Paul:

My perception of consciousness and its possibilities are written in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION", my essay of last year.

You are communicating your own perception of reality, which is true for YOU, but is different for me. I will never try to convince you of my opinion, the only thing I can do is communicate my perceptions and how I am aware of them.

What you call "reality at that time" is the past and does not exist any more.

"Appear" : Everything you are aware of and what you call reality, is processed by your brain and is being experienced as reality but is in fact just the past.That is why it appears different for each of us. Reality is NOT the same for everybody it is NOT existing CREALTY is the only "existing" solipsistic reality that through decoherence is becoming a objective "illusion".(creality of a multitude).(and of course this is only my personal^point of view that I am participating with YOU).

Wilhelmus

"You are communicating your own perception of reality, which is true for YOU, but is different for me"

This is science, not religion. There is no room for individualistic beliefs. And as I said, for one thing, quite obviously, we do not create physical existence, ie the consciousness is irrelevant.

Paul

All the essays published here are individualistic approaches and perceptions of scientific and philosophical data. An individual can "believe" in his parceptions (like apparently you are doing also) but may be always aware that his ideas that are based on data from "today" may be not longer valid tomorrow.

In your perception consciousness is irrelevant, fine, but not for for me, in your perception you are right and I am right in mine, this has nothing to do with religion, becuase mine is not a "belief" but a hypothesis based on scientific data.

Wilhelmus

W

Obviously, anybody is free to believe in anything. But in science the aim is to have statements which correspond with existence as known to us. And if you can explain to me how consciousness affects the physical circumstance, please do so.

Paul

Paul,

my hypothesis is published in two articles :

"Realities out of Total Simultaneity" : http://vixra.org/abs/1112.0013

and

"The Consciousness Connection, a Metaphysical Concept" : http://vixra.org/abs/1211.0019

They are also published in the

"JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLORATION & RESEARCH"

Volume 3, No 10 : "Quantum Aspect of Psychiatry & Foundation of Reality"

table of contents : http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/issue/view/29

best regards

Wilhelmus

W

Thanks but can you please just post a paragraph on here which answers my question, ie how does consciousness affect the physical circumstance.

Paul

Paul,

The keyword for my assumption that consciousness is influencing "reality" (whatever it may be) is the Young double slit experiment , wher the act of aware observing is regulating the outcome of wave or partcle behaviour. Then ther is Wheelers Delayed Choice Experiment. Furhermore I propose that the "material" universe is limited by the Planck Length and Time (these limits can be reached at any point and time in our causal universe), beyond that begins a another "dimension" (perhaps not the right expression) that I call TOTAL SIMULTANEITY, this is a non-causal dimension where ALL probable and nonprobable (for us) slices of block universe like alpha moments are "available". It is our non-causal part of consciousness that is also "available" there and through entanglement with its causal part is creating our CREALITY (Illusion) of causal space and time. You may say that it is humbug, but this kind of reasoning is also used in Loop Quantum Gravity. You can also say that it is not realistic and deterministic, you are right, but I am happy to be able to think free.

best regards

Wilhelmus

W

Reality occurs independently of whatever detects it. By definition, because any sentient organism receives a physical input, it does not create it in its head and then somehow telepathically communicate it with every other sentient organism. We all see St Pauls, because something which constitutes what we label as St Pauls is physically existent, and a light representation of it is being caused as a result.

Consciousness, or any other such associated process, has no effect on the physical circumstance.

Paul

Wilhelmus,

A very enjoyable read and original approach, but I found much in agreement with or complimentary to my own findings, always pleasing! Pertinant, well written and organised too. The 'quote' format worked well.

I particularly liked; "the real thing is 3D and in full colour"

Congratulations on a very fine essay, well written, now also well scored.

Best of luck

Peter

    Dear

    Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

    So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

      Thank you Peter, we both know that it is not easy to sail against the wind, you have to tack and tack and tack, but we will arrive at our goal I hope..

      Wilhelmus

      Dear Satyavarapu,

      Thank you for your kind reaction , I responded on your thread.

      Wilhelmus

      5 days later

      Wilhelmus,

      If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

      Jim

        Thank you Jim, I am awaiting your valuation.In the meantime I will read and rate yours, we need to support each other.

        Wilhelmus

        Wilhelmus,

        Quite an interesting read, utilizing unique phraseology along the way. You cover a lot of territory and "conscious creality" as you go. I have always been intrigued with the biblical concept,especially after reading Joyce's Ulysses, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God." The poetic phrasing and the deep meaning perhaps represent the concepts we are struggling with, more in support of your thinking -- I might say.

        Jim

          Thank you Jim,

          It seems that the essence of most religions is compatible with my "thinking", which gives me a good feeling.

          You can eventually read extensive articles that I wrote on the subject in "THE SCIENTIFIC GOD JOURNAL" http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/115 and

          http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/232

          Wilhelmus

          4 days later

          Dear Wilhelmus,

          thank you for commenting on my entry and for invitation to read your beautiful, thoughtful, philosophical essay. It reminded me of the old time alchemists forever searching the perfection at its finest in all aspects of life (and beyond :).

          "The infinity of the now moment is not only the past or the future, our consciousness is creating out of all the shades of grey in the Primal Sequence a Creality , so the appearance of a materialistic universe." -- beautiful:)

            Dear Wilhelmus, I read your essay with great interest. Your concept of the the "Primal Sequence" as "the origin of origins" is very similar with my concept of our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit as Planck's matrix of all matter and also as Maxwell's infinite being, but not his finite being. i also shares your concept of the NOW within the absolute digital time T ≤ 10^-1000sevonds. Please comment and rank my essay. Best wishes, Leo KoGuan

            Dear Wilhelmus,

            I have read your nice work and I find there many for my valuable points that I will take in attention in my future works. I think we going to the same direction despite some difrence of our approaches. I hope my work may be interstig for you.

            I will thankfull for your opinion on it. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1804

            Best wishes,

            George