Universal Mind/Consciousness?

Art48

My consciousness is all that I really know exists. Everything that I experience as existing, I experience in my consciousness. This may sound like a New Age slogan, but that’s irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t judge based on labels. Slogan or not, it’s true.

Solipsism is the philosophical view that only my consciousness exists; that everything else exists in my consciousness. So, trees and clouds and other people really don’t exist. Only my consciousness exists. It’s as if the entire universe is a dream, and I’m the dreamer.

A criticism of solipsism is that other people and an exterior world really do seem to exist. People seem to have a will of their own, and sometime do what I wish they wouldn’t. It rains regardless of if I want rain or not. The nature of the world makes believing solipsism difficult.

A solipsist might respond that the people and exterior world are parts of forgotten parts of his/her consciousness. Just as when we dream, we might really think we are talking to our deceased Uncle Pete. Nonetheless, the foundation of our dreamed Uncle Pete is really our own consciousness unrecognized. So, the solipsist might continue to insist the people and world really exist only in his/her consciousness.

The solipsist’s response notwithstanding, solipsism seems an unlikely idea. But if turn things around, thing change.

How to turn it around?

1) Solipsism says the universe exists in me. Let’s suppose I exist in the universe. Seems obvious and reasonable.
2) Solipsism says my mind creates other people. Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. The idea is that a tiny bit of universal consciousness splits off and becomes me. I forget I’m a tiny part of universal consciousness and take myself to be a person, independently existing and free to choose. In effect, I am the Uncle Pete in the solipsist’s dream, thinking that I exist as an independent person when in reality I’m merely a figment of the solipsist’s consciousness.

This view solves some problems.

First, it solves the problem of evil. The good and evil Uncle Pete do in my dream are of no consequence. When I awake, they vanish as does Uncle Pete. This is a solution but not a very satisfying one. It says life on Earth is of no consequence. The good and evil we do are mere nothings which vanish when we awaken. An answer is to say that good and evil matter here in this reality. Pain hurts now, even if later we awaken and see it as unreal. Good and evil are as real (or as unreal) as the world we live in. So, while we are here we should behave according. When in Rome . . .

Second, it solves the problems of what happens after death. Nothing. We simply cease to be. But this is not as frightening as it sounds because we awaken to our real self: universal consciousness, which may well be eternal. Not a bad trade: Uncle Pete, subject to suffering, disease, and death, for universal consciousness.

Third, it provides a unifying explanation of existence: all existence is universal mind/consciousness, in effect, dreaming the reality we experience and are a part of.

But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions.

Fooloso4

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else — Art48

Why?

T Clark

Here are a couple of clips from past @Wayfarer posts I think are relevant to your OP:

The God-realised being - Ramana Maharishi, another Indian sage, died 1960, was the archetype - realises that only God is real, and says that the apparent world of multiplicity and strife is actually māyā, an illusion, with which the mind has become entanged through avidya, ignorance. — Wayfarer

This idea is not dissimilar to one in many of Alan Watt's books. For example The Book: on the Taboo against Knowing who you Are, which 'delves into the cause and cure of the illusion that the self is a separate ego. Modernizes and restates the ancient Hindu philosophy of Vedanta and brings out the full force of realizing that the self is in fact the root and ground of the universe.' Watts does bring an element of the 'divine play', the game that Brahman plays by manifesting as the multiplicity, each part of which then 'forgets' its relation to the whole. Which actually dovetails nicely with some elements of Platonism, i.e. the 'unforgetting' (anamnesis) of the state of omniscience that obtained prior to 'falling' in to carnal existence. Note well however the mention of 'taboo' in the title. — Wayfarer

Art48

T Clark: Yes, I think they are relevant, too. And then there's Plotinus and others.

180 Proof

My consciousness is all that I really know exists. — Art48

This is not true.

Solipsism is the philosophical view that only my consciousness exists that everything else exists n mu consciousness.

Even if it's the case, despite it's conceptual incoherence, "solipsism" doesn't makes any non-trivial difference to existing day to day.

Agent Smith

Solipsism says the universe exists in me. — Art48

The universe is inside Krishna (you)!

Solipsism can be refuted if you can prove the existence of other minds, but I'm afraid no one can do that! Even if "other people" behave in ways that displease you, indicating perhaps that they're distinct mental entities, there's a solipsistic alternative, to wit that you don't control the illusion your mind generates (people in your dreams seem to act as if they have independent thoughts and motives à la "other minds").

