[MD] False Messiah

[Heather Perella]

Hello Scott and all,
 
> SA said:
>      Scott, thanks for explaining about photons.  I
> do remember now, that's what Einstein postulated. 
Yet,
> what of gravity that is none other than space-time?
> 
> Scott:
> What of it? Mass is another dimension. It too is
> created by consciousness in 
> the act of perception -- in this case through the
> sense of touch.

     Ok, so mass is one dimension, photons are of
another, and consciousness is tied to both in ways
more than one maybe, but for now, it seems to be tied
to both by its' act of creating both.

 
> SA said:
> If, consciousness does this too, then what is the
> difference between consciousness and gravity
> according
> to what you are saying?
> 
> Scott:
> This question is mixing up categories. Gravity is a
> static inorganic pattern 
> of value, like electromagnetism, and so forth. What
> I am trying to reject is 
> the notion that consciousness is just another
> pattern *along with* such 
> static patterns. Instead, I say that all those
> patterns that we observe with 
> our senses are, in their macroscopic appearance,
> created in the act of 
> perception. All our physics before quantum physics
> (including gravity) is, 
> then, a study of the patterns that our senses have
> turned the quantum world 
> into. Quantum physics is an attempt to provide a
> mathematical structure of 
> non-spatiotemporal reality which lends itself to
> being turned into 
> spatiotemporal reality.

     Are you saying that physics, and other types of
structuring fields (logic is another) are turning a
world of non-spatiotemporality into a world of
spatiotemporality?  Consciousness and its' acts are
not necessary only of human influence upon the world,
but are tied to the actual 'things' here in this world
and it could be noticed that it is not us who grow in
awareness on the one hand, but it is also our growing
in awareness that just allows us to notice what is
already here happening?  In other words, our
consciousness of physics is not just solely human
reality, but a reality of spatiotemporality that
exists with non-spatiotemporality that has these
different dimensions exist.  Photons side by side with
gravity.  I don't know if I am understanding you
correctly or not, but this is my stab at it.
 
> SA said:
>   And since photons wouldn't
> notice space-time, yet, everything else would that
> is
> not traveling at the speed of light, then would
> everything else be subjected to events of space-time
> and our consciousness would be of those events
> recognizing space-time.
> 
> Scott:
> No. We are subjected to reality beyond ourselves, of
> course -- we can't fly, 
> for instance -- but spacetime is, so to speak, a
> particular, but limited 
> projection of that reality. So it is perfectly
> legitimate to describe our 
> physical limitations in spatiotemporal terms, since
> that is how we 
> experience them. What I am arguing against is the
> idea that consciousness 
> itself can be explained in spatiotemporal terms.

     Thus, as photons and neutrinos have no weight and
are outside of the explanation realm of
spatiotemporality, you are saying that consciousness
is not of spatiotemporality realms as well.

> 
> SA said:
>   Unless our consciousness is
> traveling at the speed of light, but since we do
> recognize space-time then this would be false.  How
> this fits into False Messiah I am not sure?  It is
> interesting, but I'm missing how this angles into
> the
> subject.  I am not dismissing this, obviously,
> because
> I am discussing and asking questions about it, but
> my
> natural inclination (habitual way of approaching
> various 'things') is to put them together into some
> kind of coherent understanding, even if, that
> coherency is open-ended.
> 
> Scott:
> Discussions go off on tangents. DMB started this
> thread with his usual 
> anti-Christian rant. Peter joined in, with a general
> attack on faith. I 
> responded in support of faith, and in that made a
> remark about the 
> inconsistenct between quantum physics and
> neo-Darwinism. He asked for an 
> elaboration. You are responding to that elaboration.
> Feel free to change the 
> subject line if it bothers you.

     No, this does not bother me.  I find it
interesting.  I was just wondering how this fits into
the thread, but now I see how it does fit.  Since
consciousness is outside of spatiotemporality, quantum
physics also, and faith could be defined as a leap
from reason, if reason is defined as something
involved with the spatiotemporality realm only, then
the argument seems to be headed in a direction that
faith, quantum physics, and consciousness are all of a
realm beyond reason?  Or is there another way of
defining what reason is according to how you (Scott)
or anybody else is may define reason as postulated in
this topic?

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com