[MD] False Messiah (Evolution of Consciousness)

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

 
> SA said:
>      Therefore from what you are saying Scott,
> according to Avery's position on the topic, the
> quantum world becomes what Einstein detected as
> space-time (gravity), which gets into relativity as
> well probably, via sense perception.
> 
> Scott:
> I am saying that the quantum world becomes --
> through sense perception --  
> the contents of our sense perception, i.e., colors,
> tones, smells, tastes, 
> and touch, all organized spatio-temporally. Things
> moving in space. What 
> Einstein detected was something highly theoretical
> *about* all this. But 
> that theory does tell us that at dimensional
> extremes (very dense mass or no 
> mass) the Newtonian rules of space and time break
> down.

     Our sense perceptions has the quantum world
become the sensible world of space-time that we sense
with our sense perception.
  
> SA continued:
>   Thus, sense
> perception is capable of measuring the world that
> ready's the mind (in humans) to become aware of
> velocity, positions and other selective measures
> that
> would not be possible according to the quantum world
> alone.
> 
> Scott:
> You make it sound as if spacetime were created
> purely for physicists. In the 
> quantum world there are no such things as velocity
> and position, though of 
> course there is the potential for them, actualized
> via sense perception.

     No, I am saying that all people, and other
creatures as well, sense the quantum world only as the
space-time world.  It is physicists and others with
their theories that notice the quantum world as the
quantum world, without the space-time sense perception
world that we notice with our everyday biological
bodies.
 
> SA said:
>   Our sense perception would act very much like
> freezing particles near 0 degree Kelvin in order to
> slow down its' position and velocity to separate
> its'
> properties in a way that I don't even know if
> freezing
> particles achieves.
> 
> Scott:
> One can't say "in order to slow down its position
> and velocity" since in the 
> quantum world there is no position or velocity.
> These features only exist in 
> the macro world.

  Ok
 
> SA said:
>  Thus, by separating the particles
> properties into a space-time perception, sense
> perception - a form of consciousness - allows the
> world to be understood in the way it is understood
> geographically and crow flies here, but falcon flies
> here even faster kind of world.
> 
> Scott:
> Yes, except they aren't particles (or waves) *until*
> there is sense 
> perception. We have no way of knowing "what they are
> like" in the quantum 
> world.

     Yes.  I see what you are saying.
 
> SA said:
>   Thus, the way we are
> conscious of the world is totally linked in an
> evolutionary way that has grown (consciousness has)
> in
> such a way because it had to because not only does
> the
> world demand our way of seeing it to be done in such
> a
> way, our awareness of the world itself would not be
> awareness of the world without these measures taken.
> Is this what your saying?
> 
> Scott:
> More or less, if I understand what you are saying. I
> wouldn't say "the world 
> demand[s] our way of seeing", though. The world and
> our way of seeing evolve 
> together.

     Yes, "The world and our way of seeing evolve
together."  That is what I am saying.  
 
> Especially with respect to your earlier statements,
> I am not able to give 
> answers to "how" or "why" this situation is (of
> sense perception turning 
> non-spatiotemporality into spatiotemporality). I am
> only claiming *that* it 
> is. (Avery's book goes into this "that" more deeply,
> for example, by lining 
> up particular dimensions with particular senses,
> relating it to 
> communication, and so forth.) To answer "how" would
> require a lot more 
> physics than I have, and even that might not be
> enough, since we are unable 
> to think what non-spatiotemporality "is like".

     Just a thought.  Not a solid, sure thought.  Just
something that passed through the mind. 
Non-spatiotemporality could be like spatiotemporality
and the latter is the spread-out, slowed down version.
 Why slowed down, spread-out version?  As long as
everything is as slow as the speed of light then we
can notice it.  The slower it gets than the speed of
light then the more we notice in the details of what
it is.  As for light, we just see the quite formless
thing here.  We don't even see it move.  It is here
and then not here.  The sun rises, sets, and then
darkness.  You turn on a light switch - its' here all
around.  You turn it off - boom, it's gone.  I guess
what I was thinking about was spatiotemporality is
non-spatiotemporality noticed by our 'microscope or
telescope' called sense perception filtering out
everything as a prism spreading out white light into
many colors of light. 

> To answer "why" is getting 
> into more speculative areas. One hypothesis is that
> physical reality allows 
> ideas to be expressed in such a way that they can be
> contemplated. Compare 
> dreams with being awake. In dreams, there is
> spacetime, but it is a lot more 
> "fluid" than when being awake, by which I mean less
> stable. In dreams, at 
> least mine, things keep changing before one can get
> a handle on them. I 
> can't imagine being able to meditate in a dream, or
> to scientifically 
> investigate things in dreams. In other words,
> increasing the sharpness and 
> stability that the awake state provides over the
> dream state, allows for 
> increasing our intellectual ability. At this point I
> must plug another book 
> (which I've been plugging in this forum ad nauseam):
> Owen Barfield's "Saving 
> the Appearances". Its thesis is that over the last
> 3000 years, sense 
> perception has been evolving from -- not the dream
> state, but something less 
> sharp and less stable and more "spirit-filled", to
> what it is now. It is 
> only because of this change that intellect could
> arise in humans around 500 
> BC, and only because spirit completely emptied out
> of it around 1500 AD did 
> the scientific revolution become possible. The
> relevance of that 500 BC 
> transition to the MOQ should be obvious.

     It's a thought I guess.  I really don't know how
to approach this last plug.  I wouldn't even know
where to begin, other than reading his book.  Other
than that I don't know how I might think about
something like that on my own.

Thanks,
SA 

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