Consciousness is all there is

[Eugene I]

Well, Cleric, mathematicians argued about this topic for centuries with still no consensus. The formula of the Mandelbrot fractal is a simple math idea, yet it represents the whole fractal with the wholeness of all its inter-relations. Mandelbrot explored various iterative algorithms and randomly found this elegant formula. Did the fractal "exist" before it was "discovered" by Mandelbrot? We do not know, and mathematicians themselves have different opinions on that. Kurt Gödel was a Platonist and believed that math ideas exist in no-time-no-space world of Platonic ideas. Brouwer did not share such belief.

But in any case, I agree that what consciousness does is exploring the infinite world of "potentially possible" ideas. Whether or not these ideas actually exist "prior to" being experienced by consciousness we do not know and, I agree, it is actually irrelevant.

But one thing we can agree within the framework of idealism is: the perceived world is a manifestation/perception of a whole structure of inter-related ideations existing in the creator-mind, and in that sense for us they do exist in such "divine mind" no matter whether we experience them or not. And, through our cognition and communication with the divine mind we can reach to these ideas and comprehend them.

Yet, as I said in the above posts, it is important to realize that these ideas are only the "content" of the "dance of consciousness". It's not the ideas that "dance" Consciousness, it's Consciousness that "dances" ideas. The ideas are optional, temporary, impermanent. The divine mind (or minds) could shape its ideations about the world in a very different way and use different physical laws to govern the appearance of the world, so these ideations of the world (and the appearance of the world in our perceptions) could be very different. Or, the divine mind(s) could choose not to manifest the world at all. Consciousness can create, explore or drop ideas at its will, but Consciousness itself never changes, it can not "drop" itself, it can not cease to exist and to be aware. Consciousness is not conditioned by its own ideas. Consciousness creates, experiences, conditions and governs itself to explores ideas using its volitional ability, but it's not the ideas that create, condition or govern Consciousness. So, there is a fundamental freedom that Consciousness has with respect to ideas. Yet, since Consciousness has the innate ability to think and manipulate ideas, it uses such ability (just because it can) and has unlimited fun exploring and learning the unlimited world of ideas, and there is no end to learning and exploring it.

[AshvinP]

Well, Cleric, mathematicians argued about this topic for centuries with still no consensus. The formula of the Mandelbrot fractal is a simple math idea, yet it represents the whole fractal with the wholeness of all its inter-relations. Mandelbrot explored various iterative algorithms and randomly found this elegant formula. Did the fractal "exist" before it was "discovered" by Mandelbrot? We do not know, and mathematicians themselves have different opinions on that. Kurt Gödel was a Platonist and believed that math ideas exist in no-time-no-space world of Platonic ideas. Brouwer did not share such belief.

I am curious as to how mathematical objects could be "invented" under idealism? As Cleric pointed out, this is generally the wrong question to even be asking because it makes no difference in our practical existence, but it is still a curiosity. How could an ideal form not exist before it is "discovered"? Perhaps the question turns on the meaning of "discovered", because no ideal form can exist until it is thought by someone (under idealism), and since ideal forms have always existed (also under idealism), they have always been thought by someone. Although "discovery" seems to imply that it was not only thought, but someone becomes aware it was thought. This also relates to the Shermer-Peterson interview I just posted - JP points out one way to distinguish between "invention" vs. "discovery" of meanings attached to ideal content is to see how much evidence from different methodologies, like philosophy, evolutionary theory, neuroscience, etc., converge on a specific phenomenon. If we truly exist in a unified realm of shared meanings, and the meaning at issue is valid, then all methods (perspectives) should converge on that meaning.

[Eugene I]

I am curious as to how mathematical objects could be "invented" under idealism? As Cleric pointed out, this is generally the wrong question to even be asking because it makes no difference in our practical existence, but it is still a curiosity. How could an ideal form not exist before it is "discovered"? Perhaps the question turns on the meaning of "discovered", because no ideal form can exist until it is thought by someone (under idealism), and since ideal forms have always existed (also under idealism), they have always been thought by someone. Although "discovery" seems to imply that it was not only thought, but someone becomes aware it was thought. This also relates to the Shermer-Peterson interview I just posted - JP points out one way to distinguish between "invention" vs. "discovery" of meanings attached to ideal content is to see how much evidence from different methodologies, like philosophy, evolutionary theory, neuroscience, etc., converge on a specific phenomenon. If we truly exist in a unified realm of shared meanings, and the meaning at issue is valid, then all methods (perspectives) should converge on that meaning.

You are voicing Platonism again, so we are going in circles. There is 2.5 millennia of history behind the Platonic and non-Platonic versions of idealism and a dispute between them, with no resolution whatsoever.

"and since ideal forms have always existed (also under idealism), they have always been thought by someone. "

- not necessarily true. There is an uncountably infinite variety of mathematical forms that are impossible to exhaust and think all of them. Refer to Hoffman's "Gödel candy shop". Even if we assume for a sec that the number of the individual minds in the universe of Cosnciousness is infinite, it would be only a countable infinity. But the variety of mathematical forms and ideas is uncountable infinity, so it is impossible for all the minds in the universe to think all the possible mathematical ideas. For example, there is uncountable infinity of possible geometrical shapes, and so uncountable infinity of the possible ideas of all possible geometrical shapes (I hope you are familiar with the difference between countable and uncountable infinities per Kantor's infinite set theory). But yes, once some of those ideas become "invented" or "discovered" (whatever we want to call it) by one of the minds (whether it can be one of the divine minds or one of the human ones), then they become shared and spread between the minds and become part of the shared content.

[AshvinP]

I am curious as to how mathematical objects could be "invented" under idealism? As Cleric pointed out, this is generally the wrong question to even be asking because it makes no difference in our practical existence, but it is still a curiosity. How could an ideal form not exist before it is "discovered"? Perhaps the question turns on the meaning of "discovered", because no ideal form can exist until it is thought by someone (under idealism), and since ideal forms have always existed (also under idealism), they have always been thought by someone. Although "discovery" seems to imply that it was not only thought, but someone becomes aware it was thought. This also relates to the Shermer-Peterson interview I just posted - JP points out one way to distinguish between "invention" vs. "discovery" of meanings attached to ideal content is to see how much evidence from different methodologies, like philosophy, evolutionary theory, neuroscience, etc., converge on a specific phenomenon. If we truly exist in a unified realm of shared meanings, and the meaning at issue is valid, then all methods (perspectives) should converge on that meaning.

You are voicing Platonism again, so we are going in circles. There is 2.5 millennia of history behind the Platonic and non-Platonic versions of idealism and a dispute between them, with no resolution whatsoever.

"and since ideal forms have always existed (also under idealism), they have always been thought by someone. "

- not necessarily true. There is an uncountably infinite variety of mathematical forms that are impossible to exhaust and think all of them. Refer to Hoffman's "Gödel candy shop". Even if we assume for a sec that the number of the individual minds in the universe of Cosnciousness is infinite, it would be only a countable infinity. But the variety of mathematical forms and ideas is uncountable infinity, so it is impossible for all the minds in the universe to think all the possible mathematical ideas. For example, there is uncountable infinity of possible geometrical shapes, and so uncountable infinity of the possible ideas of all possible geometrical shapes (I hope you are familiar with the difference between countable and uncountable infinities per Kantor's infinite set theory). But yes, once some of those ideas become "invented" or "discovered" (whatever we want to call it) by one of the minds (whether it can be one of the divine minds or one of the human ones), then they become shared and spread between the minds and become part of the shared content.

I am going to start a new thread and respond there.

[Ed Konderla]

I have basically scanned all of these comments and am left to ponder, "Are all of these words really necessary?" Do people that think like this actually go out armed with all of these words to face their day? Beat me up, I can take it. This isn't my first rodeo.

The words are secondary, what matter is our perception and default interpretation of the world. Most of our troubles as humans stem from that. But the words can communicate a different perception and possibly induce a change of it in whoever is open to such change.

Most of our troubles as humans stem from being humans. Don't get me wrong, I have known many people that have lots and lots of words to describe their inner reality and claim to have reached the pinnacle of thought and understanding. I've always likes Sagan's Standard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I have sat in a fundamentalist church watching people "testify". My favorite one being a lady, a really large lady with a family that was all really "large" standing up and claiming Jeeesuus had given her the new color television she had prayed for, Thank you Jeeesuus. And everybody said amen with the exception of myself possibly some others and I said under my breath, Jesus effing Christ. Now Jeesuus was so concerned about her tv that he insured she got one while letting another mother comfort her child dying from starvation half a world away. Makes perfect sense to me. So all of this talk about peoples visits to the other dimensions and their takeaway as far as the significance leaves me with the same reaction. I have done more journeys using hallucinogen's than anyone I personally know. Many times while holding a top secret security clearance working on nuclear bombing systems. Makes you feel secure doesn't it. So I don't understand the authority everyone seems to feel on elaborating where this journey is taking us and what the desired outcome is. While everyone seems to be making extraordinary claims where is the extraordinary proof? Why should anyone take your claims at face value? Why would anyone take all of these endless number of words and then go out and try to make sense out of this reality? Just asking.

.

[Eugene I]

So I don't understand the authority everyone seems to feel on elaborating where this journey is taking us and what the desired outcome is. While everyone seems to be making extraordinary claims where is the extraordinary proof? Why should anyone take your claims at face value? Why would anyone take all of these endless number of words and then go out and try to make sense out of this reality? Just asking.

Chill out, it's just philosophy , no "extraordinary claims" here, at least on my part. Most people do philosophy just because it's a fun way to explore the world of ideas (we are just taking about that here)

[Ed Konderla]

I am chilled out. I'm just the most doubting Thomas you ever met. I enjoy sewing discord and challenging people. I actually do believe Idealism offers a viable opportunity to redirect our thinking in a more constructive direction. Now what I am unsure of is what direction that new thinking should take. If ones assumption is that this plane of reality has no tangible significance I'm fine with that observation Not saying I agree but I can see why someone using Idealism as their authority could come to that conclusion. By the same token I can see where someone like Bernardo sees great significance in every thought and action. Everything from taking the life of an innocent animal to the Catholic Church's position on the gay lifestyle. So to Bernardo there appears to be a right outcome and he knows what that outcome should be. I assume he also ties this back to Idealism. I get lost in all of the convoluted logic that on one hand says nothing on this plane really matters and everything that matters is "out there" somewhere. And just like most Christians that state that the only thing that matters is their soul and it's salvation are the worlds worst at clinging to this physical reality and protecting their physical comfort and security. So which is it? Does what we do here matter and if so why? Answer that and not in large nebulous words but specifically why. And if it doesn't matter and the only thing that matters or is worthwhile is "out" there then why not take a large opioid overdose and get to it.

[Eugene I]

Does what we do here matter and if so why? Answer that and not in large nebulous words but specifically why. And if it doesn't matter and the only thing that matters or is worthwhile is "out" there then why not take a large opioid overdose and get to it.

Of course it matters, because if we do things here in one ("inappropriate") way, we will suffer and make others around suffer, and if we do it in another ("appropriate") way, we and they will not suffer (or at least hopefully suffer less). So, no matter how "real" or "unreal" the appearance of the world may seem to us, our suffering or happiness when we do things in this world is absolutely real - it is what we actually experience.

And part of the reason why we do "inappropriate" things here is because we have distorted views and interpretations of reality, distorted reasons to do things in a distorted way. And this is where philosophy and spiritual practice helps - to clear the mind from our distorted misperceptions and miscomprehensions. Well, ideally ... Because what often happens is that people simply replace one set of distorted ideas with another similarly distorted one.

[AshvinP]

Does what we do here matter and if so why? Answer that and not in large nebulous words but specifically why. And if it doesn't matter and the only thing that matters or is worthwhile is "out" there then why not take a large opioid overdose and get to it.

Of course it matters, because if we do things here in one ("inappropriate") way, we will suffer and make others around suffer, and if we do it in another ("appropriate") way, we and they will not suffer (or at least hopefully suffer less). So, no matter how "real" or "unreal" the appearance of the world may seem to us, our suffering or happiness when we do things in this world is absolutely real - it is what we actually experience.

And part of the reason why we do "inappropriate" things here is because we have distorted views and interpretations of reality, distorted reasons to do things in a distorted way. And this is where philosophy and spiritual practice helps - to clear the mind from our distorted misperceptions and miscomprehensions. Well, ideally ... Because what often happens is that people simply replace one set of distorted ideas with another similarly distorted one.

Ed, you just performed a miracle... getting Eugene to admit some spiritual orientations are objectively better than others! I am definitely keeping this one in my back pocket

[Eugene I]

Ed, you just performed a miracle... getting Eugene to admit some spiritual orientations are objectively better than others! I am definitely keeping this one in my back pocket

Yes, some are better than others in practical terms, being more functional/efficient/productive/fit with respect to certain measures.
But the measures are different and valued with different priorities. For some people the priority may be only reducing suffering and increasing happiness, for others it may be development of consciousness, or it may be goals of creative activities (that may accommodate some suffering as a price to pay), and for others it may be growing in love, or improving the society etc. Since there is no universal measures and values, we can't compare all orientations on the basis of the same universal measure and select the "best" one. But overall there are certainly some "average" measure/score of goodness/fitness that would score certain orientations (like fascism, satanism etc) lower than others.