Philosophy Now Forum

Hi Cerveny

The problem is saying how space and time at the macro can ultimately be explained or justified via referencing events happening at the micro scale. Nice work if you can get it, but this is easier said than done. Quantum explanations of time, space, gravity and causation don't sit well with classical explanations of such events. But, I am probably telling you something you already know.

I believe the consciousness is just the awareness, the feeling of the fact that the brain can reach and (slightly) modify (interact with) quantum phenomena and uses this ability for (active) subliminal communication with ... with the nature...

Follow please with very restraint the thesis that time of "now" is the phase boundary between the material kingdom (the past) and the kingdom of ideas, of possibilities (the future)...

Cerveny wrote:I believe the consciousness is just the awareness, the feeling of the fact that the brain can reach and (slightly) modify (interact with) quantum phenomena and uses this ability for (active) subliminal communication with ... with the nature...

Follow please with very restraint the thesis that time of "now" is the phase boundary between the material kingdom (the past) and the kingdom of ideas, of possibilities (the future)...

I've never fully grasped this idea. I can see that the past is material in the sense that the universe as it currently exists is 'made of' past events, but:

Cerveny wrote:At the end, the consciousness interacts with a thin Planck's layer of rising solidifying time of "now" ...

So is consciousness a product of the crystallization, or a separate substance?

uwot wrote:
So is consciousness a product of the crystallization, or a separate substance?

I think the Hameroff argument claims that consciousness is a property of the physical. In a similar way such things as charge, spin and angular momentum are properties.

If this is what Hameroff is saying then I think he is correct. Unfortunately the claim is impossible to prove in any scientific way.

anything physical has location so all energy has location.how can consiousness have a location.consciousness must have prexisted lany physical location . consciousness its self is primal location which hostes physical location.physical location exists in side consciousness which results in a sence of time passing for an observer .consciousness has to be sourced by all brains at the quantum level of things to give this effect.

uwot wrote:

Cerveny wrote:I believe the consciousness is just the awareness, the feeling of the fact that the brain can reach and (slightly) modify (interact with) quantum phenomena and uses this ability for (active) subliminal communication with ... with the nature...

Follow please with very restraint the thesis that time of "now" is the phase boundary between the material kingdom (the past) and the kingdom of ideas, of possibilities (the future)... :)

I've never fully grasped this idea. I can see that the past is material in the sense that the universe as it currently exists is 'made of' past events, but:

Cerveny wrote:At the end, the consciousness interacts with a thin Planck's layer of rising solidifying time of "now" ...

So is consciousness a product of the crystallization, or a separate substance?

Crystallization / condensation of material universe is at the end a macroscopic phenomenon - the material universe is growing with the time. On its surface, in the thin moment of "now", subtle quantum effects take place. The brain is through it in the "game", on the "line", which perceives, feels as the consciousness. There is no doubt that live creatures more or less (instinctively) communicate together. Perhaps it is "managed" by (possibly distributed) God ... The brain acts as a quantum (again distributed) computer (receiver/emitter), that, I believe, analyzes / generates, let us say, time inequalities, waves... hardly to believe that communication runs via "conventional" channels, indeed...
(: Sorry, I am to close the bottle :)

consciousness becomes timelike and spacelike to anything moving below c.which is there for a local event in time .consciosness as such is nonlocal and does not move because it exists beond c.

Cerveny wrote:The Time (towards the history) obviously objectively exists. Indeed, there are significant manifestations of reality (force, induction...) that depends on the rate of the changes, i.e. on the comparison (difference / tense) of two different time states (snapshots) ...

On the other hand, the time (towards the future) is only just being built /raised /created /condensate /crystalized ...

At the end, the consciousness interacts with a thin Planck's layer of rising solidifying time of "now" ...

Sounds a bit like Dynamic Triangulation Theory.

Sorry, can't seem to find a wikipedia link on it.

yeah planks constant exists below c or at c and is therefor moving and local .a localization of consciousness into an object and timespace to boot.so if an object is in existance in consciousness that object warps consciouness into timespace around the object.but the object then warps that timespace to exist below c as gravity to the object..think we are getting some where here.ha

jackles wrote:yeah planks constant exists below c or at c and is therefor moving and local .a localization of consciousness into an object and timespace to boot.so if an object is in existance in consciousness that object warps consciouness into timespace around the object.but the object then warps that timespace to exist below c as gravity to the object..think we are getting some where here.ha

No Jackles, the speed of light is important in relation to the Planck constant.

how then is the plank constant connected to c ginkgo i know it is but have never read about it.other than that they seem to be the only 2 local constants.so they have to be the samething in some local way.?regs jackles.

jackles wrote:how then is the plank constant connected to c ginkgo i know it is but have never read about it.other than that they seem to be the only 2 local constants.so they have to be the samething in some local way.?regs jackles.

Hi Jackles,


C is the speed of light and as such represents the best units for relating time and space. I am assuming this is what you are getting at when you keep talking about locality, non-locality and entangled states. However, I guess the point is that without the use of C we have no possible way of coming up with a theory of the very small because C is a required fundamental unit for calculation.

If we want to move from the sublime to higher levels of sublimity then you wouldn't have your pet theory that the universe is conscious.In order to come up with such a theory you would need at the very least a quantized Planck unit to claim the universe is actually a giant quantum computer.

Hey, I'm without on this one. If physicalists say that consciousness can emerge from a bit system, then surely you and I can say that consciousness emerges from a qubit system.


Whatcha think big fella?

P.S. Aussie slang.

high ginkgo.reckon you are a lucky fellow livin down under .went there once and loved it.suffered with austrailia remorse when i left.but back to the two universal constants plank and c i would describe them has having location because they exist as happening energy.but i believe consciousness to be a sizless nothing with limitless locality.nonlocality as described by science is omni present to all timespace size.so i jumped to the conclusion that consciousness and nonlocality are indistinguishable.maybe i am wrong.

HexHammer wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Think about it. What would we use to measure the movement of time? Time itself? I think that time is preoccupied.

If you don't use time, what then? What would qualify to measure the movement of time?

Troll?

Skip wrote:Explorer, not troll. Why would you think "troll" - unless you just habitually think that?

The thing we use to messure "movement" of time is clocks which should be very selfexplanatory to people, but ofc not cozy chatters which must have very simple things spelled out, but this ..even this falls under even the most stupid of things, ergo he must be a troll or a complete retard.

How can time be preoccupied? ..that is complete nonsense and babble, even you should know that. FFS pull out your head out of your ass Skip'py.

HexHammer wrote:The thing we use to messure "movement" of time is clocks which should be very selfexplanatory to people, but ofc not cozy chatters which must have very simple things spelled out,

That's me then. What exactly do you mean by movement of time, Mr Hammer? Exactly what does any particular clock actually measure?