Consciousness, My Adventures With The Universe

As a conversation starter, let's watch this 20 minutes video, he's pretty entertaining and gives a hands on experiment with the subject matter



I don't 100% agree of course, I never do.
But the Big Bang Theory and the mechanical view of the universe it stands for are problematic. They don't go together. It doesn't make sense to have an almost machine like universe that suddenly materialised out of nothing. Dealing with chances nobody would ever bet on, yet we know it's the only one existing for sure.
So almost 0 possibility it might exist but a solid 1 on the actually exists question.
Our consciousness as emerging from the brain alone is the same thing. How unlikely is consciousness? How unlikely is it you exist? That's also insanely improbable, but here you are. 100% aware, well in theory, right...lol

Now where I differ big time is in the trust of the scientific method, but our machines painfully slowly just start interacting with consciousness and I personally hope that by engaging with that technology we learn to develop better methods to detect consciousness.

Problem of course is, the danger of technocrats seizing the use of this greatest of all ressources for dumb crap, commercial interests, dreams of power etc. gives us very little time to figure out what it is actually doing before we're enslaved in the metaverse.

And I think that's the issue at hand why folks are going so mad, because our spiritual teachings were designed to keep the secrets of our consciousness powers secret and the foot-folks docile and suffering quietly. All you find these days from consciousness is very dysfunctional and I think that's really by accident.
And mind you I don't talk about creating matter out of nowhere or telling the future, or pushing objects, or any of those things considered possible powers of the consciousness.
So consciousness powers to me is really just contact.
But, and that's the twist, not in a sense of 'I'd like to speak to God'
Because imagine how tiny you are with your tiny consciousness on this tiny planet in the face of the almost infinite from our perspective enormous universe.

I think it would be fun if we all experiment with how we can send a consciousness-Voyager out to the universe. A Ping to see what Pongs back.
Alas obviously I don't know if we'd need machine enhancement to achieve that.


So let's discuss.
...if you're interested

originally posted by: Peeple
I think it would be fun if we all experiment with how we can send a consciousness-Voyager out to the universe. A Ping to see what Pongs back.
Alas obviously I don't know if we'd need machine enhancement to achieve that.

Sadly WE are not in charge of these things. Big Tech and money are.

Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang theory, but a big collision theory. Occam's Razor points that way.

originally posted by: Peeple

I don't 100% agree of course, I never do.
But the Big Bang Theory and the mechanical view of the universe it stands for are problematic. They don't go together. It doesn't make sense to have an almost machine like universe that suddenly materialised out of nothing. Dealing with chances nobody would ever bet on, yet we know it's the only one existing for sure....

I'm not positive I'm reading that↑ right....
Are you saying that there is definitely only this 1 Universe?

How unlikely is it you exist? That's also insanely improbable, but here you are. 100% aware, well in theory, right...lol

I may know that I exist, but I can't be certain that you do. You may simply be a figment of my imagination.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

No I'm saying we know for sure this one we're in is the one we can be most certain it exists.
Like an extension of what you say, I know I exist, I can't speak for others. Though I think if it has effects on me the detections of which I can repeatedly reliably reproduce it probably exists outside of me too.

a reply to: nerbot

The argument against it would be, you're just moving the goalpost. Because we have that strong bias things need a beginning and an end.

a reply to: Peeple

Ok. I got ya...

You're saying, "This is the only one that for sure exists."




I was reading it more like "This is for sure the only one that exists."

to which I was thinking: You can't possibly know that.

a reply to: Peeple
Morning Peep.

I find an exhilarating sense of being when I let the questions of ''why'' or ''how'' blow by me and then just be while absorbing the absoluteness of ''that''. Not that over there but ''this''. THIS. It's THAT we exist, that THIS exists rather than not. At this point the questions of how and why dissolve into some far and out of reach ''nth'' point where any meaning we might have given them is superfluous. However this does not keep me from searching.

That searching could be in peril as you suggest by saying

Problem of course is, the danger of technocrats seizing the use of this greatest of all ressources for dumb crap, commercial interests, dreams of power etc. gives us very little time to figure out what it is actually doing before we're enslaved in the metaverse.

Or simply the mundane. Oh, that's what you meant by ''dumb crap''. Did you know that if you google Big Bang Theory, the first thing that pops up is that TV show. Could it be that we are heading towards such a long list of google searches that the ''real big bang'' will never show up ?

a reply to: Peeple

Beginning and ending, I had been drawn to leaving that behind in my late teens, just at the point where the debate between Hoyle's ''steady state'' and the theory of big bang were entering the public sphere, in the late sixties and early seventies. I was drawn towards Hoyle but over the next decade as information continued to support examinations into BB I got swept up into it as well, but it never really made sense to me. Or at least as my untrained mind could conceive of it. I kind of took on the notion a couple of decades ago that the BB was not in the past but rather was a continuing situation. That we are still in the thick of it but because of time dilation like light's vain attempts to emerge from a black hole held in check for eternity by the nature of the event horizon, we too perceive all that we can see only through the lens of this, our own existential cage.

a reply to: Peeple

Without consciousness we would lack the power of observation.
If one imagines ones self just popping into existence in this world
we all share and experience. A fully grown adult just poof there you
are. What would be the most important observation you could make
immediately after one materialized?

Wouldn't it be how well suited the place you came into being was to
support the life you have had only a few seconds to know? What would
that observation make you conscious of I wonder?

The Yogi was very cool.

a reply to: Peeple

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Peeple

Long ago there was this huge dragon's egg and it fell out of a tree and splattered on the pavement of the sidewalk forming the universe as we know it today. From inside of the egg we cannot see the cement or sky. When that egg hit the ground, there was a big bang and it spread out into a big flat matrix.

I think that is just as believable as the present big bang theory, there is no way in hell that we could figure out how the universe was formed from this point within it, but that does not stop people who believe they are educated from making things up. Could it be possible they are right with the theory, I give it a one in a billion chance they are correct.

Now I am off to watch the video, sounds like it may be interesting to get some other perspective on things.

It's a good video from this guy.

a reply to: Peeple

I'm interested

But the Big Bang Theory and the mechanical view of the universe it stands for are problematic. They don't go together.

I found the rabbit hole, that matter is just a figment of consciousness, very helpful to solve such problems. Well ok it does not solve them it makes them obsolete. Which isn't an answer really.

Imagine consciousness as a stream of information. swirling trough a gray dark soup of I don't know... Let's call it, Quantum play-doh (foam)

Consciousness carries every information from the first point to our first euclidean form and a sheer infinite combination to create the material appearance with which it travels

I struggle a little with that simplification, because I'd have to ascribe consciousness to every materialized object.

Unless of course I say, every other materialisation is just a figment of my consciousness, you included. Many of my long walks on the beach brought me to that destination, but I don't like it, it's a peaceful but lonely place.
The other place where all consciousnesses create this vibrant, colorful, heavenly, hell hole, together is more fun, but also more of a head scratcher.

I'm not really sure about the dynamics of how it all works, especially the part where consciousness, magically materialises things...
When I first heard of quantum mechanics in my late teens, I knew that this will eventually open the door for researching the cause of the effect that our consciousness exerts on matter.

100% aware, well in theory, right...lol

Made me laugh too...
The way I see consciousness, I have little hope to be 100% aware of even my own imagine, the consciousness stream of the universe.
But, the more I know...

A Ping to see what Pongs back.
Alas obviously I don't know if we'd need machine enhancement to achieve that.

I'd say depends what level of consciousness you want to ping, for some you'll need tech, for the others I would recommend a good firewall before attempting.

I might have more to say but for now this will do.

a reply to: Terpene

Well it doesn't have to be that matter is a 'figment of consciousness' more than one thing can exist, I see it more as consciousness is penetrating everything. A little like pantheism but maybe more panlogos, is how I'd see it. Everything that carries information and has some sort of agency has potential for consciousness.

a reply to: Peeple

I would like to refer you to the 'Genesis of the Cosmos' book by Dr Paul LaViolette, in which he discusses the science of continuous creation, derived from a general systems theory he developed named subquantum kinetics. As an alternative to the materialist paradigm of the big bang & classical quantum theory it is highly credible, and he deals with some fascinating offshoots & examples of various aspects of his theory, which you simply have to read about to follow along with, he's incredibly gifted.

Genesis of the Cosmos, Dr P LaViolette

a reply to: Peeple

Yes both exist. in my imagination material exists as that gray play-doh, and the objects kind of condense around consciousness to create it's "self image"(therm used from The Matrix), the consciousness of a chair creates a chair, maybe the appearance is actually defined by the onlooker, maybe the chairs consciousness has no defined image, just the task it is meant to do.

I get that in what you postulate, you take consciousness as an all-encompassing field, is that assumption right? Ultimately that premise lead me to that lonely place, so I will play devils advocate and try to prove you wrong even if deep down I know you are right.

I see it more like diffrent vectors that move trough space, the interaction/contact is most interesting to me too.

some sort of agency

what do you mean by that

a reply to: Terpene

You caught me. I haven't a satisfying definition of what I mean with agency. It's doing something, influencing, but the extent of from what to what magnitude I don't even have a guess.

To stick with your example of the chair, I would say the tree had agency the chair is dead. Maybe.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Steady also seems wrong don't know that specific theory, but I guess I believe in change and 'critical mass' as point of no return. Stages, which might last billions we're now heading towards a black hole universe, coming from a plasma universe.
I have issues expressing it right, it's sunday my brain just wants to sleep.
Basically I only answered to let you know your Input is appreciated

a reply to: Peeple
"The field is the sole governing agency of the particle". Einstein.

a reply to: Peeple

For me, steady state seemed logical as I had been much taken with that Eastern notion of no beginnings and no ends. That coupled with the idea that energy never goes away only it's manifestation changes seemed pretty true to me.