GENIUS FORUMS

Astronomy shows the large scale structure of the universe as similar to the pattern of neurons. Scientists say they need more time and research to understand it. They need something more obvious.

You are my neurons.

kissaki wrote:Astronomy shows the large scale structure of the universe as similar to the pattern of neurons. Scientists say they need more time and research to understand it. They need something more obvious.

You are my neurons.

I can't get much sense out of this post. Human beings are machines that are programmed to find patterns. In the past we have looked up at the night sky and seen all kinds of shapes, eg., ploughs, archers, crosses, etc. These we call "the constellations." But that doesn't mean there are really ploughs and archers in the sky.

[1000 years ago]
I can't get much sense out of this post using god. Human beings are machines that are programmed to find patterns using god. In the past we have looked up at the night sky and seen all kinds of shapes, eg., ploughs, archers, crosses, etc using god. These we call "the constellations" using god. But that doesn't mean there are really ploughs and archers in the sky using god.

[today]
I can't get much sense out of this post using neurons. Human beings are machines that are programmed to find patterns using neurons. In the past we have looked up at the night sky and seen all kinds of shapes, eg., ploughs, archers, crosses, etc using neurons. These we call "the constellations" using neurons. But that doesn't mean there are really ploughs and archers in the sky using neurons.

[tomorrow]
?

Countless births and has anyone recognized what it is being birthed? Must we travel far far away in order to be sure? A mirror always tells the truth yet we never see the mirror.

I've had suspicions, but this thread affirms my lurking fear that you were a grass-eater. Spare me not, ye devourer of logic and commonsense.

Kissaki,

Countless births and has anyone recognized what it is being birthed? Must we travel far far away in order to be sure? A mirror always tells the truth yet we never see the mirror.

What is the point of your thread? Are you trying to say that the Universe cannot be identified using science, or that it can never be recognised in any way?

And what do you mean by "Universe"?

Kelly Jones wrote: What is the point of your thread?

What is the point of the universe? If I said 'reflection', is that not sufficient reason for the universe and thus this thread to exist?

Kelly Jones wrote: Are you trying to say that the Universe cannot be identified using science, or that it can never be recognised in any way?

I can come right up to the Void ... but I can never touch it as a thing.

Kelly Jones wrote: And what do you mean by "Universe"?

Must I use words all the way down? How many turtles must I stack on top of each other before the nature of the turtles and the turtle stacker is revealed?

What do you think of this, Kissaki:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

Sound right? Sound wrong?

kissaki,

Astronomy shows the large scale structure of the universe as similar to the pattern of neurons. Scientists say they need more time and research to understand it. They need something more obvious.

You are my neurons.

It sounds to me like you are trying to come up with wacky mystical theories to justify a personal belief in immortality. The truth is that the galaxies are nothing like neurons. What would a black hole be similar to in the brain? What would an exploding star cluster be similar to in your brain? Moreover, clusters of galaxies are very unique appearances, and human brains are very unique appearances. Each is very different from the other - not a good comparison.

I agree with Solway, the brain is more like a machine built to recongnize patterns, and the brain accomplishes this by sending and receiving electrical impulses. This behavior seems much different than that of a galaxy.

The only comparison I can find is that both the universe and the human brain decay over time. The galaxies are being ripped further apart from each other, and eventually, all life will be extinguished due to lack of heat. And in that same context, the brain decays over time. The insulation layer on each neuron wears down, neuron firing slows, reaction time and balance degrade, and the memory becomes faulty and unreliable, and some die not knowing who or where they are.

‘Consciousness’ as it stands presently is a very fragile, precarious and limited emergence on this planet – the flexibility of consciousness is governed by the behavior of matter itself. Moreover, our consciousness is governed by millions of years of biological heredity, which gives us a huge disadvantage as far as rationality is concerned. Basically, man is the ultimate underdog of the cosmos.

A good comparison would be a baseball game - suppose it is the bottom of the ninth, two outs, full count, and the bases are loaded for 'rationality', but the score is 100-1 for 'irrationality', and irrationality has the only pitcher in the league that can throw a curb ball that causes 'rationality' to strike out most times. Who do you think will win?

For the record and taking the thread's title literally - a dangerous MO here at GF, I am aware:

Cosmologists are largely specuators, and to aid them, they all agree on what they call the Cosmological Principle. This states that our position in the Universe is in no way special. From this, they deduce that the Universe is the same in all directions, and that on the large scale, as can be observed by the latest telescope images, the Universe is isotropic, that is, it is smooth.

Cosmology is speculative at its core.

Big Bang cosmology is 80% math and 20% actual science. It is also patently stupid.

Dan Rowden wrote:Cosmology is speculative at its core.

Big Bang cosmology is 80% math and 20% actual science. It is also patently stupid.

Cosmologists would no doubt agree that their field is highly speculative. And you may even have been generous with your 80/20 assessment. But hard science is underway to verify some of the speculations that the math leads to. The General Relativity equations have been shown to be correct so far.

That cosmology in general is "patently stupid" would be incorrect, however. It may be arguably stupid, but that means it is not patently so. My own objections to the business of cosmology are fairly mundane and practical. Namely, a tremendous amount of money and other resources are being spent on determining the consistency or inconsistency of various cosmological theories. In many cases, this effort is duplicated. Right now, two huge "L" detectors are being constructed to isloate the graviton, which is as yet a purely hypothetical particle. The best-case scenario has these projects both confirming the graviton's existence. This would be deeply satisfying to an extraordinarily tiny group of people. In this sense, IMO, cosmology can be considered "stupid."

But you said Big Bang cosmology specifically is what is stupid, patently so. Physicists would say, rather, that certain scenarios or conclusions based on the math are not stupid but "unsatisfying." You should be aware that advances in string theory posit an altogether different scenario, which effectively do away with the unsatisfying singularities at the origin of space and time.

Brokenhead,

they deduce that the Universe is the same in all directions, and that on the large scale, as can be observed by the latest telescope images, the Universe is isotropic, that is, it is smooth.

I don't believe the word smooth is quite adequate to describe the topography of the cosmos. To my mind, smooth is a word used to describe a two-dimensional surface, and there isn't even a consensus within the scientific community how many dimensions makes up the universe.

Kelly,

A dangerous thought. It gives fools a pass to do anything they like and gives the wise nothing at all.

Ryan,

I think you are the one with a wacky mystical theory that allows for personal beliefs to exist at all. Black holes hide and stars explode across the vast reaches of space as I type this now ... yet none escape my neurons. None ever escape mind. Right now you have unprecedented access to countless past lives. You resurrect and give birth to any of them as they come into mind, you resurrect all the time, but here you are leveling the charge of 'no immortality.'

Consciousness’ as it stands presently is a very fragile, precarious and limited emergence on this planet – the flexibility of consciousness is governed by the behavior of matter itself.

To rely on matter is a precarious position no doubt! If I were to set off the ultimate weapon and destroy the universe, what disappears first? The stars out there or the neurons in here? Mind precedes all events and things.

Dan,

Cosmology might be stupid but in stupid it does not occur. Our tools of optics reveal the originator of the tools of optics. If cosmology is stupid it is because its practitioners still can't identify what is seen in an arbitrarily large and old mirror.

Kissaki,

Black holes hide and stars explode across the vast reaches of space as I type this now ... yet none escape my neurons. None ever escape mind. Right now you have unprecedented access to countless past lives. You resurrect and give birth to any of them as they come into mind, you resurrect all the time, but here you are leveling the charge of 'no immortality.

'

Come on, You don’t actually believe this crap do you? Nothing ever escapes your neurons? Are you serious?…okay, then try remembering what you had for supper thirteen days ago…. You’re neurons don’t stretch across the universe, they perceive a very small window directly in front of you, and not very well, I might add.

To rely on matter is a precarious position no doubt! If I were to set off the ultimate weapon and destroy the universe, what disappears first? The stars out there or the neurons in here? Mind precedes all events and things.

But all you can do is rely on matter. The right causal conditions of matter is what keeps you alive. And in a certain context, mind precedes events in the sense that mind is necessary for events to be perceived, however in another context, mind is very dependent on events – For instance: just walk into a room low in oxygen or high in toxic gases, and you will quickly realize how the mind does not precede all things and events.

Basically, the universe will keep on existing long after your small mortal mind has burnt out…

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead,

they deduce that the Universe is the same in all directions, and that on the large scale, as can be observed by the latest telescope images, the Universe is isotropic, that is, it is smooth.

I don't believe the word smooth is quite adequate to describe the topography of the cosmos. To my mind, smooth is a word used to describe a two-dimensional surface, and there isn't even a consensus within the scientific community how many dimensions makes up the universe.

In the various flavors of String Theory, the theorized extra dimensions - six of them in total, all spatial - are all so small that they may not ever be detected. Some of the string theories posit dimensions greater than the Planck length, which means they may one day be detected, but still these dimensions are vanishingly tiny, if they exist. In the large, there are 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions. It is the observed distribution of matter in these 3 large dimensions that cosmologists consider smooth, that is, the larger the scale you view it, the less matter seems to be clumped together.

Brokenhead,

In the various flavors of String Theory, the theorized extra dimensions - six of them in total, all spatial - are all so small that they may not ever be detected. Some of the string theories posit dimensions greater than the Planck length, which means they may one day be detected, but still these dimensions are vanishingly tiny, if they exist. In the large, there are 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions. It is the observed distribution of matter in these 3 large dimensions that cosmologists consider smooth, that is, the larger the scale you view it, the less matter seems to be clumped together.

have you ever considered that the extra dimensions are being detected by three-dimensional creatures with three-dimensional scientific instruments, so isn't there an inherent limitation in the detection process? The detection will only be through the lens of three-dimensional perception - that filter will always be the foggy lens to which we attempt to measure these extra dimensions.... it seems like an empirical problem to me.

It would be like a water spider (exists on the surface of water in two-dimensions) trying to perceive the three-dimensional contents of the entire ocean.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Brokenhead,

In the various flavors of String Theory, the theorized extra dimensions - six of them in total, all spatial - are all so small that they may not ever be detected. Some of the string theories posit dimensions greater than the Planck length, which means they may one day be detected, but still these dimensions are vanishingly tiny, if they exist. In the large, there are 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions. It is the observed distribution of matter in these 3 large dimensions that cosmologists consider smooth, that is, the larger the scale you view it, the less matter seems to be clumped together.

have you ever considered that the extra dimensions are being detected by three-dimensional creatures with three-dimensional scientific instruments, so isn't there an inherent limitation in the detection process? The detection will only be through the lens of three-dimensional perception - that filter will always be the foggy lens to which we attempt to measure these extra dimensions.... it seems like an empirical problem to me.

It would be like a water spider (exists on the surface of water in two-dimensions) trying to perceive the three-dimensional contents of the entire ocean.

Your objection is premature. Nothing has been detected as far as the "extra" dimensions go, at least as far as I am aware. Their detection would bolster string theory, which postulates them. It's their tiny size that renders them difficult to detect. But if they are really there, then we are in fact not three dimensional creatures with three-dimensional instruments, right?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Come on, You don’t actually believe this crap do you? Nothing ever escapes your neurons? Are you serious?…okay, then try remembering what you had for supper thirteen days ago…. You’re neurons don’t stretch across the universe, they perceive a very small window directly in front of you, and not very well, I might add.

Everything that reveals its appearance exists as my neurons. The appearance of you exists as my neurons. The appearance of your separate neurons exists as my neurons. The appearance of a window, however small, however large, exists as my neurons. When humans find a further root of neurons, then the appearance of neurons shall exist as the root of my neurons. Any appearances of neurons separate from my neurons still exist as my neurons. How many neurons do you need to see what you are clearly? You already have all the neurons in the universe.

Ryan Rudolph wrote: But all you can do is rely on matter. The right causal conditions of matter is what keeps you alive. And in a certain context, mind precedes events in the sense that mind is necessary for events to be perceived, however in another context, mind is very dependent on events – For instance: just walk into a room low in oxygen or high in toxic gases, and you will quickly realize how the mind does not precede all things and events.

You mistake mind for the popular scientific definition of mind. I speak of the Zen Mind. The mind that reflects all other minds. Even a mind in its death throes requires another mind for the appearance to exist. Where did that mind begin and end? And the mind that observed that mind's beginning and end?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: Basically, the universe will keep on existing long after your small mortal mind has burnt out…

Unknowable as anything more than an appearance. Yet here I am speaking of knowledge immemorial.

Brokenhead,

But if they are really there, then we are in fact not three dimensional creatures with three-dimensional instruments, right?

I don’t think such a discovery would change the fact that we are still three-dimensional creatures, as our sensory system would stay the same. Only our knowledge would change.

Kissaki,

Everything that reveals its appearance exists as my neurons. The appearance of you exists as my neurons. The appearance of your separate neurons exists as my neurons. The appearance of a window, however small, however large, exists as my neurons. When humans find a further root of neurons, then the appearance of neurons shall exist as the root of my neurons. Any appearances of neurons separate from my neurons still exist as my neurons. How many neurons do you need to see what you are clearly? You already have all the neurons in the universe.

You are violating the law of identify. My appearance cannot be the appearance of your neurons at the same type. They need to be treated as separate things with unique properties. However, I agree that there is a unity among of all things, but it becomes nonsensical and problematic to start saying that my appearance is your neurons and all that other junk. It doesn’t make any sense at all, and such an analysis cannot say anything intelligent about the world. For reason/logic to be possible, we must speak as if there is a division among things, but any decent philosopher knows that there is in fact a unity.

I speak of the Zen Mind. The mind that reflects all other minds. Even a mind in its death throes requires another mind for the appearance to exist. Where did that mind begin and end? And the mind that observed that mind's beginning and end?

A mind reflects all other minds for the simple fact that it is a mind, no reason to make a big deal out of it. Just like the appearance of a tree reflects similar properties of other trees. I just don’t believe in mystifying the mind as some Zen mind or some special mind. It is a sack of cells and nothing more. It is a computer…why mystify the whole thing? What does that accomplish? Using that sort of language can only confuse people, excite them, or make them believe they are really special.

Ryan,

The law of identity is constructed and understood with my neurons and thus ultimately an appearance of my neurons which is itself an appearance. You denounce the words yet you cannot show me how to escape your neurons.

The purpose of Zen is to construct impassable barriers, to turn words into razor sharp edges. Any movement in any direction cuts you. Only fools mistake getting cut as mystical experiences.

If you wish to construct arbitrarily long and complicated objects in the realm of appearances and arbitrarily assign them as causes of nature toward more effects of nature, so be it. However, none of it nullifies Zen.

Is talk of one style as better over another authentic recognition of reality? Zen is all styles. The style of no style.

kissaki wrote:Dan,

Cosmology might be stupid but in stupid it does not occur.

I didn't say that about cosmology in general but specifically about Big Bang cosmology. To me, Kevin summed up this issue when he noted that the human brain is designed to see patterns. I actually thought you were saying something similar with your "You are my neurons" statement. What we are really doing in all these endeavors is mapping our own consciousness.

kissaki,

first you say,

Only fools mistake getting cut as mystical experiences.

Then you say,

Is talk of one style as better over another authentic recognition of reality? Zen is all styles. The style of no style.

Are you in favor if distinguishing inferior from superiority in the form of judgment or not? Because you seem to be contradicting yourself here. In the first sentence you judge, and then in the next sentence, you say that Zen is all styles, and that judgment is bad, which itself is a judgment. So you have contradicted yourself twice in one post.

Cut!

Kevin:
"Human beings are machines that are programmed to find patterns."

...Until enlightenment.
Then humans are transformed from robots with progamed brains, "personal identities" and auto-programed "purpose" into their true nature as consciousness creating... on whatever scale, and realizing *what is* , also on whatever scale of interest, including the description and dynamics of cosmos.
See my 'cosmology" thread for details.

brokenhead:

In the various flavors of String Theory, the theorized extra dimensions - six of them in total, all spatial - are all so small that they may not ever be detected. Some of the string theories posit dimensions greater than the Planck length, which means they may one day be detected, but still these dimensions are vanishingly tiny, if they exist. In the large, there are 3 spatial and one temporal dimensions. It is the observed distribution of matter in these 3 large dimensions that cosmologists consider smooth, that is, the larger the scale you view it, the less matter seems to be clumped together.

There were five or six varieties of "strings" all in competition until the "11th dimension" was resurrected from ridicule and its theoretical father transformed from fool into hero (arbitrarily by the "leading M-theorists) to save the day and unite all the varieties of strings into "membranes" a zillionth (or so) of a mm apart... which, when they touched or "clapped" would create yet another universe like ours. All imaginary stuff!

There are three spacial dimensions and the concept of time (by which different objects, for instance, can occupy the same 3-D space at "different times")... all quite obvious.
Then along comes fantasy physics... or imaginative metaphysics posturing as real science, and ....Whaddaya know!... an amazing seven more dimensions magically appear (including the revived 11th) out of the rarified air of imaginative math.... with *no* observable referents in the "real world."
There is your synopsis of string/M-theory. It gives science a bad name that so many sheep follow along and call this fantasy 'science.'

I agree with your description of what "isotropic" means. But my (mystic) vision is that all we can see, given the cosmic event horizon limit, is but cosmic matter all at one locus/sphere within the "thickness" of the membrane of the expanding "balloon" of cosmos. That is, the known cosmos is but a sphere of "vision" contained within one small piece within the ever expanding "rubber" of the entire baloon membrane. We can not see beyond the balloon either in the direction of its expansion or in the direction of its (cyclical) origin. And, from this perspective, it looks "smooth."

It is, however, expanding into the infinite void of space... whch is not all the same density as the cosmic matter we can "see."

For what it's worth. I'm confident that my vision is God-given and true, but it can not be "proven" so it must fall within the category of "speculation" for now.
When more of us grow up and see the 'God's eye view' of the Divine Body... we will no longer depend on materialistic/empirical science as the sole criterion of cosmological "knowledge"... i.e., spiritual vision will become a real-ized way of "knowing" and "seeing" beyond the limits of the physical senses... and the robotic human brain's capcity for both inductive and deductive reasoning .
(Nah... no edit after all... still as was... a silly whim.)