Thread: Consciousness in relation to the whole of nature.

Originally posted by three and four
But basically it's interesting that even among the great minds of today there is very little (or no!) consensus on what consciousness actually IS. Which makes the whole topic all the more interesting, does it not?

Exactly!
No idea is really too absurd when you have no answers.

What boundaries have we put on consciousness with labels?
What words do we associate with consciousness?
What limits us to understand?

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

(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. ) [/b]

So easy to pass the blame, so easy

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
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?

From what I've read of Bohm, reality in a holographic universe is not a compilation of independent, individual perceptions because, at the most fundamental level, there is no individuality. Since all observers are fundamentally but one observer who is both the creator and the created, subject and object, there can be only one observation for each event. Whatever interplay of consciousness(es), whatever push-and-shove of conflicting expectations, may go into the unfolding of that observation manifests as only one result. One consciousness, one observer, one thing which is observed. Two coin toss observers couldn't observe different outcomes (well, they could, but myopia would be the cause, not a fundamental disparity in reality) because they are, in fact, the same observer observing the materialization which they just created. In a dream, you are all of your DCs, and regardless of what separate opinions each of those DCs may have and profess, only one reality will be observed in your dream - it's a consensus, created simultaneously by the whole (in this case, your sleeping mind).

I have no idea if that's what you were asking, or if you were even asking at all (since you seem well-versed in Bohm's interpretation of QM). So if that was intended as a rhetorical question, then consider my answer a freebie - like when the restaurant gets your order wrong and lets you keep the messed-up order for free so you won't be pissed off at the delay while they bring what you really wanted. If you didn't ask for it, at least it's free

Forgive me for trying to use QM terminology and failing miserably.

I think the question shouldn't be "how big is consciousness", but "how small is consciousness". Suppose that your friend subscribes to a newsletter and that newsletter will post the results of Schroedinger's experiment. In this case, as far as you(the observer) is concerned, it is neither the geiger counter, nor the cat, nor the scientist, nor the newsletter writer, nor your friend who causes a collapse of waveform, but it is your own observation of what your friend tells you that the newsletter says that causes a collapse of waveform. For you the cat could be either dead or alive until your friend reports what he read in his newsletter to you, at which point the cat really doesn't exist, but is really just a concept in your mind.

Also, when postulating about the existance of consciousness above and beyond what we as human intellects know, we should consider that perhaps what our minds are conscious of and what feeds our thoughts is restricted by the relation between our minds and our consciousness and not between our consciousness and that which it is conscious of.

What is amusing is I am from an enlightened secret society and we have already invaded the likes of Peregrinus understanding along time ago.

It's like a wave that just wont stop. We ride it or we are going down.



Just kidding....

Originally posted by Ancient Of Days
What is amusing is I am from an enlightened secret society and we have already invaded the likes of Peregrinus understanding along time ago.

What exactly is that supposed to mean, "invaded the likes of Peregrinus understanding"? I don't really care that you're kidding, the fact is that we've never spoken before except for a few going-nowhere public debates on this forum.

Originally posted by Peregrinus

I have no idea if that's what you were asking, or if you were even asking at all (since you seem well-versed in Bohm's interpretation of QM). So if that was intended as a rhetorical question, then consider my answer a freebie - like when the restaurant gets your order wrong and lets you keep the messed-up order for free so you won't be pissed off at the delay while they bring what you really wanted. If you didn't ask for it, at least it's free

Hahaha. Yup. That was actually a great answer. Thank you.
Sort of like say, no matter what the "observers" (split because of the illusion of individuality) would want or [/i] expect the quarter to be, they are still experiencing the collapse of the same waveform, being the quarter's verdict.
Or to use the split-personality analogy, it doesn't matter what two competing personalities interpret from an inkblot on a Rorshach test, they are still seeing the same inkblot.

Three and four:
Thanks for the book recommendation, man!