I think the biggest argument against it has always been "where does your mind end and mine begin" what are the boundaries? Are they physical or mental? If they are mental they surely the boundaries could be broken down by other mental interaction. So far this has not been done, at least I don't think it has.

Your hand- is it one thing or many? Five fingers or one hand? Both? Neither?

Nondualism's "not one, yet not separate" may be onto something...

Fairness doesn't require that we're all the same one Consciousness.

You're the the central, primary and essential component of your life, because your life is an experience-story about your experience.

At center, we're identical, and that includes woodrats too. But entities can be identical to eachother without being the same entity. Leibnitz said something about identical entities being merely different instances of one entity, whatever that means. Different electrons that are identical to eachother aren't the same electron in any meaningful sense.

That isn't the only thing that Leibnitz said that I disagree with. Another example is his expression of the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness.

At the end of lives (or--if you don' t believe in reincarnation--at the end of this life), late during the body-shutdown at death, is when our identicalness becomes fact. At that time the question about whether we're different identical entities, or instances of one entiity becomes meaningless. ...except, for each of us, that experience originated from a different animal, and so there's no reason to call us all the same entity.

Until that, we're each different persons/animals. That's what experience says, and any claim otherwise is an assumption.

Michael Ossipoff

This is what the Daoists, who were skilled observers of nature, concluded. By spiraling into waves (duality, polarity), consciousness creates everything including individual but shared consciousnesses.

I think the biggest argument against it has always been "where does your mind end and mine begin" what are the boundaries? — JupiterJess

There is no need to have boundaries. Individual minds are analogous to waves in the ocean, distinct but part of. Mind and body are a seamless continuum of substantially, the continuum that stretches from quantum to atom to molecules.

1. The universe has to be balanced. — Markus

Symmetry. Left-right, up-down, good-bad, etc. Agreed.

Everything must have sprung from something, and that something, I assume, is consciousness. — Markus

Nothing comes from nothing. Agreed. But why does it have to be consciousness. If the scientific account of evolution of the universe and life is accurate, mind and consciosuness comes much much later.

If you ponder about it carefully you will notice that all we are is a mere perspective that perceives and is aware — Markus

Agreed. We can interpret each individual as one perspective on the universe. Also, we can reasonably assume that our minds are more similar than different: The hardware is basically identical. The software too. The only discernible difference is that of preferences.

What tells you we are not the same mind? — Markus

Perhaps we need to precisely define what you mean by ''same''.

Perhaps we need to precisely define what you mean by ''same''. — TheMadFool

What I mean by that is that there is no difference between your mind and my mind. They are not a separate entities.

There is no need to have boundaries. Individual minds are analogous to waves in the ocean, distinct but part of. Mind and body are a seamless continuum of substantially, the continuum that stretches from quantum to atom to molecules. — Rich

People don't know what someone else is thinking nor is there any visible change to anyone or really anything around them when they are.

I don't believe we all are the same being -- and if we are the same being, then that means that you don't believe that we are the same being.

I win.

People don't know what someone else is thinking nor is there any visible change to anyone or really anything around them when they are. — JupiterJess

In some cases, such as twins, there are claims of shared thinking. For most others, the brain acts as a filter in a similar way that a TV filters different frequencies.

Jung and others did write extensively about shared archetypes and the collective consciousness and Rupert Sheldrake's morphicgenesis theory does depend upon a hierarchy of morphic fields. Finding boundaries is more difficult than one may initially think.

Rupert Sheldrake's morphicgenesis theory does depend upon a hierarchy of morphic fields — Rich

Thanks, I'll try and look that up later.

https://aeon.co/essays/psychedelics-work-by-violating-our-models-of-self-and-the-world

Interesting article (and comments afterward) about dissolving the ego. Disregard the psychedelic aspects if you wish for a purer description of the process.

What I mean by that is that there is no difference between your mind and my mind. They are not a separate entities. — Markus

I can understand this in following ways:

1. We're all the same in the sense there's just ONE mind and each individual is just a part of that mind; just like the 6 sides of a single dice.

2. We're all the same in the sense that we, together, form another level of consciousness; just like cells in the body, though different from each other, form a single person

3. We're all the same in the sense that the brain and mind are generic to some degree. The brain architecture is similar and mental faculties such as imagination, logic, emotions, etc. are similar; just as there are ''different'' instances of the same model/version of iphones.

If it's 1 how will you prove it?

2 seems not that improbable. Look at us.

3 is lacklustre.

Individuality/collectivity and similarity/differences are the Yin/Yang of our existence, and maybe all of nature's. In nature, the balance point is generally the norm. Humanity (as culture or particular people) can be either balanced or unbalanced at any given time. Perhaps this is the price of complexity, or it is a conscious choice. Maybe it is a mixture of both.

