Consciousness

[sayak83]

I appreciate your honesty. But I'm not clear what your concerns are. Classical states are defined, not probable. Because particles can be superimposed and occupy different positions(operator type) at the same time, they can't be classically measured. The problem is that the postulate of collapsing the wave form seems to be right about what happens when we make measurements, but the dynamics seems to be wrong. Yet, the dynamics seems to be right about what happens whenever we aren't making measurements, and it is the postulate that is wrong.

I am still not certain what you are confused about, or trying to say. The eigenvalue is determined by which operator you chose to use. It will always be the true value for that eigenstate. Anyway, I can recommend some reading materials to help you better understand this subject. Opposite to what many may believe, QM is not that hard to understand. Once you learn to accept that it is probabilities, events, and outcomes that you are working with. Although, a working knowledge of discrete algebra, and matrix operations can't hurt. Don

I am not confused about anything. I am trying to debunk the notion that consciousness is required for the wavefunction collapse. Since you agree with me on this, there isn't anything of dispute between us here.

I am well versed in QM, though not as much in QFT which I have not needed in my prifessionwl research so far. You are correct, the mathematics of QM is quite easy at the fundamental level.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am not confused about anything. I am trying to debunk the notion that consciousness is required for the wavefunction collapse. Since you agree with me on this, there isn't anything of dispute between us here.

I am well versed in QM, though not as much in QFT which I have not needed in my prifessionwl research so far. You are correct, the mathematics of QM is quite easy at the fundamental level.

I was asking for clarification. You've done that. I was not making a truth claim, or asserting that you were confused. In all my years in science, I was never aware of the role consciousness played in QM, (other than a Quantum Woo), or that it needed to be debunked. All of reality can be defined and represented by the 6 quantum fields in the QFT. It is the most precise and tested of all Theories in science. CERN and LHC could not work if the Theory was off by even just a little bit. Maybe times have changed since my time in the lab. Don



Obviously, times have changed. Don

 

[godnotgod]

Given this direct falsification, there is no reason to attach much weight to the results of these fringe parapsychologists.Currently all these studies giving positive results are reported by the usual suspects within a small fringe of quantum mystics and parapsychologists. They can't be reproduced by others, makes absolutely no sense given our success in using quantum mechanics objectively in software technology, cryptography and quantum computing , and hence are politely ignored by the physics community.

'fringe parapsychologists'; 'the usual suspects': so they are criminal and fraudulent and on acid, yes? The bias is pretty obvious.

Actually, the 1994 experiment by Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum re: brain non-locality has been replicated by other researchers:

Integrative Biophysics

What is worse, it comes from a semi-literate understanding if Hindu and Buddhist metaphysics and philosophy. Both Hindu and Buddhist religions, as they were classically practiced in India, Tibet etc. is absolutely committed to an objective world in the realm of phenomena ruled by inviolable laws that cannot be altered by thinking about it. Hinduism especially have three orthodox schools of thought devoted to the explication of this objectively grounded world of phenomena. Vaiseshika, the atomist school that investigates the world as composed of interacting atoms having properties, the Nyaya school that deals with the elucidation of scientific inference and epistemology based on objective user independent observation of the world, and the Mimansa school that deals with philosophy of language and abstract mathematical logic. That's three of the six orthodox schools of Hindu metaphysics devoted to rational and objective inquiry into the world that is observed. These are balanced by three mystical and introspective schools: Yoga, Samkhya and Vedanta. The six schools together deliver the complete picture of the Hindu view of the world which says that both the objective, rational and scientific understanding of the observed world and the essential monistic introspective understanding of the Self and the World as experienced by mystical insight are simultaneously true. How this synoptic picture of the world where apparently contradictory ways are true can be expressed and conceived is the heart of Hindu creative thought in religion, art, culture and literature.

Ékaṃ sád víprā bahudhā́ vadanty (Rig Veda)
Existence is One, though the sages speak of it in multiple ways.

I have no problem with any of the above. Essentially, the objective view of the world is that of conditioned awareness, while that of the mystic is unconditioned awareness. From the POV of perceptual reality, the world is real; from the POV of Ultimate Reality, it is not. In the classic snake/rope metaphor, the rope represents Brahman, The Absolute, while the 'snake' represents The Universe. The point is that though it seems as if the material world is real to the senses, it is really the result of the play of maya and lila. So in the end, only Braman is real. There are not two worlds; not two realities; only One. The world IS Brahman, playing ITself as 'the world'.

Now that's out of the way. Let's see what is wrong with these quantum consciousness experiments. See here a discussion on the paper you originally cited,

A Physicist Investigates

This should give you a sense of how horribly shoddy these experiments really are.

If a physics or engineering undergrad try to pass off such badly run experiments as data, he would flunk the class, pure and simple.

Hope this was helpful.

re: Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum: Amit Goswami, Quantum physicist and author of a textbook on Quantum Physics, helped to set up the JGZ experiment, the findings of which he still supports today along with other modified replications of that experiment. Are you saying these setups are shoddy? And could it be that the JGZ team was forced to publish their findings in what mainstream physics considers to be a 'fringe publcation' (ie 'Physics Essays') only because they would not even consider the subject of the experiment from the get-go? They would't want their name tarnished by association with such fringe 'suspects'. After all, their reputation and all.....oh the anathema!

 

[godnotgod]

I am not confused about anything. I am trying to debunk the notion that consciousness is required for the wavefunction collapse. Since you agree with me on this, there isn't anything of dispute between us here.

I am well versed in QM, though not as much in QFT which I have not needed in my prifessionwl research so far. You are correct, the mathematics of QM is quite easy at the fundamental level.

You're not confused because you've already made up your mind and closed the door.

BTW, doesn't QFT say that what we understand to be 'particles' are actually standing waves?

 

[sayak83]

'fringe parapsychologists'; 'the usual suspects': so they are criminal and fraudulent and on acid, yes? The bias is pretty obvious.

Actually, the 1994 experiment by Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum re: brain non-locality has been replicated by other researchers:

Integrative Biophysics



I have no problem with any of the above. Essentially, the objective view of the world is that of conditioned awareness, while that of the mystic is unconditioned awareness. From the POV of perceptual reality, the world is real; from the POV of Ultimate Reality, it is not. In the classic snake/rope metaphor, the rope represents Brahman, The Absolute, while the 'snake' represents The Universe. The point is that though it seems as if the material world is real to the senses, it is really the result of the play of maya and lila. So in the end, only Braman is real. There are not two worlds; not two realities; only One. The world IS Brahman, playing ITself as 'the world'.




re: Jacobo-Grinberg Zylberbaum: Amit Goswami, Quantum physicist and author of a textbook on Quantum Physics, help to set up the JGZ experiment, the findings of which he still supports today along with other modified replications of that experiment. Are you saying these setups are shoddy? And could it be that the JGZ team was forced to publish their findings in what mainstream physics considers to be a 'fringe publcation' (ie 'Physics Essays') only because they would not even consider the subject of the experiment from the get-go? They would't want their name tarnished by association with such fringe 'suspects'. After all, their reputation and all.....oh the anathema!

It is common for people who believe in pseudoscience to accuse scientists of bias. There is not a shred of reality in this charge. Note that you have failed to respond to the specific refutations that were presented in my argument. Yes, these experiments are horribly shoddy, the results are exceedingly poor in quality control and rife with poor data analysis practices. This is why they cannot be replicated outside of this fringe circle who find signals that does not exist. Indeed my links take the very experiments you linked to showed unambiguously how poorly they were conducted. Not only that multiple scientific experiments have been conducted that directly falsify the hypothesis that consciousness in any way shape or form affect the results of quantum experiments. These falsifications are also linked.

So the question becomes, despite the vast amount of counter evidence showing the results of quantum mystics are FALSE, why do you continue to trust this group? Could it be that you yourself are strongly biased for wanting such things to be true?

Please link the JGZ expt. you were quoting above. The original expt on quantum consciousness you linked have been refuted in my earlier reply. Do you accept the refutations or do you wish provide an argument about why it is trustworthy? Here is another refutation of the EEG correlation experiments that you are linking above.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/eeg-esp/

Conclusion

Once again we have an ESP research paradigm with the following features:

– Tiny and inconsistent effect sizes

– Overpowered studies and creative statistical analysis in order to create false positive results with impressive p-values

– Lack of independent replication

– The usual suspects showing positive (but not compelling) results.

What we never seem to get with such ESP research are clear results, with significant effect sizes in a consistent pattern, and independently replicated – also known as the standard threshold for scientific acceptance.

The pattern of results we do see are consistent with the null hypothesis – no actual real effect at work. What we do end up with is documentation of how noisy systems and motivated researchers can use creative statistical analysis to create false positive results.

____________

I reject Sankara's thesis that the world is an illusion. The Upanisads do not support this claim. The qualified-nondualist thesis where the world is a Real manifestation of the One Brahman through it's diversifying power is more consistent with the Upanisads and Gita. This is the standard interpretation of Vedanta in Ramanuja and other traditions of Vedantic Hinduism and is more consistent with mainstream Hindu thought. Upanisads say that the One became Many, nowhere does it say that this is an illusion in the sense of a magic trick. Sankara's thesis is inconsistent with the findings of the other six schools of Hinduism and is opposed even within Vedantic tradition. So, despite being a brilliant scholar whom I respect deeply, I must disagree with his idea that the world is a mere illusion.

 

[sayak83]

You're not confused because you've already made up your mind and closed the door.

BTW, doesn't QFT say that what we understand to be 'particles' are actually standing waves?

Neither.

When I come across an impressive set of science experiments that pass the standards of science required to produce papers and PhD thesis in the best physics departments of the world, I will change my mind. Otherwise not.

 

[godnotgod]

It is you that is NOT following my train of thought, if you can blatantly state that I am touting the "objective mind" as some kind of literary gold standard. Especially, since I don't believe that an objective mind, objective consciousness, or an objective perspective can even exist.

Then why did you say:

"Since you simply create your own language and logic to support your assertions, your rationale is not objective. Since you offer no objective evidence..."

It sounds to me as if you are saying that to be objective is the ideal.

You are the one that keep asserting that they exist, not me. What is the difference between a God, and a universal mind, universal consciousness, or a universal perspective? NONE! Exactly how can a subjective mind be aware of anything that, by definition is objective? IT CAN'T! The only thing that you have been doing, is creating a philosophical conceptual framework that is reinforced by unsupported assertions, circular reasoning, and ignorance. Your form of pseudo-sophistry belongs in Hilbert Space. And, your logic would make even a Trekkie cringe in disbelief.

If you had been paying attention, you would have taken note that I have been saying all along that the subject/object split is a mental construct that does not originally exist. IOW, it is just a fabrication of the mind in it's attempt to 'explain' something it does not really understand, and to classify it in the world of what it calls 'things'.

Only at the quantum level are all things one with the universe. But it is a fallacy to claim this is true at the macro-level. At this level, we are not ONE with anything, we are simply "self", and separate from everything else.

Man, are YOU ever disconnected from reality!

Fact is, dearie: it is the Quantum world that is the basis for the macro world. There are not two worlds. This macro world IS the Quantum world. At what point is there a separation?

'separate self' is just an illusion. Fact is, dearie: you and I and everything else are completely and totally interconnected and interdependent one with the other and with everything else. You exchange gases with your environment; you take in liquids and nutrients and expel waste from it. If fully supports you, inside and out. You cannot exist without it. I suspect somewhere along the line you must have heard of 'ecology' and 'biosphere'? But please: tell me where this 'self' exists that you claim to be real?

