The Mind of Everything/Demystifying Self-Awareness

[Etritonakin]

So what is in the space between those two things interacting with each other?

why would space be necessary? wouldn't completely empty space be/be as impossible as nothing?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

why would space be necessary? wouldn't completely empty space be/be as impossible as nothing?

Because a vacuum does not exist, and if it did there could be no interaction between things. So what is the nature of the space in which things exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I shouldda stayed out of this thread.

I am merely suggesting that the only "immutable law" is logic. There are no "laws of nature" merely a logical unfolding of events caused by logical and unpredictable forces. Math describes reality well not because it is magical but because it is logical. Mathematics is logic quantified and reality is logic manifest. Of course there is a lot of correspondence.

I should first check if we both have the same understanding of the meaning of 'nature'? What is the reality you understand the concept of 'nature' to represent?

 

[Etritonakin]

Because a vacuum does not exist, and if it did there could be no interaction between things. So what is the nature of the space in which things exist?

huh? are you talking about some completely empty void between things -in which nothing exists?
i guess the nature of everything would be completely full of itself?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

huh? are you talking about some completely empty void between things -in which nothing exists?
i guess the nature of everything would be completely full of itself?

I initially asked "But what about space, is this source infinite in space or limited? "

You replied "why would space be necessary? wouldn't completely empty space be/be as impossible as nothing?"

So let me start again from here. Yes, I agree that empty space would be impossible, so what is present?

 

[cladking]

I should first check if we both have the same understanding of the meaning of 'nature'? What is the reality you understand the concept of 'nature' to represent?

I think of "reality" as the location and movement of every particle in the universe and "nature" as the means by which events unfold.

It's a much finer distinction than it sounds.

Reality is a given and a black box problem whereas nature is a means to understand it.

Bear in mind though that to some extent these are axiomatic in my science. I do try to parse other peoples sentences to reflect what I think they believe.

 

[cladking]

That's what I was getting at -there must be some permanent foundation

There is. But this "foundation" isn't "laws of nature" I believe but is the logic by which reality unfolds. You can call them "laws" I suppose without destroying the model but we don't know what these laws are and how they affect reality. Nature doesn't really obey laws and we usually can't even see the logic by which the subtle and gross occur. Using the term "laws" is highly presumptuous and implies that everything in the universe doesn't affect and is affected by everything else in the here and now as well as the past. There are a very infinite number of calculations that would be required for a particle to know which way to bounce off a another. There is no intent in nature except where there is life which is able and required to make a series of conscious decisions which are much less random and far more deterministic than the rest of nature.

Humans have a habit of believing that everything is beholden to laws where in point of fact there are no laws and life isn't even beholden to the logic except indirectly. We must create the conditions in our consciousness by which to further our interests. We run at the sight of a predator to reduce the odds of being eaten. We then tend to anthropomorphize reality and nature along these parameters.

There is no "permanent foundation" beyond the logic that applies only indirectly to us. Rather to try to understand our environment we take our definition and prejudices with us in "science". This is and has been a good tool for understanding reality but not so much for nature because we must take reality apart top study by mean of experiment but we lack any means whatsoever to put our new knowledge back together again to understand reality other than modeling which occurs in individuals (especially scientists). We all have our models but most peoples' models are mostly wrong and produce bad results. Even the best scientists' models are usually insufficient to make predictions. Good prediction in Ancient Language was called "prophesy" but it did not derive from models.

There may be an infinite number of means to understand reality but humans have one. There is one science and one set of definitions and axioms. We learn analog language that forces us to model reality and use taxonomies to remember groups of complexities. Permanent foundations will still look different from every perspective.

 

[Etritonakin]

I initially asked "But what about space, is this source infinite in space or limited? "

You replied "why would space be necessary? wouldn't completely empty space be/be as impossible as nothing?"

So let me start again from here. Yes, I agree that empty space would be impossible, so what is present?

Everything -most simple things arranged in various ways -and nothing else.
Quite vague, but there would not be much to describe about simplicity.
Some sort of oscillation... some energy medium with opposite poles which jiggle into new configurations...
Building materials are usually not very interesting themselves... they literally are just basic properties.
Windows are light but no air or water -roof shingles are no light no water some air, etc...
So the basic things/interactions would simply need little more than the property of being able to be arranged numerous times in greater complexity. Logic gates for computers are little more than that -so similar function could result, etc.

I'unno

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think of "reality" as the location and movement of every particle in the universe and "nature" as the means by which events unfold.

It's a much finer distinction than it sounds.

Reality is a given and a black box problem whereas nature is a means to understand it.

Bear in mind though that to some extent these are axiomatic in my science. I do try to parse other peoples sentences to reflect what I think they believe.

I understand your vision of our observable reality and nature, however I see that as mainly a field of effects, though I acknowledge there is inherent cause and effect within it.

If we step back and see that the observable universe as only 5% of the whole, the rest, the 95%, is the omnipresent reality in which the 5% reality and nature you speak of, has its existence. I think that within the 95%, are causes that create and affects the 5% reality, out physical universe.

The problem is that while we know that the 95% omnipresent reality is present, it is mainly beyond our present capability to understand, so it awaits revelation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everything -most simple things arranged in various ways -and nothing else.
Quite vague, but there would not be much to describe about simplicity.
Some sort of oscillation... some energy medium with opposite poles which jiggle into new configurations...
Building materials are usually not very interesting themselves... they literally are just basic properties.
Windows are light but no air or water -roof shingles are no light no water some air, etc...
So the basic things/interactions would simply need little more than the property of being able to be arranged numerous times in greater complexity. Logic gates for computers are little more than that -so similar function could result, etc.

I'unno

See my comment above, this is what I was trying to get at, trying to visualize the 5% observable reality as a whole in which all cause and effects are present. It is even possible that the 5% is only an effect caused by the 95%, but I shouldn't speculate out loud as nothing can be proven at this stage of human scientific discovery, except that the omnipresent 95% dark universe actually exists. Btw, this line of understanding is what I was getting at when I asked about what is in the space between interacting things. I suppose the QF also describes the omnipresent reality.

 

[Etritonakin]

See my comment above, this is what I was trying to get at, trying to visualize the 5% observable reality as a whole in which all cause and effects are present. It is even possible that the 5% is only an effect caused by the 95%, but I shouldn't speculate out loud as nothing can be proven at this stage of human scientific discovery, except that the omnipresent 95% dark universe actually exists. Btw, this line of understanding is what I was getting at when I asked about what is in the space between interacting things. I suppose the QF also describes the omnipresent reality.

so....

would you think the 95 percent to be elsewhere -as in we are only part of and reside in the 5 percent-or everything including ourselves is only 5 percent the visible and 95 percent the invisible -and is the limitation our eyes? Can the other 95 percent be perceived by other means -such as what was the case with the microscopic before the microscope?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

so....

would you think the 95 percent to be elsewhere -as in we are only part of and reside in the 5 percent-or everything including ourselves is only 5 percent the visible and 95 percent the invisible -and is the limitation our eyes? Can the other 95 percent be perceived by other means -such as what was the case with the microscopic before the microscope?

No, the 100% is all present in the space of the universe, science can only presently observe 5%, the rest is the 65% omnipresent dark energy and 30% dark matter.

Cosmic assumptions
Matter is not the only thing in the universe, however. In fact, it makes up only about 5% of the universe, according to NASA. The rest consists of dark energy and dark matter, but because they are not made up of atoms, we don't need to worry about them for this mystery.
How many atoms are in the observable universe?

 

[Etritonakin]

No, the 100% is all present in the space of the universe, science can only presently observe 5%, the rest is the 65% omnipresent dark energy and 30% dark matter.

How would you describe the difference between matter and energy?

Continuing from other posts.... (just brainstorming -all over the shop -didn't have time to make it make sense)


Before a complex self, there must be an environment of some description -a place where things happen. It is the most simple state of that which has become an interrelationship of complex self/selves and complex environment -which are all actually one overall thing and composed of the same basic things. From our perspective, it seems that complex environment did not require complex self -that self-awareness is only necessary for the changes we might make -but technically was not necessary at all -but then what drove environment to be so perfectly suited for habitation by complex selves -and even their future needs of space, newness and wonder -as opposed to a nonspecific, non-complex environment -if not interrelationship/interdependence with developing self and then self-aware creative self creating an environment suited to itself...part of which would be the mass-production of other selves after realization of uniqueness/aloneness??
A self is an arranger -a processor -so most basic self would be the driver of new arrangement -and environment the stuff which is arranged.
Self becomes complex self-aware creator when it naturally gains a specific /reaches the point of /perspective on environment and self -and the ability to model/mirror the overall state/change that state in memory -then apply the changes.
Before this point of looking toward self -not just environment, a self must naturally coalesce as an increasingly-complex process of the environment.
How much is the development of environment dependent on development of self -as self is the driver and processor of the processed stuff -even before it reaches self-awareness?
It is the same idea as "us" being ourselves even when we were just a zygote -even though we had not developed capabilities -realized that we existed -became aware in a complex way -we were the process which resulted in ourselves and the environment which is our body.
From simplicity, however, the self was not preceded by a complex environment -there was really no separation or definition of self and environment -and so no body/interface between self and environment yet.

So the question is how complex can the arranged stuff become -before what level of self-awareness of the driver -which is made possible by configuration of the stuff? If self awareness is not just sudden, but also step by step, would environment/stuff be completely dependent on self/driver for each step in its new arrangement?

If something simple developed which was able to self-replicate -or mirror a state, that would actually be a simple form of memory. If that thing changed the replication/image/itself even by the least bit possible, you would have a simple example of what a complex self does -but without self-awareness or understanding.
That is literally what would be necessary for increased complexity of most simple things -the same things happening over and over -replication -but with some change in configuration -but notice it is also describing how complex DNA-based evolution works.

So -there is similar FUNCTION very early on.
Very complex DNA made of very complex things performs that actually-simple function/action and resulted in our selves (-but only after those complex things formed a complex environment -the universe, planets, etc. -so whatever the reason, we had an environment prepared before us.)

So... is the development of self-awareness dependent on the preexistence of DNA -or would similar function of more simple things also result in a pre-universe self similar to our present function -but in the then-simple environment?

At what point are two different paths actually possible, as opposed to inevitability -and how might that change what is then possible in terms of how much self and environment might develop -or need to be consciously -knowingly -created?

At the point the self can truly, knowingly decide between two options, the environment cannot be made to suit the decider-and so indicate its existence.
The inevitable self makes an otherwise impossible environment possible.
So what environment is possible before environment can

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How would you describe the difference between matter and energy?

Continuing from other posts.... (just brainstorming -all over the shop -didn't have time to make it make sense)


Before a complex self, there must be an environment of some description -a place where things happen. It is the most simple state of that which has become an interrelationship of complex self/selves and complex environment -which are all actually one overall thing and composed of the same basic things. From our perspective, it seems that complex environment did not require complex self -that self-awareness is only necessary for the changes we might make -but technically was not necessary at all -but then what drove environment to be so perfectly suited for habitation by complex selves -and even their future needs of space, newness and wonder -as opposed to a nonspecific, non-complex environment -if not interrelationship/interdependence with developing self and then self-aware creative self creating an environment suited to itself...part of which would be the mass-production of other selves after realization of uniqueness/aloneness??
A self is an arranger -a processor -so most basic self would be the driver of new arrangement -and environment the stuff which is arranged.
Self becomes complex self-aware creator when it naturally gains a specific /reaches the point of /perspective on environment and self -and the ability to model/mirror the overall state/change that state in memory -then apply the changes.
Before this point of looking toward self -not just environment, a self must naturally coalesce as an increasingly-complex process of the environment.
How much is the development of environment dependent on development of self -as self is the driver and processor of the processed stuff -even before it reaches self-awareness?
It is the same idea as "us" being ourselves even when we were just a zygote -even though we had not developed capabilities -realized that we existed -became aware in a complex way -we were the process which resulted in ourselves and the environment which is our body.
From simplicity, however, the self was not preceded by a complex environment -there was really no separation or definition of self and environment -and so no body/interface between self and environment yet.

So the question is how complex can the arranged stuff become -before what level of self-awareness of the driver -which is made possible by configuration of the stuff? If self awareness is not just sudden, but also step by step, would environment/stuff be completely dependent on self/driver for each step in its new arrangement?

If something simple developed which was able to self-replicate -or mirror a state, that would actually be a simple form of memory. If that thing changed the replication/image/itself even by the least bit possible, you would have a simple example of what a complex self does -but without self-awareness or understanding.
That is literally what would be necessary for increased complexity of most simple things -the same things happening over and over -replication -but with some change in configuration -but notice it is also describing how complex DNA-based evolution works.

So -there is similar FUNCTION very early on.
Very complex DNA made of very complex things performs that actually-simple function/action and resulted in our selves (-but only after those complex things formed a complex environment -the universe, planets, etc. -so whatever the reason, we had an environment prepared before us.)

So... is the development of self-awareness dependent on the preexistence of DNA -or would similar function of more simple things also result in a pre-universe self similar to our present function -but in the then-simple environment?

At what point are two different paths actually possible, as opposed to inevitability -and how might that change what is then possible in terms of how much self and environment might develop -or need to be consciously -knowingly -created?

At the point the self can truly, knowingly decide between two options, the environment cannot be made to suit the decider-and so indicate its existence.
The inevitable self makes an otherwise impossible environment possible.
So what environment is possible before environment can

Matter is particles. Energy is radiation, light, heat, radio.

As for the 95% 'dark' part of the universe, it is pretty much unknown at this time so I can't say except to repeat that 65 to 70% is called dark energy and 25 to 30% is called dark matter.

 

[Etritonakin]

Matter is particles. Energy is radiation, light, heat, radio.

As for the 95% 'dark' part of the universe, it is pretty much unknown at this time so I can't say except to repeat that 65 to 70% is called dark energy and 25 to 30% is called dark matter.

So if simple energy is the driver -and simple matter is simple environment -which is arranged as new pathways for the energy -they would be completely interdependent -energy creating new pathways for itself in somewhat persistent increasingly-complex configurations which are the environment.

That would be near the beginnings of what has become both complex selves and environment as one overall interrelationship -and so are near to being the most basic examples of each.

some thoughts.....
It does not seem logical that they should become augmented in relation to each other overall -though it would become more possible for them to be so in localized/temporary ways as complexity increased -such as an imagination/self creating something vast and complex in imagination without causing it in external reality -but even that model in imagination would be possible by some sort of direct interrelationship of energy and matter which allowed for a representation.

As selves, we are just a collection of very simple processes -which become arranged as more complex processes -which are eventually able to model themselves and environment in imagination -or look into a sort of mirror or arrangement of mirrors.
So -that which allows for self-awareness is very simple. It is "one" sensing that it is sensing something ...sensing that it is sensing that it is sensing something... so on and so forth... viewing from atop increasing complexity.

Therefore, it could begin simply -and still be self-awareness -becoming more of a self of which to be aware -by creating new pathways for itself by arrangement of environment/self -as process and processed become more complex in tandem.

 

[Etritonakin]

Even if one does not believe a self-awareness was involved early on, capabilities must have been involved
-but after a self-awareness developed (awareness of own capability) -and not before -the environment would change in a way only a self-awareness could or would change it.
On our level, that is making the present environment suit us.
From simplicity, that would be making the simple environment suit a self/psychology -as such would make a home for itself based on itself as it increasingly became a self.

The basic idea being... bird makes nest, man makes house, God makes pre-universe/universe as self/environment develop together.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So if simple energy is the driver -and simple matter is simple environment -which is arranged as new pathways for the energy -they would be completely interdependent -energy creating new pathways for itself in somewhat persistent increasingly-complex configurations which are the environment.

That would be near the beginnings of what has become both complex selves and environment as one overall interrelationship -and so are near to being the most basic examples of each.

some thoughts.....
It does not seem logical that they should become augmented in relation to each other overall -though it would become more possible for them to be so in localized/temporary ways as complexity increased -such as an imagination/self creating something vast and complex in imagination without causing it in external reality -but even that model in imagination would be possible by some sort of direct interrelationship of energy and matter which allowed for a representation.

As selves, we are just a collection of very simple processes -which become arranged as more complex processes -which are eventually able to model themselves and environment in imagination -or look into a sort of mirror or arrangement of mirrors.
So -that which allows for self-awareness is very simple. It is "one" sensing that it is sensing something ...sensing that it is sensing that it is sensing something... so on and so forth... viewing from atop increasing complexity.

Therefore, it could begin simply -and still be self-awareness -becoming more of a self of which to be aware -by creating new pathways for itself by arrangement of environment/self -as process and processed become more complex in tandem.

But the whole of existence is Self aware to my understanding, the concept of God is the Self awareness of the Qne that is All. I do not think God gets more complex, nor that a mere mortal can understand the complexity of God in the first place.

 

[Etritonakin]

But the whole of existence is Self aware to my understanding, the concept of God is the Self awareness of the Qne that is All. I do not think God gets more complex, nor that a mere mortal can understand the complexity of God in the first place.

I am saying that the whole of existence -the sum of all things -which is really one thing -is aware of itself -but likely developed.
Self-awareness happens every step of the way -in more-simple, separate ways which become arranged together, but also suddenly at the point of being able to look at everything as a whole -which creates a point of perspective which is the position of the self/the thought center -which is now aware of itself. The self then thinks and acts from that position -so the original self-awareness is at the point of seeing all, being all, affecting all -whereas we are each a small portion of all -seeing, being and affecting a small portion.
If God is creator -processing center and that which is processed, then God creates from what God is -so everything is essentially made of God.
If God created man -even indirectly (inevitably-resulting life form programmed into the universe's compressed state -the singularity) -decided to self-replicate/mass-produce selves, then it would be by subdivision and logical separation of God -which I called more complex.

So... self-awareness is essentially just a lot of viewpoints all collectively viewed from another point by something able to view and consider -sense, remember (memory is essentially persistence), etc.

That's actually the easy part -the really amazing part is how sophisticated a self may become -of which to be aware.

We're not actually very self aware. we don't know what the heck we are -where we came from -how we work -what overall state we are in even presently -what our mind is thinking while we think about other stuff -what's happening with our body's systems... we have basic systems which tell us general things about our selves and environment, but we cannot access and process the whole of the data which is "us" and environment. Technically, we even have self-aware systems of which we are not aware overall -which monitor things and make intelligent decisions on some level toward the well-being of the whole of our selves.

(It would be cool to replace like a tummy ache with a detailed readout of what's going on and possible remedies. For now we get a general "something's wrong, try to figure it out")

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am saying that the whole of existence -the sum of all things -which is really one thing -is aware of itself -but likely developed.
Self-awareness happens every step of the way -in more-simple, separate ways which become arranged together, but also suddenly at the point of being able to look at everything as a whole -which creates a point of perspective which is the position of the self/the thought center -which is now aware of itself. The self then thinks and acts from that position -so the original self-awareness is at the point of seeing all, being all, affecting all -whereas we are each a small portion of all -seeing, being and affecting a small portion.
If God is creator -processing center and that which is processed, then God creates from what God is -so everything is essentially made of God.
If God created man -even indirectly (inevitably-resulting life form programmed into the universe's compressed state -the singularity) -decided to self-replicate/mass-produce selves, then it would be by subdivision and logical separation of God -which I called more complex.

So... self-awareness is essentially just a lot of viewpoints all collectively viewed from another point by something able to view and consider -sense, remember (memory is essentially persistence), etc.

That's actually the easy part -the really amazing part is how sophisticated a self may become -of which to be aware.

We're not actually very self aware. we don't know what the heck we are -where we came from -how we work -what overall state we are in even presently -what our mind is thinking while we think about other stuff -what's happening with our body's systems... we have basic systems which tell us general things about our selves and environment, but we cannot access and process the whole of the data which is "us" and environment. Technically, we even have self-aware systems of which we are not aware overall -which monitor things and make intelligent decisions on some level toward the well-being of the whole of our selves.

(It would be cool to replace like a tummy ache with a detailed readout of what's going on and possible remedies. For now we get a general "something's wrong, try to figure it out")

The part can not know the whole because it self identifies with the part. With due respect, you are trying to understand the whole from a relative position, only the whole understands the whole.

That is the very purpose of religious practice, to transcend the relative position and be one with the oneness. Jesus for example says the Father and I are one, Buddhist enlightenment is the transcending of the dualistic mind, the relative way of looking at reality.

You can only speak for your self when you say we are not very self aware. And it will continue to be true for you so long as you self identify with your body and thus do not yet know what you really are in the context of the whole. The purpose of religious practice is to transition self identification from the relative position, your body, to the whole, the Father.

The thinking process is dualistic and until the mind can operate without thought, then the fallen state will remain the position of the human mind. So cease thinking and your ego will wither away and reveal the eternal jewel that is the source of all there is, call it what you will...God, Nirvana, Tao, Brahman, etc..

 

[Etritonakin]

The part can not know the whole because it self identifies with the part. With due respect, you are trying to understand the whole from a relative position, only the whole understands the whole.

That is the very purpose of religious practice, to transcend the relative position and be one with the oneness. Jesus for example says the Father and I are one, Buddhist enlightenment is the transcending of the dualistic mind, the relative way of looking at reality.

You can only speak for your self when you say we are not very self aware. And it will continue to be true for you so long as you self identify with your body and thus do not yet know what you really are in the context of the whole. The purpose of religious practice is to transition self identification from the relative position, your body, to the whole, the Father.

The thinking process is dualistic and until the mind can operate without thought, then the fallen state will remain the position of the human mind. So cease thinking and your ego will wither away and reveal the eternal jewel that is the source of all there is, call it what you will...God, Nirvana, Tao, Brahman, etc..

I can understand that there is a whole -and that it is made of the same things as the parts.
I can see what its perspective would be generally -but not specifically... not all of the details -at least not yet.
The whole exists and is therefore inherently knowable -and so able to be reverse-engineered.

Transition self-identification? I disagree. No sense being made an individual just to melt back into the whole.
Aligning with the whole is another story, but we were made rulers of ourselves and part of reality.
Universal law should be followed, but variety -such as created by our differences as individuals is one of the things that makes life awesome.

Biblically, God has new names already prepared for us -so the fact that we are all not the same is obviously important.