Universal consciousness

[jjjjj]

OK, when I think about questions like why am I me and why do I exist, one of the ideas I get is that consciousness should be universal, instead of many selves (kind of like solipsism). Do you think it's a consequence of me no being able to think "outside" myself? Because that would make sense regardless of whether consciousness is universal or not. Also are there any arguments against universal consciousness? I was able to think of several, and I'm wondering if there are other. Also, do you think physics is for, or against an idea like universal consciousness?

Edited August 2, 2010 by jjjjj

[Mr Skeptic]

Firstly, I see no reason to believe there is a universal consciousness, whatever that means. Perhaps in the far future a large portion of the matter throughout the universe will be dedicated to computing. However, such a universal consciousness will run into a problem -- the limited speed of light, and after that the expansion of the universe. Even if sentient beings from throughout the entire universe decided to build interconnected computing devices, these would have a problem that communicating with far-away parts of itself would have a lag of at least 1 year per lightyear. Being unaware of what you are thinking for a billion years seems like it could cause problems. Worse than that, because of the expanding universe some portions of the universe will be cut off from each other, so that communication from one side to the other would be impossible. This would preclude a universal consciousness, since it can't be universal.

[jjjjj]

OK, the problem is I can't imagine "me" from a perspective other than mine. So maybe the reason I think there should be a universal consciousness is because of brain limitations. Is it safe to assume that the stuff around me actually isn't me (and not just parts of me in an unconscious form)?

[Severian]

I personally see no reason to believe that any of you exist at all. The universe is just me, imagining it all.

 

I dare you to disprove this to me.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Severian

[rigney]

Trying to materialize something from thin air whether it be the psyche or flesh and blood is an undertaking I'm not personally willing to try, or buy into at this time. And while the process of teleportation is in its infancy, scientist have designed processes allowing it to happen; and conducted experiments to its effect. If these experiments go somewhere beyond instantly receiving information from a known transmission source, who knows? I tried using: "Instantaneous Transcendental Teleportation" a few weeks back and dang near got tossed off the forum.

I don't know what the phrase means yet, but it's something you seem to be fishing for??

Edited August 13, 2010 by rigney

[vuquta]

I personally see no reason to believe that any of you exist at all. The universe is just me, imagining it all.

 

I dare you to disprove this to me.

 

Yes, this is a problem, I agree.

 

But, then you will need to figure how some of these "characters" bring you information you did not have.

 

OK, the problem is I can't imagine "me" from a perspective other than mine. So maybe the reason I think there should be a universal consciousness is because of brain limitations. Is it safe to assume that the stuff around me actually isn't me (and not just parts of me in an unconscious form)?

 

This is opinion.

 

Stuff around cannot be you.

 

The fundamentals of creating a number systehm is that you must have the first distinction.

 

It is my view, since we can use numbers then we are not the universe and we are separate.

[jjjjj]

OK, when I think about the question why am I me, I feel that there is a separate indestructable perspective of me? Also it's hard to describe "me" without using "me" (if I am not universal). Local consciousness makes much more sense when I think about other selves, but when I insert me into the equation... Of course one problem is that a thought experiment requires a conscious observer and I'm trying to get "outside" of myself.