Posts by Joseph Ramos11

casualmaker13 said:I figured it out. How about you?
I mean, if we start from the idea that God is the creator behind everything—including you, your spirit, your body, your mind, your whole soul... then I guess we can conclude that without Him, there's just nothing. And honestly, that pretty much answers the question asked at the very beginning.
Or, if you haven't quite grasped it yet, maybe God exists regardless of whether you're there to perceive Him or not—independent of your mind, your physical self, your spirit, or anything else for that matter.😉

Well, you "figured it out" my foot...

HOW did you figure it out? WHAT did you use to figure it out? Where do this God and this spirituality of yours actually come from? They come from your own mind. You can't really talk about any god or any spirituality, because all you're talking about is what you can think about. Both are just concepts—products of the mind. If some kind of God or spirituality actually exists, it’s way beyond the reach of a thinker. It can't be described or captured using the tools of the mind. You think you're discussing divinity, but you're really just talking about your own thoughts and nothing else. But I guess that's not surprising. It’s a standard issue for the whole human race... everyone builds sandcastles and thinks they're constructing skyscrapers.🙂

casualmaker13 said:The flesh dies, but God doesn't.😍

But how did you come to that conclusion?...

Keith Parker2 said:I honestly can't wrap my head around spirituality without God. Whether it's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, it all seems tied back to God or some kind of deity.

If Jesus really had such a gentle and humble heart, he wouldn't have flipped those tables outside the temple, right?

casualmaker13 said:Yeah.

What makes you say that?

casualtiger2 said:Can God exist without spirituality?

And can you have both God and spirituality without the mind?
🙂

Sophia Lee80 said:We’ve reached a point where people take pride in their own egos... Of course you’ll claim spirituality equals selfishness; otherwise, you couldn't possibly be "spiritual"... just as you yourselves admitted... an excuse... if spirituality is nothing more than egoism, then you all must be angels on earth.

Man, you're a tougher case than you looked at first...
😂 😂 😂

Do you really think I should be ashamed of my ego to try and transcend it?
Oh honey, look at you starting to act all high and mighty now.

Sophia Lee80 said:Why did you bother responding to a question you directed at me? Do you honestly assume everyone else is "enlightened" enough to have an answer for it? Or perhaps you aren't enlightened at all, just egotistical. You likely can't even see past yourself; you’re so tethered to your ego that trying to detach would probably send you into a fatal depression. So, instead, you hunt for excuses—justifying its existence, its purpose, and why it's actually a good thing to hold onto. Think about it. Is that really you speaking, or just your ego? Quiet the ego for once and listen to your own thoughts. You've likely forgotten they even exist, or how they feel. Listen to that small inner voice you stopped paying attention to long ago because your ego was always louder, shouting over everything else.

Who are you even talking to here? You should quote the specific text so people know who the message is meant for... If you're asking me, then sure, call me selfish. But how am I supposed to quiet my ego when my ego *is* me? Did you miss the point of what I said earlier? Tough crowd...
😂 🤣

placidharbor7 said:Go on, expand on that, Joseph Ramos11; what exactly triggers and drives this whole "spiritual alchemy" process?

And why on earth would you call basic human growth "alchemy"?
That sounds like just another way to dress up "spirituality" to make it sound more profound than it actually is.

To see the black, you have to know white. To realize there is neither black nor white, you first have to recognize that both exist...

Sophia Lee80 said:First off, I am not a woman. Second, what you’re preaching is just New Age nonsense; the concept of ego dissolution has existed for millennia. Third, my ego and I are not one and the same. The ego is merely a manifestation of my desire to be unique, to outperform others, and to stand out. How could destroying that contribute to destroying me? If you actually applied any logic, you'd see it's quite the opposite.

Do you even have an answer to the question "Who am I?" Because if you have an ego, you are 🙂
The ego is much more extensive than those little calculations of yours. Literally EVERYTHING—absolutely everything—you think about yourself and how you present yourself to the world is the ego.

Sophia Lee80 said:I would like to know how the drive to destroy the ego functions as an ego trip?
A better person altogether... I don't understand how someone can fail to grasp the concept of "becoming a better person" without immediately asking, "better than whom, or what?" Your response alone proves you cannot discuss spirituality while still viewing yourself as something special—an entity separate from the environment you inhabit. This debate regarding spirituality is nothing more than semantics. The girl asked a question; ask yourselves if any of you actually answered it. Look at how many concrete answers exist in this "spiritual discussion" and reconsider whether you are truly capable of helping anyone on their spiritual path. Or better yet, ask if YOU are even on a spiritual path. Have you experienced spirituality firsthand to claim it is merely "a form of ego"? If you have, that says more about your own state than about spirituality itself. restlessseal16, my advice to you is to turn off CNN; you'll find more spirituality there than you will here. If they had the answers to your questions, the first replies wouldn't be "those lost in semantics will never realize the essence" or "a form of egoism." Spirituality is a practical skill. Our words are inadequate substitutes for our thoughts, and our thoughts are emanations of our experiences. Therefore, one who uses words too easily lacks the experience required to speak of spirituality. That is all I have seen here: throwing around big words with little meaning. If any of you were brave enough to actually experience and confront this world, rather than just criticizing it through a screen or paper, then perhaps this forum could be called spiritual, or even more.

It isn't just an ego trip, it's honestly just nonsense. You *are* the ego. You are the sum of everything you've experienced and believed, so how can you be separate from it enough to destroy it? It's kind of funny... you're talking about destroying the very thing you are, lol. Everything you think defines you—all those expectations and manifestations—it's all part of it. Trying to "destroy" the ego feels pretty silly to me. Real progress is more about using spiritual alchemy to reach actual insight and understanding. Anything else is just New Age fluff...

restlessseal16 said:I used the Pope as an example, though I could've just mentioned Quincy whom I actually consider spiritual.

Now, integration, wholeness, self-honesty, perception... those sound like psychological functions to me—you know, self-concept, core beliefs, all that stuff. I'm not sure if that's the same thing as spirituality—it probably shouldn't be. I guess I'm wondering if we're just using different vocabularies for the same thing, or if there's an actual gap between the two.

Well, spirituality is essentially a form of psychology, just with one major twist. Psychology usually tries to take someone who deviates from social norms and molds them into someone who fits perfectly into society. Spirituality works the opposite way. Even for someone who is perfectly adjusted to society, spirituality might view that state as "unhealthy" and strives to transcend it—aiming for that higher state of being, whether you call it becoming an enlightened sage, reaching satori, or finding oneness with the Tao... whatever you want to call it.

restlessseal16 said:Honestly, I’m on the same page.
Humans are supposed to be free-willed—intellectually superior to anything else out there—yet it feels like we constantly need to project certain parts of ourselves outward and slap the label "spirituality" on that idealized version of who we want to be. That’s how I see spirituality, anyway... sort of.

Also, how do you actually measure a person's level of spirituality? I can guarantee the Pope and I aren't operating on the same scale, and there’s a massive spectrum of people sitting somewhere in between us.

I’m still struggling to wrap my head around the distinction between the spirit and the psyche...🤷
And please, spare me those "if you get lost in semantics, you'll never find the truth" responses—they're just tired clichés that aren't going to enlighten me or open my eyes anytime soon.

I think you might be using the wrong comparison. It's hard to say organized religions have much to do with true spirituality, if we're even using that word. To me, things like how integrated a person is, their sense of wholeness, or how much they're driven by reactive impulses—those feel more like real metrics. Plus, just being honest with yourself... being able to see who you really are in a realistic light...

Sophia Lee80 said:You are absolutely correct regarding selfishness—specifically the trap of comparing oneself to others. However, you cannot label that behavior as spirituality. True spirituality is about outgrowing your former self, not surpassing your neighbor. I am not suggesting that people actually set out on a "spiritual path" with the intention of becoming better human beings; in fact, I agree with you there. People often embark on that journey with flawed motives. But the core issue remains: what spirituality actually is. Your definition is the exact opposite of what spirituality IS.

Don't kid yourself. Saying you want to be "better than you were before" is often just a convenient excuse. It’s a catchy phrase, but at the end of the day, the ego always wants to compare itself to someone else—it just changes how much it justifies it. Every intention carries a hint of that egoism. In that sense, spirituality is just another goal-oriented activity driven by the ego, much like anything else. That doesn't mean self-work isn't valuable or that we shouldn't do it... it's still worth doing. But it's vital to stay mindful of those underlying motives and keep questioning them honestly...

Sophia Lee80 said:On what logic does spirituality become a form of egoism? If you can even provide an answer to something like that..

Any action driven by a goal is essentially a form of egoism. Think about it—whether your goal is hitting the gym to build muscle so you can look better than everyone else, or working on your "spiritual muscles" to boost your aura and health, it’s all the same thing. At the end of the day, you're still just "you," operating within a mindset of comparing yourself to others.
I'm not saying being egoistic is inherently bad, though. It's just a reality for ninety-five percent of people, at least in my book🙂...

restlessseal16 said:Can someone actually explain what spirituality is—and specifically, where the line is drawn between the spirit and the psyche?
Thanks!

Just another form of ego...

Jamie Peterson said:What actually *is* language, though? I mean, really think about it—it’s more than just a collection of sounds or some fancy set of grammar rules we all agreed on so we wouldn't walk into walls. It’s this weird, invisible architecture that sits right between our brains and the rest of the world. It’s like... okay, imagine you’re trying to describe a specific shade of sunset in Malibu to someone who’s only ever lived in a basement in Chicago. You need these little symbols—words, really—to build a bridge between your experience and theirs. Without them, you're just pointing vaguely at the sky and hoping they get the vibe. But then it gets complicated because language isn't just a tool for communication; it's how we categorize reality itself. We slice up the continuous flow of life into manageable little chunks called "nouns" and "verbs" just so we can make sense of the chaos. It's kind of like how a coder uses syntax to turn a mess of electricity into a functioning app—except the app is our entire perception of existence. It’s messy, it’s constantly shifting, and honestly, half the time we aren't even saying what we think we're saying.
Think about it this way—when we speak, we’re really just gathering up these little clusters of sounds that act as shorthand for much bigger ideas. It’s like a specific set of vibrations that somehow maps directly onto what’s happening inside our heads. Since consciousness isn't just one flat thing—it’s layered, messy, deep—the words we actually spit out are just these quick proxies for the concepts and mental images we use to make sense of everything around us. But here’s the interesting part: behind every single concept or mental image, there’s an underlying state of being. There's a specific "vibe" or conscious frequency attached to it. Because of that, some languages feel more advanced than others—not necessarily because they have more words, but because they can capture the essence of a thought with way less effort. They can pinpoint that core state of consciousness a person is trying to project into the world using fewer syllables, getting straight to the heart of the matter without all the extra fluff.
I’ve been chewing on this idea lately—whether there’s actually a language out there where the sonic vibration of the words matches the frequency of consciousness itself. You know, like a tongue where the letters and sounds aren't just arbitrary labels we slapped onto things, but actually represent the essence of what they are. It's a wild thought—the idea of a language that acts as a direct bridge to reality rather than just a messy way of pointing at stuff.
So, I was reading about this old experiment involving toddlers who were basically kept in isolation—kids who hadn't even picked up language yet. The whole idea was to see what kind of tongue they’d actually end up using if they finally started talking to one another. Turns out, the words they spat out were some archaic version of Hebrew. Speaking of Hebrew, there’s this fascinating bit of work by a mathematician named Stan Tennant. He actually mapped out how the opening words of The Book of Genesis generate the mathematical shape of a torus. The theory suggests that the Hebrew letters themselves represent specific states within the dynamics of a torus—which, if you think about it, is pretty much the fundamental shape of movement in our universe. Now, that covers the visual geometry side of things, but I can't help but wonder... does the actual sound of those letters—the vocal vibrations—match up with that toroidal process? Is there some kind of direct link between the physical shape of the letter and the vibration it produces? It’s a wild thought, but it makes you wonder if the math and the music of the language are just two sides of the same coin.
Then there’s Sanskrit—another language that makes these massive claims about being a universal key, deeply tied to the teachings found in the Veda. When you look at the words used in the Veda, they aren't just words; they're mantras. And there’s actually an entire field of study dedicated to them called Mantrashastra—essentially the science of sound and how a mantra actually comes into being. The idea is that a mantra is a specific sound meant to shift your consciousness, acting like a sort of frequency tuner to lift you into higher states of being. The Veda itself is structured in a way where simply reading it allows you to absorb Knowledge automatically—you basically become what you read. It teaches that everyone carries their own unique mantra, a signature vibration that belongs only to them. It reminds me of how the ancient Egyptians believed everyone had a secret name—something so personal that if someone misused it, it could actually destroy you. That individual mantra is really just a personalized version of those larger, universal mantras. From a scientific standpoint, it actually makes sense; if everything in existence is wave-based, you’re going to resonate most effectively with the wave that matches your own essence. Think of it like that classic physics example where a marching army can actually bring down a bridge if their footsteps hit the exact resonant frequency of the structure. By chanting a mantra, you’re generating a frequency intended to sync up with your inner core. Once you hit that resonance, you essentially become part of the rhythmic pulse of the entire universe—which is just a fancy way of describing enlightenment.

The whole evolution of consciousness within the manifestation field—if you want to get technical—basically wraps up once a person finally clocks who they really are at their core. It’s that moment when your own individual wave of consciousness lines up perfectly with the fundamental wave of the consciousness field itself. Or, if I’m being more precise, it’s when the subject of that evolution starts resonating with the base frequency of the field right where they happen to be standing. It’s essentially just a fancy way of describing resonance with yourself, because that specific point in space? That’s just you. (Awakening, 2002.)

Mantra isn't just some abstract sound—it actually has its own three-dimensional blueprint, like a yantra. There’s this cutting-edge field in cymatics that studies how sound waves physically carve shapes into matter. They’ve run these experiments where they chant the Om mantra near a plate covered in sand, and sure enough, the vibrations leave behind this intricate pattern known as the Sri Yantra. It basically proves there's a direct, physical link between sound and shape. If you follow that logic, it stands to reason that in Sanskrit, there might be a fundamental connection between the words used and the actual essence of the things they describe.
Wait, what exactly are we even talking about here? What's the actual deal with that?
So, there was this thread going on about how the Sri Yantra actually comes together. One guy I was chatting with—let’s call him Bob—really went down the rabbit hole with it. He ended up convinced that the whole thing is way more complex than people give it credit for. His take? It’s basically a three-dimensional map of wave motion. Specifically, he sees it as a wave of consciousness moving through some kind of cylindrical space. It’s an interesting thought, especially when you consider those near-death experiences where people talk about rushing through a tunnel—that "tunnel vision" feeling people get when their consciousness starts to shift. It makes sense if you look at it through a certain lens; all the heavy lifting in the universe seems to follow the rhythm of a torus, which naturally expands from a central point into that tube-like shape. Just food for thought, I guess.
The holiest word in the Veda and its most significant yantra both point toward one thing: breaking free from the dynamics of a torus by moving along its outer edge. Think of it this way—we’re essentially "trapped" inside a wave, which is what the torus represents, so this is really about the process of liberation. It’s also pretty interesting that if you take a horizontal slice of a torus, you get a circle—a shape that can be used to track movements through what people today often dismissively call astrology, though the traditional study of Jyotish is much deeper than that. Experts in Jyotish actually know how to craft a personalized mantra based entirely on your exact birth time.
If we were to dive deeper into this—really digging into the intersection of these ancient traditions, mathematics, and physics—we might actually stumble upon a legitimate, unified model for a science of consciousness waves. Such a field could finally shed the "pseudo-science" label that plagues it, provided it stays true to those foundational teachings.

That’s just not possible. Perception depends entirely on your level of awareness—your specific point of view. If two people look at the exact same object from different perspectives, they aren't really seeing the same thing, even if they don't realize it. They think they're talking about the same reality, but they aren't. It's a different universe for everyone...

Nancy Thompson3 said:Aha, I see what you're doing.
You’re overlooking one thing—or maybe I am—but we aren't just dealing with a single lonely proton in this experiment. We're talking about an entire beam, right?
Just confirm if that's correct or tell me I'm wrong before I go any further.

They've run tests using both beams and individual protons, and the results ended up being identical.

Nancy Thompson3 said:There isn't really a legitimate expert in that movie. Just one, and even then, it feels incredibly thin. It’s more like they're just dragging things out instead of actually confirming anything.

I feel like you’ve completely missed the mark on where the actual priorities should lie here. Look, if consciousness—or even just the observer—is actually influencing the system being observed and triggering measurable changes, then we have to be incredibly precise about what that observer actually *is*. We need to nail down exactly how and why they’re exerting that influence in the first place. To me, that’s the whole damn point. It feels like a fundamental issue, and honestly, I don't really get how you can just gloss over a fact like that so easily.

Look, there’s a massive difference between claiming we don't know something and claiming that everything we *do* know is total garbage. I mean, maybe one is just ignorance, while the other is a fundamental critique of our entire framework. If you think about it, the only thing actually interacting with a system is the act of measurement itself. Take a car speeding down a highway, for instance. When you watch it fly by, all you're really doing is catching a massive influx of photons bouncing off the chassis and hitting your eyes to deliver data. But those photons? They’re too sluggish. They just don't have enough energy to actually nudge the car off its path. It’s all just information transfer, I guess. Or at least, that's how it seems.
Look, when you're trying to observe an electron, that damn photon hits it like a freight train. It’s just... I don't know, there's no way around it. You can't actually have a thing to look at without basically smashing it in the process. You get what I mean now? Or am I just talking to myself?
If we’re talking about those more subtle, fine-tuned interactions, then yeah, we really ought to be pushing the idea of telekinetic processes. But honestly? I don't have the energy to dive into that right now. I feel like I've already covered that ground somewhere else.

Consciousness... honestly, we still haven't actually defined what it is. It’s just sitting there, undefined, hovering in the middle of everything. If consciousness is supposedly just some byproduct of basic electrical firing in the brain—just some biological noise—then how on earth is it possible that it actually exerts any kind of influence on the system? I mean, I guess there's a massive gap there. Maybe it's more than just neurons firing, but right now, nobody really knows.

So, how does an electric field actually work here? I mean, how exactly does the brain manage to influence EEG electrodes? And what about magnetic resonance—you know, MRI? I guess there's a whole mechanism there, but I'm wondering about the actual physical interaction.

"Quote:"

I mean, I think you're completely off base here. Before quantum mechanics actually entered the picture, consciousness didn't have any kind of influence on experimental results—that’s something that was only ever observed once we started dealing with quantum mechanics.

