Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric K wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:57 am So that's it - I can't reach the absolute state of MAL and have an experience that I can describe.
Yup, the idea of MAL as an absolute is not empirically supported.

One idea is that MAL is evolution of computation also without the hardware, the "pure" ideal aspect of universe could be all computation. I was listening to discussion between top computation guys last night, most of it went above my comprehension, but the graph approach to computation sounded very interesting also from idealist point of view of math and computation. Starting math and computation graph style not from quantification, but from pre-quantified relational operators interpreted as Bergson durations (aka Halting problems), that's still a very baby idea at least in our social sphere, but could be the foundation of universal CAD programming of universes. This interests me because during a communion with Ayahuasca I was taken into such "computer", a vast darkness oozing infinite potential (words make the wow aspect of it sound dull) and asked if I wanna play. Others have told of visiting same place, with different meanings and interpretations.

The mind sync phenomenon of brain storming was also very interesting comment:


Where time begins there are already multitude of beings already existing, on different levels of development. How this happens - beats me.
There's a simple and deep answer to that question: time begins now, with multiple origination of each now spreading to durations of various sizes and qualities. That's also the basic implication of quantum time, which is sometimes also explicated as such. A duration starts and spreads from it's center, like stone dropping on a still lake surface; and the stone starts from waves flowing inward and gathering together to form the stone. Time flowing in and flowing out can be both simultaneous and consecutive, and then on it starts to get really complicated... :D


All these things are resolved when consciousness continues to evolve. Every such tradition explores states of being that are slowly being integrated. This integration is not about closing our eyes and declaring 'it's all one' but reaching the deeper sources of existence. From there we can trace how different configurations of our invisible structure are experienced as different soul moods, different intellectual inclinations, different temperaments and so on. Man will slowly unveil these things.
Precondition of integration is diversification, generation of unique phenomena. The Source being an integrated whole does not mean it's "one" in the sense of existential quantification. Because of the hard problem etc. I object to language which implicates quantification too strongly.

Lou Gold wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 5:40 pm I was just curious if you had a similar or analogous direct experience?
I now knew from my direct experience that my consciousness can flow like a fluid in the space around the body. For me consciousness became something of a field. At this time I had zero spiritual knowledge. Only then I started to realize this what I was experiencing was the motivation for religions. The whole trip was very confused in retrospect. Materialism doesn't evaporate that easy - the "I" simply switches the concepts through which it explains itself to itself.
Current materialism of scientism and physicalism - there can be other kinds also, I assume - is based on existential quantification implicated by mathematical physics. Calculus in it's current form is extremely problematic area of math, which from quantified foundation can't really handle continua, except as approximations of applied math. Taking idealism and intuitive experiences seriously, math needs a foundation starting from continua.

Well, it's little convoluted. It is very convenient to imagine beings nicely arranged in a hierarchical structure but it's not that simple. There's one general rule - everything projects in everything :)
Dynamic holography. :)

Not just one of them, but all aspects of top to bottom, bottom up and peer to peer.
User avatar
Cleric K
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Cleric K »

Thanks Santeri, long time no see :)

I can also share some ideas in the above spirit. I was planning on writing a more extended essay or even series of essays but with the upcoming 280 bytes restrictions I'll just spew some hyperspace coordinates :) Maybe it will prove to be more fruitful after all - it'll be a practical experiment :)

A little context first:
Mathew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
This is usually interpreted quite allegorically but it shines in very literal light when we approach the pinhole at the threshold. The 'richness' is not only physical wealth (which is obvious that we can't take through the threshold of death) but also holds for spiritual 'wealth'. For example most of our abstract theories don't survive the transition. We can imagine metaphorically a whirlpool in the ocean. A ship can't pass through the center intact. The shear stress tears it apart. Only what can be aligned with the streamlines of vorticity can implode through the center and emerge again on the 'other side'.

Our abstract theories are such 'ships'. While we are operating in intellectual mode we can hold them together but as soon as the intellect implodes, so do all our theories. But this doesn't mean that spiritual activity concealed in thought disappears. It's only that thoughts aligned with the streamlines of vorticity can transduce.

Through the years I've been trying to test scientific ideas and see how they survive the implosion. I've distilled some ideas that remain more or less meaningful even in the higher state. For example, the fractal analogy that we discussed with Ashvin above is one such model that shatters when it faces reality (there are other ways we can use the fractal analogy fruitfully). It should be stressed that these ideas are not to become abstract theories. They can never be anything more than metaphors for higher forms of cognition.

Here are the ideas in cryptic form. Many more things can be said to relate them together.

:idea: Let's imagine a state of being as something akin to a 'frame' of existence. The state represents the totality of perceptions and the corresponding ideas. There's no 'outer' world - just a state of pure spiritual being with all its contents.

:idea: Let's imagine that all conceivable such states of being exist simultaneously overlaid on one another, sharing a common center. Not only 'our' states but the states of all beings - manifest or potential. And not only the states of 'now' but the states belonging to any conceivable time.

:idea: We can imagine that each state is determined by the 'interference' of the whole infinity of all other states. Clearly, from the point of view of the other states, the first state is part of their interference with it and all other state. This gives us a recursive pattern, like the infinite reflection between mirrors. It's only that we shouldn't imagine this reflection as a process occurring 'in time'. If it helps we can imagine that these recursive interferences are pre-computed to infinity. This might look very disappointing for the intellect but it's actually a very healthy exercise. Most of the problems of the intellect issue from the fact that we try to take some ideas as ground truths and show how everything else proceeds from them. The above idea shatters this view. All concepts are relative truths. They are defined through every other. This can be seen even in a definitions dictionary - every word leads us to other words, which lead us back to the first. There are no 'ground words' from which all other grow out. This doesn't mean that concepts don't have hierarchical relations - clearly they do. It's only that neither we can produce the concept of 'whole' from the 'parts', nor we can produce the concepts of the isolated 'parts' from the concept of the 'whole'.

:idea: If this is the case why don't we experience the whole multiverse interfering in our state? Because most of the interferences 'cancel out'. To put it into a childish example, we can imagine if one state projects into ours as a pull to the left, while another as a pull to the right, both states equalize themselves and as a result we don't recognize any of them. This is not as crazy as it sounds. It's actually what quantum mechanics has reached in its own way. Probably everyone here knows that in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) it's not a law that light travels in a straight line. Actually in QED all possibilities must be taken into account - every conceivable path of a photon, even if it is the most absurd, like a photon starting from A, circling the universe several times and getting to B. When all paths are integrated (see Feynman path integration) it turns out that most of the paths cancel out and only the paths that connect A and B in more or less straight line remain as probable.

:idea: So every our state of being is an interference off all infinite states - some 'add up', some 'cancel out'. Some of these that add up can be thought of as our 'past states' that project into our current as memory.

:idea: The picture of 'states' is only a helper concept for the intellect. As a matter of fact nowhere we can see an isolated 'state' as a thing in itself. What we experience is eternal transition between states. Here I should refer to my explanation of the arrow of time from the long post before. Just as Santeri said - there is only Now - all states are experienced simultaneously. Nevertheless, there's a Great Mysteriousness which makes us experience forever the transition between two states. We can imagine that we constantly transition from our current state to all other states at the same time. Yet only those states that interfere constructively with the previous (imprinted as memory) can be experienced as a stream of consciousness. We can imagine that our next state is the one of John Smith on the other side of the world or in a wookie long time ago in a galaxy far far away. But these states will be in harmonic relations with completely different set of states. There's nothing in these states that can tell me that I reached them from my current state. Actually these other states will immediately be felt as proceeding from completely different progression of states.

:idea: This gives us natural understanding also for higher states. We can imagine a state of being where great domains of other states interfere constructively. We can even go as far as to hypothesize such states that result in the constructive interference of the whole infinite potential of states. From the point of view of that state it'll be like every other state fits naturally in it, as if every conceivable state is first-person 'memory' for it. This is only for stretching our minds, we can't tell if it's possible to experience such a state as a part of a stream.

:idea: From our point of view of states progression we can also experience other states that are also moving in progressions parallel with us. It's as if our current state sounds as a tuning fork and all states that are attuned to ours ring back constructively in resonance. As our state progresses further, the phase of our sound increments and with this also the states that will ring back in resonance. In certain way our state forms a Cosmic Horizon that relates us with other states. That's how we reach the idea of 'now' as a horizon of experience within time. These other states that seem to exhibit certain integration, just as we do, we can call beings. It should be noted that here we are also in perfect accord with the findings of General Relativity (if interpreted in spiritual sense) - everything is relative to our state of being.

:idea: It must be stressed that the above ideas can never be used as some theory of everything. It's only a very general metaphor. In no way we can derive from this the structure of the Solar system, the structure of man, animals, etc. If we were able to derive all this from abstract principles it would mean that this is the only possible form of experience. Instead, we find ourselves in this specific experience - a state within infinity of states. Yet the way we described things shows that we are not stuck in exploring linearly through the infinity of states (horizontal, linear time). We can also transition towards states that interfere harmonically with more and more other states (vertical, non-linear time). In this way we grow in consciousness and understand how the states of all other beings project and shape our state and how we project in them and shape theirs. There's a very elegant way to use the metaphor we're here building for the description of the three higher stages of consciousness known from Spiritual Science but I'll leave this for another time.
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Cleric K wrote: Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:15 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:06 pm TL,DR ... Suffice to say that Cleric will have no problem in complying with some new rule about all posts having to exceed 280 characters (moderators excepted of course)

As long as there's no limit to the number of 280-character posts, we're good :D

Joke aside, I really look forward to the times when we'll be able to do that. Short messages rest on the assumption that we all operate under the same "coordinate system". Believe me - I would gladly post a tuple of hyperspace coordinates instead of the torrents above. Then everyone would just transform his state to the coordinates in question and be able to describe out of himself what is written above. Unfortunately we're not there yet. It would be a real challenge for the medieval traveler to describe the route from Rome to Jerusalem in 280 characters.