The brain is a physical organ that has evolved over millions of years, from trial and error. It's initial function was to provide the necessary skills for our survival and need for procreation. There was no need for consciousness, morality, or self-awareness.

Oh, really? And pray tell, who, or what, decided what the brain's 'initial function' was? And in this survival and procreation, no conflict ever arose requiring the need for conscientious restraint to prevent open warfare and individual conflict over goods and territory?

As our species became more interdependent on each other to provide for its basic drives, language and other cognitive skills needed to evolve. Pattern recognition and memory skills also became more evolved. Our higher centers of thought enabled us to develop a better interpretation of our objective reality(environment). These centers also allowed us to become self-aware, and sentient. These centers allow us the ability to learn, store memories, and to pass this new knowledge onto our offsprings. The brain exists within three states of awareness (consciousness, unconsciousness, and subconsciousness). Self-awareness and internal dialog have very little importance in survival. But they do provide the psychological framework for morality and introspection.

I think you have the above scenario backwards.

Now how do I know these things are real, and not that I just want them to be real? I know that without a physical brain, objective reality will still exist.

Oh, but wait! Didn't you say earlier that the moon doesn't exist unless we look at it, or something similar to that?

And for 'objective reality' to exist, there must be something in place that considers it to be objective.

But with a brain, I can perceive a tiny portion of that reality(subjective). What does this logically imply? I know that without functioning sensory receptors and organs, my subjective reality will simply disappear. Therefore my senses are vital in providing my brain with information linking it to my environment(objective reality).

Ah,yes, thank goodness for consciousness which programmed the brain for these very functions so that we can navigate our world and evolve! Were is not for consciousness, there would be no brain. Science has it backwards with their notion of 'emergent theory'. The TV signal does not come from the TV set; it is non-local.

We all know that we can artificially change our perception of reality(drugs, disease, experimentation, accidents, age, environment, death, etc.). We also know that we are not physically or empathically connected to any other brain or person. If one "self" is pricked by the needle, the other "self" does not feel the physical pain(even in identical twins). If one "self" is hiding secrets in the mind, the other "self" will not know. Since our brain developed independent and separate from other brains, how can "self" be connected in any way to anything? In what way are we connected to a universal self? And, what is it connected to, ad infinitum? The brain is nothing more than another organ in the body, like the kidneys, liver, lungs and the heart. Memory, mind, and consciousness, are the results of a normal functioning brain, that provides "self" with its best-guess representation of objective reality.

On a superficial level, we see ourselves as separate; but on a deeper level, we are all interconnected. The collective unconscious is one such way:

Collective unconscious. a term coined by Carl Jung, refers to structures of the unconscious mind which are shared among beings of the same species. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts and by archetypes: universal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, the Tree of Life, and many more.


Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argued that the collective unconscious had profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious.

Collective unconscious - Wikipedia

What you don't seem to understand, is that you, the brain, self, consciousness, and the mind, are all one in the same. There is nothing that we can perceive outside of our subjective perspective, anymore than we can perceive outside of our expanding Universe.

As long as you are boxed in by the self-created notion of a limited mind, that is how you will see the world; that will be your experience, always as seen through the lens of 'I' and 'me' and 'mine'. Once you break free of the subject/object split, your view will be transformed forever. 'Subjective perspective 'can be transcended. After all, it's just a phase in our growth toward a higher state of awareness and happiness that is beyond mere survival and egoic/sensual gratification.

Regarding your snowflake analogy, simply tell me what was the "figure of speech" you used in your comparison? If you can't, it is an analogy, not a metaphor. So simply state it, and I will gladly acknowledge my error. Otherwise, your backpedaling is just embarrassing to read. Surely you are not this egocentric. Don

I'll just cut to the chase once more: the basis for uniqueness is commonality. Though we are all unique individuals in many ways, we all share a common human experience comprised of common elements.

Bye bye, dearie. Hope you can manage to finally get yer cart BEHIND yer horse.

Cheers!

 

[sayak83]

I was asking for clarification. You've done that. I was not making a truth claim, or asserting that you were confused. In all my years in science, I was never aware of the role consciousness played in QM, (other than a Quantum Woo), or that it needed to be debunked. All of reality can be defined and represented by the 6 quantum fields in the QFT. It is the most precise and tested of all Theories in science. CERN and LHC could not work if the Theory was off by even just a little bit. Maybe times have changed since my time in the lab. Don



Obviously, times have changed. Don

Times have not changed. Unfortunately people are severely misled into Quantum mysticism by pseudoscientists who dress up their nonsense in a scientific garb.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Times have not changed. Unfortunately people are severely misled into Quantum mysticism by pseudoscientists who dress up their nonsense in a scientific garb.

Agreed! Don

 

[sayak83]

You're not confused because you've already made up your mind and closed the door.

BTW, doesn't QFT say that what we understand to be 'particles' are actually standing waves?

By the way, have you read the Upanisads?

 

[godnotgod]

I reject Sankara's thesis that the world is an illusion. The Upanisads do not support this claim. The qualified-nondualist thesis where the world is a Real manifestation of the One Brahman through it's diversifying power is more consistent with the Upanisads and Gita. This is the standard interpretation of Vedanta in Ramanuja and other traditions of Vedantic Hinduism and is more consistent with mainstream Hindu thought. Upanisads say that the One became Many, nowhere does it say that this is an illusion in the sense of a magic trick. Sankara's thesis is inconsistent with the findings of the other six schools of Hinduism and is opposed even within Vedantic tradition. So, despite being a brilliant scholar whom I respect deeply, I must disagree with his idea that the world is a mere illusion.

Mere illusion? This is no 'mere' illusion. It is an illusion of a very high caliber, which is why most think it to be real, all based upon perceptual reality. Tell me: what is it that makes you believe it to be real?

The literal idea that 'the One became Many' is illogical. If that were actually the case, then there cannot have been a One to begin with, because 'the Many' means separate things. Nothing 'becomes' something else. This idea of becoming is just a figure of speech. Gold does not 'become' a gold chain. The One appears as Many, but always remains The One. It is often stated that 'Brahman 'became' the world', but again, that is not so. Brahman is simply manifesting AS 'the world'. Why? Because only Brahman is real. Everything else is only appearances and shadows. Attaching to them as if they were 'real' is delusion. The main problem is that the mind mistakes form for 'things', which the Heart Sutra in Buddhistic thought tells us are 'empty of inherent self-nature'...

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

...due to the Law of Dependent Origination:

In the Madhyamaka philosophy, to say that an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that it is dependently originated. Nāgārjuna equates emptiness with dependent origination in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18;[69]

Whatever arises dependently

Is explained as empty.
Thus dependent attribution
Is the middle way.

Since there is nothing whatever
That is not dependently existent,
For that reason there is nothing
Whatsoever that is not empty.[70]

Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia

 

[godnotgod]

By the way, have you read the Upanisads?

No, just the Gita and the Tao te Ching.

 

[sayak83]

No, just the Gita and the Tao te Ching.

Does it say in the Gita that the world is an illusion?

 

[sayak83]

Mere illusion? This is no 'mere' illusion. It is an illusion of a very high caliber, which is why most think it to be real, all based upon perceptual reality. Tell me: what is it that makes you believe it to be real?

The literal idea that 'the One became Many' is illogical. If that were actually the case, then there cannot have been a One to begin with, because 'the Many' means separate things. Nothing 'becomes' something else. This idea of becoming is just a figure of speech. Gold does not 'become' a gold chain. The One appears as Many, but always remains The One. It is often stated that 'Brahman 'became' the world', but again, that is not so. Brahman is simply manifesting AS 'the world'. Why? Because only Brahman is real. Everything else is only appearances and shadows. Attaching to them as if they were 'real' is delusion. The main problem is that the mind mistakes form for 'things', which the Heart Sutra in Buddhistic thought tells us are 'empty of inherent self-nature'...

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

...due to the Law of Dependent Origination:

In the Madhyamaka philosophy, to say that an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that it is dependently originated. Nāgārjuna equates emptiness with dependent origination in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18;[69]

Whatever arises dependently

Is explained as empty.
Thus dependent attribution
Is the middle way.

Since there is nothing whatever
That is not dependently existent,
For that reason there is nothing
Whatsoever that is not empty.[70]

Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia

Are you planning to argue that the gold chain is an illusion and only the gold is real?
Is that more or less logical than saying that the gold chain is real and it's essence is that of gold? It's you who is making no sense now.

If you are going to quote Madhyamika Buddhism then you cannot assert at the same time that there does exist something that is not dependently existent, namely the universal consciousness that you are positing. Stop mixing philosophies up.

 

[crossfire]

This is an idea I unreservedly support. How would one know? (If they were being honest, that is.) Having written on this phenomena extensively offline, for many years, I've come to the conclusion that if one did visit such an aspect as formless consciousness you would likely have no memory of it other than a blank spot. That is not to say that one could not theoretically enter such a state, and still have full consciousness, rather, upon return to ordinary consciousness, you would retain no memory.

*Doh* I just remembered this post. This might explain why I often lose consciousness when meditating on formlessness! *Doh*

 

[sayak83]

Mere illusion? This is no 'mere' illusion. It is an illusion of a very high caliber, which is why most think it to be real, all based upon perceptual reality. Tell me: what is it that makes you believe it to be real?

The literal idea that 'the One became Many' is illogical. If that were actually the case, then there cannot have been a One to begin with, because 'the Many' means separate things. Nothing 'becomes' something else. This idea of becoming is just a figure of speech. Gold does not 'become' a gold chain. The One appears as Many, but always remains The One. It is often stated that 'Brahman 'became' the world', but again, that is not so. Brahman is simply manifesting AS 'the world'. Why? Because only Brahman is real. Everything else is only appearances and shadows. Attaching to them as if they were 'real' is delusion. The main problem is that the mind mistakes form for 'things', which the Heart Sutra in Buddhistic thought tells us are 'empty of inherent self-nature'...

'form is emptiness;
emptiness is form'

...due to the Law of Dependent Origination:

In the Madhyamaka philosophy, to say that an object is "empty" is synonymous with saying that it is dependently originated. Nāgārjuna equates emptiness with dependent origination in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 24:18;[69]

Whatever arises dependently

Is explained as empty.
Thus dependent attribution
Is the middle way.

Since there is nothing whatever
That is not dependently existent,
For that reason there is nothing
Whatsoever that is not empty.[70]

Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia

It is trivial to show that many does not necessarily mean radically separate entities. Take numbers for instance, which encapsulates the very notion of one, zero (sunya of Nagarjuna) and many. Yet all number share the same essential structure as number theory shows. One and the many are two sides of the same coin.

 

[crossfire]

It is trivial to show that many does not necessarily mean radically separate entities. Take numbers for instance, which encapsulates the very notion of one, zero (sunya of Nagarjuna) and many. Yet all number share the same essential structure as number theory shows. One and the many are two sides of the same coin.

*Nods* See Tao Te Ching 1.
Here are 170 translations of it:
Lao Tzu: "Tao Te Ching" (170+ translations of Chapter 1)

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Then why did you say:

"Since you simply create your own language and logic to support your assertions, your rationale is not objective. Since you offer no objective evidence..."

It sounds to me as if you are saying that to be objective is the ideal.



If you had been paying attention, you would have taken note that I have been saying all along that the subject/object split is a mental construct that does not originally exist. IOW, it is just a fabrication of the mind in it's attempt to 'explain' something it does not really understand, and to classify it in the world of what it calls 'things'.



Man, are YOU ever disconnected from reality!

Fact is, dearie: it is the Quantum world that is the basis for the macro world. There are not two worlds. This macro world IS the Quantum world. At what point is there a separation?

'separate self' is just an illusion. Fact is, dearie: you and I and everything else are completely and totally interconnected and interdependent one with the other and with everything else. You exchange gases with your environment; you take in liquids and nutrients and expel waste from it. If fully supports you, inside and out. You cannot exist without it. I suspect somewhere along the line you must have heard of 'ecology' and 'biosphere'? But please: tell me where this 'self' exists that you claim to be real?



Oh, really? And pray tell, who, or what, decided what the brain's 'initial function' was? And in this survival and procreation, no conflict ever arose requiring the need for conscientious restraint to prevent open warfare and individual conflict over goods and territory?



I think you have the above scenario backwards.



Oh, but wait! Didn't you say earlier that the moon doesn't exist unless we look at it, or something similar to that?

And for 'objective reality' to exist, there must be something in place that considers it to be objective.



Ah,yes, thank goodness for consciousness which programmed the brain for these very functions so that we can navigate our world and evolve! Were is not for consciousness, there would be no brain. Science has it backwards with their notion of 'emergent theory'. The TV signal does not come from the TV set; it is non-local.



On a superficial level, we see ourselves as separate; but on a deeper level, we are all interconnected. The collective unconscious is one such way:

Collective unconscious. a term coined by Carl Jung, refers to structures of the unconscious mind which are shared among beings of the same species. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts and by archetypes: universal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, the Tree of Life, and many more.


Jung considered the collective unconscious to underpin and surround the unconscious mind, distinguishing it from the personal unconscious of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argued that the collective unconscious had profound influence on the lives of individuals, who lived out its symbols and clothed them in meaning through their experiences. The psychotherapeutic practice of analytical psychology revolves around examining the patient's relationship to the collective unconscious.

Collective unconscious - Wikipedia



As long as you are boxed in by the self-created notion of a limited mind, that is how you will see the world; that will be your experience, always as seen through the lens of 'I' and 'me' and 'mine'. Once you break free of the subject/object split, your view will be transformed forever. 'Subjective perspective 'can be transcended. After all, it's just a phase in our growth toward a higher state of awareness and happiness that is beyond mere survival and egoic/sensual gratification.



I'll just cut to the chase once more: the basis for uniqueness is commonality. Though we are all unique individuals in many ways, we all share a common human experience comprised of common elements.

Bye bye, dearie. Hope you can manage to finally get yer cart BEHIND yer horse.

Cheers!

Please don't call me "dearie" unless you are an old woman with warts. It is disrespectful, condescending, and distracting. But after reading the rest of this intellectual tripe, it seems more than reflective and consistent. That for one to be objective, is not the same as saying I believe in an objective mind. More intellectual dishonesty. I see that your road to ascension is still filled with self-serving semantics, and is an equivocation nightmare. Let me just keep it simple. correct me at any time you feel I am incorrect. But only correct exactly what I say, NOT what you want me to say.

Without a physical brain between your ears, there is no MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, OR SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE. Since we can't naturally see our own brain, it is objectively real. Any objections so far? Without our peripheral and autonomic nervous system, the brain would have no way to represent its internal and external environment. How could YOU describe your reality, if you had no way to sense it? All sensory perceptions are real and measurable. Mind and consciousness are perceptions, represented to "self"(the subject) by processes within the functioning brain. Therefore, to say that mind or consciousness have no limiting factors(brain, sense organs and receptors), is to imply that consciousness is the carpenter, and the brain is the hammer.

Anyway, after just reading, "Ah,yes, thank goodness for consciousness which programmed the brain for these very functions so that we can navigate our world and evolve! Were is not for consciousness, there would be no brain. Science has it backwards with their notion of 'emergent theory'. The TV signal does not come from the TV set; it is non-local". I think these statements demonstrate your level of scientific understanding, and how strongly you cling to your own ignorance. Your collective mind and consciousness idea was very entertaining on episodes of star trek, but there is NO evidence to suggest that they are real. Except in your convoluted mind. Don

 

[ajay0]

But the statement is independent of his credentials or his science. Science, perse, will never arrive at this conclusion due to the limitations of its own methodologies.

This is true. At this point of time, I would say that scientific knowledge and study of the nature of consciousness is incomplete, and using it to prove nondualism is a labor in futility, as much as I admire your tenacity.

Science uncovers partial truths and can never present a picture of the whole system all of a sudden. It is more like solving a jigsaw puzzle one at a time.

For example, a few decades back chemical fertilizers were introduced in agriculture by scientists and endorsing them,and this was accepted by all without question. Later on, it was found that the incidence of carcinogenic diseases was significantly high in those who ingested food created from farms where chemical fertilizers were used.

This lead to the movement for organic farming in the west, which is now spreading all over the world. So what was then accepted by science as valid then is now being rejected.

Similarly you can see the craze for chemical shampoos, soaps, cosmetics are also dwindling in a similar manner, and people are more interested in the herbal or natural varieties.

This came about because science could not come up with a holistic picture in the beginning itself, of the effects of food created by chemical fertilizers or other chemical products on the human body.

It was the statistics of a large number of unfortunate victims of cancer and so on, that lead to people rejecting them later on.So I would say that science cannot come up with a holistic picture of a subject as broad as consciousness in its totality all of a sudden.

But that does not mean that we have to wait two or three centuries for science to validate the nondualist philosophy, in order to experience samadhi or nirvikalpa samadhi for ourselves. Samadhi or nirvikalpa samadhi can be experienced by anyone by following the yogic, buddhist and advaitan philosophical methodologies meticulously to their legitimate conclusion.

These are ancient timetested philosophical systems created by ancient enlightened sages that produce repeatable and reliable results, along with bliss and joy, which is independent of impermanent external sensory objects or events ,and which modern materialism have utterly failed to provide.


The instances of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj,H.W.Poonja, Annamalai Swami, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Nirmala Devi, Dada Gavand, Prem Nirmal, Anandmurti Gurumaa, Mooji, Byron Katie, Metta Zetty, Madhukar, Sailor Bob Adamson, Gilbert Schultz, John Wheeler, Charlie Hayes, Adyashanti, Jed Mckenna, Jeff Foster, Robert Adams, Douglas Harding, Eckhart Tolle, Isaac Shapiro,Dave Oshana, Jean Klein, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, Barry Long, Franklin Merrell-Wolff , Ilie Cioara, Bernadette Roberts, Jan Frazier, Adam Oakley,Scott Kiloby, Greg Goode, Jac O Keeffe, Toni Packer, who all after experiencing enlightenment, through their own personal testimony have validated the teachings of the ancient enlightened masters, and are now teachers in their own right.

 

[YmirGF]

The instances of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj,H.W.Poonja, Annamalai Swami, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Nirmala Devi, Dada Gavand, Prem Nirmal, Anandmurti Gurumaa, Mooji, Byron Katie, Metta Zetty, Madhukar, Sailor Bob Adamson, Gilbert Schultz, John Wheeler, Charlie Hayes, Adyashanti, Jed Mckenna, Jeff Foster, Robert Adams, Douglas Harding, Eckhart Tolle, Isaac Shapiro,Dave Oshana, Jean Klein, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, Barry Long, Franklin Merrell-Wolff , Ilie Cioara, Bernadette Roberts, Jan Frazier, Adam Oakley,Scott Kiloby, Greg Goode, Jac O Keeffe, Toni Packer, who all after experiencing enlightenment, through their own personal testimony have validated the teachings of the ancient enlightened masters, and are now teachers in their own right.

Cool. Do they also get some kind of insignia on their driver's license to mark the occaision of their enlightenment?
PS: You forgot Mel Sptiz, a janitor in Queens. Jus' sayin'...