Matter or consciousness?

[Marblehead]

Consciousness simply is, self aware, beyond time and space. All the infinite things are like bubbles of this that rise up ( due to various conditions) and think that they are separate from that one.

 

Was the universe aware of itself when it was in the state of Singularity, and if so how could this be when no things existed in the state of Singularity?

[Birch]

Was the universe aware of itself when it was in the state of Singularity, and if so how could this be when no things existed in the state of Singularity?

When was the universe in a state of singularity? And how do you know? I'm not trying to be an idiot, I know i am one. I know that singularity has been posited. Has it been proved? Did i get up too late this century?

[Marblehead]

When was the universe in a state of singularity? And how do you know? I'm not trying to be an idiot, I know i am one. I know that singularity has been posited. Has it been proved? Did i get up too late this century?

 

Hehehe. I don't know anything but I sure have a lot of opinions.

 

Singularity was what was prior to the big bang. No, it has not been proved. Probably never will be able to prove it. But it is the standing theory.

[dwai]

Was the universe aware of itself when it was in the state of Singularity, and if so how could this be when no things existed in the state of Singularity?

We assume that universe is same as nondual consciousness. Afaict, universe is the "10000 things" that are aspects of that one. Since that is outside of space and time, it simply exists...before the bang as well as after the bang. So that is a no thing...ie it is neither a thing nor not a thing.

[doc benway]

Of course it does Steve - from your perspective.

 

And that's what counts, my perspective is my problem - your perspective's you problem!

Or opportunity...

[Birch]

We assume that universe is same as nondual consciousness. Afaict, universe is the "10000 things" that are aspects of that one. Since that is outside of space and time, it simply exists...before the bang as well as after the bang. So that is a no thing...ie it is neither a thing nor not a thing.

Who are "we"?

Edit: I didn't mean anything esoteric nor rhetorical. I meant along the lines of "just me and my friends" or maybe an impersonal "we" y'know

Edited November 17, 2011 by -K-

[doc benway]

The usual thing i think the D.O. folks would say is that it's a mutual giving. I've pondered this one a while and come up with the idea that the rock is within my consciouness so by that it is "consciousness" itself. It became part of my consciouness and became consciouness because of the act of seeing. Then we get into the misattribution issue. I think logic "works" in this one because of the nature of logic, not because of reality. So you could agree to the argument logically but it wouldn't have any basis in reality (or the order would be "wrong"). But since "order" is a linear function and reality obviously isn't then that argument would get shot as well. I think, I think I'm rambling a bit, sorry!

Nice post. I find it fascinating to explore this border of where I end and other begins.

And what it means that something is in MY consciousness, and so on...

Fun stuff.

 

 

Marblehead you only exist because the rocks are watching you . Don't get paranoid now.

 

... but seriously I want to pursue the question of consciousness/ sentience. If we agree about plants then that's a start. Plants with some kind of sentience. They have no brains or complex nervous systems ... so at least their sentience is not the product of complexity. This suggests perhaps that the complexity we have in our brains and bodies is just a vehicle to allow us to express our consciousness rather than the basis for it.

 

I suggested a long time ago that the interactivity of particles was the basis of sentience in 'higher' levels of life. Here is a Feynman diagram of two electrons interacting.

 

The interaction which is shown as a photon exchange is the equivalent of one electron saying to the other ... hey I'm over here ... move over will you. Could this not be the basis for what develops as sentience???

 

Anyone?

Interesting - electron interactions.

Why not?

Very interesting to think about where and how sentience may arise.

And is it possible for sentience to see into the nature of itself?

The overlap of physics and metaphysics is fascinating - ever read Amit Goswami?

 

 

 

Was the universe aware of itself when it was in the state of Singularity, and if so how could this be when no things existed in the state of Singularity?

Was there such a state? If so, what would it have been like? I have no clue...

But I think I would look at it a bit like death.

In other words, death being the interval between life, as life is the interval between death.

Singularity could be the interval between existence or manifestation, and existence the interval between singularity.

All very entertaining to consider.

 

 

Could the emergence of sentience have been the end of singularity and the beginning of manifestation?

It would certainly make sense with the whole idea of "matter" and "consciousness" being inter-related and interdependent.

The only problem is that I"m not sure I believe in a beginning and end.

I believe in now, that's about it.

Everything else is maybe so, maybe not...

[Marblehead]

We assume that universe is same as nondual consciousness. Afaict, universe is the "10000 things" that are aspects of that one. Since that is outside of space and time, it simply exists...before the bang as well as after the bang. So that is a no thing...ie it is neither a thing nor not a thing.

