[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl what would be an alternative to pure thought (just regular thoughts?)

Symmetric wave functions or bosonic states of pure first degree of energy in contrast to second degree states or squares of energy.

[mkirkpatrick]

Antonio.your graph on the other thread,showing the "good","evil",sort of Ying and Yang,could this not be used to illustrate,maybe the theory of mind=energy?All is mind,which must include positive,and negitive.The good and evil aspect,I feel,applies to man,as man is self conscious,and has the "limited" abilty to choose,whereas other formsof live,thatare very much "alive" and conscious,have not got the ability to choose.They are goverened by their instincts,which they have no control over.The sense of "I" is absent within them.It seems that Ying and Yang are, male, female, positive, negitive, and being universal in their operation.However when these two universal aspects link into the consciousness of a self-conscious "individual" where the "I" is in residence,there seems to undergo a shift or "shading",and that as the "individual" has "free-will" and re-flect upon its intentions,thereby incurring "choice" It can "choose" to Be will-full,this I feel brings a personal shading to a impersonal universal law,positive,and negitive,become good and evil in mankind? more later.


Universal consciousness,as the theory to the TOE,thinking of ways to be able to express this,to quantify it!Can you communicate with this universal consciousness?Can you report back your findings!Who would believe you if you did! Would you be considered mad?Suppose I wanted to know about the ocean, would I need the whole ocean,or would a beaker full be enough?By examining the beaker full of ocean water I can find out much about what it is.If we look at ourselves,and as part of this basic premise,all is mind,that surely includes us!We are in,and also part of that universal mind?Can we not learn by "tuning in" to this universal mind?We maybe unable ask this universal mind a personal
question, and expect a personal reply,but by "tuning in" we may gather clues together,as one would from the beaker of ocean water!
more to follow.

kind regards michael.

[Robert]

I believe the TOE has been solved but not by any one person. We all have ideas, viewpoints, perspectives that, although mostly nonsense, may contain some small pieces of truth. We are like the blind men feeling the elephant; touching a small part of the reality of the elephant and yet not realizing it is an elephant. If we could somehow integrate all these "pieces-of-truth" into a whole, we might have our TOE.

My view of a Universal Consciousness (UC) is that it would greatly complicate the Theory of Everything since it implies intelligence, non-corporeal existence, intelligent design, etc. all of which are difficult to measure, analyze objectively, and then we must be able to reduce this UC to its fundamental properties. We can't say that the fundamental fabric of the reality is the UC because then we are creating an artificial barrior through which, we cannot hope to scientifically investigate. The Theory of Everything has to explain, at a fundamental level, what the UC is.

Perhaps the word consciousness is not the best word since it has a specific meaning to people of a living entity that thinks, ponders, plans, has free will--all the same properties that humans posses. First we need to consider whether consciousness is a product of the mind or of the brain. I lean towards "its a product of the brain" based on developments in neuroscience, but I'll "assume it to be true" that consciousness is a product of mind. Is the mind then a piece of the UC? Do all minds of all beings with minds add up to the UC, is the UC a superset of all minds, or is it completely separate? Would the UC necessarily be engaging in solipsism? I've read that we live as multiple simultaneous incarnations of our soul, so that our soul may learn lessons only available to the flesh, so that it may progress spiritually and merge with the UC.

If the mind is a product of brain, perhaps consciousness then is an emergent phenomen of large numbers of brain cells interacting with each other. In this case the UC would be the emergent behavior of the interactions of the fundamental building blocks of reality. What those building blocks are I do not know except they would have to be very small and very many.

Another thought... the UC would not have senses like sight, smell, hearing, etc. but would experience reality directly. The UC would then experience the "thing-in-itself" or the noumena. We experience reality virtually in our brains based on signals from our sense organs that get processed by specific brain structures to give us a virtual reality rendering of the real world. Without our brains, if we could experience reality directly, we would experience a very different world from the illusion we're familiar with.

I think that before we can make progress, we need to research and better understand what consciousness is, at a fundamental level. This understanding should be careful not to place any area off-limits with phrases like "that's just the way it is" or "that's how God designed it" or by using abstract terms like destiny, fate, etc. Once we have this understanding, then we can determine if it can be applied to the universe as a whole.

Great thread!

[Marko]

I agree with you Robert, great thoughts!

My view is well known – I dont think that is neccesary to involve concepts like Universal Consciousness - UC.
There are simpler ways to explain how things are.

What particular explanation can we get from this concept?
For example – can we solve the „uncertainty principle“ with it?
Can we predict the future of the universe with it?
What about the dark energy/dark matter/ordinary matter ratio?
What about the planet formation process?
Can we solve the pre-Big Bang situation with it?
How this theory looks on the quantum theory and general relativity?

I kindly ask proponents of this theory to explain what exactly do we get with this theory, and what exactly this theory says about these questions?

It is not enough to say : "All is mind" - since I can respond with : "All is chaos".
We have to compare this theories and see what happens. We must try to give some real examples.

For example, where is UC theory so much stronger than the chaos theory?

Surely there are patterns of how things happen, for example patterns for star formation, but why to use UC, since we can use pure chaos to explain this patterns?

Correct me if I am wrong – but it seems to me that this theory requires extra-dimension for the mind, and I dont think this is the case.

regards!

[DoYouKnow]

I think that the establishment might go through a phase thinking this, but I don't think it will be entirely right. Probably during the next dark ages when a form of scientific religeon takes hold.

DoYouKnow

[dleviwing]

Michael;
The key to the TOE does not loll in the consciousness of the universe, but in the cognitive consciousness of human understanding. We can reduce all phenomena to a set of fundamental characteristics of a single universal substance. Motion and bonding of this substance can provide the solutions to all physical phenomena (GUT), but only when you attribute the aspect of life to this substance can a complete TOE be realized. This poses an obvious dilemma to the scientific methodology – How do you show that a rock is alive? (Life should not be interpreted as consciousness) Is it proof enough if we combine inert elements and do some chemical hocus pocus to create a form of life in the lab, or do we need to accept the proposed Quantum realms to explain the threads of life.

Excellent post Robert.

[baudrunner]

RE: "Big Ideas" on TV Ontario (broadcast ch 18 in Sw Ontario) at 1:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday (repeat). This week's lecturer is tentatively scheduled to give a talk on the subject of consciousness.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by baudrunner RE: "Big Ideas" on TV Ontario (broadcast ch 18 in Sw Ontario) at 1:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday (repeat). This week's lecturer is tentatively scheduled to give a talk on the subject of consciousness.

Baud,will that be able to be recieved inthe UK,if not is there anyway
you could get me a copy of the talk???

kind regards michael.

Originally Posted by DoYouKnow I think that the establishment might go through a phase thinking this, but I don't think it will be entirely right. Probably during the next dark ages when a form of scientific religeon takes hold. DoYouKnow

Lets hope that,that day never arrives,what do you think?

regards michael.

Have been thinking hard today,which makes a change for me!lots of input and
thoughtful ideas,Dave,asked,how do you show that a rock is alive?Would the
answer that it is in a state of "profound lethagy"be sufficient!And Robert,I
had to look up the word Solipsism,an extreme form of skepticism,If anyone
has this form,then there is no hope for them,what proof would suffice!They
would challenge their own mother,that she gave birth to them!
Intelligent design difficult to measure?Is evolution difficult to measure?For
within this theory evolution has the presence of mindfulness?Livingness,
guided energy!
Intelligent design,greatly complicates the TOE,Is that so?Why is that then?Are not all the other proposed theories very complex!And the idea behind this
one is to make it very,very,simple.So simple in fact,that a child could under-
stand it!
Are "alive" and consciousness synonymous with each other?Do we need to accept the quantum realms to explain the threads of life?
kind regards michael.

[harmonygirl]

Michael, good questions. I think all forms of energy that are life. I do not know if they are all conscious. Are single-celled organisms alive? Do they have consciousness? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I think that a rock is alive because it has mass, therefore it has energy. Depends on what your definition of intelligence is (and what constitutes proof). Are the very evident cycles of life proof of design or of mechanics due to probability? Glass half empty or half full? I think that all are theories, and you just choose what you believe.

[mkirkpatrick]

How can we make this theory work? This theory is about interconnectivity, all of universal manifestation being,interwoven,and inextricably intertwined by one common denominator, that of mind,or consciousness? A common thread, (hopefully not like this one!) If you tug on a dangling loose end, of this thread, this fabric of "reality", the whole cloth will "twitch", instantly throughout all of manifested space and time! Can this theory help us to predict the future of the universe? Yes it can! More on that later. What about the uncertainty principle,well this proposed theory, will remove the uncertainty, and replace it with something far more positive, that of certainty! This theory will if adopted bring about a sureness, that all is really one? Can we solve the pre-bang situation with this theory? Yes we can! More later. What about dark matter.or matter ratio,well what about it? It fits into this theory, and is part of mind? We use many words to explain events that we "think" happens, in this proposed theory, all these different names, are really one of the same thing? Thats the "whole point" consciousness, mind, manifests "itself" as all things that happen! energy, matter, force, gravity, light, electromagnetism, dark matter, stars, planets, bumble bees; everything absolutly without exception. All of manifestation is one, at its deepest level and that this interconnection is maintained by conscious mind. This is the theory.