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

[IJesusChrist]

I think consciousness is simply the preception of time. If there is no preception of time - does it exist? If there is no time, did anything truly exist?

Is consciousness a false identification, somehow made... no nevermind, it's real.

It just seems with consciousness there is no end, a part of your brain always is telling some other part of your brain what to "see" forever, your eyes show your nerves, your nerves show your visual cortex, your visual cortex shows your ??? and your ??? shows ... what? It shows you.

OR

Is it simply the ability for the brain to access and examine choices we are able to make, the "yes/no"'s of the world, with some kind of memory?

Fuck man Do I really want to know?

 

[buffachino]

It just seems with consciousness there is no end, a part of your brain always is telling some other part of your brain what to "see" forever, your eyes show your nerves, your nerves show your visual cortex, your visual cortex shows your ??? and your ??? shows ... what? It shows you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

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.

You seem to be talking about paramatman, the Supersoul or Oversoul, rather than the jivatman, or the individual spark of consciousness. It is through the jivatmas that the paramatman creates and is aware of creation, from countless vantage points. The paramatman doesn't mediate, but the jivatmas do, which is why they are called the tatastha-shakti, or marginal energy, rather than the bahiranga-shakti (external energy) or the antaranga-shakti (internal energy, or the divine source). They mediate between the world (samsara) and God (paramatman). Or something like that, it's quite a mystery...

 

[buffachino]

I speak of Parabrahman

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Yes, then I understand your position.

 

[buffachino]

Tat Tvam Asi

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Acintya bheda-abheda tattva, inconceivably one with but also different from God. Admittedly this is a theistic interpretation. An example often given is that of the sun. Both the sun and sunshine are part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself. Qualitatively the sun and the sunshine are not different, but quantitatively they are very different.

 

[restin]

I obviously am not very knowledged in indian philosophy.

but referring to CM's post on Sun Aug 02, 2009 17:30:

OK, but what for?

 

[Tunnelvision]

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

agreed.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

OK, but what for?

You mean the creation of the world? Why the source, spirit or brahman has "decided" that there must be planets with conscious beings on them?

 

[restin]

yep.

 

[buffachino]

Acintya bheda-abheda tattva, inconceivably one with but also different from God. Admittedly this is a theistic interpretation. An example often given is that of the sun. Both the sun and sunshine are part of the same reality, but there is a great difference between having a beam of sunshine in your room, and being in close proximity to the sun itself. Qualitatively the sun and the sunshine are not different, but quantitatively they are very different.

This is a question of scale, measurement and perspective; all which depend on self reference.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

OK, but what for?

You mean the creation of the world? Why the source, spirit or brahman has "decided" that there must be planets with conscious beings on them?

I do not know the answers to these questions, only that it seems it's "desirable" to have such a situation in place, for eternity.

Although maybe it's not so much a question of desire or necessity, but rather that the way the world is constructed is simply the only way it ever could be (bring in the Golden Mean as the blueprint for creation, the unknown origins of DNA etc.).

 

[restin]

as a living organism I simply cannot desire a constant existence. Living is changing, you change your breath, your water, your skin, everything in you is changing - and everytime you get to a new "level" you await the next. A living organism is restless - that's why we have evolution. That's why for me, the concept of eternity (on the other hand also the concept that time can "end") is so disturbing. how must the state be so that this state is desirable - a state in which I am constantly aware of myself? On the other hand, the state of eternal inexistence is not less painful. And if consciousness after death does not realize ifself, it doesn't matter if we are energy, if we are part of God, because it is the same as not existing.

 

[Brugmansia]

Universe, consciousness, decomposition, an unchallenged brain contraction. Hence the age of the placard.

 

[IJesusChrist]

soo... in other words, does the universe exist without an observer? only a few answered.

 

[Envix]

well according to Schrödinger's cat, no.



...unless the tree itself could be counted as an observer.

 

[Forkbender]

does the universe exist without an observer?

I think the answer lies more within epistemology than metaphysics.
Try to imagine a universe without an observer. Now who is looking at this universe through his mind's eye? A universe without an observer is unimaginable to me. Maybe it can exist, but we wouldn't be able to tell.

 

[buffachino]

A universe without an observer

The observer itself is this.

 

[Envix]

a universe without an observer would be exactly what it is - energy.

There isn't such a thing a "solid". Everything is made of atoms, and atoms are not solid. We perceive things as solid because of our senses. Our senses make up everything we experience in life, and what we would call "reality". Without these instruments of observation, the atoms would still be present, but in no state set by a sense or perception. Therefore, they would just be masses of atoms. This is why the observable spectrum of reality is subjective. With no observer, there would be nothing to determine what a particular mass of atoms is, and would therefore just be a mass of atoms i.e. energy. (the objective universe)



the universe, as we see it, is all in our heads.
the universe, as it really is, looks like this