Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[trainedobserver]

I am just trying to understand what you are talking about. I asked you define what it is we are discussing. I see that if I had assumed we shared a common understanding of the words consciousness and field I would have been incorrect. That much is obvious.

I have no idea what a frequency based energy would be. Can you explain that? You invoke names like Einstein and Planck, but I don't think either used the words frequency or energy in such a way.

If you cannot present your ideas in a clear manner, you shouldn't berate your audience for not following you. I'm asking questions. Simple ones at that.

When I say these things are religious beliefs rather than science I'm not judging them for being religious, I'm just saying they are philosophical not scientific explanations.

Consciousness is "staring you in the face obvious." You're experiencing it now if you're reading this. It's generated inside your skull and is confined to it. I understand the whole "brain as a receiver" argument and reject it because it makes no sense to me.

The incredible wonder of realizing that your consciousness (the 3D Virtual Reality that is your experience) is derived from the very substance of your brain, that in fact it is composed of the food you've eaten, and occurs without thought and effort is more astounding, thought provoking, and misty-eye creating than any religious experience I've ever had. And I've had quite a few. What the actual substances are that cause for example the chromatic experience we call "light", "dark", and "color" are unknown. It seems logical that's some sort of quantum action is occurring at subatomic levels. Standing outside looking up at the moon. All of that is occurring inside the confines of the skull somewhere at relativistic microscopic levels. That's pretty amazing and totally wondrous.

I'm sorry Jeff, I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about man.

 

[trainedobserver]

...and the theory we were discussing is that consciousness is a field. This is a perfectly legitimate idea to explore, and here is how we got there in a nutshell:

...so the idea that perhaps it takes the form of a field, analogous to the idea of a magnetic field, actually seems to be a good fit. Why? Because we don't really know what these kinds of fields are made of, but we do know they exist and that they can store and trade energy.

A magnetic field is a mathematical description of the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. So you're saying that consciousness is a mathematical description, a concept basically.

The short version of my own opinion is that consciousness is an emergent property of a normally functioning lucid brain/body system, and that the idea of it being thought about as a field as discussed above, fits with that.

I agree with everything except field. It isn't a field. It's a thing, or more correctly a collection of things, I'm experiencing them now just as you are. Whatever the medium, the human brain demonstrably generates it.

Peace, love, and all that jazz to you guys.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I am just trying to understand what you are talking about. I asked you define what it is we are discussing. I see that if I had assumed we shared a common understanding of the words consciousness and field I would have been incorrect. That much is obvious.

I have expressed to you quite well, eloquently actually, what I believe consciousness's architectural definition is in a most basic relative manner. We do NOT possess any form of absolute empirically derived definition at this present time for what EXACTLY constitutes consciousness at a quantum level, however we are certain of some of it's trademark signatures via replicable testing results as registered interference pattern anomalies within widespread databases correlated across the globe to measure just such an effect. These are algorithmic summations of quantum random event generations that do in fact demonstrate interactions of consciousness at a quantum level that can, and most definitely have been demonstrably modeled and thereby mathematically substantiated empirically. Do you realize the level of seriousness expressed by these life long endeavors? This is NOT the latest Fortean farce here. This is very real science.

I have no idea what a frequency based energy would be.

Certainly one that is given to informational frequency specific conversion, wherein sentience induced relativity would initiate, and thereby manifest itself as center of process.

Can you explain that? You invoke names like Einstein and Planck, but I don't think either used the words frequency or energy in such a way.

I just did, and, when I "invoke" (calling all spirits!) inspiration from those like Planck and Einstein, it's not to forward anything less than undeniable universal principle in doing so. I believe that they BOTH used each term in any number of combinations infinitely more wisely than I ever could. So what?

If you cannot present your ideas in a clear manner, you shouldn't berate your audience for not following you. I'm asking questions. Simple ones at that.

One must not assume one is being berated, (?!) and drenched in a quagmire of unclarity, because as much might just be due to one's own inability to imagine the perceptions and thoughts conveyed.

When I say these things are religious beliefs rather than science I'm not judging them for being religious, I'm just saying they are philosophical not scientific explanations.

Philosophy *is* a science my friend, and an extremely important one at that. Very much so. In fact, most will tell you that Einstein was a far more effective philosopher than he was a mathematician. Provided they know about Einstein. BTW, Einstein WAS the kind of guy that would run into stuff if he wasn't careful. That's because he had a SUPREEM imagination for concepts that were very tough to grasp. Those concepts were developed first as philosophy, and then manifest mathematically.

