Question on Intelligent Design

[godnotgod]

The neurons are the physical substrate and the consciousness is, essentially, a program running on those neurons.

Is it the program, or is it just what is aware of the program? And where does this 'program' you refer to come from? Are you talking about Determinism?

 

[godnotgod]

A nice story. Any evidence that this is the case? I didn't think so.

If you say that a bacterium is conscious, the only conclusion I can draw is that you have a very different definition of the term 'conscious' than what I use. Either that, or you are deluded.

Did I say that bacterium are conscious? No. I said that consciousness is manifesting itself as all the myriad forms of the Universe, including bacterium and you. In your case, you think it is YOUR consciousness. If you believe this, can you show where this 'I' to whom consciousness belongs, is located?

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I am a part of the universe, if that is what you mean. But my consciousness is a process of the neurons in my head.

Asking this question is like asking where a computer program ends.

No. You are not 'part' of anything; The Universe is not a machine composed of 'parts'. There is no separation whatsoever between you and The Universe. But because your discriminating mind has created an illusion called 'I', the self, it then proceeds to set up a construct of observer and observed; of subject and object, in which 'I' thinks them two distinct things, when the reality is that all such distinctions are purely mental. Even if it were true that the neurons in your head create consciousness, you and your neurons are in no way separated from The Universe. Therefore, consciousness (and your neurons) is something The Universe is doing, because you are something The Universe is doing, just as a wave is something the Ocean is doing.

 

[Polymath257]

Did I say that bacterium are conscious? No. I said that consciousness is manifesting itself as all the myriad forms of the Universe, including bacterium and you. In your case, you think it is YOUR consciousness. If you believe this, can you show where this 'I' to whom consciousness belongs, is located?

OK, so we agree a bacterium is not conscious? And that humans are?

OK, how about a fish? An earthworm?

What is the consciousness that 'manifests' itself in the 'myriad forms' of the universe? Is it really anything different than physical laws? If not, why call it consciousness? If so, how?

 

[Polymath257]

No. You are not 'part' of anything; The Universe is not a machine composed of 'parts'. There is no separation whatsoever between you and The Universe. But because your discriminating mind has created an illusion called 'I', the self, it then proceeds to set up a construct of observer and observed; of subject and object, in which 'I' thinks them two distinct things, when the reality is that all such distinctions are purely mental. Even if it were true that the neurons in your head create consciousness, you and your neurons are in no way separated from The Universe. Therefore, consciousness (and your neurons) is something The Universe is doing, because you are something The Universe is doing, just as a wave is something the Ocean is doing.

OK, so consciousness is something the universe is doing and I am something the universe is doing. And, it just so happens that the universe is doing a conscious me. But it doesn't do conscious bacteria. So there is *still* the question of what you mean by consciousness.

 

[Bird123]

I don't see it that way. I don't understand intelligence and that doesn't mean I lost out on something. You see intelligence and that doesn't mean you lost out on something (we both said). It just means we see different views god and no god included.

With god, if I defined him (it), it's an experience of wholesomeness and gratitude for life. It's our culture (even if we don't think we have one), it's our values, and it's our beliefs. It's what makes us who we are. The spirit of life is an active spirit that keeps us moving, keeps our hearts pumping, our brains working, and so forth. It's a beautiful outlet of connections

but I wouldn't call it intelligences and design sounds new age. If I took myself out of the picture, I'd assume (since I'm not a plant or animal) that plants, animals, and all natural life and things like rocks do it's own thing. There isn't an order just as our bodies do not have an order-if it did, it wouldn't create it's own diseases and it would age nor decay. Our bodies are made to keep functioning until we can't function anymore.

That's enlightenment. When you go into a dark room yourself and put god aside for a minute and just think "I am not special" and really say to yourself I am not special you put yourself with the vastness of the universe (literal universe) beyond just this planet. You are acknowledging that you are one speck out of many. It also helps with ego. It pulls one down out of the rafters of heaven and see the knowledge or "intelligence" of what we know from our perspective of earth and space.

If god is a being, I do not understand how it has unconditional love. If god IS life, then unconditional love is inherent in us so we experience god through the actions we do and what we experience both good and bad. It is nice that many can confirm these feelings from the bible, quran, or so have you but other religions depend on experience of god directly without depending on a book to confirm their feelings. It's innate and the only help they may have is service to their community, practice, and receiving oral transmission of thought from those who have more experience.

Here is food for thought: Plato: The Myth of the Cave

I thought this interesting because although you don't see were in illusions, because of our physical and mental limitations (are there limitations? If so, compared to who and what?) or differences, we cannot see what is outside. We only know the shadows in front of us.

If I sat in a dark room, that is something that I'd have to be comfortable with: Not knowing.

If you are yearning to cut on the light to see, you trick yourself into thinking once you can see, you know more than those who cannot. That is not always true. I live in the same complex with two completely blind individuals. I have a vision problem but I go double sighted rather than blind. They can travel. They can sew. They can cook. They can play scrabble. They can play Bingo. They can...

When I'm double sighted, I can't do half the things they can do without vision. I'm ignorant of the world around me because I'm seeing in illusion. I don't know how far or how close things are.

However, if I were full sighted, I'd be able to tell. If I were completely blind, I would with practice on different skills I would if I were sighted. In both cases, none are ignorant. There is no "who am I?" Darkness or light are on the same token.

Humanity is more double sighted. Plants, animals, and nature are either blinded or sighted. They experience and/or see the real world around us where we humans are constantly making things more complicated then they actually are.

God is one way to make things complicated. You can't see him so you're blinded (until you can see). You experience him (but you can see him even though you were blinded). But you can't say either is 100 percent true (because you can't see him) yet you say it is 100 percent true (because you experience him)

Basically, it's a catch 22 in a maze of contradictory logic. So, you use words such as "beyond", "human limitations", and "infinite". It's like the double sighted trying to describe what he experiences by saying he doesn't know because being blinded or sighted is above his level of awareness.

That is not true from personal experience. It's an illusion. The car is still the same distance no matter if I can see, see two or three cars, are see no car. It does not change reality. Regardless of our religion or belief in god (or so have you) reality doesn't change for us. It's to better us just as my white stick helps me "see" even though people think I can because I'm not completely blind.

God is the same way. Unless you understand god (double sightedness) as what it is, you will always either yearn to see or yearn to be blind. But if you use your cane (faith) rather than depend on the bible, you learn about yourself more and regardless if you are in a dark room or a lighted room, those wouldn't matter.

You learn how to take care of yourself how you are now regardless your eye vision. God is the same way. There is no "who am I?" in life. That's just for us to understand ourselves to continue. In a dark room there is no light.

Be comfortable in the dark. Understand your nature by understanding the shadows. Try not to turn your head so you won't hurt your neck. Be happy where you are today. I have seizures so I live in unpredictability. I don't understand order because that's not how I was raised.

That's alright. Just I find it weird how god enters into this conclusion and even more so the idea of intelligence when life isn't about that.

You are wounded. Your view is narrowed to only feelings. Since you focus on your hurt, you limit the possibilities by working to accept the limits you create for yourself holding onto that hurt.

Why do you value the hurt over all else? Does the greater sensory input mean greater value? Think! Is that really valid? Is this how you wish to define yourself?

Perhaps the focus should be not on what I can not do but on what I can do. There are many ways to see. There are many actions one can choose blind. If you have double vision and stuck in the middle, close your eyes and learn to be totally blind.

I know a man who is in a wheel chair unable to move his arms or legs. He is in really bad shape. When one is around this man, one feels nothing but joy? Why? This man radiates joy Spiritually. He works at seeing the hurt in others then says just the right thing to light up the room. Does this man have limits? I don't see any. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. With that in mind, it's the Spiritual things that matter the most.

Everyone has adversity. AS I see it we are supposed to overcome that adversity, see where it leads and how we can make life better for everyone. Something good comes out of everything including adversity. See how it changes the world. See how you can change the world through it.

WE all have wants in life. If I can't have it, I work at making it possible for someone else to have it. Sound crazy? Try it and watch the change.

Since you define God in only feelings, I understand why God can not really be someone to you. How could God do this to you? My advice is to let the hurt go. Look for the open door that points the way to help those needing that which is special about you so desperately. They are all around you. As I see it, two things will happen if you do this. One. You will be too busy to worry about that which you can not change at the moment. Two. The goodness you create by helping will return to you. When it does, your definition of God will feel good.

AS I see it, In reality, God is not a Belief nor a Feeling. Just as you said, Reality exists regardless of beliefs or feelings. If I step off a high rise building, it doesn't matter how I feel or believe. I will fall. Perhaps, it's time to step back away from the ledge. Perhaps, it's time to use our intelligence to seek out a new path by which everyone gets better. The Math is there. All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. It's there if we work at Discovery rather than sitting back accepting our helplessness. We are all much more capable than many realize.

Life was never meant not to hurt. On the other hand, life is much more than hurt. Each has the power to choose what they value in life. AS I see it, your possibilities are limitless. Now if only you can see this and take action.

 

[Bird123]

Heh..heh...Given enough intelligence, one would realize the impossibility, if not the foolishness, of such an endeavor. If you insist that this is the case, please provide such a mathematical description. I am eager to see it.

You said:

The Source is far from nothing.

Then I said:

Oh? Then it is .....'something'?

Can you tell me what that 'something' is?

Patience. I work on Math every day. You must realize that so much knowledge exists that it will take many lifetimes before I can spell it all out for you. Still, I am making progress.

Discovery. It starts with considering possibilities then searching and discovering the Truth. If one is not open to any possibilities, one discovers nothing. If one is open to only the possibilities they want to be true, how much knowledge will never be discovered?

As I see it, God exists and not as a Belief. As I see it, I have found no religion that really understands God even though many have pieces of truth within them.

Logic dictates. If God exist the God can be found. Sometimes people who search find what they search for. On the other hand, Discovery takes work. It's so much easier to formulate Beliefs and do nothing but argue who is right, but where does that path really lead? Nowhere.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are wounded. Your view is narrowed to only feelings. Since you focus on your hurt, you limit the possibilities by working to accept the limits you create for yourself holding onto that hurt.

I see things differently. Not wrong nor right. Not ignorant nor smart. That is total Abrahamic viewpoint. I don't view life that way.

Hurt is not darkness (I have no clue what you mean; I'm guessing). It just means being awake to what you do not know and what you cannot control. If you cannot live with spontaneity, then in my personal opinion, you are not awake.

I know this because of my experiences with seizures. I do not know. If I plan something a day ahead of time, 100 percent something goes wrong. I have to plan it two or three hours, five hours at most. I don't know what law that is called, but I got used to it. It is life.

If you need the light to see, that's your thing. I have a vision impairment. I thought I was going blind. I rather be blind than being severely double visioned. You may see that as limited but I see that as freedom. I learn different trades and ways of doing things but like Deaf people (culturally Deaf) who say they do not have a disability, if a blind person can do what he does without needing anything that helps him with illness, he is just using a cane just as I use my cane or a stepping stool to get the food off the shelf since I am so short.

I'm sorry you see that I see limitations. Because of my freedom of expression and can think finally, I know the opposite is true.

Why do you value the hurt over all else? Does the greater sensory input mean greater value? Think! Is that really valid? Is this how you wish to define yourself?

I don't understand. I compared awareness to being in the dark. When I have seizures, they hurt, yes but I'm looking at the positive part of them. They taught me something. You're seeing hurt and I'm seeing a lesson.

What do you mean? If you don't know, you don't know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not a limitation to be in the darkness. If anything, when the people came from their chains and went to the light they were blinded by the light. Different perspectives.

Perhaps the focus should be not on what I can not do but on what I can do. There are many ways to see. There are many actions one can choose blind. If you have double vision and stuck in the middle, close your eyes and learn to be totally blind.

Where were you when I said this? (I also repeated this above before I read this)

I don't see double vision as hurt. It scared the /hit out of me when I also had two huge blind spots and I couldn't see people's faces at the length of your arms. If I close one eye with the double vision when I have it, it's better. Just I cant judge distances.

It is a learning experience. Instead of closing my eyes, since I can't do that crossing the street and being in class, I learn to live with it. I find different techniques to live with what you call limitations and now I can do things that I thought I couldn't do before.

It's refreshing.

I know a man who is in a wheel chair unable to move his arms or legs. He is in really bad shape. When one is around this man, one feels nothing but joy? Why? This man radiates joy Spiritually. He works at seeing the hurt in others then says just the right thing to light up the room. Does this man have limits? I don't see any. We are Spiritual beings in our true natures. With that in mind, it's the Spiritual things that matter the most.

Spirituality nad physical are both interconnected. I would have taken life for granted as if I can control everything and "heaven actual exist" if I never had seizures and never had an eye condition. I've been in a wheel chair before. I've been through brain surgery. I've been through a lot.

I honestly don't know where you're getting this from. Darkness isn't a limitation. I learned a lot from what I can't do. Once I think I can do everything, I fall. I can't plan things ahead and think "I know this will go well." Life doesn't work that way.

Everyone has adversity. AS I see it we are supposed to overcome that adversity, see where it leads and how we can make life better for everyone. Something good comes out of everything including adversity. See how it changes the world. See how you can change the world through it.

WE all have wants in life. If I can't have it, I work at making it possible for someone else to have it. Sound crazy? Try it and watch the change.

Some of us know that our wants are not always a priority to achieve. I really want to see what its like outside of earth. That would be nice to see how deep the ocean goes. I would like to drive someday. Oh, I really want to get off these darn medications I've taken since 12.

It helps with motivation. You just have to know your abilities and realistically what you can do. I know you guys hope to be like christ but that, to me, is a hope. Realistically, the best a christian can do is live as the body of christ rather than worshiping christ as if he can turn into superman or something.

Since you define God in only feelings, I understand why God can not really be someone to you. How could God do this to you? My advice is to let the hurt go. Look for the open door that points the way to help those needing that which is special about you so desperately. They are all around you. As I see it, two things will happen if you do this. One. You will be too busy to worry about that which you can not change at the moment. Two. The goodness you create by helping will return to you. When it does, your definition of God will feel good.

What do you mean? God is our experiences. Name an aspect of god that is not a want, need, emotion, sensation, experience from your environment, or what you read from others views? Name an alien experience that has nothing to do with this earth and what you know of yourself and others.

God is an experience. Your feelings shouldn't be belittled. If you know god, you know yourself. If you personify god, you are reflecting who you want to be onto a being that (in my opinion) does not exist. It's just interesting to think about. No one has ever talked any further than this. They do what you're doing either they don't understand or they get defensive.

I just came from class. Our teacher is leaving and he is our favorite teacher. We had a party for him. I had a mini eye spell, went and got some orange juice, came back and greeted him. We chatted. He is Deaf so we all new sign language (yes-eye problem taking sign language-gosh, if I gave up, why would I do such a thing!) I took a two hour ride home. Addicted to this stupid RF. Trying to figure what I can afford to eat and pretty much relax before tomorrow to do my project.

The day was great. Please get to know me before assuming how I feel about myself.

AS I see it, In reality, God is not a Belief nor a Feeling. Just as you said, Reality exists regardless of beliefs or feelings. If I step off a high rise building, it doesn't matter how I feel or believe. I will fall. Perhaps, it's time to step back away from the ledge. Perhaps, it's time to use our intelligence to seek out a new path by which everyone gets better. The Math is there. All the secrets of the universe stare us in the face. It's there if we work at Discovery rather than sitting back accepting our helplessness. We are all much more capable than many realize.

Life was never meant not to hurt. On the other hand, life is much more than hurt. Each has the power to choose what they value in life. AS I see it, your possibilities are limitless. Now if only you can see this and take action.

In Buddhism, which I believe, suffering is birth, life, sickness, and death. It's experiencing the cause and the effects of our actions. It's living and learning to understand this cycle. The suffering he talks about isn't hurt but the nature of life.

Our bodies are meant to be born, meant to live, and meant to die.

We put value to our health-spiritual, mental, and/or physical-but in and of itself, there is no value. That's like saying a Zebra thinks of himself as smart because he has the ability to know what to eat and what not to eat as a Zebra. A lot of things are natural to the human body.

I think you're putting too much thought into defining darkness. It's not bad, really.

I like Woody Allen's quote, "It's not that I'm afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens."

 

[godnotgod]

OK, so consciousness is something the universe is doing and I am something the universe is doing. And, it just so happens that the universe is doing a conscious me. But it doesn't do conscious bacteria. So there is *still* the question of what you mean by consciousness.

Consciousness and The Universe are one and the same. Consciousness is playing itself as you, as me, as bacteria, and as all the other myriad forms of The Universe. Please, let us not confuse forms with things.

'It doesn't do conscious bacteria' because you are still in a subject/object split which has decided that only you can be conscious because you have a brain, and via your criteria, bacteria, rocks, atoms, and stars cannot be conscious.

 

[Polymath257]

Consciousness and The Universe are one and the same.

Two comments:
1. Clearly you use a different definition of the word 'conscious' than I do. As far as I can see, the universe as a whole is not conscious.
2. If the universe and consciousness are the same, why have two different words? Doesn't this just trivialize the concept of 'conscious'?

Consciousness is playing itself as you, as me, as bacteria, and as all the other myriad forms of The Universe. Please, let us not confuse forms with things.

OK, what is the difference? What do you mean by a form? By a thing? How are the two different?

'It doesn't do conscious bacteria'

you are sbecausetill in a subject/object split which has decided that only you can be conscious because you have a brain, and via your criteria, bacteria, rocks, atoms, and stars cannot be conscious.

Define what it means to be conscious, then. And we shall see if bacteria are conscious. If you consider rocks to be conscious, then your definitions are different enough from mine that they are useless to me. It is still of interest what your definitions would be, though.

 

[shawn001]

I am not asking the question from the POV of my senses.

Meditation is just a pathway to a consciousness that exists before anything else exists.

"I am not asking the question from the POV of my senses."

This isn't about asking a question.

So you're conciseness see's the sun and the moon without vision?

"Meditation is just a pathway to a consciousness that exists before anything else exists."

Meditation doesn't exist without neurotransmitters.

 

[shawn001]

In the experiment by Jacobo-Grinsberg, the two subjects were not only physically separated, but placed into Faraday cages where no electronic signals could enter or leave. And yet, brain B responded to everything that brain A responded to, without any of the input that brain A was receiving. The only conclusion that can be reached is that consciousness is non-local.

When you try to dabble in sciences you don't fully understand and then add mysticism to it, it gets all mess up.

Jacobo-Grinsberg didn't use Faraday cages, that was Physicist Fred H. Thaheld,

Jacobo-Grinsberg experiment worked "twenty-five percent of the time."

This was back in 1994 when he disappeared. 23 years ago.

 

[shawn001]

Thanks for posting this! I love Alan Wallace. In a nutshell, what I see happening here is that Shaun (the physicist) is pointing to the behavior of the world as it is manifested, and saying that is reality, and we know how it works, while Wallace (the Buddhist) is pointing to That deeper something underlying the manifested world. A Hindu would say that the underlying something that is manifesting the world is playing itself as The World. IOW, 'The World' is maya, an illusion, the true nature of Reality being That which underlies the world, and not the world itself. And now, Quantum Physics has moved to Field Theory, which says that all particles in the Universe are not actually 'material' particles, but standing waves created in the surrounding fields in which they manifest. The Quantum Physics way of talking about this phenomenon is to say that what we used to call 'material' reality is a 'superposition of possibilities'.

Knowing how something works is not to understand the nature of Reality. This is the mistake the physicist is making.



This has been solved:

That in no way has been solved. The man is basically pseudoscience.

What's so misleading about Nassim Haramein?

"
Why the night sky is black

Here's another example, again from his Rogue Valley presentation.

"The mass inside the Universe exceeds the escape velocity of light. That means if you shine a light in one direction... it'll bend around one star, bend around another star, bend around another star... and come right back! That means we live inside a black hole. That's why when you look up in the sky at night, it's black."

Up: What's so misleading about Nassim Haramein?

 

[godnotgod]

When you try to dabble in sciences you don't fully understand and then add mysticism to it, it gets all mess up.

Jacobo-Grinsberg didn't use Faraday cages, that was Physicist Fred H. Thaheld,

Jacobo-Grinsberg experiment worked "twenty-five percent of the time."

This was back in 1994 when he disappeared. 23 years ago.

So what? His disappearance has nothing to do with the fact that he established non-locality of the brain. And if the experiment only worked 1% of the time is astounding in and of itself.

Read the peer reviewed paper I posted: Jacobo-Grinsberg used Faraday cages. That is a fact.

Since J-G, there have been numerous replications of their experiment around the world, not all successful, and some with variations, but with the same kinds of results.

The post you responded to here says nothing about any 'mysticism'. I merely re-iterated the detail summary of the experiment, whose conclusion was that the brain is capable of non-local connections.

 

[shawn001]

So what? His disappearance has nothing to do with the fact that he established non-locality of the brain. And if the experiment only worked 1% of the time is astounding in and of itself.

Read the peer reviewed paper I posted: Jacobo-Grinsberg used Faraday cages. That is a fact.

Since J-G, there have been numerous replications of their experiment around the world, not all successful, and some with variations, but with the same kinds of results.

The post you responded to here says nothing about any 'mysticism'. I merely re-iterated the detail summary of the experiment, whose conclusion was that the brain is capable of non-local connections.

Wasn't saying his disappearance had to do with anything. Other then it was 23 years ago and this not empirical science.

"Read the peer reviewed paper I posted: Jacobo-Grinsberg used Faraday cages. That is a fact"

I retract what I said then.

It's you adding 'mysticism' to QM and all science.

"And if the experiment only worked 1% of the time is astounding in and of itself."

Not really. And even 25 % means what happened to the other 75%?

How many people have been evolved in all these studies?

Your coming to a conclusion, because that is the conclusion you want it to be.

 

[godnotgod]

That in no way has been solved. The man is basically pseudoscience.

I am specifically referring to his premise that the very large is based upon the very small, and therefore, there must be a way of looking at both which unifies them. I think this is valid logic. He then goes on to demonstrate the unification via his mathematics.

"Can someone address the original question and actually refute the mathematics in his published papers? That is after all what would be expected from a physicist. I mean I am by no means a physicist but it seems rather dubious to ignore the actual meat of the arguement (the mathematics) and continue on with these character assasinations. Seriously, this institutional elitism is not really conducive to progress, one way or the other. It would be much more helpful if somebody could either conclusively prove or conclusively disprove these claims.

The fact that nobody is trying to do so begs your level of competence on the subject in the first place. Also, We put a lot of power into the hands of the scientific community to make decisions about what truths are profound and accepted and which are to be rejected. This is not a responsibility that should be met with childlike dismissivness. The story of science IS the story of institutional disruption.

I don’t have the credentials to make a claim one way or the other, which is my main motivation to urge those that do to put down a simple valuation of the actual work involved. After all, the situation is escalating. He is making claims that his model predicted more accurately the size of the proton which was supposedly experimentally measured a year after his paper was published. If this is true, surely emperical evidence cannot be simply dismissed because the idea doesn’t come from an “official” source. What is an official source of truth anyway? I don’t trust any human with that kind of authority."

https://www.quora.com/What-do-physi...ut-Nassim-Harramein-and-The-Resonance-Project

 

[godnotgod]

Wasn't saying his disappearance had to do with anything. Other then it was 23 years ago and this not empirical science.

What? Why? Because it was 23 years ago? What is NOT empirical science about it? And if his disappearance 'had nothing to do with anything', why mention it at all?

"Read the peer reviewed paper I posted: Jacobo-Grinsberg used Faraday cages. That is a fact"

I retract what I said then.

It's you adding 'mysticism' to QM and all science.

You don't even know what mysticism is. But no, the post you responded to is simply a summary of the experiment.

"And if the experiment only worked 1% of the time is astounding in and of itself."

Not really.

Yes, really. If there were a single documented event of signal-less communication between two conditioned and entangled brains set apart and isolated from one another, it is just as, if not more astounding than Alain Aspect's entangled photons. A good scientist would recognize the 1% as perfectly valid simply because it worked, and try to find out the cause of the other 99%., as well as to see if the 1% were flawed in any way.

 

[godnotgod]

"I am not asking the question from the POV of my senses."

This isn't about asking a question.

So you're conciseness see's the sun and the moon without vision?

"Meditation is just a pathway to a consciousness that exists before anything else exists."

Meditation doesn't exist without neurotransmitters.

It's not 'my' consciousness; consciousness is non-local, and is everywhere, inside and outside of everything. IOW, it is the fundamental reality out of which Everything emerged.

Think of a fish born into the sea. He does not know he is in the sea. His attention is captured almost immediately by the foreground of his existence, namely, food and predators. The background that is the sea that he exists in, that he knows nothing about, but that sustains him to the tune of 100%, is never detected. Likewise, we are born into a sea of pure consciousness, but from the get-go, our attention is captivated by the foreground of existence; the glittering but empty lure of the world. Most of us are never aware of the background, and are driven by the first 3 centers of consciousness: Power, Security, and Sensation, to which we are addicted, do not know how to free ourselves from, but which seem to us to be 'reality', a reality that is the cause of our suffering.

Neurotransmitters cannot exist without the consciousness which created them.

 

[godnotgod]

Two comments:
1. Clearly you use a different definition of the word 'conscious' than I do. As far as I can see, the universe as a whole is not conscious.
2. If the universe and consciousness are the same, why have two different words? Doesn't this just trivialize the concept of 'conscious'?

There are two different words because there are two different views. The enlightened mind simply recognizes them as one and the same, and points it out:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

IOW, we see two different realities because the mind is conditioned in a subject/object split; when this is dissolved and the mind is freed, we then see a single Reality in which 'The Universe' and 'The Absolute', or 'Consciousness', are one and the same.

OK, what is the difference? What do you mean by a form? By a thing? How are the two different?

A wave on the ocean's surface is a form, and not a thing, as many are led to believe. There is no such thing as a whirlpool; there is only whirling water in the form of a 'whirlpool'. Further, there is no such thing as a rock having a 'rock' nature; what we call 'rock' is simply form, and is connected as a continuation of all other forms.

Define what it means to be conscious, then. And we shall see if bacteria are conscious. If you consider rocks to be conscious, then your definitions are different enough from mine that they are useless to me. It is still of interest what your definitions would be, though.

You are conscious at all times, but your mind sees yourself as conscious, but bacteria as not-conscious. That is duality, and is the result of your mental conditioning which makes you see things in that way. Again, rocks and bacteria ( and you) are not conscious in and of themselves: they are consciousness manifesting itself as these various forms, all of which are empty of self-nature. IOW, none of them are the 'real' things we think they are.The only true reality is the consciousness which is manifesting itself as these forms. And so the Buddhists say:

"Form is emptiness;
emptiness is form"

Think of a great actor on stage, who is so good at his craft that he not only forgets completely who he really is, but is so immersed in the character he is portraying that he actually becomes that character. But the character is not real; only the actor behind the mask is real. The character is empty of any self-nature.

This is the quest all of us are on, and why this forum exists. We have embarked upon a journey of discovery, but have been bamboozled by the self, which is empty, a fiction, until we discover our true natures. This can only come about via an Awakening:

 

[Polymath257]

There are two different words because there are two different views. The enlightened mind simply recognizes them as one and the same, and points it out:

"The Universe is The Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivekenanda

IOW, we see two different realities because the mind is conditioned in a subject/object split; when this is dissolved and the mind is freed, we then see a single Reality in which 'The Universe' and 'The Absolute', or 'Consciousness', are one and the same.

That isn't two different realities. It is two different perspectives. Those are two ways of looking, not the reality itself.

A wave on the ocean's surface is a form, and not a thing, as many are led to believe. There is no such thing as a whirlpool; there is only whirling water in the form of a 'whirlpool'. Further, there is no such thing as a rock having a 'rock' nature; what we call 'rock' is simply form, and is connected as a continuation of all other forms.

But the 'form' of the wave is what conveys information. The 'form' of the whirlpool is what will sink a ship. And the 'form' of a rock is what will hurt you if it hits you.

The interconnectedness of the universe is a triviality. Now go beyond *that* and see how the universe is also divided into parts and we can learn how those parts inter-relate. And we can do that in detail, thereby understanding more of the interconnectivity.

You are conscious at all times, but your mind sees yourself as conscious, but bacteria as not-conscious. That is duality, and is the result of your mental conditioning which makes you see things in that way. Again, rocks and bacteria ( and you) are not conscious in and of themselves: they are consciousness manifesting itself as these various forms, all of which are empty of self-nature. IOW, none of them are the 'real' things we think they are.The only true reality is the consciousness which is manifesting itself as these forms. And so the Buddhists say:

"Form is emptiness

And, again, if that is how you use the word 'conscious', then it is far from the way I use it. So much so that communication is hampered. What I see is interaction, not consciousness.

Yes, things in the universe interact with other things in the universe. In fact, ultimately things in the universe are *defined* by how they interact. A rock interacts in rock-like ways.

But not all interaction is consciousness. Consciousness is a certain very specific type of interaction seen in complex brains (so far).

Think of a great actor on stage, who is so good at his craft that he not only forgets completely who he really is, but is so immersed in the character he is portraying that he actually becomes that character. But the character is not real; only the actor behind the mask is real. The character is empty of any self-nature.

This is the quest all of us are on, and why this forum exists. We have embarked upon a journey of discovery, but have been bamboozled by the self, which is empty, a fiction, until we discover our true natures. This can only come about via an Awakening:

Perhaps that is *your* journey. It is not *my* journey. My journey is to understand the multitude of interactions and to be *myself*. I don't see emptiness as the goal. If anything, it is the opposite direction from the goal.

You make a wide variety of claims and use specialized terminology that disagress with the standard usage. That is fine, but you really should define your terms to encourage communication.

Yes, I have read Watts, Campbell, and many others. I understand your viewpoint. I just disagree with it.