Beam me up Cleric ! Perhaps instead, just to make things a bit more challenging, the new rule, for numerological reasons, will be that all posts must be 333 characters exactly, no more, no less.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
User avatar
Martin_
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Martin_ »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm Perhaps instead, just to make things a bit more challenging, the new rule, for numerological reasons, will be that all posts must be 333 characters exactly, no more, no less.
That's not very inclusive... What about the poor souls that would like to post with exactly twice the number...
"I don't understand." /Unknown
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

Martin_ wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:13 pmThat's not very inclusive... What about the poor souls that would like to post with exactly twice the number...
Ok Martin, for those Satanists among us, we'll allow posts of 666 characters :mrgreen:
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by SanteriSatama »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm Beam me up Cleric ! Perhaps instead, just to make things a bit more challenging, the new rule, for numerological reasons, will be that all posts must be 333 characters exactly, no more, no less.
That's outdated heresy. The orthodox numerology of doubling down requires that all posts must be 666 characters exactly.
User avatar
Eugene I
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2021 9:49 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Eugene I »

SanteriSatama wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:49 am This interests me because during a communion with Ayahuasca I was taken into such "computer", a vast darkness oozing infinite potential (words make the wow aspect of it sound dull) and asked if I wanna play. Others have told of visiting same place, with different meanings and interpretations.
Santeri, I also resonate with such infinite computational model of Consciousness.

Cleric, good thoughts on the universe of Consciousness as the wholeness of interfering states per Feynman path integral approach, makes good sense.
"Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kanzas anymore" Dorothy
User avatar
Soul_of_Shu
Posts: 2023
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by Soul_of_Shu »

SanteriSatama wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:02 pm
Soul_of_Shu wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:57 pm Beam me up Cleric ! Perhaps instead, just to make things a bit more challenging, the new rule, for numerological reasons, will be that all posts must be 333 characters exactly, no more, no less.


That's outdated heresy. The orthodox numerology of doubling down requires that all posts must be 666 characters exactly.


Sanateri ... Martin beat you to that observation. But now I'm thinking that to honour the sacred triune we should triple down and make it 999.
Here out of instinct or grace we seek
soulmates in these galleries of hieroglyph and glass,
where mutual longings and sufferings of love
are laid bare in transfigured exhibition of our hearts,
we who crave deep secrets and mysteries,
as elusive as the avatars of our dreams.
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by SanteriSatama »

Cleric,

Metaphor is a nice concept-tool for discussing what can pass the vortex of transformations, as it literally means 'carrying beyond'. Theoretical attitude can be given - or maintaining the Aristotelean meaning- of non-interfering witnessing. But as the Wild Fox Koan teaches, we should not infer that witnessing is beyond dynamics of cause and effect.. The passive aspect of witnessing allows transforming to happen, as your larval self-image turns into indifferentiated pulp which somehow contains the potential and actuality of your next self image, a butterfly coming out of the chrysalis. The passive witnessing and transforming is just another pole of waveforms coming in from the pole where they flow out - in the geometric metaphor of waves traveling along the surface of a sphere.

My philosophy of time is very much early stage of WIP, but I would be careful not to suggest "there's only now". Western mind has been largely conditioned to think that time has beginning and end and exists as interval between those. To contrast this, inspired some physicists etc, I'm suggesting that time can be more coherently discussed as mereology of Bergson durations, and a duration starts from its center origin, a now, which spreads indefinitely (in the sense of undecidability of Halting problem) towards both past and present and what not fractal etc. dimensions. Past and present can be here conceived as analogical to number and antinumber, matter and antinumber etc. versions of the basic scheme. Some now-events are much more meaningful than others; obviously, and can spread to very big durations, while other durations pop nearly immediately and merge into some larger process.

A nice more concrete - in the math sense - fact: the perfect other of a waveform is it's exact negation, you can silence a noise with the opposite noise. If the noise is a state-like standing wave, but not if the wave pattern is constantly changing and evolving. Which brings the discussion to the abstract starting point of "states". For process philosophy at least, processes and flows are real, and states are by some degree less real abstract metaphors and descriptions of processes that have some degree and quality of order to them.

The current standard theory of math is a very abstract state, and the deep structure of theory of real numbers is absolutely static Indra's Net. To make complex picture simple, it's not too far fetched to say that each point of the real line contains infinite string of symbols, ie. all the classical information - and in that same all real point-numbers (pseudonumbers IMHO) are same like all jewels of Indra's Net are the same.

Actual technological holography is not static, it's process that involves at least differences of scale and resolution, and spiritual holography of mereology of durations is much more dynamic, defined also by constant differentiation by more-less relation at least.

While maybe and probably not total and absolute truth, my process philosophical approach and conceptualization of order is at least very highly bipolar. ;)
SanteriSatama
Posts: 1030
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:07 pm

Re: Cosmic Consciousness: meta-cognitive or non-meta-cognitive?

Post by SanteriSatama »

Soul_of_Shu wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:47 pm Sanateri ... Martin beat you to that observation. But now I'm thinking that to honour the sacred triune we should triple down and make it 999.
The bastard. As a Satanic compromise I suggest each post must have 333 positive and 333 negative letters, to balance the hole of meaning.
Post Reply