Consciousness is "staring you in the face obvious." You're experiencing it now if you're reading this. It's generated inside your skull and is confined to it. I understand the whole "brain as a receiver" argument and reject it because it makes no sense to me.

I respect that. Things are sometimes not as they seem.

The incredible wonder of realizing that your consciousness (the 3D Virtual Reality that is your experience) is derived from the very substance of your brain, that in fact it is composed of the food you've eaten, and occurs without thought and effort is more astounding, thought provoking, and misty-eye creating than any religious experience I've ever had. And I've had quite a few. What the actual substances are that cause for example the chromatic experience we call "light", "dark", and "color" are unknown. It seems logical that's some sort of quantum action is occurring at subatomic levels. Standing outside looking up at the moon. All of that is occurring inside the confines of the skull somewhere at relativistic microscopic levels. That's pretty amazing and totally wondrous.

Actually, everything that you just described is the experiential product of information. Information *is* fascinating stuff, and delineates human physical experience within the confines of the brain. It's like a camera, except the only mistake you're making is that you need the light of relativity to make the picture manifest coherently. Information does not come from what you had for breakfast this morning my friend. Even if it was Captain Crunch.

I'm sorry Jeff, I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about man.

No need to apologize, I know you are doing your best.

 

[Randall]

A magnetic field is a mathematical description of the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. So you're saying that consciousness is a mathematical description, a concept basically.

Not exactly. For example permanent magnets don't involve electricity, yet they have magnetic fields. Electromagnets also have magnetic fields that behave similarly, so magnetic fields are not simply mathematical constructs or mere concepts. They are real and measurable and are an emergent property of magnets ( permanent or otherwise ). So what we're discussing is the idea that consciousness, the reality of which is self-evident, is a type of field that in my interpretation is an emergent property of a lucid brain ( lucid meaning not totally unconscious ).

I agree with everything except field. It isn't a field. It's a thing, or more correctly a collection of things, I'm experiencing them now just as you are. Whatever the medium, the human brain demonstrably generates it.

Above you use the word "medium". That's a good starting point. The reason it's evolved into the concept of a field is that the word "medium" is inclusive of materials, e.g. acrylic medium ( as in acrylic paint ), but as we explore the issue we find that a material medium isn't applicable. We touched on that during the aforementioned discussion when we asked ourselves what our imaginary red Ferrari is made of. Asking what this "substance" is much the same as asking what is the "medium" from which it is made. These questions are explored in a concept called substance dualism:

As the video above explains, there are problems with certain models of dualism, specifically the association of consciousness with some sort of non-physical stuff, and this is where our interpretation of duality diverges because there is more than one meaning for the word physical, one which is associated with the physical sciences, including physics, and the other associated with the idea of something non-material. So while we see the idea of things like magnetism excluded from substance dualism in the video, our interpretation here doesn't do that.

Our view of dualism here isn't physical + non-physical ( as the video portrays ), but rather material + non-material, and therefore it remains coherent and the problems outlined in the video become irrelevant. This leaves us at a place in our investigation where although we don't fully understand all the workings, it's assumed that with sufficient information, consciousness is not beyond scientific exploration or understanding.

So as you can see, we recognize that technically speaking in a rather general sense, we can think of an EM field as a type of medium, but the word "field" is more precise. It removes those facets of the word "medium" that don't apply. At this point, perhaps the depth of discussion as to what composes consciousness isn't relevant to the point you were trying to make. I'm not sure.

I do however tend to agree with your basic premise that consciousness ( whatever it is ) is an emergent property of a functioning brain, more specifically, a normal healthy functioning lucid brain/body system. In my interpretation of this model, our "consciousness field" is a personally generated field that is measurable via our awareness of it and appears to be related to brain wave patterns as measured by EEGs. I'm still not certain what @Jeff Davis's interpretation is ( whether consciousness is a separate field created by something other than our brain that our brain taps into, or more like what I've proposed ).

I hope this helps you see that in this instance we aren't just talking, talking about "hicky-hoos and nimble-widgets performing spinkies in the zig-zig" .

 

[trainedobserver]

Well fellas, from a technical standpoint it sure sounds like pseudo-science to me. From an English langauge perspective, the misuse of various key terms renders the hypothosis nonsensical.

