- Active Posts:
- 1,949 (0.7 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Physics and Mathematics (754 posts)
- 12-October 05
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Feb 02 2013 09:01 PM
- Member Title:
- 29 years old
- August 20, 1983
- Not Telling
- Click here to e-mail me
Topics I've Started
26 January 2013 - 04:33 PMI believe I have resolved the difficulty of the problem known as "the hard problem of consciousness".
I am just going to start with quoting from:
QuoteThe hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers 1995) is the problem of explaining the relationship between physical phenomena, such as brain processes, and experience (i.e., phenomenal consciousness, or mental states/events with phenomenal qualities or qualia). Why are physical processes ever accompanied by experience? And why does a given physical process generate the specific experience it does—why an experience of red rather than green, for example?
Now, this is step by step process:
1) To understand this we need to delve deep into the quantum physics world and the Phenomena found there.
2) Next we have to practice science of the mind practices to understand our own self and our own mind in order to differentiate the ego from the source self. This takes real time and real hard work. I have spent all of my life doing these practices.
3) We then need to set up a scenario where people are discussing the phenomena of a quantum problem, and then we will be capable to see the quantum phenomena and how it exists at the macroscopic level.
4) Finally we see the problem is in question itself, and it becomes a paradox.
If you have the time to watch this video you will begin to see what I am getting at
The first person doing the introduction (for Arthur Zyance?) makes a statement quoting Richard Feynman:
"Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics"
Arthur responds with:
"You introduction puts me in a very awkward position (a hard problem). Because if I say I understand quantum mechanics, then clearly I don't understand quantum mechanics. And if I don't understand quantum mechanics why am I here?"
The Dalai Lama says at one point during the discussion something along the lines of the following:
"I seem to be a failing student at quantum mechanics. When discussing quantum mechanics, there is always something there that I seem to understand, but aftewards, it goes.... and it is gone and things are back to normal"
Now you see.
Pretend for a moment that
Arther is one quantum particle (a)
The Dalai Lama is another quantum particle (
And the interpreter of the two different languages and belief systems is the observer of the experiment. Who relays the differences between them.
Almost as if one person is anti-matter and the other person is normal matter, and the interpreter is the medium or third part of the system to complete the discussion of understanding confusing things at great depths.
So you see. The answer to he hard problem is to avoid asking the question in the first place. Because when you do ask the question it is so silly it totally confuses your mind about the normal world around you, and the only thing you can do is laugh it off in relief.
The answer is to find relief between the two differences.
Now. With this said, how does this apply to quantum computing and things of the like?
Well society expresses the power of quantum computing all the time, through an archetypal structures.
Each of our consciousness' exist in an archetype. This is like our mental blue print, or our mental map of our core beliefs that form our perception of reality and the meaning of it.
We change our archetypes, when we are persuaded. However, it takes a special set of skills and factors in order to persuade another persons mind.
Now. Our ego strives to hold onto these archetypes. It is the part of self that feels threatened if those core beliefs are wrong. This is because the brain or the person grew up developing their sense of reality and in doing so strengthening their sense of understanding about how the world works, what means what, and so on.
Now the only way we can change our archetypes is to allow ourselves to immerse ourselves into another belief structure. However, this can not be done for the average individual because your job position and livelihood are strongly dependent on your position in society. That is the ego can't afford to change while it is involved in a system.
The only people whom can afford to do so are people like myself whom had the opportunity to go through different belief systems and come to understand them first hand. Eventually one begins to understand, the ego is not necessary, unless you are underneath an archetype of authority.
In a sense once a person breaks off from the archetype they become separated from the hypothetical matrix and can see the systems occurring around them without judgement, because their own egoic lives are not as important as understanding the deep questions at hand. These are the great thinkers that revolutionize the view of reality for societies throughout history.
Using this knowledge we can creates social systems to develop quantum computational systems with our own minds. Just like the dalai lama is in a position of authority, he is like the quantum super position. His, esteem and confidence developes higher functioning states of physiology which can help his mind be the central point particle in a series of minds involved in that particular archetype.
QuoteQuantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular, theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but, when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).
Now with all of that said.
We are all human beings. We all share happy and sad feelings. Our differences are subtle. And our life view isn't as serious as we may be have been instructed it is, relative to our own archetype.
11 December 2012 - 07:06 PMA new idea can always be viewed as wrong until it's time has come.
The longer an idea expands in fruition, the larger the establishment that follows behind it and supports it.
A new idea therefore has to begin as something small like an ant and compete against its rival establishment. These establishments can be seen as physical forms, like buildings and symbols. Ho
wever, they can also be systems of thought like religion, science, theories, organizations, universities, and so on.
The physical establishment is really only a symbol to unite each individual participating in the benefits of that establishment and what it creates.
Each individual in the establishment can be susceptible to change.
Therefore the ant doesn't need to chew on the foundation of a giant tower. It only needs to place an egg inside the heart of the establishment.
That is, an idea only needs to be tested and observed to work and then effectively communicated to another person in such a way that it can not be forgotten or ignored.
This process of an idea flourishing is evolution. However, whenever evolution is on hold, separation and division forms between the people. This division is created by the natural order of efficiency and entropy.
Although in real life what this means is that many people get left behind, and the entire system eventually crashes, or is taken out by another system on the rise.
Therefore the key to prevent inequality and disaster is to encourage process of evolution and progress.
However, this evolution needs core values in order to guide everything in a peaceful direction.
Core values like. You are not separate from the atmosphere. The atmosphere is in your blood, and in your brain. The atmosphere is better described as, energy. Energy that everything shares; from the sun to the air to the lungs to the plants to the water.
We can not physically be separate from anything. We can only delude ourselves, that we are separate for a short while until, eventually the ball you "throw away" circles around and comes back to you. That is, eventually the truth returns.
Energy is like a wave in water. The wave is not really a thing. It is a word to describe the motion of an ideal passing along individual positions, and dispersing outwards, being absorbed ever so slightly by each individual part making up the body of water. It is a process of life, and it exists on every level in every aspect. The wave is just an idea being passed along from a point of impact or creation.
And this is where the world is today. The truth is returning to our consciousness, and we are learning to understand our beliefs can be changed but it doesn't change who we are, or where we are, and the greater truth returns. The truth that formed us before we ever questioned it.
We can align with creativity and progress and stimulate waves of energy to create the solutions for progress and better life. As we enter this height of creative consciousness, petty minded thoughts and fears drift from our minds as we enter into bliss, freedom, and vision.
Sometimes we can be right or wrong, and we are human and imperfect, and we make mistakes.
But a mistake isn't always that different from a work of art that originates from an unknown start.
So we have an option: we can focus on a mistake and put everything on hold, or we can understand it and release it and allow it to flourish and evolve into a new creation and allow progress to continue.
30 November 2012 - 09:15 PMHello readers and hypography science forum members.
30 November 2012 - 10:55 AMHello Folks!
It has been a long while since I have been to this forum and chatted with this bright minded community. I appreciate this community at a great level as it helped shape my mind and guide me through my difficult times of adolescence.
Since then I have been busy with the adventures of life and furthering my work, research, experimentation, and study! WOOH!
Life has been great and challenging.
My plans to write a book finally came to a point that burst out of me through desperation and over night I formed the 40 page core.
At this point I am releasing it freely and also selling it cheaply in ebook form. It is copyrighted and published with an ISBN through lulu.com and is making its way through the grinders in order to become available on the major online book sites like ibookstore, Nook, and amazon.
If I may make it available here for free and/or advertise it that would be great.
[attachment=3254:Master Philosophy Book Cover.jpg]
Some Recent History of my Success in applying, experimenting, and living by this philosophical point of view.
25 December 2011 - 06:18 PMI'm not against the bible. In fact I am using important parts of the bible (that are rarely if ever discussed in public forum)to defend the knowledge in the bible.
QuoteMatthew 18:20 -For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
This made me think:
"IN MY NAME".... so as long as people are gathered together in the name of god then they will experience god in the midst of them. But as long as those 3 people understand the meaning of that name then they share the experience.
So wouldn't that prove that everyone is allowed to worship god under whatever name they understand as to be god? Especially since the name of "Jesus Christ" has changed serveral times of the past 2000 years, where it has been used by different forms of language, accents, speech impediments, mispells, poor grammar, and also but even still not limited to sign language for the deaf?
(This means that Jesus Christ is not the only true form of gods name, and this is a good thing, because then we see the common ground below our feet [souls])
Therefore whether we say Jesus, or god, or allah, yehusa, yahveh, creator, holy spirit, or simple just hug a person to express gods name, then doesn't that just prove that all religion and all people are righteous in having god in the midst of them, in the spirit?
Of course these questions are rhetoric in where I am attempting to persuade as well as motivate those who read it to think about the truth here, and the logical side of things, to possibly grasp a greater deeper understanding of compassion for humanity.
None the less, I would be happy to get a response from all standpoints of christian and non christian so on and so forth.