Skip navigation.

I Fell from the Moon

Don't worry ma'am. I'm from cyberspace.

A new way to look at reality

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Have a look at the place you're in. Do you see a computer or device in front of you? Are you sitting in a chair, on a bench, in a sofa or even walking? Can you feel the device you're using to read this? Reality is very much solid. We can see, smell, hear and feel it.

But what if we're wrong? What if what we can see, touch, feel, smell and hear is just an illusion? What if what we sense is just one way of looking at reality? What if reality as we see it is an illusion? Join me on a mental journey to uncover the nature of reality, with some highly hypothetical ideas that attempt to unify us with reality.


Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist nor do I have any education within theology or any other professional field referenced in this article. I am not trying to prove anything with this article, nor invoking a new belief system. This article should be considered highly hypothethical and at the moment impossible to prove. This article is made by an ignostic person, and should be read the way a ignostic would, which is without assuming this is the eplaination for reality.

The brain

So how do we percieve reality? We do so with a curious device. Our brain. It has to be curious for something so intangible as conciousness to be one of its properties. With our current understanding of science, we're unable to create real conciousness. We're able to create artificial intelligence, a set of rules that tell a machine to react differently upon different inputs, even change how it reacts over time. But this is not conciousness. So why is conciousness such an intangible thing?

Maybe it's because conciousness isn't what we think it is. There are major disagreements about how conciousness arises. I'm going to try to explain it, but don't take my word for it. An experiment was done on a rat, where scientist Karl Lashley would expose the rat to a problem the rat had to solve to get a food reward. Later on he removed parts of the rat brain. The rat would still be able to solve the problem.

This lead many scientists to believe that conciousness isn't confined to one place in the brain but exists across it as a whole in the very configuration of the electrical impulses that travel across the brain. This behaviour is compareable to a hologram. A hologram will show a 3D image from a different angle depending on where you look at it from. If you chop up a perfect hologram, the information from the image could still be in the contained in all parts.

So what does this have to do with our perception of reality? I'm going to keep you guessing for a while more.

The universe

Now things start becoming strange. At the scale where the rules of conventional physics stop being sufficient to describe what happens, when we try to explain what happens inside an atom, another science steps in, quantum mechanics. Conventional physics are cause and effect oriented. A planet will orbit around the sun because its velocity is high enough to counter the gravity of the sun. A skateboarder will clear a gap if he or she apply enough force. But at the subatomic scale, these events start being uncertain. The best we can do is to guess.

The speed of light need not have a meaning at this scale. Subatomic particles are able to contain information about other particles simulanteously, even if they're lightyears away. Particles are able to escape the three dimensions that we percieve. A particle might even be in two places simulanteously.

So maybe a particle isn't a particle. Maybe it's just information confined to a point, as a vibrating string in string theory. Particles can be closed strings that end in themselves, or open ended strings that go through or end in other dimensions. Maybe they even could be connected to other particles in the three dimensions we percieve.

The oddities of string theory might be proof that the universe is indeed a hologram, where information from the whole might be contained in smaller parts. So why does this have anything to do with our brain being a hologram?

Particles at the subatomic scale act acording to a set of expectations a observer might have. The boundraries of space are not defined, but become larger as we aquire more information. This could mean that the processes of electrical impulses in our brain are related to the information processes of our universe. This way the universe is defined as we go by our conciousness. This could be because our minds are part of a larger, universal conciousness.

Adding it up

This is where science, philosophy and religion start to blur and become harder to make out from one another. This is also where quantum mechanics, physics, psychology, the paranormal and sociology start to blur as well. This is because reality might not be what we really percieve. Our brains might not be the place where conciousness arises. It might be that our brains are more than just instruments but also the container for a piece of conciousness cut from a larger conciousness. We might be because we all think. And this universal conciousness exists omnipresently across our physical relm and the non-physical relm.

Quantum mechanics might or might not one day be able to explain this. Physics might act this way because of conciousness. Our universe might be defined by what we think and do. And paranormal events might be the result of conciousness manifesting in the physical relm. Our very society is shaped by our conciousness. If the world isn't material, but a product of a universal conciousness, we're not defined by posessions, but by what we do.

Religions have attempted to unify the material world with the abstract. Different religions have had different views on this. Abrahamic religions say that god is omnipresent, like this conciousness I'm talking about. Buddhism search for enlightenment and a final truth. Hinduism teach the moral law of cause and effect, Karma. Science have tried to uncover the workings of reality. Science is starting to explain reality in a way only religion have tried before. But if our conciousness define reality, we need to rethink our world, learn to respect eachother, keep an open mind towards others and live for others, not just ourselves. Or else our universe could become a place you wouldn't want to live.

