If conscious is all 1 then we are all insane by our definition

originally posted by: LightSource


So if everything in the universe is just 1 conscious then we are insane by our own definition. What happens when you put just 1 person in a room by themselves for a very long time? They start talking to themselves and having conversations. What if they were left alone for an infinite amount of time they would forget who that 1 person was and would become multiple "people" or "personalities" that were created during that time.

Logical observation LightSource, but "we" must remember this observation is based on the functions of one human not the ever active and changing Universe.

originally posted by: LightSource

If our universe has 1 conscious then by our own definition conscious is "insane". That would also mean that "conscious" created good/bad blah blah blah because of a difference with itself or ourselves. We are also then insane to think we are sane

What if instead of a "big bang" it was just 1 point maybe 1 conscious energy point and it "split" into two and then they split and split and split and will continue into infinity getting faster and faster with each split which could explain why the universe is speeding up and not slowing down. Anyhow food for thought.

To 1 the many splits you speak of are possibly associated with "THE CREATOR" Creating and granting many of the Created opportunity to somewhat express themselves within an ever expanding Existence. And the COLLECTIVE Consciousness is basically the CREATOR keeping direct conscious contact (link) with ALL* Created as to keep AN EYE on if not influence our many progressions or failures as to better be able to assist or readjust those who require assistance or readjusting.

Assist or readjust by coming into direct contact with those required. Coming in contact via Incarnating within the Created type of interest or more advanced Spawning an AVATAR(S) to directly take action in the realms of unbalance or un just.

By incarnating and being born of the Created type of interest or Spawning an AVATAR to interact with the Created directly the CREATOR gets a better FEEL of whats going on in areas THE may be directly linked to consciously, but due to the dimensional or universal distances between the Created of interest and the CREATOR if not just that the CREATOR cannot fit into these realms in true form, the CREATOR takes various forms needed for a personal verification of what is happening per inhabited region of Existence.

This is a reason why 1 does not allow confusion to overtake 1 consciously when observing various global religious text describing AVATAR like beings such as:
LORD SHIVA


or potential SOUL incarnates like
LORD JESUS CHRIST


Or the ANNUNAKI LORDS from
LORD ENKI to INANNA


The need for the Collective consciousness it to better SEE us ALL* in order to again assist or readjust our Existence settings where needed... Otherwise we are left out here within existence on our own to develop or fail, which to 1 makes no logical sense to randomly be created with more potential of failure unless GUIDED from above.

NAMASTE*******
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Enki was associated with Mercury by the ancient Sumerians. He is considered to be very intelligent and is associated with water but is also a trickster.

Shiva is associated with destruction and change, because of this people who wanted to be less materialistic would connect with Shiva to destroy their passions and lusts for their spiritual journey.

Jesus Christ is Love. He brought The Law of God from Heaven "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you for this is The Law and Prophets" - Matthew 7:12 .

Interesting stuff.

a reply to: LightSource

"Conscious" is an adjective, meaning it describes a thing, but not is a thing. "Consciousness" is the same adjective with the suffix "ness" shoe-horned onto the end, which turns a description of a thing into a quality of a thing. In other words, there is no such thing as consciousness.

Some must ask when there are planetary issues why is it that some animal life tend to respond before situations like EA*RTH quakes or major storms/Tsunamis or even CME, like who/what is sending these creatures the flee/avoid program to find safety ahead of time? And how is it done collectively in mass?

a reply to: Aphorism

I think there are rather a few renowned scientists and psychologists that would disagree with your assessment. Consciousness does indeed exist.

As to whether or not humanity in its present form has the capacity to understand the subtle nuances of said consciousness or even define the characteristics of such and expect to effect any kind of meaningful answer, well that's a whole new kettle of fish.

a reply to: LightSource

What if instead of a "big bang" it was just 1 point maybe 1 conscious energy point and it "split" into two and then they split and split and split and will continue into infinity

You and I have one point, of agreement

And if true, "all" spirited beings are related back to, a schizophrenic genesis, our oneness, our home. And this would explain our existence in a singular body, life. A chance to experience life separated from the oneness, and learn outside of the oneness.

Conciseness/spirit can not manipulate physical objects, it can only influence them. But a body inhabited by the conciseness/ spirit, can.

And in that thought, there was never a " I Am" on this plane. The truth? "We Are", humbly..........

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: LightSource

"Conscious" is an adjective, meaning it describes a thing, but not is a thing. "Consciousness" is the same adjective with the suffix "ness" shoe-horned onto the end, which turns a description of a thing into a quality of a thing. In other words, there is no such thing as consciousness.

Exactly - consciousness is not a thing (consciousness is no thing).
All appears within consciousness, no appearance can appear without consciousness.
Consciousness is no thing but contains all there is (everything).

a reply to: andy06shake

I think there are rather a few renowned scientists and psychologists that would disagree with your assessment. Consciousness does indeed exist.

We call your argument an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy and thus an invalid argument. If you could provide evidence of its existence, rather than authoritative opinion, you may have a point. Opinion does not constitute evidence unfortunately.

If it does indeed exist as you so say, perhaps you could point it out? Perhaps you can describe as what, where and how it exists?

Consciousness is defined as “the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings”. What is in that state exists, for that is what is awake and aware of its surroundings. The state, however, doesn’t exist—it is an abstract notion—and is merely a description of the way something appears between one arbitrary point in time and another. For instance, in medicine, when someone “loses consciousness” the are not awake or aware. When they “regain consciousness” they are awake and aware. These are descriptions of their current condition. In each case, it is the human body that exists, losing and gaining nothing but proper functioning, and that is what doctors examine when determining “consciousness”.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Exactly - consciousness is not a thing (consciousness is no thing).
All appears within consciousness, no appearance can appear without consciousness.
Consciousness is no thing but contains all there is (everything).

Neither is it a container for all things, for that would imply the ability to contain things, further implying that consciousness is a thing.

a reply to: Aphorism

"If it does indeed exist as you so say, perhaps you could point it out? Perhaps you can describe as what, where and how it exists?"

I would love to be able to oblige in that respect, alas i am simply a mere mortal that inhabits the same dimension as yourself. To answer your questions would require a far superior mind that i possess. To be frank I don't think humanity will ever be privy to a working understanding of what consciousness entails this side of the third dimension.

a reply to: Aphorism

Completely wrong.

Consciousness is a state of being. To claim it's not a thing is the same as claiming the different states of matter (liquid, solid, gas, plasma) are not real things.

Where does consciousness exist? It exists here and now.

You are conscious, and you are part of the universe, so the universe itself is in a state of being conscious.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

And what is a state of being? A being in a state.

state |stāt|
noun
1 the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time: the state of the company's finances | we're worried about her state of mind.
• a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure: water in a liquid state.
• [ in sing. ] (a state) informal an agitated or anxious condition: don't get into a state.
• [ in sing. ] informal a dirty or untidy condition: look at the state of you—what a mess!
• Physics short for quantum state.

condition |kənˈdiSHən|
noun
1 the state of something, esp. with regard to its appearance, quality, or working order: the wiring is in good condition | [ in sing. ] : the bridge is in an extremely dangerous condition.
• a person's or animal's state of health or physical fitness: he is in fairly good condition considering what he has has been through | [ in sing. ] : she was in a serious condition.
• an illness or other medical problem: a heart condition.
• [ in sing. ] a particular state of existence: a condition of misery.
• archaic social position or rank: those of humbler condition.

If consciousness exists as a something, then you are also saying something can be in the state of another something. That is completely wrong.

Consciousness exists here and now? So does cheese; so do trains; so does bubblegum. Such an empty statement.

A rock is not conscious and it is a part of the universe, so the universe itself is in a state of not being conscious. Which one should we choose? A contradiction.

Your assertions have no basis and they mean nothing. They are the guesswork of confusion.

a reply to: andy06shake

I would love to be able to oblige in that respect, alas i am simply a mere mortal that inhabits the same dimension as yourself. To answer your questions would require a far superior mind that i possess. To be frank I don't think humanity will ever be privy to a working understanding of what consciousness entails this side of the third dimension.

Then what might I ask leads you to believe consciousness exists?

a reply to: Aphorism

The same reason that leads me to believe love exists or empathy for that matter. Cogito ergo sum also springs to mind.

Can i ask what leads you to believe consciousness doesn't exist?

originally posted by: Aphorism
And what is a state of being? A being in a state.

Again, consciousness is a state of being. The being that is in the state is the Universe itself, which includes you, because you are a part of the Universe. The Universe is in a conscious state, and is experiencing consciousness.

originally posted by: Aphorism
If consciousness exists as a something, then you are also saying something can be in the state of another something. That is completely wrong.

You are completely wrong, and your logic is non-existent, and your use of the word "something" is laughable. Do you know what "something" is? I can't tell if you are trolling or just lost.

some·thing
ˈsəmˌTHiNG/Submit
pronoun
1.
a thing that is unspecified or unknown.
"we stopped for something to eat"
2.
used in various expressions indicating that a description or amount being stated is not exact.
"a wry look, something between amusement and regret"
adverb
adverb: something
1.
informal
used for emphasis with a following adjective functioning as an adverb.
"my back hurts something terrible"
2.
archaicdialect
to some extent; somewhat.
"the people were something scared"

"Something" definitely can be in the state of another "something".

originally posted by: Aphorism
Consciousness exists here and now? So does cheese; so do trains; so does bubblegum. Such an empty statement.

Actually, the statement is more profound than you are capable of grasping. Your reply is as empty as a reply gets. You didn't even attempt to understand the deeper meaning of what I said, and simply replied with something a child would say. Really... cheese, trains, and bubblegum? Your reply is structured in such a manner to suggest your use of those 3 key words was an attempt to make a childish joke out of irrefutable logic. The joke may be funny to children (and you), but not me.

Yes, consciousness exists. You asked where it is, I answered. Consciousness is here and now. Only something conscious could even contemplate the meaning of here and now. It would also have to contemplate it here and now, and exist here and now to do so. Do you get it?

originally posted by: Aphorism
A rock is not conscious and it is a part of the universe, so the universe itself is in a state of not being conscious. Which one should we choose? A contradiction.

Your toenail is not conscious and it is a part of your body, so does that mean you are in a state of not being conscious?

The only contradiction is the one you created in your mind because of lack of understanding.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Your assertions have no basis and they mean nothing. They are the guesswork of confusion.

The only confusion is coming from you. You must try not to project your own confusion onto others.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Again, consciousness is a state of being. The being that is in the state is the Universe itself, which includes you, because you are a part of the Universe. The Universe is in a conscious state, and is experiencing consciousness.

Forgive me but, I believe you are making connections were none can be made. Because a human is conscious does not imply the universe is conscious, like a rock does not imply it is unconscious. A rock is not the universe. The universe is not sturdy because a tree is sturdy, it is not hungry because a fish is hungry, it is not hard because a rock is hard. Fish does not equal universe. Tree does not equal universe. Rock does not equal universe.

You are completely wrong, and your logic is non-existent, and your use of the word "something" is laughable. Do you know what "something" is? I can't tell if you are trolling or just lost.

Ad hominem is fallacious and invalid. On top of that it is slanderous and irrational. I would prefer if you attack my points rather than my person.

Yes I know what “something” means. Your point? Because I do not see one. Please help me to find my way.

Something" definitely can be in the state of another "something”.

An assertion is usually backed up by some sort of argument. How can “something be in the state of another something”? Further, what does that even mean?

Actually, the statement is more profound than you are capable of grasping. Your reply is as empty as a reply gets. You didn't even attempt to understand the deeper meaning of what I said, and simply replied with something a child would say. Really... cheese, trains, and bubblegum? Your reply is structured in such a manner to suggest your use of those 3 key words was an attempt to make a childish joke out of irrefutable logic. The joke may be funny to children (and you), but not me.

Then please, excuse my attempt to make light of your argument. So what is this irrefutable logic? I would like to see where I went wrong.

Yes, consciousness exists. You asked where it is, I answered. Consciousness is here and now. Only something conscious could even contemplate the meaning of here and now. It would also have to contemplate it here and now, and exist here and now to do so. Do you get it?

“Here and now” is insufficient in describing where something is. It is not profound, insightful nor helpful. It relates to nothing and is relative to nothing. In fact, it only adds to the confusion. It carries with it no content to which we can come to terms with what we are speaking about. So unfortunately your answer failed to address my question, you simply left it in the “here and now”, and in so doing merely repeated your initial point in the same way without any argument. “Consciousness is in the here and now” means really nothing without some sort of argument, basis or evidence for this being the case. The “here and now” means basically “everything”, or “nothing in particular”, and as such, we are really not discussing anything at all.

Your toenail is not conscious and it is a part of your body, so does that mean you are in a state of not being conscious?

Certain things are conscious and certain things aren’t. Conscious is an adjective. Adjectives describe particular persons places and things. It would not make sense to describe my toenails as conscious. It does not appear that they are awake and aware of their surroundings, as an apple doesn’t appear to be disappointed. However I as a thing can exhibit the attributes of being conscious. A rock cannot. You are speaking of everything, anything, the universe, and nothing in particular. Universals are abstract groupings of objects made in judgement only, and posses no such qualities. It is like saying a species is sick or dead because one of its members are. That is not the case.

The only contradiction is the one you created in your mind because of lack of understanding.

Yet, it seems we can speak and understand the same language. If you would reveal your reasoning and irrefutable logic, I might be able to be convinced.

a reply to: andy06shake

The same reason that leads me to believe love exists or empathy for that matter. Cogito ergo sum also springs to mind.

Something like: “I love therefor there is love”? If that is the case, you would be using love as a verb, an action, and at the same time a noun, a thing. That is like saying “I jump therefor there is jump”. Correct grammar would be “I love, therefor there is loving”.

If that is not what you meant, then I’m sorry I do not understand your reasoning.

Can i ask what leads you to believe consciousness doesn't exist?

We are unable to apply the name to anything in the universe.

Cheers

a reply to: LightSource

Perhaps the problem is that you are one, and that same one is not necessarily another person, or all other people, it only has the same quality when experienced by any person.

Because of this similarity, one may think that the one that another experiences, is the same one that the subject experiences, however, it is only the same when experienced, but it is not the same universal entity or singularity.

I see that the division is a choice, believe in God, or know what God is, my response explains the latter, and the fallacy that I have intimated represents the former.

So, what is "God" - it is a universal concept that is experientially uniform.

And, belief in "God" is to assume that it represents a conscious entity.

a reply to: Aphorism

To be fair i'm not the one that's trying to explain consciousness through the use of the English language, there's your problem right there i imagine.

Cogito ergo sum means I think therefore I am. The reason i bring Love into the mix is that this is also something we cannot see or touch but im sure you will agree as to its existence?

Consciousness i imagine is a similar beast. Just because we do not have the tools or skills to define consciousness doesn't mean it does not exist.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Forgive me but, I believe you are making connections were none can be made. Because a human is conscious does not imply the universe is conscious, like a rock does not imply it is unconscious. A rock is not the universe. The universe is not sturdy because a tree is sturdy, it is not hungry because a fish is hungry, it is not hard because a rock is hard. Fish does not equal universe. Tree does not equal universe. Rock does not equal universe.

Certain things are conscious and certain things aren’t. Conscious is an adjective. Adjectives describe particular persons places and things. It would not make sense to describe my toenails as conscious. It does not appear that they are awake and aware of their surroundings, as an apple doesn’t appear to be disappointed. However I as a thing can exhibit the attributes of being conscious. A rock cannot. You are speaking of everything, anything, the universe, and nothing in particular. Universals are abstract groupings of objects made in judgement only, and posses no such qualities. It is like saying a species is sick or dead because one of its members are. That is not the case.

My friend, Aphorism, you are but a conscious rock.

Your body is made of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium. All these elements are found naturally on Earth, some of them in rock form. Not to mention some of the minerals your body requires to function like iron, zinc, and chromium, all rocks... Your bones are just rocks, and you've got rocks flowing through your blood.

You are the Earth which has become alive and conscious. Before you were alive and conscious, you were just the Earth. Before you were the Earth, you were the stars, and before you were the stars you were just energy with no real form, and this energy was all born at the same moment in time. You are still energy which has taken on many forms. This energy is what makes up 100% of the Universe. It is the Universe.

The rocks are the Universe. The air is the Universe. The water is the Universe. The trees are the Universe. The fish and animals are the Universe. The gravity, magnetism, electricity, light and all forms of energy are the Universe.

You are the Universe. You are conscious.

Your eyes can only see a very tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you could see it all, you would be blinded by white light. If you could see magnetism, if you could see gravity, if you could see all the 4 fundamental forces, you would be blinded and see nothing but pure white. You would see that the Universe is just One object, and you would understand that the only thing that exists is "here and now".