Measuring Consciousness,..,Describing The Indescribable

Lets first begine by overturning the tables upside down, or infact right side up. An habbit rooted in what I might term it as 'Galilean Physics' is that of studying neurones, each of which thought to be unconscious, thinking that the synthesis of them will help us understand how another ghostlike entity, 'consciousness' emerge. Needless to say, this is like adding a very large number of zeroes with the hope of obtaining a number for when we donnot factor in consciousness in any of the neurones, any addition of neuron to our synthesis contributes zero to our understanding of consciousness.On the other side of the absurd pendulum is an equaly stupid claim that we cannot understand consciousness scientifically. 'Science' is coined from the latin word, 'scientia' which just mean 'knowledge'. In the modern world, it has evolved to become 'objectiv knowledge', however, it is the very same 'Galilean Physics' that creats the object-subject dichotomy in principle as opposed to the proper, IN PRACTISE. So yes, if we revamp science to include consciousness in the fundamental way we perceive the universe, then yes we can 100% account for consciousness scientifically. Infact, it will be a nobrainer!The usuall way we understand things scientifically is simply to include what we have observed in the fundamental way we understand the universe. Why do we understand motion? Because after observing things move, we think of dynamics as part of the essential property of what define as all there is. It is the absurd stand of the modern science that even though we clearly observe us as conscious, and that this property is not reducable to dynamics etc, we should refuse to understand the universe with the light of this property, consciousness, we discovered in us. This is what makes it impossible to understand consciousness scientifically.OBJECT-SUBJECT DICHOTOMYThis first born son of 'Galilean Physics' is the first beast that we must gun down. Almost everyone will say that ball sitting on the table is objective while the consciousness of the table is subject. Let me surprise you abit; either both the ball and the consciousness are subjective or both of them are objective! I will go for the second. The only reason we think that consciousness is subjective is that we understand that mere clossing our eyes donnot necesarily make the ball varnish from another man's consciousness. But this is a PRACTICAL difficulty but not a PRINCIPLE property of consciousness. While if I close the door of my house, I may nolonger see the outer world and the outer world need not to varnish in the process does not mean that the space we define as 'our house' is any more subjective than any other region in the universe. Yet when it comes to consciousness, we are stupid enough to think that the mere difficulty in sharing our conscious perceptions makes consciousness a property distinct from any other property as to warrant a unique lable as 'subjective'.Rather simply, the words 'subjective' should stop at riffering to 'knowledge we haven't shared'. I have two bannanas in my room. The bannanas are subjective in that it is me alone who knows of them. However, if you enter my room, they cease being subjective. It is now objective, albeit just between me and you but it is still subjective to us together until someone else again enter the room, and so forth. Likewise if you telepathically connect with me, the thoughts I have about planning to sleep with Jane ceases be subjective, it is now an objective knowledge. So yes IN PRINCIPLE, consciousness is objective but IN PRACTICE, it better be labled as subjective. Anyone in the universe can observe my consciousness should the signals get to him and perharps just as you can observe my face better than myself, you can experience my consciousness IN YOU better than me!!MEASUREMENTSo then if consciouss is as objective as any other state, then we can measure it like any state in the universe. But first we need to understand well the essence of measurement. Over time, this ritual in physics temples have been so much performed and taken for granted that its true meaning has been entirely lost. Everyone unconsciously place a ruler against an object and some seconds latter, he spits out a number. It is no wonder people end up making ridiculus notion that there is some things we can know of that we can't measure.The insinuation is that when measuring say temperature, the coincidence between say the mark along the thermometer and the height of the expanding liquid is objective while what you obtain by touching the hot thing is the subjective knowledge about the heat. This of course would mean that shapes and movements exists 'out there' while the sense of temperatures etc exists 'in here' What a flaw in thinking! This is a disaster in modern science thinking. It instantly create the unsurmountable problem; what is qualia? Rather, shapes and the marks along a thermometer is as much a property of the 'in here' as it is for the 'out there'. Similarly, the heat you feel through the touch is as much the property of 'in here' as it is for 'out there'.Actually what the morons do, unwittingly, is to use a double standard in gauging whether the sense of touch gives as much objective knowledge as reading a thermometer. You see? Different people touching the stove give different opinions of how hot it is. They fail to realise that same would happen if the thermometer had no marks along the tube. In the latter then, we are comparing two quantities with themselves while we are not being clever enough to do so in the former. We are trying to obtain the temperature of a body by comparing it with our body, which might differ from person to person but in just exactly the same way judging how long a stick is without a ruler will tantamount to comparing the stick with yourself.So here is a fairer test, we place a stove and an ice side by side. This is now getting closer to what the thermometer moron is doing. The 'mark' coresponds to the ice and the liguid coresponds to the stove. Fact is, everyone will agree that the stove is hotter than ice without the need of any thermometer. Therefore the knowledge about the heat, we obtain by touching IS an OBJECTIVE fact about heat!The bottomline is that measurement is trivial, if not entirely useless, when it comes to UNDERSTANDING the world. Measurement has a deeper and more fundamental meaning than gazing at an instrument calibrated in Paris. It is when we think in terms of the deeper meaning do we understand that consciousness, like any other state in the universe CAN be measured! You can gauge sleep, drunk, dream etc because you are using the wake state as a yardstick.DESCRIPTIONThere is no such a thing as 'indiscribable'!! Description is a list of words we associate with what we have experience. These words are arbitrary and 100% INVENTION. We can describe ANYTHING by simply doing analysis of the parts and naming each of the parts. As long as our listener is familiar with what each of those words rifers to, there will be a meaningfull notion of description. If the property in question is not analytic, such as zero, a single word, zero, adequately describes the property. So we don't hail! Zero is BEYOND DESCRIPTION, no no no, it is THE EASIEST DESCREPTION! What the moron is doing is to identify description with listing of many words oblivious that we can adequatly descripe property using a single word if that property is not analytic. And we say just that; NOT ANALYTIC, not BEYOND ANALYSIS. The latter is misleading that zero is such a lofty concept that no one can understand it just because no one can describe it ('description' here taken narrowly to mean listing several words associated with zero, a silly task) phew!! The indoctrination that 'God is beyond understanding' or something like that drives humanity, in his ever search, to find anything, beyond beyond beyond,..., to fill that gap. We now worship non analytic CONCEPTS because they are 'BEYOND DESCRIPTIONS'. We bow to zeros, singularities, 'now', nothingness, one,..., guess what? They are beyond description! What a bunch of morons!

"I posted on here a few months ago about the Betty and Barney Hill abduction, but this video here in my opinion talks a little better about what happened. This is the story of what many call the most famous Ufo abduction of all time which involves…"

"I posted on here a couple months ago about the Betty and Barney Hill abduction, but this video here in my opinion talks a little better about what happened. This is the story of what many call the most famous Ufo abduction of all time which involves…"

"In part 2 here Sheldan talks about the ships of the Anchara Alliance. More Galactic Federation of Light ships are talked about here also. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4X4GXs2AUQ"

Spiritual Blogs

Measuring Consciousness,..,Describing The Indescribable

Comments

Featured Blogs

Calm In The Midst Of The Storm

Book: ASHTAR – A Tribute Compiled by Tuella

The Fiery Forces Of Creation Are Sweeping The Earth - June 22th, 2022

Interdimensional Being: Where Do You Consciously Reside?

Note: this page contains paid content.

Latest Activity

New Forum Posts

If You Are Distracted - Do This Every Day With Mooji

An Important Update on Ronna Herman's Health

Blessing The Earth With Loving Kindness

The Untold Story Of Mount Shanta And The Lemurians

Note: this page contains paid content.