Conclusion

If the conciousness of our brain is part of a larger conciousness. And our universe is defined by this conciousness. This means what we think and do will eventually change the universe. We need to stop looking at the material world or our universe as all there is. This way our actions and thoughts will live on forever, so we need to change ourselves to change our reality. What we do and think matters, not what we have.

Remember to keep the same ignostic eye on this article as I do. It's just one possible way of viewing reality. And if reality is defined by our conciousness, I pray to you that we'll start living for eachother to for the sake of the universe.

Technology against PovertyThe new My Opera and my designs

Comments

The Dark Furie 14. September 2008, 18:24

Bless you my child. You have fulfilled the purpose for which I created you. :D

.Dot_hack 29. September 2008, 22:37

Whoa. Your writing is amazing. You such a big vocabulary, and its very descriptive too. Nice job...

The Dark Furie 29. September 2008, 23:14

Thanks. The post is quite good too, isn't it. :whistle:

DrLaunch 30. September 2008, 11:39

I don't feel like a prophet, Furie. :smile:

And thanks guys. I'm flattered. :smile:

Henry 2. October 2008, 16:48

James Cook 9. October 2008, 01:32

Well, some of your science is a bit off. For example, quantum mechanics is merely probabalistic in nature. It provides no mechanism by which these probabilities play themselves out. By contrast, Neutonian mechanics are extremely cause and effect oriented (non-probabalistic).

This was a cornerstone in Einstein's criticisms of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

There is nothing probable about the orbit of the Earth around the sun under Neutonian mechanics. But try to locate a particle on the subatomic level and you must evoke QM probabilities.

Also, one major problem comes to mind in relation to your conclusion. Namely that we don't have an experience of a consciousness that is beyond ourselves and a part of all Mind past, present, and future. I don't have your memories and you don't have mine. We can stimulate forgotten memories by exciting particular relevant portions of the physical brain, which further suggests that our brains are responsible for storing these memories--though current research suggests that memories are stored using redundant methods of some sort (in many locations at once).

Lastly, I cannot imagine that we are moving toward a conjoining of science and religion. More likely we are seeing the death of the necessity of religion in our human lives. This was the mode in the enlightenment and this also gave rise to such schools of thought as secular humanism.

Cat 9. October 2008, 02:06

Great blog :smile: :star: but its 3am here and I think I had better try to read it again in the morning, to fully comprehend your theory :o: :star:

DrLaunch 9. October 2008, 18:04

Originally posted by jamesisin:

Well, some of your science is a bit off. For example, quantum mechanics is merely probabalistic in nature. It provides no mechanism by which these probabilities play themselves out. By contrast, Neutonian mechanics are extremely cause and effect oriented (non-probabalistic).


I guess we're mixing scientific terms with a simple attempt from my part at describing the difference between physics and quantum mechanics. I tried to use plain english to describe it instead of smearing difficult scientific terms over my article. But my terminology messed up my article horribly from the perspective of a scientist.

Originally posted by jamesisin:

Also, one major problem comes to mind in relation to your conclusion. Namely that we don't have an experience of a consciousness that is beyond ourselves and a part of all Mind past, present, and future. I don't have your memories and you don't have mine. We can stimulate forgotten memories by exciting particular relevant portions of the physical brain, which further suggests that our brains are responsible for storing these memories--though current research suggests that memories are stored using redundant methods of some sort (in many locations at once).


I guess you misunderstood me. There's nothing in my article that stated that our conciousnesses overlap like one brain. Rather I think it might be our conciousnesses act independently in our physical relm because they're "cut" from a universal conciousness. But still are part of a larger conciousness we cannot comprehend. I got this idea because there are theories that say memories are stored in the very electrical impulses that travel across our brains and not in the very form of the brain. There are also people who'm believe we experience quantum mechanics the way we do because of our expectations. In a way we are invoking the results. Then again, some people believe this is because we create the universe with conciousness as we go.

Originally posted by jamesisin:

Lastly, I cannot imagine that we are moving toward a conjoining of science and religion. More likely we are seeing the death of the necessity of religion in our human lives. This was the mode in the enlightenment and this also gave rise to such schools of thought as secular humanism.


This is another way of looking at what I'm saying. I believe science is uncovering areas religion has attempted to draw an image of. Science will simply take religion's place from the perspective of atheists and similar. But from my perspective, the new way to look at religion will be science.

I'll see if I can find the time to fix the errors in my article soon.

James Cook 9. October 2008, 19:44

the difference between physics and quantum mechanics



QM is a subcategory of physics.

still are part of a larger conciousness



If my consciousness were part of something larger (a universal consciousness, say) I ought to have some experience of that additional, beyond-me consciousness which I do not.

memories are stored in the very electrical impulses that travel across our brains



I am familiar with no such theories. Can you site something I can read from a reputable source on the Web?

we experience quantum mechanics the way we do because of our expectations



There are those fringe players who have proposed some mighty fascinating ideas about the collapse of the wave function in QM. Branching universes, branching consciousnesses, and many other remarkable ideas. It is not likely that any of these will prove to be the truth, but because QM (if we accept Einstein's criticism) is incomplete we cannot yet discuss the mechanisms which drive it.

science is uncovering areas religion has attempted to draw an image



It is more accurate to say that science is answering questions to which stories were fabricated as answers by previous generations and which we have now labelled religion. There is a concept known as "god of the gaps" where religion has allowed science to creep forward and claim that where science ends religion begins. This is a popular way of thinking by common folk, but religious scholars don't tend to approve.

from the perspective of a scientist



I am not a scientists, per se. One of my degrees is in the History and Philosophy of Science (thanks to the University of Washington). I do, however, employ the scientific method all the time.

The Dark Furie 10. October 2008, 00:55

Quotes galore. There is subjective proof of a common consciousness all around us, but I find that clowns are the easiest one to relate to. There isn't a single person alive who doesn't find clowns creepy in some way, and that's instinct, or rather a memory from a common collective consciousness.

James Cook 10. October 2008, 04:42

What, like a Jungian collective unconscious? It would seem these ideas come to us through a bombardment of social interactions. I personally don't find clowns creepy. I grew up watching JP Patches and recently bought a paving stone (as a gift for my mother, who also doesn't find clowns creepy) to help fund a statue to The Clown here in Seattle (in Fremont):

http://www.jppatches.com/

Soundgarden invited JP Patches to come to their big homecoming concert (when they first got famous), so I can assume they also do not find clowns creepy.

Well, maybe some clowns...

Instinct is very distinct from memory. If you shake a baby lying in a crib it will fling out its arms and legs (to provide stability)--that's instinct. Memories do not pass from parent to child. If I come from a long line of accountants there is nothing to suggest that I will be any good at accounting (or any other profession you might choose).

These are old tribal ways of thinking which we probably can dispense with in exchange for better ways of understanding genetics. In case you are thinking to protest, the lion's share of artists (musicians, poets, authors, &c) do not spawn children who perform at high levels in the arts--unless they train those children from birth to do so. And even then it's no guarantee. (There are a few examples where this is not so, but the generations of Hank Williams are the exceptions which prove the rule, though they were cetainly trained as musicians from early ages.)

The Dark Furie 10. October 2008, 09:24

So you've got absolutely no problem thinking about clowns having rough, animal sex?

James Cook 11. October 2008, 00:28

You would deprive Krusty a little of life's finer pleasures?

The Dark Furie 11. October 2008, 09:44

Of course I would. His pacemaker couldn't take it.

Henry 11. October 2008, 11:10

:faint:

DrLaunch 11. October 2008, 12:24

I think I fixed some of the scientific errors in my article, and added a disclaimer specifically for people like jamesisin.

Originally posted by jamesisin:

Originally posted by drlaunch:

memories are stored in the very electrical impulses that travel across our brains



I am familiar with no such theories. Can you site something I can read from a reputable source on the Web?



I'm not sure if it can be considered a theory yet. But since you asked, here's a Google search for the words memories electrical impulses brain hologram.

Originally posted by drlaunch:

we experience quantum mechanics the way we do because of our expectations



Originally posted by jamesisin:

It is not likely that any of these will prove to be the truth, but because QM (if we accept Einstein's criticism) is incomplete we cannot yet discuss the mechanisms which drive it.



Not from a scientific point of view, no. But from a philosophical point of view, I respectfully disagree.

Originally posted by jamesisin:

I am not a scientists, per se. One of my degrees is in the History and Philosophy of Science (thanks to the University of Washington). I do, however, employ the scientific method all the time.


I did not think you were a scientist in this field either, since a professor of quantum mechanics simply would ignore this article because much of this science is too hypothethical to explain the universe. But I figured it must have been something like that above. Since you have a degree in philosophy of science, you probably know something about many fields of science, and this must be why you're willing to discuss the workings of reality based on your knowledge of science. And I didn't mean you had to be a scientist to view something from the perspective of one.

Originally posted by furie:

There is subjective proof of a common consciousness all around us, but I find that clowns are the easiest one to relate to. There isn't a single person alive who doesn't find clowns creepy in some way, and that's instinct, or rather a memory from a common collective consciousness.



I don't think instinct is the same as collective conciousness. And I don't believe some people find clowns creepy because of either of those. I believe it's because clowns have makeup that make them caricatures of a real human. Our expectations of a human make things in shape of a human but with different features creepy. Perhaps some people find clowns creepy because of the Uncanny Valley effect. Wouldn't you find it creepy to see a real life manifestation of a Bruce Willis carricature doing Bruce Willis stuff in front of you?

I don't believe our conciousnesses are clollectively sharing anything in the physical relm, except that it is a property of the brain and is configured to percieve reality the way we do. I think we might have conciousness because it's cut from a universal conciousness we can't percieve.

David 12. October 2008, 23:44

Random thoghts about your post:

Newtonian physics is merely a summation of quantum effects in the macro reality. On the micro level, Planck's constant rules the micro-universe, and determines the maximum resolution with which we can measure the periodic flutter of virtual particles in and out of our percieved three-space. Conciousness is a subroutine of our biological analog parallel computer, and memory is encoded in the folds of proteins. The 'real world' is an illusion and can only be referred to in terms of the moment.

James Cook 3. November 2008, 18:32

Ravo makes a good point. Our consciousnesses and our humanness is likely fairly insignificant on the scale of the Earth (and especially the universe).

DrLaunch 3. November 2008, 19:30

I think consciousness should be rather significant, even on a universal scale. Though I wouldn't think being human is. Consciousness would be the same all over the universe, only on a differently configured brain for other speices.

James Cook 4. November 2008, 19:20

Well, that sounds a bit like a value judgement. Why should? I mean if it actually is (which remains to be seen) that's one thing, but making claims about what ought to be is quite different. (Being psychologically preferable is a nice way of saying it's wishful thinking.)

DrLaunch 4. November 2008, 22:03

If we are the only entities with consciousness in the universe, we would hold the whole share of consciousness in the universe. And if my loose reasoning is right, our consciousness would be rather significant.

If there are other intelligent speices in the universe, they ought to feel conscious on some level, thus we'll have consciousness in common and share the keys to the universe in our minds.

Seemingly since you're still around you must feel that this article opposes your atheism, through your foundation, science.

To make things clear, I hold no disagreement with your reasoning for whatever belief you might have. I prefer to remain fairly ignostic towards the matter. The reason why I have this view is that the question of wether god exists or not is insignificant (though interesting) since it can't be proven through the scientific method. Nor can it be disproven. It doesn't matter what god is either, since we can't know for certain yet. But I still like to ask the question.

You seem to have missed the whole point of viewing this in a ignostic (as an adjective, not a belief system) way. My article is just as hypothetical as the concept of god itself. And since it can't be proven or disproved, my article is just as pointless as saying god exists. Or as I would say to a religious person, it's just as pointless as saying god doesn't exist.

So feel free to (no I urge you to, since it raises interesting ideas) question my reasoning behind this single of many possible (or impossible) hypothesises. But in my mind, the scientific way of looking at my hypothesis is that it can't be tested, made into a theory or discarded as a hypothesis. Especially not through asking me, an individual. My hypothesis can't be proven nor disproved. And that's a rather agnostic way of looking at it. You can discard hypothesises that can't be proven as total lies like the scientific community usually do towards great new ideas or you can remain agnostic about them until they're (dis)proven. You can do the same for the question of gods existence. Or you can even question the implications of it if the hypothesis was true like I would. Are you getting the point now?

James Cook 7. November 2008, 08:34

Not sure of the point you were trying to make in your recent entry. I will try to clear up a couple of matters which I see are plainly wrong.

First, you state that your "article opposes [my] atheism" and that you "hold no disagreement with your reasoning for whatever belief you might have". I have not made any claims about my belief system nor any statement to suggest I possess any sort of atheism.

Whether or not other life exists, we humans take up a small portion of a small planet around a small sun in an uninteresting galaxy in an uninteresting galaxy cluster in a universe too large for a our minds to even begin to comprehend. We are utterly insignificant on that scale. Even if we manage to eke out another 200,000 years on this planet (I think current estimates put us about 200,000 years as a species thus far), that's pretty small compared to the 5 billion years and 15 billion years for the planet and the universe.

