Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 5:59 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:43 am Sy Borg,I would suggest that you try to walk before you try to run and to not make wild guessing statements.

Joshua, you are not even crawling. ALl you do is rant against something you know nothing about.

I have got where I have got by tried and tested experiments.

Name one!

I believe in science,NATURES science.NOT a secular science that has no clue about consciousness and therefore makes no connection whatsoever to it in relation to the workings of the mind but then has the arrogance to state that we are no more than it in that total unaware and ignorant state.

Define "science"
Define "secular"
Define "nature".
Science is the study of nature through observation and experiment. It is naturally secular since the divine is not observable, nor has experiment revealed divinity.

Im sure that secular science will blunder on in its unaware state but as I say scientists won’t be able to truly understand consciousness until individual scientists get involved in their own experiments.How else can they begin to understand consciousness.They are totally embroiled within it.

If you think science's understanding of consciousness is "blundering" then perhaps you will furnish us with your better version?

Natures science explains the workings of the cosmos and the psychological workings perfectLy fine.Secular science will not except Nature science though.Like Tesla said it prefers a science based upon flowery maths and wild assumptions and guesses.

This is ********.
What is "nature's science"?
Please show us

I don’t rant.I point out the reasons why secular science is totally ignorant because of its lack of understanding of consciousness.I point out that secular sciences understanding of consciousness is incorrect because it makes no connection whatsoever with the psychological experience.

The 2 part “I am”,if aware, controls the consciousness states otherwise the 2 part”I am” toggles in total unawareness a “prisoner of consciousness”.

The only way that the “I am” can control consciousness if it realises that awareness sits above consciousness and also have the realisation that the I am “toggles” between the 2 consciousness states which is dependent upon thought type interactions.

I would suggest that taking control and bringing oneself into the moment and trying to remain there is a good first experiment to prove to oneself how difficult it is to do.This will provide proof of what little control one has over consciousness.

Even if one persists with this experiment and one gets better at staying in the moment for longer and longer, the individual will still have to constantly put the effort in to constantly change the consciousness state experienced because the individual will always be defaulted back to a not in the moment state.This experiment will prove consciousness “toggling” which happens all the time whether the individual is aware of it or not.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:21 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 5:59 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:43 am Sy Borg,I would suggest that you try to walk before you try to run and to not make wild guessing statements.

Joshua, you are not even crawling. ALl you do is rant against something you know nothing about.

I have got where I have got by tried and tested experiments.

Name one!

I believe in science,NATURES science.NOT a secular science that has no clue about consciousness and therefore makes no connection whatsoever to it in relation to the workings of the mind but then has the arrogance to state that we are no more than it in that total unaware and ignorant state.

Define "science"
Define "secular"
Define "nature".
Science is the study of nature through observation and experiment. It is naturally secular since the divine is not observable, nor has experiment revealed divinity.

Im sure that secular science will blunder on in its unaware state but as I say scientists won’t be able to truly understand consciousness until individual scientists get involved in their own experiments.How else can they begin to understand consciousness.They are totally embroiled within it.

If you think science's understanding of consciousness is "blundering" then perhaps you will furnish us with your better version?

Natures science explains the workings of the cosmos and the psychological workings perfectLy fine.Secular science will not except Nature science though.Like Tesla said it prefers a science based upon flowery maths and wild assumptions and guesses.

This is ********.
What is "nature's science"?
Please show us

I don’t rant.I point out the reasons why secular science is totally ignorant because of its lack of understanding of consciousness.I point out that secular sciences understanding of consciousness is incorrect because it makes no connection whatsoever with the psychological experience.

The 2 part “I am”,if aware, controls the consciousness states otherwise the 2 part”I am” toggles in total unawareness a “prisoner of consciousness”.

The only way that the “I am” can control consciousness if it realises that awareness sits above consciousness and also have the realisation that the I am “toggles” between the 2 consciousness states which is dependent upon thought type interactions.

I would suggest that taking control and bringing oneself into the moment and trying to remain there is a good first experiment to prove to oneself how difficult it is to do.This will provide proof of what little control one has over consciousness.

Even if one persists with this experiment and one gets better at staying in the moment for longer and longer, the individual will still have to constantly put the effort in to constantly change the consciousness state experienced because the individual will always be defaulted back to a not in the moment state.This experiment will prove consciousness “toggling” which happens all the time whether the individual is aware of it or not.

Since you have not answered my questions there is no possibility of clarity.
And so I have nothing to add beyond that which SY Borg has already stated above.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:47 pm

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:21 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 5:59 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:43 am Sy Borg,I would suggest that you try to walk before you try to run and to not make wild guessing statements.

Joshua, you are not even crawling. ALl you do is rant against something you know nothing about.

I have got where I have got by tried and tested experiments.

Name one!

I believe in science,NATURES science.NOT a secular science that has no clue about consciousness and therefore makes no connection whatsoever to it in relation to the workings of the mind but then has the arrogance to state that we are no more than it in that total unaware and ignorant state.

Define "science"
Define "secular"
Define "nature".
Science is the study of nature through observation and experiment. It is naturally secular since the divine is not observable, nor has experiment revealed divinity.

Im sure that secular science will blunder on in its unaware state but as I say scientists won’t be able to truly understand consciousness until individual scientists get involved in their own experiments.How else can they begin to understand consciousness.They are totally embroiled within it.

If you think science's understanding of consciousness is "blundering" then perhaps you will furnish us with your better version?

Natures science explains the workings of the cosmos and the psychological workings perfectLy fine.Secular science will not except Nature science though.Like Tesla said it prefers a science based upon flowery maths and wild assumptions and guesses.

This is ********.
What is "nature's science"?
Please show us

I don’t rant.I point out the reasons why secular science is totally ignorant because of its lack of understanding of consciousness.I point out that secular sciences understanding of consciousness is incorrect because it makes no connection whatsoever with the psychological experience.

The 2 part “I am”,if aware, controls the consciousness states otherwise the 2 part”I am” toggles in total unawareness a “prisoner of consciousness”.

The only way that the “I am” can control consciousness if it realises that awareness sits above consciousness and also have the realisation that the I am “toggles” between the 2 consciousness states which is dependent upon thought type interactions.

I would suggest that taking control and bringing oneself into the moment and trying to remain there is a good first experiment to prove to oneself how difficult it is to do.This will provide proof of what little control one has over consciousness.

Even if one persists with this experiment and one gets better at staying in the moment for longer and longer, the individual will still have to constantly put the effort in to constantly change the consciousness state experienced because the individual will always be defaulted back to a not in the moment state.This experiment will prove consciousness “toggling” which happens all the time whether the individual is aware of it or not.

Since you have not answered my questions there is no possibility of clarity.
And so I have nothing to add beyond that which SY Borg has already stated above.

Ok fair enough.I have tried to explain to you the only way that you will be able to prove to yourself how little control you have over consciousness.I have provided a “Player” experiment that can be tried ,tested and measured.

2 choices remain then, either the individual persists and eventually takes control over consciousness or alternatively the individual remains in the same state being dictated to by it.

As one can control consciousness “toggling” then this proves that there is something that sits above consciousness and that something is awareness of this FACT.

I suggest that there is something that is either aware or unaware which sits above both awareness types.

The “ I am”

So the obvious question is, if secular science claims we are nothing more than consciousness then how come that there is a part of our make up that can actively control consciousness?

It appears that you are unaware that electric currents produce magnetic fields. This I said "electric universe" (the correct coinage) rather than "electromagnetic" - because once electricity is always a component of electromagnetism.

If you are going to disregard scientists, the least you can do is learn the very most basic aspects of the science you reject. This is a Dunning Kruger situation, I'm afraid.

The role of science is not to understand consciousness, which is the job of neuroscientists and anaesthetists. Yes, there are gaps, but researchers are obviously working on them and that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You have these woolly notions of "player science" and "spectator science" while not having a clue how "player science" experiments may be conducted in a rigorous manner.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 9:16 pm It appears that you are unaware that electric currents produce magnetic fields. This I said "electric universe" (the correct coinage) rather than "electromagnetic" - because once electricity is always a component of electromagnetism.

If you are going to disregard scientists, the least you can do is learn the very most basic aspects of the science you reject. This is a Dunning Kruger situation, I'm afraid.

The role of science is not to understand consciousness, which is the job of neuroscientists and anaesthetists. Yes, there are gaps, but researchers are obviously working on them and that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You have these woolly notions of "player science" and "spectator science" while not having a clue how "player science" experiments may be conducted in a rigorous manner.

I am aware that electric currents produce magnetic fields.I am also aware that magnetic fields produce spin which create electric currents.So we have chicken and egg situation.Which came first? The electric current that produces the magnetic field or the magnetic field which produces the spin which creates the electric current?All things spin in the cosmos at the macro and micro levels.They all spin in magnetic fields.They are all electromagnets therefore.These electromagnets spin at varying rates which determines the strength of their poles magnetic forces.Electromagnets interact with each other.

I disregard secular science because as I have repeatedly stated, secular science does not answer the queries I have particularly at the psychological level.I do accept nature science however.

I would suggest that the responsibility of all sciences is to check that their theories correlate/interconnect across the sciences.Secular science may take your view but then we know that secular science is in trouble and also why take a science seriously that doesn’t understand where consciousness fits into the equation?

I do not have woolly notions.I have rock solid notions about science and I take a science seriously that incorporates consciousness into it deliberations,Secular science doesn’t do that because it doesn’t understand consciousness.I accept natures science only because it does answer my queries.

I do accept natures “player” science rather than secular “spectator “ science yes and for very good reasons because any aware scientists would know that they need to become apart of their own experiment if they are to understand consciousness.

I have given a practical experiment of how to try:test and measure consciousness.

I would suggest that people don’t confuse secular science with natures science.They are completely different.

There have been numerous experiments done by "secular scientists" to test and measure consciousness. That's an activity that neuroscientists do, as do some AI developers.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 6:27 am There have been numerous experiments done by "secular scientists" to test and measure consciousness. That's an activity that neuroscientists do, as do some AI developers.

I’m sure that there has been numerous “spectator” scientific tests and measurements carried out by secular scientist.I would suggest that these have absolutely nothings at all to do with “player” scientific tests and measurements which confirm that the individual needs to mange/take control of the consciousness states in awareness rather than not managing/taking control of consciousness in unawareness.

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness state that is experienced any time it wishes then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Can you edit your first sentence so that it makes sense? Try separating your long statement into short sentences.

I would suggest and maintain that if something can control the consciousness states it experiences, any time it wishes, then that something isn’t consciousness.It is separate from consciousness.

Natures “Player” experiments will confirm this to the individual.In other words the individual is doing their own experiments and is no longer relying on secularism’s “Spectator” experiments.

Anyway that isn’t just the point I am suggesting here.”Toggling” consciousness needs to be explained by a science.There must be a science that can explain how and why the experience of consciousness “toggles”.I would suggest that secular science hasn’t the first clue.It hasn’t got that far yet.

I would suggest there is a science that can explain it all and it is “natures” science.Natures science doesn’t automatically assume that there was nothing before the MULTIPLE big bangs.

Natures science considers the possibility that there needs to be a mechanism already in place that causes those multiple big bangs and big crunches.

Secular science,as we know has come up with its “flowery” mathematically created and mythical “gravity” force which attempts to explain the Big Crunch.However, and once again, it hasn’t the first clue what caused their now disproved (by observation) SINGLE Big Bang theory.

I have already suggested and maintain that the only rational scientific explanation for “toggling” consciousness is electromagnetic processes which result in known magnetic force interactions and not a mythical force called gravity.

I have also already suggested that the “I am” if untangled from consciousness is not influenced by consciousness “toggling”.