Universe Consists of Consciousness

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:17 pm

Hi Lloyd,
* Kant's "underlying reality" I contend is universal consciousness, not "physical reality" in the form of non-consciousness.
You are mistaken here Lloyd. The noumena is not metaphysical. It is still the physical object but it is the object as it exists independent of the optical or other sensory apparatus of the observer. E.g. a spider (multi-eyed), a bee (UV) and a human would all perceive a given object differently but the object under observation is one and the same thing.
“You do not experience the world as IT is. You experience it as YOU ARE.” - Socrates
I think it highly probable that non-consciousness cannot exist.
I take that as a given - hence my comments above (response to your OP) about the subconscious.
So the physical world must be part of universal consciousness.
It can not be otherwise.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Jul 20, 2010 3:51 pm

* What do folks here think about the statement I made earlier that during the Renaissance the purpose of science and government considered to be to improve the conditions of life for humans [and maybe others]? Isn't that still the proper purpose for each of them? The purpose of humans is to gain mastery of the universe; is it not? By that I mean that we are to understand the universe and apply our understanding to making the universe better for all. Right?
* So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness? At least logic seems to suggest strongly that nothing outside of consciousness can ever be known or detected in any way. And it seems probable to me that nothing else but consciousness can exist at all. Would or could universal consciousnesss create non-consciousness?
* Have yous noticed that the 5 main kinds of perceptions seem to be almost nothing alike? The field of vision and its contents seem like a completely different kind of consciousness than the "field" of sound, or the "field" of touch etc. They complement each other, but they don't seem to have anything much in common. Do they? I guess taste and smell are somewhat similar to each other. Anyway, are there probably other completely different kinds of perceptions that we could have or experience? It's not hard to imagine extending the range of our present perceptions, such as being able to detect higher and lower frequencies of EM radiation and of sound. But having completely different kinds of perceptions is very hard to imagine, except that I don't see what would limit the kinds of perceptions that are possible.
* Having some Capricorn aspects, along with my Aquarianness etc, my motive behind all this discussion is pragmatic. I think there's a need to gain a progressively better understanding of the universe at all scales, from microcosm to macrocosm, and I think the conventional view that physical stuff exists outside of consciousness is taking people on a deadend road. The pragmatic thing we most need seems to be to show that aether units, or other basic units of the universe, are consciousness, i.e. probably perception or something like perception: visual, audio, tactile etc. Do we need to describe these perceptions in more detail, find their basic units, and then find that physical units are identical?
* P.S.
GC said: Re * [Lloyd said:] Kant's "underlying reality" I contend is universal consciousness, not "physical reality" in the form of non-consciousness.
You are mistaken here Lloyd. The noumena is not metaphysical. It is still the physical object but it is the object as it exists independent of the optical or other sensory apparatus of the observer. E.g. a spider (multi-eyed), a bee (UV) and a human would all perceive a given object differently but the object under observation is one and the same thing.
* I meant the object that we all see differently, though it exists outside of our consciousnesses, does not exist outside of universal consciousness. The "underlying reality" of the object is made of consciousness, part of universal consciousness.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:04 pm

Hi Lloyd,
* So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness?
The article below goes someway to answering the last two questions. (pp28). Short answer: No.

The Critique of Modernism: Scientism, Evolutionism, Psychologism and Humanism
http://religioperennis.org/documents/Ol ... tiques.pdf
Damned fine read.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

mague
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by mague » Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:46 pm

Lloyd wrote:* What do folks here think about the statement I made earlier that during the Renaissance the purpose of science and government considered to be to improve the conditions of life for humans [and maybe others]? Isn't that still the proper purpose for each of them? The purpose of humans is to gain mastery of the universe; is it not? By that I mean that we are to understand the universe and apply our understanding to making the universe better for all. Right?
So we are here to find "the big things" mistakes and fix them ? Arent we a bit late after 14 × 10^9 years (scientific age). Doesnt make any sense to me.

To me it seems science is overrated, by far. Since the first windmill and the screw of Archimedes there was nothing to help improving conditions. Maybe the condition here and everywhere in the universe are just perfect. Maybe the problem is that we still carry grains of sand to the construction site of the Tower of Babel..
Lloyd wrote: * So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness? At least logic seems to suggest strongly that nothing outside of consciousness can ever be known or detected in any way. And it seems probable to me that nothing else but consciousness can exist at all. Would or could universal consciousnesss create non-consciousness?
The methods themselves are the best thing of science. If all scientists take them seriously. Sometimes i think there will be a day when scientific methods apply to transcendent parts of the universe too. But the nature of this game requires a sustainable and continuous society on a master level of cosmic harmony. Our modern society is not even remotely in this position.

General
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:18 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by General » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:29 am

Lloyd wrote:{quote="mague"}* So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness? At least logic seems to suggest strongly that nothing outside of consciousness can ever be known or detected in any way. And it seems probable to me that nothing else but consciousness can exist at all. Would or could universal consciousnesss create non-consciousness?
* Have yous noticed that the 5 main kinds of perceptions seem to be almost nothing alike? The field of vision and its contents seem like a completely different kind of consciousness than the "field" of sound, or the "field" of touch etc. They complement each other, but they don't seem to have anything much in common. Do they? I guess taste and smell are somewhat similar to each other. Anyway, are there probably other completely different kinds of perceptions that we could have or experience? It's not hard to imagine extending the range of our present perceptions, such as being able to detect higher and lower frequencies of EM radiation and of sound. But having completely different kinds of perceptions is very hard to imagine, except that I don't see what would limit the kinds of perceptions that are possible.
Supposing the entire universe was consciousness wherein would say "a rock" have the qualities attributed to consciousness as we understand it?? As the rock has no perceivable perceptive qualities as humans do (maybe as humans do not possess the sense or technological advancement to percept that it does) surely it would be better to say that the universe is held in a single entity's universal consciousness in which all is contained and directed to some level by the overall entity's universal consciousness (or am I saying the same thing lol :roll: ). It seems that depending on your level of consciousness (in essence how much perception and thereby the understanding of such) in relation to the universal consciousness, determines the amount of interaction you could ever partake of in the universe hence the multiple forms of the 5 senses and the logical interpretations of these we have been given by the universal consciousness. As we also have some form of memory this means that our consciousness can grow at an exponential rate by the accumulation of the universal consciousness as we build upon previous understanding (now knowledge) from it in us, but this is obviously limited as to the desire of the universal consciousness. "Logically" this also means that eventually we would end up gaining the same level of consciousness as the universal consciousness, but this can never be achieved if the universal consciousness does not approve and if individuality is to be maintained amongst cohesion. So where do we stand..? Well I can say that we can do nothing and understand nothing without the universal consciousness who is holding us in his/her consciousness even as you read this. As everything is held in its consciousness it can do absolutely anything (including creating non-consciousness in consciousness I.e. a "void" and then filling it with whatever it desires) in the best way possible for us or itself or both and the best thing that us humans can do is to get to know the universal consciousness as intimately as possible as in reality that is all there is... but at least it's never ending :D.
Last edited by bboyer on Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected quote attribution

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by allynh » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:31 am

Yes, the universe is conscious, and we are the dreams, or nightmares, of that conscious universe.

The word "Scientist" was coined in 1834 and Science has gone down hill ever since. Notice how there are "Mad Scientists" but no such things as "Mad Natural Philosophers". We need to go back to having Natural Philosophers recording and observing the real world, rather than Scientists telling us what reality is.

I love this quote from the movie The Adventures of Baron Munchausen; it's what I live by.
The Baron wrote:Your Reality, sir, is lies and balderdash, and I am delighted to say I have no grasp of it whatsoever.

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by bboyer » Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:20 pm

allynh wrote:
The word "Scientist" was coined in 1834 ....
Interesting, wasn't aware of that.
One of Whewell's greatest gifts to science was his wordsmithing. He often corresponded with many in his field and helped them come up with new terms for their discoveries. In fact, Whewell came up with the term scientist itself. (They had previously been known as "natural philosophers" or "men of science"). Whewell also contributed the terms physicist, consilience, catastrophism, and uniformitarianism, amongst others; Whewell suggested the terms anode and cathode to Michael Faraday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Whewell
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

mague
Posts: 781
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 2:44 am

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by mague » Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:43 am

I propose the literal german translation :P

Wissenschaft = Knowledgehood (formerly known as science)
Wissenschafler = Participant of the Knowledgehood (formerly known as scientist)

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:27 am

Lloyd: * So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness?
GC: The article below goes someway to answering the last two questions. (pp28). Short answer: No.
The Critique of Modernism: Scientism, Evolutionism, Psychologism and Humanism
http://religioperennis.org/documents/Ol ... tiques.pdf
* GC, I think you're jumping to conclusions. The link you provided has this quote.
Schuon states the nub of the case against modern science directly:
...modern science is a totalitarian rationalism that eliminates both Revelation and Intellect, and at the same time a totalitarian materialism that ignores the metaphysical relativity - and therewith the impermanence - of matter and the world. It does not know that the supra-sensible, situated as it is beyond space and time, is the concrete principle of the world, and consequently that it is also at the origin of that contingent and changeable coagulation we call "matter". A science that is called "exact" is in fact an "intelligence without wisdom", just as post-scholastic philosophy is inversely a "wisdom without intelligence".13
* Conventional science is more or less like Schuon's description, but conventional science doesn't use the scientific method correctly.
* The Scientific Method involves:
1. making accurate observations of reality;
2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
5. publishing the experiment;
6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
* Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
2. making an untestable hypothesis;
3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
* Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.
* The scientific method uses logic and safeguards against errors and fraud, but conventional science relies on fraud.
* So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? I say YES. Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? YES, because other methods avoid either logic or safeguards against fraud and error. Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness? I say, Why not?
* Observation is Perception, which is consciousness. Logic is the way to think accurately. These are aspects of consciousness. Meditation and prayer are not forbidden by scientific method. In fact creative thinking is a requirement, as it is probably a means of accessing universal consciousness. So I believe the scientific method must be used to increase consciousness = knowledge etc for the benefit of all.

Grey Cloud
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Grey Cloud » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:42 am

Hi Loyd,
I (think I) understand where you are coming from. You seem to be suggesting that the scientific method is fit for purpose, i.e. investigating consciousness etc, but is currently not being adhered to or used properly. I would argue otherwise. The scientific method deals with effects not causes. It can only tell you how something works, not why.
The metaphysical world has been studied for millenia across all cultures. This is ignored by the scientific community.
Anyway one doesn't need scientists, or anyone else for that matter - 'know thyself' is all that is required.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by allynh » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:35 am

Lloyd, you have hit the nail on the head with Whewell. He was the one that basically defined modern science by doing away with experiment itself. He was against the Empirical method of observing the real world and promoted Inductive reasoning that had nothing to do with the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or tradition.[1]

In a related sense, empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.
Scientific usage

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. It is differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically". Empirical is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

In a second sense "empirical" in science and statistics may be synonymous with "experimental". In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe theoretical methods that make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.
With Inductive reasoning anything is possible/impossible without the messiness of checking the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.[1] The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:
All of the ice we have examined so far is cold.
Therefore, all ice is cold.
Lloyd wrote:The scientific method uses logic and safeguards against errors and fraud, but conventional science relies on fraud.
This goes back to the two books I mentioned before.

BEING WRONG
Adventures in the Margin of Error
By Kathryn Schulz

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 360#p36748

WRONG
Why Experts Keep Failing Us — And How to Know When Not to Trust Them
By David H. Freedman

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 360#p36749

The NYTimes Book Review posted a review on the two books.

To Err Is Human. And How! And Why.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/books ... ?ref=books
Ms. Schulz notes how many of our beliefs are accidents of fate, hinging on things like our places of birth. She is pro argument, pro talking it out. She quotes the comedian Penn Jillette as saying, “One of the quickest ways to find out if you are wrong is to state what you believe.”
I have the books and have them on my to-be-read pile. This is fun stuff.

Thanks, Lloyd.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:57 pm

* Thanks Allyn and GC. Allyn, when you read those books, can you see if they have anything helpful to say about scientific method? You said above:
With Inductive reasoning anything is possible/impossible without the messiness of checking the real world.
* That real world happens to consist solely of consciousness, according to the logic used earlier. Was that logic inductive, or deductive? I think inductive is good for generating hypotheses, while deductive is good for making sound conclusions. Observation = perception has to come in between, I think.
* GC, if scientific method includes logic, as I think it rightfully should, then whatever conclusions can be reached by philosophy etc, can be reached by scientific method even better. I think you're just refusing to acknowledge other definitions of scientific method than the one you conceive of. Ain't you?

allynh
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by allynh » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:39 am

Lloyd wrote:That real world happens to consist solely of consciousness, according to the logic used earlier. Was that logic inductive, or deductive?
I would say that you were being Empirical in pointing out that everything consists of consciousness. Look at the Peter Russell video.

The Primacy of Consciousness - Peter Russell
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3626430789

I think he makes a pretty good case that it's consciousness all the way down.

Watch this first episode from the classic Mechanical Universe series.

Caltech: The Mechanical Universe - 01 - Introduction
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6025&ei=en

The statement that mathematics is the basis for everything they do is an example of inductive reasoning telling how reality should be rather than using mathematics as a tool to help describe what has actually been observed.

Simple example:

During the Manhattan Project, they were developing the uranium bomb, "Little Boy". This was essentially a canon that would fire a hollow cylinder of uranium onto a slug of uranium to create the critical mass.

In classic inductive thinking, one of the scientists was concerned that firing a high speed slug would cause excessive wear on the gun barrel. It never occurred to him that the barrel would only be used once, and destroyed in the detonation.

Little Boy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Oppenheimer (2008)
http://www.amazon.com/Oppenheimer-Sam-W ... 406&sr=1-1

Empirical reasoning is a hands-on Does-it-Work process. The Scientific Method as you listed is the basis for all Engineering. Trial-and-error; build-it test-it, has moved technology forward empirically, while science has fallen into strange paths of inductive fantasy over the past century.

To be empirical, look for examples of consciousness in action, the way Sheldrake and others have. Only be aware, that since everything is consciousness, what you are looking at can also look back.

The Trickster and the Paranormal
George P. Hansen
http://www.tricksterbook.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Trickster-Paranor ... 185&sr=1-8

elijahblackwood
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:52 am

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by elijahblackwood » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:07 am

The universe relies on awareness to exist, at least subjectively. Was it there before the soup came to life and became aware of itself and its place in the universe, who knows?

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Universe Consists of Consciousness

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:24 pm

PERCEPTIONS ETC
* Here's an impression of reality.
* Perceptions appear to be "reflections" of local perspectives on the universe, the universe apparently being universal consciousness.
* Our visual perceptions are assembled [?] in a way that they resemble what is seen of the universe from a local perspective.
* Tactile perceptions resemble the heat and pressure gradients of the body and local environment, giving us more details about shapes etc.
* Audio perceptions resemble the local air and other vibrations of those shapes etc.
* All of the sense perceptions are combined within thoughts to get a more holistic impression of the local universe especially.
* It's similar to a hologram. A hologram is a "reflection" of an object for example. It can give a 3-dimensional perspective of the object from all sides. If the hologram is broken, each piece shows the whole object, but from only one perspective or angle, instead of from all sides.
* Each sentient creature on Earth reflects in its perceptions the local universe from its local perspective.
* A person, a bird, a dog, a fly, a reptile, a fish each reflect local universal consciousness.
* Groups of sentient creatures may have collective consciousness, as Sheldrake has shown is possible from experiments with dogs etc sensing when their owners are coming home to them.
* Hopefully, we can discuss again, as some of us did here in 2007, I think, the Ancient Supercomputer, or group mind, of all creatures on Earth during the Saturn Age. Ralph DeGrazia's website has or had a lot of good material relating to that. Julian Jaynes's book, Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, is helpful too.

*Also, Allyn, I hope to see the video you linked above one of these days, if I haven't already seen it.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests