Thread: Consciousness in relation to the whole of nature.

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

What if the brain has no connection to consciousness? What if the brain is simply the motor for running the body that we inhabit? What if we were stationary organisms, though arguably “alive” (such as trees, grass, etc)? Would we still need a brain to be considered conscious? Would we still have some sort of sentience, albeit on a completely different scale than a 5-sense human?[/b]

What is consciousness? The realization that you exist, that everything around you exists, that you are part of the world? Does life in itself constitute consciousness?

Let us utilize a flower. It is alive, no doubt. It is incapable (at least from what we can tell) of sensing the world around it, at least by our definition of the five senses. Granted, it will respond to certain stimuli, such as leaning towards sunlight. Aside from that, though, it can't see, smell, taste, feel, or hear anything. We'll assume that it is conscious.

What is there to feed the conscious mind? Nothing that resides within the area of information gathered by the five senses. Reaction to stimuli isn't something that the mind would have to process. There's nothing to stimulate the conscious mind. So, while it may be technically conscious, there's nothing for the conscious mind to utilize. It serves no purpose. Unless there is some higher level of experience that we can't sense, or don't realize we are sensing.

So the flower is conscious, but cannot utilize said conscious in any manner whatsoever.

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
If this is true, would it not be feasible that the blades of grass and the trees which grow, function, operate, feed, thrive, are actually sentient beings with no way of communicating their sentience?

Of course, assuming that everything you said is true, then yes, they would be sentient beings. And they would be able to communicate their sentience, we just wouldn't know how to pick it up. Wrong frequency.

It's the same concept as a language, at least in my eyes. We can't understand dogs, and they can't understand us. Granted, they can remember certain sounds that we make such as "sit" or "fetch," and connect them to some action. But they don't understand what we mean by the word, merely what action they should carry out when they hear a certain sound. They communicate with each other, we can't understand them. We communicate with each other, they can't understand us.

Communication Breakdown, as Zeppelin would say.


This is an interesting concept you have brought up Oneir. These are merely my initial thoughts, I'll repost after I've rolled it over in my mind a few times.

I think everything is conscious, because everything is made of energy, and well consciousness is itself energy.

That would mean not just humans, or plants, but rocks and fire would be conscious too.

Many cultures have believed that consciousness extends to all things.

Philosophers like labels and throw around animism and monism or pantheism.

What I find discouraging is that many in the west don't even believe people are consciousness. Instead positing us simply as biological robots with mind as an epiphenomenon.

I wasted sometime in university arguing with a professor that we do have free will while he propounded on determinism.

Back on topic, if you experienced the consciousness of trees and plants, how would you change?

*now that i wasted half an hour writing this bullshit, i only post it as a long, meandering joke without a punchline.. *

ah, my favourite mystery to ponder...consciousness yet also my least favourite subject to discuss with others, as language inevitably frustrates any true understanding.

i find it helps with such subjects to define certain terms, and the way in which one will be using them. please note every meaning, not just the ones in bold.

consciousness

~an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness"
~awareness: having knowledge (of); "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

cognition

~the conscious process of the mind by which individuals perceive, think, and remember.
www.lcmrehabcentre.com/education/glossary2.html

perception ~

percept: the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept
~a way of conceiving something; "Luther had a new perception of the Bible"
~the process of perceiving
~knowledge gained by perceiving; "a man admired for the depth of his perception"
~sensing: becoming aware of something via the senses
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

you will notice certain portions are in bold. these signify the more specific ways in which i will use the concepts.

inevitably when pondering consciousness i wonder if there are limits to consciousness (defined as "awareness, having knowing of).

if there are no limits, then it is pointless to speak of such a concept.
if there are limits, then they should be definite.

the concept of "red" is defined by its (arbitrarily determined) limits within the electromagnetic spectrum. *without limits, one cannot pinpoint an object, or concept, or idea.*

these limits exist because "red" is simply a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum...it exists in relation to something other than itself. if "red" was the totality of the electromagnetic spectrum, and not a part, it would essentially be a meaningless concept.

let us assume for the moment that reality consists entirely of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the relationships within it. if red is a part of this spectrum, it is a meaningful, definable term. if red is the totality of the spectrum, it essentially loses the possibility of being a meaningful, definable term. in this latter case, "red" and "electromagnetic spectrum" would be the same thing.

in the same sense, if consciousness is inherent in the totality o f All That Is, it loses the possibility of being defined as a meaningful concept. whereas if it is only inherent in parts of All That Is (if it has definite limits analogous to red's frequency limits within the E-M spectrum) it can be defined as a meaningful, definable concept.

-----
now consider the most common usage of meaning attached to consciousness: an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "

this usage makes a distinction between self and situation (not-self) by means of cognition. cognition is the ability by which individuals "think, perceive, and remember".

cognition in this sense has meaning due to the acceptance of linear time (thinking and remembering are contingent upon the nature of time).

now, does a rock have cognition? does it have the capacity to think, learn, remember. to contemplate "itself" in relation to "not-self"? i doubt it.

* i realize this is probably getting murky, but please bear with me, and i'll tie things together very soon*

now, let us bring in:

awareness

~having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
~state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

you will remember that all this babbling is trying to determine whether or not consciousness has limits, or not.

upon consideration, we can see that in one sense of the word, awareness is synonomous with unlimited consciousness (the bold portion in the above definition).

undifferentiated

having no limited or specialized function or structure, as in stem cells
www.cardiogenesis.com/glossary.cfm

if some thing has no limited or specialized function, it cannot have [quote] consciousness

~an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness

" , for it has no self.



------------

If this is true, would it not be feasible that the blades of grass and the trees which grow, function, operate, feed, thrive, are actually sentient beings with no way of communicating their sentience?

i do not believe that leaves of grass have cognition (think or remember).

but i do believe they have sentience in the first of the following ways:

sentience

awareness: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness" sense: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing"
the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs and newts"- Richard Eberhart
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

notice that "sentience" is synonomous with "awareness", which is synonomous with "consciousness".

if you remember my thoughts on definite (defining) limits being neccessary for a concept to have meaning, you will see that this sort of consciousness ("awareness: having knowledge of") is essentially meaningless, and undefinable. it is the realm of infinite, unlimited possibility, in which the following dualisms have simulaneous be-ing (non-be-ing).

self-other
time-eternity
finite-infinite
life-death
limitedness-unlimitedness
meaning-meaninglessness
etc.

you asked if, say, plants have sentience which they are merely unable to communicate.

i believe they possess the type of sentience which cannot be communicated, and thus need not be. they possess unlimited awareness. they have no imaginary partitions between red and infrared, or the sun which is touching their leaves from millions of miles away, and the leaves that are being touched.

communication implies self and other.

i believe every "thing" has awareness.. "having knowledge of" no thing AND every thing, because things are arbitrarily defined.
every "thing" but the human mind knows that it does not matter what it knows.


i believe humans more than any other organism, has perception in the sense of:

a way of conceiving something; "Luther had a new perception of the Bible"

whereas everything aside from our mode of self-consciousness IS perception in the sense of:

percept: the representation of what is perceived; basic component in the formation of a concept

man, this is starting to become absurd...yet again the labyrinth of language has swallowed all clairity into its black hole of meaning.

it is highly significant that the main reason (most) humans feel themselves to be superior to animals, and plants, and rocks, and dark matter, is that we have the specific, limiting/limited mode of consciousness which can only be housed in language.

we think we are the supreme goal that God/Life/Evolution has been working towards.

meaning

~the message that is intended or expressed or signified; "what is the meaning of this sentence"; "the significance of a red traffic light"; "the signification of Chinese characters"; "the import of his announcement was ambiguous"
~the idea that is intended; "What is the meaning of this proverb?"
~meaning(a): rich in significance or implication; "a meaning look"; "pregnant with meaning"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

i think perhaps we just fail to realize that All That Is has no purpose. it is an undifferentiated cosmic stem cell which is pregnant with all possibilities. the One Moment in which eternity simultaneously grows and rests. and we are just one possibility in that teeming Void.

the limits inherent in the consciousness of our intellectual-verbal minds are the very same limits which define us. we ARE our arbitrary limits, and they do not even exist except arbitrarily.

In mathematics, the concept of a "limit" is used to describe the behavior of a function, as its argument gets "close" to either some point, or infinity; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(math)

human identity is a function which has no purpose other than to define its own function.

in this sense, we are the only "things" which have self-consciousness, in that we are the only "things" which believe in separate "things".

every thing else simply is, in perfect relation to infinite relation...humans choose to believe that choice is possible ( ), and that we are somehow imperfectly related to every "thing" else.

awareness/consciousness is unlimited
it has "no limited or specialized function or structure, as in stem cells".

human consciousness fails to realize that its specialization is impossible without non-specialization.

all possibilities simply are, simultaneously, within the Primordial Stem Cell which contains all the genetic material for all growth, and death, and beginnings, and endings that Are.

"i" am a mystic because there is nothing but mysticism.
"i" am a gnostic because there is nothing but gnosis.

no "self" has ever lived.

i need to shut the fuck up and go meditate..although IT doesn't MATTER whether or not i do anyways

The Tao is abstract,
and therefore has no form,
it is neither bright in rising,
nor dark in sinking,
cannot be grasped, and makes no sound.

Without form or image, without existence,
the form of the formless, is beyond defining,
cannot be described,
and is beyond our understanding.
It cannot be called by any name.

Standing before it, it has no beginning;
even when followed, it has no end.
In the now, it exists; to the present apply it,
follow it well, and reach its beginning.

...........

Originally posted by wombing
the concept of "red" is defined by its (arbitrarily determined) limits within the electromagnetic spectrum.

Red's wavelength is approximately 650 nm in the visible spectrum. However, I'm not sure I agree with this analogy you are making. I'll make my point with a similar analogy, the musical octave, instead of the color spectrum. That's like saying the C note is 523.25 Hz. However, the musical octave repeats, and the next C note is 1046.50 Hz (exactly double). I have the same contention about the color spectrum, that it too repeats. Calling 650nm "red" because it's the only red we see is, to me, an incomplete definition.

Similarly, our definition of consciousness may be incomplete. There is the consciousness we see, of people talking, plants growing, animals eating, etc. Just because we don't see a rock move doesn't mean it doesn't have feelings or the ability to think. Yes it could be that all things are conscious, some more than others. That doesn't mean our measuring stick is completely invalidated, we just should not write off what might be "negligible".

An interesting thought (and potentially a way to determine what is conscious and what is not). Like Oneironaut, I'll ask you to bear w/ me and follow through the science jargon - I tried to simplify it, really.

In quantum mechanics, all systems are in an indeterminate quantum state (represented by a wavefunction which describes the superposition of all possible system states) until they are observed and their wavefunction collapses. Until a system is observed, one cannot say what state the system is in, only that there is an X% chance that it will be in state “A,” a Y% chance that it will be in state “B,” etc. In fact, until it is observed, it can be argued that the system can be considered to exist in all states simultaneously. (I say “it can be argued” since there are various interpretations of the nature of the physical realtiy described by the mathematics of quantum mechanics.)

So, the question is, what constitutes an “observation”?

Obviously when a human being measures a system, it collapses into one of its possible states, and we consider the system “observed.” Human beings do not directly experience the quantum world – we experience the classical manifestations of quantum systems. So, what happens if a cat observes a system? Does its wavefunction collapse into a single state? Does a cat experience a classical world as we do? Most people would probably say, “yes,” since cats behave in fairly predictable ways (except when being given a bath or a pill) which would indicate that they’re not banking on quantum probabilities. But what happens as you climb down the ladder of evolutionary complexity? Do amoebas experience the world as classical? Does an amoeba observing a system cause it to collapse into a single quantum state? Can a virus perform an “observation” in the quantum sense? What about a blade of grass?

No one really understands the nature of observation in quantum mechanics. We know only that when we humans measure a system, when we “observe” it, that act of observation causes the system’s wavefunction to collapse, and what we observe will be a single system state, not the superposition of states which describe an unobserved quantum system. Is consciousness itself responsible for the collapse? Does consciousness establish observation, or is it some wholly physical, as-yet undiscovered interaction between two systems? If it is consciousness, then what is consciousness, what constitutes a conscious being? And if it is consciousness that causes quantum systems to collapse, can we then determine consciousness simply by observing what causes a quantum system to collapse and what doesn't? This of course only leads to the further, and most enigmatic question, what is consciousness?

More questions than answers, I’m afraid, but it’s certainly fascinating to consider. Sometimes the speculation is more fun than the answer, anyway.

Great replies.

Ccrinbama:
(And this might add another dimension to many of the replies expressed) We may say there is nothing to stimulate the conscious mind, but let’s dig even further. In humans, even, it is argued that we have the ability to affect ourselves on a physiological level by thought and attention alone. Meditative healing (and even the placebo effect) is evidence of this. If this is true, could the “more stationary” forms of life such as grass and flowers be aware of their own physiology on a level that we (that are bombarded by our five senses, since birth) are not readily accustomed to without our awareness of that ability to tap into the body’s physiology on a near-molecular level?

Wombing:
This goes into where I both agree and disagree with you. I do (as of now) believe that a rock may not be conscious, unless (which I’m still torn on) that a rock is simply a manifestation of the conscious “whole,” that is debated often. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that those that can be defined as conscious are, in fact, separate entities. Could grass feel (not so much physically, but in terms of experience) a separation from another organism? Not so much the single blades of grass “feeling” separate from each other, but, say, grass from a tree? Or grass from a weed? Or a flower? On a physiological level, there is a definite separation from “what is grass” and “what is flower.” Is that barrier a conscious distinction? Is it “aware” of “where grass stops” and “where flower begins?” It obviously must be, at least physiologically, because there is biological distinction between grass and flower, at some point, no?
Sure their sentience may need not be communicated but, in the sense of “being,” there may be some point where the whole of a single patch of grass may be considered “self” as opposed to the “other,” that may even be somewhat interwoven with it in relation to weed and flower.
As far as time, think about the “time” it takes for grass or a plant to die. There is a progression from healthy plant to non-functioning plant. Is a plant, in its possible sentience, aware of that change? Does grass evolve in relation to the conditions of its surroundings? I think it does. (though that’s just a speculation)
But is it somehow aware of that change, albeit a hundred-to-thousand year change, on a non-communicatory level? I think its possible.

Originally posted by Distant Clone

However, the musical octave repeats, and the next C note is 1046.50 Hz (exactly double). I have the same contention about the color spectrum, that it too repeats. Calling 650nm "red" because it's the only red we see is, to me, an incomplete definition.

Whohoah. I like that.

How far up do octaves go? They definitely don’t stop when we’re not able to hear them. They don’t stop when dogs are no longer able to hear them. Is there an end to the scale? If not, how can you define the limits of C, or B flat? It doesn’t matter how high or low on the scale you play them, like notes will resonate. They will harmonize. What may seem differentiated may actually be a totality when applied to different scales.
It is hard to make a solid relation between the progression of the sonic scales and the progression between the visual color spectrum because we see about three “well-recognized scales” of color. Light, natural, and dark. But how dark is dark red? Is the dark red in a box of crayons darker than the dark red in a box of PrismaColor pencils? A box of Crayola markers? How many dark reds are there? So actually, yeah, now that I’m thinking about it, there may be more in common between the color and harmonic spectrum (if I’m using the term correctly) than I first realize. Interesting.

Peregrinus:
Schrodinger’s Cat. Correct? I only ask because I’m still new to the whole quantum theory thing, but I’m pretty sure I recognize that interpretation. (The collapse of a waveform in response to interaction with consciousness.)
Now, you brought up a virus.
If we can, in a sense, manifest reality through conscious observation, I’d think we have to look at a virus’s ability to manifest reality. Can a virus’s interaction with a human manifest the reality of a human’s sickness? Can it alter the waveform of a “healthy human,” to take on the characteristics of the virus’s “being there?” Absolutely, depending on how you look at it.

Originally posted by Peregrinus

Does consciousness establish observation, or is it some wholly physical, as-yet undiscovered interaction between two systems?

I’m somewhere along the lines of your latter question, right?

And yeah, if we all knew the answer to questions like this, right off hand, talking about it wouldn’t be nearly as fun.

distant clone, there is only one middle C you would agree?

oneironaut...

re-reading my post along with the others, i was struck by how little sense it made

oneironaut wrote: On a physiological level, there is a definite separation from “what is grass” and “what is flower.” Is that barrier a conscious distinction? Is it “aware” of “where grass stops” and “where flower begins?” [/b]

are you aware of where "you" end, and "the earth" ( or even "the universe" )
begins?

could one blade of grass be wrong in its conscious distinction between where it ends and flower begins, but another be correct?

..., for the sake of argument, let’s assume that those that can be defined as conscious are, in fact, separate entities.[/b]

is true separation possible? if so, wouldn't two separate entities be completely unaware of each other's existence?

can an entity be aware of separation from another entity, or only varying degrees of relationship with another entity?

the Sanskrit root matr- to measure, is the source of the word for matter itself, as well as material, matrix, metre and maya - the Indian concept of the illusion of measuring and dividing that we live by, and from which we must eventually free ourselves.

peregrinus wrote: We know only that when we humans measure a system, when we “observe” it, that act of observation causes the system’s wavefunction to collapse, and what we observe will be a single system state, not the superposition of states which describe an unobserved quantum system. Is consciousness itself responsible for the collapse? [/b]

can it also be asked if the collapse is responsible for consciousness? or if they are one and the same thing?

isn't the main novelty of quantum theory the supposed fact that there is an element of randomness to the most basic organization that human consciousness can apprehend? (einstein's "god does not play dice")

could consciousness be that same randomness?

could controlled attempts to define consciousness by what causes a system's wavefunction to collapse be perpetually thwarted because the collapsing of wavefunctions are random ?



words are starting to lose all meaning..

will say though that between posts i did in fact meditate, and for a brief while it was one of the few times "my" consciousness was completely unfettered by any conceivable limitation (e.g. self/other, or time, or cause/effect). this is likely because i had just real-ized the futility of explaining consciousness within the confines of language.

in that spirit, all i can do is replace "time" with "consciousness" in the following quote.

What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.
Saint Augustine[/b]

Originally posted by wombing
distant clone, there is only one middle C you would agree?

But then, what is that "middle" in relation to? If the term "middle" is to define the mid-range between the lower and higher extremes that we humans can perceive C, it may not actually be a "middle C," at all, outside the scope of our own perceptive range.

Originally posted by wombing

are you aware of where "you" end, and "the earth" ( or even "the universe" )
begins?

Excellent point.
I suppose it's on the basis of that ambiguity that we're even having this conversation. Nicely put. I see what you mean.

But then, let's take that even one step further:

Whether or not we know, consciously, where we stop and the universe begins, does our subconscious know? (Remember, this is just assuming we are separate entities, for the purpose of covering the original question from all angles.)

When our bodies fight "infection" (though infection, itself, could be purely psychological, and immaterial, in the grand scheme) is that our body's way of telling us it "knows" when we are being intruded upon?
Evolution: Does the "fact" that we evolve mean there is a point, on some level, where we assimilate that data that is to be the blueprint for the changes our species is to make, at any certain time? Does that miniscule moment in time constitute a distinction between "self" and "other?"

Originally posted by wombing
distant clone, there is only one middle C you would agree?

Yes we need an absolute position, I have no problem defining one C note as middle C, just define one red color as visible red. Actually, I think middle C should be 512Hz instead of 523.25Hz, and visible green should be defined as 532nm instead of 510nm. The reason is purely mathematical, as 2^9 = 512, and I now claim that sound and light are perception of the same vibration, related by the speed of light. See 13.3 Light.

If everything were right, middle C would be 512Hz instead of 523.25Hz. Then when we go up forty octaves, i.e. multiply middle C by 2^40, and then plug it into our formula speed of light = wavelength * frequency.
(299792458 m/s) / (2^49 1/s) = 532nm, which should be green instead it's 510nm average..
Using our middle C value of 523.25Hz instead of 512Hz (2^9), we find that green's wavelength is
(299792458 m/s) / (523.25 * 2^40 1/s) = 521nm, instead of it's 510nm average.

What this means is that we are a little off on our definitions of middle C and visible red. Also, the octaves start at C and green, even though we have expressed them as CDEFGAB/do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti and ROYGBIV, respectively. The visible spectrum is the end half of one octave and the beginning half of another one. Yes there are quite a few goofups. There are seven colors, and seven musical notes. Seven really is a special number. In the next paragraph, I claim that color and sound, as well as temperature, emotion and geometry are all related. It's interesting to note that there are seven deadly sins, and even though there are only 5 Platonic solids, there is a octave sequence of growth along none other than the golden spiral, starting and ending with the sphere. Of course, we think of temperature as warm and cold, maybe that definition needs to change. All of this may be speculation at this point, but notice how there is such a thing as happy, circus sounding, music, and dark, suppressed, chamber music. They say people were black at funerals because it supresses the emotion.

I feel that everything is energy, energy has a wavelength, so energy therefore everything vibrates. We can perceive such vibrations as color, sound, temperature, even as emotion and geometry. There is no theoretical limit to how fast or how slow something can vibrate, so it can go from as low as it wants to as high as it wants. Physically, we are limited by how much energy is in a local region. I won't say infinity because it's not really a number. Vibration can also be described by a sinusoid, which is an odd function, which has the property: -sin(x) = sin(-x). So anything less than zero has a corresponding vibration which is greater than zero.

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

How far up do octaves go?[/b]

For all intensive purposes, we can now consider (0,infinity) as our vibrational domain. Since each successive interval starts at double it's previous one, each previous interval is half the next one. Going forward, it's an unbounded series that goes 1, 2, 4, 8, ... and it's unbounded above. The other way though, it goes 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... and converges to zero. It never gets their though. I think there would have to be absolutely no energy to have absolute zero. Otherwise, the relatively warm and absolute cold will pull towards each other, and absolute cold will now be relatively cold.

Thinking of temperature, which measures the rate of vibration, it seems somewhat intuitive that absolute zero should be related to 0Hz, when molecules don't vibrate, and really hot should be heading out towards arbritrarily fast vibrations. Further, doesn't it seem like there should be a linear correlation, like it should go from really cold to really warm instead of going cold, warm, cold, warm, etc? That might be a problem, because we know where absolute cold is, we would need an absolute warmth, which really should not exist.

@Distant Clone (myself)
Further, think about it in another dimension, such as color. That would mean that everything we could possibly see would be all just about the same color. Think about the sun, it's yellow, and hot, and there is not much variation. Actually, I just realized that the sun may be invisible to our eyes. We can feel it's warmth, but it's not like all things yellow are that warm. As it's intensity drops away over time, we can eventually see it's rays. While the sun does have ultraviolet rays, shouldn't we actually be seeing red rays since that's at the end of the our visible spectrum? Mathematically, the color octave goes GBIVROY, and we think the sun is yellow. I'll have to think about it. It might have to do with the weighted drop off of intensity, proportional to (distance from light source)^-2.

Now that I'm done with another tangent, that repeated octave structure really gives rise to the holographic universe theory. Perhaps Oneironaut can add in what he knows from there.

<!--QuoteBegin-wombing
are you aware of where "you" end, and "the earth" ( or even "the universe" ) begins?

I think we are all just one giant ball of energy, like I said earlier, what the theists would call God. Our perceptions and our senses end and give us an illusion of self, but I don't think that truly exists. I think the line has been drawn in the wrong place.

Yes we need an absolute position, I have no problem defining one C note as middle C, just define one red color as visible red.[/b]

i'm not sure what you are asking... we can take any portion of the visible EM spectrum and label that particular part "red". it would be an arbitrary distinction. labels/separations are "real" only in the mind.

or, if you are saying that "red' is a repeating step in a progressive pattern in the same way "C" is, then the particular red in question can be called "middle red".

--------
i tried to understand your mathematics, but my mind doesn't work that way unfortunately
--------

Whether or not we know, consciously, where we stop and the universe begins, does our subconscious know?[/b]

good question...i have no idea

two more (since asking questions is easier than throwing out answers).

does our subconscious even have limits?

and if it has limits, do these limits grow?

Oneironaut .... You kill me.
As a landscaper I can indeed revel in the nature of pondering many questions behind a mower.
You keep bringing up all these interesting concepts. Consciousness being one of my favorites.
So I have to give this one some more thought to give it the respect it deserves.

And damn it perigrine Why do you have to go complicating these things with your quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo?

Originally posted by wombing
or, if you are saying that "red' is a repeating step in a progressive pattern in the same way "C" is, then the particular red in question can be called "middle red".

This is what I meant ^^

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

Schrodinger’s Cat. Correct?[/b]

Exactly. What Schrödinger did was take the notion of wavefunctions to their extreme in order to illustrate the principle. Under a classical understanding, scientists would state the radioactive isotope in Shrödinger’s experiment either decayed or didn’t decay, the cat either died when the poison was released or it didn’t. They would tell you that the cat is physically in one state or another – alive or dead – and we simply don’t know which one until we open the box. The state is simply unknown, not unknowable. But under certain quantum mechanical interpretations, one would have to say that the cat is both alive and dead and neither alive nor dead. It’s state can only be described as a superposition of both states, and a state is not determined until the box is opened.

This really illustrates the question of the role of consciousness in quantum mechanical observations, because most scientists today, like their classical counterparts, would tell you that the cat is either alive or dead before you open the box, that the wavefunction will have collapsed already. The cat, after all, will know whether it’s alive or dead, right? And the mainstream interpretation is now that the cat is completely unnecessary to collapsing the wavefunction - it’s the Geiger counter which measures the decay and either releases or doesn’t release the poison that acts as the “observer” in the experiment, and thus the cat really is either alive or dead before the box is opened. That seems logical and reasonable, and is, in fact, the most widely accepted interpretation of the nature of observation in QM. Doubt can arise, however, when you consider whether, until the state of the Geiger counter is observed by the sadistic Schrödinger or another oberver capable of communicating his findings, the Geiger counter has actually recorded a definite state of decay or if it, too, is really in a superposition of states where it is both registering a decay and registering no decay. The only way we know the state is to open the box, and if we do that, we know that we will observe a collapsed system. What we don't know is when that collapse actually occured. Did the Geiger counter collapse the system, or was it, too, in a superposition of states, like the atomic nuclei and the cat, until we pried off the lid.

The point is, we really don’t know whether consciousness plays an active role in observation. In quantum mechanics, we know only what we observe and infer the rest from observable data, and we can’t observe anything until we open Schrödinger’s box. Any human observation is necessarily conscious, and so we cannot directly experience whether non-conscious devices can collapse the wavefunction. So really, there might be quantum zombie cats... I’d like to meet one, but I suppose if I did, I’d kill it half the time.

Originally posted by wombing@
could controlled attempts to define consciousness by what causes a system's wavefunction to collapse be perpetually thwarted because the collapsing of wavefunctions are random ?

The moment of collapse isn’t actually random. The randomness Einstein was talking about comes from the fact that which state the system collapses into for any given measurement is random (although the states themselves are well-defined). What we don’t really know is what constitutes an “observation” – what does it take to cause the collapse? We have many, highly replicable experiments which demonstrate what will cause a collapse, but we don’t know where the boundaries lie.

And this is total speculation, of course, but I also think that consciousness would be possible without wavefunction collapse. It would be completely alien to us – instead of actualities there would be only possibilities, and the sort of consciousness (and especially intelligence) which has that as inputs would be so foreign to the human way of thinking that we might not even recognize it as consciousness.


<!--QuoteBegin-Distant Clone
If everything were right, middle C would be 512Hz instead of 523.25Hz. Then when we go up forty octaves, i.e. multiply middle C by 2^40, and then plug it into our formula speed of light = wavelength * frequency.
(299792458 m/s) / (2^49 1/s) = 532nm, which should be green instead it's 510nm average..

Just a little clarification: The formula is actually: (speed of wave) = (wavelength of wave) * (frequency of wave)
Since middle C is a musical note and musical notes are produced by sound waves (compression waves traveling through the medium of the air) rather than light waves (electromagnetic waves which require no medium in which to travel), the speed you are using should be the speed of sound in air, not the speed of light in a vacuum.

[quote]And damn it perigrine Why do you have to go complicating these things with your quantum mechanics mumbo jumbo?
Because it's my unique contribution and it's weird and I like weird and it's a mystery when most other mysteries have been shredded by the blade of modernity but this one has facts to back it up and we still don't know what those facts mean and I like speculating and using big words especially when I have a spell checker and I like what the theory hints at about the nature of reality and I'm a total nerd and I've been studying this stuff of and on since the sixth grade and my head is full of such things that no one understand and no one cares about except me and now I'm just going to go eat worms. And why don't we have an emo icon, damnit?

Originally posted by Peregrinus
Because it's my unique contribution and it's weird and I like weird and it's a mystery when most other mysteries have been shredded by the blade of modernity but this one has facts to back it up and we still don't know what those facts mean and I like speculating and using big words especially when I have a spell checker and I like what the theory hints at about the nature of reality and I'm a total nerd and I've been studying this stuff of and on since the sixth grade and my head is full of such things that no one understand and no one cares about except me and now I'm just going to go eat worms. More Crying And why don't we have an emo icon?

And for this =
However I just meant that now my meager idea of a universal consciousness has to be elaborated on and pondered over more.
It's all a good thing!

The moment of collapse isn’t actually random. The randomness Einstein was talking about comes from the fact that which state the system collapses into for any given measurement is random (although the states themselves are well-defined). What we don’t really know is what constitutes an “observation” – what does it take to cause the collapse? We have many, highly replicable experiments which demonstrate what will cause a collapse, but we don’t know where the boundaries lie. [/b]

ah, i think i understand what you mean.

really should get around to reading herbert's book i suppose, so that i'm not utterly out of my depth in trying to throw around quantum terminology as if i have the first clue what the hell i'm talking about....

And this is total speculation, of course, but I also think that consciousness would be possible without wavefunction collapse. It would be completely alien to us – instead of actualities there would be only possibilities, and the sort of consciousness (and especially intelligence) which has that as inputs would be so foreign to the human way of thinking that we might not even recognize it as consciousness.[/b]

fascinating thought.

i find it noteworthy that (if i understand correctly), consciousness without wavefunction collapse would be consciousness without "observation".

this seems to be a perfect description of certain meditative, trance, and drug-induced states.

(i trust you'll all forgive me for bringing in a "trip report", but whereas peregrinus' unique contribution to this discussion deals with the quantum world, mine deals with smoking salvia divinorum by the river )

essentially the experience consisted of each "atom" in my body being reduced to an intensely vibrating, "jagged, metallic sphere". i was not observing this arrangment from "without", as a unified entity, but from"within" each of the strange particles.

if that doesn't make sense, close your eyes and release all thought...simply try to "feel" the space which your body occupies, perhaps seeming to originate at some central point and emanating outwards to its boundaries of dissipation.

now imagine this wordless awareness existing in millions or billions of locations simultaneously.

this is basically what mode of consciousness was in play...then the most interesting thing happened.

it was as if one of these billion vibrating balls of metallic energy was designated as the observer...or as i recorded it after, this single sphere was designated "it".

"i" was "it", and in order to "tag" one of a billion possible options i needed to observe it from without, instead of feel it from within (i really cannot explain it any better than that i'm afraid ). keep in mind that there was simultaneous awareness of each sphere, but only the one had the power to observe.

yet it was impossible to "touch" another sphere externally, for the boundaries of each sphere seemed to dissipate into nothingness before making solid contact with its neighbors, whose boundaries also dissipated into the same nothingness.

the billion spheres/locations were not "separate" from one another, and yet not "touching one another".



when "i" as the observer tried to extend past this no-man's land of nothingness in order to touch one of my neighbors and "tag" them as the observer, past a certain point i would simply teleport into that neighbor's position, and suddenly find the roles reversed.

whereas one moment i had been at A reaching towards B, i would now be at B reaching towards A.

this process acelerated until it seemed the observer was teleporting so quickly that a sort of absolute speed was reached, and no one sphere was the "observer' (or "myself"), but the observer was distributed almost equally (but perhaps not quite) between each location simultaneously. not in a concrete way, but in a constantly cycling of awareness/energy.

quite an alien experience, as my inability to describe it (or even recall it at anything more than someone else's dim memory) demonstates.

the most interesting part is that this same state of non-dualistic awareness is very similar to a few meditative sessions in the past (while sober), including

yet the state-specific memory common to both types of experiences is active only up until a point of "no return". the point where the observer sacrifices itself to being.

perhaps each of our "individual" consciousnesses dissipates into nothingness in a way similar to each sphere in the related experience above.

*laughs* doubt that made much sense, but maybe some will find it interesting.

in the end, we can theorize about consciousness as much as we like, but if we never truly journey into the forbidding wildernesses on the periphery of our tiny islands, how will we ever truly know where human consciousness ends, and other forms, or absence of consciousness begins.

we are all here, we are all seemingly alive and conscious and curious, and the very nature of our being is mysterious and unknown and fascinating.

how wonderful

Originally posted by Distant Clone+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Distant Clone)</div>

Now that I'm done with another tangent, that repeated octave structure really gives rise to the holographic universe theory. Perhaps Oneironaut can add in what he knows from there.[/b]

Well, having not thought about the repeated octave concept until you brought it up, I’m still searching for the way to explain a direct link between it and the holographic theory, but I know it’s there. I do know I see the direct link between the octave concept and quantum theory, which I know has a direct relation to holographic theory. So they all may actually intertwine.

The main argument of quantum theory, as far as I know, is whether or not the universe continues on beyond the smallness of an atom. That the atom, itself, is a universe of it’s own, which could possibly, then, continue on further down into what that atomic universe’s equivalent of an “atom” would be, repeating the process over and over, ad infinitum.
This completely parallels the repeated octave concept you brought up, in that they are both examples of independent systems that continue to both expand and contrast, rise and fall, or intensify and weaken (however you wanna look at it) on a possibly infinite scale.
We hear, what, seven octaves? This is, in itself, like seven universes of an independent system. If we start with C, it progresses down from C, without skipping any perceivable notes, right down to yet another C.
To see the earth from the scale of a galaxy would be like looking at an atom through one hell of a microscope. (more of a figurative analogy, I don’t know the true scale) We would be foolish to think that the inventions we create, with our five sense perception of reality, represent reality at its most fundamental level. To see the earth from the scale of a galaxy, as if through a microscope, would leave you unable to see the earth’s countries, its cities, its people, its technology, its complex systems, its micro-systems, its atoms.
The “microscope” would most likely not be that powerful, because you would be observing the earth from the scale of a galaxy.

This, in turn, goes along with the holographic theory, in which wave-particle duality, which is well-rooted in quantum theory, suggest that the most fundamental form of anything is most likely a wave pattern. The transition from wave to particle would have something to do with wave pattern interference, such as the interference pattern of a laser passing through holographic film to create a seemingly independent 3D image.
In the case of Schrodinger’s Cat, the waveform of “conscious observation” would interfere with the waveform of “the cat’s possible states within the box” to determine what’s actually inside the box when someone opens the box to look inside – a dead cat, or a live one.
At least that is the link I see when I think about all three concepts together. Seems pretty plausible, no?

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Oneironaut .... You kill me.
[/b]

Just tryin to keep things interesting, man.

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus@

Did the Geiger counter collapse the system, or was it, too, in a superposition of states, like the atomic nuclei and the cat, until we pried off the lid.

Now, I thought about the state of the cat, while looking at the Geiger counter, (or even a video tape of the inside of the box) but never about the state of the instrument itself. Hmmmm.
See I was thinking before, that ok, they are using technology to check what’s going to be inside the box before they open it, right? A poisoned cat, or a live one. Is it the looking at the instrument that determines the cat’s state? Or is it the cat’s state that determines what the instrument says?

One step further: Even if it is looking at the instrument, which then determines the cat’s state, when you open the box, that collapses the cat’s waveform into the “determined state”, what if there are two observers?
If two people are looking at the instrument first to determine the cat’s state, who’s “conscious observation” is collapsing the waveform?
Could it be the observer with the most potent expectation of the cat’s state?

Damn. I just burned one and it’s hard to keep up with myself. Haha.

For anyone that may be reading this and has absolutely know idea what the Shrodinger’s Cat interpretation is that we are talking about, (I just learned about it recently)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat
is a good link to check out. (Tried to link directly to it, but it didn't work. )

<!--QuoteBegin-wombing

perhaps each of our "individual" consciousnesses dissipates into nothingness in a way similar to each sphere in the related experience above.

That is actually very deep-rooted in holographic theory, from what I’ve gotten so far. A comparison for “individual” realities is a sea of whirlpools, each of them “individual,” in their own right, but still very much apart of the same “whole,” that is the sea. They share the same water (the same thoughts, data, information, consciousness, etc) and work within systems that constantly interchange without the sensation of interchanging. They draw influences upon one another that are completely out of scale with their swirling, twisting “identities,” through repulsion and attraction, with one another, as they swirl closer and further apart. When water travels from what is considered one whirlpool, to another, there isn’t really a smooth state of “in one, or in the other.” It’s a constant flux where the current (knowledge, information, consciousness, whatever) travels fluidly through the sea (the singular consciousness, as some call it) from one “totality,” (self/whirlpool) to another. They are all connected, yet seemingly individual.

Well if our own consciousness is not hard enough to ponder!

It seems as if you describe a universal consciousness. As a collective whole, it does seemingly seem to work as all one HUGE organism.
In it's entirety our brain alone is such a dynamic organ. It is quite possible for it to be a part of a bigger frame of reference.
Since it seems that there are many theories to claim that our own consciousness can deviate a significant amount from realty then it would also seem to give rise to the notion that much of a universal consciousness in incomprehensible for us.
Possibly we tap into it form time to time. Again giving rise to many of the questions we ponder over in this very forum.
As far as Quantum mechanics. This is a world of incontinuity. Not everything is relative. I can't envision this fitting in with this entire concept.
What gap am I missing?

Originally posted by wombing
really should get around to reading herbert's book i suppose, so that i'm not utterly out of my depth in trying to throw around quantum terminology as if i have the first clue what the hell i'm talking about....

Yeah, you should That sounds like an amazing experience you had with the salvia. I tried some once, but felt no effects – I probably wasn’t doing it correctly or not doing enough. If your experience is at all representative of what a salvia trip is like, I should definitely give it another try.

So here’s an attempt at analogy to hopefully, maybe, clear up some basics until you get your hands on Herbert’s book: Wavefunction collapse is sort of like that Plinko game where you start a ball at the top and it bounces off of a grid of horizontal bars to end up finally at the bottom in one of several bins. When you start the ball off at the top, you don’t know where it’s going to end up, but you do know for certain that it will be in one of those bins and not across the room. When an observation collapses the wavefunction (lets loose the Plinko ball from the top of the board), you don’t know what eigenstate (bin at the bottom) it will end up in, but you do know it will definitely end up in one of its well-defined eigenstates (bins).

We know that when we observe a quantum system, we always see the ball in one of the bins, never at the top of the board (although we have unequivocal evidence that until observation, the ball is at the top of the board – i.e. the system is uncollapsed). So our observation, our interference with the system, causes it to collapse. But the problem is, we don’t know what else causes it to collapse, because we cannot observe the system in an un-collapsed state. When we do an experiment, we don’t know whether it was human consciousness that caused it to collapse or some aspect of our instrumentation. We don’t see what looses the Plinko ball – we just see where it ends up.

I hope that makes some sense – I just now thought of that Plinko analogy, so if all I did was confuse things, I apologize.

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

Is it the looking at the instrument that determines the cat’s state? Or is it the cat’s state that determines what the instrument says?[/b]

Good question

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
If two people are looking at the instrument first to determine the cat’s state, who’s “conscious observation” is collapsing the waveform? *Could it be the observer with the most potent expectation of the cat’s state?

If it is indeed consciousness that triggers collapse, then it would be whoever observes first. The two observers will observe the same state, though. Once the system collapses, that’s the state it’s in for as long as the observation takes place. I’m not sure what you mean about “determining” the cat’s state, however. Observation triggers the collapse. Unless you’re speculating about a sort of quantum-psychokinesis, the observation does not "force" one state or another. Which state it collapses into is a matter of probability, and for any given observation, which state is observed is random. As far as I know, no one has studied attempts to mentally influence a wavefunction collapse as part of a research experiment. It could be interesting, though.

Quote taken from http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/hologram.html

If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.[/b]

That's what I was hoping for you to elaborate on, as you are the one who is reading David Bohm. The idea that if we divide the sound interval in half, there are still an infinite number of octaves above, and an infinite number of octaves below the divide. Perhaps fractal is a better word than holographic.

With everything I've read, I want to settle on the idea that consciousness is divided into an octave, but I haven't quite conceptualized the details in my head. It's like elements (either fire or hydrogen) have one consciousness, animals have a consciousness, we have a consciousness, and whatever above us has a consciousness...All of that would be ending in the consciousness of that which is infinite. Search for CONSCIOUSNESS EVOLUTION which heads the sections which describe the first three densities. Supposedly there are 8 densities in all, they are like tiers. The eighth and final is the consciousness of all that is. See very bottom for a scale of life forms, which increases by 34560, instead of doubling like the C note.

Further, I'd like to say we have many non-physical bodies to go along with our physical one. Each has their own senses to perceive things, each has their own consciousness. For example, we have a non-physical body for OOBEs, one for each dream realm, etc...it's all a question of whether we tune into them or not.

Question: Suppose someone really concentrated, do you think they could be able to hear higher pitches noises that are in the "inaudible" range?

First I would like to express my interest in salvia. It is illegal here in Australia. I might have to go over to America to try it. I believe there is potential in this drug to help us figure out some of these theories on how the mind works and is percieving things. If only personally. I highly respect the drug from what I have herd about it. It seems to only produce effects for certain people at certain times. As if it depended on the person to initiate the effect. Which is a interesting effect in itself.

Now with that out of the way here is some food for thought.

It is a mathematical certaintly that you cannot seperate a cause from an effect. Every action has a reaction. Every cause has it's effect. You cannot have one without the other. If you have what we call "consiousness" existing. It has to be part of cause and effect. So by the very law of cause and effect itself you cannot seperate consiousness from anything. Which can be seen as either a cause or an effect in itself. Depending on the context in which you are describing it.

Dear Oneironaut,

In my Highest Vision, the Very Angel of God told me that "Christ is the Life in All Things". This would lead me to suppose that there is a Collective Consciousness and that it is subsumed by something of a Cosmic Christ.

And I may have seen a bit of how it works. A Friend of mine who I met during one of my sojours in India, had been quietly meditating. Suddenly he stirred and said "come along... we have an errand." We left the Ashram, took a left at the gate, went up the village road, past the first parcels of farm land, and then walked across this one field to a clump of trees. Not much further on we found an oxen who had been tied to a stake, which was odd... most the time they are allowed to wander about loose and they find them when they are needed... but this one had been tied up and its water bucket had been knocked over. My Friend picked up the bucket, and we walked to the nearest well and filled it up and carried it back. Now, as the crow flies, that thirsty ox had been 200 or 300 meters away from where my Friend had been meditating. But while his Consciousness had been expanded, he had 'looked around' and that was the one problem that he saw that I he thought he could do anything about while still pretending to mind his own business.

In Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" much the same kind of experience is described. Also in Gopi Krishna's book on Kundalini Yoga we have a similar description of Cosmic Consciousness.

You have to be careful about people with Cosmic Consciousness. Me and my Friend had gone to the Taxi Stand to bargain with the Drivers on a Price back to Bangalore. Out in the hot Sun and my friend was continuing to argue over mere pennies, and so I made a silent signal to the Driver from behind my Friends back indicating that I would pay the difference and that he should pretend to capitulate. and he did.

So my Friend and I decided to go for Tea. So there we were 20 minutes later talking about whathaveyou when he suddenly makes this strange face at me and says "You arranged to pay Abdul what he wants, haven't you?" Well, of course I denied it, but I did so with a knowing grin on my face, and then I added in explanation that the Sun was Hot and Life was Short and that if my Trip to India cost me another 20 cents more than it should have, then I could easily consider declaring bankruptcy at my return to home.

So i suppose it is not so much that they can read minds, but that they simply know what other people know... they know what is going on in other people's consciousnesses.

(Damn, didn't know this was going to be so long a post.....but we can blame Peregrinus for making me think of a way to explain my reply. )

To Leo:

I think there is a lot behind the "affinity for Knowing" that many people seem to have. It's too often looked at as purely coincedence, but I've had a few experiences like those (though not quite as absolute as the ox example) many time, often with an accuracy that I have trouble leaving to chance.
I've also tried a few mental exercises with "Knowing" that have had some interesting results. It seems that there is more than one way of conducting mind exercises to test the "metaphysical" ability that is supposedly inherent in all of us. One example was in putting a 10 track CD into my CD player on random and trying to guess which songs are going to come on, in succession.
What's most interesting is that I got much better results without "Guessing" the songs, (taking the time to think on the probability of certain songs coming up, often doubting the guess) but instead convincing myself I "Know" what songs were going to come up next, without questioning it, or giving myself time to second-guess before declaring which song would be next.
I got 4 songs out of 10 in succession, as opposed to the 1 following song I got while "Guessing."
This particular test was right after I first started reading on holomovement, so I was pretty confident. After that time, I've only tried the test once or twice, but haven't gotten the same results. Very interesting, though.

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

As far as Quantum mechanics. This is a world of incontinuity. Not everything is relative. I can't envision this fitting in with this entire concept.
What gap am I missing? [/b]

I’m not sure of the question. You’re not sure how the whole holomovement thing fits with QM? or how the present view of reality fits with holomovment?

<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus

Observation triggers the collapse. Unless you’re speculating about a sort of quantum-psychokinesis, the observation does not "force" one state or another.

In essence, I am.

To look at, say, the Schroedinger’s Cat concept with the holographic theory in mind, we’d have to remember that even the cat’s superposition of states is but a product of the waveform of consciousness that theoretically is the universe. The cat’s state (unobserved) would be immersed in what Bohm calls the “Implicate Order.” (The Possible. The collective archive of “all there is,” that sits outside of the realm of the manifest “Explicate Order,” which are the “physical realities” that we experience through sense.” )

Whereas even quantum mechanics would be left asking the question “What is the cat’s state inside the box before it is observed?” Or may determine that the cat’s state at the time of observation is random, Holomovement may suggest that there is no physical “Cat” in the first place, just as there is no physical Box, or even observers. This would all be a fabrication born in a collective consciousness that has, for lack of a better term, "split itself" into the billions upon billions of “conscious entities” that make up and perceive this fabricated universe.
With this, Bohm (through Michael Talbot, in the H. Universe) goes on to explain a lot of mind-over-matter phenomena evidenced in the past, even a lot of “paranormal” accounts, as representation of the mind’s ability to affect “physical reality” (The Explicate Order / The reality that we believe is physical because it is the one we most often perceive) including Stigmatists who have been found to have wounds that appear (even under close observation) by no available physical means or trickery. Their faith was simply so strong that, even on an unconscious level, the wounds manifested. (Something akin to how a Placebo, or even meditation can miraculously affect the body’s physiology, but on a much more extraordinary scale.) There is a huge reference section in the back also that links to all of the books that most of the concepts talked about were pulled from, including many entries from Stanford and their parapsychology experiments.)

Enter: Schroedinger’s Cat.
If this is true, then two observers (Connected in the Implicate by being born of the same consciousness) would “both” be inherent in the possibility of determining the state of the cat, through expectation alone.
I guess a short-hand would be participating in a coin-toss. If the coin is not an absolution, if it is not static, if it is not a fully-objective product of a material reality, is the randomness of it’s mid-air rotations (which could be loosely interpreted as a superstate) really “random?”
If reality is a chorus of waveforms acting upon each other to create interference patterns which concoct, from that interference, a “holographic manifest” of reality, then how is it that two “observers” can observe the same outcome of an experiment such as a coin-toss, simultaneously?
In other words, if there is no coin, what keeps two “separate” conscious entities from observing the outcome as whatever the hell they want to see?

Actually I kinda begin to think about multiple personality “disorder,” when collective consciousness comes up, because it explains so many concepts that seem so outlandish when you think about them in terms of “reality.”
It’s said that the many personalities of a “multiple” often have little-to-no awareness of the other personalities. They are so far apart that they give off completely distinct brainwave patterns. However there has to be a link somewhere, because what one personality observes can bring another personality boiling to the surface. I’m not psychologist, but I know that the ‘switch’ is often caused by an event that has more significance to one personality over another. How the “multiple” sees the reality of a certain event (how he/she responds and with which personality) is often dependent on whichever personality has the most instinctual reaction to the event.
The same concept put into terms of breaking down a collective conscious into separate identities (us) could explain how it is that we (theoretically living in holographic universe) could “Determine the State of the Cat” at the time it’s observed.
Of course, this is all just stemming off of the concept of holomovement and is, at best, speculation, but still…makes ya wonder.

Originally posted by Distant Clone's excerpt

If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

If I could find the “Smack Myself in the Forehead Smiley,” I’d use it. Haha.
I get what you were looking for, now. (which is why I decided to clarify Howetzer’s question before responding. Lol.)

But yeah, I’d say you’re pretty dead-on with the octave thing, though. Even if you remove an entire octave, all of the information to rebuild that octave is still present in the octave below it. The whole is encompassed by every part. It seems pretty relevant, on the surface, but to determine whether or not it is a comprehensive association will require a lot more thinking than I’m able to put into it…at the moment, anyway. Hehe.

Thanks for the links, though. I’ll definitely check them out.

Oh, and to answer your question; Yes, I believe they would be able to.

Each dream is like Schrödinger's cat, that's what I want to argue. Formally, it has a static and dynamic component. Statically, there is always a cat in the box, whereas dynamically, it remains alive unless someone decides to kill it. I'm not sure such an argument exists, so I'll combine some experiences with an analogy and see where that gets us.

I've been having repeated dreams regularly for the past six weeks. It's caused me to observe events and form ideas. Specifically, I have had several repeated lucid dreams. The interesting part is that (almost?) always, the same event triggers the lucidity, and also I have the same impulses to do exactly the same things. However, not all dreams are identically the same. This means there are choices I can make which affect the outcome of the dream. I haven't experienced any dream with more than two different endings though, which may be because I don't recall having any dream repeat more than once.

I would like to make an analogy, that a dream is like a river. Consider observing a dream like flowing down a river. The best thing to do is to go along the path of least resistance, to not swim with or against the current, as one wastes energy. Think of each bend in the river as an impulse, a decision or direction. Sometimes the river snakes, bending multiple times with only one way to go, and sometimes it's splits into two or more. Each branch in the river represents as choice that affects the events observed in the dream. If there are n possible things to be observed, there will be an n paths. It is possible for the river to reunite, and yet it also may not. In my experience, each dream ends the same way. It does open up a question whether the same dream may divide and have separate endings. I do have a dream I can incubate that I plan on using to test this.

A tangent, for Schrödinger's cat with two observers. If one observer expects an outcome before the second observer, that first to expect something wins. If they start expecting things at identically the same time, then the dominant belief wins. However as long as they have the same magnitude of belief, they will effectively cancel each other out. Similarly for n observers, their beliefs are superposed, and it becomes a battle of collective will power. As long as the positive side is winning, the cat lives, but as soon as the negative takes over, the cat dies. Unfortunately, once it's dead, it cannot be revived.

Here's the piece of the puzzle that is most important as far as I'm concerned. Last night, I had a repeated lucid dream in which I did both lucid tasks, and also looked at my hands, in reference to Leo Volont's thread in General Discussion on Looking at Hands. I did this all before reading the previously mentioned and relevant Lucid task of the month threads. During the first time in the dream, I had no idea why I was compulsed to cross traffic, or turn bikeracks into gravestones. It seemed like a good idea at the time, now I understand it's purpose for doing those activities. That is the strongest reason why I postulate that dreams have a static component to them. However, I still believe they also have a dynamic component as well, as seen by observing an discrepancy between the same repeated dream.

There are some other issues of the analogy I did not address. For example, if someone is swimming in the river, and reaches shore. That's when the subconscious mind begins with it's false awakenings, distraction tactics, in order to regain control, and get the dreamer back into his dream river. The other thing I did not fit in is that the intensity of the dream is related to the dreamer not the dream. Lately, many of my dreams have vivid, more vivid than the first time I had them. I did not fit those in with this analogy, I think they are better explained by my analogy that a dream is like a movie where the subconscious is the director. That's something else to consider, and I'll rest my case here.