Gnomon

The universe is inside Krishna (you)! — Agent Smith

This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. :smile: .

Agent Smith

↪Gnomon

Dance of the seven veils? :smile:

I should drop everything right now and go to a strip club.

Nuda Veritas? Must ask her to be more oblique! Can't have a naked goddess on the premises. The men would go crazy! :snicker:

alan1000

"My consciousness is all that I really know exists"

YES! If only Descartes had had the wit to understand this... but he lacked the intellectual honesty.

180 Proof

↪alan1000

How do you know that you "really know" this?

Agent Smith

How do you know that you "really know" this? — 180 Proof

Good question 180 Proof. I wonder what the reply will be like.

Agent Smith

The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
— Agent Smith
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. — Gnomon

Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view?

Manuel

Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. — Art48

This doesn't follow from the rest of your reasoning. You could make an argument that solipsism solves the problems you say it does, such as the problem of evil.

But from solipsism to "universal mind", there is no connection. You are postulating something independent of you in this specific case.

And if you allow a "universal mind", you'll need to allow much more.

universeness

↪Art48

Do you think this universal mind is self-aware and has intent?
Why did it need to break parts of itself off to create something limited as you or I?
Sentients who do not know that our origin is a universal mind and was not given any coherent instruction when we were born as to what our purpose is while we are here, other than the info we are given from or the experiences we have, with other humans.
You can be terminated through, what seems to be a meaningless random happenstance. Why? If we come from something as omnipresent as a universal mind.
Why did it create gradations of intelligence and sentience?
Did it make the dinosaurs? if so, why?
Why did it need two human parents to create you? Or were they and your birth just simulated?
Do you believe that the universe terminates after you die?
Time/change had no meaning to you before you were born and wont after you die, so from your reference frame the universe ends when you die. Yet that reference frame has limited meaning for anyone who is still alive after you die.
Solipsism is nonsense and there is no currently existing universal mind imo. Maybe many millions of years from now, all intelligent life in the universe can 'network' or act as a universal collective which may be something akin to a universal mind. So, that's the only posit I would twitch an eyebrow towards, an emergent, universal, collective intellect, which can also act as individuals.

Gnomon

The universe is inside Krishna (you)!
— Agent Smith
This thread should have a warning sign : "twisty Metaphors ahead, not to be taken literally".
Metaphors can't be refuted with empirical evidence, you either get the oblique inference, or you don't. If you do, it's safe to proceed slowly, and you might learn something -- something meta-physical. — Gnomon
Awesome! Krishna is a Hindu god, infact he's the supreme deity in human form; the universe is the universe ( :chin: ). Does anything follow? The universal mind - what is it from a God's eye point of view? — Agent Smith

I don't think of the Enformer or Programmer or First Cause as the universal Consciousness. All of those labels point to something outside the space-time universe. And I don't know how Consciousness would work without a physical world to be aware of, or without a local Self to serve as a point-of-view.

However, if the a priori Cause (EnFormAction)*1 is also the substance of reality (Matter, Energy, Mind are all forms of Generic Information), then perhaps eternal Brahma has a zillion viewpoints*2. He/r worldview is also your perspective, and that of every conscious mind that ever existed. But that's a mind-boggling feat of imagination, so I try not to think about it too much. Philosophers who try to imagine what Eternity & Infinity are like*3, may become multi-schizophrenic. :grin:

*1. EnFormAction :
Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus*4, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. Imagine the Architect of the Matrix, sitting in a room surrounded by a zillion TV screens.

*3. What is it like to be a bat, or a timeless non-local deity?

*4. Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism with reference to the inclination of a thing to persist in its own being.

Agent Smith

↪Gnomon

One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me.

bongo fury

Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism — Gnomon

and by conatists

(Sorry)

Gnomon

↪Gnomon
One thing's for sure, either there is a God or there isn't one. It's quite embarrassing if you ask me. — Agent Smith

For me, that Epistemological dichotomy*1 is not so "sure". From the BothAnd perspective, it's not an Either/Or conundrum, but a statistical spectrum. Moreover, as a non-religious Agnostic, the ambiguity is not embarrassing to me. It's just another example of the uncertainty of Reality, which Stoics*2 accept as a fact of life. Philosophically, I assume that there was a First Cause of some kind, to kick-start the Big Bang. Beyond that logical axiom*3, I have no information about the presumed Programmer.