Individual/collective: Right now, it seems (more and more) that the overriding belief is that humans are absolute individuals. That is, that there is a definite, permanent, indivisible wall or separator between a person and everything else in the world. According to this belief, we are like marbles rolling around on the floor, maybe in proximity to or bouncing off of other marbles, but always clearly distinct and separate. And mental processes arise deep within the matter of the individual, and are thus even further separated from anyone else. Communication is possible in this paradigm, but difficult and incomplete. Communion as such does not compute. Or if it does factor in, it implies death and dissolution. Like marbles crushed into dust, and mixed together. For a quick sketch of an opposing belief system, look at trees. One tree, but many branches and innumerable leaves. Many trees, but an unseen network of roots connecting them.

As for the similarity/difference scale, there is some equivocation. The saying is "you are unique... just like everyone else". Similarities bind a group, even if the main similarity is that the group is together in the same location. Families may share a last name while having different first names. Gender, age, race, location, class/wealth, language, religion, etc. all factor into the difference/similarity scale. People seem to want to blend in with their group, but not disappear into the crowd. It is a dynamic that can be confusing or humorous, observing the push/pull people feel about conformity and trends.

Interesting article (and comments afterward) about dissolving the ego. Disregard the psychedelic aspects if you wish for a purer description of the process. — 0 thru 9

I don't understand this dissolution of "self" when they are still writing in first person terms to describe the experience. Presumably the investigation was also carried out by people able to empirically discern what was happening to the brain and introspectively note which order they occur in.
Looking over the comments people who support this view still attach propostional attitudes to it ie: "I was afraid my self would not return." I suspect what they mean is the "habits" the brain creates and they exist, sure, but they are still local to the brain and not psychological traits being emailed from Venus.

"Hello.
I have been lately pondering about this theory that came to my mind last year.
After a lot of reasoning I concluded that we are all the same consciousness/mind incarnated throughout time as all the beings that have ever existed and will ever exist.

Here are my arguments:
1. The universe has to be balanced. For it to be this way fairness is necessary. Were existence not fair, it would collapse in on itself. But we know that it is impossible for existence to collapse because non-existence is a dichotomy - nothingness cannot exist, for nothingness is something and that would imply the existence of this essence called nothingness.

2. Everything must have sprung from something, and that something, I assume, is consciousness.
That consciousness must have been only one, otherwise there would be a multiplicity of realities, something that is also impossible since there can only be one reality/existence.
If there was only one consciousness in the beginning, how could it have created other consciousnesses?
Consciousness is awareness. a perspective. You and I both experience. We perceive in the same way, hence, our consciousness must be the same.

3. If you ponder about it carefully you will notice that all we are is a mere perspective that perceives and is aware.

What tells you we are not the same mind?

A counter argument for this could be that if we are the same mind it is a bipolar mind, since everyone of us is different and holds different opinions. But it can be refuted by noting that experiences shape your opinions and way to see the world.

What are your thoughts on this?"
--Markus

We are and we are not. What I mean by this as human beings we posses enough empathy/group think that at certain times we can suppress our individual desires/fears/vices/etc and be something like a natural force like a a wave, fire, or an electric current. However we are also beings which have individual consciences/sentience which also makes us different than the things that usually comprise other natural forces.
.
I don't know if you know about Bicarmeralism but I'm providing the below link so you might be able to understand why man sometimes thinks he (or she) is either able to connect to "God" and/or some collective conscience; which in and of itself is possible if enough people have a high level of empathy. I'm talking about collective conscience of course and not "God"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Also as a person partial to nihilism I have to disagree that it is a given that things have to be "fair" and "balance" in order for the universe to exist. As far as I can tell and far as I can tell anybody else can tell, it isn't a given there is "good", "evil", "fairness", "balance", etc. Such things are only useful when you are explaining the world according to certain narratives/contexts, but there are several narratives/contexts that either don't need or don't use such references at all. If you can understand the idea that human beings may just exist like other beings who may or may not have a purpose (like certain parasites we wouldn't mind going extinct) then it is sort of easier to throw the whole notion of "good"/"evil" out the window when you need to. Also while your at it I recommend throwing out ALL AXIOMS (ie. all "self-evident truths") if you want to really be able to see the big picture of what is going on and or be able to jump from paradigm to paradigm when you need to since it is all but a given that it is our axioms that trap us in the ideologies we grow accustom to.

Well that is my two-cents for right now at least..

Although I don't agree with the argument you presented, I do think that you're on to something. I've been studying NDEs for quite some time, and if they are true it seems that we are part of a mind or consciousness, and that we are all linked through this mind. In fact, it's quite possible that the unifying principle that scientists are looking for, is in fact, consciousness. All reality might be created by a core consciousness (speculation), and our individuality may just be part of that core - a piece so to speak.