Universal Consciousness

[AbnormallyHonest]

Consciousness is like one of those electric glass spheres we've all seen. So the glass is like the Universe, the fabric of space-time. The finger, is us; you, me, and everyone in between. Everyone has their spot, or touch where they exist in the surface of the glass. Everyone's perspective is unique, and experiences are different. Consciousness is like the arc that forms from our contact with the glass. It's the matter of our bodies that allow us to retain memories to interpret the Universe using the senses that upload the most information about this world to it. It's the combination of the ability of our minds to retain information about our experiences with that universal spark that allows us all to have similar, yet independent perspective and understanding of each of our own realities.

 

Although consciousness relies on the matter of our bodies in order to a create fluid and adaptable flow of information about the Universe, it does have the ability to retain an emotional memory that doesn't require the chemical and physical changes that short and long-term memories require. The physical changes we experience due to emotions are our body's reaction to the push and pull of our emotional consciousness.

 

Since, on the other side of the glass, all of the electricity is centralized, this too is true about consciousness. It is more or less one universal entity, and we all just access a piece of it at a time. Our bodies are unique and belong to us, but consciousness is only borrowed and without our bodies, with our physical memory, the experience of the Universe would be very confusing, erratic, and short. Instinct was an earlier version the evolution this process has gone through. A genetic memory carried down through our DNA until life had evolved enough to create a more acute description of the Universe we all see, hear, smell, touch, and taste today. When our bodies shut down, we simply allow consciousness to be independent by freeing it from the input of our physical senses. This is when our physical minds experience a back flow a short way beneath the glass surface as we upload the information we collected with our senses throughout the day. We experience this as dreaming. And when we wake up, our consciousness is reconnected to begin sensory input, but due to the backup we carry in our bodies, most of us are completely unaware that the consciousness we're experiencing is something independent of us and isn't really our "soul" property or a part of the reality that our senses tell us is "real".

 

So as we upload this conscious memory of our senses, Consciousness, as a whole, will begin to accumulate the experiences we share. As these accumulate, the overall experience of reality will begin to show relative shifts as the overwhelming majority of experience, as a whole, begins to sway with the times. We call this the Zeitgeist, or the spirit of the times. If the majority of people are either suffering or prospering, as a whole, the experience of the world, as a whole, would cumulatively be either negative or positive. This would have an influence on the overall Zeitgeist of our time, and our time is very critical. Our huge population increases and better understanding of the world of experience, allow us to manipulate that Zeitgeist at a rate that has never before been possible. This can happen with only a few small ideas that can spread at almost the speed of light because of our artificial web of collective consciousness we call the internet. This is a very unique time to be alive on this world.

 

Now imagine that there was a way to experience from the center of the sphere or anywhere within the glass surface. You might be able to directly communicate with other arcs or simply influence them in some way. It would not matter how far away they were because you are now on the inside of the glass and no longer need to traverse the surface of the glass. You'd be able to cut right through the center and tap in on the experience of someone on the other side of the world... or even the other side of the Universe.*

 

When we return the matter of this existence back to the realm of the Universe, the experiences we uploaded throughout our lifetime will forever be a part of the whole Consciousness and a part of every one of our own experience. There could be moments when large pieces of an individual's experience seep through another arc with more clarity or influence. There have been many whom claim to retain memories from a previous life.

 

Another thing to consider, is that if your piece of consciousness became so attached to this world, that it was unable to let go of this reality, it may be possible that a small piece of that energy could remain behind rather than contribute to the the whole. The ability to choose not to return that piece of consciousness we borrow is what we interpret as free will. It also may be possible that some pieces separate and are lost due to a misunderstanding of their experiences and require guidance to navigate back to their origins. For those of us that are still gathering information through our physical senses, those pieces, with no physical conduit anymore, would probably only be experienced as phantom energy, possibly interacting with our physical world.

 

So when we lift our finger and end our conscious day, it is up to us how we decide to carry on in our quest for understanding. Being independent and harboring a unique perspective on the Universe is an essential for the Universe to experience itself, but for me, the wealth of experience that is offered by the collection and the possibility of influencing experiences through other arcs as they continue to form, would be a way to continue existence within this Universe and begin another day.

