Reply
Fri 17 Dec, 2004 02:11 pm
the other day i was in our universities library, and i over heard a conversation going on about how they believe that evrybody is in the same state of mind except politicians. funny as it may sound it brought up a good question, that i found myself thinking about for the rest of the day.
free style........do you think its possible to achieve the same exact state of mind more than once in your life?
now u know that u cant hear a conversation going on like that and not ask to put in your two sense....so i did...they were eager to hear what i thought about the situatiion....my reply was simple: i asked them if they thought you could achieve the same state of mind twice, they said "no", i then asked them why they thought that everyone had the same state of mind if they themselves could not achieve the same state of mind more than once, if we ourselves cannot duplicate a state of mind once, then how would you say that it could be duplicated by the number of things that "have mind", then they realized they were wrong.
That was also my thought on the subject...if you conot duplicate a state of mind once, then how would it duplicate by the number of things that are able to achieve "state of mind" or things that "have mind".
there are so many different aspects of the mind, so many different properties play a role in a "state of mind", it would be physically and mentally impossible to achieve it more than once,
so i would like to hear what anyone else thinks about this subject.....
Couldn't there just be one mind which we all share? Then we would all share the same state of mind, but there would be no need for duplicating states of mind. I'm inclined to believe that minds are constituted by neurons and such, so I wouldn't accept this myself; but if you don't take a materialist position on what constitutes the mind, then what is your counterargument for a shared, universal mind?
There IS one mind wich we all share. That's how I know that there was a great war in europe long before my lifetime. The designs of the mind are not kept within its physical incarnation, the physical brain is merely the enterpeter of universal information, and in the last link our concious selves seek to understand what we recieve as impressions. This gives rise to the concept of an individual mind. But this is ignorance. The oriental philosophies have said it for ages, that all the knowledge of all things lie deep within our minds.
Cyracuz wrote:There IS one mind wich we all share. That's how I know that there was a great war in europe long before my lifetime. The designs of the mind are not kept within its physical incarnation, the physical brain is merely the enterpeter of universal information, and in the last link our concious selves seek to understand what we recieve as impressions. This gives rise to the concept of an individual mind. But this is ignorance. The oriental philosophies have said it for ages, that all the knowledge of all things lie deep within our minds.
Can you give me any reason to believe the oriental philosophers, other than your belief that you know that there was a great war in europe long before your lifetime? And what is the universal mind? Is it non-physical? Or made of ghost-ish stuff? How could it exist?
Cyracuz
But do you know all episodes and facts of that war? All feelings of all soldiers, all pains? If there is only an universal mind, that we share, I would know everything you know. I would have the knowledge of all men before my lifetime and in the futur. With all details.
Do you have that knowledge?
Collective consciousness works more on the idea that humans share a lot of mental commonalities. For example, one does not need to know a single fact about a war to know that soldiers on both sides feel a sense of loss for their fallen comrades, and the pain a family goes through for the loss of a husband or wife in the line of duty. I'm only using war as an example because it came up.
Cavfancier
That is different from the "universal mind we share". You are talking about analogy.
All my senses are directly connected to my inner being, and to the world around me. All material that go through my senses leave an imprint on my memory wether I know it or not. Even things I do not understand or even know exist are recorded, directly affecting my spiritual state. This knowledge is valuable to modern filmmakers who create just the moods they want for their films.
Another thing to consider is the habits of animals who trek the globe. We have been unable to determine what governs the behavior of sparrows that fly formations to scare off predators. They move in incredible patterns with a perfection that suggests one consiousness. However, suggestions are not adequate. Even if we, in an attempt to satisfy even the most relentless sceptic among us, state that the birds all operate idividually based on instinct, the question is merely postponed. Where does this instinct come from?
When we talk about One mind it is easy to assume that the meaning is one singular consiousness that envelopes all lesser ones. Wether or not there exists some kind of singular conciousness it really irrelevant. There is however a code. One equation or a set of them at the foundation of creation, and at every step of evolution. Ideas have been born almost simultaneously in completely separated parts of the world. Strange that different cultures can come to the same conclusions. Or not so strange if we think about the code. Everything, even the thoughts in our minds are executed in accordance with the code that all evolution follows.
The mystical aspects of this, healing, spiritism and sush things I dare not go into here. I am of the mind that there are forces I don't see at work that I cannot begin to comprehend, and that there are things in the world that are above science. Maybe they will not be forever, but I try to live in the moment.
Why does this coding need to be beyond science? What about DNA?
It does not have to be beyond science. It just is now, though science has already uncovered part of it. DNA might be it. I don't know. But will science ever find ALL the answers? Maybe, as the questions are revealed.
Right on Cyracuz. Here's what I think: I see myself, a conscious being, that is what I am. I see other conscious being, and I see that even though I can not feel what they feel, they are conscious and they do feel. This sets me to think, can I be no different than them except that I am seperated by a body and a brain? This, my friends, is what I think is higher awareness. I'm just struggling to make out whether it's rational or not. Perception distinguishes things, reason identifies them. According to one law of reason, "like" things must be treated alike, and thus this higher awareness thing is pretty rational. :wink:
Ray wrote:This, my friends, is what I think is higher awareness.
It's not awareness, it's speculation.
Conciousness is probably constituted by nothing more than the behaviour of neurons, and therefore probably isn't one big 'thing' that many bodies can latch on to. Even if my consciousness was somehow exactly the same as yours, it would still be seperate to yours, because it would be caused my my neurons, and not yours. The concept of the universal mind seems to rely on Descartes being on the right track - but he wasn't; there is no non-physical, non-spatial mind seperate from the body.
Cyracuz wrote:There IS one mind wich we all share.
How do you know that...or is this another one of your guesses?
Quote:That's how I know that there was a great war in europe long before my lifetime. The designs of the mind are not kept within its physical incarnation, the physical brain is merely the enterpeter of universal information, and in the last link our concious selves seek to understand what we recieve as impressions. This gives rise to the concept of an individual mind.
Really???
So how do you know there is only one mind...which we share?
Quote: But this is ignorance.
Yeah it is...but try not to be so hard on yourself.
Quote:The oriental philosophies have said it for ages, that all the knowledge of all things lie deep within our minds.
But they might just be guessing. The fact that they say it...even the fact that they have said it for ages....does not make it so.
In fact, it may not be so.
It seems to me Frank that you are not convinced before the evidence is plain enough for a monkey to read.
I elaborated the post you refer to a little further down the page. Maybe you missed it.
Cyracuz wrote:It seems to me Frank that you are not convinced before the evidence is plain enough for a monkey to read.
No, Cyracuz...all I ask is that there actually be some evidence...rather than simply guesses pulled out of thin air.
Remember, you wrote: "There IS one mind wich we all share."
In response, I asked you: "How do you know that...or is this another one of your guesses?"
I ask again: What evidence do you have that there is but one mind? Or is this simply one of those things you guess?
Quote:I elaborated the post you refer to a little further down the page. Maybe you missed it.
I honestly do not know what you are talking about here?????
This post:
Quote:All my senses are directly connected to my inner being, and to the world around me. All material that go through my senses leave an imprint on my memory wether I know it or not. Even things I do not understand or even know exist are recorded, directly affecting my spiritual state. This knowledge is valuable to modern filmmakers who create just the moods they want for their films.
Another thing to consider is the habits of animals who trek the globe. We have been unable to determine what governs the behavior of sparrows that fly formations to scare off predators. They move in incredible patterns with a perfection that suggests one consiousness. However, suggestions are not adequate. Even if we, in an attempt to satisfy even the most relentless sceptic among us, state that the birds all operate idividually based on instinct, the question is merely postponed. Where does this instinct come from?
When we talk about One mind it is easy to assume that the meaning is one singular consiousness that envelopes all lesser ones. Wether or not there exists some kind of singular conciousness it really irrelevant. There is however a code. One equation or a set of them at the foundation of creation, and at every step of evolution. Ideas have been born almost simultaneously in completely separated parts of the world. Strange that different cultures can come to the same conclusions. Or not so strange if we think about the code. Everything, even the thoughts in our minds are executed in accordance with the code that all evolution follows.
I am simply stating that evolution follows rules, and that even the thoughts in our heads are evoulution, and subject to these rules. Does the fact that we don't know the rules change anything? In that sense there is one mind, but maybe mind is not the best word to use.
Cyracuz wrote:This post:
Quote:All my senses are directly connected to my inner being, and to the world around me. All material that go through my senses leave an imprint on my memory wether I know it or not. Even things I do not understand or even know exist are recorded, directly affecting my spiritual state. This knowledge is valuable to modern filmmakers who create just the moods they want for their films.
Another thing to consider is the habits of animals who trek the globe. We have been unable to determine what governs the behavior of sparrows that fly formations to scare off predators. They move in incredible patterns with a perfection that suggests one consiousness. However, suggestions are not adequate. Even if we, in an attempt to satisfy even the most relentless sceptic among us, state that the birds all operate idividually based on instinct, the question is merely postponed. Where does this instinct come from?
When we talk about One mind it is easy to assume that the meaning is one singular consiousness that envelopes all lesser ones. Wether or not there exists some kind of singular conciousness it really irrelevant. There is however a code. One equation or a set of them at the foundation of creation, and at every step of evolution. Ideas have been born almost simultaneously in completely separated parts of the world. Strange that different cultures can come to the same conclusions. Or not so strange if we think about the code. Everything, even the thoughts in our minds are executed in accordance with the code that all evolution follows.
I am simply stating that evolution follows rules, and that even the thoughts in our heads are evoulution, and subject to these rules. Does the fact that we don't know the rules change anything? In that sense there is one mind, but maybe mind is not the best word to use.
If you want to say that, by and large, we all share the same history or essentially the same evolution...say that.
I would not question that.
You said, however, that there IS one mind which we all share.
In fact, you said that in direct response to Agrote's comment: "Couldn't there just be one mind which we all share?"
That I challenged.
But I am getting the sense that you realize you were wrong.
Not wrong. Just not eloquent enough. I need some time to consider my response. If I come to the conclusion that I am wrong I will let you know.
I thought about the total amount of information that exists in the universe. It is logical to assume that everything follows the rules of evolution, and therefore there should be some "code" that governs it. This code, I guess, is what I was referring to as the "one mind". If you know it there is nothing that is hidden to you. But it occurs to me that "mind" is a very inaccurate word to use. It implies a will and a conciousness to go with it. I exclude these things.
Quote:It's not awareness, it's speculation.
It's a postulate.
Quote:Conciousness is probably constituted by nothing more than the behaviour of neurons, and therefore probably isn't one big 'thing' that many bodies can latch on to. Even if my consciousness was somehow exactly the same as yours, it would still be seperate to yours, because it would be caused my my neurons, and not yours. The concept of the universal mind seems to rely on Descartes being on the right track - but he wasn't; there is no non-physical, non-spatial mind seperate from the body.
But this is also an assumption as they haven't found the mechanisms of consciousness yet. Yeah, your brain is seperate from mine, but what I was aiming at was to show a common identity, that is, human consciousness. A consciousness is a part of the universe, that is it's a part of a wholeness. Bohm postulate that the universe could possibly be a hologram. I don't see why it's not possible for there to be collective consciousness even if the brain is seperate. Our consciousness are not the neurons themselves.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace