Hijack from Universal Consciousness

[Strange]

Strange, you would never know or seen proven that each is manifesting his own reality. That is the most basic part of it.

 

 

So, with respect to the boiling water thing, are you saying that you could measure the water boiling at 50C but the person standing next to you would see the same thermometer reading 100C?

Science doesn't know what to do with paranormal things except to deny they exist.

 

Actually, science doesn't say any such thing. You cannot prove they don't exist. All science can say is that every attempt to detect such things has failed.

[Dave Moore]

Regarding the comparison between two people together; There are many factors involved.

This is quite involved--- not so much in complication of the principle, but in terms of analysis.

For example, regardless of what each reads, who will be told later about the readings? And do both know what the readings "ought" to be?

Are you with me so far? if, for example, both had been taught that the boiling point of water was 50 degrees, and both would not later be corrected (at least until they forgot the incident), then yes, absolutely, 50 degrees.

You would never hear of the strange reading unless you could easily shrug it off as a mistake, or a lie, or some other believable scenario.

You see? Sounds complicated but it is actually very simple. It allows each person to maintain their belief or at least to allow reasons that are believable that the story is questionable.

So if one of the people measuring the 50 degree temperature is your brother (whom you've never known to lie), you would be less likely to even hear the story in the first place.

Why not? Because of determinism. Each person would be limited to manifesting his or her own beliefs as an ideal, and if not possible given circumstances, to find a way out of the paradox. The subjective "world" of each would nicely arrange everything not by a plan, but as a lowest energy outcome in each observation or perception.

But rather than thinking of the person's inner wisdom doing this, imagine it happening automatically, based on the limit of energy to shift belief.

Each of us, then, is bound to a thing I call "economy of perception", where the average person is always manifesting the outcome that uses the least energy within the limitations of all who are involved (is it six degrees of separation, they say?), which is a very complicated scenario, I'll grant. And yet, simple, because the dynamic, once understood, explains it all in principle.

That energy is the energy of belief / manifestation to whatever degree is necessary for each (on average).

Determinism might be seen as the landscape observed from a moving train. There is the sense of choice, but it isn't real choice. The train doesn't go right or left. The rails may branch, and the engineer may think he's making a choice, but he can't know if he would have done anything else.

His "choices" to switch tracks appear to be self-instigated nonetheless. He is rewarded with finding coal depots (as he knew he would) that refuel the coal car just in time each time. What he doesn't know is his train was always going to take the best route.

In a determined reality, the lowest energy path is always taken. The person may not know what lies ahead, but his energy (body?) knows well. Like a pebble bouncing down a steep slope, the best path always follows gravity, mindlessly but flawlessly taking the most efficient path it can.

And so our path goes as well. Just because we can't see ahead doesn't matter. Our energy "nose" knows. We may only sniff obvious energy in the present, but unbeknownst to us, we are constantly avoiding paradoxes and being steered around future belief obstacles.

 

Regarding other comment, I agree, you are right that science doesn't say any such thing. I guess I've seen you say such things do not exist once or twice, when you said, for example, "You are wrong"---- not "You may be wrong".

Wouldn't you agree?

Argent, I still don't get what you are saying. Give me a clue. I'm not as smart as I seem. Does 'altogether' mean without clothing?

Are you British (I know Strange is)?

Edited April 2, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

Regarding the comparison between two people together; There are many factors involved.

This is quite involved--- not so much in complication of the principle, but in terms of analysis.

For example, regardless of what each reads, who will be told later about the readings? And do both know what the readings "ought" to be?

Are you with me so far? if, for example, both had been taught that the boiling point of water was 50 degrees, and both would not later be corrected (at least until they forgot the incident), then yes, absolutely, 50 degrees.

 

 

You seem to have missed the point of the question: you believe the boiling point of water is 50C, the person next to you believes it is 100C - what temperature does the thermometer read?

 

But this doesn't correspond to reality. When independent people measure a new property, they get the same result. So when people first measured the boiling point of water, wherever they did it, whenever, whoever they were, they found the same value (allowing for factors like purity, air pressure, etc.). There is no evidence that pre-existing beliefs have any effect.

 

If, according to you, it is impossible to detect that beliefs have an effect but it can never be detected, then that (to me) is exactly the same as them having no effect.

[Dave Moore]

Two people together will always read the same temperature, but with qualifiers (read below). The temperature needn't be any particular value because the requirement is that they agree, not that the temperature Is 100c.

Sorry. You said one thermometer. First, however, I have to qualify your question.

 

Two people view a single thermometer at sea level.

Question:

 

1) Will they also tell each other what they are seeing?

2) Do they both agree outwardly that they see the same temperature?

3) Is there a camera or video involved?

4) Will they ever meet again? If so, how soon?

5) Is anyone else watching?

7) Who will be told of the outcome?

 

Because the observer of the event will effect the outcome, and agreement requires a question.

Just like in real life. Your assumption that you can be a detached bystander is wrong. Every witness collapses the question separately, because subjective reality isn't observable by any outside agency without effecting the outcome. Sound familiar?

