Philosophy Now Forum

Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

The universe is certainly self-aware, because we are, and we are part of the universe.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

Instead of just continually saying what is JUST BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, ANYWAY, WHY DO 'you' NOT just explain 'things' in a way that could be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY UNDERSTOOD by "OTHERS" of 'you', human beings?

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:45 am The universe is certainly self-aware, because we are, and we are part of the universe.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

And, would the CLAIM 'we' are 'self-aware' mean, infer, or imply that at least one in that group of 'we' could at least INFORM the "others" of what the proper AND correct answer is to the question, Who am 'I'?'

For surely a proposed 'self-aware' species would KNOW who 'I' AM, EXACTLY, correct?

Or, does this NOT logically follow?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:10 am

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:45 am The universe is certainly self-aware, because we are, and we are part of the universe.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

And, would the CLAIM 'we' are 'self-aware' mean, infer, or imply that at least one in that group of 'we' could at least INFORM the "others" of what the proper AND correct answer is to the question, Who am 'I'?'

For surely a proposed 'self-aware' species would KNOW who 'I' AM, EXACTLY, correct?

Or, does this NOT logically follow?

We refers to humans, or indeed all creatures capable of being self-aware.

I don't think it logically follows that a self-aware being knows who it is. Someone who has lost his memory is still self-aware, for example.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

Again, simplify the universe to a 3 color pixeles (Blue-Green-Red).

One interaction is Blue-Green, another is Green-Red and another is Blue-Red.

If you say there is a difference between "Observation" and "Interaction", then, you must to explain that difference.

And I can't see that difference. I just see 3 pixeles and then I am comparing, making abstract concepts of what I call "Blue-Green", "Green-Red" and "Blue-Red".


Where is the "consciousness" in this universe? One can intuitly think of an another new pixel, a "Yellow" pixel, almost transparent, that is in the background or above the others 3 pixeles, and think that that "Yellow" pixel is the "consciousness" that make the "observation".


But that is wrong. If there is a Yellow pixel, then, it is just like the others 3. Is just another pixel more. We extend the universe, just that.

Or that "Yellow" pixel is different from the other pixeles? What is that difference?.... there is no difference!!


I believe in this "universal consciousness". Is just that I know the limits of knowledge and rational thinking.


We cannot talk about this "universal consciousness". But until you dont understand why not, you will always repeat the same thinking over and over and over and over.


"Maybe if we define it in this way it will not be a contradiction....." ----> THIS HABBIT MUST TO END IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND.

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:10 am

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 6:45 am The universe is certainly self-aware, because we are, and we are part of the universe.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

And, would the CLAIM 'we' are 'self-aware' mean, infer, or imply that at least one in that group of 'we' could at least INFORM the "others" of what the proper AND correct answer is to the question, Who am 'I'?'

For surely a proposed 'self-aware' species would KNOW who 'I' AM, EXACTLY, correct?

Or, does this NOT logically follow?

We refers to humans, or indeed all creatures capable of being self-aware.

I don't think it logically follows that a self-aware being knows who it is. Someone who has lost his memory is still self-aware, for example.

I would suggest that a Truly 'self'-aware being would, actually, KNOW, or at least be AWARE, of who its OWN 'self' IS, EXACTLY.

Being AWARE of what species one's 'self' belongs to does NOT mean that that one is Truly and FULLY 'self'-aware, YET.

Just being aware that one is a 'self' some may conclude, and thus may also be satisfied with, as being 'self'-aware, but as human beings move along the always continually learning and discovering evolutionary path of Life, Itself, 'you', human beings, do come to also DISCOVER and SEE just how UNSATISFACTORY and INCONCLUSIVE that "answer" REALLY WAS.

Coming-to-KNOW (who AND what) thy 'Self' IS, EXACTLY, I found to be so CONCLUSIVE that the ANSWER is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, and thus FAR MORE, and VERY, SATISFYING.

With the UNCOVERING OF, and with the LEARNING and KNOWING thy Self also brings with it the LEARNING and KNOWING of who AND what 'you', human being, 'selves' are, collectively AND individually, as well.

But if you want to continually think that it does NOT logically follow for a 'self'-aware being to actually know who 'it' is, then so be it. 'you', that individual being and 'self', is absolutely FREE to 'think' whatever 'it' likes. (Whatever and whoever that individual 'being' is being exactly.)

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:27 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:56 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:10 am

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

And, would the CLAIM 'we' are 'self-aware' mean, infer, or imply that at least one in that group of 'we' could at least INFORM the "others" of what the proper AND correct answer is to the question, Who am 'I'?'

For surely a proposed 'self-aware' species would KNOW who 'I' AM, EXACTLY, correct?

Or, does this NOT logically follow?

We refers to humans, or indeed all creatures capable of being self-aware.

I don't think it logically follows that a self-aware being knows who it is. Someone who has lost his memory is still self-aware, for example.

I would suggest that a Truly 'self'-aware being would, actually, KNOW, or at least be AWARE, of who its OWN 'self' IS, EXACTLY.

Being AWARE of what species one's 'self' belongs to does NOT mean that that one is Truly and FULLY 'self'-aware, YET.

Just being aware that one is a 'self' some may conclude, and thus may also be satisfied with, as being 'self'-aware, but as human beings move along the always continually learning and discovering evolutionary path of Life, Itself, 'you', human beings, do come to also DISCOVER and SEE just how UNSATISFACTORY and INCONCLUSIVE that "answer" REALLY WAS.

Coming-to-KNOW (who AND what) thy 'Self' IS, EXACTLY, I found to be so CONCLUSIVE that the ANSWER is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, and thus FAR MORE, and VERY, SATISFYING.

With the UNCOVERING OF, and with the LEARNING and KNOWING thy Self also brings with it the LEARNING and KNOWING of who AND what 'you', human being, 'selves' are, collectively AND individually, as well.

But if you want to continually think that it does NOT logically follow for a 'self'-aware being to actually know who 'it' is, then so be it. 'you', that individual being and 'self', is absolutely FREE to 'think' whatever 'it' likes. (Whatever and whoever that individual 'being' is being exactly.)

I don't think that self awareness implies omniscience.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 9:26 pm Observation is interaction, the two are inseperable giving both rely on action and reaction. As such the universe is self-aware, because of not only the interactions occur within it, but also because only "everything" exists. Only "everything" exists results in self-referentiality as there is no comparison, there is no other "everything" otherwise it would not be "everything". This singularity necessitates a universal consciousness as all things, including the phenomenon of consciousness, are connected.

Again, simplify the universe to a 3 color pixeles (Blue-Green-Red).

One interaction is Blue-Green, another is Green-Red and another is Blue-Red.

If you say there is a difference between "Observation" and "Interaction", then, you must to explain that difference.

And I can't see that difference. I just see 3 pixeles and then I am comparing, making abstract concepts of what I call "Blue-Green", "Green-Red" and "Blue-Red".

So, REALLY 'you' CAN SEE a DIFFERENCE. That is; the DIFFERENCE between those three colours.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm Where is the "consciousness" in this universe? One can intuitly think of an another new pixel, a "Yellow" pixel, almost transparent, that is in the background or above the others 3 pixeles, and think that that "Yellow" pixel is the "consciousness" that make the "observation".

One of 'you' could certainly do that, but 'I' am not sure WHY 'you' would even want to. And, 'I' CERTSINLY would NOT do that.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm But that is wrong. If there is a Yellow pixel, then, it is just like the others 3. Is just another pixel more. We extend the universe, just that.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

Who or what is this 'we' that is, supposedly, NOT these colours, and which could 'think' up ANOTHER colour or pixel?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm Or that "Yellow" pixel is different from the other pixeles? What is that difference?.... there is no difference!!

If the 'yellow', which 'we' (whoever and whatever that is exactly) just 'thought' up or 'imagined', is REALLY NOT a 'different' colour nor pixel from the 'red', the 'blue', nor the 'green' as 'you' just claimed here, then WHY NOT?

From my perspective at least 'it' is a DIFFERENT colour or pixel.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm I believe in this "universal consciousness". Is just that I know the limits of knowledge and rational thinking.

Who and/what is this 'I', EXACTLY, which 'you' speak of and talk about here?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm We cannot talk about this "universal consciousness". But until you dont understand why not, you will always repeat the same thinking over and over and over and over.

Did 'you' mean, 'do understand', or ' do not understand', why 'we' can not, supposedly, talk about THIS 'universal consciousness'?

AND, WHY can 'you' talk about 'it', but 'we', supposedly, can NOT?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm "Maybe if we define it in this way it will not be a contradiction....."

There might not be a contradiction defining 'universal consciousness' the way 'you' just have and did, but 'your' VERY OWN definition might NEED a LOT MORE EXPLAINING and CLARIFYING BEFORE 'it' even becomes CLOSE to be being COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD.

For example WHY "simplify" the Universe to just those three colours alone? WHY NOT "simplify" the Universe, Itself, to only two colours or even just One colour?

And WHY in 'your' interactions there is only three interactions? Is it NOT possible for there to be the interaction of blue-green-red?

If no, then WHY NOT?

ALSO, what are these colours reflecting off of, EXACTLY?

AND, being reflected to, EXACTLY?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:56 pm ----> THIS HABBIT MUST TO END IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND.

'TO UNDERSTAND' 'what', EXACTLY?

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:00 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:27 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 10:56 am

We refers to humans, or indeed all creatures capable of being self-aware.

I don't think it logically follows that a self-aware being knows who it is. Someone who has lost his memory is still self-aware, for example.

I would suggest that a Truly 'self'-aware being would, actually, KNOW, or at least be AWARE, of who its OWN 'self' IS, EXACTLY.

Being AWARE of what species one's 'self' belongs to does NOT mean that that one is Truly and FULLY 'self'-aware, YET.

Just being aware that one is a 'self' some may conclude, and thus may also be satisfied with, as being 'self'-aware, but as human beings move along the always continually learning and discovering evolutionary path of Life, Itself, 'you', human beings, do come to also DISCOVER and SEE just how UNSATISFACTORY and INCONCLUSIVE that "answer" REALLY WAS.

Coming-to-KNOW (who AND what) thy 'Self' IS, EXACTLY, I found to be so CONCLUSIVE that the ANSWER is ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE, and thus FAR MORE, and VERY, SATISFYING.

With the UNCOVERING OF, and with the LEARNING and KNOWING thy Self also brings with it the LEARNING and KNOWING of who AND what 'you', human being, 'selves' are, collectively AND individually, as well.

But if you want to continually think that it does NOT logically follow for a 'self'-aware being to actually know who 'it' is, then so be it. 'you', that individual being and 'self', is absolutely FREE to 'think' whatever 'it' likes. (Whatever and whoever that individual 'being' is being exactly.)

I don't think that self awareness implies omniscience.

I ALSO do NOT think that self awareness implies omniscience EITHER, and I do NOT know of ANY one who would think this. In fact I have NEVER even IMAGINED that self awareness would imply omniscience, so WHY did you write what you did here?

Age,

Too much Advaita teachers have you read.

The habbit of questioning every concept we use in order to make an appearance of learning.

WHO exactly IS the one who WANTS to KNOW WHAT? (this is an example of what you do).

Making the other person think about the asumptions we have about concepts like "WHO", "I", "YOU", "THEM".

That is ok. Is useful when you never question all that.

Is simply, you say that the "I" is ilusory, an invention of mind, and then, you see how other people and you sometimes use the "I" with ignorance, so, you respond to them questioning that asumptions.

Krishna, teaching to Arjuna that he is the only self, and then Arjuna were asking questions like "But Krishna, what do I need to do with them?", so Krishna knows he doesnt understand yet, because he doesnt seems to understand that everyone is the only self... so... there is no "I" neither "them".

For that reason, Krishna will say to Arjuna something like:

"Who is the "I" who is worry about "THEM" ?

With the hope that Arjuna understand that everyone is one self, so he doesnt need to be worry about that.


Age.... this is what you do always. Dont you boring about doing that over and over?


You subestimate others persons who understand this and still want to know more...

Stop that. Is disgusting for reading in the forum you doing that over and over.

does universal consciousness necessitate universal unconsciousness and then universal snoring?

black holes had to come from something...

-Imp

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Age,

Too much Advaita teachers have you read.

What you wrote here does NOT make sense to me.

Will you rephrase that sentence of yours?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am The habbit of questioning every concept we use in order to make an appearance of learning.

When you write, "habbit", do you mean 'habit', or does the 'habbit' word mean or refer to some particular thing?

Also, even if you meant 'habit' your sentence here also does not make sense to me. So, will you rephrase this one as well?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am WHO exactly IS the one who WANTS to KNOW WHAT? (this is an example of what you do).

So, are 'you' asking 'me' this question to LEARN and KNOW some 'thing'? Or, are 'you' just SHOWING the way 'I' ask questions?

If it is the latter, then I ALREADY KNOW. But, if it is the former, then let me know, and then 'I' will answer that question for 'you'.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Making the other person think about the asumptions we have about concepts like "WHO", "I", "YOU", "THEM".

GREAT.

Making 'you', human beings, 'think' MORE ABOUT the words 'you' USE, and ABOUT what they ACTUAL mean and/or refer to, EXACTLY, is PART of the reason I ask the questions that I do.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am That is ok. Is useful when you never question all that.

What do 'you' mean by, "when you never question all that"?

Are you under some sort of PRESUMPTION that I do NOT YET KNOW the ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE answer to some or even most of these questions? Or, some thing else?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Is simply, you say that the "I" is ilusory, an invention of mind, and then, you see how other people and you sometimes use the "I" with ignorance, so, you respond to them questioning that asumptions.

But I have NEVER said that thee 'I' is illusory AT ALL.

So, WHERE did 'you' GET this ASSUMPTION FROM, and, WHY do 'you' even HAVE this ASSUMPTION?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Krishna, teaching to Arjuna that he is the only self, and then Arjuna were asking questions like "But Krishna, what do I need to do with them?", so Krishna knows he doesnt understand yet, because he doesnt seems to understand that everyone is the only self... so... there is no "I" neither "them".

This all sounds rather CONFUSING. Are you ABLE to elaborate and/or clear this up at all.

If yes, then will you?

But, if you prefer to ALSO come-to-KNOW what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, then just let me know, and 'I' will EXPLAIN 'It' to 'you'.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am For that reason, Krishna will say to Arjuna something like:

"Who is the "I" who is worry about "THEM" ?

With the hope that Arjuna understand that everyone is one self, so he doesnt need to be worry about that.

Okay. So are you here saying that some 'thing' known as "krisna" here KNOWS what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY?

Or, does 'it' just THINK it does?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Age.... this is what you do always.

"ALWAYS"?

Do 'i' NEVER do ANY thing else?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Dont you boring about doing that over and over?

If you mean here, Do I not get bored about doing 'that' [asking questions] over and over, then my answer is NO, and this is because I KNOW what thee outcome IS, for 'us', and WILL BE for 'you'.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am You subestimate others persons who understand this and still want to know more...

Okay.

Are you PRESUMING here that there is absolutely NOTHING MORE for the "other persons" to UNDERSTAND and/or come-to-REALIZE?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:29 am Stop that. Is disgusting for reading in the forum you doing that over and over.

LOL ANOTHER one here TELLING 'me' what to do or what NOT to do.

Just out of CURIOSITY, do 'you' REALLY think or BELIEVE that I am just going to STOP 'that' (whatever the 'that' word here is REALLY referring to EXACTLY) BECAUSE 'you' just TOLD me to?

Is just that you are making people avoid all this knowledge, because they know that if there is a person who knows the truth is NOT LIKE YOU.

You have too much ego, and you lose the touch with people.

When you understand more and more, you are more less than how you are, and people know this, so they may think "everything that say Age is wrong because this kind of person cant know the truth".

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:59 am Is just that you are making people avoid all this knowledge, because they know that if there is a person who knows the truth is NOT LIKE YOU.

What am 'I' LIKE?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:59 am You have too much ego, and you lose the touch with people.

1. Has EVERY thing 'you' have PRESUMED ALWAYS been true, right, or correct? Or, have ANY of 'your' PRESUMPTIONS turned out to be false, wrong, or incorrect? In other words could 'your' PRESUMPTION that I have "too much ego" or that I even have "ANY ego" here be false, wrong, or incorrect? Or, could there be ANY possibility that there is One who is DESERVING of an 'ego', and 'ego' to or from that One is NOT a bad NOR negative thing AT ALL?

2. Losing 'the touch with the people', and posters, here is of NO REAL concern AT ALL. This is BECAUSE of 'in the scheme' of 'things' this is relatively NOTHING AT ALL, especially when compared to what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which I am POINTING OUT, SHOWING, and PROVING here WITH the help of, and THROUGH, 'you', UNAWARE 'people' or 'posters' here.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 1:59 am When you understand more and more, you are more less than how you are, and people know this, so they may think "everything that say Age is wrong because this kind of person cant know the truth".

Okay. What 'you', posters, here THINK of "age" is of ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN AT ALL, well to 'Me' NOT to 'me' anyway.

What THE GOAL IS, EXACTLY, which I have INTENDED TO ACHIEVE and AM BRING FORTH, to fruition, is my ONLY CONCERN here. USING 'you', posters, here, including "age", was just a necessary part to make THIS GOAL COME-TO-BE.