Is the universe conscious of itself...

[LegionOnomaMoi]

That perhaps is the difference between the consciousness of the universe and human consciousness, local - non-local.

Human consciousness is nonlocal. Are you saying the consciousness of the universe is local? Or am I misunderstanding you completely (or both, for that matter). Thanks!

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have to sort this out.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I have to sort this out.

Probably the best response to any post I've read in a while. Personally, I tend to get caught up in my own train of thought and my responses, and realize I should have stopped to sort out my thoughts a while ago.

 

[atanu]

No, actually, quite the opposite. Our experience of consciousness is necessarily holistic. We do not experience neurons firing, nor do we experience consciousness as though it were produced by any components.

Rather, consciousness is necessarily a unified, holistic sense of awareness. Consciousness can't be perceived/experienced "locally" for the very reason that this would fragment the unity that is consciousness.

I value posts of only a few, including yours. Saying that however, I am now ready for battle.

Yes. Human consciousness is actually infinite and non local. But perception of it is not that, since there is a superposition of mind created objects over the indivisible non local consciousness.

If consciousness was perceived as indivisible whole (as it actually is) no one would fight over "I-Me-Mine", there would be no heart breaks, there would be no agony of bodily pains, no jealousy etc. etc. These dramas are possible because it is a dream existence where there are objects -- abominable and likeable, and thus preferences and fear and pain.

You cannot reject this direct perception.

Only because of this we require scripture and teachers who will point out the moon.

From the perspective of the nonlocal whole, there is only the nonlocal whole (actually, consciousness is less "nonlocal" and more "not localized"; whatever brain dynamics may or may not underlie human conscious experience, the actual consciousness is not located in space nor localized at all).

Agree.

The whole cannot experience itself as any "self" (any "whole" which is aware and in particular self-aware) unless this experience is necessarily divorced from the parts.

Does not every one divide the whole indivisible homogeneous consciousness into "I" and "the world" in dream?

An actor can play as many roles as he wishes to. As per my understanding, God is the one who never sleeps over the fact that it is play -- and as per Vedanta the best meditator and the best teacher.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actors are not android in function, if the average was that high they would simply be called human nothing more.

But it is typical for you to move goal post and stretch the English language into what ever you want

Outhouse...I implied most humans were mostly android in function....not that they were machines..but they acted like automatons... Now the people who are unaware they are mostly acting and would argue vehemently the suggestion was not true....there is an automaton exposed....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I value posts of only a few, including yours. Saying that however, I am now ready for battle.

Perhaps there will not be as much of a battle as you think (either because we agree, or because I run away defeated). But I appreciate (and return) the compliment!

Yes. Human consciousness is actually infinite and non local. But perception of it is not that, since there is a superposition of mind created objects over the indivisible non local consciousness.

We're getting into some terminological difficulties here. In particular, perception of consciousness is in some ways/sense impossible. We can (arguably) perceive that other people (or animals, or perhaps even the universe) are conscious, but we can't perceive consciousness except insofar as by perception you mean experiencing our own consciousness. Put differently, perception of consciousness is inseparable from experiencing consciousness, and to the extent I can say I do perceive consciousness I can only perceive my own. But rather than belabor this point I'll turn to some areas that will, I hope, help me make my points and that are of greater import.

If consciousness was perceived as indivisible whole (as it actually is) no one would fight over "I-Me-Mine"

I wasn't aware anybody does. "I/me" is the same thing, and even linguistically it is only a morphological variant (a different "case") of the same pronoun. I am me, and what I call mine is that which belongs to the singular "self" I experienced as a unified whole. I don't distinguish that which is "I" from "me". I do, of course, distinguish between my foot and me, or physical sensations and me, even between my brain and me. The "me" (or "I") that is my consciousness (the "self" of my "self-awareness") is necessarily nonlocal, indivisible, and unified. If I could identify parts of it, I would be able to claim that something is both me and not me, that I am not me, that I am not who I am, etc. Call it ego, consciousness, "I", subjective conscious experience, or any of a number of names technical or esoteric, it remains the same: were consciousness not unified than I would be able to distinguish between me, myself, and who I am (or more distinct "I's", or less).
This is why it is important to distinguish between consciousness and conscious experience. When using conscious as a property to describe experience (e.g., I can unconsciously driving a car whilst being conscious about the fact that I forgot something at home), we are not actually talking about consciousness but about the ways in which things which are not "I" are experienced. We can be conscious of something else because we are conscious. Were consciousness not unified and singular there would be no "I" conscious of other things, because I could somehow distinguish not just among things I am conscious of (and between these and other things), but which particular "I" was conscious of what. I would be able to truthfully claim things such as "I am conscious of typing right now, but I am not."
Nor is it true to say that just because consciousness is unified, nonlocal, and singular then therefore it isn't fluid or dynamic. I can recognize that when I dream or when I am tired (or have had too much to drink) my self-awareness/conscious experience changes, and that in some sense that which was "I" at e.g., 5 years of age is not the "I" of now (although in another way it is the same "I", in that we always experience/perceive consciousness as the agent, or ego, or whatever you wish to call the "I").

Let me try to illustrate this another way. Arguably, all biological systems are aware, including ourselves. Biological systems respond to their environments actively. So to some extent a flower or an ant is aware: they react to stimuli. But they are not self-aware/conscious. To be conscious is to be able to distinguish the self, the "I" that is conscious of other things, from that which the "I" is conscious of. There must exist a conception of a self that is conscious of every conscious experience, some singular, unified "I" that can be conscious OF something in part because I distinguish it from "me".
So consciousness requires that the thing which experiences other things consciously be a unified, singular "whole", and likewise distinguishes everything that is not this whole as distinct. I experience consciousness solely because there is an "I" distinct from everything else and which is itself indivisible.

there would be no heart breaks, there would be no agony of bodily pains, no jealousy etc. etc.

I don't see why. I can experience pain solely because my consciousness is an indivisible "whole". Otherwise there would be no "I" to experience this pain.

These dramas are possible because it is a dream existence where there are objects -- abominable and likeable, and thus preferences and fear and pain.

These dramas are possible because there is a perception (and experience) of things that are not part of my indivisible, "whole" consciousness (and same with everybody else). But the indivisible, unified "whole" that is consciousness is possible only because it is a division between that which allows me to be conscious of other things and those things themselves. I am not quite sure what you refer to when you talk about a dream existence where there are objects, but I will say that it is true: if there were only one singular consciousness, than there could be no pain or jealousy and so on. But there would be no consciousness either. There would exist nothing to be conscious of, and therefore no conscious experience, and therefore no consciousness. Consciousness divides the world between "I" and that which I am conscious of. It requires division between it and everything else just as much as it requires indivisibility/unification.

You cannot reject this direct perception.

I am not sure if I agree or disagree because I am not sure I understand you here (although I suspect I agree).

Does not every one divide the whole indivisible homogeneous consciousness into "I" and "the world" in dream?

No. Just because dreams are all internal, so to speak, doesn't make "the world" of dreams any "whole indivisible homogeneous consciousness". It is divided still into the experiencer and the experienced.

An actor can play as many roles as he wishes to.

But the roles are nonetheless played by him.

As per my understanding, God is the one who never sleeps over the fact that it is play.

Then your understanding is beyond my own.

 

[atanu]

Perhaps there will not be as much of a battle as you think (either because we agree, or because I run away defeated). But I appreciate (and return) the compliment!

I meant battle for gaining comprehension. Ha Ha.

We're getting into some terminological difficulties here. In particular, perception of consciousness is in some ways/sense impossible. We can (arguably) perceive that other people (or animals, or perhaps even the universe) are conscious, but we can't perceive consciousness except insofar as by perception you mean experiencing our own consciousness. Put differently, perception of consciousness is inseparable from experiencing consciousness, and to the extent I can say I do perceive consciousness I can only perceive my own. But rather than belabor this point I'll turn to some areas that will, I hope, help me make my points and that are of greater import.

Yes. Agree. But more later.

I wasn't aware anybody does. "I/me" is the same thing, and even linguistically it is only a morphological variant (a different "case") of the same pronoun. I am me, and what I call mine is that which belongs to the singular "self" I experienced as a unified whole. I don't distinguish that which is "I" from "me". I do, of course, distinguish between my foot and me, or physical sensations and me, even between my brain and me. The "me" (or "I") that is my consciousness (the "self" of my "self-awareness") is necessarily nonlocal, indivisible, and unified. If I could identify parts of it, I would be able to claim that something is both me and not me, that I am not me, that I am not who I am, etc. Call it ego, consciousness, "I", subjective conscious experience, or any of a number of names technical or esoteric, it remains the same: were consciousness not unified than I would be able to distinguish between me, myself, and who I am (or more distinct "I's", or less).

Agree. Consciousness is unified. But, I think, by 'unified', I mean a little more.

This is why it is important to distinguish between consciousness and conscious experience. When using conscious as a property to describe experience (e.g., I can unconsciously driving a car whilst being conscious about the fact that I forgot something at home), we are not actually talking about consciousness but about the ways in which things which are not "I" are experienced. We can be conscious of something else because we are conscious. Were consciousness not unified and singular there would be no "I" conscious of other things, because I could somehow distinguish not just among things I am conscious of (and between these and other things), but which particular "I" was conscious of what. I would be able to truthfully claim things such as "I am conscious of typing right now, but I am not."
Nor is it true to say that just because consciousness is unified, nonlocal, and singular then therefore it isn't fluid or dynamic. I can recognize that when I dream or when I am tired (or have had too much to drink) my self-awareness/conscious experience changes, and that in some sense that which was "I" at e.g., 5 years of age is not the "I" of now (although in another way it is the same "I", in that we always experience/perceive consciousness as the agent, or ego, or whatever you wish to call the "I").

Let me try to illustrate this another way. Arguably, all biological systems are aware, including ourselves. Biological systems respond to their environments actively. So to some extent a flower or an ant is aware: they react to stimuli. But they are not self-aware/conscious. To be conscious is to be able to distinguish the self, the "I" that is conscious of other things, from that which the "I" is conscious of. There must exist a conception of a self that is conscious of every conscious experience, some singular, unified "I" that can be conscious OF something in part because I distinguish it from "me".
So consciousness requires that the thing which experiences other things consciously be a unified, singular "whole", and likewise distinguishes everything that is not this whole as distinct. I experience consciousness solely because there is an "I" distinct from everything else and which is itself indivisible.

Beautifully said.

I don't see why. I can experience pain solely because my consciousness is an indivisible "whole". Otherwise there would be no "I" to experience this pain.

True. But, I think there is another level.

These dramas are possible because there is a perception (and experience) of things that are not part of my indivisible, "whole" consciousness (and same with everybody else). But the indivisible, unified "whole" that is consciousness is possible only because it is a division between that which allows me to be conscious of other things and those things themselves. I am not quite sure what you refer to when you talk about a dream existence where there are objects, but I will say that it is true: if there were only one singular consciousness, than there could be no pain or jealousy and so on. But there would be no consciousness either. There would exist nothing to be conscious of, and therefore no conscious experience, and therefore no consciousness. Consciousness divides the world between "I" and that which I am conscious of. It requires division between it and everything else just as much as it requires indivisibility/unification.

Again agree with the red. I add that there is a perception of things that are not part of my indivisible whole consciousness, because our knowledge is "I am this body". Everything is separate from the body.

But just consider for a moment that the knowledge "I am the seer consciousness that knows the body" is true and is held true without doubt. Then the "I" becomes non-local and non graspable. Further, suppose, the knowledge dawns that "I am seer of me (in different avatar-s) and the corresponding world in all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In waking, I believe I am this graspable body and the world is also similar. In dream, I believe myself to be made of light and the corresponding world is also similar. In deep sleep, I enjoy becoming infinite and homogeneous and on account of lack of all kinds of contrast, there is is no cognition of a world. But I exist as seer of the homogeneous, contrast-less, blissful, pure consciousness. But then Who Am I?"

How will this meditation end?

No. Just because dreams are all internal, so to speak, doesn't make "the world" of dreams any "whole indivisible homogeneous consciousness". It is divided still into the experiencer and the experienced.

Agree. Please see above. Consciousness takes three forms but it itself is distinct .. somewhat similar to water being different from its three forms. Or more easy to comprehend that the same gold takes on many forms, yet remain distinct and same.

But the roles are nonetheless played by him.

Yes.

Then your understanding is beyond my own.

Ha. Ha.

 

[atanu]

Something I've been thinking about lately
Are we just a product of the universe becoming conscious of itself?

I wish that universe could ask this question.

 

[outhouse]

I wish that universe could ask this question.

Its not conscious so it cannot

 

[outhouse]

But just consider for a moment that the knowledge "I am the seer consciousness that knows the body" is true and is held true without doubt. Then the "I" becomes non-local and non graspable. Further, suppose, the knowledge dawns that "I am seer of me (in different avatar-s) and the corresponding world in all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In waking, I believe I am this graspable body and the world is also similar. In dream, I believe myself to be made of light and the corresponding world is also similar. In deep sleep, I enjoy becoming infinite and homogeneous and on account of lack of all kinds of contrast, there is is no cognition of a world. But I exist as seer of the homogeneous, contrast-less, blissful, pure consciousness. But then Who Am I?"

How will this meditation end?

Where did you copy all that rhetoric?

 

[outhouse]

Everything is separate from the body.

No aspect of conscious thought is separate from your body.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I add that there is a perception of things that are not part of my indivisible whole consciousness, because our knowledge is "I am this body". Everything is separate from the body.

If one believes (as I do) that consciousness emerges from brain activity, then we can say that "our knowledge is 'I am this body'". But consciousness is experienced as separate from the body, and as a phenomenon it actually "is" separate from the body (it is not localized anywhere in the brain, nor distinguishable as any particular brain activity, and even if the reductionists are correct and consciousness can be explained as merely the sum of parts, this explanation supplies a how; consciousness itself remains the nonlocalized, unified, and disembodied experience it is). Thus I can say things like "my brain hates me" (a statement I heard from a friend today, actually) as easily as we can say "my foot hurts". Moreover, we mean it. We don't "feel" consciousness emerging from brain activities nor do we experience it as active neurons.

But just consider for a moment that the knowledge "I am the seer consciousness that knows the body" is true and is held true without doubt.

I would like to, but I need one quick clarification: do you mean "see-er" as in "the one/thing that sees" or "seer" as in "one with the ability to see the future, to divine, or otherwise capable of supernatural-type sight". I get the feeling you mean the former, but I want to make sure because if you mean "seer" in the second sense I don't follow what you mean at all.

Then the "I" becomes non-local and non graspable.

But it is anyway. There is no way even in principle to somehow point to brain activity and determine exactly which processes and only which processes are those that make-up consciousness, and even this is only to identify what is causing consciousness, not what it is.

Further, suppose, the knowledge dawns that "I am seer of me (in different avatar-s) and the corresponding world in all three states: waking, dreaming, and sleeping. In waking, I believe I am this graspable body and the world is also similar. In dream, I believe myself to be made of light and the corresponding world is also similar. In deep sleep, I enjoy becoming infinite and homogeneous and on account of lack of all kinds of contrast, there is no cognition of a world. But I exist as seer of the homogeneous, contrast-less, blissful, pure consciousness. But then Who Am I?"

You are getting a bit beyond me know, but I'll try to keep up. The problem is I don't believe that I am my body (I remain unchanged when I get my hair cut, or cut my nails, etc.; I can be in pain without any bodily harm; I can be conscious in and of a world that is not real and without my body such as in dreams).
It's true that in sleep I am not conscious. Consciousness is dynamic, and in sleep it ceases (I don't know "becoming infinite and homogenous", particularly the "infinite" part). And in dreams I do not experience consciousness through my body the same way I do when I am awake. I am not even sure it is fair to say that my consciousness in dreams is "me" in the same way, although I do experience in the same way in the sense that "I" am still the experiencer (there are not multiple experiencers).

Agree. Please see above. Consciousness takes three forms but it itself is distinct

I sort of agree with this, I think. I wouldn't put it like this, though, particularly as I don't think there "no consciousness" is a form of consciousness, and when I am asleep and not dreaming I am not conscious of anything (there is no "I", no "experiencer"). I'm also not sure that, if I am to admit to various forms of consciousness by distinguishing dream-consciousness form waking consciousness that I would stop here. Conscious experience changes just as radically if one looses all short term memory and the capacity to make additional long-term memories, or when the corpus callosum is severed and the brain is able to process visual information that can be tested without the individual being aware of it (despite being able to show what they saw by drawing or other clever experimental techniques). Other examples could be marshalled.

 

[atanu]

If one believes (as I do) that consciousness emerges from brain activity, then we can say that "our knowledge is 'I am this body'". But consciousness is experienced as separate from the body, and as a phenomenon it actually "is" separate from the body (it is not localized anywhere in the brain, nor distinguishable as any particular brain activity, and even if the reductionists are correct and consciousness can be explained as merely the sum of parts, this explanation supplies a how; consciousness itself remains the nonlocalized, unified, and disembodied experience it is). Thus I can say things like "my brain hates me" (a statement I heard from a friend today, actually) as easily as we can say "my foot hurts". Moreover, we mean it. We don't "feel" consciousness emerging from brain activities nor do we experience it as active neurone.

See below.

I would like to, but I need one quick clarification: do you mean "see-er" as in "the one/thing that sees" or "seer" as in "one with the ability to see the future, to divine, or otherwise capable of supernatural-type sight". I get the feeling you mean the former, but I want to make sure because if you mean "seer" in the second sense I don't follow what you mean at all.

I mean in "see-er" sense and .... but that eventually means "seer" as per eastern darsana-s. Because what one sees in mind, the consciousness brings forth that.

You are getting a bit beyond me know, but I'll try to keep up. The problem is I don't believe that I am my body (I remain unchanged when I get my hair cut, or cut my nails, etc.; I can be in pain without any bodily harm; I can be conscious in and of a world that is not real and without my body such as in dreams).
It's true that in sleep I am not conscious. Consciousness is dynamic, and in sleep it ceases (I don't know "becoming infinite and homogenous", particularly the "infinite" part). And in dreams I do not experience consciousness through my body the same way I do when I am awake. I am not even sure it is fair to say that my consciousness in dreams is "me" in the same way, although I do experience in the same way in the sense that "I" am still the experiencer (there are not multiple experiencers).

I sort of agree with this, I think. I wouldn't put it like this, though, particularly as I don't think there "no consciousness" is a form of consciousness, and when I am asleep and not dreaming I am not conscious of anything (there is no "I", no "experiencer"). I'm also not sure that, if I am to admit to various forms of consciousness by distinguishing dream-consciousness form waking consciousness that I would stop here. Conscious experience changes just as radically if one looses all short term memory and the capacity to make additional long-term memories, or when the corpus callosum is severed and the brain is able to process visual information that can be tested without the individual being aware of it (despite being able to show what they saw by drawing or other clever experimental techniques). Other examples could be marshalled.

Yes. This will make most, especially a westerner, mad. No hurry but. In short, I am saying that as per Vedanta, our waking, dreaming, and sleeping states are three forms of consciousness. The self is distinct from these three states and yet is the essence of awareness in all three states.

 

[outhouse]

This will make most, especially a westerner, mad

There are different states of consciousness. We accept that.


We do not accept your concept of any aspect of the conscious mind leaving the body because to date it does not.

And factually only pseudoscience FAILS at making a case that it does.

 

[Aupmanyav]

f there were only one singular consciousness, than there could be no pain or jealousy and so on. But there would be no consciousness either. There would exist nothing to be conscious of, and therefore no conscious experience, and therefore no consciousness. Consciousness divides the world between "I" and that which I am conscious of. It requires division between it and everything else just as much as it requires indivisibility/unification.

The universe has consciousness, perhaps carried by gravity waves, but has no 'I' - because it has no you, no second entity. That is perhaps the difference between human consciousness and the consciousness of the universe.

 

[Etritonakin]

The universe has consciousness, perhaps carried by gravity waves, but has no 'I' - because it has no you, no second entity. That is perhaps the difference between human consciousness and the consciousness of the universe.

Interesting thought. There could be "I" without another entity if the first could conceive of such by understanding itself and imagining another self.
I believe, however, that the Word is essentially that second entity -though the Word and the Father are otherwise "one".

I'm not saying I know this to be the case of that relationship, but self-replication would be a logical step.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Advaita Hinduism, 'what exists' (Brahman) does not replicate, since it has no need to replicate. It is changeless, formless, omnipresent, infinite, distinctionless, indifferent, etc.

 

[gnostic]

In Advaita Hinduism, 'what exists' (Brahman) does not replicate, since it has no need to replicate. It is changeless, formless, omnipresent, infinite, distinctionless, indifferent, etc.

And ultimately... Brahman is meaningless.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We understand it as 'no Brahman, no you, no me, no universe, void'. Therefore, its existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And ultimately... Brahman is meaningless.

So how does that work...why is existence meaningless?