My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />When one sees a face looking at a "blank" wall one must consider the many pressure phosphene related lights that appear to flash inside the eyes, muscae volitantes, tear film, etc. (at least six inter-ocular phenomena.) The more expanded the consciousness- higher blood and intraocular pressure the more figures may appear. i say there is no blank wall and and no crazy people-...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This was at the heart of the debate regarding LSD hallucinations. The "little green man in an all white room" was analogous to the "something from nothing" idea. Where hallucinations were purely the product of the mind.

The secondary hallucinations or pareidolia (ressler) required some kind of external input.

Now what you're describing here is a third scenario, I don't remember ever seeing before which is: no external physical stimuli in the ordinary sense, but perhaps stimuli from the non-visual part of the universe, just like we only see a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum in the form of visible light.


rd

"I" exists to do the thinking. Descartes almost has it correct.
"Consciousness exists therefore there is." - would be more accurate.
"i" may be a projection of consciousness, and thinking may be an idea. If any thinking is done- thoughts come to us. Thinking is not an active process. Doing and Being are active. Thoughts come to us when we have nothing to do or appreciate just being.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Thoughts come to us when we have nothing to do or appreciate just being.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's an interesting point. OK. Where do they come from?

rd

<b>[rderosa] "cogito ergo sum?"</b>

Hmm. Perhaps, but I guess I'll have to think about it for a while before I'm sure.

***

See if this helps.

Space ships and solar systems are physical. Equations are conceptual. And mission planners have consciousness. (The three parts of reality according to DRP.)

An equation will never directly cause a space ship to do anything. But indirectly, mediated by a mission planner, certain specific equations have very strong control over many minute details of a space ship's journey through the solar system.

Since the ship and the system are physical it is easy for us to understand that they are also real. But equations exist only as concepts - and it is not so easy to think of them as real.

Until you realize that without certain of these real/conceptual equations the real/physical ship cannot go where it needs to go in the real/physical system. The indirect nature of the interaction between equation and ship/system is what has hidden this aspect of reality from us for so long.

***

Am I making any sense?

Or maybe this one?

Unicorns have conceptual existence. Gene sequencers have physical existence. Genetic engineers have consciousness.

The concept of 'a unicorn' could prompt a <u>motivated</u> genetic engineer to use a gene sequencer to create a physical unicorn. (For his little girl's birthday?)

Maybe not today. But you can see that one day it is likely to happen.

It works the other way as well. Physical things can create (indirectly) conceptual things. Like equations. A consciousness observes the interaction between specific physical things, and the concept of a fixed relationship between the physical things is born.

The part of reality known as 'things with consciousness' is the key to this indirect interaction between the physical part of reality and the conceptual part of reality.