Universal Consciousness

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by CHNOPS »

WHAT is the ONE who WANTS to answer this questions?
What THE GOAL IS, EXACTLY, which I have INTENDED TO ACHIEVE and AM BRING FORTH, to fruition, is my ONLY CONCERN here.
WHAT is EXACTLY have an INTENTION?

WHAT are QUESTIONS?

WHAT is a FORUM really?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Age wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
Instead of just continually saying what is JUST BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, ANYWAY, WHY DO 'you' NOT just explain 'things' in a way that could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY UNDERSTOOD by "OTHERS" of 'you', human beings?
If it is "blatantly obvious" then is "very simply understood".
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
Again, simplify the universe to a 3 color pixeles (Blue-Green-Red).

One interaction is Blue-Green, another is Green-Red and another is Blue-Red.

If you say there is a difference between "Observation" and "Interaction", then, you must to explain that difference.

And I can't see that difference. I just see 3 pixeles and then I am comparing, making abstract concepts of what I call "Blue-Green", "Green-Red" and "Blue-Red".


Where is the "consciousness" in this universe? One can intuitly think of an another new pixel, a "Yellow" pixel, almost transparent, that is in the background or above the others 3 pixeles, and think that that "Yellow" pixel is the "consciousness" that make the "observation".


But that is wrong. If there is a Yellow pixel, then, it is just like the others 3. Is just another pixel more. We extend the universe, just that.

Or that "Yellow" pixel is different from the other pixeles? What is that difference?.... there is no difference!!


I believe in this "universal consciousness". Is just that I know the limits of knowledge and rational thinking.


We cannot talk about this "universal consciousness". But until you dont understand why not, you will always repeat the same thinking over and over and over and over.


"Maybe if we define it in this way it will not be a contradiction....." ----> THIS HABBIT MUST TO END IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND.
Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:22 pm
Age wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:03 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
Instead of just continually saying what is JUST BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, ANYWAY, WHY DO 'you' NOT just explain 'things' in a way that could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY UNDERSTOOD by "OTHERS" of 'you', human beings?
If it is "blatantly obvious" then is "very simply understood".
As well as VERY EASILY.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Age »

CHNOPS wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:28 pm WHAT is the ONE who WANTS to answer this questions?
Did you mean 'this question' or 'these questions'?
CHNOPS wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:28 pm
What THE GOAL IS, EXACTLY, which I have INTENDED TO ACHIEVE and AM BRING FORTH, to fruition, is my ONLY CONCERN here.
WHAT is EXACTLY have an INTENTION?

WHAT are QUESTIONS?

WHAT is a FORUM really?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What do you think or BELIEVE is supposedly funny here?
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by CHNOPS »

Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.
¿?

Universe = everything = all the things that exists = 3 color pixels (Blue-Green-Red)

Why we can't do this?

I am not saying that the 3 color pixels are a thing in altogether. Like if they were a one pixel.

There are just 3 pixels. And we can't say that the 3 pixels altogether are a pixel.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:37 am
Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.
¿?

Universe = everything = all the things that exists = 3 color pixels (Blue-Green-Red)

Why we can't do this?

I am not saying that the 3 color pixels are a thing in altogether. Like if they were a one pixel.

There are just 3 pixels. And we can't say that the 3 pixels altogether are a pixel.
1. You cannot reduce "everything" to a part of everything (ie the pixel) as the part has a part beyond it in which case the part=everything results in an everything (ie part) existing beyond an everything thus everything is not everything.

2. The 3 pixels are one considering they all share the quality of "pixel".
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by CHNOPS »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:16 pm
CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:37 am
Everything cannot be simplified to any one thing as thingness necessitates one thing being distinct to another thing in which case everything as a thing requires something beyond the everything thus everything is not everything.
¿?

Universe = everything = all the things that exists = 3 color pixels (Blue-Green-Red)

Why we can't do this?

I am not saying that the 3 color pixels are a thing in altogether. Like if they were a one pixel.

There are just 3 pixels. And we can't say that the 3 pixels altogether are a pixel.
1. You cannot reduce "everything" to a part of everything (ie the pixel) as the part has a part beyond it in which case the part=everything results in an everything (ie part) existing beyond an everything thus everything is not everything.

2. The 3 pixels are one considering they all share the quality of "pixel".

The entire point of simplify the universe is to make it easy to understand why you are wrong.

There are Blue, Green and Red pixels. And I say that that is all what there are. That is the all universe.

Blue is not everything.
Green is not everything.
Red is not everything.

What is everything is Blue, Green and Red, together.

But that B-G-R are not a new pixel. They are not a "unify pixel".


When you say that are one considering they all share the quality of "pixel", you must to understand that "pixel" is an abstract concept.

"pixel" is not another thing, is not like if it were a Yellow pixel who make the B-G-R together.


There is no "space-time". There is no "black box" where the thing are together. There are just things...

The qualities of a thing, are comparisons you make. But that comparisons are not a thing. So, there is only B-G-R, and nothing more.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:52 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:16 pm
CHNOPS wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:37 am

¿?

Universe = everything = all the things that exists = 3 color pixels (Blue-Green-Red)

Why we can't do this?

I am not saying that the 3 color pixels are a thing in altogether. Like if they were a one pixel.

There are just 3 pixels. And we can't say that the 3 pixels altogether are a pixel.
1. You cannot reduce "everything" to a part of everything (ie the pixel) as the part has a part beyond it in which case the part=everything results in an everything (ie part) existing beyond an everything thus everything is not everything.

2. The 3 pixels are one considering they all share the quality of "pixel".

The entire point of simplify the universe is to make it easy to understand why you are wrong.

There are Blue, Green and Red pixels. And I say that that is all what there are. That is the all universe.

Blue is not everything.
Green is not everything.
Red is not everything.

What is everything is Blue, Green and Red, together.

But that B-G-R are not a new pixel. They are not a "unify pixel".


When you say that are one considering they all share the quality of "pixel", you must to understand that "pixel" is an abstract concept.

"pixel" is not another thing, is not like if it were a Yellow pixel who make the B-G-R together.


There is no "space-time". There is no "black box" where the thing are together. There are just things...

The qualities of a thing, are comparisons you make. But that comparisons are not a thing. So, there is only B-G-R, and nothing more.
And I am saying the universe cannot be simplified as to simplify things is to make relations; the universe is not relative to anything as this relativity would point to something beyond the universe thus the universe in question is not the universe.

B-G-R contrast each other, they compare.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by CHNOPS »

I dont get it.

The relations are B-G-R.

I am not comparing B-G-R as a unify thing, like if (B-G-R) is a "unify pixel".

We cannot compare the universe with something else. I know that. But you can describe the things that forms de universe.

We can simplify. There is no problem in that.

The problem is when we try to define (B-G-R) as a whole, like if it is another thing, because as a "thing" it need another thing to be in a relation ship, to have limit with that another thing. And there is such a thing as "another universe".
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm I dont get it.

The relations are B-G-R.

I am not comparing B-G-R as a unify thing, like if (B-G-R) is a "unify pixel".

We cannot compare the universe with something else. I know that. But you can describe the things that forms de universe.

We can simplify. There is no problem in that.

The problem is when we try to define (B-G-R) as a whole, like if it is another thing, because as a "thing" it need another thing to be in a relation ship, to have limit with that another thing. And there is such a thing as "another universe".
That is the thing: you cannot simplify the universe to a thing because all things are relative to other things and the universe is not relative to anything otherwise it would not be the universe.
CHNOPS
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by CHNOPS »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:49 pm
CHNOPS wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm I dont get it.

The relations are B-G-R.

I am not comparing B-G-R as a unify thing, like if (B-G-R) is a "unify pixel".

We cannot compare the universe with something else. I know that. But you can describe the things that forms de universe.

We can simplify. There is no problem in that.

The problem is when we try to define (B-G-R) as a whole, like if it is another thing, because as a "thing" it need another thing to be in a relation ship, to have limit with that another thing. And there is such a thing as "another universe".
That is the thing: you cannot simplify the universe to a thing because all things are relative to other things and the universe is not relative to anything otherwise it would not be the universe.
You are repeating yourself.

And I will repeat myself too:

You can say that the universe is only B-G-R.

In the same way you can say that the universe is the planets, de humans, the cars, the Sun, etc.

What I am saying is that when I say "universe" you can understand that I am refering to B-G-R.


But I am not saying that B-G-R are a unify thing. That is when the contradiction occurs. When you talk about the universe as if it is a thing.

The universe is B-G-R ---> this means that "there are only 3 things, Blue, Green and Red pixels".


I am no saying that B-G-R is a thing.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

CHNOPS wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:29 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 10:49 pm
CHNOPS wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm I dont get it.

The relations are B-G-R.

I am not comparing B-G-R as a unify thing, like if (B-G-R) is a "unify pixel".

We cannot compare the universe with something else. I know that. But you can describe the things that forms de universe.

We can simplify. There is no problem in that.

The problem is when we try to define (B-G-R) as a whole, like if it is another thing, because as a "thing" it need another thing to be in a relation ship, to have limit with that another thing. And there is such a thing as "another universe".
That is the thing: you cannot simplify the universe to a thing because all things are relative to other things and the universe is not relative to anything otherwise it would not be the universe.
You are repeating yourself.

And I will repeat myself too:

You can say that the universe is only B-G-R.

In the same way you can say that the universe is the planets, de humans, the cars, the Sun, etc.

What I am saying is that when I say "universe" you can understand that I am refering to B-G-R.


But I am not saying that B-G-R are a unify thing. That is when the contradiction occurs. When you talk about the universe as if it is a thing.

The universe is B-G-R ---> this means that "there are only 3 things, Blue, Green and Red pixels".


I am no saying that B-G-R is a thing.
And I am saying that using B-G-R to metaphorically describe the universe does not work as that is a contrast and the universe has no contrast.
dattaswami
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by dattaswami »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
If you want to beat somebody, call him as dog and then beat him. Even though he is not a dog; you have confirmed him as a dog for all practical purposes, in order to beat him. Similarly, you want to capture Brahman or God, who is unimaginable and cannot be captured even by intensive process of imagination. Therefore, you name some imaginable item as Brahman, capture it and then claim that you have captured God. Whatever you named or subsequently captured is not the actual absolute God. You have captured some subtle part of the creation itself, and claim that you have captured Brahman, which is beyond Creation.

I will give a small illustration. One day yourself and your friends jumped for a long time and failed to touch the roof of your house. Therefore, all of you named the roof as unattainable, since it is untouchable by hand. For some years, you have practiced the high jump and could touch the roof by your hand. Now you declare that you have attained the unattainable. Actually the roof is not really and permanently unattainable item. The real and permanently unattainable item is the sky, which cannot be touched by you even through millions of births. Similarly, Brahman or God who is the Creator of this Universe is really and permanently unattainable, since He cannot be imagined even by the sharpest intelligence.

The reason for this is that God, the Creator, is beyond spatial dimensions, because He was the creator of this space. The Creator exists before the Creation of this space. This means that God existed even in the absence of the space before its creation. You can never imagine the absence
of space, because you and your intelligence cannot go beyond space by continuous efforts even for millions of lives. Even the minutest, you imagine, must have minutest spatial dimensions. It can never imagine anything without dimensions. Therefore, when you say that you have
captured or imagined something, it must be a part of the creation only. It might have not been captured till today due to lack of scientific analysis and sophisticated technical instruments and it does not mean that it is really unimaginable.

It remained unimaginable for a period of time due to lack of equipment, just like the roof of your house remained untouchable for some time
due to lack of practice in high jump. By touching the roof, you should not claim that you have touched the sky. By capturing the universal consciousness, you should not shout that you have captured God. Just like the roof is not the sky, the Universal Consciousness is not God.

Consciousness means awareness. Awareness is nothing but a specific work form of inert energy, which is transport of information from senses to brain through neuron cells. This transport is work only. Work is a form of inert energy only. Therefore, the work is also inert.
Even the specific work is inert because the image fallen on the eye, the lens of the eye, the light rays bringing the image, the neuron cells which are just specific chemicals, the force of movement of the cells and finally the brain, which is also a chemical fluid receiving the image –
all these are inert, inert and inert only. You have called this specific work by a new name ‘awareness’, which is actually and really inert only. Therefore, the soul and the body are purely inert and are functioning under the controlling power of God only. All the Creation from top to
bottom is inert only and the soul is a fine part of the creation called as Para Prakriti by Gita. If there is any non-inert item, it is just the God only.
Veda says that God is the controller of the entire Universe including the souls (Patim Vishvasya Aatmeswaram….). Now tell Me, whether you have captured the non-inert item (God) by capturing the inert consciousness? Consciousness or Awareness is a specific and subtle area of
the field of inert energy and inert matter. The capital city is the top most area of the kingdom. It is also in the kingdom only. It is not beyond the kingdom. Similarly, awareness is the top most fine area of the creation, which is a specific work called as consciousness or Awareness. This
does not mean that the awareness or consciousness is beyond Creation and hence is God.


A radio or T.V. is a specific technical instrument working on the principle of propagation of signals in the medium of continuous Universal Energy. Since the soul or awareness in a human being is also a specific work form of the same inert energy, the continuous medium of universal
energy itself can act as the common medium for the specific awareness also. There is no difference between a T.V. and a computer or robot in the sense that all are specific designs of machines made of inert materials or chemicals working with the help of the same inert energy modified into specific forms of those works.

Hence, the continuous universal inert energy is the common medium for all these specific machines like T.V., Computer, Robot and human being. The universal consciousness is a wrong word. Consciousness is limited to a human being like the computer technology limited to computer only. There is no universal computer technology spreading all over the universe. The inert energy is spreading all over the universe and is acting as a medium to propagate the signals for computer. Similarly, consciousness or awareness is a limited item in the name of a humanbeing and cannot be universal. The same universal inert energy acts as the medium to propagate
a specific variety of signals related to the human beings.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Universal Consciousness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

dattaswami wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.
If you want to beat somebody, call him as dog and then beat him. Even though he is not a dog; you have confirmed him as a dog for all practical purposes, in order to beat him. Similarly, you want to capture Brahman or God, who is unimaginable and cannot be captured even by intensive process of imagination. Therefore, you name some imaginable item as Brahman, capture it and then claim that you have captured God. Whatever you named or subsequently captured is not the actual absolute God. You have captured some subtle part of the creation itself, and claim that you have captured Brahman, which is beyond Creation.

I will give a small illustration. One day yourself and your friends jumped for a long time and failed to touch the roof of your house. Therefore, all of you named the roof as unattainable, since it is untouchable by hand. For some years, you have practiced the high jump and could touch the roof by your hand. Now you declare that you have attained the unattainable. Actually the roof is not really and permanently unattainable item. The real and permanently unattainable item is the sky, which cannot be touched by you even through millions of births. Similarly, Brahman or God who is the Creator of this Universe is really and permanently unattainable, since He cannot be imagined even by the sharpest intelligence.

The reason for this is that God, the Creator, is beyond spatial dimensions, because He was the creator of this space. The Creator exists before the Creation of this space. This means that God existed even in the absence of the space before its creation. You can never imagine the absence
of space, because you and your intelligence cannot go beyond space by continuous efforts even for millions of lives. Even the minutest, you imagine, must have minutest spatial dimensions. It can never imagine anything without dimensions. Therefore, when you say that you have
captured or imagined something, it must be a part of the creation only. It might have not been captured till today due to lack of scientific analysis and sophisticated technical instruments and it does not mean that it is really unimaginable.

It remained unimaginable for a period of time due to lack of equipment, just like the roof of your house remained untouchable for some time
due to lack of practice in high jump. By touching the roof, you should not claim that you have touched the sky. By capturing the universal consciousness, you should not shout that you have captured God. Just like the roof is not the sky, the Universal Consciousness is not God.

Consciousness means awareness. Awareness is nothing but a specific work form of inert energy, which is transport of information from senses to brain through neuron cells. This transport is work only. Work is a form of inert energy only. Therefore, the work is also inert.
Even the specific work is inert because the image fallen on the eye, the lens of the eye, the light rays bringing the image, the neuron cells which are just specific chemicals, the force of movement of the cells and finally the brain, which is also a chemical fluid receiving the image –
all these are inert, inert and inert only. You have called this specific work by a new name ‘awareness’, which is actually and really inert only. Therefore, the soul and the body are purely inert and are functioning under the controlling power of God only. All the Creation from top to
bottom is inert only and the soul is a fine part of the creation called as Para Prakriti by Gita. If there is any non-inert item, it is just the God only.
Veda says that God is the controller of the entire Universe including the souls (Patim Vishvasya Aatmeswaram….). Now tell Me, whether you have captured the non-inert item (God) by capturing the inert consciousness? Consciousness or Awareness is a specific and subtle area of
the field of inert energy and inert matter. The capital city is the top most area of the kingdom. It is also in the kingdom only. It is not beyond the kingdom. Similarly, awareness is the top most fine area of the creation, which is a specific work called as consciousness or Awareness. This
does not mean that the awareness or consciousness is beyond Creation and hence is God.


A radio or T.V. is a specific technical instrument working on the principle of propagation of signals in the medium of continuous Universal Energy. Since the soul or awareness in a human being is also a specific work form of the same inert energy, the continuous medium of universal
energy itself can act as the common medium for the specific awareness also. There is no difference between a T.V. and a computer or robot in the sense that all are specific designs of machines made of inert materials or chemicals working with the help of the same inert energy modified into specific forms of those works.

Hence, the continuous universal inert energy is the common medium for all these specific machines like T.V., Computer, Robot and human being. The universal consciousness is a wrong word. Consciousness is limited to a human being like the computer technology limited to computer only. There is no universal computer technology spreading all over the universe. The inert energy is spreading all over the universe and is acting as a medium to propagate the signals for computer. Similarly, consciousness or awareness is a limited item in the name of a humanbeing and cannot be universal. The same universal inert energy acts as the medium to propagate
a specific variety of signals related to the human beings.
If God does not exist fully in the small then God is not universal thus not God.
Post Reply