# Consciousness matrix

#### phoenixthoth

this is as provable that there is a matrix as depicted in the movie.

i was trying to visualize how we might actually all might be a part of the same consciousness. i don't know if this is what some call the christ-consciousness grid. suppose that hawkins is right and consciousness can somehow be related to numbers. human consciousness can arbitrarily be translated into a number from 0 to 1000. hawkins says there is a maximum human consciousness and it's 1000. examples of people over 995: buddha, christ, hawkins. if you are in a state of universal unconditional love (agape), that's around 540. enlightenment starts at 600. the reported average consciousness level is 207. 600 appears to be 4 times 200, but since this scale is logarithmic (or should i say exponential?), it's actually much more than 4 times as much. anyways, i was thinking about how we might be all apart of the same consciousness grid (one might call the entire grid God if they feel like it--they might also call it the easter bunny if they want). imagine an isotherm map. overlaid on a map there are lines of constant tempuratures. this is like what happens when you picture ocean depth on a 2D map. you can draw circles of constant depth. within the rings, the depth increases. if there are many curves close together, that means the change in depth is rapid. if the curves are spread out, the change is gradual. here's my idea. roughly speaking, the ocean is like an awareness barrier. from an island, you can't see ocean depths. in fact, if you look out you might see other islands. in fact, those islands are all connected in a way that can't be perceived because of the ocean. the ocean corresponds to consciousness 0. anything below that we can't perceive as being conscious. a rock might have consciousness level -10,000. the higher consciousness level would correspond to either taller islands or islands of more area (doesn't really matter). on a map, one could draw the curves of constant consciousness level. particularly important curves are c=0 and c=1000, the is the awareness barrier (below which, things aren't *perceived* as conscious) and the maximum human level. if a c=0 curve is a circle on a map and there are curves with c>0 inside the circle, that means that circle encloses a conscious person. if you go here: http://www.ma.iup.edu/projects/CalcDEMma/vecdcalc/vecdiffcalc21.html [Broken] , you'll see what i mean. the first picture is a bunch of level curves. randomly pick one of them and pretend it means c=0 and within that circle is a detectable consciousness. you can also pretend that there is another white area maybe three inches to the right which would represent another human standing three feet away. the main thing is that the whole consciousness field is connected and continuous.

Last edited by a moderator:
Related General Discussion News on Phys.org

#### hamlet69

i see what you mean

i can see what your driving at but looking at the matrix could we see that code , or is there a code as in the film , to truly see everything we might have to die and be reborn , but since a baby knows the wounders of the entire story of god (everything) but could not possible tell us because we humans have to put the tasks of eveyday life on that child so the knowledge of everything is lost , we close our eyes to the code

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Your body and your brain are the instantiation of a code, your genetic code. It's in every cell of your body, detemining how that cell lives, develops, and dies. Can you read it?

#### Zantra

I'm sure there is a maximum human consciousness. I'm also sure that we haven't reached it yet. Perhaps even people like hawkings and einstien do not represent full usage. I think it all basically relates to the speed of the synaptic wiring. As far as representing it numerically, it's simply a matter of taking a sample and transposing it to a numeric system, as is done now with IQ(although I'm not a big support of IQ tests, as they do not measure all aspects of intelligence)

#### UltraPi1

I suppose if you accept that the most basic entities are conscious. We can assume that we share it.

#### phoenixthoth

http://twm.co.nz/consciousness.html [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

#### Max Emessay

Pyramid of Universe:Memory-Space-Time-Mass

http://www.memorigin.com

universe memory-soul-vision-perception-consciousness = MEMORY

HYPHOTHESES :

MEMORY IS IMAGINARY VECTOR OF MASS-SPACE-TIME EVOLUTION

#### Zero

Zantra said:
I'm sure there is a maximum human consciousness. I'm also sure that we haven't reached it yet. Perhaps even people like hawkings and einstien do not represent full usage. I think it all basically relates to the speed of the synaptic wiring. As far as representing it numerically, it's simply a matter of taking a sample and transposing it to a numeric system, as is done now with IQ(although I'm not a big support of IQ tests, as they do not measure all aspects of intelligence)
I'd say you are wrong, because "human" isnt a static definition. Evolution is still going on, after all, and the definition of human is changing, slowly but relentlessly.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Plus there are actual brain variances between individuals - Einstein's brain, for example had one of its regions quite enlarged.

#### hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
What does Hawkins base his ideas on? Is there any conception of units to attach to those numbers?

Your idea about islands of consciousness is interesting, but I don't think that's how it works. We do not see eachothers' consciousnesses directly, we only infer them. From my standpoint a human looks more conscious than a rock, but then again, from my standpoint a 'normal' person describing his surroundings looks more conscious than a meditating buddhist monk.

#### Dissident Dan

hypnagogue said:
What does Hawkins base his ideas on? Is there any conception of units to attach to those numbers?

Your idea about islands of consciousness is interesting, but I don't think that's how it works. We do not see eachothers' consciousnesses directly, we only infer them. From my standpoint a human looks more conscious than a rock, but then again, from my standpoint a 'normal' person describing his surroundings looks more conscious than a meditating buddhist monk.
Wow, I never took Hawkings to be such a crackpot as to assign numbers to consciousness. Is this true, or is someone making it up?

#### Cypher

I've always understood a Conscious Matrix as either a valid understanding of the system we believe we are in (Universal Structures). Or as a self-delluded method of trying to understand your own abilities and inabilities so that you can over come obstacles.

I also view it in other ways, but I dont take those views seriously enough.

The Movie itself The Matrix, does represent to the masses a way our 'Simulated" world can be. And without a doubt it can be true. Imagine SuperStrings as the upholding value of this Simulation. They are controlled or not by the physical or non physical parameters that exist.

Although I myself am unsure if I want to believe we infact live in some form of a computer generated simulation. But we can infact call our own reality a form of simulation.

If the Matrix taught me anything it was to not allow yourself to be delluded from a truth. How you can catch a truth to understand your own existence, is unknown (or is it?). I believe it is healthy though to think we infact do generally live in a Universal simulation of Physical interactions.

#### hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dissident Dan said:
Wow, I never took Hawkings to be such a crackpot as to assign numbers to consciousness. Is this true, or is someone making it up?
It's not the physicist Stephen Hawkings. A google search shows that phoenixthoth refers to R. David Hawkins.

http://www.cocreationsunlimited.com/sp_frames/frames_conscious.html

Mistaken identity aside, all indications do point to 'crackpot.' I don't like to throw a deragotory term like that around lightly but Hawkins' ideas are highly questionable. His methodology for measuring these 'consciousness' magnitudes are 'kinesiology' (testing the tenseness of muscles) and dowsing. To say the least, I am not terribly impressed. This school of thought is rife with scientific and philosophical missteps.

#### Canute

I agree a numbering system is silly. Even if there was one I'd suggest that David Hawkings is using the numbers back to front. Many argue that the more one is a concentration of contour lines then the less one is conscious. That is, the more one is a 'normal' human being (an island of consciousness) the lower the number one should be given. Thus Hawings and Einstein do not rate a high number simply because they were clever. Cleverness has no bearing on consciousness as far as we know.

What Hawkings was talking about was presumably the ancient idea of 'universal mind'. On this I'd go with Scroedinger -

"‘Surely the singularity of consciousness is more intuitively convincing than the western idea of a plurality of conscousnesses, which leads inevitably to the invention of souls – as many as there are bodies – and to unhepful questions such as whether the soul survives death and whether animals (and bacteria) have souls? (Erwin Schroedinger - ‘Science’s inner frontier’ Times Higher Education Supplement)

Someone above suggested babies have knowledge of the one mind that they forget. This is pretty much what Plato thought.

“Plato described knowledge of the divine as being implicit in every soul, but forgotten. The soul, immortal, experiences direct and intimate contact with the eternal realities prior to birth, but the postnatal human condition of bodily imprisonment causes the soul to forget the true state of affairs. The goal of philosophy is to free the soul from this deluded condition in which it is deceived by the finite imitation and veiling of the eternal. The philosopher’s task is to ‘recollect’ the transcendent ideas, to recover a direct knowledge of the true causes and sources of all things.”
Richard Tarnas “The Passion of the Western Mind” Pimlico, London 1996

All these ideas are as ancient as mankind (and still might turn out to be true).

#### phoenixthoth

hawkins, not hawking or hawkings. as in david hawkins not stephen hawking. assigning numbers to consiousness is about as valid/useful as assigning addresses to houses. you may want to read his (and by that i mean david hawkins not stephen hawking) phd thesis which is about this stuff before knocking it; i personally have not read it (can't seem to find it on the web) and therefore i have no opinion on calibrating the levels of consciousness; not anymore anyway. it may be a useful guide to the spiritual aspirant at the beginning of their journey.

#### Max Emessay

First Hyphothese :
Universe Consciousness is Imaginary Vector of Space-Time-Mass Evolution

How could you imagine space expansion of 10 exp(+100) in metric scale ???

How could you imagine space singularity of 10 exp(-100) in metric scale ???

Life Conception = 3.7 BYA (fabric of pairs of self-replicating molecules)
Universe Conception = 13.7 BYA ( fabric of pairs of space time )

Second Hyphothese :
LIFE CONCEPTION would be INFINITE "warp through" FINITE UNIVERSE CONCEPTION.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving