Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?

[Douglas Ek]

I very much prefer psilocybin. LSD distorts reality when you take more than a little, whereas psilo causes you to notice everything around you. It's like you remove a filter, both perceptionally and emotionally.

Depends all on the dose. You done the terence mckenna dose of shrooms? Its more like DMT but for a lot longer. Not strange they become very similair in high doses because psilocybin breaksdown to the active drug psilocin which is just another name for 4-hydroxy DMT. Imagine 6 hours DMT trip.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

I get his point. His point is you accept the rules of the game aka the world that we percieve through our senses. But yeah there’s no way to validate anything really. But what does even reality mean. Its a made up word and description that we humans conjured up. When you sleep and dream why is that not reality? It is actually reality because in reality you’re percieving it and then it might as well be real since its real for the person dreaming it. Not untill he wakes up he can validate that it was not reality. The emotions are real. Still we state that its not in a true meaning what we define reality. We can all be a simulation aswell anything is possible and then we can also ask us the question do we have free will? If we don’t then are we even alive? Might as well be rolling rocks if you get what i mean. Even dead objects can move and might even percieve. Trippy stuff. I dont think that mankind will ever understand the universe and reality what it is etc...

There is only one thing you can know for sure. You are aware. All things happen in human conciousness. There is nothing that can be perceived outside it, all things, hands, science, tables, spirits, aliens, Superman are all inside human conciousness. Could you ever perceive anything outside it? How could you?

I accept the words that appear on my computer screen and the mouse pointer that moves when I move the mouse. But that is a pragmatic perspective, there is no movement in the computer screen, I simply conceptualize it like that because it is useful. The same way I accept the rules of a computer game if I play one, but there is no actual shooting going on. This actually has a pragmatic dimension to it, because once you realize it in a deep way, you are free from thoughts, emotions and sensations. Living becomes fundamentally different, like watching a movie it stops being so damn important. Even physical pain becomes of less importance, and in fact can not be felt when you pay attention to the source of all experience.

 

[Kartoffel]

Depends all on the dose. You done the terence mckenna dose of shrooms? Its more like DMT but for a lot longer. Not strange they become very similair in high doses because psilocybin breaksdown to the active drug psilocin which is just another name for 4-hydroxy DMT. Imagine 6 hours DMT trip.

Never heard of him, but I'll check it out. How much does he suggest?

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Now that's just bs. Just because someone isn't mentally disturbed and questions the reality of the material world, doesn't mean that they won't question interpretations and conventional "knowledge". It's precisely the kind of people that engage empirically with the material world that made all the great discoveries. I don't know of a single one of them that subscribed to philosophical scepticism. Go ask Peat whether he sometimes questions the reality of the material world.
It's funny that you mention black holes because it's exactely this kind of nonsense that you get when you lose touch with reality and think in terms of abstract quantum mechanics, and are unable to see the obvious things right in front of you. Black holes don't exist as far as I am concerned, and the scientists belonging to the Electric Universe have shown in very simple ways (with empirical observations) why there is no evidence for them, and why they don't exist.
Progress in physics (and basically everywhere else) stopped after WWII when empiricism and experimentation were cast aside by sceptics thingking in terms of quantum mechanics, dark energy, black holes, and uncertainty.

If you accept that the material world is real, and can be grasped and understood by observation and experimentation, you will be able to make sense of it. This is what drives scientific progress. The stuff that @Hugh Johnson writes is nothing more than Plato's old idea of innate ideas and concepts. It's the antithesis to knowledge and progress. It's solipsism, the worst kind of mental state.

It is obviously none of those things, I can not even understand how you would come to that conclusion.

 

[Kartoffel]

I can not even understand how you would come to that conclusion.

Yes, you do. At least I hope you do.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Yes, you do. At least I hope you do.

You keep making these ridiculous assertions which you then back with other assertions never actually formulating a single argument.

 

[Kartoffel]

You keep making these ridiculous assertions which you then back with other assertions never actually formulating a single argument.

Lol. You're the one refusing to make any single scientific proposition here, and then ask others to disprove that which cannot be disproven. You say the material world does not exist and everything exists only inside of consciousness. You want to tell me you are incapable of understanding how this logic leads to solipsism? People like Descartes atleast admitted where their nonsense is leading us.

 

[Douglas Ek]

Never heard of him, but I'll check it out. How much does he suggest?

https://www.psymposia.com/magazine/largest-dose-psilocybin-fda-study-3/
This is interesting article similair of what you could expect. I think its 5 grams of dried mushrooms. People tend to become sort of unconcious and go into another state of mind. Did similair dose once think it was 4 grams brewed in te extremly intense and fast onset. Felt like an enternity but also like it was over in a minute.

 

[Kemby]

"Is The Universe A Conscious Mind?"

Yes, I've been telling people this for 20 years.

 

[lampofred]

There is only one thing you can know for sure. You are aware. All things happen in human conciousness. There is nothing that can be perceived outside it, all things, hands, science, tables, spirits, aliens, Superman are all inside human conciousness. Could you ever perceive anything outside it? How could you?

I accept the words that appear on my computer screen and the mouse pointer that moves when I move the mouse. But that is a pragmatic perspective, there is no movement in the computer screen, I simply conceptualize it like that because it is useful. The same way I accept the rules of a computer game if I play one, but there is no actual shooting going on. This actually has a pragmatic dimension to it, because once you realize it in a deep way, you are free from thoughts, emotions and sensations. Living becomes fundamentally different, like watching a movie it stops being so damn important. Even physical pain becomes of less importance, and in fact can not be felt when you pay attention to the source of all experience.

I've read spiritual philosophies like this before. It's helpful when you're under stress because believing that nothing is real will lower pain and anxiety, but it prevents you from being fully involved in life. By blocking the lows you're numbing out the highs as well. It functions exactly like an SSRI.

I think Peat would say true emotional stability comes from high energy levels, as opposed to trying to dissociate oneself from reality

 

[Gone Peating]

I think first we need a definitive definition of what consciousness is before we can ask questions such as this

 

[Douglas Ek]

It is obviously none of those things, I can not even understand how you would come to that conclusion.

What is your take on black holes Hugh? :)

 

[Douglas Ek]

There is only one thing you can know for sure. You are aware. All things happen in human conciousness. There is nothing that can be perceived outside it, all things, hands, science, tables, spirits, aliens, Superman are all inside human conciousness. Could you ever perceive anything outside it? How could you?

I accept the words that appear on my computer screen and the mouse pointer that moves when I move the mouse. But that is a pragmatic perspective, there is no movement in the computer screen, I simply conceptualize it like that because it is useful. The same way I accept the rules of a computer game if I play one, but there is no actual shooting going on. This actually has a pragmatic dimension to it, because once you realize it in a deep way, you are free from thoughts, emotions and sensations. Living becomes fundamentally different, like watching a movie it stops being so damn important. Even physical pain becomes of less importance, and in fact can not be felt when you pay attention to the source of all experience.

I agree that this is the case. The reality you can percieve could be 100% fake its not relevant because we cant seem to percieve another reality but we never know what happens when you die. It could be like waking from a dream. Is that so far fetched? If you think so then do you remember how you came into this life? No you dont. You just woke up one day as a kid in a bed and you had a life or you cant remember. Same could happen again. Its the most likely outcome that will happen if you die. If you already woke up once. Then why not twice? Well are you gonna accept the reality you wake up in? The consequences of your action in the previous life wont have any meaning anymore. So did they even happen? So the reality you had in your previous life was it in anyway even real or anyway you can prove it? No you would not be able to. So opposite of what kartoffel say theres always a chance he will wake up when he dies in a new reality and not even remember that he was so certain his previous reality was reality. But now he has a new reality. The concept of reality is not the visual reality that we can experience. Reality is what we decide it to be just like humans have decided everything else about whats real or not in this reality.
But I can sympathize with him as its easier for him just to accept the rules of this reality as his thought patterns are of simple nature and its easier to just accept and be a moron in the ocean of bilions than to speculate theories that his brain cant seem to comprehend. I speculate because its fun. Its like a thought puzzle. Connect the dots. Grows your mind. I can agree that the puzzles doesnt have any purpose because there is no true answer and we will never know in this life

 

[Douglas Ek]

I think first we need a definitive definition of what consciousness is before we can ask questions such as this

Well reality is consciusness. What consciousness is we don’t know. We cant say if we are conscious although we accept by definition of our standards we created for conscious beings that we are conscious. We cant say if the universe is conscious but we define it as not being conscious by standards. OP and this post argue that universe might in fact be a conscious mind. Maybe it’s the mind of human being. And we are just memories stored in his brain cells. Reminds me of that comparison photo of the universe webb with a photo of brain tissue.

 

[Douglas Ek]

Lol. You're the one refusing to make any single scientific proposition here, and then ask others to disprove that which cannot be disproven. You say the material world does not exist and everything exists only inside of consciousness. You want to tell me you are incapable of understanding how this logic leads to solipsism? People like Descartes atleast admitted where their nonsense is leading us.

Also you say quantum mechanics doesnt work and are just theories. Both atomic clocks and Quantum clocks rely on these theories to be true. Thats how our GPS systems are so accurate today. So yeah I guess science was all wrong about that and the earth is flat or something aswell?

 

[sunraiser]

Lol. You're the one refusing to make any single scientific proposition here, and then ask others to disprove that which cannot be disproven. You say the material world does not exist and everything exists only inside of consciousness. You want to tell me you are incapable of understanding how this logic leads to solipsism? People like Descartes atleast admitted where their nonsense is leading us.

Quoting this post but this is more in response to all of your posts on the thread.

It's possible that I'm not quite on the same track as @Hugh Johnson, but I feel opposed to your staunch point of view because of notions that are in a similar vein.

We exist through our perspectives and these cannot account for all existence - they're merely a perspective, not the (whole) truth. I'm not saying the material world doesn't exist, more that many things exist OUTSIDE our ability to perceive, and to cling so tightly onto a need for scientific explaination with the awareness that our perspectives cannot account for the entirity of existence (maybe not the right word?) is closed minded and flawed, to me.

For a really rudimentary example, a snake partly sees through infra red - the snakes perceptions of the world are different to ours, but as far as the snake is aware that's the entirety of existence.

You argue that science is being held back by notions like this one, but I'd say human WISDOM is being held back by science at current, in that it SO OFTEN doesn't account for the possibility of our ignorance. The things that exist outside our spheres of perception could redefine the context of what we think we know (like a different dimensional plane).

There could (very likely...) exist things we will never be able to comprehend based on our limited human ability to perceive, so it's naive to assume our perspectives can ever be the whole truth. It's okay to have a great unknown and I personally think it's particularly beautiful to have this perspective.

Having a strong need or desire for rigid truth of given theories or propositions and fervently blocking out acceptance of things beyond this perceived "knowledge" is a great limiter on human wisdom in my opinion. Your truth is based on very very incomplete information and comes from a perspective that cannot possibly account for the many unknowns that, given the infinity of the universe (and infancy of human exploration and knowledge) MUST exist. To hold so strongly to the idea that - "if it can't be disproven then it's not scientific and therefore of no use" might make you a scientist, but it doesn't promote or enhance wisdom.

This isn't a personal attack on you, just a counter to your position. I find this conversation really interesting!

 

[rei]

Interesting thread, a month or so ago i posted here mentioning Bernardo Kastrup, and he argues for mentalism. Some good videos exist on youtube.

It really seems to be the most parsimonious view and appears to have the power to rescue modern science from it's religious theories. I have always believed that opinions are irrelevant because truth is not an opinion, and here we have a paradigm shift that is happening not because a majority of scientists think so, but because it uses the existing accepted rules of logic and philosophy to disprove the old view.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

What is your take on black holes Hugh? :)

I neither know or care.

I've read spiritual philosophies like this before. It's helpful when you're under stress because believing that nothing is real will lower pain and anxiety, but it prevents you from being fully involved in life. By blocking the lows you're numbing out the highs as well. It functions exactly like an SSRI.

I think Peat would say true emotional stability comes from high energy levels, as opposed to trying to dissociate oneself from reality

You are not forming an argument, though you might imagine you are.

Lol. You're the one refusing to make any single scientific proposition here, and then ask others to disprove that which cannot be disproven. You say the material world does not exist and everything exists only inside of consciousness. You want to tell me you are incapable of understanding how this logic leads to solipsism? People like Descartes atleast admitted where their nonsense is leading us.

Explain how this leads to solipsism. I'm not seeing that. And I did not claim material world does not exist, you should work on your reading comprehension.

Everything you can say exists, only exists in conciousness. Give me one counterargument, a thing that exists but is not in awareness. Prove to me material world exists, and is not a simple epiphenomenon of conciousness. If you are going to claim that the material world exists, you should provide evidence for that.

 

[Kartoffel]

Explain how this leads to solipsism. I'm not seeing that. And I did not claim material world does not exist, you should work on your reading comprehension.

You said its' existence is "purely hypothetical." When the existence of something is not proven, not even to some extent as the formulation "purely hypothetical" implies, it doesn't exist, as far as semantics and common sense discourse are concerned. Maybe you should work on your comprehension of basic semantics. I already explained why scepticism leads to solipsism. I am not going to explain it again. Read my post or do a quick google search.

Everything you can say exists, only exists in conciousness. Give me one counterargument, a thing that exists but is not in awareness. Prove to me material world exists, and is not a simple epiphenomenon of conciousness. If you are going to claim that the material world exists, you should provide evidence for that.

When 100 people stand in front of a tree, and they all see the same thing (with slight variations in perception), and agree that it conforms to the commonly accepted mental concept of a tree, why is that? There obviously seems to be a common source that leads to the conceptualization of a highly similar object in their mind. Every sane person that accepts basic common sense philosophy will agree it's because they all perceive the same thing in the world.
Can you please stop asking me to provide a proof for the existence of the material world like you're a broken record? I already explained that's impossible. Common sense philosophy and empiricism are built on the 1st axiom that the material world exists because it is by far the best hypothesis, and science would be meaningless without it. The most elementary common sense and the most sophisticated science all share the same conviction: the objects we perceive through the senses have a reality that is independent of us. Those are not my original thoughts, this premise has been accepted by everyone from Locke, Hume, Russell, Einstein, Popper to Peat. You can either accept it, too, or remain mentally stuck in your cartesian solipsism.

 

[lampofred]

You are not forming an argument, though you might imagine you are.

I never said I was trying to either prove or disprove anything. I'm way too young and dumb to have opinions on grand metaphysical matters like that. I was just saying regardless of whether it's true or not, believing in something like that will numb you to life -- it's good that you won't feel lows, but you won't be able to feel real highs either. It's a very "old-person", serotonin-driven view of life. A youthful, dopamine-driven view of life is much more alert/emotionally involved. The former viewpoint might be wiser than the latter, but the latter viewpoint is more energetic/associated with high metabolism even though it might be said to be more "foolish".