It all comes down to scale. I mean, you aren't going to move some massive hog rooting around in a dive bar just by hitting it with a photon. That’s just not how it works. But an electron? You hit that, and you’ve bumped it straight up to a higher energy state instantly. It's wild. Once we shifted our perspective down to those smaller scales—diving headfirst into the realm of quantum mechanics—everything changed. Just look at Wolfgang Pauli and his fine-structure constant... it changes the whole game. So, I was just looking into Wolfgang Pauli, and honestly? It’s a lot to wrap your head around. He was one of those heavy hitters in the physics world—someone who basically helped lay down the rules for how we understand subatomic particles. You know the type, the kind of brilliant, slightly eccentric minds that change everything while the rest of us are still trying to figure out basic algebra. He’s most famous for the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is a fancy way of saying that two identical fermions can't occupy the same quantum state at the same time. Sounds like a bureaucratic rule for electrons, right? But it's actually what keeps matter from just collapsing in on itself. Without it, we wouldn't really exist as solid things. Everything would just be a mushy pile of nothingness. But what I find more interesting—and maybe a little bit wild—is his obsession with the connection between physics and psychology. He wasn't just some guy staring at chalkboards all day; he was deeply interested in how the physical world interacts with the human mind. He had this intense collaboration with Carl Jung, trying to bridge the gap between hard science and the stuff people usually write poems about. They were looking for a unified theory that covered both the tiny particles and the deep, messy layers of the psyche. It’s a pretty ambitious leap, I guess. Maybe too ambitious? Who knows. Then there's the whole "Pauli Effect" thing. There were these stories about him being such a walking disaster zone that whenever he walked into a lab, equipment would spontaneously break or experiments would fail. It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way. A man so fundamentally tied to the laws of the universe that his mere presence seemed to disrupt them. Or maybe he was just unlucky. Or maybe he was just clumsy. It’s hard to say. Anyway, he was a complicated figure. Brilliant, sure, but definitely someone who lived on the edge of what science considers "normal." He spent his life chasing these deep, underlying symmetries in nature, trying to find the logic behind the chaos. It makes you wonder if we're even close to finding what he was looking for. Probably not. We're likely still just scratching the surface. And then... suddenly, even those tiny, negligible influences start carrying some serious weight. I guess that’s just how it works when you're dealing with a world built on uncertainty. Everything gets messy.
It’s like... okay, imagine this fat pig just sitting there at the kitchen table. He’s just sitting. He’s still. You look at him, you know he’s staying put, right? And you can tell exactly how much he’s moving—or rather, that he isn't moving at all. But then you try to do that with an electron, and everything just breaks. If you check to see if it's staying still, or how much it’s vibrating, you lose its position. Or if you find out where it is, you have no clue about its movement. You just can't have both. It's impossible.
Think about it like a ping pong ball trapped between two walls. It bounces back and forth. The closer you move those walls together to pin it down, the more precisely you’re defining its position, but the faster it starts vibrating.

That's why consciousness seemed so irrelevant in all of this back then. It wasn't interacting with the objective reality being observed and measured. Back then, the idea that consciousness was just some byproduct of electrical impulses in the brain could pass as a viable theory. Nowadays? That theory can't walk a single step. Maybe that's one reason why top-tier scientists and physicists like David Bohm don't look at spirituality with such blatant contempt anymore.

The truth is, we have no clue what consciousness actually is. Nobody does. Not the wizards, not the spiritualists, and certainly not those Eastern gurus. But just because we're lost doesn't mean we know jack shit, as any cult leader or self-help guru would probably tell you.

I suppose I partially agree with you. I mean, maybe mathematics can be used as a sort of tool to help us grasp the world, but actual perception... that can only happen through experience. Math might give us a blueprint of a territory, but if we want to actually see that territory, we need eyes to look with, right?
😉

Fair enough. Which is exactly why I tend to think that positivist science has hit a wall in certain areas. Beyond that point, you've got magicians. And I don't mean those "self-improvement" types, but people with "clear vision." True geniuses—that's how Schopenhauer used to describe them.

That’s not quite it. Here's how it actually works. When they ran that double-slit experiment using a proton, it first proved the particle could pass through both openings at once. Later, they tried running tests where they added polarization filters right in front of each slit. If a proton went through the left side, it would be marked with left-side polarization, and if it went through the right, it would show right-side polarization. With those conditions set up, you could actually tell which specific slit the proton traveled through once it hit the screen...
To everyone's surprise, once the experiment was finished, those interference patterns just vanished. It turns out that at this stage of the trial, the proton only passed through a single slit...
In the final stage of the experiment, three scientists introduced a polarization wiper—basically a polarization filter—placed right between the slit screen and the detector screen where the protons land. This filter effectively wiped away any information regarding which specific slit each proton passed through. By erasing that previous polarization, it became impossible to determine the path any single proton took to reach the receiving screen...
After those adjustments, the wave interference popped back up again... It’s like the proton is clairvoyant, almost as if it already "knows" ahead of time... like it has some built-in information about the trap we set...
😉
You can find experiments like that everywhere, and honestly, I don't think it’s even worth pointing out how many photons pushing particles around have absolutely nothing to do with this...

Nancy Thompson3 said:There isn't really a legitimate expert in that movie. Just one, and even then, it feels incredibly thin. It’s more like they're just dragging things out instead of actually confirming anything.

I feel like you’ve completely missed the mark on where the actual priorities should lie here. Look, if consciousness—or even just the observer—is actually influencing the system being observed and triggering measurable changes, then we have to be incredibly precise about what that observer actually *is*. We need to nail down exactly how and why they’re exerting that influence in the first place. To me, that’s the whole damn point. It feels like a fundamental issue, and honestly, I don't really get how you can just gloss over a fact like that so easily.

Look, there’s a massive difference between claiming we don't know something and claiming that everything we *do* know is total garbage. I mean, maybe one is just ignorance, while the other is a fundamental critique of our entire framework. If you think about it, the only thing actually interacting with a system is the act of measurement itself. Take a car speeding down a highway, for instance. When you watch it fly by, all you're really doing is catching a massive influx of photons bouncing off the chassis and hitting your eyes to deliver data. But those photons? They’re too sluggish. They just don't have enough energy to actually nudge the car off its path. It’s all just information transfer, I guess. Or at least, that's how it seems.
Look, when you're trying to observe an electron, that damn photon hits it like a freight train. It’s just... I don't know, there's no way around it. You can't actually have a thing to look at without basically smashing it in the process. You get what I mean now? Or am I just talking to myself?
If we’re talking about those more subtle, fine-tuned interactions, then yeah, we really ought to be pushing the idea of telekinetic processes. But honestly? I don't have the energy to dive into that right now. I feel like I've already covered that ground somewhere else.