I like to think of myself as being important, but I have to do so on a scale where it actually makes sense. I can make a difference to the lives of those around me. Through that I can be significant. Trying to manage that on the scale of the universe is far too lofty for me. My friends will likely remember me when I'm dead (those without alzheimer's and who outlive me), but no one will be singing my songs when our species passes into the final dusk.

This is what I meant when I commented about insignificance.

Agnosticism is a valid position, sure, but it's not very fruitful in building a conversation. I see no problem with taking a position and seeing where that position takes me. I have no investment in the outcome so it is easy to remain objective.

I would encourage you to continue to explore the scientific and philosophical subjects which we have touched upon. I encourage this for two reasons. First, you will find these fascinating areas of study. Do not expect to find easy answers; for some of these questions answers may not come at all. But the study will lead to more study and each piece you read will build upon the last. Second, you may well do something, write something, say something, or discover something which hasn't happened yet. That's what keeps the world moving forward.

One word of caution. If you remain agnostic in your base, you will probably be able to see something new. However, if you decide that the world must be a particular way, this may lead to you missing something which presents itself.

Here is an example where an open mindset is best. Goodyear was seeking a way to vulcanize rubber (make it hard so it could be useful in manufacturing). He performed experiment upon experiment in his laboratory with no interesting results. One night his janitor knocked some things around accidentally and, he supposed, ruined one of Mr. Goodyear's experiments. He went directly to Goodyear to appologize (and presumably beg for his job). What he did not recognize was that his accident had combined things such that the rubber was vulcanized. Goodyear probably kissed the poor janitor.

When we make a should or an ought or a must statement (or mindset) we create a viewpoint from which much will be overlooked.

In your final paragraph you state:

My hypothesis can't be proven nor disproved. And that's a rather agnostic way of looking at it. You can discard hypothesises that can't be proven as total lies like the scientific community usually do towards great new ideas or you can remain agnostic about them until they're (dis)proven.



I know a few scientists and I can't say that any one of them has ever remarked that they were discarding an hypothesis which could not be proven as a total lie. If they are discarding (or even temporarily setting aside) an hypothesis, they have a very good reason for doing so.

I suggest you take a look at Russell's so called celestial teapot argument. It's a fascinating bit of philosophical reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

.

David 7. November 2008, 13:52

Hi guys. The comment by Jamesisin is very profound. Bertrand Russell was part of the precursor group that helped develop the discipline of General Semantics, my guiding philosphical lens on the world. We must always be aware of our or language shapes our perception of reality (whatever that is). Our languages that bear on this issue are speech, math, the visual arts, and music. They also introduce thorny and exasperating limitations on our investigation of 'external reality'.

The Dark Furie 9. November 2008, 12:12

In short, there is no truth. Language is too limited to truly define anything.

James Cook 11. November 2008, 21:39

No truth? That's about as far as one could take matters, and at that extreme lies absurdity. Certainly truth exists and surely we have some capacity to make true statements (using language). Otherwise it would be difficult to explain a simple statement like "English is a language".

The Dark Furie 12. November 2008, 13:34

Prove it. p:

James Cook 12. November 2008, 18:39

By definition, English is a language. If you doubt that, check any dictionary.

The Dark Furie 12. November 2008, 19:47

As you have no evident sense of humour, I'll explain it to you slowly and with as little jokes as possible. Language is way to limited to present the whole truth about any situation. You can only badly define your own experience of a situation, using words that seldom fit the need you have for them. And as perception is even more limited than language there is no absolute truth that anyone can tell. Even this statement is merely conjecture by myself based on my own experiences, which could well act as proof of my statement, but only if you too had experienced exactly the same things I had in exactly the same way, in which case you wouldn't even need such proof and I'd be talking to myself here. :D

James Cook 12. November 2008, 20:03

As few jokes as possible.

What's an "absolute" truth?

"English is a language" certainly qualifies as true regardless of how you slice it. "I am standing in my room" is equally true. Language (and perception) may have their limitations but you are clearly over-stating the case.

If you want to see the most convoluted explanation of the trouble with language, take a look at Plato's Parmenides:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html

Kimberly 19. November 2008, 01:29

wow, too techy for me to understand half of it, but very very impressive & correct in a lot of ways

Write a comment

You must be logged in to write a comment. If you're not a registered member, please sign up.

Download Opera, the fastest and most secure browser