They may coincidentally agree even if they do not compare observations, but if they could never know what the boiling point ought to be, then they would have to agree outwardly to each other what they had read to come away with the same reading.

In subjective reality, we are all detectors and we must be asked a question and answer in order to collapse the wave function for the other. So the wave which appears to collapse for two people, for example, is also dependent on the further agreement by each that the observation yielded a particular result.

Are you confused yet, Strange?

Edited April 2, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Ten oz]

@Dave Moore, you know that consciouness is projected, there are multiple realities, and have figured out many of the big questions the rest of haven't so why are you here? Your fustrated posts full of challanges and insults pointed to the mental faculties of others to understand you seem rather petty since you have already resolved these matters of philosophy and science. Perhaps this is less about Schroder's cat and more about you? A projected universe of preference. Your take seems to go beyond choices in a universe which is bigger than us and into a universe which is nearly at ones command. A grand scale that it is instantaneously undermined by your confused analogies and metaphors. Can you boil down a couple of keys points you believe without adding on philosophical pretext or state a philosophical question without pseudo science or anti educational views attached?

Edited April 2, 2017 by Ten oz

[Dave Moore]

Thank you so much for your kind post, Ten oz. (And you do seem to being doing well with only ten).

However, I don't give a rat's fat bottom what you think.

You could easily find another thread to wreak your personal gripes upon.

I am working very hard to present my work to those who challenge me. Do my posts seem hurried or sloppy?

I spend hours and draw from my deepest well of capacity to make sure I've done my best.

You don't challenge me, but some, like Strange, have done so. Strange has asked me a question and I am anxious to see what he or she says.

My question, "Are you confused yet?", is no insult, but a reference to how difficult it must be to understand me.

Your comment was an insult.

I have something to say. You do not, nor do you care whether you learn anything new, apparently.

I have an aggressive way of challenging people to challenge me.

When one is alone, it's very easy to be attacked by the status quo. I have no problem with this, even welcome it. That is because I need to sharpen my wits against the near immovable whetting stone of disagreement with what I know to be true.

So please find a thread where you can be happy. And speak for yourself rather than believing everyone agrees with you.

I work extremely hard on my posts. I always reward decency with even greater decency. But I won't be stopped by the likes of you.

This is, I've said before, a thread about consciousness. I have discovered a model of consciousness which is very difficult to convey. Not because it's complicated, but because the very nature of belief is involved.

I have felt safe here, safer than on the psychology forums or the science forums.

So please, save yourself from further dismay. Find some forum that works better for you, where you feel less threatened and perhaps more able to express your views without running up against the likes of me.

I wish you well. I really do.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

First, however, I have to qualify your question.

 

 

No you don't because we know they will always measure 100C. So you are just deluded (or trolling),

[Dave Moore]

Parallels exist between quantum tests and the nature of consciousness.

The phenomenon of observation as an apparent causal event fascinated me to no end when I first learned about it.

Many years later, when I discovered my model of reality, I came back to this strange observation thing, this time with the recognition of the phenomenon as a beautiful demonstration that mirrored my discoveries.

I knew, and saw reflected, that observation described the process of subjective reality exactly, in fact representing a proof of it.

To convey this has been difficult. Observation is a funny thing.

Observation is at play at this instant, as I attempt to convey the process as not exactly understood by science in general.

Yet, I am hoping that it might dawn on some (or even one) that quantum delayed choice in particular expresses a true dynamic of reality to a greater degree than is currently accepted.

The parallels emerge in such thought experiments as follow:

 

It is not that detector information observation reveals any objective reality, but that subjective beliefs have manifested. A plurality of observers tend to agree about the fact that an observation had been made, and that the resulting outcome has been proved.

Destruction of detector evidence of position prior to observation is proven by an interference of waves displayed on a screen or photosensitive camera.

One could view this on a macro scale, where an observation could be made of detector information even if another person had already viewed the results provided by the detector. It is only necessary that he not be found out---- not at the time, and not ever.

Belief is at play here. A claim that a person had peeked isn't good enough because it wouldn't be believed.

What would be needed would be a video absolutely proving that someone had peeked.

But wait. Could that occur? Subjective reality shows that such proof of the peeker presenting undeniable evidence presents a paradox. Determinism however, works very hard to eliminate paradoxes, due to the way we observe. Observation is about belief. We don't experience paradoxes precisely because we, as subjective participants, do not easily manifest realities that are paradoxical to our beliefs.

Determinism would "know the script" of our future. That's why an observation can take place years after a test has been instigated and yet it always appears that reverse causality has again occurred.

Our causal path forward would always be a series of lowest energy outcomes (based on beliefs being energetically controlled).

Observation of belief "position:" would be a low energy state.

A test where a surreptitious peeker had already seen the detector results would not prevent observation by subsequent observer of the detector results if the peeker were to be "erased" by a big truck without ever telling that he'd peeked. Conversely, if the test showed no diffraction pattern after later observers asked the 'which slit/' question, they would be very surprised but this would absolutely guarantee that the peeker would show up alive (or perhaps left a note) and resolve the paradox.

Either that, or some plausible reason would emerge to the later observers that could easily be believed.

I promise you I'm not trolling. This isn't intellectual either. IQ is meaningless. Rather, it is an indication that almost every human being has strict limitations derived from neurosis or "splitting" of consciousness, otherwise call cognitive dissonance when it comes to the base polarities of determinism and free will.

This apparently occurs in infancy. Subjective and objective also split in childhood. we are born, as I've said, aware of determinism, but later shift in the direction of a belief in free will. We shift from belief in subjective reality too, an explanation of the invisible playmate one day ceasing to manifest.

We don't lose these concepts, but separate them into two distinct areas of the mind represented by right and left hemispheres of the brain.

We call upon determinism or free will as true realities in applying either blame or exoneration of both ourselves and others. Depending on our level of self-awareness, or integrity, we call upon these paradigms either as a convenience or as means to integrity. Everyone falls somewhere between those polarities.

Some always blame others (free will) and the same people draw upon the "rules" of determinism when it comes to not accepting responsibility, putting themselves in a better light.

Honest people who are able to examine themselves without prejudice often reverse this dynamic by accepting responsibility for their own faults but exonerate others, saying, "They couldn't help it."

Edited April 2, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Strange]

Do my posts seem hurried or sloppy?

I spend hours and draw from my deepest well of capacity to make sure I've done my best.

 

 

I find that hard to believe. They are incoherent ramblings contradicted by reality. I can only assume you post random stuff you make up, either as a joke or to attempt to annoy people. It is neither funny nor annoying. Just a bit sad.

The phenomenon of observation as an apparent causal event fascinated me to no end when I first learned about it.

 

As they say: a little learning is a dangerous thing. You have picked up on an idea, without fully understanding it, and projected all sorts of nonsense onto it.

[Dave Moore]

Strange, why do you even attempt to comment here, so far from anything you understand? Why don't you actually ask me questions or respond to my answers? Picked up an idea? My explanation is unassailable. You can't find fault. you only sat things that indicate judgement at every turn. Attack my ideas, here, publicly.

Let your intellect lead the way, not your prejudices.

[Ten oz]

No more responses to you, DrP. You waste my time by not even attempting to understand what I'm saying.

I said why Randi will keep his money. Argue with that or shut up.

Insulted DrP

 

Yes, it was a bad example. Good work.

 

And I don't suppose, getting back to the subject, you could imagine subjective reality either.

Anything but the topic. Are all of you the same person using different names? Because you all attack everything but what I am claiming, which is that reality is not objective, but subjective.

Don't bother me any more if you have nothing to say about consciousness.

Attack my ideas. Crucify the ideas.

But you can't. it's beyond you and we both know it.

 

Next? My spelling?

 

Insulted me

 

Strange, enough. I get it that you can't wrap your head around this stuff.

 

This is a thread about consciousness. Science knows nothing about the subject.

I stand by with what I said.

It is truer to say that energy is that which can be proven axiomatically than to say, "I read it in high school".

Your first mistake is your insistence that what is taught is more real than pain or opleasure, for example.

I say, you have lost the ability to discern what true reality is.

If you cannot, don't bother talking about it, I can see even imagining it is beyond your abilities.

Instulted Strange

 

My question, "Are you confused yet?", is no insult, but a reference to how difficult it must be to understand me.

Your comment was an insult.

I have something to say. You do not, nor do you care whether you learn anything new, apparently.

Save the denials. Your tone throughout this thread has been dismissive and brash. You repeatedly challange us to prove negatives while hold yourself to no outlined standard. Rather, you are presenting opinions, agreeing with your opinions, then treating those opinions as proved. It is circular reasoning. In this case it actually fits your speculations about consciousness well considering you are convinced reality can be manifested. Perhaps this is your experiment. To see if you can aggressively force your speculations to be proved through persistence.

 

In my opinion, and I feel the opinion of other in this discussion, you have still yet to explain why consciousness isn't a function of the brain. Do you have a clear way of expressing that without abstractions?

[Strange]

Why don't you actually ask me questions or respond to my answers?

 

 

I have asked questions, and responded to the answers. It is fairly unproductive.

 

 

 

You can't find fault.

 

For example, when I ask about two people measuring the build point of water (which you claims is subjective) you cannot give a clear answer about what will happen. You also cannot explain why everyone measures the same value for properties like this making them, apparently, objective values.

 

So your idea seems to be falsified by almost every measurement made.

[Phi for All]

My explanation is unassailable. You can't find fault.

 

Because we're using science. For your explanations, that's like using a fishnet to catch air.

[Dave Moore]

All three of you--- a classic circle jerk.

[Strange]

You could try addressing the questions and objections raised.

 

 

All three of you--- a classic circle jerk.

 

 

Or you could sit there arrogantly confident in your own rightness and just insult people who demonstrate the flaws in your argument.

[Phi for All]

All three of you--- a classic circle jerk.

 

And there's the bottom of that barrel, folks.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Locked pending mod review.

 

 

...

 

 

Since this was a hijack of the original discussion, empirical evidence was lacking, and things were getting out of hand, this has been trashed. Don't re-initiate this discussion.