Consciousness... honestly, we still haven't actually defined what it is. It’s just sitting there, undefined, hovering in the middle of everything. If consciousness is supposedly just some byproduct of basic electrical firing in the brain—just some biological noise—then how on earth is it possible that it actually exerts any kind of influence on the system? I mean, I guess there's a massive gap there. Maybe it's more than just neurons firing, but right now, nobody really knows.

So, how does an electric field actually work here? I mean, how exactly does the brain manage to influence EEG electrodes? And what about magnetic resonance—you know, MRI? I guess there's a whole mechanism there, but I'm wondering about the actual physical interaction.

"Quote:"

I mean, I think you're completely off base here. Before quantum mechanics actually entered the picture, consciousness didn't have any kind of influence on experimental results—that’s something that was only ever observed once we started dealing with quantum mechanics.

It all comes down to scale. I mean, you aren't going to move some massive hog rooting around in a dive bar just by hitting it with a photon. That’s just not how it works. But an electron? You hit that, and you’ve bumped it straight up to a higher energy state instantly. It's wild. Once we shifted our perspective down to those smaller scales—diving headfirst into the realm of quantum mechanics—everything changed. Just look at Wolfgang Pauli and his fine-structure constant... it changes the whole game. So, I was just looking into Wolfgang Pauli, and honestly? It’s a lot to wrap your head around. He was one of those heavy hitters in the physics world—someone who basically helped lay down the rules for how we understand subatomic particles. You know the type, the kind of brilliant, slightly eccentric minds that change everything while the rest of us are still trying to figure out basic algebra. He’s most famous for the Pauli Exclusion Principle, which is a fancy way of saying that two identical fermions can't occupy the same quantum state at the same time. Sounds like a bureaucratic rule for electrons, right? But it's actually what keeps matter from just collapsing in on itself. Without it, we wouldn't really exist as solid things. Everything would just be a mushy pile of nothingness. But what I find more interesting—and maybe a little bit wild—is his obsession with the connection between physics and psychology. He wasn't just some guy staring at chalkboards all day; he was deeply interested in how the physical world interacts with the human mind. He had this intense collaboration with Carl Jung, trying to bridge the gap between hard science and the stuff people usually write poems about. They were looking for a unified theory that covered both the tiny particles and the deep, messy layers of the psyche. It’s a pretty ambitious leap, I guess. Maybe too ambitious? Who knows. Then there's the whole "Pauli Effect" thing. There were these stories about him being such a walking disaster zone that whenever he walked into a lab, equipment would spontaneously break or experiments would fail. It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way. A man so fundamentally tied to the laws of the universe that his mere presence seemed to disrupt them. Or maybe he was just unlucky. Or maybe he was just clumsy. It’s hard to say. Anyway, he was a complicated figure. Brilliant, sure, but definitely someone who lived on the edge of what science considers "normal." He spent his life chasing these deep, underlying symmetries in nature, trying to find the logic behind the chaos. It makes you wonder if we're even close to finding what he was looking for. Probably not. We're likely still just scratching the surface. And then... suddenly, even those tiny, negligible influences start carrying some serious weight. I guess that’s just how it works when you're dealing with a world built on uncertainty. Everything gets messy.
It’s like... okay, imagine this fat pig just sitting there at the kitchen table. He’s just sitting. He’s still. You look at him, you know he’s staying put, right? And you can tell exactly how much he’s moving—or rather, that he isn't moving at all. But then you try to do that with an electron, and everything just breaks. If you check to see if it's staying still, or how much it’s vibrating, you lose its position. Or if you find out where it is, you have no clue about its movement. You just can't have both. It's impossible.
Think about it like a ping pong ball trapped between two walls. It bounces back and forth. The closer you move those walls together to pin it down, the more precisely you’re defining its position, but the faster it starts vibrating.

That's why consciousness seemed so irrelevant in all of this back then. It wasn't interacting with the objective reality being observed and measured. Back then, the idea that consciousness was just some byproduct of electrical impulses in the brain could pass as a viable theory. Nowadays? That theory can't walk a single step. Maybe that's one reason why top-tier scientists and physicists like David Bohm don't look at spirituality with such blatant contempt anymore.

The truth is, we have no clue what consciousness actually is. Nobody does. Not the wizards, not the spiritualists, and certainly not those Eastern gurus. But just because we're lost doesn't mean we know jack shit, as any cult leader or self-help guru would probably tell you.

I suppose I partially agree with you. I mean, maybe mathematics can be used as a sort of tool to help us grasp the world, but actual perception... that can only happen through experience. Math might give us a blueprint of a territory, but if we want to actually see that territory, we need eyes to look with, right?
😉

Fair enough. Which is exactly why I tend to think that positivist science has hit a wall in certain areas. Beyond that point, you've got magicians. And I don't mean those "self-improvement" types, but people with "clear vision." True geniuses—that's how Schopenhauer used to describe them.

People who focus on their own growth could be seen as potential wizards too. You could definitely frame it that way...😉
Not everyone following these ideas is some kind of cultist or gullible follower. I'm curious how you see it from your perspective...

Nancy Thompson3 said:I mean, sure. But what’s actually more convincing? Just shouting "Who the hell knows?" at the top of your lungs? Or maybe writing a book about it, filming some low-budget indie flick, and then starting a cult? I guess it depends on how much effort you want to waste.

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—this whole idea that "consciousness" or the act of "conscious observation" can somehow mess with the results of an experiment. It’s baked right into several quantum mechanics theories, which is... well, it's something. The kicker, though? Nobody seems to have a clue how to actually define what this "consciousness" is supposed to be. It’s just tossed in there without any real groundwork. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Well, look, you spiritualists don't really have a set definition for it, do you? You just stretch the whole concept of consciousness out like a piece of bubblegum until it loses all shape. Real physicists talk about the *influence* of the observer on the object being observed—you know, how the experimenter actually affects the outcome of the experiment itself. Even Wolfgang Pauli discovered this, and apparently, it absolutely haunted him. He was such a gifted telekinetic that his mere presence would mess up the data, which is wild when you consider he was an incredibly meticulous experimentalist. I guess he had to start handing off the actual measurements to his assistants and basically fleeing the lab just to get a clean reading. It’s pretty heavy stuff.
Consciousness? Honestly, I don't think that term even matters as a concept. It’s all just semantics, really. What actually counts—the part that actually moves the needle—is the fact that the observer, by the mere act of watching, ends up messing with the entire system. That's the reality of it.
It’s not really anything mystical, honestly. It’s just... look, any kind of observation inherently means you're interfering with the system. That interaction messes with the wave function—it actually CHANGES THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM—which basically turns it into an open system. Whether you want to call that influence the "effect of consciousness" or whatever else, I guess it doesn't even matter for the actual interaction itself. It's just how it works.

🙂

I mean, sure, math definitely serves a purpose. It can be integrated into real-world processes like you mentioned, but I don't see how it could ever function as a legitimate system of cognition. The problem is that we’re just mapping elements from "reality" onto mathematical symbols... it's a one-way street, I guess. If the relationship worked the other way around, then maybe—just maybe—it would actually be possible.

Mathematics, much like logic and the laws of physics, belongs to the realm of the mind. If you look at the Tetragrammaton, that’s the fire element—sitting right there between the air (the spiritual) and the water (the emotional). So, I guess you could say math is essentially the blueprint used to construct the universe. It’s the reason why the human mind can actually use mathematical models to describe reality. It makes sense, really; reality was built using the exact same patterns the mind employs to interpret and understand it. That underlying structure is what we call mathematics, while the specific set of rules applied to this particular creation—one single choice pulled from an infinite sea of possibilities—is what we call physics. Now, look, a smart mother of one of my friends calls me a charlatan, so maybe she's right... and if she's right, then she probably doesn't have much to say about any of this.

Honestly, that question—"What the hell do we actually know?"—is becoming more relevant to me every single day, regardless of what movie we're talking about. Anyone who’s ever tried to wrap their head around self-discovery or how the world works has had to brush up on the basics of quantum mechanics eventually, even if they're just a layman like me... I actually found the film pretty likable, especially since it's clearly meant for a general audience. It features experts, sure, but it also includes regular people, like that lady you were pointing out. I think it's healthy to look at these problems from all sorts of different angles. There isn't much fluff or wild theorizing; it mostly sticks to the facts. As for her personal life and those cultish vibes, the movie doesn't touch on any of that, and if you ask me, it isn't even relevant to the story...

Nancy Thompson3 said:I mean, sure. But what’s actually more convincing? Just shouting "Who the hell knows?" at the top of your lungs? Or maybe writing a book about it, filming some low-budget indie flick, and then starting a cult? I guess it depends on how much effort you want to waste.

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—this whole idea that "consciousness" or the act of "conscious observation" can somehow mess with the results of an experiment. It’s baked right into several quantum mechanics theories, which is... well, it's something. The kicker, though? Nobody seems to have a clue how to actually define what this "consciousness" is supposed to be. It’s just tossed in there without any real groundwork. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Well, look, you spiritualists don't really have a set definition for it, do you? You just stretch the whole concept of consciousness out like a piece of bubblegum until it loses all shape. Real physicists talk about the *influence* of the observer on the object being observed—you know, how the experimenter actually affects the outcome of the experiment itself. Even Wolfgang Pauli discovered this, and apparently, it absolutely haunted him. He was such a gifted telekinetic that his mere presence would mess up the data, which is wild when you consider he was an incredibly meticulous experimentalist. I guess he had to start handing off the actual measurements to his assistants and basically fleeing the lab just to get a clean reading. It’s pretty heavy stuff.
Consciousness? Honestly, I don't think that term even matters as a concept. It’s all just semantics, really. What actually counts—the part that actually moves the needle—is the fact that the observer, by the mere act of watching, ends up messing with the entire system. That's the reality of it.
It’s not really anything mystical, honestly. It’s just... look, any kind of observation inherently means you're interfering with the system. That interaction messes with the wave function—it actually CHANGES THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM—which basically turns it into an open system. Whether you want to call that influence the "effect of consciousness" or whatever else, I guess it doesn't even matter for the actual interaction itself. It's just how it works.

🙂

I mean, sure, math definitely serves a purpose. It can be integrated into real-world processes like you mentioned, but I don't see how it could ever function as a legitimate system of cognition. The problem is that we’re just mapping elements from "reality" onto mathematical symbols... it's a one-way street, I guess. If the relationship worked the other way around, then maybe—just maybe—it would actually be possible.

Mathematics, much like logic and the laws of physics, belongs to the realm of the mind. If you look at the Tetragrammaton, that’s the fire element—sitting right there between the air (the spiritual) and the water (the emotional). So, I guess you could say math is essentially the blueprint used to construct the universe. It’s the reason why the human mind can actually use mathematical models to describe reality. It makes sense, really; reality was built using the exact same patterns the mind employs to interpret and understand it. That underlying structure is what we call mathematics, while the specific set of rules applied to this particular creation—one single choice pulled from an infinite sea of possibilities—is what we call physics. Now, look, a smart mother of one of my friends calls me a charlatan, so maybe she's right... and if she's right, then she probably doesn't have much to say about any of this.

I think you might be looking at this from the wrong angle by prioritizing things in a way that doesn't quite add up. Look, if consciousness—or even just the observer—actually influences the system being observed and triggers measurable changes, then we have to be incredibly precise about what that observer actually is. We need to understand exactly how and why they're affecting the system in the first place. To me, that’s the core of the whole issue... I'm honestly a little surprised you can brush that part aside so easily...
We still haven't actually defined consciousness, and nobody really knows what it is. If consciousness is just some byproduct of electrical activity in the brain, how exactly does it manage to influence the system...

Nancy Thompson3 said:I mean, sure. But what’s actually more convincing? Just shouting "Who the hell knows?" at the top of your lungs? Or maybe writing a book about it, filming some low-budget indie flick, and then starting a cult? I guess it depends on how much effort you want to waste.

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—this whole idea that "consciousness" or the act of "conscious observation" can somehow mess with the results of an experiment. It’s baked right into several quantum mechanics theories, which is... well, it's something. The kicker, though? Nobody seems to have a clue how to actually define what this "consciousness" is supposed to be. It’s just tossed in there without any real groundwork. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Well, look, you spiritualists don't really have a set definition for it, do you? You just stretch the whole concept of consciousness out like a piece of bubblegum until it loses all shape. Real physicists talk about the *influence* of the observer on the object being observed—you know, how the experimenter actually affects the outcome of the experiment itself. Even Wolfgang Pauli discovered this, and apparently, it absolutely haunted him. He was such a gifted telekinetic that his mere presence would mess up the data, which is wild when you consider he was an incredibly meticulous experimentalist. I guess he had to start handing off the actual measurements to his assistants and basically fleeing the lab just to get a clean reading. It’s pretty heavy stuff.
Consciousness? Honestly, I don't think that term even matters as a concept. It’s all just semantics, really. What actually counts—the part that actually moves the needle—is the fact that the observer, by the mere act of watching, ends up messing with the entire system. That's the reality of it.
It’s not really anything mystical, honestly. It’s just... look, any kind of observation inherently means you're interfering with the system. That interaction messes with the wave function—it actually CHANGES THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM—which basically turns it into an open system. Whether you want to call that influence the "effect of consciousness" or whatever else, I guess it doesn't even matter for the actual interaction itself. It's just how it works.

🙂

I mean, sure, math definitely serves a purpose. It can be integrated into real-world processes like you mentioned, but I don't see how it could ever function as a legitimate system of cognition. The problem is that we’re just mapping elements from "reality" onto mathematical symbols... it's a one-way street, I guess. If the relationship worked the other way around, then maybe—just maybe—it would actually be possible.

Mathematics, much like logic and the laws of physics, belongs to the realm of the mind. If you look at the Tetragrammaton, that’s the fire element—sitting right there between the air (the spiritual) and the water (the emotional). So, I guess you could say math is essentially the blueprint used to construct the universe. It’s the reason why the human mind can actually use mathematical models to describe reality. It makes sense, really; reality was built using the exact same patterns the mind employs to interpret and understand it. That underlying structure is what we call mathematics, while the specific set of rules applied to this particular creation—one single choice pulled from an infinite sea of possibilities—is what we call physics. Now, look, a smart mother of one of my friends calls me a charlatan, so maybe she's right... and if she's right, then she probably doesn't have much to say about any of this.

I think you've got it backwards. Before quantum mechanics came along, consciousness didn't have any impact on experimental results at all. That's only when we entered the quantum era that things changed. Back then, consciousness seemed totally irrelevant because it wasn't interacting with the objective reality being observed or measured. It made sense to assume consciousness was just a byproduct of electrical processes in the brain... But that theory doesn't hold water anymore. That’s one of the reasons why top-tier scientists and physicists like David Bohm don't look down on spirituality with such contempt anymore...

Nancy Thompson3 said:I mean, sure. But what’s actually more convincing? Just shouting "Who the hell knows?" at the top of your lungs? Or maybe writing a book about it, filming some low-budget indie flick, and then starting a cult? I guess it depends on how much effort you want to waste.

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—this whole idea that "consciousness" or the act of "conscious observation" can somehow mess with the results of an experiment. It’s baked right into several quantum mechanics theories, which is... well, it's something. The kicker, though? Nobody seems to have a clue how to actually define what this "consciousness" is supposed to be. It’s just tossed in there without any real groundwork. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Well, look, you spiritualists don't really have a set definition for it, do you? You just stretch the whole concept of consciousness out like a piece of bubblegum until it loses all shape. Real physicists talk about the *influence* of the observer on the object being observed—you know, how the experimenter actually affects the outcome of the experiment itself. Even Wolfgang Pauli discovered this, and apparently, it absolutely haunted him. He was such a gifted telekinetic that his mere presence would mess up the data, which is wild when you consider he was an incredibly meticulous experimentalist. I guess he had to start handing off the actual measurements to his assistants and basically fleeing the lab just to get a clean reading. It’s pretty heavy stuff.
Consciousness? Honestly, I don't think that term even matters as a concept. It’s all just semantics, really. What actually counts—the part that actually moves the needle—is the fact that the observer, by the mere act of watching, ends up messing with the entire system. That's the reality of it.
It’s not really anything mystical, honestly. It’s just... look, any kind of observation inherently means you're interfering with the system. That interaction messes with the wave function—it actually CHANGES THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM—which basically turns it into an open system. Whether you want to call that influence the "effect of consciousness" or whatever else, I guess it doesn't even matter for the actual interaction itself. It's just how it works.

🙂

I mean, sure, math definitely serves a purpose. It can be integrated into real-world processes like you mentioned, but I don't see how it could ever function as a legitimate system of cognition. The problem is that we’re just mapping elements from "reality" onto mathematical symbols... it's a one-way street, I guess. If the relationship worked the other way around, then maybe—just maybe—it would actually be possible.

Mathematics, much like logic and the laws of physics, belongs to the realm of the mind. If you look at the Tetragrammaton, that’s the fire element—sitting right there between the air (the spiritual) and the water (the emotional). So, I guess you could say math is essentially the blueprint used to construct the universe. It’s the reason why the human mind can actually use mathematical models to describe reality. It makes sense, really; reality was built using the exact same patterns the mind employs to interpret and understand it. That underlying structure is what we call mathematics, while the specific set of rules applied to this particular creation—one single choice pulled from an infinite sea of possibilities—is what we call physics. Now, look, a smart mother of one of my friends calls me a charlatan, so maybe she's right... and if she's right, then she probably doesn't have much to say about any of this.

Sure, it might not matter for the interaction itself, but it matters a lot when you're trying to build a theory about how all this actually works.
See what I mean?

Nancy Thompson3 said:I mean, sure. But what’s actually more convincing? Just shouting "Who the hell knows?" at the top of your lungs? Or maybe writing a book about it, filming some low-budget indie flick, and then starting a cult? I guess it depends on how much effort you want to waste.

It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—this whole idea that "consciousness" or the act of "conscious observation" can somehow mess with the results of an experiment. It’s baked right into several quantum mechanics theories, which is... well, it's something. The kicker, though? Nobody seems to have a clue how to actually define what this "consciousness" is supposed to be. It’s just tossed in there without any real groundwork. Pretty strange, don't you think?

Well, look, you spiritualists don't really have a set definition for it, do you? You just stretch the whole concept of consciousness out like a piece of bubblegum until it loses all shape. Real physicists talk about the *influence* of the observer on the object being observed—you know, how the experimenter actually affects the outcome of the experiment itself. Even Wolfgang Pauli discovered this, and apparently, it absolutely haunted him. He was such a gifted telekinetic that his mere presence would mess up the data, which is wild when you consider he was an incredibly meticulous experimentalist. I guess he had to start handing off the actual measurements to his assistants and basically fleeing the lab just to get a clean reading. It’s pretty heavy stuff.
Consciousness? Honestly, I don't think that term even matters as a concept. It’s all just semantics, really. What actually counts—the part that actually moves the needle—is the fact that the observer, by the mere act of watching, ends up messing with the entire system. That's the reality of it.
It’s not really anything mystical, honestly. It’s just... look, any kind of observation inherently means you're interfering with the system. That interaction messes with the wave function—it actually CHANGES THE STATE OF THE SYSTEM—which basically turns it into an open system. Whether you want to call that influence the "effect of consciousness" or whatever else, I guess it doesn't even matter for the actual interaction itself. It's just how it works.

🙂

I mean, sure, math definitely serves a purpose. It can be integrated into real-world processes like you mentioned, but I don't see how it could ever function as a legitimate system of cognition. The problem is that we’re just mapping elements from "reality" onto mathematical symbols... it's a one-way street, I guess. If the relationship worked the other way around, then maybe—just maybe—it would actually be possible.

Mathematics, much like logic and the laws of physics, belongs to the realm of the mind. If you look at the Tetragrammaton, that’s the fire element—sitting right there between the air (the spiritual) and the water (the emotional). So, I guess you could say math is essentially the blueprint used to construct the universe. It’s the reason why the human mind can actually use mathematical models to describe reality. It makes sense, really; reality was built using the exact same patterns the mind employs to interpret and understand it. That underlying structure is what we call mathematics, while the specific set of rules applied to this particular creation—one single choice pulled from an infinite sea of possibilities—is what we call physics. Now, look, a smart mother of one of my friends calls me a charlatan, so maybe she's right... and if she's right, then she probably doesn't have much to say about any of this.

I kind of agree with you. I think math can be seen as a tool for understanding the world, but true perception only happens through experience. Math gives us the blueprint of a landscape, but we still need eyes to actually see it, right?
😉

Nancy Thompson3 said:Why are you asking me? Go ask Protagoras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
Maybe go hit up some philosophy forum and throw that question at some academics.
I’m talking about anthropocentrism—this idea that puts humans right at the center of everything, using us as the yardstick for the entire universe.
But here's the reality: every scale has its own truth. If humans are the measure of all things, then we're only measuring things on our specific scale.
The mind isn't the ultimate gauge for everything; there are plenty of things the mind just can't grasp. It’s not because it can't touch the transcendent, I guess, but just because it can't know everything instantly. We learn bit by bit, moving toward more and more. There's this limit in infinity that we keep heading toward but will never actually reach. It's an eternal journey, which I suppose makes it interesting as a path, rather than a destination.

Man, what are you even talking about!?!
🙂
Are you actually discussing real stuff, or are you just talking about these mental images of things floating around in your head?

We were talking about quantum physics, weren't we?

Mathematics is also dependent on its own theorems. I heard somewhere once that if we decided 1+1=3 and built an entire mathematical system around that, things would work out just as well as they do in standard math. But what if there's something bigger than the mind? Something that the entire mind just drifts within, like a concept? What if there are ways to experience existence beyond the mental mechanisms that include mathematics?

Look: there are axiom groups, and math knows that if you change the axioms, you can shift the laws somewhat. But even then, it all stays within the same framework.
Math has a system. And that system is consistent. Sure, it's an invention, but it maps onto real-world processes pretty well. That's what physicists do. Math itself is abstract; it doesn't point to any physical phenomenon on its own. A number doesn't exist out there in the wild. A set doesn't exist in reality. It's all about mapping real objects onto sets of elements in math. You've got counting, topology, geometry... all of it.

I have to say, that feels pretty unconvincing and a bit of a stretch. To make such absolute claims, you'd need to be working with concepts like "humanity," "mind," and "consciousness" from a place of certain knowledge. But since those three terms lack clear, unambiguous definitions, we're clearly looking at belief systems rather than actual knowledge. It's also pretty interesting how the concept of consciousness—and that "conscious observation" affecting experimental results—shows up in certain quantum mechanics theories, even if no one can actually define what that consciousness is. Interesting, right?
🙂

Nancy Thompson3 said:Why are you asking me? Go ask Protagoras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
Maybe go hit up some philosophy forum and throw that question at some academics.
I’m talking about anthropocentrism—this idea that puts humans right at the center of everything, using us as the yardstick for the entire universe.
But here's the reality: every scale has its own truth. If humans are the measure of all things, then we're only measuring things on our specific scale.
The mind isn't the ultimate gauge for everything; there are plenty of things the mind just can't grasp. It’s not because it can't touch the transcendent, I guess, but just because it can't know everything instantly. We learn bit by bit, moving toward more and more. There's this limit in infinity that we keep heading toward but will never actually reach. It's an eternal journey, which I suppose makes it interesting as a path, rather than a destination.

Man, what are you even talking about!?!
🙂
Are you actually discussing real stuff, or are you just talking about these mental images of things floating around in your head?

We were talking about quantum physics, weren't we?

Mathematics is also dependent on its own theorems. I heard somewhere once that if we decided 1+1=3 and built an entire mathematical system around that, things would work out just as well as they do in standard math. But what if there's something bigger than the mind? Something that the entire mind just drifts within, like a concept? What if there are ways to experience existence beyond the mental mechanisms that include mathematics?

Look: there are axiom groups, and math knows that if you change the axioms, you can shift the laws somewhat. But even then, it all stays within the same framework.
Math has a system. And that system is consistent. Sure, it's an invention, but it maps onto real-world processes pretty well. That's what physicists do. Math itself is abstract; it doesn't point to any physical phenomenon on its own. A number doesn't exist out there in the wild. A set doesn't exist in reality. It's all about mapping real objects onto sets of elements in math. You've got counting, topology, geometry... all of it.

Math definitely serves a purpose and can model real-world processes like you said, but it's a long shot to call it a system of perception. That's because we're mapping "reality" onto mathematical elements. If it worked the other way around, then maybe...