Which Came First: Consciousness or Matter?

a reply to: MamaJ

** No MamaJ when you woke up as a baby, the world of matter already existed. Nothing can exist (be seen /known by an Observer) unless it has a Perimeter against a Background, so a TRI-ASPECT of Consciousness is the Minimum we can talk about. but "in the Beginning" we were all asleep / Latent in the Nothingness of the Cosmic Womb, and "matter was the Container /Perimeter of SELF.

conciousness does not exist without a brain.
A brain does not exist without multicellalar life
Multicellular life (as we know it) does not exist without carbon
therefore matter comes first.
To be precise:
conciousness cannot exist before second generation stars.

Brain dead

She was rendered clinically dead. No brain activity and no blood flowing to brain yet she was aware/conscious.

This suggest that consciousness is not tied exclusively to the human brain.

“God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in the man.” Sufi saying.

Replace the word God with the word Consciousness.

originally posted by: scratchmane
Brain dead

She was rendered clinically dead. No brain activity and no blood flowing to brain yet she was aware/conscious.

This suggest that consciousness is not tied exclusively to the human brain.

“God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in the man.” Sufi saying.

Replace the word God with the word Consciousness.

Ahh yes, my thoughts exactly.

E = mc^2 demonstrates that energy, mass, and light are all interconnected in God's program we call physics.

"In (God) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind"

I think this is why we are "children of light". The light (pure consciousness?) is our home, whereas this 3D reality is a shadow of this truth. Considering the pineal gland has photoreceptors, despite being inside the brain, I would bet light/consciousness uses it much like a control stick.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Human Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, without the brain we certainly would not be aware of anything and when we're dead we're DEAD.

Awareness is the keyword.

If it's a property of the brain then it is fake. You wouldn't be aware. You are already dead. Sure a robot can be "aware" of the environment and act accordingly. But is it really "aware"? Chomsky and others talked about this but they were wrong. Anything can react to something. Is a furby aware? Certainly it reacts to the environment. But is it "there"?

Some point to the chinese box to show that AI can't truly be aware, but let's turn that around. We can cause sensations by manipulating the brain. It seems likely with enough advancement in technology we could create a machine that could manipulate a brain to the extent we could make it experience whatever we wanted (maybe we could hijack somebody's brain, or maybe we would need to genetically engineer a new one). So if we had a computer running a brain, and we accepted it as truly aware (or at least truly experiencing whatever delusion we gave it), why should we think it needs the brain to actually have awareness?

Do bacteria have awareness? If so, why not a Firby?

a reply to: cooperton

Can there be one without the other? I am a big Alan Watts fan and according to him, we are all just what the universe is doing at a specific point. In that way the whole universe is conscious, and we are all simply a facet of that consciousness, like a wave in the ocean. The wave may disappear but the ocean remains.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I was addressing your response to me, if you response only makes sense in the context of your other posts I apologize, I did not read your other posts. Perhaps you could have articulated your position in your response to me to avoid confusion.

Either way the argument you seemed to be making in your response was: there is no way that ordinary matter (the example you gave is a Furby) can have consciousness or be consciously aware even if it can sense its surroundings via some sensory input. If that is not what you are saying than please clarify what your claims are.

a reply to: cooperton

If matter is not responsible for consciousness, then we would think consciousness to be responsible for matter and thus life. This would be God right?

I do believe that matter is responsible for consciousness. Assuming that matter is not responsible however I still see no way to get straight to a God without bad assumptions and some good ol' fashioned fallacious reasoning. First off the assumption that consciousness is responsible for matter. If we assume that there is some other component to consciousness why would we assume that the Universe must therefore be the product of a mind?

For example there are believers who assert a form of dualism where there is a "spiritual" or non-physical STUFF, be it a soul, a lifeforce, an essence but who do NOT believe there is a God. In fact such a hypothetical "stuff" could exist in an entirely naturalistic Universe and simply be an undiscovered aspect of nature. There is also the possibility that a God of some sort exists but did not create the Universe or have a hand in consciousness, creating the Universe is not a prerequisite of all gods. For example a deity might be off in another Universe or another part of our Universe creating alien entities far cooler than we are while us self-important humans prattle on about how we were specially created unwittingly being mere byproducts of utterly natural forces.

Your logic commits a fallacy of false dichotomy which sets up our only two choices as "A Mind or minds is the source of the Universe" or "The Universe is the source of all minds" AND then makes an argument from ignorance which states that, "if we discover that consciousness has a source other than mere material interactions I get to jump to God."

Sorry, logic doesn't work that way.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Life existed long before the word did. Our religious texts only record our journey to become selfaware and conscious beings not the entire universes.
So the answer you are looking for is energy. And so much of it it made a big bang.

Or to my mind the thought before the thought and the resulting aftermath of a mysterious revelation.

a reply to: cooperton

The two co-exist. Consciousness is the reflection of Awareness on the surface of Matter. If you apprehend all the 3 players well - the Trinity of Awareness (Father), Consciousness (Son) and Matter (Mother) - you will have taken a giant step forward, and you will never have to reincarnate on Earth again. The game will then be over for you. Most people are understandably dazzled by the brilliance and immensity of Consciousness, not realizing that it's only a reflection, a mere shadow of THAT. And we are talking about the luminosity and brilliance of a billion suns, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to give up the quest for Consciousness.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok you ass hats, the only examples of consciousness we have actually witnessed come from animals with brains. Brains are made of matter. If it were possible for consciousness to create matter, wouldn't we all be able to create matter?

Wayt to completely throw aside everything you have seen to believe something you want to believe.

Matter was here at the very start of our universe. Consciousness only develops through life. That is what the physical evidence shows.

originally posted by: Rextiberius
a reply to: cooperton

The two co-exist. Consciousness is the reflection of Awareness on the surface of Matter. If you apprehend all the 3 players well - the Trinity of Awareness (Father), Consciousness (Son) and Matter (Mother) - you will have taken a giant step forward, and you will never have to reincarnate on Earth again. The game will then be over for you. Most people are understandably dazzled by the brilliance and immensity of Consciousness, not realizing that it's only a reflection, a mere shadow of THAT. And we are talking about the luminosity and brilliance of a billion suns, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to give up the quest for Consciousness.

Brilliant. Although I think the Father is consciousness, Mother is matter, and the Son is the fully expressed union of the two. The Father impregnated the Mother (Flesh) with consciousness and made Adam (Son). This duality is represented in Hinduism as Ardhanarishvara

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one... then you will enter the kingdom"

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: cooperton

Ok you ass hats, the only examples of consciousness we have actually witnessed come from animals with brains. Brains are made of matter. If it were possible for consciousness to create matter, wouldn't we all be able to create matter?

Surely our conscious abilities are currently lesser than the Creator. Manipulation of the material world by consciousness is clearly evident if you constantly observe what is being presented to you, you'll see that your conscious state of mind influences the material reality. This feedback is slow for beginners, and gets faster depending on various factors... This is the whole basis of "The Secret". These subtle manipulations can become more powerful as we develop and reintroduce ourselves to our true nature, obviously faith is required, because all conscious acts of material manipulation require a 100% genuine belief... which few have in this era.

“...you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

originally posted by: cooperton


Surely our conscious abilities are currently lesser than the Creator. Manipulation of the material world by consciousness is clearly evident if you constantly observe what is being presented to you, you'll see that your conscious state of mind influences the material reality.

If the two have become one then there is no creator and your conscious. There is not two - there is no reality plus you.
When the two become one - two cannot 'become' one. One is what there is and there is something added which is not.
There is no you separate from what is.

originally posted by: cooperton


Surely our conscious abilities are currently lesser than the Creator. Manipulation of the material world by consciousness is clearly evident if you constantly observe what is being presented to you, you'll see that your conscious state of mind influences the material reality.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

If the two have become one then there is no creator and your conscious. There is not two - there is no reality plus you.
When the two become one - two cannot 'become' one. One is what there is and there is something added which is not.
There is no you separate from what is.

Yes, Note how I purposefully said "currently". Although the only moment is now, time is purposed to get us out of its own illusion...

a reply to: cooperton

Consciousness and Matter are essentially the same. The former is Matter at its most refined or subtlest form while the latter is Consciousness in its grossest form. Think of steam and water, which are essentially the same. In Hinduism these are named Shiva & Shakti respectively - the two poles on the continuum, hence it's more about polarity and not dualism/duality. The latter is applied to other contexts (e.g. Jesus referring to himself as Son of the Father = duality / dvaita). Yes, the Ardhanarishvara principle is iconic of this union of Shiva-Shakti, as you rightly pointed out. This is both psychologically and biochemically evident in every human being. For we have a right and left brain (female and male respectively = psychological fact), testosterone and estrogen (biochemical fact), plus the discovery that there is also a whole brain too (psychological fact). So if one is male, one can say that: I am male (physiologically / biochemically [androgenic] / psychologically [gender]; I am also female (physiologically / biochemically [estrogenic] / psychologically [gender]. Following this logic, I am therefore both male and female (androgynous) and, most importantly, on reaching this stage, one has to go beyond the next apparent mental block - to see that one is NEITHER male NOR female. The latter state is the ultimate Transcendent Truth (= HOME). Many who claimed to be enlightened or liberated are actually stuck and have not proceeded to the ultimate transcendent state, thanks to the allure of the luminosity and brilliance that obtain at the penultimate stage. So one should not merely stop at Ardhanarishvara

- no matter how fatigued, weary and weather-bitten one is from all that blooming quest. In the didactic words of H. P. Blavatsky, The path: it winds uphill, all the way!!

The quote from St. Thomas's gospel which you cited is a probable allusion to the occult science & art of Kundalini, India being home to that time-honored Tantric tradition. Its purposive inclusion in the gospel is a strong hint that Jesus himself learnt and perfected it in himself. There are extant records and accounts of Jesus traveling to India and neighboring countries, teaching as well as learning from the people he met during his "missing years". Since St. Thomas himself lived and died in India, it is surely contextually meaningful and apposite that the Tantric passage you cited got worked into the exotic gospel, a gospel sprung from India, Thomas's new home ground (I had the wonderful opportunity to visit, a few years ago, the Basilica that houses Thomas's remains and relics - a short trip in Madras / Chennai. I had two unexpected revelations at the Basilica). Those who do Kundalini successfully would eventually generate within themselves the very same "miraculous" powers of levitation, clairvoyance, clairsentience, walking through walls, healing, etc. - the so-called Siddhis or psychic powers described in the Patanjali Sutras, or the occult powers from Vajrayana practices. These are the powers which Jesus himself demonstrated and gifted to others, and the self-same powers that lie LATENT (= potentiality), perpetually waiting to sprout and bloom, in e v e r y human being.

One has to be careful with names and terms and my use of Father for Awareness is for convenience. I am aware that Lord Shiva has often been called the Father hence your preference for equating Consciousness with Father, but is it really so? Awareness cannot be separated from Consciousness but the two actually has a unilateral relationship. The latter is no different from the former, but the former is NOT the latter. You can get a fair glimpse of this relationship from William Blake's poetic framing about the universe being reflected in a grain of sand - a holographic analogy in the language of contemporary science.

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: editing

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: further edit

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: editing

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: further edit

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: editing

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: editing

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: (no reason given)

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: editing

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: (no reason given)

edit on Octpm15 11 20 by Rextiberius because: (no reason given)

There is no matter, only consciousness having a perception of matter www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Mix vodka and tomato juice and you'll get bloody mary. Voilà! [1] + [1] = 2 = 1 again.

a reply to: senseifil

Consciousness and Matter are essentially the same. The former is Matter at its most refined or subtlest form while the latter is Consciousness in its grossest form. Think of steam and water, which are essentially the same.

a reply to: openminded2011

We are not just a facet or speck of consciousness - for that is only the first step. As you go further, you will see that this ocean of consciousness is you. And when you go even further, you will see that this consciousness is not only INSIDE you but also this: that you are actually generating and projecting it yourself - yes, this projection is still inside yourself. So suck all that back - within-wards - and tell us what you now see that's left of it. Consciousness is always limited, despite the nice-sounding appendages stuck to it like universal, infinite... these are essentially measurements [and limitations] of time and space. BUT you, we, I, etc are really and truly beyond all these concepts... Most the stuff one reads in the literature come from those who have not yet "attained" the absolute... they are resting somewhere on the steep slopes of the hill and have not yet finished the onerous climb. So the description they have given us is only RELATIVE to the stage and point they have arrived at and so should not be interpreted in absolute terms. It is NOT a description of what they will actually SEE at the SUMMIT. Think of Gautama's analogy of the blind men who attempt to describe the elephant from the body PART they happen to be touching. Each blind man's description is surely not a valid representation of the WHOLE animal, and oh yes, it does make one wonder what the description will be like from those have reached the blooming summit!!

What if they happened at exactly the same time?