Is Consciousness the Key to Understanding Our Existence?

[Iacchus32]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness? Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

 

[Dezepar]

Can I interject? Can I ask you to explain how

the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness?

In terms of how it 'makes sense' exactly.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dezepar
Can I interject? Can I ask you to explain how In terms of how it 'makes sense' exactly.

Well if we weren't conscious what exactly would that entail? How would we even know that we were here? In fact consciousness is really all we have if you think about it ...

 

[Dezepar]

Well if we weren't conscious what exactly would that entail? How would we even know that we were here?

How can we answer this question if we seemingly have only experienced this particular type of 'consciousness '. There are no 'perceivable' other types of consciousness that I'm 'aware' of, to make comparisons to. I'm not disagreeing per say, and I posted here because I'm fascinated that science cannot completely remove 'consciousness ' from itself. But, since 'consciousness' is so under-explored, profound statements are difficult to make regarding it. I have a few theorys, (far from complete) on the possible origins of what we call awareness if you're interested in any further blatherings from me on it.

How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2?

This I can't agree that consciousness has anything to do with. It seems obvious to me that mathematics does not originate from humans or from consciousness. The fact that we 'agree' on it is purely incidental, coincidental, and inevitable.

we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

Perceivable, and in my opinion, worth studying.

As an after thought, you still haven't stated how it 'makes sense'.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dezepar
How can we answer this question if we seemingly have only experienced this particular type of 'consciousness '. There are no 'perceivable' other types of consciousness that I'm 'aware' of, to make comparisons to. I'm not disagreeing per say, and I posted here because I'm fascinated that science cannot completely remove 'consciousness ' from itself. But, since 'consciousness' is so under-explored, profound statements are difficult to make regarding it. I have a few theorys, (far from complete) on the possible origins of what we call awareness if you're interested in any further blatherings from me on it.

I guess I don't feel the need to take it much further than this as it also entails religious experience. Perhaps this is where you fail to realize that different types of awareness are achievable (i.e., through meditation), which makes the idea of a Universal Mind (of God) much more plausible.

This I can't agree that consciousness has anything to do with. It seems obvious to me that mathematics does not originate from humans or from consciousness. The fact that we 'agree' on it is purely incidental, coincidental, and inevitable.

Yes, but how is the Universe going to hold itself together without universal laws? (or truths). And by what means would these truths be accesible except by means of a universal way of acknowledging them -- i.e., through consciousness.

And neither am I saying human consciousness is universal per se', except that it would "stem" from it.

Perceivable, and in my opinion, worth studying.

Yes, because consciousness has common ground with both science and religion, and may be the means by which to bridge the gap between the two.

As an after thought, you still haven't stated how it 'makes sense'.

Well like I said, the fact that we can "perceive" anything at all.

 

[Dezepar]

Yes, but how is the Universe going to hold itself together without universal laws? (or truths). And by what means would these truths be accesible except by means of a universal way of acknowledging them -- i.e., through consciousness.

I still don't see what conciousness has to do with 'holding the universe together'. Respectfully, the universe has been holding its own with or without conciousness. Furthermore, accessing these 'truths' is neither here nor there, meaning, if there were NO conscious beings in the universe, it, (in theory) would have no difficulty maintaining itself.

Yes, because consciousness has common ground with both science and religion, and may be the means by which to bridge the gap between the two.

I agree with this.

Perhaps this is where you fail to realize that different types of awareness are achievable

I don't think I'm failing to realize this, only that to me the 'types' of conciousness you list are not really separate from the one we think we understand to some degree.
(To expound on your original post) One last thing I'd like to add though is, we always seem to maintain that conciousness is unique and a special quality, and that it should be held in special regard because we believe it to be very rare. Why does this have to be so. Without a full understanding of it, how do we know that conciousness is rare, it may be the most abundant thing in our universe. I think its possible, the day we stop believing that conciousness is somehow a gift and special, that we may make leaps and bounds in our study of the universe.

I guess I don't feel the need to take it much further than this as it also entails religious experience.

We are in the right forum for this train of thought.

 

[mikelus]

if we had no conciousness would there be truths? If there were no one around how could we have truths if there were no observer. the observer is our conscious right? Our conscious is it all because it all stemed from it. thoughts, ideas, beliefs, truths it all came from you your conscious.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by mikelus
if we had no conciousness would there be truths? If there were no one around how could we have truths if there were no observer. the observer is our conscious right? Our conscious is it all because it all stemed from it. thoughts, ideas, beliefs, truths it all came from you your conscious.

Yes, consciousness is the very "portal" of human experience. In fact the very portal of the whole "living experience."

 

[Dezepar]

Truth as defined by Websters:
Truth
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

if we had no conciousness would there be truths?

Is the formation of the universe an un-truth just because there were no conscious beings there to observe it? We observed it after the fact. Is something as fundamental as the birth of a star an un-truth if no one is there to 'see' it? We observe it after the fact as well.

thoughts, ideas, beliefs, truths it all came from you your conscious.

True except when it comes to truth. Thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are related to conciousness. Truth or fact is not. Can I offer an analogy? Assume we are working on an experiment where the results may show an undeniable truth. Assume the experiment was a series of events that could literally 'finish itself' once set into motion. Now assume we were both killed before the experiment was finished, and it finished without aid or observation by us. Let's say the experiment was a success and showed an undeniable truth. Does it exist? Does it matter that we now can't observe it? Did it even happen? And please don't take me as argumentative, I'm not.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dezepar
This I can't agree that consciousness has anything to do with. It seems obvious to me that mathematics does not originate from humans or from consciousness. The fact that we 'agree' on it is purely incidental, coincidental, and inevitable.

Except that the only way to interpret it is through consciousness ...

Well let's just say we had a radio station which we called the Great Mind, and through this Great Mind we broadcast our radio signals which, we happened to call the Great Truth.

And let's say everybody had their own radio receivers which, we happened to call our Conscious Mind, by which everyone can to tune into this Great Truth.

Does that sound more plausible?

 

[Dezepar]

Except that the only way to interpret it is through consciousnes ...

The only way WE can interpret it.

Well let's just say we had radio station which we called the Great Mind, and through this Great Mind we broadcast our radio signals which, we happened to call the Great Truth. And let's say everybody had their own radio receivers, which we called our "conscious mind", by which everyone can to tune into this Great Truth.
Does that sound more plausible?

Not bad. I'm getting close to seeing your point.

 

[Royce]

Hope that you don't mind my interjecting a few thoughts of my own on this subject.
Logic and math make extremely accurate models of and describe the real universe. We humans created math and logic in our minds and they are both completely abstract subjects that can be applied to the real material universe so successfully.
Is this simply luck or coincidence? Or is it possible that our minds or consciousness are a part of the universal consciousness that created and maintains the universe using the same universal rules of logic and math. Not only then would we be able to understand it but it would be inevitable that we would think in the same way so that we all can understand it and even come up with it on our own.
Our minds and consciousness are designed to, and do use the same processes as the universal mind/consciousness.
Think about it. Why does 1+1=2? Why is it universally true and can never be false no matter what language we may speak or think in, or what culture or era that we live in? What does a universal truth mean if it does not imply a universal mind or consciousness?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Hope that you don't mind my interjecting a few thoughts of my own on this subject.
Logic and math make extremely accurate models of and describe the real universe. We humans created math and logic in our minds and they are both completely abstract subjects that can be applied to the real material universe so successfully.
Is this simply luck or coincidence? Or is it possible that our minds or consciousness are a part of the universal consciousness that created and maintains the universe using the same universal rules of logic and math. Not only then would we be able to understand it but it would be inevitable that we would think in the same way so that we all can understand it and even come up with it on our own.
Our minds and consciousness are designed to, and do use the same processes as the universal mind/consciousness.
Think about it. Why does 1+1=2? Why is it universally true and can never be false no matter what language we may speak or think in, or what culture or era that we live in? What does a universal truth mean if it does not imply a universal mind or consciousness?

Wow, that almost makes it sound too easy! I still don't understand why people are so hard-pressed to argue about it?

 

[Iacchus32]

By the way Royce,

I started a similar thread on the JREF Forums ... Universal Consciousness?

By all means check it out, but I warn you, be prepared to argue! ...

 

[Dezepar]

Wow, that almost makes it sound too easy! I still don't understand why people are so hard-pressed to argue about it?

I hope this wasn't aimed at me... I just wanted to hear how conciousness 'made sense' to you..

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dezepar
I hope this wasn't aimed at me... I just wanted to hear how conciousness 'made sense' to you..

No, if you follow the thread above you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[mikelus]

is a barbie doll the same to every girl.

 

[mikelus]

Originally posted by mikelus
is a barbie doll the same to every girl.

by this i mean if you have two of the same things are they the same to each person. One might love it and play with it while one might rip it's head off. so 1+1=2 but really it's just two now, not 1+1. so combining whole to a whole equals a whole,just a new and different whole. right in mathematics we combine wholes to form new whole #'s but in life things are separate like two apples but yet that's why it plural because there are two seperations. what happens if we combine two silly puddies together to form one big silly puddie the two small ones (Plural) form one whole one. when looking at people hugging they were once separate and now form together a hug. In life there a sense of separation and togetherness. does 1+1= 2 I guess it depends on how you look at it.

 

[Dezepar]

does 1+1= 2 I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Well said.

 

[Royce]

I agree, well said.
However, when we speak of math, then it is universal and we all must accept that all and every '1' is the same or 1=1. By logic and definition we all must say and agree that 1+1=2 etc. By this method we developed our entire mathematical system that we can use to describe or model physical reality to an accuracy that is mind boggling. Science and Math says "what" and "how" but never addresses "why".
"Why" is a philosophical question.
As a philosophic person, the "Why is such an abstract system so universal and so accurate at modeling the physical universe?" is one of the primary questions a philosopher can ask. To me, it implies a universal oneness of which we are all part.

Consider the history of science, math and logic. Even without the instruments and knowledge base that we have today the ancients using there minds only came up with universal truths that are just as valid and true today as they were then. They were so amazed and awed by these universal truths that these truths took on mystical and religious meaning. Maybe I am doing the same thing as the ancients; but, maybe they were right, too. Maybe, as I think and have said here, these universal truths do point to a God or universal consciousness or mind.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
Hope that you don't mind my interjecting a few thoughts of my own on this subject.
Logic and math make extremely accurate models of and describe the real universe. We humans created math and logic in our minds and they are both completely abstract subjects that can be applied to the real material universe so successfully.
Is this simply luck or coincidence? Or is it possible that our minds or consciousness are a part of the universal consciousness that created and maintains the universe using the same universal rules of logic and math. Not only then would we be able to understand it but it would be inevitable that we would think in the same way so that we all can understand it and even come up with it on our own.
Our minds and consciousness are designed to, and do use the same processes as the universal mind/consciousness.
Think about it. Why does 1+1=2? Why is it universally true and can never be false no matter what language we may speak or think in, or what culture or era that we live in? What does a universal truth mean if it does not imply a universal mind or consciousness?

Might any exchange of information be considered a form of consciousness?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Royce
As a philosophic person, the "Why is such an abstract system so universal and so accurate at modeling the physical universe?" is one of the primary questions a philosopher can ask. To me, it implies a universal oneness of which we are all part.

I don't see how you reach this conclusion, but I agree that the question is a very deep one.

The reason it is so deep is that if mathematics really does describe the physical universe than we know from Goedel that there is something that exists which lies outside all mathematical systems of description of that universe.

I would suggest that this is consciousness. It cannot be a coincidence that every introspective philosopher since records began has claimed the same thing as Goedel, that some questions do not have answers, whatever system of logic we choose.

In a roundabout way this is what led Einstein to the conclusion that "So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. The same provise applies to all non-trivial systems of proofs.

This is the reason why in Buddhist (Advaita etc) writings there is so much self-contradiction, and why Lao Tsu writes “Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical.” (Tao the Ching)

The key to the whole muddle (in my not nearly humble enough opinion) is provided by Martin Heidegger.

"Metaphysics, however, speaks continually and in the most various ways of Being. Metaphysics gives, and seems to confirm, the appearance that it asks and answers the question concerning Being. In fact, metaphysics never answers the question concerning the truth of Being, for it never asks this question. Metaphysics does not ask this question because it thinks of Being only by representing beings as beings. It means all beings as a whole, although it speaks of Being. It refers to Being and means beings as beings. From its beginning to its completion, the propositions of metaphysics have been strangely involved in a persistent confusion of beings and Being. This confusion, to be sure, must be considered an event and not a mere mistake. It cannot by any means be charged to a mere negligence of thought or a carelessness of expression. Owing to this persistent confusion, the claim that metaphysics poses the question of Being lands us in utter error."

What Heidegger is asserting is that metaphysics cannot answer the big questions about existence. In this he agrees with the conclusion of most 'Eastern' phislophical doctrines, and for the same logical reasons, namely that ultimate Being lies beyond notions of truth and falsity because it has no true or false attributes, and is thus not a theorem in any possible formal system.

 

[Royce]

The Buddhist, or at least some, also believe it The One, the oneness of all that we are all part of. There are a few members here, myself included, that have experienced this oneness.
Lao Tzu also said that the spoken way is not the true way, meaning the The Way cannot be put into words. Those who are religious in the judeo-christian religion would say; "Let go. Let God."

As I asked in an earlier post; "Don't universal truths imply a universal consciousness?" The more that I look into this thought the more that I believe it to be true. The thing that lead me to this conclusion is that we humans think and reason in such a matter that we are lead to discoveries and theories that so accurately model the physical universe from the Plank level to the cosmological level. It does not have to be that way but it is. It is too much to think this merely a coincidence. We are so used to thinking this way and it is so inured into our psyche that we take it for granted and think that it is natural. We can't imagine it being any other way; but, it could easily be another way if we really think about it.
We think the way we do because we are part of the universal conscious. This again is so much a part of what and who we are that goes beyond the mundane. It is too common to think about as we don't think of the air we breath or live in unless it becomes a reason for concern as in pollution or storms.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Dezepar
There are no 'perceivable' other types of consciousness that I'm 'aware' of, to make comparisons to.

How about this: the simple (or complex) exchange of information constitutes consciousness, which allows for "other types" of consciousness ...say, the "consciousness" of an electron (aware of the proton) ...or a planet "aware of" the mass of the star it is orbiting (via gravity).

Brains are just organic devices that have evolved to detect, process and USE very complex complex information. But it (the brain) is not the be-all / end-all of consciousness. Neither is it the "beginning of" consciousness. It's just "high up" on the "consciousness continuum".

I have a few theories, (far from complete) on the possible origins of what we call awareness if you're interested in any further blatherings from me on it.

Blather on.