Universal Consciousness?

[Iacchus]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness? Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Universal consciousness is not necessary to determine things which are observable through the senses.

The example you use of 1+1=2 is a prime example of it. The decimal number system is based off of the 10 finger we posess combined with an agreed upon language (in our case, English) which shows that if we take our a single finger and combine it with another single finger, we end up with a grouping we represent with the character 2.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness?

Define "Making sense". And defining consciousness wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Iacchus]

Universal consciousness is not necessary to determine things which are observable through the senses.

And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?

The example you use of 1+1=2 is a prime example of it. The decimal number system is based off of the 10 finger we posess combined with an agreed upon language (in our case, English) which shows that if we take our a single finger and combine it with another single finger, we end up with a grouping we represent with the character 2.

A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

 

[Iacchus]

Define "Making sense". And defining consciousness wouldn't hurt either.

If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

 

[Yahweh]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness? Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Crazy as it may sound (AND ITS CRAZYCRAZYCRAZY!), humanbeings exist independently from one another. Thats why you and I are not the same person.

And another crazy concept (ITS TOTALLY CRAZYGONUTS!), perhaps consciousness is reducable down to a few materialistic functions. Weird aint it? Well its not like I'm suggesting something like digestion is reducable to a few materialistic functions, that would be proposterous...

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

This statement is in no way logically connected to your above statement...

Ants are social insects which live in colonies numbering in the 10s of thousands, therefore watching television causes illiteracy.

The reason why we can all agree 1 + 1 = 2 is because it is demonstratably true. This is not evidence of a universal consciousness, to conclude such of thing would be beyond general sensibility. However, it is evidence of the efficiency of the educational system.

 

[scribble]

Interesting game. The only winning move...

 

[Iacchus]

Re: Re: Universal Consciousness?

Crazy as it may sound (AND ITS CRAZYCRAZYCRAZY!), humanbeings exist independently from one another. Thats why you and I are not the same person.


And another crazy concept (ITS TOTALLY CRAZYGONUTS!), perhaps consciousness is reducable down to a few materialistic functions. Weird aint it? Well its not like I'm suggesting something like digestion is reducable to a few materialistic functions, that would be proposterous...

And yet you and I are both linked to the Internet and still remain separate don't we? While you and I can both watch the same TV program and remain separate can't we?

This statement is in no way logically connected to your above statement...

How so? ... And how do we recognize anything if we don't recognize it through consciousness?

Ants are social insects which live in colonies numbering in the 10s of thousands, therefore watching television causes illiteracy.

I won't even bother to go there.

The reason why we can all agree 1 + 1 = 2 is because it is demonstratably true. This is not evidence of a universal consciousness, to conclude such of thing would be beyond general sensibility. However, it is evidence of the efficiency of the educational system.

And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness.

 

[Iacchus]

Interesting game. The only winning move...

Which move? ... 1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so?

 

[Ratman_tf]

If you were totally unconscious you would be totally unaware, and there would be "nothing" to make any sense out of.

So conciousness is defined as awareness? Like a bacteria being aware of light?

 

[Iacchus]

So conciousness is defined as awareness? Like a bacteria being aware of light?

This is obviously not what I had in mind, but it's possible.

 

[fishbob]

And yet how can we possibly agree, if there wasn't something universal about our ability to agree (and be able to see the same thing). All of which as I say, boils down to consciousness.

It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer? I can demonstrate to you that 1 + 1 = 2. You should test this out for yourself. Why invoke some big mysterious universal concept to explain something so simple?

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

And yet some form of consciousness is, or else how would we even know we exist? And if we can't even determine that, then what else is there to know?


A rose by any other name is not a rose? No, it doesn't stand to reason. And only goes to show that "universal axioms" do exist, and quite possibly a Universal Consciousess does as well.

First, you are dealing with two concepts: perception and consciousness. I do not have a handy dictionary definition of consciousness, but I usually go with the definition of being aware of one's surroundings. When one is aware of one's surrounding,s one is conscious and one exists. You are aware of your surroundings, therefore you have consciousness. I am aware of mine, therefore, so do I.

I DON'T have any kind of awareness of your surroundings, therefore, my consciousness is different from yours.

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")

To that, I offer the following geeky answer:

There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh no! It's the "1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so?" gambit. Run for your lives! See my second sig line!

This conversation is going to go nowhere.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

This conversation is going to go nowhere.

Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything." Further, they all claim that their insight into universe is based on reason or logic alone.

And yet, what they fail to see is that this same methodology lead different posters to different conclusions. Which only proves to highlight the fact that reason and logic alone is insufficient to determine Truth. The truth-value of any system derived by reason and logic are determined by the premises, or assumptions, on which that reason and logic is based. (This is assuming, of course, that the system is self-consistant and not self-contradictory.) Given the right combination of initial premises, any conclusion can be reached through reason and logic. What makes a conclusion True is the Truth of the premises, not the truth of the reason and logic.

This is how we can have two posters like Iacchus and lifegazer, who basically have the same worldview, who both are convinced of the truth of their beliefs, and yet argue between themselves on the details. They've focused on the truth of their logic rather than on the truth of their premises.

Pragmatically, however, scribble is correct once again. There is only one winning move....

 

[Mercutio]

As for your second issue, that of perception, you mangle a famous quote from Shakespeare (The actual quote being "would a rose, by any other name, not smell as sweet?")

Um....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
R&J, II. i. 85-86.

Sorry, sorry, sorry...I can't help myself sometimes

 

[hgc]

Which move? ... 1 + 1 = 2 because our teachers tell us it's so?

Are you telling us that you haven't been able to independently verify this?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Isn't it interesting that we've had several new posters lately that come here, not to converse, but to teach? Most of whom have the same underlying premise: "Consciousness is everything."

If they have anything to teach, it would be a shame if we dismissed them unheard. The premise is interesting, and I think it is possible to make some good arguments in that general direction (especially once the teleological implications have been stripped away).

fishbob:

It boils down to your individual consciousness and my individual consciousness, and the individual consciousnes of everybody else. Not some linked up "universal". Did you feel it last time I hit my thumb with a hammer?

I don't know about you, but when I hit my thumb with a hammer, the neighbors for a block around know about it right away -- they may not feel it, but they sure do hear about it.

Yahweh:

Crazy as it may sound [], human beings exist independently from one another

Yet just how autonomous are they, really?

You also mention ants living in colonies. You might say, based on the fact that they have separate little bodies, that ants also exist independently from one another. But they don't, really. Not for long, anyway. The plan for an ant nest does not exist in the mind of any individual ant, it emerges as a consequence of the collective actions of (often millions, actually) of individuals.

If you look at the behavior of an entire colony of ants, you see an intelligence far greater than that of any individual ant. This is often used as a metaphor for brain processes: neurons aren't very smart individually, but when you get a bunch of them connected together, things begin to happen.

But why should the analogy stop there? Once the decision has been made that the individual organism is an essentially arbitrary place to define the boundaries of a cognitive entity, doesn't it then become more reasonable to think of individual human brains and bodies as 'merely receptacles', linked to something greater? (especially if we are allowed to clarify that by greater, we don't necessarily mean better; just bigger -- perhaps even as in 'mob mentality').

Is it not reasonable to think of the JREF forum as a cognitive entity, more sophisticated than any individual member? Sometimes I think this might be not be an entirely trivial matter.

 

[Upchurch]

If they have anything to teach, it would be a shame if we dismissed them unheard. The premise is interesting, and I think it is possible to make some good arguments in that general direction (especially once the teleological implications have been stripped away).

Well, I've tried with lifegazer and others to engage in conversation about such a premise, but I've found that trying to get them to justify the premise without relying on logical fallacies and circular reasoning is nearly impossible.

To be honest, I haven't really given Iacchus a chance to justify his premise, but everything I've read of his sounds just like everyone else's rhetoric who assumes immaterialism. Maybe he'll surprise me, but I don't have any optimism that he will.

 

[RussDill]

Anyone ever stop to think that the only thing that makes sense out of anything at all is consciousness?

Actually, there is not "one thing", most critical thinkers try to create as many scenerios as possible to make sense of consciousness and then examine the merits of each. You however seem to be stuck on examining only one.

Hmm ... Perhaps our brains and bodies are merely receptacles, linked to this thing called Universal Consciousness?

Ok, there is one to consider. Now, lets take the evidence we have, and compare it to that. Lets see, everyone's consciousness, intelligence level, thinking process, etc is different, doesn't seem consistent with a universal consciousness...Damage to certain parts of the brain damage certain mental abilities, memory, recolection, speech, recognition, and can even effect our sense of self, again, doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. Ok...what about drug use, that effects the brain and sense of self, also doesn't seem to point to a universal consciousness. What about neurons, we seem to understand them very well, and there is no evidence for them being receptors.

All the evidence I have points away from a universal consciousness, what about you? Add to that that saying there is a universal consciousness does not explain *anything* about consciousness, which is what you set out to do.

Think about it. How else could we ever possibly agree that 1 + 1 = 2? If in fact there weren't somehing inherently universal -- i.e., through consciousness -- about it?

the reason we agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is that we have all learned the concept of counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. We didn't all automatically know it through some universal consciousness, we learned it.

Yes, and what else might that possibly entail, except that we are all part of the one "Universal Mind."

It means that we are capable of learning from the world around us.

Now, I have this other philosophy I've heard about that does match all the evidence we have, and even attempts to explain consciousness, care to hear about it?