u/Hip_III

In its Greek roots, the word atheist breaks down into:

a: which is prefix meaning "without" or "not"

theós: meaning "deity" or "god"

But when you look at the arguments of atheist online, their focus is on countering or debunking the doctrines religion, rather than directly attempting to counter the possibility of a Heaven in which God resides, and the survival of consciousness after death in this heavenly environment.

In this respect, an atheist might better be described as athreskos (to coin a term), which in its Greek roots, breaks down into:

a: which is prefix meaning "without" or "not"

thréskeia: which is the closest term the ancient Greeks had for religion.

So most atheists might in practice be athreskoi (the plural of athreskos) — people who do not believe in the doctrines of religion.

It might be argued that athreskeia (my term meaning the philosophy which opposes the doctrines of religion) plays an important role in the world, by exposing religion for a manmade set of ideas about God and Heaven (as opposed to the truth about God and Heaven, if this can be known).

But then atheists should make their position clear: that they are against manmade concepts of God and Heaven found within religion.

Interestingly, individuals who say they have direct knowledge of Heaven though a near-death experience (NDE) often also end up opposing religious doctrines, as their heavenly experience does not line up with what religions teach. So these people might also be accurately described as athreskoi, along with many atheists.

Frankincense resin is traditionally burnt as an incense in Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of course, frankincense was one of the gifts the Magi gave to Jesus.

Historically, frankincense used as an incense in temples across ancient Egypt, Greece, and the Middle East.

I have found that taking around 5 drops of frankincense essential oil internally (diluted in around 15 ml of cooking oil) increases my spiritual feelings and spiritual consciousness within about 2 hours.

Of course, the effect is subtle, but noticeable, and may help attain deeper states of meditation.

I guess you could also administer frankincense essential oil via an aromatherapy burner, but I have not tried this method.

I seem to remember at least two NDE accounts where when walking through luscious paradisiacal meadows in the heavenly realm, it was reported that the flowers move aside as you place your feet down, so that they are not crushed beneath the foot?

Has anyone else come across such NDE stories of fields of flowers parting beneath the feet as you walk? Please post a link if you have it handy.

I wonder if this is a common occurrence in NDEs. If it is, then it would be another characteristic that is unique to NDEs, and not found in dreams.

Executive Summary

In this post, I entertain a hypothesis that intuitive information processing taking place in the unconscious mind generates consciousness. This hypothesis may unite the study of the hard problem of consciousness with the established psychological concept of the unconscious mind (the unconscious as conceived by German philosophers like Carl Gustav Carus, and later popularised by Sigmund Freud). I speculate that these intuitive unconscious processes are run in the brain using quantum computation, and that these unconscious processes form the foundations of consciousness. So in this view, consciousness arises as the tip of the iceberg of unconsciousness.

I also consider whether this unconscious information processing might be computed in a non-material metaphysical realm, given that some physicists argue that quantum computation may take place outside of the physical material universe. This would imply the roots of consciousness are also transcendental, existing outside of space and time.

The Quantum Iceberg Model of Consciousness

I would like to discuss an approach to the hard problem of consciousness which we might call the quantum iceberg model of consciousness, given that the iceberg metaphor is often used when describing the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind. 

Whenever I've read about the hard problem of consciousness, I've always wondered what the connection might be between consciousness and the unconscious mind, since the life of the unconscious has been a key focus in psychology for over a century.  

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) is credited with popularising the discovery and concept of the unconscious mind, but the notion of the unconscious was first proposed by earlier thinkers, such as the German polymath Carl Gustav Carus (1789–1869). 

Carl Gustav Carus believed the unconscious mind was key to understanding consciousness. For Carus, the unconscious was the creative and intelligent foundation of the mind, with consciousness arising out of the underlying unconscious. Carus considered the unconscious to be the greater entity: in his writings he described consciousness as merely a small flickering light emerging from a vast dark ocean of unconscious mental activity. 

Carus distinguished between three levels of mind: the deepest level is the absolute unconscious, which is entirely inaccessible to conscious awareness; the next level he called the relative unconscious, a region of mind that is normally unconscious, but which consciousness can enter and examine; and finally the top level is consciousness itself.  

Later the work of German philosopher Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann (1842–1906) reinforced the primacy of the unconscious as the foundation of mind. But Von Hartmann went further, and proposed that the unconscious is the ultimate metaphysical ground of all existence. So for von Hartmann, the unconscious is not merely a psychological phenomenon, but is the bedrock of the universe. 

It's interesting how these days, people postulate that consciousness may be the bedrock of the cosmos; but for von Hartmann, the unconscious was the universal substratum.

The iceberg model of consciousness I outline here follows the ideas of Carus and von Hartmann, that the unconscious forms the foundations of consciousness. 

We know that the unconscious mind has its own life: while we are able to learn things consciously from information we receive about the world through our senses, the unconscious mind also constantly picks up a whole raft of information from our senses; in fact we know from psychological research that the unconscious stores and processes much more information than consciousness can deal with. It is well-established that the unconscious learns from this information, and may adapt our behaviour accordingly, without us being consciously aware that this is happening. This is well-understood by advertisers, who know that in order to get you to buy their product, they need to appeal to your unconscious drives and desires, which are more susceptible to being influenced than your rational conscious mind, which is more astute and guarded.

So both the conscious and unconscious sides of our mind are actively involved in perception, learning, and modifying behaviour. But how do these two sides of the mind interact, and what import does the unconscious mind have for the hard problem of consciousness? 

In the iceberg model of consciousness, like the German philosophers, I entertain a hypothesis that our overt conscious awareness is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the information processing that underlies consciousness takes place outside of conscious awareness, within the often inaccessible depths of the unconscious mind. The iceberg model further postulates that this unconscious information processing underpinning consciousness runs on quantum computation within the brain, for reasons explained shortly.

In this iceberg theory, overt conscious awareness and the hidden unconscious quantum computational operations that underpin consciousness together form the complete iceberg. The iceberg model suggests that you cannot understand consciousness in isolation, you need to bring the unconscious mind into the analysis. 

Intuition and the Unconscious Mind

Before we further expound upon the iceberg model, let's take a brief foray into the mental faculty of intuition, which is one way that the output of the information processing in the unconscious mind is thrust into conscious awareness.

We have all experienced the mysterious phenomenon of intuition. Intuition often manifests when we are trying to figure out a solution to some perplexing problem we have, and may have thought about it rationally for hours or days, but cannot see any answer to the conundrum. 

Then, while taking a break from thinking about the problem (and perhaps while enjoying a relaxing walk, an unwinding bath, or a coffee break), suddenly a possible solution to the problem just pops into our head. This solution was not conceived by the conscious part of the mind, as we were not actively thinking about the problem at the time. The solution appears to have been worked out in the unconscious region of the mind, and once formulated, was then popped into conscious awareness for further examination. This is the process of intuition, which is able to solve problems via background processing in the unconscious mind, occurring while we are relaxing and not consciously working on the problem. 

When intuitive solutions suddenly burst into our conscious awareness, we have no idea how these answers were calculated; the steps of the intuitive analysis underpinning the answer are not made available to us. The brain's intuitive processes always remain hidden from our conscious mind. 

This contrasts with rational or logical thinking, where the steps of the analysis (our rational thought processes) are explicitly available to the conscious mind, and can be communicated to other people. So clearly, the faculty of intuition uses a different type of computation than rational thinking.

I think it is likely that rational thinking involves classical computing in the brain (along with some quantum computing to generate the consciousness that oversees rational thought), whereas I speculate that intuition may be powered exclusively by quantum computation.

The idea that intuition runs exclusively on quantum computing would explain why we cannot access the steps of the calculation - because those steps are the states of the quantum computer, and as we know from quantum mechanics, the intermediate steps of a quantum computer calculation are not accessible (they cannot be observed without destroying the computation process); only the final answer calculated by a quantum computer is measured and known. So the features of quantum computation match those of unconscious intuition: the computation of intuition is not accessible to consciousness, only the final result of the computation can be consciously known.