I guess that is a far as I can go with the whole consciousness and morphic field thing myself.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm still not certain what @Jeff Davis's interpretation is ( whether consciousness is a separate field created by something other than our brain that our brain taps into, or more like what I've proposed ).

I hope this helps you see that in this instance we aren't just talking, talking about "hicky-hoos and nimble-widgets performing spinkies in the zig-zig" .

I have stated the following at least a dozen times. We are reference points within the medium of consciousness. Jeff Davis, Ufology, & Trained Observer, are ALL speaking in semantic circles here. We refer to at very least 75% the same precise things but because we use different words to describe various abstract concepts in process, we keep asking one another to explain ourselves. Many times we are ALL stating the exact same things.

Consciousness = Environmental relevance envelope. It's described as a field because we are situated within it. Much like the Earth's gravitational field defines a physical object's mass centered relationship within it, consciousness is an infinite universal field whose environmental properties allow naturally (makes possible) for a referred energetic relationship to emerge between itself and the human brain's subsequent process of that environmental relevance. The human brain's processing of that information yields our understanding, or better put, it's relative interpretation of that information as manifest physical experience. It's what gives us sentient reference within the survival mission of human evolution. It's just a natural completed circuit. In this sense, consciousness could best be defined as the brain's informational power source. The physical world, the one that we all live and participate within, is our neural system's reflection of the sensory informational input of the physical world. We observe, and in fact, achieve relativity, after the initial informational experience is processed and stored in the memory and retrieved as experience according to temporal synchronicity. This is to state emphatically that our specific relative relationship to time itself is a direct product of the informational reference we experience within the field of consciousness.

Cognition = Individual brain based process of post informational experience. Ever witnessed (and I am certain you have) a vivid lightening strike, and then 5-10 seconds latter your audio senses register the report produced by the lightening? That's exactly how consciousness works at a quantum level with respect to cognitively interpreted experience. EVERYTHING we experience with respect to temporal relativity is stored in the brain's memory prior to the emergence of these experiences in the physical world. This does NOT mean that the physical world is not real or any such nonsense. Bang your head against the wall, see if it hurts. Of course it's as real as the blood flowing through our biological veins. This is to state however, that the reference point we create when emerging physically into the field of consciousness creates at that instant our physically perceived temporal condition. In other words, this base line reference establishes our relationship to time itself. However, because the relationship between the field of consciousness and the brain precedes our awareness of this temporal base line, the process must be pre-temporally processed information, stored in the memory, and then retrieved according to our base line's continuous calculations from a specific and absolute emerged existence. This is synchronicity and we see experiential evidence of as much all the time. I glanced at the digital clock this morning as I was climbing into bed, it was 1:11. I get constant affirmations of this nature frequently. These are instant sentient hand shakes between the brain's referred temporal relevance within the field of consciousness and our actuated memory retrieved experiences. IMO, these are environmental status checks stating everything's A-OK inside and outside (pre, and post) our environmentally derived temporal base line.

The brain, and indeed all anatomical features give us our unique physical experience. There is just nothing mysterious here apart from the fact that IMO the field of consciousness initiates and perpetuates the brain's physical processing in the sense that first energy can neither create nor destroy itself, and secondly, the absolute fact that physical existence is temporally finite.

Life is a circuit. When that circuit ceases to exist, or is simply broken, we cease to exist as a reference point within the field of consciousness. However, proceeding the matter based contents of the universe itself, the energy of consciousness has always existed, and always will exist, as being the perpetual host of all human sentient awareness based experience.

 

[Randall]

I have stated the following at least a dozen times. We are reference points within the medium of consciousness. Jeff Davis, Ufology, & Trained Observer, are ALL speaking in semantic circles here. We refer to at very least 75% the same precise things but because we use different words to describe various abstract concepts in process, we keep asking one another to explain ourselves. Many times we are ALL stating the exact same things.

Consciousness = Environmental relevance envelope. It's described as a field because we are situated within it. Much like the Earth's gravitational field defines a physical object's mass centered relationship within it, consciousness is an infinite universal field whose environmental properties allow naturally (makes possible) for a referred energetic relationship to emerge between itself and the human brain's subsequent process of that environmental relevance ...

You may have stated an answer, but it just hasn't been clear enough for me to discern how it's relevant to my specific question. Do you think the consciousness field is produced by the human brain or by something else that our brains tap into? Either way we're situated in it, so that answer still doesn't address the specific question. If you don't mind, please pick option 1. or 2. below:

1. Yes it's produced by the human brain.
2. No it's produced by something else that our brain taps into.

Which one is it in your model?

 

[Michael Allen]

You may have stated an answer, but it just hasn't been clear enough for me to discern how it's relevant to my specific question. Do you think the consciousness field is produced by the human brain or by something else that our brains tap into? Either way we're situated in it, so that answer still doesn't address the specific question. If you don't mind, please pick option 1. or 2. below:

1. Yes it's produced by the human brain.
2. No it's produced by something else that our brain taps into.

Which one is it in your model?

Strictly speaking--the way I see it--it produces and is produced ... and this "field of consciousness" is something we're all very very familiar with: Its the world of things of which "we" are immersed.
I don't think we need to go looking for anything hidden to see what creates consciousness--the physical world creates it in us and it should be the closest and farthest thing from our own understanding. Like a fish in water.

 

[trainedobserver]

NOTE: This illustration comes from the book Mind Dimension, which I highly recommend.

 

[Jeff Davis]

You may have stated an answer, but it just hasn't been clear enough for me to discern how it's relevant to my specific question. Do you think the consciousness field is produced by the human brain or by something else that our brains tap into? Either way we're situated in it, so that answer still doesn't address the specific question. If you don't mind, please pick option 1. or 2. below:

1. Yes it's produced by the human brain.
2. No it's produced by something else that our brain taps into.

Which one is it in your model?

Ufology,
Apologies for the late reply,
The human brain is a living organic computer. That's it, nothing more. Consciousness is the software that it runs on, and at the same time, it's power source. The brain utilizes consciousness to derive information from which it computes that which we perceive as physical reality. The physical world we live in is real whether human beings are present in as much or not. The brain or consciousness does not "create" reality. Our perception of that world is an interpretation based on calculations much like Trained Observer points to. HOWEVER, much like the human physical brain reacts to the physical world via it's own neural uptake, the brain reacts to the informational world via the energy of consciousness provision wherein the brain's unique signature is interfaced to derive sentience.

The bottom line with respect to consciousness research is information. Information is a form of energy that we do not understand apart from the fact that like all energy, due to basic laws of energetic conservation, can neither create nor destroy itself. We refer to it as data, but like all things we reflect on within known existence, we look to our memories, it's orientation becomes past tense as we imagine data being stored. Information for us is typically post process. Consciousness is either a) the reflective environmental apex at which cognition achieves sentience naturally, or b) the energy that carries the actualization program that combines physicality and information to produce experience.

 

[trainedobserver]

...Information is a form of energy that we do not understand apart from the fact that like all energy, due to basic laws of energetic conservation, can neither create nor destroy itself. ...

Information is not "energy." Information exists only as an abstract concept within a human mind.

Energy can be thought of as the capacity of a physical system to do work. It is a capacity and not a separate ethereal thing. It is an attribute.

Information or data is dependent on structure. For example, when the structure of the human brain degenerates the information or data contained inside of it loses its structure and disappears into noise. The information contained on a newspaper (which only actually exists as "information" after a human has read it) disappears when the paper is burned. Information without structure is nothing, therefore information can be created and destroyed.

Things belong in one of two realms. Objects or concepts. Objects are the subject of physical science. Concepts are the subject of philosophy and religion. Confusing the two is often the purview of pseudo-science and paranormal apologists and leads to nothing but ... well, confusion.

 

[Randall]

Strictly speaking--the way I see it--it produces and is produced ... and this "field of consciousness" is something we're all very very familiar with: Its the world of things of which "we" are immersed.
I don't think we need to go looking for anything hidden to see what creates consciousness--the physical world creates it in us and it should be the closest and farthest thing from our own understanding. Like a fish in water.

So in your view it ( the consciousness field ) produces what, and is produced by what?

 

[Randall]

Ufology,
Apologies for the late reply,
The human brain is a living organic computer. That's it, nothing more. Consciousness is the software that it runs on, and at the same time, it's power source. The brain utilizes consciousness to derive information from which it computes that which we perceive as physical reality. The physical world we live in is real whether human beings are present in as much or not. The brain or consciousness does not "create" reality. Our perception of that world is an interpretation based on calculations much like Trained Observer points to. HOWEVER, much like the human physical brain reacts to the physical world via it's own neural uptake, the brain reacts to the informational world via the energy of consciousness provision wherein the brain's unique signature is interfaced to derive sentience.

The bottom line with respect to consciousness research is information. Information is a form of energy that we do not understand apart from the fact that like all energy, due to basic laws of energetic conservation, can neither create nor destroy itself. We refer to it as data, but like all things we reflect on within known existence, we look to our memories, it's orientation becomes past tense as we imagine data being stored. Information for us is typically post process. Consciousness is either a) the reflective environmental apex at which cognition achieves sentience naturally, or b) the energy that carries the actualization program that combines physicality and information to produce experience.

In the above model there are some issues that should be addressed, the first of which involves the idea that consciousness is like software that it ( the brain ) runs on. That is backwards. The brain is analogous to the CPU, which means that the software runs on the brain, not the other way around.

The next issue is that software isn't non-material. Programming is encoded on some form of physical media. In modern CPUs some software is hard coded into the circuitry of the CPU chip itself. Similarly, in our brains, the software is hard coded via the organization of synaptic connections. However the synaptic connections that are used for our programming, memory, or processing, aren't what we perceive as consciousness. Again, if we imagine our red Ferrari, we'll never see it in any of the brain's material. The image somehow exists separately from the material from which it is produced, and this is the essence of duality.

when it comes to the concepts of information and energy. Using the computer/brain analogy, both systems run on energy, and in part even the same type of energy ( electricity ). The brain also runs on biochemical energy. Both types of systems also process signals generated by their components that are presented to us in ways that we can perceive. The computer allows us to perceive them through our sensory input via an audio-visual interface ( speakers & screen ). Our brains however can generate imagery and sounds on their own, and it is our awareness of that imagery that we are referring to when we are talking about consciousness. The information that comes out of this process is our interpretation of the experience ( e.g. Q: What did you imagine? A: I imagined a red Ferrari ).

The upshot of the above, if we follow the computer analogy is that consciousness is the product of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I find this to be the most reasonable interpretation. In this model the so-called "consciousness field" is something associated with each individual, not some ubiquitous field that our brains tap into in order to become conscious.

 

[Randall]

NOTE: This illustration comes from the book Mind Dimension, which I highly recommend.

Interesting diagram. It is essentially a model for duality, but refers to subjective reality as the "Mind Dimension" and objective reality as the "Real Dimension". Except for those two terms it seems to illustrate what we're dealing with perfectly fine. I realize that the word "dimension" is being used as a convenience term in the diagram, but technically, dimensions are another concept altogether and using that terminology will inevitably lead to confusion. Nevertheless, I'll have a look for the book though at the library and bookstore. Thanks for posting it .

 

[Jeff Davis]

Information is not "energy." Information exists only as an abstract concept within a human mind.

Energy can be thought of as the capacity of a physical system to do work. It is a capacity and not a separate ethereal thing. It is an attribute.

Information or data is dependent on structure. For example, when the structure of the human brain degenerates the information or data contained inside of it loses its structure and disappears into noise. The information contained on a newspaper (which only actually exists as "information" after a human has read it) disappears when the paper is burned. Information without structure is nothing, therefore information can be created and destroyed.

Things belong in one of two realms. Objects or concepts. Objects are the subject of physical science. Concepts are the subject of philosophy and religion. Confusing the two is often the purview of pseudo-science and paranormal apologists and leads to nothing but ... well, confusion.

I appreciate your opinion. That's all it is. How much precisely have read on experimental/theoretical consciousness modeling? Can you falsify the mathematical models put forth by numerous scientists claiming precisely what I am here? I have already pointed to the specific information I am referring to. Information that you communicated to me that you were already familiar with. Really? Which books precisely have you read and researched on the matter? Again, I do appreciate your opinion. Even if it is an incorrect and invalidated one at this time.

 

[Jeff Davis]

In the above model there are some issues that should be addressed, the first of which involves the idea that consciousness is like software that it ( the brain ) runs on. That is backwards. The brain is analogous to the CPU, which means that the software runs on the brain, not the other way around.

The next issue is that software isn't non-material. Programming is encoded on some form of physical media. In modern CPUs some software is hard coded into the circuitry of the CPU chip itself. Similarly, in our brains, the software is hard coded via the organization of synaptic connections. However the synaptic connections that are used for our programming, memory, or processing, aren't what we perceive as consciousness. Again, if we imagine our red Ferrari, we'll never see it in any of the brain's material. The image somehow exists separately from the material from which it is produced, and this is the essence of duality.

when it comes to the concepts of information and energy. Using the computer/brain analogy, both systems run on energy, and in part even the same type of energy ( electricity ). The brain also runs on biochemical energy. Both types of systems also process signals generated by their components that are presented to us in ways that we can perceive. The computer allows us to perceive them through our sensory input via an audio-visual interface ( speakers & screen ). Our brains however can generate imagery and sounds on their own, and it is our awareness of that imagery that we are referring to when we are talking about consciousness. The information that comes out of this process is our interpretation of the experience ( e.g. Q: What did you imagine? A: I imagined a red Ferrari ).

The upshot of the above, if we follow the computer analogy is that consciousness is the product of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I find this to be the most reasonable interpretation. In this model the so-called "consciousness field" is something associated with each individual, not some ubiquitous field that our brains tap into in order to become conscious.

My reply to you is very similar to Trained Observer. How familiar are you with consciousness research Ufology? What books on the matter have you studied? You see, when people come at something as if they KNOW about that something when in all reality, apart from their differing opinions, they have no clue, it gets old. I introduced you to DR. Elizabeth Rauscher, only to have you bring up the typical pseudo skeptical BS that the PRECISE SAME detractors use on your precious "ufology" continually. What kind of BS are you slinging Sir? You don't have a clue. Do you have ANY clue how important that paper was that you dismissed like some armchair expert? Take a guess where and to exactly who that paper was presented to. Substantiation? By belittling these individuals, you paint yourself a WOO WOO.

 

[Tyger]

Unless we are actually doing the research ourselves, most everything is a rendition of opinion - and even those who do the research - if they are worth their salt - have a healthy dose of humility when they present their ideas.

One of the foremost teachers of things occult and spiritual in the last century indicated the truism that nothing he stated when it came to 'spiritual science' was ever to be believed. Do the work for yourself, he said. In the future there would come others who would correct his investigative conclusions, he said.

We all temporize ('to act to suit the time or occasion : yield to current or dominant opinion') to an extent. No fault - just the way it is - and the 'way it is' is often to feel comfortable in a group, in a conversation - we all submit to the prevailing bully every now and again - or refrain from speaking for the same reasons.

I am aware I have not responded on this thread for a while - time is at a premium at the moment. A lot going on - but at some point my intention is to comment.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Unless we are actually doing the research ourselves, most everything is a rendition of opinion - and even those who do the research - if they are worth their salt - have a healthy dose of humility when they present their ideas.

One of the foremost teachers of things occult and spiritual in the last century indicated the truism that nothing he stated when it came to 'spiritual science' was ever to be believed. Do the work for yourself, he said. In the future there would come others who would correct his investigative conclusions, he said.

We all temporize ('to act to suit the time or occasion : yield to current or dominant opinion') to an extent. No fault - just the way it is - and the 'way it is' is often to feel comfortable in a group, in a conversation - we all submit to the prevailing bully every now and again - or refrain from speaking for the same reasons.

I am aware I have not responded on this thread for a while - time is at a premium at the moment. A lot going on - but at some point my intention is to comment.

I agree with you completely. I just find it ultimately disappointing that highly intelligent people cannot consider something without declaring it incorrect without the least amount of real knowing involved. What kind of critical thinking is that? I mean who here is an expert on theoretical consciousness modeling and mapping? None of us, that's for sure. Why not go to the men and women that are? These people are doing, and have done, REAL SCIENCE on the matter. I just wish it would be viewed with the respect it deserves rather than the pseudo skeptical mentality it gets regularly treated with.

 

[trainedobserver]

I appreciate your opinion. That's all it is.

I beg to differ. Are you trying to say what I've said about information and energy are my opinions?

What "energy" means and whether "information" is energy or not are not my opinions, but a basic understanding of the meaning of the two words. I mean, look them up. Talk to an engineer or a physics teacher.

Also, I am familiar with a lot of things. Familiarity doesn't equal agreement.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What I am stating is that YOU DON'T KNOW. You have no clue whether consciousness is remote or not. None whatsoever. You also have no clue whether consciousness is a yet undiscovered form of energy. Demonstrate differently if that is not the case. Of course energy has a definition, and just as "of course" you cannot state that consciousness is unequivocally not a form of energy. You also cannot show the consciousness does not contain information. You also CANNOT explain the rise of information in the brain with your diagram. Not even close.