One consciousness

@Stormalv,

I can really explain this in two ways.

First is the notion of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. What is at first perceived as contradictory may at a higher level of understanding actually become part of a synthesis. It is like the way we see wave-particle dualism now. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM showed us an adequate level of understanding about that. At this very moment physicists are working at matching relativity theory with quantum mechanics in order to eliminate unwanted singularities. I have no doubt they will succeed.

The second way I can explain it is by referring to the Greek parable about the men in the cave and the elephant. Each of the men only sees a part of the elephant. You can see its legs, its tail, its trunk or its tusks. But from up close you can't see the whole elephant.
Each man will describe a different creature. Yet they all belong to the same elephant. Only stepping back a few feet(and adjusting the lighting conditions) will show the whole beast.

@sarek,

sarek wrote:

I can really explain this in two ways.

First is the notion of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. What is at first perceived as contradictory may at a higher level of understanding actually become part of a synthesis. It is like the way we see wave-particle dualism now. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM showed us an adequate level of understanding about that. At this very moment physicists are working at matching relativity theory with quantum mechanics in order to eliminate unwanted singularities. I have no doubt they will succeed.

The second way I can explain it is by referring to the Greek parable about the men in the cave and the elephant. Each of the men only sees a part of the elephant. You can see its legs, its tail, its trunk or its tusks. But from up close you can't see the whole elephant.
Each man will describe a different creature. Yet they all belong to the same elephant. Only stepping back a few feet(and adjusting the lighting conditions) will show the whole beast.

I am a Physicist, and there is no problem between relativity and QM. Both are used together all the time. QM needs Relativity as a basis.
The problem was never in the physics but in the philosophy.

@sarek,

sarek wrote:

I can really explain this in two ways.

First is the notion of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. What is at first perceived as contradictory may at a higher level of understanding actually become part of a synthesis. It is like the way we see wave-particle dualism now. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM showed us an adequate level of understanding about that. At this very moment physicists are working at matching relativity theory with quantum mechanics in order to eliminate unwanted singularities. I have no doubt they will succeed.

The second way I can explain it is by referring to the Greek parable about the men in the cave and the elephant. Each of the men only sees a part of the elephant. You can see its legs, its tail, its trunk or its tusks. But from up close you can't see the whole elephant.
Each man will describe a different creature. Yet they all belong to the same elephant. Only stepping back a few feet(and adjusting the lighting conditions) will show the whole beast.

Yeah, that explaination is just as, if not more, adequate. I'm going ot use this explanation in future when I inevitably end up having to point out why certain arguments have arised (eg. only hearing part of a conversation). On a bit more of an exploration into this idea, maybe every individual consciousness (at least, every conscious we assume to be individual) sees the universe differently, like the whole, 'is my blue the same as your blue?' thing. This explanation is a good vehicle to explore ways in which peoples' minds are shaped, for example, what part of the universe is it that they have seen or experienced which has shaped their morals or personality?

@bk-thinkaboom,

I, too, have considered the posibility of a 'single' consciousness, although perhaps in a slightly different context. Of course, the following is just one of my 'wacky theories' that I warned everybody about in my introduction thread.

My idea, although I have very little evidence to back up this claim, is that everybody's minds are connected in the form of a single mind, ie the consciousness. Basically, this would mean that the essence of every person is just a fragment of a greater power, which is, perhaps, God.
Indeed, the idea I get in my head is a giant pulsing brain, which probably isn't a very accurate representation. Although, if you think of this giant brain as being made up of lots of other brain - those of the human race - it begins to make a bit more sense.
The evidence? Or rather, lack of? Well, apparent 'psychic connections', which in some cases are all too real. I don't mean in terms of people who call themselves 'Psychics' or 'Mystics', but rather in terms of people having similar reactions to a certain situation; doing similar things in a certain scenario; envisaging the same thing in their minds in response to a word.

