I can prove that we are all one consciousness.

[Brendan]

I cannot prove that any of you exist outside my mind. Just like none of you can prove that I exist outside of your minds.

consciousness can be boiled down to this: "me" and "you." In this case, "you" represents anything that cannot be identified as "me." Without "me" there is no "you," as there would be no "me" to even conceive of "you."

So you are all constructs of my mind. This is not where it ends though, as I'm just a construct of the mind of whatever consciousness happens to observe me.

Now. We've established that "you" only are because of "me," and essentially, this reality I exist in exists within me. This is always the part where I get stuck though.

My vocabulary is not advanced enough to speak the language of creation.

Okay, look at it this way: True it's all very circular and dependent on the concept of infinity, but if I exist in a reality that exists within me, and you all exist in a reality that exists within me, and the same can be said of each and every consciousness in existence, then what are we conscious of? We're only conscious of ourselves, nothing else. We are one consciousness, continually segmenting and experiencing itself.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by Brendan

I cannot prove that any of you exist outside my mind. Just like none of you can prove that I exist outside of your minds....

Since any figment of your imagination cannot possibly be smarter than you, the existence of my scintillating wit and innate brilliance should be an indication that the rest of your theory is irredeemably wrong.

(Either that, or I'm just the Smartest alter in your head. Either way, I'm the lit light bulb in the universal burned-out chandelier.)




... okay, okay... I'll get serious.

consciousness can be boiled down to this: "me" and "you." In this case, "you" represents anything that cannot be identified as "me." Without "me" there is no "you," as there would be no "me" to even conceive of "you."

I agree. And if you study even some mystical religious thought (I know both Buddhists and Christians have gotten there), you will see the notion that in earlier stages that, for God to exist, there has be a self, and vice versa. It's all about distinction. But if it is accepted that the self is merely a construct, then there is no longer the ability to have a separate God... because we're all one and merged with God. It's the natural conclusion if you follow the logic.

So you are all constructs of my mind.

You mean, at least in the sense that the identifiers in your head only have meaning if we are distinguishable from you, but those distinctions are constructs of your own mind.

This is not where it ends though, as I'm just a construct of the mind of whatever consciousness happens to observe me.

So how do you explain that separate entities can agree on the same distinctions that are made between individuals? If they were purely constructs, you would see a lot of differences in the particular construct (i.e., individual) from mind to mind.

Or aren't there truly many differences? Or DO we have a lot of differences in how we perceive one person/construct vs how another does?

Now. We've established that "you" only are because of "me," and essentially, this reality I exist in exists within me. This is always the part where I get stuck though.

WD-40.

Okay, look at it this way: True it's all very circular and dependent on the concept of infinity, but if I exist in a reality that exists within me, and you all exist in a reality that exists within me, and the same can be said of each and every consciousness in existence, then what are we conscious of? We're only conscious of ourselves, nothing else. We are one consciousness, continually segmenting and experiencing itself.

Well, you still have to show that your original idea was correct. And what of the idea that we each have our own independent reality, but that you are not really experience each one of us, you are only experiencing and interacting with the portion of us (or perhaps the distorted image of each of us) that you have taken within yourself?

Also, when I have studied and thought about the "one entity/one consciousness" thing, a mind that is just one consciousness is not separated from itself to do the sort of analysis you describe. Because that SUNDERS the consciousness back into two pieces ... you cannot observe yourself and be self-aware in the sense of evaluating and commenting on yourself unless you separate yourself into at least two pieces.

When you are in "One" mode, you are living in the Now. Not evaluating yourself. Not speculating on yourself. You are experiencing life in the moment, there is no past or future. (which, again, would just be more sundered reflections of yourself that you would be considering... meaning you wouldn't be "one" again but many.)

[reason]

Brendan,

1. It could be true that nobody exists independent of your mind, or it could be true that somebody does exist independent of your mind, but whichever is true, your failure to prove one does not imply the other. In other words, that you cannot prove that somebody exists independent of your mind does not imply that nobody exists independent of your mind, or vice versa.

2. I do not understand why you think that without Brendan there would be no Lee (perhaps without Lee there would be no Brendan?) In any case, the fact that you cannot predict everything which I will say and do nor experience my pain and joy, implies that there is some qualitive difference between Lee and Brendan. It would, at least, imply that there is something contributing to your experience which is independent of your mind, even if it is only your "subconscious".

3. A proof doesn't prove that the conclusion of an argument is true; rather, a proof is a chain of deductive inference where each step in the deduction is clearly stated, and so if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. The problem is that such deductive arguments always beg the question, which means that the conclusion is always implicitly assumed in the premises. In fact, that is why proofs are valid and truth-preserving, because they are either entirely, or partially, circular arguments.

[nozflubber]

Somebody's HIGH.....

You "proved" nothing. Thanks for trying

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by nozflubber

Somebody's HIGH.....

You "proved" nothing. Thanks for trying

Backatcha.

As to the other two posts: I'll respond when I'm not drunk and high

[MetalWounds]

To me, it seems like you are in an essence saying; "If I close my eyes, you don't exist any more".

If we think of every person as a single point of reference, with lines to represent interaction, then we can imply that what we perceive to be "me" and "you" only exists as the lines that connect us. If you eliminate the line that connects us it would insinuate to the other party that the origin of the line was also eliminated. Another's consciousness is not dependent on your perception or the acceptance of it. It will exist regardless and independent of what you perceive. Your statement is the spoken in the words of a true extravert.

[Athenian200]

I find your idea interesting, but I don't think you've proven it.

Still, it's interesting to think about... why I am perceiving myself, conscious as myself, if there are so many others around me who are conscious as themselves in the same way I'm conscious of myself. In short, why am I "me," and not "them"? Am I really me and not them, or do I just think I'm me and not them? I think, therefore "I" am. I am only able to conceive that I exist and am separate from others because I can think. Do others exist independently of my thought? I cannot know, because I cannot be outside my own thought. Anymore than I can say what is outside of a soundproofed, four-walled room without windows when I have never been outside. In a sense, I am truly alone, because even what I perceive as others is only what my own thought can comprehend of them, presented to me through my senses and reason. And I am alone, only interacting with projections of my own thought, whether those projections are influnced by a separate entity that exists, or whether they are just delusions of a single consciousness with a vivid imagination.

I've often wished that I had the ability to be conscious as myself for my whole life, then be conscious as someone else for their entire life, and somehow reach a state as a sort of being which can be aware of what it was like to be conscious as both of them, and see what was different and similar about life as both of them. I think... no, I know that part of me (the part that doesn't contain my fears, my passions, and my pride) would actually want to repeat this process until I had experienced it as everyone who had ever lived and ever will live (perhaps even every person that ever could have existed under every variation in circumstances possible, living every path/choice that each of them could have taken), so that I would have truly experienced everything.

But there is no proof, only speculation at this point. There is a strong fear and discomfort associated with being limited as we are now, that has spawned several religions and philosophies to create purpose, because for what ever reason, we feel we need purpose and meaning. We also tend to feel frustation with our own finiteness. This gives us a need to believe that we have a chance be infinite, because to believe otherwise would lead to despair. There really is no telling what we are. The two most common theories are that we are a schizophrenic and imaginative deity, or that we are intelligent animals that continually confound ourselves because a drive to keep trying to reach beyond our grasp is the only thing that gives us a feeling of purpose. Most would rather believe the former than the latter, but that doesn't tell us which is true.

If I were to paraphrase what it was like to be human, I would say that it's like wanting to be everything, and wanting to be nothing at the same time. And constantly seeking one or the other, unable to find comfortable balance between the extremes.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by MetalWounds

To me, it seems like you are in an essence saying; "If I close my eyes, you don't exist any more".

Here, take this No-Doz.
(It's a matter of my personal survival.)

[Kiddo]

I've gone down this route before but I came to the conclusions that we exist in two realties. The objective natural world which can only be understood quantitatively (but can only be perceived through relative means) and the relative human world which is the fabrication of all of our senses and perceptions.

Theory: Objectivism vs. Relativism

[Samuel De Mazarin]

When the child was a child (English translation from original German)

by Peter Handke

When the child was a child
It walked with its arms swinging.
It wanted the stream to be a river
the river a torrent
and this puddle to be the sea.

When the child was a child
It didn't know it was a child.
Everything was full of life,
and all life was one.

When the child was a child
It had no opinions about anything.
It had no habits.
It sat cross-legged,
took off running,
had a cowlick in its hair
and didn't make a face when photographed.

When the child was a child
it was the time of these questions:
Why am I me, and why not you?
Why am I here, and why not there?
When did time begin, and where does
space end?
Isn't life under the sun just a dream?
Isn't what I see, hear and smell
only the illusion of a world before the world?
Does evil actually exist,
and are there people who are really evil?
How can it be that I, who am I,
didn't exist before I came to be
and that someday
the one who I am
will no longer be the one I am?

When the child was a child
it choked on spinach, peas, rice pudding
and on steamed cauliflower.
Now it eats all of those
and not just because it has to.

When the child was a child
it once woke up in a strange bed
and now it does so time and time again.
Many people seemed beautiful then
and now only a few, if it's lucky.
It had a precise picture of Paradise
and now it can only guess at it.
It could not conceive of nothingness
and today it shudders at the idea.

When the child was a child
it played with enthusiasm
and now
it gets equally excited
but only when it concerns
its work.

When the child was a child
berries fell into its hand as only berries do
and they still do now.
Fresh walnuts made its tongue raw
and they still do now.
On every mountaintop it had a longing
for yet a higher mountain.
And in each city it had a longing
for yet a bigger city.
And it is still that way.
It reached for the cherries in the treetop
with the elation it still feels today.
It was shy with all strangers
and it still is.
It awaited the first snow
and it still waits that way.

When the child was a child
it threw a stick into a tree like a lance,
and it still quivers there today.