by t888 » Wed 15 Apr 2009, 12:23:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'E')xistentialism much?
This also brings up my second favorite line/idea ever: "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRIKyNQOHvwTo find enlightenment one must 'let go'.
The current established scientific paradigm is based upon the a priori assumption that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of a material reality that existed prior to, and independent of consciousness. Quantum mechanics has produced strong evidence that it is wrong. The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) paradox was a thought experiment designed to demonstrate failure of the uncertainty principle in the case of the creation of a pair of twin particles and the subsequent determination of certain physical characteristics of the particles at some distance from the point of their creation. If elementary particles travel through space as localized phenomena, as EPR (and common sense) insist, then it is easy to show that the correlation between a pair of particles in an EPR-type experiment cannot exceed a specific numerical value. John Bell was able to show mathematically that if Bohr was right, that value would be exceeded. Experiments carried out by Clauser and Freedman, Aspect, and others, have proved that Einstein was wrong; Bohr was correct. As John Wheeler has said: "No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon." This startling conclusion has been born out by a number of experiments, including the so-called 'delayed-choice' experiment. In fact it is decided, after the fact, whether a photon behaved as a wave or as a particle. Elementary phenomena like photons do not exist as localized particles or waves until they register by impacting upon a receptor. If quanta do not exist until they register as effects on a receptor, and we have no way of knowing of them until evidence of their effects is received in our consciousness via a chain of quanta and receptors, how are we to know whether they exist or not, without the presence of consciousness? And information is carried from the object to the observer by a series of sources, particles, and receptors. But what is the final receptor? If it is a physical structure, it is by definition made of elementary particles, and if the energy of the incoming quanta is absorbed by physical particles, how can we account for the image of the object of observation that arises in consciousness? Is it composed of energy? If so, there is a minimum volume within which the image of an object can appear and be stored, since energy can only occur in quanta, or discrete, finite packets. What is the consciousness that perceives this image? Is it also made up of quanta of matter and energy? If so, then the elementary particles of which it is composed also had no local physical form until they registered on a prior receptor. And that prior receptor, if it was composed of quanta of matter and energy, also had to have had a prior receptor, and so on. Thus the quest for the first receptor becomes an infinite regression in time and space. But time and space are finite in the physical world and there is, therefore, a "bottom" to physical phenomena, the infinite regress or descent is impossible, and we have a logical contradiction. Conclusion: the final receptor and the images it perceives are not composed of quanta of matter and energy.
Where.. for example does the canonical quale of say '
redness' reside? We can say 'in our minds' but if we are to take our currently understanding of there being a 'physical world', then 'where' exactly in our minds?
Language doesn't really describe it, (after all how can the word
"RED", define or give rise to essence and quality of
RED if I have never previously experienced any sensation of the color red in my life before?)
Math can't encode it, sure we can allude to the wavelength and physical characteristics of the color red in the EM spectrum, but still that tells us nothing at all about the quality of redness itself! .. After all it can't be in the physical processes, the neurons and gray matter itself! So if we
assume physical reality exists and assume that it is
not some fundamental
consciousness-space-time (incorporating consciousness as another extension/dimension to 'spacetime' thus resolving the so called mind body problem, the epiphenomenon paradox and the 'hard problem of consciousness'..) then we are still left with the problem of where exactly does these qualia reside? We cannot very well say 'they don't really exists, they are just appearances' because if that was truly the case then we would be in a sense 'mindless zombies' going around
Exactly the way we are now but instead of "me being aware of my self identity" there would be a pervasive 'nothingness'.. And Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" boils down to the same conclusion, except he really meant there is 'qualia' and therefore 'something exists' .. (not that there is an actual physical world 'somewhere out there', because we can never have first hand empirical evidence of that! if we are to assume there is separation (physical world and qualia realm) if we assume nonduality then it becomes that these distinctions become meaningless..
If we take the nondual stance then these problems resolve themselves.. There isn't a problem.. If we continue with the current scientific paradigm then we are faced with the problem of how we can ever really PROVE that a physical world exists 'out there' somewhere, but we really can't because ironically that position is where our assumptions naturally lead us to!!! (we are already assuming there is a fundamental distinction between the reality of the physical world out there and our inherent limitations and sense data and perceptual filters, etc..) We really shot ourselves in the foot with this one, because if we assume that all we can ever know are only just the immediate sense data and nothing else, then we can't ever know of the ultimate external reality 'out there' can we? Nope.. Of course then the question becomes does it even matter? If all we can ever come into contact with is our own subjective 'inner worlds' then is not the so called correspondence theory being rather silly and superfluous? Corresponding to exactly what?
Regardless, consciousness does seem to be localized and embodied.. Anyway I was saying it does appear that human consciousness as we know it to be, is a localized and embodied phenomenon regardless of whatever worldview and/or paradigm we take.. If the details of the Mandelbrot set or the irrational non repeating ratio of PI doesn't and cannot possible reside in their entirely within the physical universe itself, (so goes without saying they cannot exists entirely in our minds..) but yet we know they do have 'existence'.. Then 'where' do they 'exists' or reside? If not in some other 'world', then where? It only make sense that the so called 'physical world' (which is not really physical at all, there is nothing 'physical' about physical..) is a subset embedded in a large existential platonic world of qualia.