Philosophy Now Forum

A_uk

The question becomes if nothing can become something through the process of conscious evolution and become a part of something truly valuable: conscious humanity beginning with the cosmic man?

If it is any consolation, Plato taught that the concept of Philosopher Kings should include Philosopher Queens. Why not? The cosmic perspective is not limited by sex.

At least he gave a clear educational path to his PKs and Qs and none of it involves any of the guff you don't talk about.

You call it guff because you are limited to inductive logic. You are unaware of its limitation for opening to the third dimension of thought and the potential to acquire a cosmic perspective. I cannot explain the value of what Einstein and Plato refer to. You either get it or deny it. Yet it is an essential part of human education. Call it guff if you like but I can only appreciate it as the reactions of a closed mind

“It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not the learning of many facts, but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks.” From Philipp Frank's book "Einstein: His Life and Times"

"If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows." ― Plato, Phaedrus

Dubious wrote to Seeds:

Whereas I agree with the intent of your statement, some concepts really are ludicrous! Many of these constellate around the subject of consciousness, its degree and ability to spread itself across the universe.

Bereft of any overt reason for existing the mind hallucinates one for itself in a universe which offers none. Or put another way if the universe, prima facie, has no purpose consciousness must crown itself To Be its purpose. We used to have gods to approve that conviction. Now we have Quantum Theory instead!

Where I worry about the existence of Purpose is where Purpose is claimed to exist in the same way as sticks and stones exist, only better. Is it possible to use the notion of Purpose as an inspiring What If ?

After all, there do exist people of goodwill, and their purposes , while differing about what good consists of, is inspired by an idea that good consists in something. Maybe if the notion that good consists in something were to be regarded as useful poetry?

I know the trouble with my suggestion is people would take it all literally as has been done and is still being done.

So, is there any way to counter literalism in god-belief?

One suggestion is that 'belief' can mean , not only ' belief about', but 'trust in'. 'Trust in' does not have to be Pollyanna optimistic but can co-exist with uncertainty in a warts and all way.

You and Dubious are not open to the conception of universal purpose because you are accustomed to appreciating purpose in relation to results. The purpose of this is to create that.

The universe is a cycle so its purpose is witnessed in the process of existence. We lack the quality of consciousness necessary to experience the process so we are limited by the attempt to define universal purpose by temporal results. Universal purpose is reflected in the process of existence. Cave purpose is defined by the results of cave beliefs.

seeds wrote: As just one simple example of what I am getting at, “visible light” (i.e., that which illuminates the three-dimensional structures of the universe) would have absolutely no reason or purpose for existing in a context where there is nothing conscious (alive) to see anything.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am This is the core area where we vehemently disagree. You project purpose as humanly denoted where I think of the Universe simply as being...no extra "humanisms" imposed.

What is the purpose of billions of planets existing just in our galaxy which are totally devoid of life, literally dead planets...a number that can be further multiplied by billions of galaxies! It’s beyond paradox to derive purpose here even if some planets host a consciousness no greater than that of a sardine.

Based on recent speculation that there may actually exist an undetected planet in just our little solar system alone, then if I were you, I would not put so much faith in humanity’s present ability to discern the state of other solar systems that are light years away from us, let alone, thousands, or even billions of light years away.

Furthermore (and speculatively speaking), if we were to assign a purpose for the so-called “dead planets” throughout the universe, could they not be viewed as an almost inexhaustible reservoir of future resources for consciousness to draw-upon in its inevitable conquering of space?

And lastly, from the philosophical perspectives of Idealism and a Berkeleyanish Panentheism...

(i.e., the concepts upon which my ideas are based, and the real “core area” of our disagreement)

...there is literally nothing – in all of reality – that is not alive in some context or another (including what appear to be “dead planets”).

seeds wrote: In fact, according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the existence of consciousness to transform the waving, informationally-based (noumenal) underpinning of the universe into the phenomenal features that consciousness itself calls “reality”...

...then the entire universe would exist as a superpositionally entangled amalgam of potentialities (the “universal wavefunction”) that has no reality as we understand reality to be.

In other words, minus the existence of life and consciousness, the universe would be a sightless, textureless, soundless, tasteless, odorless “field of information”….

If it is even remotely possible that such is the case, then don't you think that your insistence that the value of consciousness is “inflated” and “exceeding its mandate,” could be a bit off the mark?

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am Consciousness is inflated by its own desperate efforts to give itself meaning and using every available method for doing so. The “value of consciousness” is truly beyond estimate while remaining limited nonetheless. Superimposing any interpretation of Quantum Theory does not negate this fact.

One particular interpretation of quantum theory suggests that reality is “holographic-like” in nature.

It implies that if you were to remove every trace of life and consciousness from the universe, then it would be something similar (loosely speaking) to removing the explicating laser on the right side of the illustration below...



...wherein all you would have left is a nondescript field of coded information as seen in the middle square above.

(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... e%2021.jpg)

Therefore, this obviously indispensable role that consciousness allegedly (theoretically) plays in the manifestation of phenomenal (3-D) reality, can hardly be characterized as being “limited.”

Seriously now, you really need to find a different approach in your attempt to dismiss the value of consciousness.

(Continued in next post)
_______

_______

(Continued from prior post)

seeds wrote: Also, what I infer from your response is that you don’t seem to have given much thought to what quantum theory is implying (at least to the astute metaphysician) in how reality seems to be composed of a “mind-like” substance.

And I suggest that it is “mind-like” because the informationally-based essence from which the fabric of reality is woven (again, the noumenal underpinning of the universe) is apparently capable of being arranged in such a way that practically any (objective) phenomenal structure “imaginable” can be created from it...

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am ...beyond its current definition? Beyond what’s already been created, what already exists? Beyond the science which attempts to explain it?

Yes to all of those questions.

However, keep in mind that the science which attempts to explain reality is also what allows us to “re-imagine” (re-shape) reality beyond its current state as suggested in my comments below.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am Logically, it would seem to me, the “noumenal underpinning of the universe” had to preexist its creation. What you seem to be saying is that the universe (or its apparent reality) can be re-morphed as informationally-based variables whose conditions are amenable to consciousness.

Yes, it can be “re-morphed.”

Do you actually think that we could be communicating right now through the means of satellites beaming electrons through space were it not for quantum physicists “re-morphing” the original clays of creation to suit our needs and desires?

What quantum physics does is kind of...



(Again, for a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and expand the image - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... %20255.jpg)

Therefore, it should be obvious that the informationally-based underpinning of the universe is indeed amenable to the dictates of consciousness.

Again, as I suggested in the quote you are addressing, all of reality (objective and subjective) is “mind-like.”

And the only difference between the outer-dimension of the universe and that of the inner-dimension of our minds is that one must be “willed” into conformity via the sloggingly slow “indirect” means of our hands, tools, chemistry, and quantum physics, etc., while the other can be “willed” into conformity “directly” and instantly.

seeds wrote: In which case, if it is indeed a possibility that all of reality is “mind-like” in nature (think Berkeley), then it would seem that consciousness (the overlord and manipulator of mind-stuff) would be critical to the system.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am I’m not negating that Reality can be qualified by certain interpretations as “mind-like” because in some ways consciousness has already proven itself capable of doing exactly that. As such, it still remains qualified by limits imposed by the system however extensive that may be. Only figuratively can it be said that the universe caused the creation of consciousness to reflect upon itself but even then it can only be to whatever limit consciousness itself is limited to.

And if one could imagine (as I do) the possibility that consciousness (life) has existed so far back into the eternal past as to make the 13.8 billion year age of this universe seem like a blink of an eye in comparison...

...then what “limit” could you possibly impose on consciousness under the terms of it having evolved in the context of infinite time?

The point is, try to be open to the idea that life and consciousness (especially “incorporeal” consciousness) may have existed (literally forever) prior to the creation of this universe.

seeds wrote: The point is that there are a lot of different pieces of the puzzle to consider before you dismiss certain concepts that seem ludicrous to you.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:50 am Whereas I agree with the intent of your statement, some concepts really are ludicrous! Many of these constellate around the subject of consciousness, its degree and ability to spread itself across the universe.

Bereft of any overt reason for existing the mind hallucinates one for itself in a universe which offers none. Or put another way if the universe, prima facie, has no purpose consciousness must crown itself To Be its purpose. We used to have gods to approve that conviction. Now we have Quantum Theory instead!

Again, Dubious, if you can think of something in all of reality that is more important than life and consciousness, then name it!
_______

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... wking.html

Technology must be controlled by in order to safeguard the future of humanity, Stephen Hawking has warned.
The physicist, who has spoken out about the dangers of artificial intelligence in the past, says a 'world government' could be our only hope.
He says our 'logic and reason' could be the only way to defeat the growing threat of nuclear or biological war.

'Since civilization began, aggression has been useful inasmuch as it has definite survival advantages,' he told The Times.
'It is hard-wired into our genes by Darwinian evolution.
'Now, however, technology has advanced at such a pace that this aggression may destroy us all by nuclear or biological war. We need to control this inherited instinct by our logic and reason.'
He suggests that 'some form of world government' could be ideal for the job, but would itself create more problems.
'But that might become a tyranny,' he added.

"The future is made of the same stuff as the present." ~ Simone Weil

That is the trouble. There is nothing visible in the world today today that indicates any change in the collective quality of being of the Great Beast. Stephen Hawking's An idea of a sensible world government reflecting logic and reason is just wishful thinking. The human condition will never allow it. Growth in a human perspective capable of coping with the adverse effects of technology will require the influence of the cosmic man and the help of grace. Both are denied as society becomes increasingly secular and the Great Beast remains enchanted with technology. I hate to say it but sometimes we have to learn by experience and experience in this case will mean hitting bottom producing catastrophic results truly disturbing to contemplate.

”seeds” wrote:Based on recent speculation that there may actually exist an undetected planet in just our little solar system alone, then if I were you, I would not put so much faith in humanity’s present ability to discern the state of other solar systems that are light years away from us, let alone, thousands, or even billions of light years away.

Furthermore (and speculatively speaking), if we were to assign a purpose for the so-called “dead planets” throughout the universe, could they not be viewed as an almost inexhaustible reservoir of future resources for consciousness to draw-upon in its inevitable conquering of space?


And lastly, from the philosophical perspectives of Idealism and a Berkeleyanish Panentheism...

(i.e., the concepts upon which my ideas are based, and the real “core area” of our disagreement)

...there is literally nothing – in all of reality – that is not alive in some context or another (including what appear to be “dead planets”)

Sorry but these views are so heaped with speculation that virtually nothing remains of reality. Our “philosophical perspectives of Idealism and a Berkeleyanish Panentheism”, are only that and nothing more based solely on our outstanding ability to wishfully speculate!

Also, we will never “conquer space”. Neither is it inevitable. The best we can hope for if we don’t short-change ourselves through internecine wars or environmental depletion is to gradually terraform a few pieces of local real estate congenial to the process. Though the phrase is ubiquitous, the “conquering space” scenario is too reminiscent of science fiction movies.

”seeds” wrote:Therefore, this obviously indispensable role that consciousness allegedly (theoretically) plays in the manifestation of phenomenal (3-D) reality, can hardly be characterized as being “limited.”

Seriously now, you really need to find a different approach in your attempt to dismiss the value of consciousness.

I wish you would stop saying that I’m attempting to dismiss the value of consciousness when I specifically wrote, “The “value of consciousness” is truly beyond estimate while remaining limited nonetheless”. Consciousness is not an all or nothing entity.

There is no question it remains limited. With the way our brains are wired those limitations are not hypothetical but factual. In effect, there’s every reason to believe human intelligence or brain power may already have reached its “evolutionary limit”. Is it not paradoxical to think consciousness can exceed the intellectual limits imposed by both physics and biology? Consciousness, as currently contained, may already have reached its first major milestone in the acknowledgement that this is likely to be as good as it gets.

”Dubious” wrote:Logically, it would seem to me, the “noumenal underpinning of the universe” had to preexist its creation. What you seem to be saying is that the universe (or its apparent reality) can be re-morphed as informationally-based variables whose conditions are amenable to consciousness.

”seeds” wrote:Yes, it can be “re-morphed.”

Do you actually think that we could be communicating right now through the means of satellites beaming electrons through space were it not for quantum physicists “re-morphing” the original clays of creation to suit our needs and desires?

Not certain what this means exactly but if I get the gist of it, I submit they haven’t “re-morphed” anything. What they’ve done is manipulate the subatomic or quantum realm (because they can) to do service to our needs and desires.

You seem to regard quantum theory as having the potential of extracting a god from consciousness. If this view is viable, then it’s equally possible we are surrounded by a universe that’s already been morphed to some other entity’s far greater extension of consciousness.

Methinks not so! Consciousness to whatever extreme cannot bend or warp reality to its own specifications beyond what is inherent in the universe from the very beginning. It may allow itself to be discovered by imaginative leaps but not infringed except perhaps in very minor ways.

”seeds” wrote:Again, Dubious, if you can think of something in all of reality that is more important than life and consciousness, then name it!

...that which caused it! The Universe as a petrie dish of possibilities while being under no obligation to cause anything by way of purpose or conscious intent these being merely side-effects of its own secondary and tertiary creations meaning the likes of us!

We may think consciousness makes us elite in the universe and yet we remain as much subject to what our lonesome little planet does by way of climate, earthquakes and volcanoes as the first cave man who barbecued a bison!

There were other points mentioned I was going to respond to but at the moment I’m top-heavy with other affairs. Also, we’re so diametrical in our views that we cancel each other out. I don’t think there’s any point in repeating our arguments even though it was interesting while it lasted.

P.S. Your sketches are really neat! They illustrate your views quite well!

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:38 am http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... wking.html

Technology must be controlled by in order to safeguard the future of humanity, Stephen Hawking has warned.
The physicist, who has spoken out about the dangers of artificial intelligence in the past, says a 'world government' could be our only hope.
He says our 'logic and reason' could be the only way to defeat the growing threat of nuclear or biological war.

'Since civilization began, aggression has been useful inasmuch as it has definite survival advantages,' he told The Times.
'It is hard-wired into our genes by Darwinian evolution.
'Now, however, technology has advanced at such a pace that this aggression may destroy us all by nuclear or biological war. We need to control this inherited instinct by our logic and reason.'
He suggests that 'some form of world government' could be ideal for the job, but would itself create more problems.
'But that might become a tyranny,' he added.

"The future is made of the same stuff as the present." ~ Simone Weil

That is the trouble. There is nothing visible in the world today today that indicates any change in the collective quality of being of the Great Beast. Stephen Hawking's An idea of a sensible world government reflecting logic and reason is just wishful thinking. The human condition will never allow it. Growth in a human perspective capable of coping with the adverse effects of technology will require the influence of the cosmic man and the help of grace. Both are denied as society becomes increasingly secular and the Great Beast remains enchanted with technology. I hate to say it but sometimes we have to learn by experience and experience in this case will mean hitting bottom producing catastrophic results truly disturbing to contemplate.

You are right, Nick, we are all doomed for destruction and the doom is nigh. I am not trying to be funny. Earth can no longer support our species to which God or nature has added reason but which most of us use for short term purposes or hardly at all.

"universal consciousness" is imprecise. Better " omniscient God" .
Omniscience is a good aim for men. We shall never attain it but there is much survival value in imagining it, and striving towards as much of omniscience as we can.

Mystics , for all we can know, do have special powers to contact transcendent reality which includes omniscience. Most men are not mystics, and even if they were , reason would be a safer method to approach reality. Nevertheless a faith in transcendent reality inspires men to be good and happy. It's best however to recognise that transcendent reality is a matter for speculation not certainty.

Seeds, you should really begin a thread called "The Holographic Universe." The universe as a hologram is a theory that is becoming increasingly accepted because there is a lot of truth in it. However, as this thread has indicated, we are psychologically closed to the third dimension of thought so are trapped in dualism incapable of opening to intuition leading to conscious evolution. So why not have a thread which would include your own ideas as well as current speculations as to the holographic universe. If we begin to see the scientific hypothesis, why are we closed psychologically? Why do we deny the third dimension of thought with such conviction even though it suggests levels of reality as the cause of our beliefs?

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jun/03 ... t-hologram

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:23 am You and Dubious are not open to the conception of universal purpose because you are accustomed to appreciating purpose in relation to results. The purpose of this is to create that.

The universe is a cycle so its purpose is witnessed in the process of existence. We lack the quality of consciousness necessary to experience the process so we are limited by the attempt to define universal purpose by temporal results. Universal purpose is reflected in the process of existence. Cave purpose is defined by the results of cave beliefs.

If you want to define purpose as inherent within existence itself I can think of no reason to deny it. What I find objectionable, hyperbolic and out of bounds are the very limited humans thinking they can thrust their own definitions of purpose on a cosmos with man somehow centralized within it. That to me more than anything defines cave purpose manifested as cave beliefs. The secular equation, in spite of all its faults, is far more balanced in that respect.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:16 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:23 am You and Dubious are not open to the conception of universal purpose because you are accustomed to appreciating purpose in relation to results. The purpose of this is to create that.

The universe is a cycle so its purpose is witnessed in the process of existence. We lack the quality of consciousness necessary to experience the process so we are limited by the attempt to define universal purpose by temporal results. Universal purpose is reflected in the process of existence. Cave purpose is defined by the results of cave beliefs.

If you want to define purpose as inherent within existence itself I can think of no reason to deny it. What I find objectionable, hyperbolic and out of bounds are the very limited humans thinking they can thrust their own definitions of purpose on a cosmos with man somehow centralized within it. That to me more than anything defines cave purpose manifested as cave beliefs. The secular equation, in spite of all its faults, is far more balanced in that respect.

I agree. A popular misconception IMO is that the universe is here to serve us. Actually it is the opposite. We exist to serve universal purpose. It can either be done mechanically as does all organic life on earth including animal man or it can be done consciously which is Man's conscious evolutionary potential.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:33 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:16 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:23 am You and Dubious are not open to the conception of universal purpose because you are accustomed to appreciating purpose in relation to results. The purpose of this is to create that.

The universe is a cycle so its purpose is witnessed in the process of existence. We lack the quality of consciousness necessary to experience the process so we are limited by the attempt to define universal purpose by temporal results. Universal purpose is reflected in the process of existence. Cave purpose is defined by the results of cave beliefs.

If you want to define purpose as inherent within existence itself I can think of no reason to deny it. What I find objectionable, hyperbolic and out of bounds are the very limited humans thinking they can thrust their own definitions of purpose on a cosmos with man somehow centralized within it. That to me more than anything defines cave purpose manifested as cave beliefs. The secular equation, in spite of all its faults, is far more balanced in that respect.

I agree. A popular misconception IMO is that the universe is here to serve us. Actually it is the opposite. We exist to serve universal purpose. It can either be done mechanically as does all organic life on earth including animal man or it can be done consciously which is Man's conscious evolutionary potential.

If one wants to make that assumption, fine; but in the meantime it's imperative to remain practical and cognizant of limits in whatever manner they manifest themselves; without that awareness limits become circular and recurrent never to be surpassed...a true expression of caves within caves.

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:05 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:33 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 8:16 pm

If you want to define purpose as inherent within existence itself I can think of no reason to deny it. What I find objectionable, hyperbolic and out of bounds are the very limited humans thinking they can thrust their own definitions of purpose on a cosmos with man somehow centralized within it. That to me more than anything defines cave purpose manifested as cave beliefs. The secular equation, in spite of all its faults, is far more balanced in that respect.

I agree. A popular misconception IMO is that the universe is here to serve us. Actually it is the opposite. We exist to serve universal purpose. It can either be done mechanically as does all organic life on earth including animal man or it can be done consciously which is Man's conscious evolutionary potential.

If one wants to make that assumption, fine; but in the meantime it's imperative to remain practical and cognizant of limits in whatever manner they manifest themselves; without that awareness limits become circular and recurrent never to be surpassed...a true expression of caves within caves.

It isn't a matter of turning an assumption into a belief but opening to conscious contempation allowing for the experience of intuition. No one should believe what Simone Weil writes in the following extraordinary excerpt. But it is so a pure and artistic that a person can be open to contemplating its meaning. she wrote:

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

Life on earth functioning as living machines serve a particular cosmic purpose. It is a "necessity." Human consciousness which connects levels of reality is not natural for animal life and unnecessary for the earth to serve its purpose. It can evolve to serve a higher universal purpose. Call it supernatural if you prefer. The cosmic man is attracted to a conscious (supernatural) reality and seeks to awaken to it intellectually through impartial contemplation and intuition. The emotional types seek the experience of the value of this connection free of acquired negative emotions which dominate our lives.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:45 am Where I worry about the existence of Purpose is where Purpose is claimed to exist in the same way as sticks and stones exist, only better. Is it possible to use the notion of Purpose as an inspiring What If ?

After all, there do exist people of goodwill, and their purposes , while differing about what good consists of, is inspired by an idea that good consists in something. Maybe if the notion that good consists in something were to be regarded as useful poetry?

I know the trouble with my suggestion is people would take it all literally as has been done and is still being done.

So, is there any way to counter literalism in god-belief?

Yes, there is indeed a way to counter literalism in god-belief.

Setting aside the question of the origin of the tiny “kernel” of reality that preceded the alleged Big Banging of said kernel...

...all you have to do is demonstrate - in irrefutable terms - how the utterly blind and mindless processes of gravity and thermodynamics could cause random and disparate fields of quantum noumena to magically coalesce into states of order that defy comprehension.

If you can do that, Belinda, then you might be able to counter god-belief.

And if you are thinking that science has already taken care of the issue, then you are woefully mistaken. So don’t even go there.
_______

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:20 am You seem to regard quantum theory as having the potential of extracting a god from consciousness. If this view is viable, then it’s equally possible we are surrounded by a universe that’s already been morphed to some other entity’s far greater extension of consciousness.

Good grief, Dubious, isn’t that exactly what I have been suggesting in my insistence that the universe is the mind of God – a “far greater extension of consciousness” that momentarily encompasses and “surrounds” us at this very moment?

Of course you don’t have to believe or accept such a thing, but come on now; if you don’t even understand the core of my assertions, then it’s no wonder we are at such loggerheads (though I guess it wouldn’t matter due to the chasm between us).

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:20 am Methinks not so! Consciousness to whatever extreme cannot bend or warp reality to its own specifications beyond what is inherent in the universe from the very beginning. It may allow itself to be discovered by imaginative leaps but not infringed except perhaps in very minor ways.

Well then, methinks that if the reality in question (the universe) actually belongs to a particular consciousness in the same way that your own thoughts and dreams belong to you, then the bending and warping of that reality would be a breeze.
_______