Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How consciousness propagates through time

  1. Nov 7, 2005 #1
    I have worked on this and would like some feedback. Sorry if the thread does not match the quality standards of this forum. This is my second attempt, and if it don't work just drop a message that I'll delete it ASAP or move it to a proper forum. Thank you for anyone that will take the time for reading.
    I would like to state one thing before you start reading. Jenniffer Trusted shows in her book, "Physics and Metaphysics - Theories of Space and Time" how scientific inquiry has never been totally separated from misticism, and how scientific discoveries always carried, even nowadays, weak assumptions of the universe. This is my attempt to give our weak assumptions (Karma, God's will, suffering) some mathematical modeling. It's on its early stages but I think the idea is valid.

    In the book ´Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants in Human Behavior,´ PhD David Hawkins reveals some fascinating properties of human consciousness. In it, he created and calibrated an enormously useful map of human consciousness, one which should rightfully be called, ´The Hawkins Scale of Consciousness.´

    He also set up a system of calibrating levels of human consciousness. Assigning the numbers one to infinity as the possible range of consciousness, he soon found that he had to use the logarithm of numbers, rather than just plain numbers. This is because the power of consciousness at higher levels is vast compared to its power at lower levels. His tests were made with kinesiology, the subjects´ conscious minds are bypassed in order to receive clear answers directly from their subconscious minds. The tests are mechanically very simple. Subjects hold out an arm horizontally to the side while people designated as testers tell the subjects to resist their efforts to push one arm down with each question. If the arm remains strong and stays horizontal, then the answer from the subconscious mind of the subject is affirmative. If the arm yields downwards due to weakness then the answer is negative.

    Interesting, the conclusion that consciousness is logarithmic and not a linear progression makes sense for me. So consciousness grows faster than a linear progression. The more consciousness you have, the more tendency you have to reach higher levels. It´s some kind of attraction that only gets stronger. The logarithmic 2D graphic, as we know it on the cartesian plane, also starts to become a straight line after the first boom, if we stretch x-axis to a great amount. Why´s that? This is how infinity operates: it doesn´t grow forever (in a certain way), it grows asymptotically. But the idea of measuring consciousness, and the idea of consciousness "growth" is illusory because consciousness has already boomed and it´s already One to its full extents. It only has working parts for viewers with less than an infinite awareness of the whole. We have lots of empirical proofs for that in the so-called holistic belief system. Theoretical physics is beginning to say, that everything in the universe is connected.

    But we can measure duality over time. Duality represents the levels of perceptions, in a system, that don´t have enough awareness to perceive different aspects as One. Actually, duality over time has just one rule: it tends to unify itself. Singularity is what we get after sufficient evolution time. On the physical world, as a proof, we have the gravitational effects to reinforce this notion. All of this yields the following thoughts:

    A 3D spiral mapped to the cartesian plane (2D) would look like this:


    Image is not mine. Property of Charles Douglas Wehner. Copyright, 2005.

    The spiral is the graphic of duality-consciousness over time. It's stretched and forms an oscillating wave pattern. As we know, consciousness can be anything because it's the imminence of being. The graphic could represent "energy" too. Once balance is found, more and more, the spiral stops oscillating around the x-axis and merges with it. But scientists found out that once the oscillating wave pattern seems to slow down with its peak-valley alternation then it starts rising again. Every living system operates like this. The reason for that is because duality-consciousness (tendency of being) also oscillates. Duality-consciousness is vibration. Looking at the spiral from a top perspective, and visualizing the evolution of the 2D graphic over time, you´ll see that first we have an imploding vortex, going to the center, and then an exploding vortex.

    For unity-consciousness we doesn't need to measure anything. But with duality-consciousness, it´s reasonable that it changes over time, because it vibrates. It has different states that can only be differentiated through time. The peaks and valleys of the waves give birth to two mirrowed aspects (positive and negative energy). Energy yields everything that is physical. And everything that is physical pretty much defines our 3D newtonian world.

    Also, what is duality-consciousness when compared to unity-consciousness?

    Duality = Tendency of being = Imagination of consciousness

    Unity = Being = Infinite consciousness

    So the journey of duality consciousness to become unity consciousness requires that it contracts and expands over time (universe). We have agitation on the alternation of energy (expansion) and steadying on the alternation of energy (contraction). During the process of contraction and expansion, we get alternate peaks/valleys of energy. So duality-consciousness, the consciousness alter ego that wants to go home, actually gives birth to energy alternation during its journey. This is how an expanding-contracting 3D universe gives birth to the 2D measurement we can experience with "time". Because time seems linear for us (2D), and it's nothing more than our perception subdued to alternations of energy.

    Perceiving duality is a good thing. Feedback is the concept of feeding a system with energy. If you feed a system with negative energy (you have to know the entry parameters), the negative energy will counterbalance the positive energy, forming huge oscillations. Karmic balancing will rush to get things right and to counterbalance the huge oscillations with lower ones (remeber that duality-consciousness is vibration). Karma is exactly this self-imposed balance of the universe. Once we have lower oscillations, the former system does not exist anymore. It reached his maximum level of entropy (huge oscillations) and then desintegrated back to the environment. We only had "a system" separated from the environment because it could keep its oscillating patterns stable. If we feedback negative energy we force it to oscillate more and more, until it explodes. From outside, we have imploded the system. Not a bad thing though, because the debris get absorbed by other systems.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 9, 2005 #2

    If you could say this in english, like 5th grade level english, I'd give it a shot.

    I think you're talking about conciousness?

    We have the same conciousness as dogs, and plants. IMO. There's just more information processing going on in our brains. Poor humans. Nothing but garbage floating around in our heads.
  4. Nov 10, 2005 #3
    Thank you for even trying to give it a shot. Well, english is not my primary language. As you put it, it seems like the text is not understandable at all. But all I can see are english phrases that make perfect sense in an informal way. And I have spellchecked it. So I find your criticism too exaggerated and judgemental, although necessary.

    This text isn't supposed to be a paper. Only scattered ideas. Like the "single questions" threads I've been seeing here. If I'm wrong please give at least insight of what quality standard one has to reach before posting early philosophical ideas in american forums, so I won't be disappointed. I would be very grateful if this topic isn't deleted before that.
  5. Nov 11, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm in no position to judge, but I really like your ideas. Hope this isn't a stupid question, but I am a little confused about the difference you describe between the conscious and subconscious, or the levels of consciousness. Would you be willing to explain that more?
  6. Nov 11, 2005 #5
    Thank you for your interest. I can only see consciousness as one indivisible whole. If we ought to have different levels of consciousness, then it's only because we chose to be aware of some parts and not the whole. So consciousness is only one and is already infinite. Although, we may have different levels of awareness of it, each one being a slightly bigger conscious part of the whole.
    Subconscious is really the underlying programming of the original signals of our actions. Against the subconscious, the conscious only observes and reacts accordingly. Subconscious is the rest of unity-consciouness that we aren't aware of.
  7. Nov 12, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is the meaning of these numbers? It is certainly quite unclear that we can characterize states of consciousness by labeling them with simple numbers such that these numbers actually tell us something about these states of consciousness and their relationships to eachother. If conscious state A is assigned 1 and B is assigned 2, does that mean B is "greater than" A? If so, in what sense is it greater, and by what means do we determine this on sure footing?

    What is the "power of consciousness"? What is a high level of consciousness, and what is a low level?

    How do we know these kinesiology-based tests really tell us anything meaningful about consciousness?

    What in the world does it mean that consciousness is logarithmic? What would it mean if one claimed that consciousness is a "linear progression"?

    What does it mean for consciousness to grow? By what means and under what conditions does it grow, and how do we attain knowledge about this?

    What does it mean to have "more" consciousness? How do you quantify consciousness and how do you get "more" of it?

    How do you know consciousness has already "boomed"? If one acknowledges that consciousness has a strongly holistic nature rather than being a mere collection of parts, can one not still deny that this has anything to do with consciousness "growth" and "booming" and so on?

    What is this empirical proof? Creating a belief system does not amount to empirical proof that the claims of the belief system are true.

    What does this have to do with the "growth" of consciousness?

    Why is perceiving something in terms of unity rather than duality attained by having "more" awareness? Could it not be just a different kind of awareness that cannot be described and related to other kinds by a metric as simple as a single (undefined) quantity? Again, what does it mean to have "more" awareness? What is the import of this apparently special term "One" (capital O) as opposed to the regularly used word "one"?

    How have you come about this rule, and how do you justify it?

    It is exceedingly unclear what this "proof" is meant to convey. Even if we assume that gravitation is somehow in accord with this duality rule, it is still unclear how this single instance proves the general rule.

    What do the axes represent? How is it that consciousness can be depicted as a 2D projection of a spiral?

    It is news to me that we already know this. It is not even clear to me what this claim is supposed to mean, let alone whether it is true or not. It is certainly not obvious that consciousness is the imminence of being, whatever that might be. It is also something of an extraordinary claim that consciousness can be anything. Can consciousness be a coffee cup (as opposed to, say, having a phenomenal representation of a coffee cup)?

    "Energy" in what sense, exactly?

    I could go on like this for the remainder of the post, but I will refrain. The post is littered with claims whose meanings are exceedingly unclear and ambiguous and whose truth values are highly in doubt, without the benefit of any strong attempts at justification. This subject of discussion, as presented here, is not fit for any meaningful or productive philosophical discussion.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook