It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What if...

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 12:29 PM
What we know:

We know that our bodies are made of cells, of organs, tissues, and bone. Every cell has a nucleus, every one has a function. Deeper still within us, deeper than the cells, are the atoms. Each cell is a masterpiece of carbon, copper, iron, zinc, potassium, sodium, hydrogen. Science has shown us that we are made up of the same building blocks as everything else. On the atomic level, a molecule of water in our body is the same as a drop of water in the ocean. It is the same - there is nothing special about it aside from the new arrangment of it that forms our bodies. We are the stuff of the universe - quite literally.
I am under the assumption that nothing ever comes from the universe that can't go back into it. We can easily see this on a physical scale, we can watch it, and measure it. What then, of consciousness? Is it arbitrary? Is it a non-intended effect of natural processes? I cannot in all honesty say that I believe it is simply a by-product of having a physical body. My curious nature stops me at this point and begs me to toy with the idea.

A theory that has developed somewhere in my mind states that we are the eyes and ears of the cosmos. We ARE the cosmos, in the flesh. Every single thing that has happened on earth, all of our wars, our triumphs, our thoughts, inspirations, books written, and our emotions can be traced back to cosmic events. I'm not speaking of astrology, I'm speaking of science where the atoms where formed in the hearts of exploding heavnly bodies. Perhaps the cosmos found something new, quite by accident, when life came into being. It found consciousness, and became curious itself. The cosmos has ensured our survival, and is evolving our minds to where we can better understand it. I use the words "our" and "it" incorrectly, because for my theory to have any meaning there would be no "our" and "it" - we would not be seperate entities as we see ourselves, this is only the illusion we percieve. Rather than being a million points of light, we are a single light, as if refracted through a multifaceted gemstone. Everyone that we see around us, is actually US - just living in an alternate reality to what we find ourselves. We might be the mind of the universe, dispersed among billions of us, having the same experience from nearly every concievable point of view.

While the mention of this being a theory throws me outside the boundries of what most atheists would consider mentioning in public, I have no fear of it. I'm not certain that the reading of this would fully encapsulate the theory as a whole, in its entirety, but maybe it's a good start.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by sykickvision

I would have to agree with you. We are simply all the same consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. As you said through every possible viewpoint. I like to think of it as god (us, consciousness) experiencing itself through every possibility that is the universe/multiverse. Cannot wait for CERNs findings next year. As they claim to be able to have evidence of alternate dimensions. We will see.

posted on Nov, 22 2010 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by sykickvision
What then, of consciousness? Is it arbitrary? Is it a non-intended effect of natural processes? I cannot in all honesty say that I believe it is simply a by-product of having a physical body.

According to some theories, it's the other way around. We have physical bodies as a by-product of being a consciousness. We are all ONE, that's what they say...there's a simmilar theory saying that the universe we live in is God's mind, or part of it. I don't know, that could be true...anything is possible.

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 07:34 AM
I have a theory that involves the fact that when something happens, the fact that it happens becomes the fact that it happened (once it's happened), and that this fact is a collection of informational units that fully represent what it is that happened.

When the occurrence is a brain that is dynamically responding to either internal or external stimuli with a thought or reaction, the "fact" in question fully (and logically) represents that dynamic, awareness as conscious-level information, which can exist as either "dynamic response" (in the case of the more instinctive brain of an animal) or "dynamic intellect" (in the case of the more personality-managed brain of a human being).

Before the corporeal realm achieved the progressive development capacity it takes to produce information-generating brains, there was no consciousness in physical existence (or any other form of existence). In fact, the reason for consciousness is that the finite corporeal realm achieved the generation of consciousness so that it could achieve a form of proxy-survival (a logical form of identity survival) by way of the information fact, since information is the only form of physical existence that has eternal survival.

The specifics involved are simple, but compiling them into the proper sequence to account for the wide diversity of available result can chew up a lot of words. That said, this theory fully details the initial emergence of physical existence, the reason for physical matter, the reason why self-replicating life came into existence (like trees and plants and stuff with cells), what pushed life to develop a brain, and what makes the human being unique among Earth's brain equipped animals.

Then, it wraps it all up by showing why the average human believes that it's an eternal being that is only temporarily corporeal, and why it believes in a god that it can't see, can't touch, can't hear and will only experience after its own mortal demise. Hint - it's not a case of social programming or primitive superstition. The unnecessary personification of the god-character is, but not the basic premise that drives the high level of widespread certainty in what should be an impossible assumption.
edit on 11/24/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in