 

Okay. Hehehe.

 

Actually, you have me at a point where I cannot comment further or mess with you any more.

 

Yes, the physical universe is the 10,000 things. And yes, every thing is an aspect of that oneness.

 

"Nondual Consciousness"!!! What a concept! Funny thought: What is there to be aware of if the consciousness is everything? Where can it look and see anything else but itself? You don't have to respond to those questions - I know they are weird.

[Marblehead]

And that's what counts, my perspective is my problem - your perspective's you problem!

Or opportunity...

 

I like to look at it as an opportunity.

[Marblehead]

Could the emergence of sentience have been the end of singularity and the beginning of manifestation?

It would certainly make sense with the whole idea of "matter" and "consciousness" being inter-related and interdependent.

The only problem is that I"m not sure I believe in a beginning and end.

I believe in now, that's about it.

Everything else is maybe so, maybe not...

 

I used to say that Tao "Banged" so that it could experience itself. I don't say that often any more because people misunderstand what I am saying.

 

"Beginnings" and "Ends" are only transition points. When one thing ends another begins. I hold pretty firmly to the concept of cycles. Even the last Singularity was just a transition from an old whatever to this present universe. Who knows how long these cycles last?

 

Yes, living in the now is important.

[Birch]

I used to say that Tao "Banged" so that it could experience itself. I don't say that often any more because people misunderstand what I am saying.

 

"Beginnings" and "Ends" are only transition points. When one thing ends another begins. I hold pretty firmly to the concept of cycles. Even the last Singularity was just a transition from an old whatever to this present universe. Who knows how long these cycles last?

 

Yes, living in the now is important.

 

Well Mr MH, you wouldn't in that case ("banging") be very very far from some traditions :-)

Sometimes it's expressed with a bit more symbolism (I was guessing it was because they didn't want the kids finding out what they were on about too soon:-)).

 

Anyway, more seriously, again is found attribution. IMO. Basically I'd love to get the rock's perspective. Might get us somewhere:-)

[Marblehead]

I suggested a long time ago that the interactivity of particles was the basis of sentience in 'higher' levels of life. Here is a Feynman diagram of two electrons interacting.

 

The interaction which is shown as a photon exchange is the equivalent of one electron saying to the other ... hey I'm over here ... move over will you. Could this not be the basis for what develops as sentience???

 

Anyone?

 

Hey John! I just watched a program on TV that spoke to exactly this. Check out the concepts "Spooky Action At A Distance" and "Quantum Entanglement".

 

Spooky stuff! Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Well Mr MH, you wouldn't in that case ("banging") be very very far from some traditions :-)

Sometimes it's expressed with a bit more symbolism (I was guessing it was because they didn't want the kids finding out what they were on about too soon:-)).

 

Funny. That never entered my mind. But I can see the association.

 

Anyway, more seriously, again is found attribution. IMO. Basically I'd love to get the rock's perspective. Might get us somewhere:-)

 

Yes, if we could only get the rock's perspective.

[Apech]

Hey John! I just watched a program on TV that spoke to exactly this. Check out the concepts "Spooky Action At A Distance" and "Quantum Entanglement".

 

Spooky stuff! Hehehe.

 

Well yes. The act of observation has some effect on not just the observed particle but its 'twin' .... suggesting particles are not separate entities but modalities of a continuum which interacts with itself ... thus I am suggesting that this is the basis for consciousness. The transfer of information from place to place in space. Light is one aspect of this.

 

Consciousness in some form or another (perhaps not immediately recognizable as such) is fundamental and not an epi-phenomena ... this makes sense to me.

 

If only that rock could speak or write a book.

[Marblehead]

Consciousness in some form or another (perhaps not immediately recognizable as such) is fundamental and not an epi-phenomena ... this makes sense to me.

 

If only that rock could speak or write a book.

 

Yeah, you are willing to take this concept of consciousness further than I am.

 

I guess we should leave the rocks alone now.

[dwai]

Okay. Hehehe.

 

Actually, you have me at a point where I cannot comment further or mess with you any more.

 

Yes, the physical universe is the 10,000 things. And yes, every thing is an aspect of that oneness.

 

"Nondual Consciousness"!!! What a concept! Funny thought: What is there to be aware of if the consciousness is everything? Where can it look and see anything else but itself? You don't have to respond to those questions - I know they are weird.

thats a great question? Some say that is in a state of ecstacy and the universe is the result of it...others say that its how that is...no way to know the intentions or undertand a "no thing" with rules meant for things.

[3bob]

thats a great question? Some say that is in a state of ecstacy and the universe is the result of it...others say that its how that is...no way to know the intentions or undertand a "no thing" with rules meant for things.

 

yep, more or less agreed.

 

and not bad MH

[Marblehead]

...no way to know the intentions or undertand a "no thing" with rules meant for things.

 

And that, Sir, is why I have a problem talking about concepts that go beyond the realm of the Manifest. Everyone's level of spirituality is going to be different. Even the concept of consciousness is going to be different because of this.

 

Science has their answers and that is about all the further I can go with the little bit of knowledge I have concerning it.

[Marblehead]

yep, more or less agreed.

 

and not bad MH

 

Yea!!! We have had fun with this one!

 

Maybe still more fun ahead. We'll see.

[dwai]

And that, Sir, is why I have a problem talking about concepts that go beyond the realm of the Manifest. Everyone's level of spirituality is going to be different. Even the concept of consciousness is going to be different because of this.

 

Science has their answers and that is about all the further I can go with the little bit of knowledge I have concerning it.

 

The need to "understand" things using what my philosopher friend calls "A Categorical Framework" is imho, the greatest fallacy on our part (by us, I mean in general, thinking, rational human beings). Science is just "A categorical framework", it is neither universal nor perfect. The same phenomenon can be explained in perfectly rational and logical ways using categorical frameworks which are different from those posited by "science".

 

We tend to think that Science is the end-all be-all tool of inquiry but it's not. I often like to cite the example of "Western medical science" vs "Traditional Chinese Medicine" or "Ayurveda". Each of these are successful and comprehensive medical systems which are capable of curing most diseases. However, the underlying metaphysics is different in each case. Is one better than the others? Can disease be explained and treated based on the rules each follow? Most certainly (as empirical data shows).

 

Why do we "need" to explain everything via this obviously incomplete and non-universal lens (aka science)?

Science cannot even explain things like Chi or Consciousness...there just aren't the appropriate rules set up to do so. So we need something else...what is it? Daoist metaphysics, or Vedantic metaphysics could...

[Marblehead]

Why do we "need" to explain everything via this obviously incomplete and non-universal lens (aka science)?

Science cannot even explain things like Chi or Consciousness...there just aren't the appropriate rules set up to do so. So we need something else...what is it? Daoist metaphysics, or Vedantic metaphysics could...

 

I do agree, you know. But then, my way has worked well for me and basivally that is good enough for me. I realize that others view many of my understandings as lacking and that is fine for them. Perhaps they need more than I do?

 

Yes, I will talk about metaphysics with anyone. But don't expect to hear me talking about how to become an immortal. And don't expect to see me fly - I don't do that. In fact, I don't do any magic.

[dwai]

I do agree, you know. But then, my way has worked well for me and basivally that is good enough for me. I realize that others view many of my understandings as lacking and that is fine for them. Perhaps they need more than I do?

 

Yes, I will talk about metaphysics with anyone. But don't expect to hear me talking about how to become an immortal. And don't expect to see me fly - I don't do that. In fact, I don't do any magic.

 

A very sensible approach indeed. I would consider myself in your camp in that respect (and fact of the matter is that we do agree more than we disagree on stuff) --- no flying or levitating for me.

[Marblehead]

A very sensible approach indeed. I would consider myself in your camp in that respect (and fact of the matter is that we do agree more than we disagree on stuff) --- no flying or levitating for me.

 

Hey! I was going to say that when I started reading your post. Hehehe.

 

And yes, I am really amazed by your practical mind-set what with your belief system. (Nothing against your belief system, mind you.)

 

The biggest problem I have with the concept of "universal consciousness" is that the next step for most people is the creation of gods. I just can't go there.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Marblehead

[dwai]

Hey! I was going to say that when I started reading your post. Hehehe.

 

And yes, I am really amazed by your practical mind-set what with your belief system. (Nothing against your belief system, mind you.)

 

The biggest problem I have with the concept of "universal consciousness" is that the next step for most people is the creation of gods. I just can't go there.

If people really understood that nondual, there would be no room to create gods. Since tat understanding would mean thereis no rel separation between us and that...we are that. gods are necessary till one gets there for some, for some others its no gods.

 

Some of the wisest and most astute practitioners of these systems i've met love their preffered deity...who am i to judge. I was deeply devoted at a certain stage...that kind of devotion is out of love, not fear of judgement. To be able to love without selfishness...simply surrender. That opens up many closed doors...

[Birch]

The gods IMO are phenomena as much as anything else. Unfortunately what can happen with them is they can gain autonomy from their creator and start appearing to others.