During my thoughts, I imagined the idea of a conservation of consciousness. I conjecture that consciousness is neither created nor destroyed. To me, this idea seems aesthetically pleasing for the following reasons.
These thoughts led me to do some searches which led to the discovery of the following web sites, which are related to the nature of consciousness, expressing the idea that mass and energy might not be the only components of the universe and that the way we perceive those components might be more subjective than we like to believe.
The same article. Reprinted in full, my bet is without permission.
Another Holographic Universe - by Michael Talbot.
Science of Consciousness and the Hard Problem - By Henry P. Stapp, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of CA.
The Puzzle of Conscious Experience by David J. Chalmers, David J. Chalmers, University of AZ.
The Meaning of Life
Science Within Consciousness (SWC).
Science and Religion from SWC.
Science, Consciousness and God. from SWC too.
The Quantum Nature of Consciousness also from SWC.
An Interview with Amit Goswami, an originator of the Science Within Consciousness idea.
An Interview with David Bohm, a prominent, 20th century physicist.
"... Is there anything that will exist beyond death? That is the question everybody has always asked. It doesn't make sense to say something goes on in time. Rather I would say everything sinks into the implicate order, where there is no time. But suppose we say that right now, when I'm alive, the same thing is happening. The implicate order is unfolding to be me again and again each moment. And the past me is gone...."
A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram.
This book is on my wish list. They locked me out after reading the first
10 pages on-line. It definitely seems like a paradigm shift. I'd like to
know more.
### Tue Feb 17 06:31:45 EST 2004 One of these days, I'd like to write down my philosophy. I've been thinking about the pillars of my beliefs. I know I started on this earlier, but here are some of my recent thoughts. 1.) There is a timeless/infinite creator of the universe. God is as good a name as any for this creator. 2.) Most, if not all, religions are partly right, being inspired, if not revealed, by God and partly wrong, being interpreted by error-prone men. God, being limitless, is free and capable of working to steer any/all religions to fulfill his purpose if he so chooses. 3.) God is free to interact with men however/whenever he chooses. Being infinite, his capabilities cannot be limited by his finite creation. If the universe isn't finite in space, it is certainly finite with regards to time. 4.) Death is likely the beginning of something new. In all but exceptional circumstances, nature has conservation of mass, conservation of energy, it's reasonable to believe that consciousness might also be conserved under normal circumstance. 5.) The creator has a purpose for his creation. Our job is to a- be grateful for our very existance, recognizing consciousness as the unique and wonderful gift that it is; b- try to discern his purpose from the clues he's given us and c- try to fulfill his purpose. 6.) The best way to discern God's purpose for us is through the channels of science and mathematics. That's how the universe is described. All questions might never be answered, but once something is known, logically, it is no longer subject to misinterpretation by man. I believe the main weakness of most religions is that man is free to misinterpret God's revelations and man has done so. ### Thu Apr 1 05:38:50 EST 2004 I'm still spending alot of time thinking about the nature of consciousness. Is it matter? I think not, since it seems to have no mass. Is it energy? Again, I think not, since it cannot be measured. Is it a process, either chemical, mechanical, electrical, or a combination thereof? Perhaps. In that case, the law of conservation of consciousness would be wrong. For some reason, though, I think not. If I'm right, then the description I read on the deism list is close to what I think, that "the mind inhabits the brain". We are "posessed" by consciousness for the duration of our lives, and when our lives expire, our consciousness doesn't. I can't think how to make this proposition testable, though. The question seems vital to the development (or not) of real artificial intelligence.