 

Unfortunately, this decision will not be made entirely by me. If Humans, as a whole, do not understand this, and fail to recognize that we are not alone with absolute certainty, we will be choosing to allow our portion of the Zeitgeist to break off from the Consciousness we all owe our experience to. If this happens, the human experience will never be capable to of connecting to the larger collection of experiences throughout the Universe or contributing to its understanding. Not only will we be forever isolated, our "Soul" Consciousnesses will be left to wander the vastness of space. Earth will become a ghost ship. Humans have learned enough about this natural world to understand the scale of the observable Universe alone, and if we continue to cling to the impossible** belief that the human race may be the only intelligence in existence, we will manifest that reality because of our ignorance. We are the lost due to misunderstanding, and we keep refusing the guidance offered to us. So we need to let go and open our minds in order to remain connected to the Consciousness that I, as a human, have grown to appreciate and long for. Otherwise, we will forever be alone and never even grasp what it was we lost. K.C.G.***

 

*I would probably more accurately describe Consciousness as a singularity, so there would not be a need to "cut through" as you would already be there. As this reality is only an interpretation through Consciousness, it would make sense that we experience the Universe as a singularity as well. (No matter where you exist in space, you are always at the center of the Universe.)

 

**Impossible is not a term I would ever use about anything in this Universe except this one idea. It does not require faith, belief, or evidence because I know it to be true absolutely. If you are able to look up at the sky and down at the earth and realize that you are alive and intelligent, there would be no cover up or conspiracy or lack of evidence that could ever convince you otherwise. The only requirement is an independent thought, and if one person can come to that inevitable conclusion, than it can be and is, the reality of the whole.

 

***I would claim this interpretation as my own, but if that were true, I would only be aware of where my finger makes contact with the glass.

Edited March 18, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Dave Moore]

I'd be interested in hearing more. If you are always at the center of your universe, then I'd ask, how have you discovered why you know that to be true. I'm not asking for information, but I'd like to know how you personally arrived at that knowledge.

It appears you have made a connection, a sort of integration of apparent polarities, that is to say, overcome the immense resistance to whole-mind consciousness we all seem to be saddled with from infancy.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Dave Moore

[Eise]

Although consciousness relies on the matter of our bodies in order to a create fluid and adaptable flow of information about the Universe, it does have the ability to retain an emotional memory that doesn't require the chemical and physical changes that short and long-term memories require. The physical changes we experience due to emotions are our body's reaction to the push and pull of our emotional consciousness.

 

All the empirical evidence shows in the opposite direction: that consciousness is a function of the processes in the brain. Philosophy contradicting empirical evidence is very poor philosophy, and in fact worthless.

[Argent]

 

All the empirical evidence shows in the opposite direction: that consciousness is a function of the processes in the brain. Philosophy contradicting empirical evidence is very poor philosophy, and in fact worthless.

Would it not be more accurate to say "All the empirical evidence I am aware of ............"?. The distinction is surely important else you risk being guilty of the logical fallacy, Argument from Ignorance.

[Eise]

Would it not be more accurate to say "All the empirical evidence I am aware of ............"?. The distinction is surely important else you risk being guilty of the logical fallacy, Argument from Ignorance.

 

Shall I put it in a disclaimer? Everytime I say something like 'All the empirical evidence' you may add 'I am aware of' in your mind. Also when I say sentences like 'A is B' you may think that I really mean 'I think that A = B'. OK?

 

And otherwise I am totally curious if you know of empirical evidence consciousness can exist with being implemented in 'chemical and physical changes'.

[Argent]

 

Shall I put it in a disclaimer? Everytime I say something like 'All the empirical evidence' you may add 'I am aware of' in your mind. Also when I say sentences like 'A is B' you may think that I really mean 'I think that A = B'. OK?

 

And otherwise I am totally curious if you know of empirical evidence consciousness can exist with being implemented in 'chemical and physical changes'.

I think precision in language is important. I regret you took offense at the way I made that point. Your proposed solution is flawed, but I don't think either of us should lose any sleep over it.

[Strange]

I think precision in language is important. I regret you took offense at the way I made that point. Your proposed solution is flawed, but I don't think either of us should lose any sleep over it.

 

 

Pretty much any time we say something like "we know there is a black hole at the centre of the galaxy" or similar statement, what we really mean is "as far as we can tell, all the observations of the centre of the galaxy are consistent, within certain error bounds, with the idea of there being a black hole; this may change as further information is obtained."

 

As this is a science forum, I think those disclaimers can be taken for granted.

[Argent]

 

 

Pretty much any time we say something like "we know there is a black hole at the centre of the galaxy" or similar statement, what we really mean is "as far as we can tell, all the observations of the centre of the galaxy are consistent, within certain error bounds, with the idea of there being a black hole; this may change as further information is obtained."

 

As this is a science forum, I think those disclaimers can be taken for granted.

Superficially this appears to be a sound point. I suggest, however, that there is an important distinction between the instance I drew attention to here and the example you have given.

 

In your example, if the statement is in the context of a discussion of galactic structure, or perhaps galactic evolution, then it is wholly reasonable to assume the implied caveat. However, in this instance we are discussing a speculation that, to be charitable, does not easily fit into consensus science. Experience suggests that the authors of such speculation may focus on apparent ambiguities or inconsistencies in any critiques that are offered. In these cases I believe it is worth taking a little more care and offering a little more precision.

 

Perhaps we should now return to the topic of the thread and my apologies to Abnormally Honest for the deviation.

[Strange]

However, in this instance we are discussing a speculation that, to be charitable, does not easily fit into consensus science.

 

 

Really?

As Eise said, I would also be curious to see this counter evidence of yours.

[Argent]

 

 

Really?

As Eise said, I would also be curious to see this counter evidence of yours.

Apparently my own post lacked precision. I am contrasting your example (the black hole at the centre of the galaxy) where the implicit meaning would typically be evident, with this instance (Eise's response) where the implicit meaning may be ignored by the OP. I've restated my point with slight expansion.

 

The OP has offered a rather garbled and seemingly unsubstantiated speculation. Experience suggests that the authors of such speculation may focus on apparent ambiguities or inconsistencies in any critiques that are offered in order to counter such criticisms. In these cases I believe it is worth taking a little more care and offering a little more precision when making the criticism in order to avoid such a counter attack.

 

At the risk of being censured by the moderator team for an ad hominem here is my point in more robust language. The OP is talking nonsense in the medium of word salad. We shouldn't descend anywhere near this level and therefore should take extra care in how we phrase our criticism. Avoiding absolutes is a good way to start.

 

It was a small aside. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. If you, Eise or anyone else wish to continue discussion about it I shall be happy to engage in a dialogue by pm, or in a thread set up for that purpose. I shall not reply further in this thread since the extended discussion is off-topic.

[Eise]

At the risk of being censured by the moderator team for an ad hominem here is my point in more robust language. The OP is talking nonsense in the medium of word salad. We shouldn't descend anywhere near this level and therefore should take extra care in how we phrase our criticism. Avoiding absolutes is a good way to start.

 

That's why I took the one paragraph that is contradicting all science I know of. .

 

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

 

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

(Sorry this had to be... )

Edited March 22, 2017 by Eise

[Strange]

The OP has offered a rather garbled and seemingly unsubstantiated speculation.

 

 

And yet, rather than comment on any of that, you criticised someone for pointing out one of the flaws in the OP's nonsense.

[Velocity_Boy]

Very nice New Agey, Akashic Record sort of speculation. But alas, one with zero proof and all that we know about human intelligence and the workings of the organ we call our brains indicate that it is, well, just that. Simply the purely internal workings and functioning of another of our organs.

 

That is to say, our brains workings and thought processes, which are only the products of chemical and neurotransmitter actions, are confined to our own bodies. Just as is the mechanations of your liver or kidneys or adrenal glands.

 

Your thoughts do not leave your body in a tangible fashion. In a discernible or detectable way. There is no medium to be projected or disseminated.

 

Hence, communication or connection via this process is physically impossible. Which is why Mr. Randi never had to pay out his million bucks! LOL

Edited March 22, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Argent]

 

 

And yet, rather than comment on any of that, you criticised someone for pointing out one of the flaws in the OP's nonsense.

Everyone else was doing a fine job of pointing out the OP's deficiencies. I criticised a portion of someone's post for a potential weakness in their style of criticism. Eise was perfectly free to accept or reject that criticism. It was offered in good faith. Ironically, I notice that rather than continue criticising the OP you would rather take potshots at my minor intervention.

 

Note: I have broached my previous statement that I would not comment further on this in this thread, since your forum settings prohibit me from communicating with you by pm.

[Velocity_Boy]

Everyone else was doing a fine job of pointing out the OP's deficiencies. I criticised a portion of someone's post for a potential weakness in their style of criticism. Eise was perfectly free to accept or reject that criticism. It was offered in good faith. Ironically, I notice that rather than continue criticising the OP you would rather take potshots at my minor intervention.

 

Note: I have broached my previous statement that I would not comment further on this in this thread, since your forum settings prohibit me from communicating with you by pm.

 

 

Just for the record, argent, I agreed with your OP. I also feel you were unduely maligned for it. And I noticed your last post. For what it's worth!

[AbnormallyHonest]

All the empirical evidence shows in the opposite direction: that consciousness is a function of the processes in the brain. Philosophy contradicting empirical evidence is very poor philosophy, and in fact worthless.

Is a fish conscious? It has far less "brain"... or is it's consciousness just experienced differently because of the limitations of the conduit that harbors it. It's consciousness is no more or less conscious then yours or mine, it just doesn't have the capacity to create a more acute experience of it because if it's limited matter.

 

The Universe is a collection of coincidences that happen a long a well defined mathematical timeline. So then why can my hand pick up a rock and throw it? That doesn't seem like a consequence of classical or even contemporary physical understanding of our world. What moves my hand? My arm? My body... my head my brain? My consciousness has never been studied "empirically".

[Eise]

or is it's consciousness just experienced differently because of the limitations of the conduit that harbors it.

 

I think you do not quite understand the scientific 'mind set'. New entities are only hypothesised when there is something that cannot be explained by existing scientific means, when we know that existing explanations fall short.

 

To give an example: dark matter. We know we cannot explain the movements of galaxies as we see them, or the gravity lensing effect. So there is an obvious hole in our explanations. There might be more than one hypotheses that can explain what we observe, but dark matter is surely one of them.

 

For consciousness this is not clear at all. Quite the opposite, neurology is progressing fast, and there also no compelling philosophical reasons to assume something like you propose here. Only when we are sure that known mechanisms cannot explain consciousness, we must look farther. But we do not know that yet, because we know we do not know all mechanisms.

 

So then why can my hand pick up a rock and throw it? That doesn't seem like a consequence of classical or even contemporary physical understanding of our world. What moves my hand?

 

A lot is already known of course, but you should ask a biologist and/or neurologist. But there is no reason at all to suppose that the causal chains are somewhere incomplete. Therefore the interesting question here is why it feels that 'I' move my hand. If you carefully observe and reflect on how you move your hand, you will even discover that you even do not know how you do it. You just do it.

[Argent]

The Universe is a collection of coincidences that happen a long a well defined mathematical timeline.

Perhaps this is so. Do you have any evidence for it? And what exactly is a mathematical timeline? How does it differ from a normal timeline? What is it that makes this one well-defined?

[AbnormallyHonest]

A lot is already known of course, but you should ask a biologist and/or neurologist. But there is no reason at all to suppose that the causal chains are somewhere incomplete. Therefore the interesting question here is why it feels that 'I' move my hand. If you carefully observe and reflect on how you move your hand, you will even discover that you even do not know how you do it. You just do it.

I think most of you are asking questions that will strengthen your perspective. Shallow perspectives make for shallow arguments. You ponder the answer of a neuroscientist? I counter with, "ask a physicist". As far as all "empirical" data would suggest, the Universe is in fact a waveform that reduces to realization upon perception. This is at even the largest of scales. At the smallest, just the fact of perceiving a particle changes the way it behaves e.g. Exists. I suppose the scientists that have used this model for quantum physics for over a hundred years lacked "empirical" data as well.

 

Consciousness is an artifact in the Universe. It is the only thing within the Universe that can manipulate energy with disparity to nature. There's your evidence. If you can name one thing that can change the way the Universe unfolds along the set of algorithmic laws, principles, and certainties we all use our scientific data to dictate... I will rethink everything I have ever thought about intelligence and declare you the most intelligent human being I have ever even heard of.

[Strange]

As far as all "empirical" data would suggest, the Universe is in fact a waveform that reduces to realization upon perception. This is at even the largest of scales. At the smallest, just the fact of perceiving a particle changes the way it behaves e.g. Exists. I suppose the scientists that have used this model for quantum physics for over a hundred years lacked "empirical" data as well.

 

 

You say "ask a physicist" but I am fairly certain that most would tell you that is nonsense ("quantum woo" as it is sometimes called).

 

 

 

It is the only thing within the Universe that can manipulate energy with disparity to nature.

 

You need some evidence for that.

[AbnormallyHonest]

You say "ask a physicist" but I am fairly certain that most would tell you that is nonsense ("quantum woo" as it is sometimes called).

 

 

 

You need some evidence for that.

No I don't, you're just too arrogant to be stumped. But ok.... a wave of light passes through a slit, it's perceived... does anything change? Two rocks are falling to the earth, what will happen? What if I catch one? I'm using my iPhone to make this post, I suppose my iPhone must be a result of accretion? Or radiation? Or something purely explainable with the laws of nature. I am not the one with the burden of proof, just the burden of insight.

You say "ask a physicist" but I am fairly certain that most would tell you that is nonsense ("quantum woo" as it is sometimes called).

 

 

 

You need some evidence for that.

Evidence? How does nature create technology? How does nature propel a living being off a planet? How does nature collapse the wave of potential without consciousness? How does nature catch a rock and not let it hit the ground? How does nature harness energy and smash subatomic particles? How does nature decide when to obey the laws of nature or when to manipulate nature to allow for a different distribution of probability? If there is anything else I would require proof, but as there is not, it is not a speculation, just a reality.

[Strange]

No I don't, you're just too arrogant to be stumped. But ok.... a wave of light passes through a slit, it's perceived... does anything change?

 

 

It has nothing to do with perception. It doesn't require a human observer.

 

 

 

Evidence? How does nature create technology?

 

We create technology. We are part of nature.

[AbnormallyHonest]

It has nothing to do with perception. It doesn't require a human observer.

 

No, it may not, but it does require that the information be recorded, and how do you suspect that the information transfers discretely and onto another medium. I suppose nature has made some paradox for this to happen "naturally".

 

 

 

We create technology. We are part of nature.

 

I do not disagree, the matter if our bodies is natural, but where does that get you without consciousness. Just matter. The inception of consciousness is actually something not natural. It can act with disparity to nature, it can decide to violate the laws of nature. Is it is not practical to deduce, as the only thing that is known to harbor this ability, it must be something that does not exists under the same guise as the laws of the Universe we perceive. It is different, separate, unique. Perhaps something from somewhere else all together.

 

Also, I might add, since when did a philosophical perspective demand such rigorous scientific scrutiny?

Edited March 25, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[Eise]

Shallow perspectives make for shallow arguments.

 

True. One of the shallowest arguments is 'I cannot imagine how this is possible, so I postulate a simple answer': Universal Consciousness! (Never forget the capitals).

 

I counter with, "ask a physicist". As far as all "empirical" data would suggest, the Universe is in fact a waveform that reduces to realization upon perception. This is at even the largest of scales. At the smallest, just the fact of perceiving a particle changes the way it behaves e.g. Exists. I suppose the scientists that have used this model for quantum physics for over a hundred years lacked "empirical" data as well.

 

As Strange already said above: this is quantum woo. You obviously explain something you do not understand, with something else you do not understand. Now that is shallow thinking.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Eise

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

A discussion hijack (everything after this) has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/104500-hijack-from-universal-consciousness/

 

Further hijacks to this discussion will be deleted.