activated by want/feeling/emotion. I read somewhere a theory that someone had that maybe we were in consciousness, rather that consciousness was in us. I dismissed his ideas, but if he was talking about want/feeling/emotion, an awareness of things that are outside us, he may have been right. If what I learned about and explained above is valid, then all unconscious actions have something to do with quantum fields. Something that starts with a feeling can be activated by chemistry and turn into an action that modifies our behavior even though we do not intend it. It can also influence our thoughts, actions, and societies. Another thing to think about: We know that cattle needs to eat grass in order to survive, but did you know that some grasses need cattle feeding on it to survive? I was researching desertification and some of the attempts to restore grasslands, when I learned that we need cattle to feed on the grass, or it will die. There were a number of explanations, but the one I remember was that the grass had to be eaten down to where the base was exposed to the sun, or it would die out, so the grass produced a bad tasting chemical when it was eaten down so far, which caused the cow to move to something tastier. So you could say that the grass dictates the behavior of the cows, turning them into grazers. (chuckle) What this does tell us is that neither the cow nor the grass could have evolved separately -- they would not have survived. I am beginning to think that this nice orderly evolution from the simple to the complex may not be accurate. Gee I think you understand it just fine. Thank you for the reference to: Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll Gee

What whole? What parts? I am not sure what you are asking. Are you saying that I am trying to explain what caused reality, (the components) of the Universe, by studying reality, (the emergent) of the Universe? You mean like reality does not explain philosophy. Philosophy explains reality. I am very aware of the unawares -- I tend to call them the unconscious aspect of mind. Do you know that your hippocampus does more than hold your memories? It is kind of important to your emotion and I suspect your instincts. Do you know that the unconscious aspect of mind is reactionary because it is controlled/activated by emotion/feeling/want? I have spent a good bit of time talking to science people, who will explain to me that they know all about hormones, instincts, and how these things regulate life and keep us going. But they don't know all about these things, because they still do not understand the balance, nor do they understand what pushes and allows evolution. I want to learn about these things. I suspect that the video on quantum fields has some clues as to how that works. I haven't found anyone else that seems to have a clue about the self-balancing of ecosystems or the reasons why evolution works the way it does. I am not buying the "God" idea, the Intelligent Designer, magic, coincidence, or luck. The rookie mistake would be in disrespecting those biological processes to the point where we disrupt them. Many of us already know that the Dust Bowl that destroyed the middle of the United States was caused by killing off millions of buffalo and getting rid of the buffalo grass in an attempt to kill off the American Indian. We are finding evidence that we have disrupted many ecosystems and are trying to fix the problems. This is good, but there is more. The balance also works within species. A man goes to war and fights raising his testosterone levels. Directly after the war, he takes the first person that he can find and shoves himself into her, and creates new life. Life is taken and life is given by the same abundance of a hormone. This is not coincidence, this is balance and why rape has always followed war. When a woman has a baby, she turns from her husband. Why? Hormones -- because it is necessary to ensure the next generation. She becomes devoted to the child for the first few months -- she also doesn't get much sleep. So what turns her back to her husband? Nursing. While feeding the baby, her breasts swell, her womb shrinks, she is attractive. She feels loving as she is feeding his baby -- and the bonus is that she can't get pregnant while nursing full time. So sex is a freebee. Replace nursing with a bottle and there is more pain for her while her milk dries up, and her womb is slower to resume it's former shape, sex is scary because no one wants another baby this soon. Mom and Dad are trading off feeding the baby and no one is getting sleep. When Dad walked by Mom, she used to go "mmm", but now she goes, "Eew" because her hormones tell her that only the baby smells good. Dad takes a shower, puts on deodorant, and wonders what is wrong. Everyone is grouchy. Does it always work this way? No. All warriors do not rape, but many do, enough that it is a known phenomenon. Hospitals are trying to get women to bond with their babies and to nurse them because we are already seeing the results of the foolish decision that pushed bottles on nursing mothers in order to get them into factories in WWII. The balance also works within societies and cultures. When a baby is nursed, it actually has to seduce it's mother's body in order to get the milk flowing and does this by smiling, cooing, stroking her, and mouthing her nipple -- baby has to give to get. A bottle-fed baby only needs to yell and cry for what it wants. Think about it. After three generations, if you can't see where this has influenced our culture, you are not paying attention. It is clear to me that life could not have evolved independently. It is all connected. We are all connected. I suspect that all reality is connected. I would like to learn how. Gee

And what, pray tell, do you think that "invisible spirit" actually is? Either you know and you made an honest mistake, or you don't know and you corrupted the thread through ignorance. Which is it? Gee So it was split because of the discussion of different topics and yet you continue to introduce "different topics". Let me get this straight -- this thread is about consciousness, human consciousness, and science. Right? It is not about Nothing v Creation. So if I want to discuss that video, I will have to copy it back to the original thread? Won't you just hi-jack it again? Gee It's a good thing we are in the speculations sub-forum because your above comments are definitely speculations. Gee

I don't see where any of this denies the idea that Aquinas was instrumental in changing church doctrine that eventually opened the doors to science and learning. Augustine was first to create extensive church doctrine around 400-500 AD. He was a prolific writer. His writings shut down learning -- outside of the church. He had no love for Aristotle. He believed and taught that truth and knowledge could only come from "God", which ended up giving the church way too much power. This went on for hundreds of years and we call that time the Dark Ages. Aquinas, et al, introduced new ideas, rewrote and submitted new church doctrine that changed policy and actually threw open the doors to new ideas. Between the time of Augustine and Aquinas all knowledge was acceptable only if it came from the church -- hence the Dark Ages tag. It would be silly to assume that the above paragraph could give an accurate reflection of hundreds of years of history. So many things affect history like the plague, the industrial revolution, wars and natural disasters. I was not giving a history lesson. So what relevance does your post have to the subject of this thread; namely, Nothing v Creation? Gee

Are you moving the goal posts? I know the original thread was NOT exclusively about humans -- it was about nothing v creation. Gee

Thank you for remembering this. I know Aquinas was instrumental in helping to end the Dark Ages and throw open the doors to the enlightenment and science, but I have never read his work directly. To me it is relevant that he described "God" as an act rather than a being. Some of those old scholars were a lot brighter than people give them credit for. For myself, I study consciousness and long ago broke it up into the rational mind and digital thought that we call consciousness; and the unconscious aspect of mind, analogue emotion, that we think of as an after affect of consciousness. I don't agree with that assessment. I think that conscious digital thought is like a "noun" in a sentence as it gives the idea structure and identity; whereas the unconscious analogue emotion is more like a "verb" in the sentence and gives it action and state of being. So I see the "verb" as essential to being and to creation. I doubt that consciousness or anything else could exist without the "verb", emotion. Gee

It had a very clear definition, "Nothing and The Creation". The thread was about the source of life of consciousness of the universe of everything. This "source" was "nothing", but managed to create everything. A neat trick that has captured the imaginations of millions for millennia. I suspect that you read the words "Nothing" and "Creation", assumed that the thread was about "God" because it was in the religion forum, became offended when science was brought in to possibly validate "God", and split the thread to speculations so science could defend itself. If I am wrong, I certainly apologize. It might be worthwhile for members to remember that "God" is not an actual fact -- "God" is an interpretation. I am looking for other interpretations and so is this thread. So you think that "plant consciousness" and "human consciousness" are unequal? I suppose it could look that way even when comparing, say an elephant and a tadpole. But on the other hand both the elephant and tadpole are equally alive when compared to a rock. Most of this is a matter of perspective. I tend to have a holistic view of problems that I try to address, so when I think of consciousness, I remind myself that all consciousness is simply awareness. The differences lay in what the specimen is aware of as there are thousands of levels of awareness. While browsing in the Biology section, I found a thread about consciousness and bees. One of the members there mentioned that it could be considered that the Poles (north and south) were aware of each other as proven by the force between them. Interesting. I like this idea and accept the possibility of it -- this is just another example of the beginnings of consciousness. There is no reason to accept religion's interpretation that a fully conscious being started the Universe. It could have been force that evolved just like everything else did. Gee

No. Gee I suspect that "Maimy" had more knowledge than you are aware of -- clearly he had more understanding. I did not put the neg rep points on your post. I don't know who did. Gee

I have seen a lot of different threads on consciousness in this forum with a whole lot of definitions -- so which definition would you like? I only stated that a brain and thought were not part of a tree's consciousness, but science has proven that trees are aware, that they communicate, that they work to preserve themselves, do you need more than this? If you want me to show that trees have human consciousness, then you are being beyond reasonable as trees are not human. I didn't post the video, but would like to discuss it. It would be difficult to summarize the video as there is so much that it touches on. It explains how many of the theories of consciousness that I could not accept before, may actually have some support to them. It also seems to give a valid explanation of how ecosystems self-balance and how evolution may be actuated. I was fascinated. Gee

You don't really want an answer to this question, do you? If you actually do want an answer, then please restate your question so that I know what you are asking. Gee I did not state that Maimonides thoughts were about quantum; what I stated was that there was an "obvious comparison". I was talking about recognition -- not terminology. Maimonides equated the God of Abraham to what philosophers refer to as the Necessary Being. Federico called his study quantum physics, and I relate this concept to the unconscious aspect of mind; but we were all talking about the same thing -- recognized the same thing. Remember, Maimonides said, "that science, the growth of scientific fields, and discovery of the unknown by comprehension of nature was a way to appreciate God." Gee

I probably would enjoy it as I have read some of Penrose's work, but have too much on my plate already. I will check it out later after I contend with this current project of Federico's. Most people have no idea of how massive the study of consciousness actually is. They see it as a study of the brain, maybe physics and cosmology, a little religion and a little philosophy. In reality consciousness study affects all of religion, probably 80%, or more, of philosophy, and most if not all branches of science -- a massive study indeed. Federico's theory touches on too many of these separate ideas, so my mind was reeling just trying to keep up. Then I realized that Federico probably does not even see all of these implications because he does not study consciousness and so does not realize all of the leads to other branches of science, etc. I started to take notes while watching the video, but half way through I quit as there were just too many points to address and no context for the explanations that are necessary in order to understand and address those points. In order to give context to many of those points, I would have to write a damned book -- and that book would only be about what I think I know, not what I am still trying to figure out. So I am going to select a few of the ideas to discuss that his theory clarifies or enhances. Federico starts out with a bang saying that consciousness is not in the body and compares the experience with that of using a drone. This very much aligns with my thinking. Years ago, I was corresponding with a physics professor, who explained to me that thought has no power. He said, "If you take the greatest thoughts known to man and write them down or save them on a disk then wait a day, a year, or a hundred years; when you check them, you will find that they have done nothing. Thought has no power, no force, no ability to do anything." He was right. Federico finds similar conclusions about AI. So I spent some time breaking down consciousness into parts. I found that knowledge, memory, and thought are digital, work within time and space, and are internal and private -- I know my thoughts/you know yours. But emotion, feeling (not tactile), and awareness are not digital, they are analogue/fluid (emotion does not work within time and space but actually ignores time) and these are external and shared -- unless we intentionally hide our feelings they show. This is why emotion can cause bonding, because it works between us -- it works between life. It is a force. It is external. It was not long before I realized that the digital part of consciousness was the rational aspect of mind -- what most people think of as consciousness. The analogue part of consciousness was the unconscious and it is ruled by emotion. So why did we ever decide that digital thought was consciousness? I think there were two reasons. The first is because we control thought and the rational mind, whereas the unconscious is strictly reactionary so we have very little control over it. And Descartes did not help when he stated, "I think; therefore, I am." So did that mean if I don't think, then I am not? Yes. That is exactly how it was interpreted, so infants, deaf people, the mentally handicapped, and many indigenous people (having an unknown language) were treated as though they were NOT. The reasoning here is very simple; if you do not have language, then you have no way to prove you think, therefore, you were not considered conscious. This means that all other life was also not conscious, not aware, not alive? Science has been systematically changing this belief as it proves consciousness in different species, but is not willing to state categorically that if something is alive, then it is conscious. (The thought thing again.) So to start off one must understand that Federico is not talking about thought, he is not talking about the brain, he is talking about the unconscious aspect of mind, which is ruled by emotion, feeling, and want. This is what consciousness, or awareness, derives from. Where is the unconscious? No one knows. It does not seem to have a location. We have no idea of it's size or parameters. We know that it connects to other life forms because it could not promote bonding if it did not and this is where psychic phenomenon originates and it is where "God" ideas originate. Jung could tell us some about the unconscious and "God" ideas, but Matt Blanco could tell us about the six or seven levels (stratums) in the unconscious that he discovered through math while he was looking for a logic in the unconscious. He found it. He realized that the unconscious was thought to have no logic, but this was because it ignored time. (Yes. This has been clinically proven and is the reason why childhood trauma can affect an entire lifetime and why PTSD happens.) Logic, "this therefore, that" is part of logic, and the "therefore" requires time, so this logic does not work in the unconscious. Blanco found that the deeper levels of the unconscious used another method to evaluate, but it has been a while since I read it, so I am going to have to look it up. There is so much more, but this is hopefully a good start and all I can do now. Tomorrow I will try to address some of the other points made in the video. Gee

Ant Sinclair; Thank you for showing us this video -- it is absolutely brilliant. Because I am no scientist, I am going to have to study the video three or four more times, so that I can try to understand how he explained his idea with science's terminology. For myself, I came to similar conclusions about consciousness by observing, using logic, and studying nature -- more of a philosopher's study. And yes, we can prove that a tree is conscious as long as one does not expect it to have a brain and thought, as that is not consciousness. The brain is what produces the rational aspect of mind and thought, which is a product of consciousness -- it is not consciousness. I don't understand why people do not see the obvious comparison with Maimonides thoughts, as I saw it immediately. Thanks again, Gee It helps me to think of the brain like I would an antenna. If the antenna is damaged or broken, so is the picture (conscious thought) that it produces. First there is conscious awareness (the unconscious aspect of mind) which feeds into the brain (antenna), then the brain produces digital thought -- the rational aspect of mind. In my understanding. I don't know this, but suspect that F Faggin understands this part. I have more studying to do. Gee

You are right! There is nothing unscientific about that. Why are you arguing about this? It's kind of silly. Gee

I bet you do. It makes you feel like you are not the only one. ☺️ I know little about science and less about math, so I did not know that. It is why I asked. Thank you for the information. You won't mind if I don't give you an up vote as you usually get them from people who are entertained by your abuse of members. I see you already have two, so I figure I don't owe you any more. The only thing you might be sorry about is that I might die and you will have one less person to abuse. Gee It is not wrong. It is just very limited. Arguing that you named and described laws of the Universe -- after the Universe came to be -- does nothing to add to this thread. Gee

These are questions that have been around forever and so far have no resolution. I agree that there is no "nothing", but when we agree to that, it opens the door to the "God" concept or to intelligent design, as it is clear that there is some organized growth in life and in the Universe. So I propose that we accept that there is something that is unknown to us -- that is immaterial -- but seems to have properties. What if we look at this backward and examine what properties would have to be present in order for the Universe to evolve? Some "time"? Time did not exist before matter and the Universe existed. You are talking about the "Invisible Spirit" as if it were some thing, or individual, or self -- this is where people come up with "God" ideas. I think it is a mistake to immediately interpret an anthropomorphized being; I prefer looking at properties. So there was never nothing; there was always something. Most people think that the "nothing" is related to consciousness, whether you call that consciousness "God" or not, but there is a problem with this. The conscious rational aspect of mind does not work outside of time, so it could not have been here before the Universe was here. Let's look at this backward. Let's reverse engineer the start of the Universe. 😁 There was no time -- so no rational mind. There was something that makes us think of "God" -- spirit? There was something that both the Laws of Physics and math are based on -- balance? There was something that had power -- a force? There was something that was self-balancing and could seek it's own level, much like water. There was something that can cause matter to form. There was something that caused things to bond together or create a oneness. All of the above are properties of emotion. Science has decided that emotion is nothing. Gee You do realize that you are posting in the religion forum and that your above comment could be used to validate the "God" idea, because it does not need to be tested or observed? And how do you make a hypothesis or prediction if you do not "observe" what you are talking about? This is the reason why science does not really study consciousness; they study the brain, and generally ignore emotion. Gee

This was your response and question: It looks like you made an assertion -- and did not give a description. In order for it to be scientific, it would have to be tested or at least observed. Yes? So did you observe "nothing" or did you test "nothing"? Gee