Philosophical Speculations

Yesterday, I enjoyed VPRO’s Technologie als religie and it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if consciousness matters, literally ?

What if consciousness is the basis and matter is ‘just’ its observer effect, in that observation (by consciousness) triggers the wave–particle duality to collapse into matter. Observation can be done by any combination of senses, maybe even spiritual senses.

Also, what if, when we see a cup standing on the table, we have both been so conditioned to materialise that cup that we see the same cup, albeit from different perspectives. You may as well say that we project the cup, we materialise the cup from consciousness, The conditioning is the effect of life long exposure to its design and evolution. This extreme form of conditioning comes from our everlasting conversations and communications about that cup, it literally forms (and thus conditions) our mind.

Yet, if it is a form of conditioning, we can unlearn that conditioning and replace it with another. This implies we can create anything. Then again, “we” must be a projection ourselves. Do “we” materialise ourselves, mutually?

So, consciousness creates the material world. It’s a self-aware universe.

Meditation and awareness is our technique to, ever so slightly, lift the veil of this severe conditioning so we may experience a glimpse of the omnipresent consciousness.

If consciousness matters, literally, many things fall into place, make the whole simpler, more understandable, clearer, right?

Does this make any sense at all?

Also, how does this relate to modern metaphysical idealism, or does it?

I am very interested in exploring this interesting field.

Please note that I am an ever learning layman in many fields, especially fields like quantum mechanics.

Hi Martien, If you can use the word materialise in this context, you can also use the phrase 'dream up'.

We often invoke the word 'matter' to account for consensus reality, and the fact that we can will something to physically change, yet it retains its status.

Check out Bernardo's work to see how these can be accounted for in analytic idealism!

Martien wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:45 am Yesterday, I enjoyed VPRO’s Technologie als religie and it makes me wonder. It makes me wonder if consciousness matters, literally ?

What if consciousness is the basis and matter is ‘just’ its observer effect, in that observation (by consciousness) triggers the wave–particle duality to collapse into matter. Observation can be done by any combination of senses, maybe even spiritual senses.

Also, what if, when we see a cup standing on the table, we have both been so conditioned to materialise that cup that we see the same cup, albeit from different perspectives. You may as well say that we project the cup, we materialise the cup from consciousness, The conditioning is the effect of life long exposure to its design and evolution. This extreme form of conditioning comes from our everlasting conversations and communications about that cup, it literally forms (and thus conditions) our mind.
...
Also, how does this relate to modern metaphysical idealism, or does it?

The key thing to remember for idealism is that 'mind' (consciousness) and 'matter' do not refer to separate ontological categories. Put another way, there is no division between the 'inner world' of mind and the outer world of 'matter'. They can be distinguished without being divided. The cup in your example is a collective representation by Mind of another aspect of Mind. As soon as we start imagining some physical mechanism taking place to "materialize" the cup, we have gone astray from idealism. Does that make sense?

Thanks for your replies Ashvin and Starbuck. Makes sense.

Martien wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:45 amWhat if consciousness is the basis and matter is ‘just’ its observer effect, in that observation (by consciousness) triggers the wave–particle duality to collapse into matter. Observation can be done by any combination of senses, maybe even spiritual senses.

Also, what if, when we see a cup standing on the table, we have both been so conditioned to materialise that cup that we see the same cup, albeit from different perspectives. You may as well say that we project the cup, we materialise the cup from consciousness,

I think (project? believe?) that there is a tremendous amount of 'i'solationist egotism which 'lives' (usually 'hidden' because 'it' is 'selectively' not perceived - a kind of 'negative', it-ain't-there 'hallucination') by way of 'subjects' (i.e. souls) embracing the belief/idea that 'they' are sooooo! danged powerful as to be the sole 'dreamer' of the 'world' that 'they' experience as shapes/forms/qualia.etc., including those labelled 'matter'.

Here is the view of 'matter' (quoted from Seth Speaks, by Jane Roberts) which I subscribe to because it make the most sense (of 'things') for me:

"I am not comparing personality to an orange or an onion, but I want to emphasize
that as these things grow from within outward, so does each fragment of the entire self.
You observe the outside aspect of objects. Your physical senses permit you to perceive
the exterior forms to which you then react, but your physical senses to some extent
force you to perceive reality in this manner, and the inside vitality within matter and
form is not so apparent.

I can tell you, for example, that there is consciousness even within a nail, but few of
my readers will take me seriously enough to stop in midsentence, and say good morning
or good afternoon to the nearest nail they can find, stuck in a piece of wood.

Nevertheless, the atoms and molecules within the nail do possess their own kind of
consciousness. The atoms and molecules that make up the pages of this book are also,
within their own level, aware. Nothing exists - neither rock, mineral, plant, animal, or
air - that is not filled with consciousness of its own kind. So you stand amid a constant
vital commotion, a gestalt of aware energy, and you are yourselves physically composed
of conscious cells that carry within themselves the realization of their own identity, that
cooperate willingly to form the corporeal structure that is your physical body.

I am saying, of course, that there is no such thing as dead matter. There is no object
that was not formed by consciousness, and each consciousness, regardless of its
degree, rejoices in sensation and creativity. You cannot understand what you are unless
you understand such matters.

For convenience's sake, you close out the multitudinous inner communications that
leap between the tiniest parts of your flesh, yet even as physical creatures, you are to
some extent a portion of other consciousnesses. There are no limitations to the self.
There are no limitations to its potentials. You can adopt artificial limitations through
your own ignorance, however. You can identify, for example, with your outer ego alone,
and cut yourself off from abilities that are a part of you. You can deny, but you cannot
change, the facts. The personality is multidimensional, even though many people hide
their heads, figuratively speaking, in the sand of three-dimensional existence and
pretend there is nothing more.

I do not mean to underestimate the outer ego. You have simply overestimated it. Nor
has its true nature been recognized."

There's more to Seth's 'picture; of course. I recommend anyone interested, especially if you happen to dismiss what your think of a 'panpsychism' as a completely spurious concept, read and contemplate what's in that and following 'Seth'-dictated books for themselves.

David_Sundaram wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:54 pm
There's more to Seth's 'picture; of course. I recommend anyone interested, especially if you happen to dismiss what your think of a 'panpsychism' as a completely spurious concept, read and contemplate what's in that and following 'Seth'-dictated books for themselves.

I've read all of the Seth books, and I would call him an idealist, and not a panpsychist. Of course, the label 'panpsychist' has various meanings, but the kind I am referring to are those who think there are fundamentally only material subatomic particles that also have some sort of simple conscious property, which when combined produce more elaborate conscious entities, such as ourselves. This implies that on death, we cease to exist, which of course Seth would deny.

The fact that BK does not ascribe consciousness to atoms, while Seth does, is just a difference between what an analytic idealist can say and what one can get from revelation. BK is restricted in his analytic idealism to what the general public will regard as empirical evidence, and nothing in, say, a rock looks to our limited minds like conscious activity. So for BK to ascribe consciousness to an atom goes beyond what he can justify, and so it is wise of him, in my opinion, to not do so. For us mere mortals the question must remain open.

ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:44 am

David_Sundaram wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:54 pm
There's more to Seth's 'picture; of course. I recommend anyone interested, especially if you happen to dismiss what your think of a 'panpsychism' as a completely spurious concept, read and contemplate what's in that and following 'Seth'-dictated books for themselves.

I've read all of the Seth books, and I would call him an idealist, and not a panpsychist. Of course, the label 'panpsychist' has various meanings, but the kind I am referring to are those who think there are fundamentally only material subatomic particles that also have some sort of simple conscious property, which when combined produce more elaborate conscious entities, such as ourselves. This implies that on death, we cease to exist, which of course Seth would deny.

The fact that BK does not ascribe consciousness to atoms, while Seth does, is just a difference between what an analytic idealist can say and what one can get from revelation. BK is restricted in his analytic idealism to what the general public will regard as empirical evidence, and nothing in, say, a rock looks to our limited minds like conscious activity. So for BK to ascribe consciousness to an atom goes beyond what he can justify, and so it is wise of him, in my opinion, to not do so. For us mere mortals the question must remain open.

That's an interesting divergence. By ascribing consciousness to a rock, are we saying there is a qualitative experience associated with being a rock? If so, does that have any other implications for BK's idealism that are perhaps less trivial from a philosophical perspective?

I've read the Seth books as well, in which there are constant references to units of consciousness, and I still haven't clearly understood what that refers to, or how they come to be phenomenally represented, or how such units correspond to a psyche that may have no corporeal appearance at all. Indeed, Seth is referred to as an entity that is not focused in physicality. And as far as I can recall, Seth is not anywhere referred to as a conglomeration of such units. One also has to wonder how much such channelled information is limited and/or distorted by the conceptual framework of the channeler. In any case, it seems that an interpretation could just as well fit with idealism. And while BK does not get into alters of consciousness maintaining individuality after they are no longer focused in corporeal form, his model doesn't rule it out either. Needless to say, all these models surely are works in progress, in need of much more explication and elaboration.

Soul_of_Shu wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 3:12 am I've read the Seth books as well, in which there are constant references to units of consciousness, and I still haven't clearly understood what that refers to, or how they come to be phenomenally represented, or how such units correspond to a psyche that may have no corporeal appearance at all. Indeed, Seth is referred to as an entity that is not focused in physicality. And as far as I can recall, Seth is not anywhere referred to as a conglomeration of such units. One also has to wonder how much such channelled information is limited and/or distorted by the conceptual framework of the channeler. In any case, it seems that an interpretation could just as well fit with idealism. And while BK does not get into alters of consciousness maintaining individuality after they are no longer focused in corporeal form, his model doesn't rule it out either. Needless to say, all these models surely are works in progress, in need of much more explication and elaboration.

I guess one possible interpretation is that the CA of another being, no doubt more powerful than us, is being 'channeled' through each unit in question, and since the units appear to differ upon direct or indirect observation, the CA being channeled must be distinguishable in some respect. Whether that amounts to something it feels like to be a rock or an atom is an open question.

I guess one possible interpretation is that the CA of another being, no doubt more powerful than us, is being 'channeled' through each unit in question, and since the units appear to differ upon direct or indirect observation, the CA being channeled must be distinguishable in some respect. Whether that amounts to something it feels like to be a rock or an atom is an open question.

Yet another take could be that the CA of a psyche is not necessarily associated with such units of consciousness, unless it is expressing through a corporeal life-form, in which case such units represent the phenomenal appearance of the life-form, rather than the psyche's quiddity. However, such units represented as the phenomenal appearance of a rock does not necessarily mean that a rock is representative of a psyche ~ which would jibe with BK's model.