Whereof one has no idea, one must not speak*4. But philosophers are free to make-up words to express ineffable*5 concepts : e.g. "Enformer". Besides, physicists & cosmologists are not embarrassed to assume the unproveable existence of Many Worlds and Multiverses*6, to explain how something could arise from something outside of space-time as we know it. Are you sure about Many Worlds and Multiple Agent Smiths? :smile:

*1. Epistemology :
Some have also attempted to offer significant revisions to our notion of belief, including eliminativists about belief who argue that there is no phenomenon in the natural world which corresponds to our folk psychological concept of belief (Paul Churchland) and formal epistemologists who aim to replace our bivalent notion of belief ("either I have a belief or I don't have a belief") with the more permissive, probabilistic notion of credence ("there is an entire spectrum of degrees of belief, not a simple dichotomy between belief and non-belief")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

*2. Embrace the Uncertainty :
Which is why [Stoic] Seneca reminds us: “The whole future lies in uncertainty: live immediately.”
https://dailystoic.com/embrace-the-uncertainty/

*3. Axiom : In mathematics or logic, an axiom is an unprovable rule or first principle accepted as true because it is self-evident or particularly useful.

*4. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence". ___Wittgenstein

*5. Ineffable : Silvia Jonas sets out to articulate 'a common ground for any account of the metaphysics of ineffability'. She defines the ineffable as a nonlinguistic item which it is in principle impossible to express in conceptual terms or to communicate to others by the use of language. She is particularly interested in the uses of the term 'ineffable' in religious, aesthetic, and philosophical contexts, where it seems to mark something of special importance or significance
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/ineffability-and-its-metaphysics-the-unspeakable-in-art-religion-and-philosophy/
Note -- ideas about non-physical notions (metaphysics) are inherently "ineffable" in conventional matter-based words. For example, "matter" could refer to a physical object, or to a mental evaluation ("it doesn't matter" : has no physical manifestation, but may have emotional significance)

*5.Like the multiverse, true infinity is a mathematical construct. Mathematician extraordinaire David Hilbert (1862–1943) said it succinctly: “… the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/10/why-just-anything-cant-happen-given-an-infinite-sum-of-universes/

Gnomon

Conatus : a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation. used in Spinozism — Gnomon
and by conatists — bongo fury

Who or what is a "conatist"? I Googled the term, and got only irrelevant links. Literally interpreted, the word refers to someone with WillPower. Is there a cult of Conatism? :smile:

bongo fury

↪Gnomon

I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly.

Agent Smith

↪Gnomon

Enformationism, an interesting take on religion & science.

Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory?

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

I don't see how positing an "a priori" "first cause" "unmoved mover" entity explains anything (let alone "everything') more than occult non-explanations like "creationism" or "intelligent design". It's a perennially speculative question-begging non-starter, no?

Agent Smith

I don't see how positing an "a priori" "first cause" "unmoved mover" entity explains anything (let alone "everything') more than occult non-explanations like "creationism" or "intelligent design". It's a perennially speculative question-begging non-starter, no? — 180 Proof

Apart from the issue of double standards, there's the problem of how Gnomon has to reconcile his rather interesting theory with atheism - his BothAnd is selective, could be called cherry-picking but I wouldn't for the simple reason that he's thought this through i.e. @Gnomon's Enformationism isn't a wild guess/random thought (he cites a lot of big names in philosophy).

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

"Reconcile with atheism"? Before that, it's question-begging (or an infinite regress) – doesn't make sense logically, ontologically or scientifically. Btw, I disagree that Gnomon's crypto-idealist pseudo-scientism aka "Meta-Physics" is inconsistent with atheism (i.e. rejection of a/every theistic – not non-theistic – deity); his so-called "Enformer" (seems to me) consistent with e.g. brahmanism or daoism or neoplatonism ... which are not inherently theistic.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Good observation as far as I can tell. What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? Not that I haven't done me homework mate. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything specifically wrong with infinite regress. Ok, so it goes on forever, backwards. So?

As for @Gnomon's Enformationism, it's, at the end of the day, a half-theism and half-atheism if there's such a concept afloat in the ideaverse. In line, of course, with his BothAnd synthetic idea-tool.

I like sushi

↪Art48

You mention Rome. Does ‘Rome’ exist and in what capacity does it exist?

Does the term ‘exist’ exist? I have never held ‘exist’ in my hand (imagined or otherwise).

Basically, start by exploring what exactly/vaguely you mean by ‘exist’ before stating what does and does not ‘exist’. You will find anything you think up necessarily ‘exists’ in some way. What you cannot think of does not ‘exist’ but referring to some non-existing item makes it exist as a non-item too.

The issue is in the use of language (or rather than misuse).

Benj96

I believe concepts/ideas/beliefs exist, the material/tangible objects exists, the immaterial exists (by necessity in order for material to exist), imagination/creativity (potential to create new existents) exists. What else is left?

All of these things exist. "HOW" they exist is the key discernment. How they exist pertains to how everything (existents) may be connected to one another.

Language is not perfect logic. Therefore, a "pinch of salt" must be taken, some leap of faith that is, based on purely good intention, patience, tolerance and due consideration, (the virtues) to abolish contradictions between semi-truths and the "whole truth".

Which must be out there. The whole truth must exist as if it didn't there would be nothing in existence that confers consistency, stability and permanence/constancy to the system.

If whole truth did not exist and was merely a collection of lies and deceit, then nothing could be a fraction/partiality of absolute truth, everything would be a lie, and fall into total disarray and impossibility to apply meaning, rational, logic or anything of the sort.

Because we exist, true nothingness, cannot exist. As for something to exist it negates "non-existent absolutism". If pure nothing really did exist it would be something (an existent).

So all we have is "potential to exist" and "existence", but certainly not "nothingness".

Gnomon

I was attempting a pun (hence the apology). Con artist. But I see now it doesn't work on the word pronounced properly. — bongo fury

I saw the possible pun, but I thought you might know of some new philosophical concept. "Conatus" was an old word, but new to me, not long ago. Yet the notion of a positive tendency in Nature fit with my emerging worldview. Some see Evolution as a pointless random walk, but I see signs of intention & direction in its increasing physical complexity, and the emergence of consciousness from a Big Bang beginning. Hence the applicability of "Conatus" to the OP. :smile:

180 Proof

What's exactly the problem with infinite regress? — Agent Smith

It's a way of begging the question, that is, continuously pushing further back, or deferring, an answer e.g. "origin of universe?" god. "origin of god?" the godhead. "origin of the godhead?" ... An epistemic regress that does not explain anything. Rather "there is no origin" – brute fact – is far less problematic epistemically.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Ok 180 Proof. You're making so much sense here that in my personal dictionary, 180 Proof is a synonym for sense. See you around mon ami!

Gnomon

Does the OP mean panpsychism when he talks of universal consciousness or is he referring to some kind of emergent egregore(-like) mind? A hive mind perhaps? What does Enformationism have to say about such entities? Is there a slot for them in your theory? — Agent Smith

I suppose an Egregore-like emergent entity from collective thoughts could be one answer to the OP. Hive Mind might be another form of collective consciousness. But that doesn't seem to be what Art is grasping for. Collective consciousness would be an emergent Awareness from integration of all lesser minds of the world. Instead, he seems to be thinking more in terms of Panpsychism, as the general potential from which individual minds arise, and as a contrasting concept to isolated apathetic Solipsism floating in the void.

Enformationism has little to say about intermediate forms of consciousness on a continuum between G*D & Man. Instead, the thesis focuses on the only kind of mind we humans know directly : "I think, therefore I am". But it accepts, without direct evidence, the existence of Other Minds, both Human and Animal. However, it also speculates on the OP questions : origin, nature, etc. Lacking any empirical evidence though, the thesis uses abstract terms, such as "Logos", when referring to the ultimate rational intellect, and "Programmer" in reference to the intentional direction (conatus) of the Evolutionary Program. :smile:

PS___Plato assumed that his mind, as a descendant from progenitor LOGOS, should be able to rationally probe its Origins (eternal) & Nature (order/organization).

↪Art48

"But whence the universal mind/consciousness? Is it eternal? How did it originate? What is its nature? If that’s what we really are, then we must be capable of answering the questions." ___Art, from OP

"Universal consciousness is a metaphysical concept suggesting an underlying essence of all being and becoming in the universe." https://www.longdom.org/open-access/proof-of-universal-consciousness-with-the-direction-of-energy-flow-63888.html
Note -- "Proof of Universal Consciousness with the Direction of Energy Flow" could be construed as Conatus.

Egregore is an occult concept representing a non-physical entity that arises from the collective thoughts of a distinct group of people. ___Wikipedia

EEYORE AS EMERGENT ENTITY (note; no pictures of Egregore as emergent Mind)

Universal Mind/Consciousness?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions