I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"

Why would your mind need a response?
Create!

Why would your mind need a response?
Create!

Uhm....I guess I just did by starting this thread....ergo sum and all that :)

If essentially we are also, or rather, we all contain the psyche's heritage that would date back to kingdom come, back to whenever, and, in the same light, if just as essentially the genome is calibrated for each species so that we alike are all instructed to be of the human species, then whatever 'creation' we 'make' we do so in the potential of the human capacity. Hence, nothing we 'create' is 'abnormal' or 'out of the ordinary'—hence, proficiency.

"I was doing time in the universal mind..."

If essentially we are also, or rather, we all contain the psyche's heritage that would date back to kingdom come, back to whenever, and, in the same light, if just as essentially the genome is calibrated for each species so that we alike are all instructed to be of the human species, then whatever 'creation' we 'make' we do so in the potential of the human capacity. Hence, nothing we 'create' is 'abnormal' or 'out of the ordinary'—hence, proficiency.

Of course if one assumes that it is only our deliberate creations or even our pseudo deliberate creations that matter then your position is founded.

However if one takes the position that deep with in our instinctive sub conscious imaginations we have a shared imagination [ reality or universe ] then it could be suggested that all is an imagination. [ imaginary or a dream as such ] Sure as we are all dreaming a similar dream and one that has a certain uniform order to it [ laws and rules etc] it would appear not unlike a matrix [ re:film ] that is to say very real indeed.

Suffice to say that putting forward such an idea is very easy however proving it in logic or reason would be very difficult. [ even harder to prove in reality ]

The fact is we are able to impact on our environment creating what we want with it [ cities, roads, etc etc] so in a broad sense we are using our imagination to change what could be considered as a universal imagination. One imagination changing another so to speak.

So reality could be just one great shared lucid dream that has universal conformity and uniformity [ objectivity if you like ] and the ability for all participants within that lucid dream to affect change as per those laws and rules as per their own self determination.

Uhm....I guess I just did by starting this thread....ergo sum and all that :)
What do you need that is outside you? Why the question? Doesn't your act of searching outside imply that you don't believe everything is a creation of your mind?

Of course if one assumes that it is only our deliberate creations or even our pseudo deliberate creations that matter then your position is founded.Not at all—I was not being pseudo-serious; I never suggested anything was deliberate—on the contrary, I deliberately said essentially:if essentially we contain the psyche's heritageandif just as essentially the genome is calibrated so that we alike are all instructed to be of the human speciesIn fact, imagination has not always been an intentional means but often, very often, a necessary method born out of exigencies, emergencies, determination, contestations.

If we utilize imagination as the only method to invent not reality itself but to invent an essential meaning so as to accommodate reality, then, what is being accommodated? I see two things, perhaps four: a planetary environment and an existent awareness of self within that environment. A third "reality" would come in later, much later, closely followed by a fourth—and that fourth "reality" would have to be a privilege for the few…

You could be right - once you get deep deep down to the underlying 'stuff' of the universe youre really just dealing with threads of energy.
I was reading some Dequincy the other day, he said something to the effect of - 'matter is energy responding to the needs of a situation'.

Its not a bad explaination, otherwise you have this problem of why is a photon a photon? why not a positron?
I think alot of its about group dynamics, energy simply conforms to need that the situation dictates. Not so much a case of self-actualizing for the sake of self-expression, but actualizing for the sake of group dynamics - being part of something larger than yourself.

Chewing Gum,

Not at all—I was not being pseudo-serious; I never suggested anything was deliberate—on the contrary, I deliberately said essentially:

Ahh my mistake with interpreting your context. Your post was fabulous ......all the same.
I was placing emphasis on the word "make" in your post and I assumed you were refering to the act of deliberate creation.
then whatever 'creation' we 'make' we do so in the potential of the human capacity




and In fact, imagination has not always been an intentional means but often, very often, a necessary method born out of exigencies, emergencies, determination, contestations.

we in fact agree I feel.

If we utilize imagination as the only method to invent not reality itself but to invent an essential meaning so as to accommodate reality, then, what is being accommodated? I see two things, perhaps four: a planetary environment and an existent awareness of self within that environment. A third "reality" would come in later, much later, closely followed by a fourth—and that fourth "reality" would have to be a privilege for the few…

Care to expand on these ........?

You could be right - once you get deep deep down to the underlying 'stuff' of the universe youre really just dealing with threads of energy.
I was reading some Dequincy the other day, he said something to the effect of - 'matter is energy responding to the needs of a situation'.

Its not a bad explaination, otherwise you have this problem of why is a photon a photon? why not a positron?
I think alot of its about group dynamics, energy simply conforms to need that the situation dictates. Not so much a case of self-actualizing for the sake of self-expression, but actualizing for the sake of group dynamics - being part of something larger than yourself.


Actually I like this alot.....hmmmmm group dynamics....yes I see it as impossible to consider the universe without considering it as a group dynamic, in that nothing is in isolation and that everything is in a relationship of some sort with everything else.

A sort of self justifying entity that requires such dynamics.

like saying "The universe is a self governing singularity" which inspires the question:
How can a singularity be governed when for it to be a singularity would require no other parties to the riddle?"

Ahhh the limitations of language....ha:)

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"

So, the bacterial theory of diseases is incorrect? We can come down with Malaria without ever coming into contact with the virus? Should doctors stop washing their hands after surgery and before delivering a baby? Because when they started washing their hands, lives were saved in extraordinary numbers. And when people in Cuba were taught to not leave standing water, malaria went away. But you think it is all in our minds?

So, the bacterial theory of diseases is incorrect? We can come down with Malaria without ever coming into contact with the virus? Should doctors stop washing their hands after surgery and before delivering a baby? Because when they started washing their hands, lives were saved in extraordinary numbers. And when people in Cuba were taught to not leave standing water, malaria went away. But you think it is all in our minds?

Why couldn't all of that be in your dreams, in your own mind?

I think you're viewing this issue with too much thought toward others. I can understand that if you've never had any really good, vivid dreams (or even thoughts). All of what you've mentioned above could easily be explained by it all being just your vivid imagination at work.

The problem, as I see it, is that the "Dream World" is easily imagined, but it doesn't change anything. If what's going on around you is part of your dreams, then ......so what? If you actually have little or no control over it, then you might as well enjoy the dreams as best you can, huh?

By the way, even what you're reading here is part of YOUR dream. I'm just a figment of your imagination ...having a discussion with you.

Baron Max

Actually I like this alot.....hmmmmm group dynamics....yes I see it as impossible to consider the universe without considering it as a group dynamic, in that nothing is in isolation and that everything is in a relationship of some sort with everything else.

A sort of self justifying entity that requires such dynamics.

like saying "The universe is a self governing singularity" which inspires the question:
How can a singularity be governed when for it to be a singularity would require no other parties to the riddle?"

Ahhh the limitations of language....ha:)

hehe yes, its definitely reaching the edges of linguistics talking about this kind of thing.
Pretty mind-bending stuff, even when im reading off the shelf philosophy books about this kind of thing i have to re-read certain paragraphs about 3 times over to really 'get' it.
The deeper the you get, the more realise how simply mind-blowingly complex and beautiful the universe is.

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"
There is a problem with this notion. You see there must be some type of objective reality or a very dense form of a subjective reality. When we dream the dream world is different each time, a simple mental creation, but when we awake, the world we awake in is realitively the same. This reality we awake in is basically unchanging, this indicates some type of objectivity....

When we dream the dream world is different each time, a simple mental creation, but when we awake, the world we awake in is realitively the same. This reality we awake in is basically unchanging, this indicates some type of objectivity....

Why can't the "waking up" be just one more facet of the dream? Have you never had a dream where you woke up, yet you were still dreaming? ...or awakened in a whole new world as part of the dream?

Baron Max

Why can't the "waking up" be just one more facet of the dream? Have you never had a dream where you woke up, yet you were still dreaming? ...or awakened in a whole new world as part of the dream?

Baron Max

But if that were true then everytime you awake you'd be in a completely different world...I mean your bed wouldn't be in the same position, everything would be different, but instead when we awake everything is relatively the same as compared to the mental dreams we have while sleeping...

But if that were true then everytime you awake you'd be in a completely different world...

Why? If it's your dream to always "wake up" in the same world, then you'd wake up in the same world.

..., but instead when we awake everything is relatively the same as compared to the mental dreams we have while sleeping...

Because that's your dream! You dream that you're living in this world, so you want to continue the dream.

You've also dreamed that you and I are having this discussion on sciforums. I'm just a figment of your imagination, nothing more.

If you're really going to discuss this, you really need to use your imagination a bit more and better. If your mind has made up everything, including my answers, there's no way for you to know.

I had one person tell me that it's the "soul's" method of coping with eternity ...instead of sitting on a cloud and picking music on a harp or something! :D

Baron Max

Why? If it's your dream to always "wake up" in the same world, then you'd wake up in the same world.



Because that's your dream! You dream that you're living in this world, so you want to continue the dream.

You've also dreamed that you and I are having this discussion on sciforums. I'm just a figment of your imagination, nothing more.

If you're really going to discuss this, you really need to use your imagination a bit more and better. If your mind has made up everything, including my answers, there's no way for you to know.

I had one person tell me that it's the "soul's" method of coping with eternity ...instead of sitting on a cloud and picking music on a harp or something! :D

Baron Max
Perhaps the world does come from the mind, however the fact that we wake up in the relatively same world indicates that this world has some type of objective existence....unlike the dreams we have at night (therefore reality is not a dream, although it maybe like a dream)

This would mean that your mind some how keeps you in this world...

...however the fact that we wake up in the relatively same world indicates that this world has some type of objective existence....unlike the dreams we have at night ...

Prove to yourself which dream is the real one ....the night dream or the waking dream? And if you're dreaming both, how could you possibly know?

This would mean that your mind some how keeps you in this world...

If it's just in your mind, that doesn't make it any more real than any other dream. Have you not had the same or very similar dream before?

Every time you want to ask me a question about this, just expand your perspective a little and use you imagination. If you do that, you won't post any more questions.

Baron Max

There is a problem with this notion. You see there must be some type of objective reality or a very dense form of a subjective reality. When we dream the dream world is different each time, a simple mental creation, but when we awake, the world we awake in is realitively the same. This reality we awake in is basically unchanging, this indicates some type of objectivity....Actually, you're off: it's not the contents of a dream but the principles underlying structure and happenstance that differentiates the dreamworld from the real world. But wouldn't you say that dreams—the subconscious mind—is extremely unprejudiced? hence objective?




Heliocentric: - once you get deep deep down to the underlying 'stuff' of the universe youre really just dealing with threads of energy.But there might also be—must be—something else lurking by…I was reading some Dequincy the other day, he said something to the effect of - 'matter is energy responding to the needs of a situation'.Do you suppose any of this is being performed in a dumb way?



Quantum Quack:I was placing emphasis on the word "make" in your post and I assumed you were refering to the act of deliberate creation.I suppose, on second thought and in a different context, we do deliberately create as well. And we can just as well mistakenly imagine and create false impressions as a result, based on a misinterpretation? Or more controversially, our imagination could very well deliberately fool us to perceive falsely just so as to activate a creative mechanism, thereby bypassing the ego altogether in order to serve the Self—but from quite a different perspective.

i create things everyday...... and i didnt use my mind....

i used.... other organs.

-MT

There is a problem with this notion. You see there must be some type of objective reality or a very dense form of a subjective reality. When we dream the dream world is different each time, a simple mental creation, but when we awake, the world we awake in is realitively the same. This reality we awake in is basically unchanging, this indicates some type of objectivity....

Vital One,
I think I mentioned that in this model the imagination or dream has underlying order and laws and rules that it works to. If it were just one individuals dream then it would only have laws relevant to that individual but because it is a collective imagination we have collective laws, rules etc. [ The laws of physics, truth etc are such laws.] therefor ewe have a pseudo objectivity or alternatively a "collective subjective objectivity"......[ subjective for the collective (God) yet objective for the individual ]

Also consider the general notion that at any given time at least half the universe is asleep and the other half is awake. ..........the ones awake maintain the dream for those that are asleep sort of thingo...........so therefore the dream or imagination maintains coherancy and continuity.

Which offers the strange notion or question:
What would happen if the universes consciousness-es were all asleep at the same time? Would any one wake up ? and if so what would they wake up to?

Say every one on this planet is asleep except for one person......imagine what would that be like? [ ha...the mind boggles]

and,

maybe God is half asleep all the time......:D

Chewing Gum:
I suppose, on second thought and in a different context, we do deliberately create as well. And we can just as well mistakenly imagine and create false impressions as a result, based on a misinterpretation? Or more controversially, our imagination could very well deliberately fool us to perceive falsely just so as to activate a creative mechanism, thereby bypassing the ego altogether in order to serve the Self—but from quite a different perspective.

I understand I think what you are saying here however I would suggest a small amendment in regard to actually deliberately fool ourselves, certainly we can inadvertantly do so but if deliberate we would be foolish to think that we can fool ourselves...ha

However we can deliberately allow over time [ with out proper mental hygene] self delusion to manifest itself and be maintained in our belief systems.....so in a way we can indirectly due to deliberate complacency fool ourselves.

I am not sure about your "by passing of ego" comment....maybe you would care to expand on it a little. [ I would hazzard to assume that your use of the word Ego is relevant to the ability to decide and act with volition.]

Why couldn't all of that be in your dreams, in your own mind?

I think you're viewing this issue with too much thought toward others. I can understand that if you've never had any really good, vivid dreams (or even thoughts). All of what you've mentioned above could easily be explained by it all being just your vivid imagination at work.

The problem, as I see it, is that the "Dream World" is easily imagined, but it doesn't change anything. If what's going on around you is part of your dreams, then ......so what? If you actually have little or no control over it, then you might as well enjoy the dreams as best you can, huh?

By the way, even what you're reading here is part of YOUR dream. I'm just a figment of your imagination ...having a discussion with you.

Baron Max

ahh!! Hi Baron.....:)

"It is not only a figment of Swivels imagination but every one elses as well..."

thus a pseudo objectivity exists in the dream.....if it were only Swivels figment it would have to be considered purely subjective.


thoughts?

ahh!! Hi Baron..... "It is not only a figment of Swivels imagination but every one elses as well..."

thus a pseudo objectivity exists in the dream.....

I didn't say "Swivel's" imagination, I said "your" imagination. There is no one else except in YOUR mind.

All of what you see or read or hear is in YOUR mind, no one else's ....all those others exist only in your mind, in your dreams.

Baron Max

This reminds me of this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64873

Is everything a creation of the mind?
Not quite. Since you need your mind to perceive the world, then it follows that the way you perceive the world will be determined by your mind. But that doesn't mean that you mind creates the perceptions- it only alerts you to everything around you.

Having said that, you cannot controll all the circumstances around you. You can influece most things, but there's a limit to what you can do. If everything weas a creation of the mind, you would be able to change whatever you would like whenever you would like without any effort. Right?:cool:

Is everything a creation of the mind?
Not quite. Since you need your mind to perceive the world, then it follows that the way you perceive the world will be determined by your mind. But that doesn't mean that you mind creates the perceptions- it only alerts you to everything around you.

Does that make any sense to you???? Seriously, ...read it aloud to yourself, then try to explain it to me, because it makes no sense whatsoever to me.

If everything was a creation of the mind, you would be able to change whatever you would like whenever you would like without any effort. Right?

Wrong. It might be part of your dream to make things challenging, confusing, convoluted, difficult, ......., all for the sake of entertainment.

Nope, everything can be a dream of yours ...even this argument is part of your dream and I'm just part of your dream.

Baron Max

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"

Can I have your money, then? After all, it's imaginary.

Actually, you're off: it's not the contents of a dream but the principles underlying structure and happenstance that differentiates the dreamworld from the real world. But wouldn't you say that dreams—the subconscious mind—is extremely unprejudiced? hence objective?

Well ok...But mental dreams are still different, whether or not you say its the contents or underlying structure that differentiates it...very different.....

Vital One,
I think I mentioned that in this model the imagination or dream has underlying order and laws and rules that it works to. If it were just one individuals dream then it would only have laws relevant to that individual but because it is a collective imagination we have collective laws, rules etc. [ The laws of physics, truth etc are such laws.] therefor ewe have a pseudo objectivity or alternatively a "collective subjective objectivity"......[ subjective for the collective (God) yet objective for the individual ]

Also consider the general notion that at any given time at least half the universe is asleep and the other half is awake. ..........the ones awake maintain the dream for those that are asleep sort of thingo...........so therefore the dream or imagination maintains coherancy and continuity.

Which offers the strange notion or question:
What would happen if the universes consciousness-es were all asleep at the same time? Would any one wake up ? and if so what would they wake up to?

Say every one on this planet is asleep except for one person......imagine what would that be like? [ ha...the mind boggles]

and,

maybe God is half asleep all the time......:D
But imagination in dreams is based off experiences in reality...take for instance a color blind man can never dream seeing in color....but if some how in reality he's cured of his color blindness, and can see in color then he is able to see in color in his dreams also....

As for everyone being asleep, it wouldn't really matter, there's infinite realities each like a bubble...

But imagination in dreams is based off experiences in reality...take for instance a color blind man can never dream seeing in color....but if some how in reality he's cured of his color blindness, and can see in color then he is able to see in color in his dreams also....

As for everyone being asleep, it wouldn't really matter, there's infinite realities each like a bubble...

What I am proposing is that we dream individually about the dream we all share universally....
I guess it is a little hard to grasp the idea of a universal dream or imagination upon which we reflect our individual imaginations upon.

I started this journey by asking the question:

If we assume for a moment that the reality we share [ with a certain objectivity ] is just a very strong lucid dream then how would this work?

1] Assume that objectivity is gained as soon as something is shareable, in other words a dream shared by two individuals now achieves a certain objectivity, at least regarding those two individuals.
2] The greater the number of participants [ sharers] the stronger the dream, the more objective it is.
3] Why would a shared imagination have order, laws and obvious restraints?
4] Assume that the universe without sentience is a "passive" dreamer.....
5] Sentience is a pro-active dreamer.

and so on......

It is true I guess that from an individuals perspective there appears to be infinite realities yet as soon as we take a universal , God or global perspective we see much conformity, objectvity, and order.

I sometimes feel we spend too much effort in emphasising the subjective nature of our individual experience whilst minimalising the objective nature of our shared experience. I would go on to further suggest that objective experience is the majority view and that subjective experience is actually quite a minority, relatively speaking.

A question of focus I guess....

What I am proposing is that we dream individually about the dream we all share universally....

If everything is YOUR dream, then you've invented all of us ...so naturally we're going to APPEAR to share YOUR deam-realities. See? You're trying to assume that we're all real ...but we're really just all figments of your imagination. We interact with you ONLY in YOUR dream.

If we assume for a moment that the reality we share [with a certain objectivity] is just a very strong lucid dream then how would this work?

Well, when you start out with a completely false assumption, then you can explain most anything.

You're assuming that we all exist outside your mind ...and that assumption can't possibly be shown in any way, shape or form. If we're all just part of your dream, then you can make us think and do most anything that you want. So "assuming" that we're NOT part of your dream is already a false assumption.

...yet as soon as we take a universal , God or global perspective we see much conformity, objectvity, and order.

Huh? Everything is your dream, so you can dream up conformity, objectivity and order any time you want. So what does that prove?

Everything is YOUR dream .....EVERYTHING. If you wish to dream that we all actually exist, and that there's some objectivity in the world, then YOU are the one who makes that happen, no one else.

Baron Max

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"Well, it's not an illusion, it IS reality. That reality is no different from a illusion is also wrong, since reality is real and a illusion is not. Realness that is the quality of reality is something that everything has that is real in the world. If you fail to see the quality of realness of the world then you are subject to mental illness (I really do believe this).

So how do we recognise the quality of realness? Well, I guess we appreciate it. We appreciate that which we know is real, because that gives us a firm and stable point in which to reffer to. The worst scenario I can think of mentally is if you don't know what is real, I can assume things can get pretty ugly, with hallucinations and all kinds of mental illness, and what do you do if you don't know what's real? That's why the quality of real is sooooooo important for us.

If you think about a physical table, then the image of that table corresponds with what that table are, and how it looks like. Not only that, but I think that in the bottom level in reality of that table, it is not much different from that mental image you have of it, it's only so much more detailed that we get lost in it's smaller parts.

If we instead look at the table as one thing (instead of all the smaller parts) and realise that the smaller parts are in the very bottom made of the very same thing as a thought, that is that it is fundamental. It isn't made of any parts, then it doesn't matter if it above that level is made of smaller parts, cause what really matters is what is underneath it all which is in the whole table and in all it's parts. If that is of the same substance as a thought (which you can't really break down into smaller parts, since it is a mental image/sound/whatever) then everything is of the same substance.

Pantheisitic multiperson solipsism.

[Courtesy Robert Heinlein]

So how do we recognise the quality of realness? Well, I guess we appreciate it. We appreciate that which we know is real, ...

Wow! Really profound thought. ...LOL!!

I can only say that those of you who argue about reality simply have no imagination at all.

...and what do you do if you don't know what's real?

You're doing it right now, so ....what's your answer?

Baron Max

The physical world is reality, but the perception of reality is created by each individual's mind, therefore, each person's reality is a figment of their imagination.

The physical world is reality, but the perception of reality is created by each individual's mind, therefore, each person's reality is a figment of their imagination.

That would indicate that reality is a figment of imagination since the truth is inaccessible.:D

The physical world is reality, ....

How do you know that? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Baron Max

The physical world is our only point of reference. Delibirating whether it is part of a common dream only leads to empty assumptions, it is an impossible quest, but as I said, each one's perception of the physical i.e. the solid tangible reality, which is common to all, is actually a unique experience created by the individual's mind.

The physical world is our only point of reference.

What physical world?? All of that is just your mind's dreams, nothing more. Why do you persist in calling it real?

Delibirating whether it is part of a common dream ...... ...i.e. the solid tangible reality, which is common to all,...

Common to all? But everything, and everyone, is part of your dream! Naturally it's going to SEEM common. But it ain't! It's just part of your dream.

Please quit trying to prove "reality" by using "reality" to prove itself!!!

I'm beginning to think that you have a very poor imagination if you can't see how all of this can be simple dream. Hell, they do it in the movies ...why can't you do it in your own mind? Are you that lacking of imagination?

Baron Max

What makes you think the physical world is a creation of the mind?

What I am proposing is that we dream individually about the dream we all share universally....
I guess it is a little hard to grasp the idea of a universal dream or imagination upon which we reflect our individual imaginations upon.

I started this journey by asking the question:

If we assume for a moment that the reality we share [ with a certain objectivity ] is just a very strong lucid dream then how would this work?

1] Assume that objectivity is gained as soon as something is shareable, in other words a dream shared by two individuals now achieves a certain objectivity, at least regarding those two individuals.
2] The greater the number of participants [ sharers] the stronger the dream, the more objective it is.
3] Why would a shared imagination have order, laws and obvious restraints?
4] Assume that the universe without sentience is a "passive" dreamer.....
5] Sentience is a pro-active dreamer.

and so on......

It is true I guess that from an individuals perspective there appears to be infinite realities yet as soon as we take a universal , God or global perspective we see much conformity, objectvity, and order.

I sometimes feel we spend too much effort in emphasising the subjective nature of our individual experience whilst minimalising the objective nature of our shared experience. I would go on to further suggest that objective experience is the majority view and that subjective experience is actually quite a minority, relatively speaking.

A question of focus I guess....
I agree in a way. I believe reality is simply a denser form a subjective reality. There is only a personal reality, nothing else, we are each in ourself anothe reality, every in itself is another reality, we interact with other realities, everything you experience is perfectly in-tune with your thought-energy. At each moment you alternate into an entirely new reality or world. But there is still some type of objective reality, or truth. There is still a great difference between what we term reality and dreams, this difference has to be caused by something, something which I don't know.

In reality, everything is like infinity, indiscrimate chaos, with the mind we make apparent order out of this chaos.

... I believe reality is simply a denser form a subjective reality. ....

Believing and proving are two separate and distinct things. Do you have any valid, indisputable evidence for your belief?

Baron Max

Believing and proving are two separate and distinct things. Do you have any valid, indisputable evidence for your belief?

Baron Max
Well not really indisputable evidence, but there is the many-minds interpretation of QM based off the results of the quantum double-slit experiment...

Thats why I used the word "believe".....somethings are basically impossible to prove but can still be true...

Well not really indisputable evidence, but there is the many-minds interpretation of QM based off the results of the quantum double-slit experiment...

What "many-minds"? There's only one mind ......YOURS. You dream up all of the other "many-minds", so naturally they'll do and think what you dream up.

Thats why I used the word "believe".....somethings are basically impossible to prove but can still be true...

Agreed. Sorta' like the belief in god, huh? Among many other beliefs that man has "created" for his own selfish interests.

The problem with believing that everything is your dream is that ...well, it makes no difference in what you do or what you say or what you believe.

Baron Max

Wow! Really profound thought. ...LOL!!

I can only say that those of you who argue about reality simply have no imagination at all.Well, those that don't have the imagination to argue about reality would say such things.



You're doing it right now, so ....what's your answer?

Baron MaxI think everything is real. But in different ways.

But there must be a difference between mentally real and physically real, the physical brain is real, but the mental sensation it produces is also real.

The table we see has a real existance in the world, but it also has a real existance as the image we see.

What physical world?? All of that is just your mind's dreams, nothing more. Why do you persist in calling it real?



Common to all? But everything, and everyone, is part of your dream! Naturally it's going to SEEM common. But it ain't! It's just part of your dream.

Please quit trying to prove "reality" by using "reality" to prove itself!!!

I'm beginning to think that you have a very poor imagination if you can't see how all of this can be simple dream. Hell, they do it in the movies ...why can't you do it in your own mind? Are you that lacking of imagination?

Baron Max

Not only do you persist in being an asshole, you now persist in being delusional. This is how madmen and mass murderer's think, they think everything is a dream. Life is not a movie, not a lucid dream. Be careful you don't fall off your perch, the consequences might be unimaginable.

What "many-minds"? There's only one mind ......YOURS. You dream up all of the other "many-minds", so naturally they'll do and think what you dream up.



Agreed. Sorta' like the belief in god, huh? Among many other beliefs that man has "created" for his own selfish interests.

The problem with believing that everything is your dream is that ...well, it makes no difference in what you do or what you say or what you believe.

Baron Max
Well the many-minds says that each individual experience is literally different, meaning in a different reality....

As for the belief in God I also agree...although don't tell atheists that they'll constantly ask for evidence and at the sametime say gathering evidence is impossible...

Not only do you persist in being an asshole, you now persist in being delusional. This is how madmen and mass murderer's think, they think everything is a dream. Life is not a movie, not a lucid dream. Be careful you don't fall off your perch, the consequences might be unimaginable.
Actually you're acting like a madman....where's your evidence that reality is real? Life is like a dream, it will be proven scientifically oneday....

Well the many-minds says that each individual experience is literally different, meaning in a different reality....

What "each individual"? You've dreamed them all up, so naturally they'll do and be and say whatever your mind wants. It's no different to a novelist who writes stories about things that he's never seen or done ...he has imagination.

You keep trying to bring in "other people" or "other minds" or "each individual", but somehow you fail to see that all of those are created in your mind ...just like the novelist. So ..a novelist wouldn't use his own novels to prove something was real, would he???

Baron Max

What "each individual"? You've dreamed them all up, so naturally they'll do and be and say whatever your mind wants. It's no different to a novelist who writes stories about things that he's never seen or done ...he has imagination.

You keep trying to bring in "other people" or "other minds" or "each individual", but somehow you fail to see that all of those are created in your mind ...just like the novelist. So ..a novelist wouldn't use his own novels to prove something was real, would he???

Baron Max
But that doesn't make sense....that would mean that there is no individual experience....but in reality there is....what you experience and what I experience are different....I know that...

But that doesn't make sense....that would mean that there is no individual experience....but in reality there is....

Nope, everything that happen in your life is simple YOUR dream. I'm just a dream that you've invented so as to have this little discussion with yourself. It's more fun than talking to yourself ...plus people don't look at you as if you're a weirdo. :D

...what you experience and what I experience are different....I know that...

Sure they're different ...because that's the way you dreamed me up. I'm just a dream character in your imagination, nothing more, nothing less. Everyoen is just characters in your dreams ...and you can make them have any experiences that you wish. But using them, your own creations, to establish something as truth or as reality is ....well, pretty odd, wouldn't you say?

Baron Max

Nope, everything that happen in your life is simple YOUR dream. I'm just a dream that you've invented so as to have this little discussion with yourself. It's more fun than talking to yourself ...plus people don't look at you as if you're a weirdo. :D



Sure they're different ...because that's the way you dreamed me up. I'm just a dream character in your imagination, nothing more, nothing less. Everyoen is just characters in your dreams ...and you can make them have any experiences that you wish. But using them, your own creations, to establish something as truth or as reality is ....well, pretty odd, wouldn't you say?

Baron Max
Well the way you describe things...its just like the many-minds interpretation, I mean in your personal reality you really did create all this, but in my personal reality its different...it gets complicated to understand....but its probably true...

I think Baron is refering to a sort of "multiplistic relative mental monoism".....ha .....psycho-techno babble for a psychological verion of Albert Einsteins Special relativity.

Of course this is not what I was proposing with this thread but hey ...what the heck!!:)

Any position on this subject is just as valid as none can be proven or disproven.

I personally disagree with Barons position and approach yet am not able to prove him incorrect or myself to be correct so the disagreement is a non-issue.

Reality does tend to suggest [in the context of the thread question] that there is a common dream that is shared by every individual. This is more supportable than to say that every one is a master of his own universal dream, simply because all "reality" dreams share similar physics and laws. If Barons position was valid I would expect to see greater variation in those laws depending on the individual. { even if every one is a made up character }

But as we know this is not the case. There is much uniformity and common reality for all individuals from their unique perspectives. I would also suggest that an individuals imagination is not powerful enough to imagine the entire universe with it's "infinite" diversity from a single perspective. In other words the individual imagination may be pretty good but it aint that good!!!:)

There is much uniformity and common reality for all individuals from their unique perspectives.

The very reason that it IS so uniform and common is because YOU thought it all up in the first place! One person=commonality of thought.

And please remember that "all individuals" is not true ...there is only one mind doing all the dreaming, and that's YOU. "All individuals" are people in your dreams. There is ONLY your mind ...no one else.

I would also suggest that an individuals imagination is not powerful enough to imagine the entire universe with it's "infinite" diversity from a single perspective. In other words the individual imagination may be pretty good but it aint that good!!!:)

I would suggest that you read more sci-fi novels. Those authors create whole new worlds, whole new universes, whole new civilizations. I'd say that that was pretty good evidence of the power of imagination, wouldn't you?

Part of the problem that y'all seem to have is the inability to imagine the complexities of your own dreams. Y'all continually point to "common views", "common realities", "common ...", ....it's all, repeat ALL, created by your own mind. The "common-ness" is natural because its all your own creation. Everything!

Baron Max

Well the way you describe things...its just like the many-minds interpretation, I mean in your personal reality you really did create all this, but in my personal reality its different...

You created me! I'm not real, I'm just in your dreams and we're having this little discussion ....yet you use me, a creation of your own mind, to prove some point in the discussion.

If I (the character that you invented), have a different "reality", then it's because you created me that way. As you have done for all of the ohter characters in your dreams.

Baron Max

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content."
-Queen of the Black Coast, Robert E Howard.

We experience the universe via our senses. That's life. Is everything a creation of the mind? Of course not. When I was a kid I would daydream that everything and everyone was only a projection of my mind. I was the only real thing and person. Needless to say I knew it was a silly idea even as kid.

This is not a new theory that is for sure, welcome to the club. I subscribe to the Mass-consciousness version, or else I have some pretty strange imaginary friends.

O.K. It was actually science that led me towards the same conclusion, and more so in recent years. Although the double-slit experiment has been around for ages it was not until I watched this amazing video about it that it really started to sink in. It is apptly named " WHAT THE BLEEP?"

Here it is.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=what+the+bleep

It is followed up by another longer movie, "what the Bleep? down the rabbit hole".

The entire movie is based upon what you suggest. If there is no "Observer" then light, etc (reality), exists only as "probability waves" which is most commonly accepted version of what occurs. According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Interpretation

wikipedia link above. Note (Laugh): I mentioned this theory to a colleague, and we discussed how the light we left on at home is only generating "possibility waves", and not true light. He said the electric company was still going to charge him for it. lol

Now watch the movie "The Secret". It deals with the theoretical "Law of Attraction". Oprah Winfrey did a five hour special on this movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6970591609350288402&q=%22The+Secret%22+OPRAH

This claims that you attract into your life what you think about i.e. If you spend too much time worrying about how you are going to pay your bills, you are going to attract more worry, etc. More Bills.

The premise although scientifically unsound (at present), does make you think about life, as you are doing now.

"The secret" or "Law of Attraction" (LOA) seems to be an underlying teaching in most religions.

Jesus Christ has supposedly said (Bible references)

-Mt. 17:20
The disciples could not heal because they were unbelieving and because they had so little faith. Jesus said to them, I tell you the truth, If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, then you can say to this mountain, "Move from here to there" and it Will move. Nothing will be impossible for you

-Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, BELIEVE that you have RECEIVED IT and it WILL be yours

-Ja. 1:6-8
When you ask you must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave in the sea, tossed by the wind.
The doubter will not think he will receive anything from God, he is a double minded man, unstable in all he does.

-Mt. 14:24-31
Jesus told Peter to come on the water towards him, Peter began to walk on the water, then he began to look at the waves and wind and began to sink. He started looking towards what he could see and feel and not on Jesus. Jesus said to him "O ye of little faith, Why did you doubt"?

O.K. I know Blah, Blah, but the theme seems to be that Whatever you BELIEVE to be true, IS.


Winston Churchill, "You create your own universe as you go along."

Buddha, "All that we are is a result of what we have thought"

Alexander Graham Bell, "What this power is I cannot say, all I know is that it exists"

Einstein, "imagination is everything, it is the preview of lifes coming attractions."

W. Clement Stone, "Whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve"

Carl Jung, "What you resist persists"

Rober Bollier," All power is from within, and therefore under our control"

Henry Ford, "whether you think you can or you can't, either way you are right"

Joseph Campbell, "Follow your bliss, and the universe will open doors for you where there were only walls"

Plato,Edison,Tesla,Newton, yadda yadda....

Everything seems to point to "Belief" creating miracles. There are "miracles" alleged in most religions, could this be that the LOA is real?

I have my own successes with the LOA, and each additional success adds to my belief in its power, so yes I am a believer in this LOA.

The belief is that every thought, feeling, dream is physical in the universe. If you visualize an elephant in your living room (example in movie), it will not instantly appear, who would want to live in a world where thoughts instantly manifested themselves. If you thought of a meteor crashing through your roof, you would not want this to manifest itself immediately.

Here is a clip from someone who has had incredible success as a singer/actor, and it cuts away to an interview where he claims he believes strongly in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twJ9t1yRwjU

So I say again, you are not alone in this thinking.

Kind of like being on a huge holodeck.

I'll go you one better.

Now IF you choose to look very deep into it and you believe those precepts, then perhaps Consciousness, Energy, and Matter are all the same. Maybe the Universe began when consciousness learned to express itself in the form of matter. This would mean there is a God (surprise), and that God is the Sum of all consciousness. I have found theories identical to this in the teachings of SETH.

try: (for starters)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/quotes.htm?200723

So. This is all just theoretical, and we all have our own beliefs and disbeliefs, but some of the above links were convincing enough for me to step back and go. Whoooooaaaaa !!!! If you look at how transparent matter really is from an atomic standpoint, we are all just energy, everything is energy.

This Theory would explain everything. It would also hurt physics as a whole if it could be proved (far from that), because it would mean that if everyone believed they could walk through walls, then it would become possible.

The key word is Belief. If you truly believed you could fly then you could. (in theory), unless accompanied by someone with equally strong beliefs that you couldn't. The hard part would be for someone like us to truly believe they could fly.

We experience the universe via our senses.

But even believing that you have senses is just part of your dream. Now what?

Is everything a creation of the mind? Of course not. When I was a kid I would daydream that everything and everyone was only a projection of my mind. I was the only real thing and person. Needless to say I knew it was a silly idea even as kid.

I don't get it ...how is that prove of anything? All I see is that you're saying that you can't dream that you're having a dream ....why not?

Baron Max

"The secret" or "Law of Attraction" (LOA) seems to be an underlying teaching in most religions.

The Law of Attraction is pseudoscientific propaganda, it has no basis in science at all....maybe you mean manifestation seems to be an underlying teaching in most religions....

Prove to yourself which dream is the real one ....the night dream or the waking dream? And if you're dreaming both, how could you possibly know?



If it's just in your mind, that doesn't make it any more real than any other dream. Have you not had the same or very similar dream before?

Every time you want to ask me a question about this, just expand your perspective a little and use you imagination. If you do that, you won't post any more questions.

Baron Max

i once had a vivid dream that i was a butterfly, flying freely without a care in the world, then i woke up and now i do not know if i am the man who had a dream about the butterfly, or if i am the butterfly now dreaming i am a man,

i didnt quote it perfectly but the message is the same :).


peace.

Baron,
I cannot prove anything. But I can make judgements based on what is probable and what is improbable. There is no good reason to consider what you are describing is true.

Baron, I cannot prove anything. But I can make judgements based on what is probable and what is improbable. There is no good reason to consider what you are describing is true.

It puts things in a different perspective ...that's it's value. You, however, seem content to make your judgement even without proof or solid evidence, then continue to argue that you're right.

Perspective is something that we often miss in life's events ...we're all too quick to make judgements ....and usually those judgements are based on little or no factual evidence.

The next time something happens in the world, reported by the news, take a moment to try to put it all in different perspectives. Is the tragedy really such a tragic event? Is the murder really such a big deal ...when there were thousands of other murders commited recently? When the big nuke goes off over the Middle East, is it really any different to a whole bunch of smaller, conventional bombs going off? If Africa sinks beneath the waves of the ocean, is it really such a big loss to the world?

If it were all just a dream, would they matter?

Perspective ....it keeps us somewhat sane and somewhat calm in the face of events that we see and hear around us everyday.

Baron Max

When the big nuke goes off over the Middle East, is it really any different to a whole bunch of smaller, conventional bombs going off? If Africa sinks beneath the waves of the ocean, is it really such a big loss to the world?
I guess if we agree that is your dream then we only have you to blame for our misery hey Baron? [only kidding ]
The other thing that I wanted to mention is that if it is only your dream then do you take pride in what you are creating? Do you have self respect for your ability to create your universe? Do you care about what you create and have created and also one point about the whole issue of mental monoism:

"If as Baron suggests that it is your dream and everything that exists is only one individuals dream then obviously anything that happened before his birth and everything that happens after his death is non-existant.
So there is only a fabricated past, fabricated conception, fabricated future." And when you die we all die with you.....however the reality is obviously different.

"...on the stone placed above his grave read the simple message... "
"here lies a dreamer who dreamed an awsome dream...may he rest in peace.."

writen by his surviving parents

I did underline THEORETICAL when I said "Theoretical Law of Attraction", and I will only accept the pseudoscintific propaganda argument from those WITHOUT any religious beliefs. Probably most of you.

I was one without religion, but the links I provided, and the
"LARGE NUMBER OF COINCIDENCES" (not conclusive), I have turned
into a believer of Mass consciousness.

I believe Jesus was just a very clever man, who was trying to teach
"The Secret", way back when...

Most quantum physicists in 1996 (according to wikipedia) believe that nothing exists unless it is observed.

Based on this (5 minute cartoon version) experiment.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=what+the+bleep

The conclusions are in favour of what I have just said based on the Copenhagen Interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Interpretation

The experiment linked above proposes a very serious problem with how we view the world.

If you have not understood the implications of the Double-Slit experiment, then do yourself a favour and watch this 5 minute cartoon version. It makes you THINK, if nothing else. It started me on a new path.

again the link is

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=what+the+bleep

Then YOU explain it to me, without getting into the realm of God.

I guess if we agree that is your dream then we only have you to blame for our misery hey Baron?

You don't get it, do you? It's not "my" dreams, it's YOUR dreams! All of what goes on in YOUR life is just a dream. You're even dreaming me up to write this post so your dream characters can argue about it. You've even dreamed up the sciforums, all the posters, all of the posts, all of the arguments. Everything, EVERYTHING, is YOUR dream world. I'm just a character in YOUR dreams.

Baron Max

wow i was dreaming up singularity all along, i knew there couldent really be such an asshole in existence.


peace.

I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic. In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.


All illnesses for example have their fundamental premise in the way we think and how that affects our well being. [ in absolute terms ]

Care to discuss?

I would be insterested in any thoughts offered

"It is all an imagination. Sure it is an imagination that conforms to certain laws and rules such as shown by physics and science but still it is all just an imagination"

Hello Quantum Quack. I am going to give you my thoughts to the interesting opening post (and I have not read much of the rest of it).
1 sec.....:(

I first do not know the defination to your sentence:
(in which you used the word psychosomatic)
I have come to the conclusion that everything is essentially psychosomatic.

But I will continue.
If you will correct me if I am wrong:
In that all is a creation of the mind whether that be a form of mental mono-ism or collective mind is yet to be decided.

All may be a creation of the mind, and so forth but what about things like materialism? Are you maybe saying that ... uh... materialism does not go aganist this 'all is a creation of the mind' thing? I am sure other posters have given better responses like either glaucon or someone. But I think in my opinion this is naturally a philosophical thread.... And has of course, the natural philosophical argue ments etc etc...

That is all that i really get out of this. I understand the emphysis on mind etc. And maybe the main question (maybe) is just that, if it is all mind but I See disagreements there...

For us, I am sure it is all just our mind.
Then again, to take this further for the person who hasnb't pursued anything critical in his thoughts and just lives his life the best he knows how (like I remember myself doing), then... well.. all of this sort of is questionable as to this person. Do you see what I mean?

ANyway, that is what I am sorta getting out of that OP......:shrug:

Pantheisitic multiperson solipsism.

[Courtesy Robert Heinlein]

What is this, exactly?

The concept is basically that we we live in a large hologram based upon rules dictated by mass consciousness.

The concept is basically that we we live in a large hologram based upon rules dictated by mass consciousness.
And if by this it means that the Mass is also a part of that consciousness then this would just about sum up the thread opener.

There is a subtle difference in this concept to that demonstrated in the movie Matrix. In the movie the actual dreamer existed in some form of incubator generating a universal or global consciousness which all persons participated in equally, creating the illusion of a mass and person reality. In the threads concept the people are also a part of the mass consciousness meaning that their material bodies are also a part of the illusion or universal imagination.
So instead of being outside the dream dreaming [ Matrix ] we are in the dream dreaming.

"I dreamed that I dreamed that I dreamed that I dreamed."

So in this model everything is a part of the imagination including all mass and other.

Therefore by logical extension one could say that the universe is essentially psychosomatic or in other words potentially fully manipulable by conscious imagination. [ regarding physicall illness as being essentially a self created imaginary illness with very real imaginary outcomes.]

Thus the notion of life and death are mere concepts or ideas only and from a God or universal perspective exists only because in the final wash we actually want them too. [ As "God" Wants them too - using the word or title God as an anolgy or metaphor for universal consciousness - which includes the consciousness of matter and mass]

btw ...good to see your post Existabrent...:) I hope I have answered your questions abiet indirectly.

Ya of course in essence all is created from mind... but this can be misleading. Really it's "all that is experienced" is a creation of mind. Since everything in how we can relate to everything is part of experience, it follows that mind "creates the experience" in the sense that it is an experience of mind. Ramble ramble, etc.

I do think there exists a medium in which minds exist that seems to be common to all of them... and which very very convincingly seems independent of all of them. It is not created by mind in the sense you seem to be askin the question, at least as far as I can tell. If it were so, mind would be liken to the definition of god in that it would have to create the medium in which it, itself.. exists.

However...

That medium is utterly and quite literally meaningless without the minds within it that allow it the very property thereof. Mind seems to be the component of the universe that performs the function of invoking meaning. Since only a mind creates meaning, and "everything" that is meaningful to a mind (even in the slightest sense) is created the particular mind in question.. it is fair to say that yes, everything is a creation of mind, because to say "everthing meaningful is a creation of mind" is after all, redundant. As if it did not have meaning of any kind surely we could not discuss it, or it could not be thought of... for as soon as it enters thought, it has meaning.

wesmorris
Ya of course in essence all is created from mind... but this can be misleading. Really it's "all that is experienced" is a creation of mind. Since everything in how we can relate to everything is part of experience, it follows that mind "creates the experience" in the sense that it is an experience of mind. Ramble ramble, etc.

Are you inclined to think that creation and experience of creation occurs simultaneously in this context? A sort of self justifying system, both self evident and non-sequential?

I do think there exists a medium in which minds exist that seems to be common to all of them... and which very very convincingly seems independent of all of them.
I would also tend to agree with this comment and interestingly [especially to me] that you should qualify it with the "very very convincingly seem independent" Homogeny and diversity simultaneously.....hmmmm...the usual pseudo-paradox, a bit like asymmetrical symmetry. It does appear that the issue of invariant inertia of mass requires such a paradox. [ many objects yet all one object ] as does "exnhillo" universe creation concepts.

It is not created by mind in the sense you seem to be askin the question, at least as far as I can tell. If it were so, mind would be liken to the definition of god in that it would have to create the medium in which it, itself.. exists.

Actually I am tending down this path in the thinking about universal consciousness thus imagination and what implications this would have [ assuming that this imagination is purely instinctive or reflexive [ cause and effect ] in a universal sense yet of deliberate volition in an individual sense.]



However...

That medium is utterly and quite literally meaningless without the minds within it that allow it the very property thereof. Mind seems to be the component of the universe that performs the function of invoking meaning. Since only a mind creates meaning, and "everything" that is meaningful to a mind (even in the slightest sense) is created the particular mind in question.. it is fair to say that yes, everything is a creation of mind, because to say "everthing meaningful is a creation of mind" is after all, redundant. As if it did not have meaning of any kind surely we could not discuss it, or it could not be thought of... for as soon as it enters thought, it has meaning.

I agree however have you thought of the possibiliy that meaning [ not language ] itself is a reflective phenomena. In that to have meaning a rock must exist as well as the observer to observe it. the meaning of the rock is self evident to both the observer and the rock. [ assuming an absolute objective state [ pure awareness with out cogitation ]

So in a sense if we place a mirror in front of the rock, which aspect holds the meaning..... the rock or the mirror? I would suggest both. The observer [ mirror] is only the one side of the reflected meaning. [of course the rock is also a mirror and one wonders how one could prove that a rock holds meaning regarding the observer, observing it.] It can not express that meaning and apart from simple physics it can not be proved to hold that meaning however the rock reflects the obsever and if meaning is self evident and self justifying then one could suggest that the rock also holds the meaning that the observer impacts upon it.

Thus you get into the possibility that objectivity is possible if cogitation is suspended and because it is very difficult for us humans to stop thinking [ re:Buddhist philosophy] objectivity is more an ideal [ that exists ] than a reality for us yet may be very real for the inanimate.

Question: Does meaning exist without cogitation?

Of course this is aside to the thread topic and btw Wes thanks for posting

Actually this poses an interesting scenario [ IMO ]

If a mirror reflects a rock perfectly then do we not have two perfectly identicle rocks?

If so which rock is the reflection? [ answer can only be that both rocks are the reflection ] hmmmmmmm.......I am thinking about " 0 | 0 " regarding exnhillo

"All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream within a dream"
- E.A. Poe

To say that "all that is experienced" is in the mind is quite different than saying ALL is in the mind. If a large asteroid were to wipe out the human race tomorrow....there would still be a universe full of wonderful things. It would still exist and in this sense have meaning, we just wouldn't experience it.

As far as I can tell, only the mind pondering the question of the mirror and the rock holds the meaning of it. For either to have meaning, a mind projects it there.. which is really just in the mind... and the mirror and rock in question can be purely hypothetical... so not even exist.... or we can speak of something the seems to clearly actually exist. *shrug*

I was doing time in the universal mind.
I was feeling fine.
I was turning keys, I was setting people free.
I was doing all right.
Chorus: Then you came along
With a suitcase and a song,
Turned my head around.
Now I'm so alone
Just looking for a home
In every place I see.
I'm the freedom man X3
That's how lucky I am.
I was doing time in the universal mind.
I was feeling fine.
I was turning keys, I was setting people free.
I was doing all right.
Chorus
I'm the freedom man.
I was doing time in the universal mind.
I was feeling fine.
I was turning keys, I was setting people free.
I was doing all right.
Chorus
I'm the freedom man X3

Jim Morrison

It would still exist and in this sense have meaning, we just wouldn't experience it.

I disagree...

but perhaps you might correct me.

Where then would you hypothesize, that such intrinsic meaning of existence might exist, where it not purely in the experiences of the minds within it?

I know of no other "device" capable of fabricating meaning other than minds.

Random comment regarding several posts above:

The catch is: nothing can be said to exist unless it is observed...

Because uh.. yeah.

What I've said attempts to follow the consequences thereof...

To directly address your questions as well as I can:

Are you inclined to think that creation and experience of creation occurs simultaneously in this context? A sort of self justifying system, both self evident and non-sequential?

in the first use of "creation" above.. creation of what? Experience?

Actually I am tending down this path in the thinking about universal consciousness thus imagination and what implications this would have [ assuming that this imagination is purely instinctive or reflexive [ cause and effect ] in a universal sense yet of deliberate volition in an individual sense.]

While a "universal consciousness" is an interesting notion and all, I... as a subjective ego, basically refuse to contemplate it, as I find it to be irrelevant by consequence of my subjectivity... not the particulars thereof, but in that since I am subjective... I feel generally unqualified to indulge in speaking of such things.

But when I do so.... I feel I understand it. Consciousness seems like a resultant of it, rather than it. IT.. is the "life force" which can be evidenced by an abstract component... meaning that which is alive or possesses an abstract component. It has an active function of some sort, regardless of how it is defined externally. That which is not alive is inert. Fundamentally, this can be seen at the molecular level in that genetics is symbolic in the sense that it consists of an alphabet, words, etc. Meh.

I agree however have you thought of the possibiliy that meaning [ not language ] itself is a reflective phenomena. In that to have meaning a rock must exist as well as the observer to observe it. the meaning of the rock is self evident to both the observer and the rock. [ assuming an absolute objective state [ pure awareness with out cogitation ]

The rock is categorized and classified by the observer, or he is not aware of the rock in it being a rock. To pure awareness, a rock is a non-feature of a seamless whole. The rock can be everything or nothing, dependent upon the focus of awareness.

So in a sense if we place a mirror in front of the rock, which aspect holds the meaning..... the rock or the mirror? I would suggest both.

I would suggest neither. The meaning comes from a mind, which neither the rock nor mirror possesses.

Question: Does meaning exist without cogitation?

Sort of depends on what you mean by cogitation. If you mean deliberate cogitation then yes. If you mean any cogitation whatsoever, like the unconscious counts, then I'd say no. Meaning is to me, that which is invoked subjectively by a concept as seen in a context.

Wes thanks for posting

Sure.

I don't understand exactly why, well I sort of do but I'm not sure I can explain it. But for some reason I find myself to be ridiculously insightful in this particular genera of conversation, and I find that kind of pathetic, but nonetheless true.

wes,
"Where then would you hypothesize, that such intrinsic meaning of existence might exist, where it not purely in the experiences of the minds within it?"

Can't existence itself hold the meaning. Something exists. Thats it. There is the meaning. No reflection, no experience, no labeling necessary. No observer, no conscience required.

There is energy. It exists in various states. It may be subjective, but I think these are base assumptions we can make. Not everyone agrees.

Wes,

I don't understand exactly why, well I sort of do but I'm not sure I can explain it. But for some reason I find myself to be ridiculously insightful in this particular genera of conversation

you are indeed insightful in this particular area of interest, which is perhaps why I have engaged you in convo on it...hmmmmmm

Just an idea.....
From what I have come to understand the application of meaning is actually the reductionism of the "rock" to the context of our experience up until that time when the rock is experienced.
In other words our experience of the rock is limited or reduced from the absolute and thus the meaning applied by our minds is subject to that prior experience of "rocks"

So in essense the rock only has meaning by the value be that emotional or empathic, intellectual or whatever, that it imparts or impacts upon us.

Thus meaning is subjective until the rock is actually experienced free of the influence of our prior experience of rocks. A paradox exists in that to observe the rock with meaning one must rely on prior expereince yet to experience the rock absolutely one must be free of prior experience. Thus objectivity in absolutum is also absolutely ellusive to the mind.

However this does not necessarilly state that the objective meaning of the rock is not "passively" shared between the rock and other inanimate objects such as a beach or a brick etc etc.

As the energy flows from one object to the other and back again the meaning is exactly that flow and nothing more. No need to reduce it because of the limitations of prior experience....thus the universe has inherant objective meaning which our minds intrinsically seek to reduce or emotionally distort, motivated by the pursuit of understanding and knowledge and greater meaning of that objective "passive"meaning.

So in essence I am suggesting that truth is available as the universe is ultimately true unto itself [simply due to it's inherant reflective nature] but this truth is lost as we apply our reductional meanings to it because we wish to understand that truth and not just observe it.

[NB I have already formed the opinion that the best way to describe this pheno is to use the abstraction : To God perspective the universe is a subjective creation and to man it is an objective creation which we can only observe subjectively. ]

Our Abstracted God Created an objective universe by using his own subjectivity [ like the use of symbols I am using in this post, the symbols are objective yet the meaning is subjective]

How ever to us as human reductionalists and emotive expansionalists that objectivity is unavailable.

So we humans create with our imaginations objective things but immediately upon creation it is subjectively observable yet that object is objectively existant.

eg.
"I built a house, the house exists objectively but because of the reductionalism of a box with a roof this building is no longer an objective object but an object that has meaning beyond what it actually is. It may become a home for instance.......howvere the building has meaning regardless of what I may place upon it, [ 4 walls and a roof]"

any way just some thoughts....

wes,
"Where then would you hypothesize, that such intrinsic meaning of existence might exist, where it not purely in the experiences of the minds within it?"

Can't existence itself hold the meaning. Something exists. Thats it. There is the meaning. No reflection, no experience, no labeling necessary. No observer, no conscience required.

There is energy. It exists in various states. It may be subjective, but I think these are base assumptions we can make. Not everyone agrees.

By the understanding of meaning I provided, no... it can't just "exist". That's not to say there is nothign that exists, without a subjective experiencee to there is nothing to understand that something exists... which is exactly where meaning itself is derived... in the act of understanding. Without something to undertake that act, the resultant cannot come to be. Of course it would seem your understanding of "meaning" varies significantly from my own.

I would agree with your base assumptions but they speak nothing to me of meaning. They speak of meaningless patterns of no meaningful consequence were it not for observers to be interested in unfolding events.

To me, the universe's abstract component (of which meaning would be a subset) can apparently only manifest subjectively. Only if there exists ego in which an abstract can be "etched", can meaning come to be.

This all follows from sort of a reduction of the term meaning on my part, having convinced my self I've boiled the term down into its functional components in the universal model.

Wes,

you are indeed insightful in this particular area of interest, which is perhaps why I have engaged you in convo on it...hmmmmmm

no, ridiculously insightful damn you.

:rolleyes:

lol. oh man I sometimes suck. anyway...

Just an idea.....
From what I have come to understand the application of meaning is actually the reductionism of the "rock" to the context of our experience up until that time when the rock is experienced.

I see. But as you said "subjecivity is inescapable", so as I see it.. the forced acceptance is that the reductionism is subjecitive, and under that condition, our definitions of the terms are identical as far as I can tell. Basically I just took what you've said to what seems to me to be the logically inescapable.

In other words our experience of the rock is limited or reduced from the absolute and thus the meaning applied by our minds is subject to that prior experience of "rocks"

Certainly. This "absolute" you speak of is what I often refer to as "tao". Probably an unnecessary clarification, but the thought passed so here it is.

So in essense the rock only has meaning by the value be that emotional or empathic, intellectual or whatever, that it imparts or impacts upon us.

Exactly.

Thus meaning is subjective until the rock is actually experienced free of the influence of our prior experience of rocks.

At which time it continues to be subjective of course.

A paradox exists in that to observe the rock with meaning one must rely on prior expereince yet to experience the rock absolutely one must be free of prior experience. Thus objectivity in absolutum is also absolutely ellusive to the mind.

There I disagree somewhat, in that I think you've demanded more of experience than is warranted. I mean that one experiences the rock (specially upside da head) regardless of one's preconception. No matter the psychological impact, the experience is there. The preconception can be can even be significantly effected by it.

However this does not necessarilly state that the objective meaning of the rock is not "passively" shared between the rock and other inanimate objects such as a beach or a brick etc etc.

But the rock has no objective meaning. It can't. The rock is a property of space-time that requires no justification such as meaning. It simply IS, like it or don't.

As the energy flows from one object to the other and back again the meaning is exactly that flow and nothing more.

Well here I think you've departed significantly from your logic above. This sounds highly romanticized and "new age" to me. The flow of energy is a property of space-time and doesn't have or require meaning to exist. Meaning "flows from it" only in the sense that the impact on a subjective experience flows from its stimulous. The psychology of involved in the experience shapes its impact. As far as I can surmise, the energy involved applies more toward the magnitude (and perhaps subsequent cessation) of the stimulous which impacts the psychology.

No need to reduce it because of the limitations of prior experience....thus the universe has inherant objective meaning which our minds intrinsically seek to reduce or emotionally distort, motivated by the pursuit of understanding and knowledge and greater meaning of that objective "passive"meaning.

Again it seems that this does flow from your logic of the last quoted section, but that your last quoted section to me seems almost non-sequiter, and does not really follow from the structure you used to set it up, which I agree with almost entirely. I think it is the very function of mind to emotionally distort and reduce. It has no other options. In fact I could probably give a pretty decent argument that meaning is exactly that emotional distortion, and that the notion of objective meaning is fundamentally self-contradictory. Given my understanding of term, the only means to "objective meaning" is via the illusion of self-projection (which is of course highly valuable, but all in all an illusion). By this I mean that to consider something "objective", one presumes to be objective. Basically to survive we've learned to project our egos onto what we consider to be reality, and make observations thereof we self-justify to be "objective". All in all, it doesn't matter of course, what matters is the practical.. the reliability of whatever we're discussing in terms of it's capacity for allowing the invidual to cope with their percieved circumstance.... like we're all doing... always.

So in essence I am suggesting that truth is available as the universe is ultimately true unto itself [simply due to it's inherant reflective nature] but this truth is lost as we apply our reductional meanings to it because we wish to understand that truth and not just observe it.

But see you suggest here that there is an "itself" as in awareness to the universe of "itself" via its "reflective properties", which I just don't see. I make no judgments on this topic. To me, the statement you offer here is a projection of your own understanding of the universe, onto the universe which needs no explanation in and of itself. It is pure function, and "care" as with any other abstract, is only pertinent to the mind (the structure that houses the abstract) is necessarily only really relevant in terms of itself, in how the experience being undertaken at time x impacts the experiencer. "meaning" is a subset of abstract, and as such cannot apply to pure, external function such as the tao, except within a subjective perspective that can create it.

[NB I have already formed the opinion that the best way to describe this pheno is to use the abstraction : To God perspective the universe is a subjective creation and to man it is an objective creation which we can only observe subjectively. ]

Maybe I missed something, but why god at this point in the conversation? I see it as utterly irrelevant, but I suppose that's me being selfish, as it's only irrelevant in my own understanding, and apparently it'se meaningful to you. I sort of see how and should try a little harder to see more. I guess the thing to me is that "the god perspective" is hypothetical and unnassumed in my world view, except in that I recognize it in the apparently world view of others. Where as, self is undeniable, and "self" and of course, I have assumed it (as I presume you have, whereas I doubt we have both presumed "god(x)"). I suppose I mean to say that if you assume some sort of god, whatever attributes you assign it greatly impact the argument and since is purely hypothetical it seems superfluous to me, whereas self is obviously not.

Our Abstracted God Created an objective universe by using his own subjectivity [ like the use of symbols I am using in this post, the symbols are objective yet the meaning is subjective]

Bah I think I'm segmenting your comments too much. Our abstracted god can only be said to be an abstract with certainty. *shrug* I mean couldn't you insert any comment after "created an" and have it basically unarguable, as would be apparently a presumed property of a being that's apparently non-hypothetical in the statement offered? Fuck maybe I just totally took you wrong, sorry if so. It's late and I'm growing unsure as to my ability to decipher what you intended to impart.

How ever to us as human reductionalists and emotive expansionalists that objectivity is unavailable.

Right, which to me, sort of negates the objective half of your argument if you follow me. ? It's prolly just me.

So we humans create with our imaginations objective things but immediately upon creation it is subjectively observable yet that object is objectively existant.

I'd mostly agree, but add that we do not experience the objective aspect of it, as it is rendered subjective upon entering a state in which it is experienced.... you're trying to speak of the tao as far as I can tell. Bad quack. Lol. Hey I'm probably doing the same thing. Lol.

eg.
"I built a house, the house exists objectively but because of the reductionalism of a box with a roof this building is no longer an objective object but an object that has meaning beyond what it actually is. It may become a home for instance.......howvere the building has meaning regardless of what I may place upon it, [ 4 walls and a roof]"

The last part of last sentence is to me where you become presumptuous. You presume meaning to exist in something that doesn't exist as far as you know it, unless confined by it or directly experiencing it in some way, in which case it is agian, a property of the universe that does not require one's approval, acknowledgement, etc. It simply IS, it is not four walls and a roof, it is a nameless, seamless aspect of the whole until separated into some context that provides it meaning... by an observer.

any way just some thoughts....

I liked them, thanks.

Wes,
"I would agree with your base assumptions but they speak nothing to me of meaning. They speak of meaningless patterns of no meaningful consequence were it not for observers to be interested in unfolding events."

Imagine if humans had never evolved on earth. Everything in the universe is the same, including all the animals on earth and such, but humans never came to be. You believe all of this universe would be devoid of any meaning? Perhaps we are having a semantical issue, but I see an intrinsic value. This value gives meaning. I would rather there be a universe void of ego than no universe at all. Yes this is my subjective ego talking which has already assigned meaning, but I feel there is something more baseline. Maybe it is just an emotion I dunno. It is the closest I am to anything spiritual.

ENERGY = MATTER = CONSCIOUSNESS

What if our brains only decipher the vibrations around us, and our identity is a part of "all that is". Dianetics - is founded on the principle that all of our cells have an intelligence. What if it goes beyond that....

What if the above equation was true?

A rock would know its a rock, and is created by mass consciousness via our awareness in it.

This idea would make ALL woo woo stuff (as this might appear) into new realms of possibility.

Dragon did a poll, and at least 40% of you believe in god. This is also a "God theory", as "God is a little more than the sum of all consiousness ".

We are spiritual beings. We cannot destroy anything, because it is all energy.

What if the universe began at the moment this energy learned to express itself in terms of "MATTER".

It would suggest an infinite intelligence, that we are all a part of. God is aware of each sparrow that falls in the forest, as it is every sparrow that falls in the forest.

This would suggest miracles are possible. There is no wrong religion, as it is the faith that your life will change that makes it change. It would suggest that the "law of attraction" (LOA) does exist (it is a theoretical law). These things would be possible if we "created our own reality". I'm talking about life after death, choosing your parents, Reincarnations, Aliens, whatever.

So yes virginia there is a God. we are all apart and we manifest reality that we expect. This theory would suggest that if you truly believed you could fly, or "have faith as small as a musturd seed", then you could.

O.K. So I'm one of the 40% who believes in god now. Far enough back Creationism seems only logical.

Everythig is to big of a word, some things must have nothing with our minds like say a star, planet or rock. Since our minds are made of the elements, elements must not be the creator but the building blocks of our mind, and the creator of our minds might be in it's primitive form the organization that takes place in crystal structure or atoms which would be intelligent design. I am totally lost now. Everything human would be a creation of the mind, culture, love, hate, greed, disease, technology is a creation of the mind, the mind using the elements.

."Imagine if humans had never evolved on earth. Everything in the universe is the same, including all the animals on earth and such, but humans never came to be. You believe all of this universe would be devoid of any meaning?

With the caveat "no LIFE came to be" rather than "humans", then absolutely and definitively, yes. Note that we can only speak of such things as hypotheticals. Were it the reality, there'd be no means of meaning.

Perhaps we are having a semantical issue, but I see an intrinsic value.

And I find the notion of "intrinsic value" to be the phenomenon of "projection". What has value that there is nothing to value it?

This value gives meaning.

Where, and to whom or what? Meaning is a subjective, you just got rid of all potential subjectivity by removing life from the universe. Therefore, that is no whom or what for something to mean or be valued. Further, value is subjective excepting the scientific invocation of the term. I value something subjectively, but the value of its weight as compared to a standard unit thereof under controlled conditions is apparently not.

What's pretty interesting to me is that in any definition of value, without something to "value the value"... it is utterly meaningless, though perhaps not inconsequential if at some point a "valuer" does come to exist.

I would rather there be a universe void of ego than no universe at all.

Were the universe void of ego, there could be no want, and no "I" to "would rather". Thus, there could be no means to distinquish between the universes you hypothesize. As such, what's the difference? You, as an ego, could not exist within your hypotheses. They are thus rendered utterly moot.

Yes this is my subjective ego talking which has already assigned meaning, but I feel there is something more baseline. Maybe it is just an emotion I dunno. It is the closest I am to anything spiritual.

The baseline is the tao, of which we are a part. We cannot speak of it except from within our perspective of it.. that's just the opportunity cost of existence. In my terms, I think what you "feel" is the emotional impact of the common medium in which we exist... the pure function of it... the apparent irreversability of time, that kind of thing. Meh wtf do I know? Sumthin maybe. Meh.

ENERGY = MATTER = CONSCIOUSNESS

What if our brains only decipher the vibrations around us, and our identity is a part of "all that is". Dianetics - is founded on the principle that all of our cells have an intelligence. What if it goes beyond that....

What if the above equation was true?

Well it isn't, cuz energy and matter aren't the same, and apparently not all matter is conscious, yet you don't seem to mind presuming the following....

This idea would make ALL woo woo stuff (as this might appear) into new realms of possibility.

And you think that your equivalency would be the only means by which there are "new realms of possibility"?

Dragon did a poll, and at least 40% of you believe in god. This is also a "God theory", as "God is a little more than the sum of all consiousness ".

Well the latter sort of departs from the original meaning of the word to a pretty large extext, as such a sum is in no means omnipotent.

We are spiritual beings. We cannot destroy anything, because it is all energy.

We are superstisteous beings because our function is to navigate an environment about which until quite recently, historically speaking... explanations were exceedingly lacking. Further, the notion of gods, etc, serve as a societal glue to bind and motivate the believers to a common purpose. Being that our species' strength is in cooperation/specialization, such ideas as gods, ghosts, etc are an inevitable result of attempts to understand that which was inconceivable due to resource limitiations such as knowledge and language.

What if the universe began at the moment this energy learned to express itself in terms of "MATTER".

What if there were no way to test such a messy hypothesis? Perhaps you can offer one? I don't think you can.

It would suggest an infinite intelligence, that we are all a part of. God is aware of each sparrow that falls in the forest, as it is every sparrow that falls in the forest.

*sigh*.... "if there were a universal intelligence there would be a universal intelligence". Brilliant. Hehe. You can do better than this with a little effort, though you don't seem interested enough in the topic to really think things through.

This would suggest miracles are possible. There is no wrong religion, as it is the faith that your life will change that makes it change. It would suggest that the "law of attraction" (LOA) does exist (it is a theoretical law). These things would be possible if we "created our own reality". I'm talking about life after death, choosing your parents, Reincarnations, Aliens, whatever.

So yes virginia there is a God. we are all apart and we manifest reality that we expect. This theory would suggest that if you truly believed you could fly, or "have faith as small as a musturd seed", then you could.

O.K. So I'm one of the 40% who believes in god now.

What a mess. "if there is a god then it suggests miracles are possible... so obviously there is a god and miracles are possible". Seriously?

You seem to offer that since you "believe there is a god", there simply is and it can't be questioned. Blah blah. It can and is questioned all the time, which means at best you can claim "there might be a god", if your interested in attempting consistency anyway. Are you?

Bah, sorry I'm a dick but IMO your thoughts are emo-babble that provide no substance to the conversation. Yeah I'm a dick. Sorry then. *sigh* I call them as I see them, nothing personal. It's honest criticism.

Far enough back Creationism seems only logical.

Oh?

Well, it IS logical from a functional perspective, in that it provides utility to society and the individual. It is NOT however, in terms of its content. It's just stuff people made up to help them cope with the strain of surviving.

Wes,
I feel your comment are fantastic, I shall sleep some and respond later...we do essentially agree I might add [ so I think any way]. Now it is more a process of understanding the degree of agreement.

Wes,
Ahh!! a little sleep can do wonders!

The reason I structured my post the way I did in that I appear to self contradict was to show firstly whether I understand correctly or not the issue of subjective objective etc etc. and then go on to show how this is achieved by way of natural or universal realities.

In other words set up the premise and allow the possibility of correction before furthering a new idea. Sorry If I have confused:)

Now down to tin tacks....

I tend to think that where we are in contention regarding these posts on meaning is whether or not meaning can be derived with out a mind to derive that meaning.
That meaning can only be achieved pro-actively by an animated consciousness [ mind] and is not available to an absolutely passive environment such as "hard matter" to "hard matter" or inanimate to inanimate.

I am suggesting that in it's most rudimentary form meaning is possible for inanimate to inanimate relationships. However this may stretch the definition of the word "meaning" too far.

However the main thrust of the suggestion is to show how truth is present in absolute terms yet unavailable due to the Tao mind nature. [ If one assumes that the Buddhist ambition is unatainable in absolutum.] Saying that the truth is lost [ re: Diamond Sutra] as soon as it is percieved due to our desire to apply meaning beyond that which is intrinsically present.


I use the following example:

Say for example I set up a listening device that can listing into the radio waves emmitted by the universe at large [ SETI. I think it is called]

I turn on my reciever and listen for a while and all I get is "meaningless" modulating noise whistelling in the speakers.

Now to me it appears meaningless and even with extensive understanding of radio modulations etc I would still find it menaingless as in the main [ one would assume ] the noise is emmitted by inanimate stars and planets etc.

However I would suggest that it is meaningless only because we cannot make meaning from it and not because it is meaningless persee.
The noise exists, the sound is created, so the meaning of the noise is simply "noise" or "white noise" or "inanimated emittion noise" and just because it has no further meaning than that we can not claim it to be meaningless but merely simple meaning with out complexity....just radio waves emitted from inanimated sources is enough meaning on it own.

Even this though is requiring a mind to derive yes?

However say we leave our reciever on and walk away and leave our inanimated device working free of observation. Has the meaning changed?

Does the meaning exist regardless of no observer? At what point does the meaning cease to exist as the observer moves out of earshot?

Say we take two rocks sitting side by side. Both are recievers and transmitters, and as observers we can listen in or we can tune out. Does this effect the meaning of the communication going on between the two rocks?

another example:

Say I type the following derived from a random character generator:

"ghk888**ss19(2#"

Obviously it has no meaning other than:

"ghk888**ss19(2#"

In a nut shell my argument hinges on the following question:

Can we agree that the meaning of

"ghk888**ss19(2#"

is

"ghk888**ss19(2#"

nothing more and nothing less?


"One of the reasons this is of interest is to further the understanding of the famous question:

What is the meaning of life? and show how to prove that the answer is "life"
So Life = Life or Life = living thus the meaning is self justified and self reflective. Simultanoeus [ non-sequential ] and circular logic.

The movie "Hitch Hikers guide to the Galaxy" provides a great demonstration to this question and answer IMO"

Wes,

If everthing were a creation of the mind, then it would mean that we all possess creative powers, as I was suggesting.

All matter is energy. Every molecule, every atom. There is enough energy in your body to power your city for a month.

There are NO PROVEABLE god theories, but the above pretty much fits with the way I view the world. I am one of the believers now, although I was an atheist. So no, I can offer no proof that the "Universe began when Consciousness learned to express itself in forms of matter"

According to the MAJORITY of quantum physicists (1997 poll), believe that light and matter "DO NOT EXIST" without a conscious observer. It is science that has thrown a few curveballs at us.

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the Many-worlds interpretation


Double Slit experiment (WHAT THE ??????)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4237751840526284618&q=double+slit+experiment

How CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE RESULTS?

Here is the most widely accepted interpretation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Interpretation

also see

schrodingers cat experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

also see
EPR paradox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

So if there is no conscious observer, then energy/matter/light exists only as "possibility waves" until it is collapsed into reality through the act of observation.