Science tells us that our minds, our very soul, is a series of chemical reactions and different types of signals moving around our bodies. When we die, these stop, so our mind is erased from the timeline. All of a sudden, it doesn't exist. But how can we simply agree with that theory? A mind is created from nothing and then returns to nothing? As science also states that you can't make something from nothing, or nothing from something, then that means that our minds aren't physical. Does that make them theoretical? If something isn't there for us to see or feel, how do we know that anything is there at all?

bk-thinkaboom wrote:

What I am attempting to say is that, although I welcome these types of 'consciousness' theories and ideas, many of which regularly come from a good friend of mine during boring school lessons or inactive lunchtimes, I cannot bring myself to fully endorse them as progressive ideas that can be built upon, because I feel that there is simply not enough real evidence to ground them within the physical world that we perceive. Therefore, I become annoyed when such ideas get in the way of scientific research that bases its ideas upon real evidence, and not the evidence which exists in the minds of a worldwide minority and aren't based upon the facts of nature.

Guilty as charged.

bk-thinkaboom wrote:

Like I have said, for the time being, if we intend to progress, I think we should draw a line under what is real and true as things that a majority of people can sense as a physical existence.

This is most likely in response to my realisation that, in truth, we don't know anything. Nothing can be proved. Therefore, everyone has the choice as to what to believe and what not to believe, no matter how unlikely that may be.
What does that have to do with what I was previously saying? Well, for the sake of this argument, we shall assume that there are at least three dimensions. I wholly agree that we need to make assumptions that some things are 'fact'. Whereas the existence of further dimension, except from perhaps time, is highly controversial.
What if this great, combined mind, as perhaps a physical entity, is set in a different dimension? People often don't believe that there are more dimensions as it is a rather difficult concept to grasp, even for me. However, in theory, there could be almost infinite dimensions.
Maybe, in this alternate dimensions, the mind is physical, although seperate from the rest of our bodies. Perhaps our thoughts and feeling, which we tend to 'feel' inside ourselves are simply transmissions.

Anyway, enough of me rambling on. Even my own brain is hurting now.
Please feel free to comment and criticise on what I have said. I'm interested in what other people think about this branch of the 'single consciousness tree'.

@Joshy phil,

Nice thoughts! Difficult to grasp, yeah... But I'll make it sink in, and maybe it'll inspire me sometime when I'm smart enough to understand it Smile

@Joshy phil,

Joshy wrote:

This is most likely in response to my realisation that, in truth, we don't know anything. Nothing can be proved. Therefore, everyone has the choice as to what to believe and what not to believe, no matter how unlikely that may be.
What does that have to do with what I was previously saying? Well, for the sake of this argument, we shall assume that there are at least three dimensions. I wholly agree that we need to make assumptions that some things are 'fact'. Whereas the existence of further dimension, except from perhaps time, is highly controversial.
What if this great, combined mind, as perhaps a physical entity, is set in a different dimension? People often don't believe that there are more dimensions as it is a rather difficult concept to grasp, even for me. However, in theory, there could be almost infinite dimensions.
Maybe, in this alternate dimensions, the mind is physical, although seperate from the rest of our bodies. Perhaps our thoughts and feeling, which we tend to 'feel' inside ourselves are simply transmissions.

By the way everyone, this is the guy I was referring to in previous posts, who I am proud to have introduced to the forum :Glasses:. I can somewhat grasp this idea, just as I have said in discussions at school. Joshy and I both attended a school strip to a nearby shcool where we saw a lecture/performance by Dr Mark Lewney ( Doctor Mark Lewney - the Rock Doctor! ), and I really like the way in which he described us as 'three dimensional beings', much in the same way as this interesting video does: Imagining the Tenth Dimension by tenthdimension -- Revver Online Video Sharing Network .

Joshy's idea of transmissions from/through higher dimensions is a theory that works well with the strange phenomena sometimes seen between twins, or even just two human beings. For example, on a TV program I once saw, they hooked up some kind of detectors to triplets who were isolated in different rooms with no idea of what was being tested. One of the twins received a small electric shock, and the others simply sat hooked up to the machines. Either the program didn't go into this or I was too tired to listen, but the detectors found that at the same time that one of the triplets was shocked, the same reaction found in his mind also happened in the other triplets' brains, although the two that weren't shocked claimed they felt nothing. Strange eh? Sorry for the lack of evidence and detail here, I understand that I may sound immensely hypocritical.

However, when I stressed the urgency for the assumption of fact in certain areas, I did mean during proffesional scientific research or experimentation, or during important theological physics discussions. As for these types of theories, I still think they have a deserved spot in the human consciousness, because questioning ourselves usually helps towards eliminating ignorance, and ignorance fuels illogical minds. I'm sure Joshy would agree with this final statement; it is worrying to watch fellow pupils displaying signs of blatant immorality and questionable ethics, and even more worrying to hear a fellow pupil ask, 'What does 9/11 mean?'

I was a witness to this question in a media lesson, and I still haven't quite recovered. The power of ignorance still staggers me.

@bk-thinkaboom,

bk-thinkaboom wrote:

Joshy's idea of transmissions from/through higher dimensions is a theory that works well with the strange phenomena sometimes seen between twins, or even just two human beings. For example, on a TV program I once saw, they hooked up some kind of detectors to triplets who were isolated in different rooms with no idea of what was being tested. One of the twins received a small electric shock, and the others simply sat hooked up to the machines. Either the program didn't go into this or I was too tired to listen, but the detectors found that at the same time that one of the triplets was shocked, the same reaction found in his mind also happened in the other triplets' brains, although the two that weren't shocked claimed they felt nothing. Strange eh? Sorry for the lack of evidence and detail here, I understand that I may sound immensely hypocritical.

The main problem I find with this apparent 'connection' to the theory is that fact that we are simply putting together two pieces that seem to fit.
This is, in fact, the biggest problem I find with science. Often, somebody will study something, be it a matter of nature, or ethnics, and then come up with a theory that appears to fit it. Of course, this thoery is widely believed, or at least considered, because there seems to be evidence for it, whereas this 'evidence' is the information that the theory was made from in the first place.
Although, a theory can't be made without something for it to be based upon in the first place. If this were the case, then it would be a random, and rather pointless, thought, which could be related to nothing useful at all. Although, as already touched on, humans generally can only comtemplate on either what is there, or what could very well be there, so theories that are completely 'on the wrong track' would be unlikely.

So, for a good scientific theory you need a subject, an idea, and then a series of finds that produce evidence for the theory afterwards, as a way of backing it up. How this relates to the matter of twins and apparent psychic connections is that, without the idea that there is this connection already set in our minds, would we even notice any sort of apparent relation to the responses in the twins' minds? In other words, is my thoery liable because there is the human mystery of psychic connections demonstrated by twins, or is the evidence for the psychic connection not really there, meaning that my theory has so little evidence that it isn't even worth considering?

I know I'm getting a bit off-topic here, but it's something that needs to be considered.

@sarek,

sarek wrote:

The second way I can explain it is by referring to the Greek parable about the men in the cave and the elephant. Each of the men only sees a part of the elephant. You can see its legs, its tail, its trunk or its tusks. But from up close you can't see the whole elephant.
Each man will describe a different creature. Yet they all belong to the same elephant. Only stepping back a few feet(and adjusting the lighting conditions) will show the whole beast.

OUtstanding analogy. :a-ok:

William

@Stormalv,

Stormalv wrote:

I suddenly came up with a theory that makes very much sense to me, some months ago, all of a sudden when I least expected it. I think that there is only one consciousness in the whole of existence, let's call it God. In God's purest form, God is infinitely creative and intelligent, and also, strangely enough both sadistic and masochistic. Let me explain.

God created this universe (and perhaps other universes, I'll get to that), creating matter, and the universal laws. I think that everything is pre-determined, I think the apparently random patterns as explained by quantum theory actually do have a pattern, it's just too absurd for humans to understand at this point. Since God is infinitely intelligent in the purest form, God would know how it would react in every given situation in every given time and space, as any creature or spirit, and God inherits all the roles himself in the play he has created. This means that both destiny and free will are right.

It also means that since we are the Creator, everything we imagine is real. Perhaps there are an infinite number of dimensions, and the energy can work in different patterns, they may have other universal laws, that means that the worlds of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Zelda and so on are real, in other dimensions. Yes, and the magic you see in those things might exist as well, because perhaps people's consciousness are more in tune with the matter, because of other universal laws and conscious development. Since, according to quantum mechanics, everything is possible, your desk can turn into a donkey, and mind works over matter, as demonstrated by telekinetics, summoning a fireball at will or teleporting yourself to another plane of existence should theoretically be possible.

One thing I don't understand though, is why God would expose himself to horrible torment? Of course, without suffering, the good things wouldn't be as joyful, but if you think of the torture inflicted on people in the middle ages by the church, it's pretty damn extreme.... Hmmm.. Any thoughts, anyone thinking the same as me?

Sounds akin to what I understand to be some basic elements of Krishna Consciouness.

@Stormalv,

This thinking is along the lines of a new age philosophy known as Theosophy, which is really nothing more than a mixture of Eastern Hindu and Tibetan traditions.

Do you also believe in the theories of reincarnation and the evolution of the human spirit?

I discuss much of this sort of thing in my blog site at

Natural Logic

still a work in progress by the way!

@Pathfinder,

Yes I do

I actually realized a pretty logical system in that a while ago. ^^

@Stormalv,

Hi

We come from the Great infinite eternal Ocean, evaporate like great clouds of unique awareness always returning like rivers of memory into that Ocean of consolidated thought

We are like separate atoms of awarenesses within the Great Ocean of cosmic Oness

We have always existed and will always continue to exist, just changing the vibrationally or energetic state as we evolve

During our ceaseless journeys of life it is necessary that we cross both the planes of forgetfulness and bath in the pure water of the great rivers of remembrances

@Stormalv,

This whole uiverse is held together by energy. Humans are also forms of energy and because we are all different based on both history and current life experiences - this gives rise to our mostly separate consciousnesses. I think GOD is a bit bored. He has mostly been watching us humans do the same old miserable things over and over again. Why is he sadistic as you call it? Because humans have little respect for the things he did actually create, the work he did. Life - energy and nature. He did not create churches - we did - and we damaged his creations doing so - of course he is mad!! If he wants us to worship him - he would want us to do it by worshipping and protecting the things he created This planet - the waters and trees that feed our lives and all other animals that were also created to sustain and feed life as it should be as well as ALL HUMAN Life. Hurt any one living thing on this planet and you are hurting someone's creation - or course there will be pain and anger. Everything effects everything. This planet is a living body - we damage this planet - of course it will fight back in one way or another. Just as our own body fights back to restore itself if it is damaged.

@Rose phil,

before i say this, just take it easy on me. this is just correlating to your philosophy...

what if taping into the limitless is infact...SMOKING CANNIBAS???

we all biologically have canabanoid receptors?
its limitless, we cant seem to destroy it.
its been here before we have.
we like it. its not toxic to us (the chemical, not the smoke)
it doesnt discriminate.
no relgion i know is oppsoed to it, its just the politicians that dont like it.
out of every chemical i know, it stays in your body for the longest period of time.
it alters our conscience!

i really try to imagine a place where more then 80% of people smoke pot and i dont see it being chaotic. I think its a tool meant to connect people. i think we could tap into unity with it. you can say its a drug. but, everything is a drug. we physically are a chemical reaction. there was an author Terrance mckenna i believe that said magic mushrooms actually helped in the evolution of human consciousness and created abstract thinking. look it up. plants are the oldest thing here besides us and the dinosaurs, why wouldent we be made to evole along side them, i mean, we utilize them everyday for just about EVERYTHING from our furniture stomachs, tools, prodcuts. why not our minds!?!?

@Stormalv,

Stormalv;23174 wrote:

I suddenly came up with a theory that makes very much sense to me, some months ago, all of a sudden when I least expected it. I think that there is only one consciousness in the whole of existence, let's call it God. In God's purest form, God is infinitely creative and intelligent, and also, strangely enough both sadistic and masochistic. Let me explain.

God created this universe (and perhaps other universes, I'll get to that), creating matter, and the universal laws. I think that everything is pre-determined, I think the apparently random patterns as explained by quantum theory actually do have a pattern, it's just too absurd for humans to understand at this point. Since God is infinitely intelligent in the purest form, God would know how it would react in every given situation in every given time and space, as any creature or spirit, and God inherits all the roles himself in the play he has created. This means that both destiny and free will are right.

It also means that since we are the Creator, everything we imagine is real. Perhaps there are an infinite number of dimensions, and the energy can work in different patterns, they may have other universal laws, that means that the worlds of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Zelda and so on are real, in other dimensions. Yes, and the magic you see in those things might exist as well, because perhaps people's consciousness are more in tune with the matter, because of other universal laws and conscious development. Since, according to quantum mechanics, everything is possible, your desk can turn into a donkey, and mind works over matter, as demonstrated by telekinetics, summoning a fireball at will or teleporting yourself to another plane of existence should theoretically be possible.

One thing I don't understand though, is why God would expose himself to horrible torment? Of course, without suffering, the good things wouldn't be as joyful, but if you think of the torture inflicted on people in the middle ages by the church, it's pretty damn extreme.... Hmmm.. Any thoughts, anyone thinking the same as me?

Uhmmmmmmmmmmm. Thing is, in the bible there's stated that there are indeed other gods, just that God is the true god, and you must not have any other gods before him.

Therefore I can't agree with any of your reasoning.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;171869 wrote:

Uhmmmmmmmmmmm. Thing is, in the bible there's stated that there are indeed other gods, just that God is the true god, and you must not have any other gods before him.

Therefore I can't agree with any of your reasoning.

shes not referring god as a deity or an external things, she is referring to god as mine, yours and hers consciousness. god is just a label; this conscience being interconnected. Like, we are the same person as far as awareness goes, you and i just may be representatives of 1 single person (conscience). I believe this is true, because everyone has the ability to love.

@imfreakinman,

imfreakinman;171908 wrote:

shes not referring god as a deity or an external things, she is referring to god as mine, yours and hers consciousness. god is just a label; this conscience being interconnected. Like, we are the same person as far as awareness goes, you and i just may be representatives of 1 single person (conscience). I believe this is true, because everyone has the ability to love.

Maybe "she" should repharse the initial post to be more clear, instead of misleading.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 07:39 AM ----------

Stormalv;23174 wrote:

It also means that since we are the Creator, everything we imagine is real. Perhaps there are an infinite number of dimensions, and the energy can work in different patterns, they may have other universal laws, that means that the worlds of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Zelda and so on are real, in other dimensions. Yes, and the magic you see in those things might exist as well, because perhaps people's consciousness are more in tune with the matter, because of other universal laws and conscious development. Since, according to quantum mechanics, everything is possible, your desk can turn into a donkey, and mind works over matter, as demonstrated by telekinetics, summoning a fireball at will or teleporting yourself to another plane of existence should theoretically be possible.

So basicly what you are saying that skitzophrenic people are not suffering from any mental distortion? ..usually it's considerd extremely skitzophrenic to even think that movies can be real, be it in another dimention, and such person are good case studies for psycologists and psycriatrics.

Stormalv;23174 wrote:

One thing I don't understand though, is why God would expose himself to horrible torment? Of course, without suffering, the good things wouldn't be as joyful, but if you think of the torture inflicted on people in the middle ages by the church, it's pretty damn extreme.... Hmmm.. Any thoughts, anyone thinking the same as me?

Because we ate of the apple and gained wisdom and knowledge, thereby being able to act on our own, after that God tryed to erradicate us with the Flood, but regretted his doing ..after that he hasn't interferred.

@HexHammer,

Of most significance here is that something imagined comes from inside our mind. It is created in our mind.
Something that exists in true reality exists outside our minds it is incoming information. It is perceived in our minds - not created in our minds.
It therefore becomes of critical importance to be able to prove what is real and what is imaginary - for the sake of mental health. We all have different levels of perception. Because one can see something another does not does not make it imaginary or unreal. Physical evidence is needed - from at least three external sources.

God suffers only by what we do. He does not instruct us on what to do. He is connected to us all. He feels everything we feel and do. Humans hurting each other is a deliberate human act which God feels this through his suffering. A lot of positive energy goes into creating. Creating is the putting together. To put together is like adding - it is a gain, positive. Positive in emotional, creative and intellectual energy. Of course it hurts to see any form of creation intentionally inflicting suffering upon another. It is sad and hurtful not just in the act itself and the pain received by one from another - but in the awareness that any living creature would want to hurt another for any malicious gain. Suffering in this sense is also a form of learning for this God we are talking about. He learns by feeling - good or bad. He wants to know us.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;171971 wrote:

So basicly what you are saying that skitzophrenic people are not suffering from any mental distortion? ..usually it's considerd extremely skitzophrenic to even think that movies can be real, be it in another dimention, and such person are good case studies for psycologists and psycriatrics.

I dont think it would be considered schizo to believe that it could be in the sense that someone made up the idea, and someone else just ran with it. the line of of insanity is blinded by personal opinion. if i were to walk outside with a dress on, being the sane man that i am, would that make me crazy? no. someone that is insane in my eyes ois:

1)Physicaly hostile
2)cannot meet the daily demands to take care of themselves to function in everyday life.

so its not so much people are crazy. people are just different. you just see it as crazy because your not them; vice versa.

HexHammer;171971 wrote:

Because we ate of the apple and gained wisdom and knowledge, thereby being able to act on our own, after that God tryed to erradicate us with the Flood, but regretted his doing ..after that he hasn't interferred.

now this is whats funny to me. why is it schizo for someone to believe in a movie, buts its not schizo for someone to believe in a book that sounds almost just as or more then crazy. I mean, if the bible didnt exsist back then, and it came into exsistence today and it was issued by the government, would you believe in it then?

@imfreakinman,

imfreakinman;172304 wrote:

I dont think it would be considered schizo to believe that it could be in the sense that someone made up the idea, and someone else just ran with it. the line of of insanity is blinded by personal opinion. if i were to walk outside with a dress on, being the sane man that i am, would that make me crazy? no. someone that is insane in my eyes ois:

1)Physicaly hostile
2)cannot meet the daily demands to take care of themselves to function in everyday life.

so its not so much people are crazy. people are just different. you just see it as crazy because your not them; vice versa.

It's a matter of circumstances. If I at home sitting in undies belching, sniffing armpits, it's considerd "normal", if I went to a serious buisness meeting with same attitude and "dressing", to sign a million dollar contract, then I would be considerd insane.
..so it's all a matter of circumstances.

imfreakinman;172304 wrote:

now this is whats funny to me. why is it schizo for someone to believe in a movie, buts its not schizo for someone to believe in a book that sounds almost just as or more then crazy. I mean, if the bible didnt exsist back then, and it came into exsistence today and it was issued by the government, would you believe in it then?

The book is mass hysteria, and I was talking her the OP's values, on terms and values that OP would understand.

Philosophy Forum

One consciousness

Quick Links

My Account

able2know