If a tree falls in the forest....?

[IJesusChrist]

... With this, bare with me:

Did the universe exist before consciousness?

I was looking out my window, and I had an insight that maybe God is confused. I thought maybe God was the interwoven fabric of all people's subconcious, then I thought would god have existed before consciousness?

Then I realized the universe couldn't really exist without it...

Is everything conscious?

Hmm.

 

[Forkbender]

A universe without consciousness is like one hand clapping.

Smiley thoughts, smiley thoughts...

 

[greenwizard]

this reminds me of kant's noumenon.


well.. this man determines that everything has its own proprieties and charachteristics , all of them independent of an observer! this is, a conscious one!



theese things-in-themselves may be what you want to call, nothing for there an object can't exist if no one can testify its existence (those who believe there is no sound) , or everything, the reality that we know and has yet been discovered, independent from our consciousness (those who believe there is a sound, independent from squirrels being in the branches of the tree to listen to it crash, or not)


"though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears"

 

[Forkbender]

I'm too high to read Kant, but from what I remember it is similar but different on a few points. Maybe I will even remember posting it tomorrow...

 

[Twilight]

I think conciousness always is and exists in every moment of time.

 

[restin]

don't you think it is arrogant to claim having created God? :wink:

 

[Crimzen]

hahaha ^^

Im of the 'yes it makes a sound' opinion
i think that the universe has been creating itself for billions of years until it got to the point that it could experience itself subjectively through conciousness
which in itself was a slow process

i dont think consciousness was or is the purpose of the universe but its a consequence of the way it has come to be

we dont observe the entire universe though we do find evidence of things that we cant directly observe like U.V. light etc. its there feeding the plants but we couldnt observe it until whenever the designed the filters to observe it
yet it was always feeding the plants even before we knew so

 

[buffachino]

Well, if the universe is dependent on consciousness to be manifest, and the universe is the set of all things including consciousness, then neither actually ‘exist’.

The noumenon, or the ‘thing-in-itself’, is a principal assumption.
That anything has foundation beyond consciousness is induction, and if this is the basis for syllogistic logic, truth itself is pure speculation.

 

[random]

A universe without consciousness is like one hand clapping.

Smiley thoughts, smiley thoughts...

Hicks had something to say about that lol

Dó, ré, mi, fá, sol, lá, si, dó, ..

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Did the universe exist before consciousness?

Did the universe and consciousness ever not exist? I think both have been around and will continue to be around forever.

 

[Twilight]

^ Agreed. I think the universe and conciousness are intertwined.
From a human perspective it's just very hard to comprehend that there always was conciousness.

I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. (George Carlin)

 

[restin]

what is consciousness then?

 

[Twilight]

I think that question is one of the main questions what every psychonaut is trying to figure out.
A good friend of mine once had a great explaination but I have to ask it again because it's hard to grasp.

 

[buffachino]

I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand.

There is no greater or lesser wisdom than that which is within yourself.

what is consciousness then?

Self concept.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Consciousness is part of the feedback loop, without which creation would be meaningless and without direction. Consciousness means there is awareness of the created world, the information of which is fed back into the source of creation.

 

[restin]

Self concept.

awareness of the created world

so, does that imply that there is an "I"? Hence, that the ego (ego is now used in a "positive" sence, as a means of self-awareness) is superior to death/doesn't die? If the ego gets part of a "higher awareness" (due to death or psychedelica) is it still aware of itself?

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

so, does that imply that there is an "I"?

Each vantage point in the universe is an "I". And it seems the I will always be such an I. As Robert Anton Wilson would say (citing Buckminster Fuller): "The universe is non-simultaneously apprehended."

Hence, that the ego (ego is now used in a "positive" sence, as a means of self-awareness) is superior to death/doesn't die?

Yes, the ego or actual self (atman) never dies. Only the false ego (ahamkara) can die, insofar as it identifies with a particular body (deha), or in ego-death (moksha, mukti, nirvana).

If the ego gets part of a "higher awareness" (due to death or psychedelica) is it still aware of itself?

Never aware of itself, it seems, only of the things it mediates.

 

[restin]

Never aware of itself, it seems, only of the things it mediates.

That's a bit imprecise. How can an "I" be unaware of itself - this breaks any concept of ego. An ego that cannot say "I am"?

Yes, the ego or actual self (atman) never dies. Only the false ego (ahamkara) can die, insofar as it identifies with a particular body (deha), or in ego-death (moksha, mukti, nirvana).

Does the atman have an awareness of what it did during life? Does it have memory? Does it change during life?

Each vantage point in the universe is an "I". And it seems the I will always be such an I. As Robert Anton Wilson would say (citing Buckminster Fuller): "The universe is non-simultaneously apprehended."

This implies a higher intelligence (God) - otherwise such a complex labyrinth like the "I" couldn't be created. It is a difference to say "a tree has a soul" or "a tree has an ego".

I hope we are not discussing on definitions (once again)

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

That's a bit imprecise. How can an "I" be unaware of itself

If the "I" is like a lense, mediating between that which is perceived and the medium in which the perception is recorded, then the lense will have a hard time becoming aware of itself, as it is transparant.

this breaks any concept of ego. An ego that cannot say "I am"?

It can say "I am" and understand it, but it may be that it can never truly perceive itself, as the "I" is the very principle of perception itself, mediating between the world of experience and the source of creation.

Does the atman have an awareness of what it did during life?

The jivatman (jiva atma: "individual soul") has a gross body (sthula deha) and a subtle body (sukshma deha). The subtle body carries with all the impressions (samskaras) from all previous lifetimes, which determine the nature of the body one develops in a future lifetime.

Does it have memory? Does it change during life?

The atman itself is in all respects unchangable. Changes only occur within the subtle and gross bodies it identifies with.

This implies a higher intelligence (God) - otherwise such a complex labyrinth like the "I" couldn't be created.

Not just higher intelligence, but complete intelligence. And an "I" was never created, it always was.

It is a difference to say "a tree has a soul" or "a tree has an ego".

True, because the word ego got its definition from human psychology, whereas soul stems from the study of the dichotomy of matter and spirit (i.e. religion and mysticism). I've used the Sanskrit word atman to avoid both the Freudian interpretations of "ego" as well as certain religious connotations of "soul".

 

[buffachino]

You impose conditions subject to that atman on the atman itself, such as context, knowledge or intelligence, and in abstraction the self gives rise to all things. It mediates nothing. There are no vantage points. To what reference can be put the self referential? It cannot be grasped in a linear fashion; that is like attempting to chase one’s own tail, and in doing so, the world of form is made manifest, games are played, reflections scattered and lives lived, but none come closer to that atman than from whence they came. It is the self implicative parametric recursion; the ouroboric riddle.