Why might the brain run the process of intuition using quantum computation rather than classical computing? Well, because quantum computation excels at handling problems where there are a large number of variables or possibilities. Intuition seems to operate by creatively considering almost an infinite number of conceptual possibilities and combinations, in order to find a configuration that solves the problem at hand. A classical computer would take a long time to run through a very high number of possibilities, but we know that a quantum computer can handle this load exponentially faster (at least for certain classes of calculation). This is why quantum computers of the future will be able to crack current computer encryption methods, because they can sift through trillions of possible passwords in seconds, via massive parallel processing, whereas it would take millions or billions of years for the fastest classical computers to solve the same problem. The parallel processing of quantum computers is based on the fact that a qubit comprises a 0 and 1 at the same time, or more precisely, a qubit can exist in a quantum superposition of the states 0 and 1, allowing a quantum computer to represent many possible computational states simultaneously.

The Unconscious Mind Generates Consciousness

In the iceberg model, I speculate that becoming consciously aware of something involves intuition sifting through an almost infinite number of conceptual possibilities to arrive at a potential solution to the puzzles or problems you are dealing with. In the depths of the unconscious mind, once the quantum computation of intuition is complete, the solution is thrust into conscious awareness. It is when unconscious quantum information arrives at a possible solution that consciousness occurs.

I also think conscious awareness of incoming sensory information may follow the same scheme: I think that as data comes in from the senses, before it reaches consciousness, the data may be run through an unconscious quantum process akin to intuition, where it is tested against an almost infinite number of possible interpretations. When the most probable interpretation of the sensory data is computed by the unconscious, that answer is thrust into consciousness, and becomes a moment of conscious awareness of incoming sensory information. So for example, you may be looking at an object, and ultra-rapid unconscious quantum computation may determine that "it's a cat", and this answer is thrust into your consciousness. 

It is generally accepted that incoming sensory information is initially processed by unconscious regions of the brain. And it is accepted that this sensory information is thrust into conscious awareness if deemed relevant to the individual. Though normally only a small portion of the incoming sensory information reaches consciousness, because there is too much sensory data for consciousness to cope with, so most is filtered out, and only information and interpretations pertinent to your current situation are thrust into conscious awareness.

In other words, just as potential solutions arising from intuitive problem solving are popped into consciousness, so too can an incoming stream of sensory information get popped into consciousness if deemed relevant to the current circumstances of the person.

We tend to study the hard problem of consciousness by examining the tip of the iceberg: by pondering about conscious awareness. But beneath the tip of the iceberg, it is unconscious quantum information processing that actually generates consciousness, in the quantum iceberg model of consciousness that I am offering.

So in this model, I speculate that every moment of overt conscious awareness is the result of an unconscious intuitive quantum calculation. The intermediate steps of the quantum calculation are never known, but its final solution becomes a moment of conscious awareness. The tip of the iceberg is consciousness, but beneath that tip there is an inscrutable ocean of active quantum computation that forms the unconscious mind. 

One piece of supportive evidence for this model is the famous Libet experiments in the 1980s, which found that the decision to initiate an action occurred 300 milliseconds before the person becomes consciously aware of the decision. Thus the decision appears to take place in the unconscious mind, and only after the decision is made does the conscious mind become aware of it. Libet's results suggest that what we believe to be our conscious free will may in fact be a choice made by the unconscious mind.

How does this idea relate to the Hameroff-Penrose quantum theory of consciousness? In the Hameroff-Penrose theory, consciousness is proposed to emerge from quantum processes occurring within the microtubules found inside neurons. Well, it could be that these microtubules are responsible for both the consciousness and unconscious mind. The quantum computations of intuition may run on the microtubule system, and then when these quantum calculations are complete and a solution is arrived at, this creates a moment of consciousness which also is hosted in the microtubules.

Reframing the Hard Problem of Consciousness

Just to remind ourselves, the hard problem of consciousness poses the fundamental question: why does brain activity produce any conscious experience at all, instead of all brain activity just happening "in the dark", with no subjective inner mental experience whatsoever? 

In terms of the conscious and unconscious dichotomy, we can reframe this question as: why isn't all mental life unconscious; why does some mental activity emerge out of the "darkness" of the unconscious, and into the light of consciousness?

Psychology tells us that the unconscious can perceive the outside world through the senses, process and store incoming sensory information, and rapidly modify behaviour accordingly, all without any help from consciousness. So why is consciousness needed at all? What is its purpose? 

One possibility is that the unconscious may contain numerous individual quantum computers that operate separately, tasked with a specific role. Each sense may have its own unconscious quantum computer, whose job it is to analyse incoming data from its sense organ. These individual quantum computers do not normally talk to each other, they are normally isolated. So individually they cannot obtain an overview or holistic understanding of the external circumstances. But when the results of their computation are thrust into consciousness, because of the overarching nature of consciousness, which straddles all the senses, as well as spanning across our memory, our learned behavioural responses, and other aspects of our mind, consciousness can form a holistic or gestalt perspective of the whole situation.  

Evidence for the idea that each sense normally has its own separate and isolated unconscious quantum computer comes from the rare neurological phenomenon of synaesthesia, which occurs when this isolation breaks down. In synaesthesia, a stimulus in one sense automatically triggers an experience in another sense, such as seeing colours when hearing musical sounds, or experiencing a taste sensation when reading specific words. So in synaesthesia, there may be some unusual interlinking of the individual unconscious quantum computers that process the incoming information from each sense. But normally there is no such interlinking, thus demonstrating that sensory quantum computers are isolated from each other.

The idea that consciousness unites disparate individual unconscious information processors in the brain was proposed by cognitive scientist Bernard Baars in the late 1980s, with his global workspace theory. In his view, consciousness is a global workspace, into which various unconscious information processors can place their output. The global workspace acts as an integrator of calculations of individual unconscious information processors.

Of course, just how such a global workspace combines these unconscious outputs together remains an unanswered question, known as the binding problem. In quantum theories of consciousness, it is proposed that binding is achieved through quantum entanglement. Here, the separate outputs from each unconscious information processor are bound together into a single quantum state. 

The Iceberg Model of Consciousness and Spiritual Perspectives

Some spiritual philosophies posit that consciousness is transcendental: that it exists outside of space and time in a realm beyond the physical universe. The iceberg model does not contradict such ideas, because some physicists have theorised that the calculations within a quantum computer are performed outside of spacetime. 

If this is the case, then the very roots of conscious awareness may exist beyond the material world, arising out of a transcendental reality. Which would mean that every conscious moment we have is a bridging between the transcendental realm and the material world. It also follows that our unconscious intuitive processes may not be just confined to our physical brain, but may exploit transcendental domains during their operation. 

If unconscious processes are run in a transcendental region of the cosmos, it opens up the possibility of the Jungian concept of a collective unconsciousness. Carl Jung posited that if you go deep enough in the mind, you move past the personal unconscious, and hit the collective unconscious. Quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger proposed a similar "one mind" idea, that consciousness is at the deepest level singular, not plural, and unified across all beings.

Implications for Research Into the Hard Problem of Consciousness

Many of us who like exploring the nature of consciousness may ponder on its mysteries by staring directly into it. For example, during Zen mindfulness meditation (which I have done plenty of, and highly recommend to any psychonaut), we amplify our conscious awareness and detach it from thought processes and other distractions. We then become acutely aware of our own consciousness. We use our conscious awareness to stare directly into our conscious awareness. But as profound and powerful as mindfulness meditation can be to the refinement of one's own mind, character and spirituality, it does not seem to return any scientific answers about the nature of consciousness. 

And this may be because during mindfulness meditation, we are only focusing on the visible tip of the iceberg, focusing on the experience of consciousness. Whereas the quantum iceberg model posits the roots of consciousness are to be found in the unconscious sphere, which consciousness has no ability to penetrate (consciousness can never view the internal computational operations of intuition; consciousness can only see the final output result of unconscious intuitive processing).

Thus, there are limitations to this first-person approach to consciousness (studying consciousness by means of introspection). The inscrutability of the workings of intuition is a limitation of the first-person examination of consciousness. Consciousness can become aware of itself: we can introspectively become consciously aware of our conscious awareness; but we cannot see where our consciousness originates from, that remains inscrutable. 

We might make more headway in understanding consciousness by focusing on the quantum processes that may underlie consciousness and unconscious intuition. Though this approach will probably require advancements in quantum theory before we are able to get a grip on consciousness. There are already some intriguing new ideas that may shine a light on consciousness, such as the theory that spacetime may emerge from a deeper reality beyond time and space, that reality being fabricated from quantum entanglement - the very same entanglement that is fundamental to the operation of quantum computation. 

This post is about consciousness and NDEs. If you want a summary of the typical set of events that occur during an NDE, you might like to read this post, which succinctly describes them.

People who have had an NDE usually report and believe that their disembodied consciousness or soul departed their body, and visited a heavenly reality beyond Earth. 

They report that the NDE world has very different characteristics compared to the material world. For one thing, time behaves differently: there is no linear time in the heavenly sphere, and events tend to occur in parallel. They say Heaven is not exactly timeless; there is a sort of time, but it is not standard earthly linear time, and multiple things happen at once.

As an example of this non-linear time, it is common to have a full life review during an NDE, where every event in your life is examined. However, this review does not occur in temporal order; rather, every life event is examined simultaneously in parallel. Your whole life is reviewed in a flash of parallel processing.

The various unusual characteristics of the NDE realm make people who have had an NDE believe that they have died and gone to a most wonderful heavenly place which is distinct from regular earthly reality. Even former atheists may become convinced of this.

There is no pain or suffering in the heavenly sphere; everything is perfect, blissful, and euphoric. So most people do not want to return to Earth, because they are so happy in the heavenly realm.

Now, of course, the sceptics will have none of that, and claim that the entire NDE is a dream, hallucination, or some other altered state of consciousness that occurs in the physical brain. They argue that the individual's consciousness did not leave their body and travel to some other dimension; but rather, the whole experience was generated by the brain under low oxygen conditions (many NDEs occur when the heart stops for several minutes, or there is some other blockage of oxygen to the brain).

And of course, nobody can prove this either way.

But then, when you think about it, does it really matter? From the point of view of the person experiencing the NDE phenomenon that occurs as you die, they are enjoying a most beautiful, blissful, euphoric reality. They are in paradise, and because time does not flow linearly in this rapturous wonderland, there is no limit to how long they can stay.

So I am thinking: there is no doubt that the NDE phenomenon exists; it has been reported by thousands, if not millions, of people, and as far back as antiquity. Thus, even if it is generated by the physical brain, that does not make it any less of a paradise. 

And even if your deceased brain might only be able to generate this NDE reality for a short time (eg a few days or weeks) before the brain physically deteriorates and ceases to function, because the NDE reality has timeless qualities, a few days of Earth time may correspond to a near eternal life in the NDE realm.

So it seems to me that, assuming everyone has an NDE after dying, we are all guaranteed an eternal life in paradise - even if that paradise is generated by the brain. 

This post is about consciousness and NDEs. If you are not familiar with the typical set of events that occur during an NDE, you might like to read this post, which succinctly describes them.

People who have had an NDE usually report and believe that their disembodied consciousness departed their body, and visited a heavenly reality beyond Earth. 

They report that the NDE world has very different characteristics compared to the material world. For one thing, time behaves differently: there is no linear time in the heavenly sphere, and events tend to occur in parallel. They say Heaven is not exactly timeless; there is a sort of time, but it is not standard earthly linear time, and multiple things happen at once.

As an example of this non-linear time, it is common to have a full life review during an NDE, where every event in your life is examined. However, this review does not occur in temporal order; rather, every life event is examined simultaneously in parallel. Your whole life is reviewed in a flash of parallel processing.

The various unusual characteristics of the NDE realm make people who have had an NDE believe that they have died and gone to a most wonderful heavenly place which is distinct from regular earthly reality. Even former atheists may become convinced of this.

There is no pain or suffering in the heavenly; everything is perfect, blissful, and euphoric. So most people do not want to return to Earth, because they are so happy in the heavenly realm.

Now, of course, the sceptics will have none of that, and claim that the entire NDE is a dream, hallucination, or some other altered state of consciousness that occurs in the physical brain. They argue that the individual's consciousness did not leave their body and travel to some other dimension; but rather, the whole experience was generated by the brain under low oxygen conditions (many NDEs occur when the heart stops for several minutes, or there is some other blockage of oxygen to the brain).

And of course, nobody can prove this either way.

But then, when you think about it, does it really matter? From the point of view of the person experiencing the NDE phenomenon that occurs as you die, they are enjoying a most beautiful, blissful, euphoric reality. They are in paradise, and because time does not flow linearly in this rapturous wonderland, there is no limit to how long they can stay.

So I am thinking: there is no doubt that the NDE phenomenon exists; it has been reported by thousands, if not millions, of people, and as far back as antiquity. Thus, even if it is generated by the physical brain, that does not make it any less of a paradise. 

And even if your deceased brain might only be able to generate this NDE reality for a short time (eg a few days or weeks) before the brain physically deteriorates and ceases to function, because the NDE reality has timeless qualities, a few days of Earth time may correspond to a near eternal life in the NDE realm.

So it seems to me that assuming everyone has an NDE after dying, we are all guaranteed an eternal life in paradise - even if that paradise is generated by the brain. 

Note: My previous post on this subject was removed by the mods, because it was construed as complaining. So in this post, I am trying to avoid anything that looks like complaining.

I have found some Reddit sub-forums have moderators who will instantly ban you on your first post on their forum for no good reason. I will give you an example shortly.

So if you are like me and have a wide range of interests, and like to post on hundreds of different Reddit forums, after a few years, as your Reddit account builds up more and more bans, the account becomes rather restricted in terms of where you can post.

Thus my proposal is that on Reddit, bans should not be permanent, but only have a certain duration, like say 3 months or 6 months. That way, if you happen to be banned for no good reason, your account is not permanently restricted by the ban.

Here is an example of a ban I recently received for no good reason. I came across some information that might help prevent the development of myopia from near work (near work such as reading books or staring at computer screens). As I software developer myself, I believe my myopia was made a lot worse during my 20s from spending all day gazing at computer screens as part of my job.

So I thought this myopia prevention idea might be valuable to other software developers, and made a post about it on the Reddit C++ software language sub-forum. The result was that my thread got deleted, and I was instantly banned. That to me seems like a ban for no good reason. (However, I am not complaining, I am just giving this an example of how bans can occur for no good reason). So now if I have any C++ questions, I cannot post on that forum, because my Reddit account is permanently restricted from posting there.

I have had many similar bans like this, for no good reason. It's one thing to have your thread deleted because mods believe it is not appropriate for their forum, but it is quite another when they also instantly ban you from the forum as well, often on your very first post on the forum.

Anyone passionate about the evolution and advancement of humanity will have an interest in the way our society has progressed over the millennia. How our philosophical and political ideas have developed. How science, technology, and medicine have advanced to transform the world. And how these steps forward have (generally) improved human existence and reduced suffering.  

All those great milestones in human history: the mastery of fire, the agricultural revolution, the development of writing, the creation of ships to sail the seas and explore distant lands, the invention of democracy, the printing press to spread knowledge far and wide, the scientific enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the material advancement it brought us, the discovery and utilisation of electricity, the extraordinary achievement of putting man on the Moon, the computer revolution, and the information revolution. 

When I read the list of humanity's achievements and advancements, arising from the indefatigable human spirit and the passionate striving of our ancestors, it makes me proud to be human. This is the great human project, in which we all play our roles.  

Humanity will I believe continue to strive forward, eventually making the world a much better place, and reducing the considerable suffering we still endure today from mental and physical diseases, from poverty, and other ills.

But when we read reports from people returning from NDEs, describing what they saw and heard in Heaven, very little is said about the great human project. The primary message from Heaven seems to be that love is the most important thing on Earth. That, of course, is a profound message that we should all take heed of, a message as important today as it has ever been. But Heaven seems to have very little to say about the great human project. It makes no commentary about the way humans strive forward to try to create a greater world, and provides no advice as to whether the directions we are going in are right or wrong.

As someone who believes in the great human project, and who wants to see humanity evolve and advance to greater and more civilised heights, I find this silence from Heaven somewhat perplexing. I am saddened that Heaven shows little interest in a project which for me is deeply important.

The great human minds of history have always looked to see how they can make the world better, and how they can evolve humanity; it is the nature of the human spirit to strive for higher levels of existence.

Yet there seems to be a disconnect between Heaven and Earth as far as the great human project is concerned. Here on Earth, many care a lot about this project; but Heaven hardly ever refers to it. 

One of the downsides I find with many (though not all) Reddit forums is that they seem to attract people who are negative or cynical naysayers, rather than attracting the can-do enthusiastic creative or visionary types.

This means that when you want to discuss any creative idea, concept, theory or hypothesis, you rarely are able to connect with other creative minds who might share your enthusiasm, and contribute to your idea with further constructive thoughts or suggestions. Instead you are often showered with negative or cynical comments from the naysayers.

I am just wondering why the naysayers greatly outnumber the enthusiastic creative types on Reddit.

Is this because humanity in general consists of more naysayers than enthusiastic can-do people? So then Reddit just reflects the nature of humanity? Or is there something about Reddit that disproportionately attracts the naysayers?

Or perhaps is it because the enthusiastic can-do people are usually too busy working to make the world a better place to post on Reddit?

Invariably, when you see some smartphone video footage of a news event on TV news, the video was taken with the phone in portrait rather than landscape orientation. This means the TV station has to fill in the left and right sides of the TV screen with some blurry imagery, and the viewer gets a less than satisfactory view of the news event.

I always make a point of taking my smartphone videos in the more natural landscape orientation; but most people seem to use portrait orientation, presumably because they find it easier to hold the phone vertically in their hand; holding the phone horizontally is not quite as easy.

It would not be practicable to educate the public into taking videos in landscape orientation when the material is newsworthy, but if phone and camera manufacturers made a camera sensor that was square rather than rectangular, this would effectively record both portrait and landscape orientation at the same time, and TV stations could then extract a landscape orientation video from a smartphone recording for broadcasting on TV.

Of course, a square sensor would require more storage device space on the phone, as the videos would be a bit larger. But it would solve the problem of portrait orientation videos on TV.

Have any camera and smartphone manufacturers thought about this?

Invariably, when you see some smartphone video footage of a news event on TV news, the video was taken with the phone in portrait rather than landscape orientation. This means the TV station has to fill in the left and right sides of the TV screen with some blurry imagery, and the viewer gets a less than satisfactory view of the news event.

I always make a point of taking my smartphone videos in the more natural landscape orientation; but most people seem to use portrait orientation, presumably because they find it easier to hold the phone vertically in their hand; holding the phone horizontally is not quite as easy.

It would not be practicable to educate the public into taking videos in landscape orientation when the material is newsworthy, but if phone and camera manufacturers made a camera sensor that was square rather than rectangular, this would effectively record both portrait and landscape orientation at the same time, and TV stations could then extract a landscape orientation video from a smartphone recording for broadcasting on TV.

Of course, a square sensor would require more storage device space on the phone, as the videos would be a bit larger. But it would solve the problem of portrait orientation videos on TV.

Have any camera and smartphone manufacturers thought about this?

Invariably, when you see some smartphone video footage of a news event on TV news, the video was taken with the phone in portrait rather than landscape orientation. This means the TV station has to fill in the left and right sides of the TV screen with some blurry imagery, and the viewer gets a less than satisfactory view of the news event.

I always make a point of taking my smartphone videos in the more natural landscape orientation; but most people seem to use portrait orientation, presumably because they find it easier to hold the phone vertically in their hand; holding the phone horizontally is not quite as easy.

It would not be practicable to educate the public into taking videos in landscape orientation when the material is newsworthy, but if phone and camera manufacturers made a camera sensor that was square rather than rectangular, this would effectively record both portrait and landscape orientation at the same time, and TV stations could then extract a landscape orientation video from a smartphone recording for broadcasting on TV.

Of course, a square sensor would require more storage device space on the phone, as the videos would be a bit larger. But it would solve the problem of portrait orientation videos on TV.

Have any camera and smartphone manufacturers thought about this?

My idea is that the video, when replayed, would by default be displayed in the format it was taken. So if it was taken in portrait format, for example, it would be displayed as portrait during playback. But because the square camera sensor means that video also recorded extra information, ie, the scenery on the left and right side of the portrait format, it could be converted to a landscape format by the user.

This approach would be useful for influencers who use their phones to record events, so that a video recorded with the phone held in the more convenient portrait mode could later be displayed as landscape on computer screens.

And it would be good for regular users who might record some event, and later want to view that event on their computer or TV in landscape orientation.