RE: what would make you change your beliefs?
July 12, 2010 at 7:52 am
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2010 at 7:58 am by Godhead.)
AtheistPhil -
Yes, I'm saying that consciousness = god = everything. Here's something that I wrote last night and saved :
You have a circle. Everything inside the circle is the "realm" of manifest things, ie, all things that can be said to exist : Physical things, ideas, logic, absolutely anything at all that you can say exists, even if it's not tangible.
Everything inside that circle is assembled in such a way whereby each thing is a whole / distinct thing in itself, but also contains every other thing. This includes parts of things. Each thing is each other. In other words, the circle contains one thing only, and each "thing" is an aspect of the whole. As an aspect, it's distinct, as part of a whole, it's not.
God = the circle + the infinity outside it. The whole is in god, a part of god, but god is infinitely beyond the whole. Outside the circle lies all potential, or "nothing" (nothing meaning nothing manifest). This is why I believe that god transcends all paradox and contradiction, and why nothing is created (rather, manifest), and why everything that doesn't exist (lies in the circle) already exists, as potential (outide the circle). What we call creation is manifestation of potential, and what we call nothing is potential.
I believe that god is infinitely beyond absolutely everything conceiveable and inconceiveable. I believe that god is so transcendental, that I'd even say, although perhaps not mean it literally but just as an expression of how transcendenatl I think god is; that it is beyond itself, the circle and the infinity that I've described. You could say that I have a very high opinion of god.
These beliefs lead me to :
Love all things (since I am all things), no exceptions whatsoever, you name it, anything.
Believe that literally anything is possible
Not fear death
So what I'm saying is that everything is everything. You, Phil, have a consciousness. That consciousness is hosted by a body. That body, and every part of it, is a consciousness. Any combination of anything+anything is a consciousness. The relationship between the corner of the piece of paper that's in front of me and your ear, is a consciousness. My opinion about horses is a consciousness. Events are consciousness. You name it, it's a consciousness. Everything inside the circle that I described is like a soup. Put a spoon in it and take some out and look at it, and you're looking at a consciousness. I don't know the technical details as you do (ie what you're saying about neurons etc), but I can say that all of that is consciousness and not contradict my definition of god. Given my definition, is it possible to be (consciously be, be conscious of being) two things at once? Yes. I believe that it is possible to be, for example, the consciousness of an entire galaxy, by expanding your consciousness until it "rubs shoulders" as it were, with other consciousness. Our identity is mostly confined to an idea of Phil, or Godhead, or whoever we are, but I think you can expand it.
EvF -
My view is that when we "lose" consciousness, it is our bodies (which is also consciousness) that lose the consciousness of who we are (the identity that uses the body). I see things as a macrocosm. I take a step back from everything, see the whole, and see the entire thing as consciousness. I don't look at details and make distinctions. It's a bit like looking at a painting featuring the sea. You look at it, and you see a blue sea. But if you look at it closely, it's not quite blue, it contains other colours and may even be more green than blue. But step back, and you see the sea, and the sea is blue. So regardless of what colours were used to paint it, it's blue, because the sea is blue, and the contradiction of there being other colours there doesn't matter. It's blue when you step back, and it's something else when you look closely. It's both.
Knight -
I don't believe that our consciousness is affected by the body. Because I believe that it is separate, when we lose our memory, what happens is that the consciousness itself if 100% fine, it is the body which loses the ability to "receive" (like an antenna) the full consciousness. We think through our brains, our brains are receivers, our consciousness transmits. Any damage to the brain or body which results in the appearance of hindrance to awareness is actually a problem purely in the brain or body. When your tv packs in, the broadcast continues, but you don't get to see it on your particular screen. I believe that all the mechanisms which seem to indicate that the brain is creating consciousness, is merely the brain's means of receiving the broadcast. If people who never saw a tv suddenly saw one, they'd think that the tv is creating the events shown on the screen. But we'd know that all the tv is doing is facillitating the presentation of the images which we interpret as events (ie a programme). Brain activity is just brain activity.
When we have no recollection, it's not that the consciousness disappeared, it merely shifted (as in, turned around and looked at something else, and became aware (conscious) of that). If we don't recall that, that doesn't mean that our consciousness ceased, and a good explanation could be that we associate so much with our body and physical environment, that anything else is alien to us, and we can't make sense of it so we filter out of and forget. I'm speculating of course but it doesn't seem unreasonable, if you believe as I do, of course.
Yes, I'm saying that consciousness = god = everything. Here's something that I wrote last night and saved :
You have a circle. Everything inside the circle is the "realm" of manifest things, ie, all things that can be said to exist : Physical things, ideas, logic, absolutely anything at all that you can say exists, even if it's not tangible.
Everything inside that circle is assembled in such a way whereby each thing is a whole / distinct thing in itself, but also contains every other thing. This includes parts of things. Each thing is each other. In other words, the circle contains one thing only, and each "thing" is an aspect of the whole. As an aspect, it's distinct, as part of a whole, it's not.
God = the circle + the infinity outside it. The whole is in god, a part of god, but god is infinitely beyond the whole. Outside the circle lies all potential, or "nothing" (nothing meaning nothing manifest). This is why I believe that god transcends all paradox and contradiction, and why nothing is created (rather, manifest), and why everything that doesn't exist (lies in the circle) already exists, as potential (outide the circle). What we call creation is manifestation of potential, and what we call nothing is potential.
I believe that god is infinitely beyond absolutely everything conceiveable and inconceiveable. I believe that god is so transcendental, that I'd even say, although perhaps not mean it literally but just as an expression of how transcendenatl I think god is; that it is beyond itself, the circle and the infinity that I've described. You could say that I have a very high opinion of god.
These beliefs lead me to :
Love all things (since I am all things), no exceptions whatsoever, you name it, anything.
Believe that literally anything is possible
Not fear death
So what I'm saying is that everything is everything. You, Phil, have a consciousness. That consciousness is hosted by a body. That body, and every part of it, is a consciousness. Any combination of anything+anything is a consciousness. The relationship between the corner of the piece of paper that's in front of me and your ear, is a consciousness. My opinion about horses is a consciousness. Events are consciousness. You name it, it's a consciousness. Everything inside the circle that I described is like a soup. Put a spoon in it and take some out and look at it, and you're looking at a consciousness. I don't know the technical details as you do (ie what you're saying about neurons etc), but I can say that all of that is consciousness and not contradict my definition of god. Given my definition, is it possible to be (consciously be, be conscious of being) two things at once? Yes. I believe that it is possible to be, for example, the consciousness of an entire galaxy, by expanding your consciousness until it "rubs shoulders" as it were, with other consciousness. Our identity is mostly confined to an idea of Phil, or Godhead, or whoever we are, but I think you can expand it.
EvF -
My view is that when we "lose" consciousness, it is our bodies (which is also consciousness) that lose the consciousness of who we are (the identity that uses the body). I see things as a macrocosm. I take a step back from everything, see the whole, and see the entire thing as consciousness. I don't look at details and make distinctions. It's a bit like looking at a painting featuring the sea. You look at it, and you see a blue sea. But if you look at it closely, it's not quite blue, it contains other colours and may even be more green than blue. But step back, and you see the sea, and the sea is blue. So regardless of what colours were used to paint it, it's blue, because the sea is blue, and the contradiction of there being other colours there doesn't matter. It's blue when you step back, and it's something else when you look closely. It's both.
Knight -
I don't believe that our consciousness is affected by the body. Because I believe that it is separate, when we lose our memory, what happens is that the consciousness itself if 100% fine, it is the body which loses the ability to "receive" (like an antenna) the full consciousness. We think through our brains, our brains are receivers, our consciousness transmits. Any damage to the brain or body which results in the appearance of hindrance to awareness is actually a problem purely in the brain or body. When your tv packs in, the broadcast continues, but you don't get to see it on your particular screen. I believe that all the mechanisms which seem to indicate that the brain is creating consciousness, is merely the brain's means of receiving the broadcast. If people who never saw a tv suddenly saw one, they'd think that the tv is creating the events shown on the screen. But we'd know that all the tv is doing is facillitating the presentation of the images which we interpret as events (ie a programme). Brain activity is just brain activity.
When we have no recollection, it's not that the consciousness disappeared, it merely shifted (as in, turned around and looked at something else, and became aware (conscious) of that). If we don't recall that, that doesn't mean that our consciousness ceased, and a good explanation could be that we associate so much with our body and physical environment, that anything else is alien to us, and we can't make sense of it so we filter out of and forget. I'm speculating of course but it doesn't seem unreasonable, if you believe as I do, of course.
