Forgive me, Peter, but I am compelled to pick apart your post for the sake of avoiding misconceptions and advancing this deep discourse...
Peter wrote:There is no center of gravity but there is an immense vacuum that applies pressure.
I'm not sure whether your statement is supposed to be a refutation or a reinforcement of my analogy, but, what applies pressure is matter (which, granted, emerges from a vacuum full of quantum particles) and that is still not a centre of gravity.
What causes matter to converge at a certain point in space is not a pre-existent point of attraction, it is an accumulation of particles that create a bigger object which begins to gradually collapse in the fabric of space-time. The magnetic field emerges and grows stronger, giving rise to the illusion of a pulling centre.
Once the spherical object sets in space, a living being who is unfamiliar with the process of planet formation could look at the globe and infer that there is a centre of gravity holding the planet together by pulling its matter in the same direction. We know this is not true even though it looks that way. Like the self, it is nowhere to be found. This is an unavoidable fact.
Peter wrote:And without the words that I need to look up to understand I was making the point that we need our senses to build our world and until we can comprehend a different type of existence without the senses we have then we cant really make any useful conclusions.
Your argument is an epistemological one which nobody denies its validity. Its foundation is the mystery of how consciousness comes to be. It is true that different creatures sense differently, perceive the world differently, and behave differently. It is also true that human beings differ from one another and indeed there is no way to tell whether your green is my red and vice versa. But we are beginning to understand more about how birds see and dogs smell - with a little imagination, it is something like our sensorial abilities but on a larger scale. And there are creatures that can detect areas of the spectrum of light and sound which we humans can only probe using technology.
So, saying that we can't really make useful conclusions isn't strictly true. We often learn from nature in order to advance technologically. We also use animals to helps us in our affairs because we are aware of their abilities. It has been scientifically established that a canine's olfaction is superior to that of man, and, for this reason, we use them effectively for detection in solving crimes.
I'd also like to add that, without senses, or consciousness for that matter, no world can be mentally conceived and experienced. In other words, a subjective interpretation of an objective world just isn't possible. So there is no point in asking, "What would a world be like without perception?" Well, if this question needs an answer it is that it isn't like anything. It just wouldn't be.
And the idea that the universe has the sole purpose of creating conscious beings (there is no intelligent design behind it, folks) becomes null and void once we consider the anthropic principle: we see the universe the way it is because if it were any different, we wouldn't be here to see it. This brings to mind the possible existence of other universes, many of which are lifeless if their laws of physics differ from our own.
This consideration, and indeed the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory is a strong one, refutes the idea of a universe that has been divinely fine-tuned to support life. The natural coordinates just happen to be what they are - if they weren't we wouldn't be here to ask questions.
Peter wrote:What do I use to experience the void states? I dont see, I dont hear, I dont feel, I dont taste or touch but something applies.
Don't (do NOT
) means not
using. You cannot use a positive (I use/I do) followed by a negative (I do not
). I'm sorry, but, if you are not using your senses then you are not using and not doing anything at all as regards experience. "Void" equates with non-existence, invalidity, nothingness. A state of nothingness is no valid state of awareness at all. There is nothing to be aware of! And then "void" conflicts with "something" that supposedly applies. What applies, if I may enquire? If you are talking about meditative states, then they are not really void states.
If you are aware of something in those states, like the bliss that monks and practising Buddhists often describe, then you are merely describing an altered state of consciousness (however subtle it may be) - one, by the way, experienced by a living, conscious person - and the experience itself, having been a conscious one, is remembered for its impact. You were aware of something. You felt something. (Note how this phrase contradicts the oxymoronic "I don't feel" in your post.)
What you experienced wasn't void. It was an altered state of consciousness. Like the confusing concept of seeing a smell while tripping on LSD. People who trip for the first time often encounter new sensations which confound them and the element of ineffability tends to make memory-based description difficult. The description isn't always accurate and fails to convey the originality of the experience.Feeling
is unavoidably tied to experience
, it is a physical sensation that you experience.
Peter wrote:All elements have memory or else we could not study them and find consistency and purpose and construct or have basis for science. Are all these elements dead or alive. Can some be dead and some be alive when they have the same properties?
I do not see what kind of memory you are talking and your statement sounds like a non-sequitur. Elements don't have memory, they merely interact accordingly. It's not a case of, "I behaved like this before, therefore I must behave like it always." This is not how things work. If you find consistency in the way that a substance behaves, it is due to its physical properties, the structure of its molecules, and the effect that the laws of nature have on them which determines interaction with the environment.
H2O is water, made up of two different types of atoms. Its arrangement causes it to behave the way it does and it can come in different phases of matter: solid, liquid, gas. Now let's take liquid, the type of water we drink to survive. It's fluid due to its atomic structure and how it interacts with the environment. The wetness is another illusion, by the way, which I find is analogous to a sense of self, too. Nothing about a water molecule, let alone its atoms, is wet.
Now, so that I am not leaving anything out, there are indeed certain materials, like polymers, that have the ability to return to previous shapes. But this has nothing to do with awareness or memory. It has to do with environmental stimulation, such as the regulation of their temperatures and/or existent magnetic fields. (If you are a maths genious and wish to delve into this, look up Boltzmann's equation for a detailed understanding of entropy, probability, and correspondence between micro and macro states.)
Yep, physical properties with their interacting physical forces. No thinking, no purpose, no memory. Although "memory" may be applied in the specialist vernacular as a descriptive shortcut and the layman may mistake this for real memory.
Finally, dead and alive never have the same properties. The definition of alive requires certain attributes from an animate object in the universe - attributes which dead inanimate objects do not possess. The working structure of living humans is what is required for them to breathe, move, feed, procreate, think, and have periods of consciousness and regenerating unconsciousness. If this organic system is compromised, then functionality is threatened and the being may die. We can save individuals from coma states but death is the point of no return. It's irreversible because there is serious permanent damage to physical properties required for bodily function and the emergence of consciousness.
I hope this answers your question.