Universe Consists of Consciousness

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Elijah,
I think you are confusing cause and effect. The electro-chemical activity in the brain is the effect of consciousness; it isn't the consciousness

I can see how my thoughts looked like they were swinging towards epiphenomena and I don't agree with this at all, the point I was trying to put across was this: If the nature of the Universe is Fractal and electro-chemical activity in the brain is a signature of consciousness doing its thing at a human level, what is galactic electrical activity a signature for?

Electricity cannot be producing consciousness as electricity is material (Or requires a physical medium).Also there are places electricity can't go or pass through.

So is electricity the carrier of information that we observe as conscious experiences? Isn't awareness separate from consciousness, conscious experiences being Qualia, something has to observe the Qualia for it to have any meaning? On another note does anyone actually know for sure what "electricity" is or is it similar to Gravity in that we know what it does, but not what it is?

@Mague

Doesnt seem credible to me. Electricity does not create consciousness

Okay I don't think electricity creates consciousness. I thought it might faciliate it in some way. If electricity is the effect of consciousness, where does the cause that was creating the effect of electrical activity go when a person dies or when under general anaesthetic? Is there any data from space that shows galactic electrical activity manifests and disappears regularly?

As with light the same lens is able to create a laser beam or a huge picture on the cinema screen.

I read Walter Russell's "secret of Light" and found it fascinating. He was talking back in the 40's about the holographic nature of the Universe. I can relate to consciousness being the film and awareness is the observer.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts though. Very interesting

[Lloyd]

Mague said: infinite is where we are from and return to. We dont need to carry matches to the sun. All that remains is quality based interaction with consciousness.

* I don't think we can be infinite. We can increase in consciousness, but we never approach infinity. We exist as limited beings within an unlimited being, I think. If we were ever infinite, why would we forget? Is limited superior to unlimited? If not, why would we choose limited?

Elijah said: I can relate to consciousness being the film and awareness is the observer.

* I think consciousness, awareness, knowledge and experience are all identical. Our perceptions are the first kind of consciousness we have and the others, thoughts and emotions, imitate perceptions. Isn't universal consciousness the observed and we are the observers? Observation = perception.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Lloyd,

* I don't think we can be infinite. We can increase in consciousness, but we never approach infinity.

Are you thinking of infinity as size? Infinity has no size.

We exist as limited beings within an unlimited being, I think.

Think of us as being limited part of an unlimited whole. Being and existing are different.

If we were ever infinite, why would we forget? Is limited superior to unlimited? If not, why would we choose limited?

I can't remember why we forgot. But we can unforget (anamnesis). More seriously, your question is the Great Mystery. The Hindus would say that we are the Infinite experiencing its infiniteness. I have read a few attempts to answer this question but none have convinced.

[elijahblackwood]

Hi Grey cloud

I can't remember why we forgot. But we can unforget (anamnesis).

It seems forgetfulness is a state of Mind, along with the wake state and sleep state.

have read a few attempts to answer this question but none have convinced.

Have you read Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

http://www.maharajnisargadatta.com/I_Am_That.pdf

Hi Lloyd you said

If we were ever infinite, why would we forget? Is limited superior to unlimited? If not, why would we choose limited?

To rediscover the truth maybe... or to take a break from something that goes on and on... and on... and on...

think consciousness, awareness, knowledge and experience are all identical. Our perceptions are the first kind of consciousness we have and the others, thoughts and emotions, imitate perceptions. Isn't universal consciousness the observed and we are the observers? Observation = perception.

We seem to be haggling over definitions here but I think we're heading to the same destination, albeit via slightly different routes... knowledge, memories of past experiences and what we experience in real-time is what I see as consciousness, or information that we perceive. I think there is a subtle difference between perceiving and being aware. Perception takes place through the senses but being aware of what one has perceived appears to take place in the driving seat of meaningful experience - the Mind.

Cheers

[StevenJay]

If we were ever infinite, why would we forget? Is limited superior to unlimited? If not, why would we choose limited?

Try to imagine the novelty and intrigue that the perceptual experience of limitation might afford an otherwise unlimited being.

Why does the Shaolin or Tibetan monk, for instance, choose a life of challenging hardship over one of relative ease? Perhaps, for them, the potential for revelation lies in extreme challenge itself? It seems that some of the most profound oportunities for learning and growth occur as a result of some sort of intensely physically/psychologically challenging experience.

Thornhill says we live in an "unstable neighborhood." I take it a step further and say, due to its inherent neulous nature, 3rd density "existence" as a whole is "unstable." I belive we incarnate here primarily to experience the unique challenges that a realm of duality and extreme contrast can afford.

As far as us forgetting our true infinite nature, temporary amnesia would have to be a requisite for riding this ride. Otherwise the illusion simply wouldn't work.

[elijahblackwood]

As far as us forgetting our true infinite nature, temporary amnesia would have to be a requisite for riding this ride. Otherwise the illusion simply wouldn't work.

Amen to that...

[mague]

We seem to be haggling over definitions here but I think ...

Reminds me of something i have read lately.

We have mapped anything. We mapped the earth, the oceans, the sky and now the cosmos and the subatomic world. We have been busy and forgot to map our own mind.

We really can talk about invisible waves and photons, but we cant talk about whats going on in our mind. Whats wrong with us ?

[elijahblackwood]

We have mapped anything. We mapped the earth, the oceans, the sky and now the cosmos and the subatomic world. We have been busy and forgot to map our own mind.

We really can talk about invisible waves and photons, but we cant talk about whats going on in our mind. Whats wrong with us ?

Hi Mague

This was my argument in my religophrenia thread. We can chase phantom particles, galaxy gobbling black holes, invisible matter, heaven and hell et al but we pay little attention to the platform of observation, without which the entire experience would have no meaning whatsoever.

I love what the EU is doing in terms of explaining how the universe functions from an electrical perspective but from what I have seen (I could be wrong) the "what is" of electricity is a problem akin to Gravity and the standard model. We know what it does, but not what it is...

The Mind plays a huge part in experience, without it what would there be?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Elijah,
Thanks for the book link. I'll give it a go when I get time. (Wish reading books was as simple as downloading them).

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,

Try to imagine the novelty and intrigue that the perceptual experience of limitation might afford an otherwise unlimited being.

Such a being would know what experiences were available with any given set of circumstances; it would know how those experiences would 'feel'.

[Grey Cloud]

CHAPTER FOUR
LIVING LIGHT: DIVINE EMBODIMENT IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
GREGORY SHAW

In Iamblichus’ treatise On the Soul, preserved by Stobaeus, the Syrian
theurgist outlines the most respected philosophical explanations for the
soul’s descent. To account for the soul’s presence in a body was a critical
issue for ancient philosophers, similar, perhaps, to our own questions
today about consciousness and brain activity. Although the contexts and
methods are vastly different—speculative metaphysics versus neurological
research—the underlying question is the same: how is embodied existence
understood and, particularly, how are we to understand our own self-
consciousness? After reviewing briefly the opinions of several eminent
philosophers on the soul’s descent—Empedocles, Plotinus, Aristotle,
Heraclitus and others—Iamblichus chooses instead to highlight the
explanation of a little-known second century Platonist by the name of
Calvenus Taurus.[3]
His explanation is striking both for its clarity and for what it reveals
about Iamblichus’ philosophical priorities. Iamblichus writes:

Platonists in the school of Taurus say that souls are sent to earth by the
gods. Some, following the Timaeus [4] teach that it is for the perfection of the
universe, that there be as many living things in the [generated] world as in
the intelligible. Others think the purpose of the souls’ descent is to reveal
the divine life, for this is the will of the gods: to reveal themselves
(ekphainesthai) through human souls. For the gods come forth into bodily
appearance and reveal themselves in the pure and faultless lives of human
souls. [5]

The existential implications of Taurus’ view are immense. For, if the
purpose of human life is to allow the gods to reveal themselves through us,
it means that a transformation of awareness far more radical than is usually
conceived lies at the heart of our Western philosophic traditions. [6]
Put plainly, it means that human beings experienced themselves as gods.

I will argue that this vision of human and divine co-existence was a
tradition of thought and practice that significantly influenced the direction
of Western culture. Yet it has remained hidden, and perhaps this is not
surprising, for apart from the fact that its transmission was necessarily
esoteric, it has been virtually ignored in most scholarly studies. [7]
http://www.cosmology-divination.com/upl ... mplete.pdf

[mague]

CHAPTER FOUR
LIVING LIGHT: DIVINE EMBODIMENT IN WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
GREGORY SHAW
[...]
Iamblichus writes:

Platonists in the school of Taurus say that souls are sent to earth by the
gods. Some, following the Timaeus [4] teach that it is for the perfection of the
universe, that there be as many living things in the [generated] world as in
the intelligible. Others think the purpose of the souls’ descent is to reveal
the divine life, for this is the will of the gods: to reveal themselves
(ekphainesthai) through human souls. For the gods come forth into bodily
appearance and reveal themselves in the pure and faultless lives of human
souls. [5]

Devils advocate incomming

First i d like to exchange "descent" with "coming forth". Much better vector this way

Second i am asking if there is any proof that a person is "filled" with one and the same consciousness for a lifetime ? Also, is there any proof that there is only one soul at once in a body ?

Third is the question if there is any proof that not only a god, but maybe a plant, animal or even a planet is able to come forth ? Maybe even multiple of them having a discussion ? Maybe even a whole forest with any single tree, flower, bird, deer and bee ?

Oh, and maybe the self-consciousness is just the body, the animal ? An animal that is able to live in symbiosis with one or many souls/spirits/fragments of consciousness or even with the soul of a dead beloved ?

[bboyer]

Have you read Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:

http://www.maharajnisargadatta.com/I_Am_That.pdf

Absolutely. And, even moreso IMO, is Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950). Downloadable collected works by (mostly transcripts of talks) or about, http://bhagavan-ramana.org/ramanabooks.html. A few available youtube clips, http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... arshi&aq=0. And, of course, the collected works of Alan Watts (some print, mostly audio), http://www.alanwatts.com/. There are other sources around the "interwebs."

[elijahblackwood]

Absolutely. And, even moreso IMO, is Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950)

Thanks Arc-us. I look forward to exploring "that"

[bboyer]

Absolutely. And, even moreso IMO, is Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950)

Thanks Arc-us. I look forward to exploring "that"

Tat tvam asi

THIS which is seeking is THAT which is sought, and
THAT which is sought is THIS which is seeking.

Wei Wu Wei (aka Terence James Stannus Gray, 1895-1986)
from All Else is Bondage: Non-Volitional Living

The Wei Wu Wei Archives]