Interesting quote from song

E=mc2 lends some support.

I guess you could say that. What intrigues me is "we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively" kind of interesting to think about especially since we can't prove that is wrong and it may as well be true.

The problem we do have with our linguistical terms, to date, and the inability of some to give more careful concern to that matter, really comes to the forefront here.

To that say that we all, in the sense of just us human beings, or even in the sense of all brain/ganglion possessive life forms, constitute one consciousness is absolute nonsense. Now I use that expression here, 'absolute nonsense' NOT so as to express emotional quality, but rather to show, simply and to the point, 100% lack of logical meaning. If the word conscious had been used, it would have been a different story.

In the English language, the word consciousness requires, by very definition, the fact of self-awareness. Self-awareness, in turn, is a brain state shared not only by the H. sapien, but by the primates, in a lesser degree, and then on down in diminishing degrees to total absence--as can best be determined by the evidence out there. It is possible for me to share self-awareness with the person who started this thread to such a immaterial degree, that we'd be most correct in saying that it is impossible. It is impossible for any human being to actually and verifiably have the self-awareness of a bat--thus, the hard problem. For all humans, or, all brain/ganglion carrying life forms to be one consciousness, therefore, we would be required, by definition, to be self-aware of the whole--which we most clearly are not.

For this reason, it is absolute nonsense to claim to know, or to even speculate that all us humans, or, even worse, all us brain/ganglion carrying life forms amount to a single consciousness.

The writer kind of ignores other universially understood terms as well. While such poetic license can of course make beautiful art--which I can feel and understand and appreciate--I would always point out that concepts in such poetry are being expounded on, in the sense of abstract notions of fancy, and would be careful to segragate those from what factual terms (here, that first sentence) are leasurely thrown in amongst them.

Well if conscious is self-awareness the if we are all part of one consciousness then that means we all share the same awareness our our one self (We are all one mind, as put simply). I think that makes enough sense.

While I feel I can understand the artistic emotion behind such, it hardly makes sense, again, for the very reasons I have mentioned above. If there are two people, there are two separate and ever-so-slightly different minds, thus two different consciousnesses--they simply cannot realistically be thought of as being one mind, one bank of recorded experience, one result of a single genetic outplay.

This is why we have to understand (per present English definition as backed up by present knowledge) that self-awareness is the state of that single brain, not the state of all brains viewed as a single entity from the moon (if you will).

The problem with the poem, again, is slackness with English; IMHO. The idea that the poet seems to want to get across, is that in that 'life force' is a continuum overall, that life itself is in existence, there is no need to focus on the death of any individual player/entity making up a speck of matter/time/space within that large, cosmic-like ameoba of a thing (life force), because life force continues.

This is not a matter of consciousness in the English language, but rather, simply, a matter of life force period--and to that degree would surely have to include non-animal life forms as well;: and so again, consciousness is of no concern.

Well actually the quote was from more or less a philosopher and not the actual artist of the song. Yes the quote may have been said in a more poetic-like way but if said in a more analytical way i'd see the same message. Anyway the "we are all one mind thing" is hard to grasp at first but it is a cool idea to play around with. Yes i know this may be contradicting with the english language and such but try and take a step back for a second and look at things from the big picture. To put this idea into a specific scenario, let's say that life is a dream, all of the other people we interact with on a daily bases are just our imagination conjuring up some other consciousnesses. Which one can truly be us, may each other person be a seperate peice of our mind that doesn't consciously connect and relate with other parts which is why in one consciousness we cannot directly interact with another. I am everyone and everyone is I :whoa-dude:. Now i know this may be a lot to take in but i'm thinking this is what the quote is saying even though i could be wrong.

Thanks for your further explanation and example of application on the idea. In imagination, it is a fun thing to do, yes, and I had done such things often enough back in the 'good-ole days' (so to speak). Of course, it simply has no practical explanatory power, does not give any predictions which we can apply towards the 'real everyday world' we actually live in, and have evolved to survive in, and thus is just for fun. That's actually what would make the pondering on such things fun . . . the escape from that world outside the office window.

The poem does request us to set aside normal definitions, which again, is fun to do from time to time, so it does have that up-beatness to it. That I do like. If the poetic philosopher had been trying to state, as though it were factual, what you have just described, then that author exhibits a lack of knowledge about conscious states--most of which do not reach consciousness, but which are very single brain things.

We could take a look at it from a genetical point of view (but then wouldn't be speaking of consciousness again) in that our genetical line goes back to a more likely pretty much single starting point. That might also be interesting to think about.