universal consciousness and the utility of mind

_Z_

from far far away
Messages
878
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
oxfordshire
universal consciousness and the utility of mind

The universe is cyclic, i can be visualised as like a doughnut, the explosion starts in the middle and begins expanding outwards in all directions. in the aftermath of the explosion, during the cooldown, planets like earth are formed along with the stars etc. the nearer you are to the centre the quicker things cool down, so it will eventually become homogenous. the universe though is still expanding, so at first we see an explosion, which continues forever, then as the middle of the explosion becomes old it cools, and the entire explosion starts to ‘rot’ from the middle. the universe in this manner can repeat without ever ending, just changing all the time.

so universal consciousness would change according to the cycles, it evolves with evolution generally as indeed there is no other vehicle for its development. if we imagine that we could strip away all bodies [physical form] leaving behind all consciousness then that is how i see universal consciousness. in a void it would have the value of zero, however the universe is cyclic, so there has and always will be universal consciousness.

i am unsure as to what effects time would have e.g. over the course of many cycles of the universe, perhaps it would gain potentiality [experience?], more interestingly would it synchronise things in some way? it often seams to me that evolution and coincidence is very well thought out as is nature, but it is not thought as we know it, universal consciousness does not have a brain.
>does causality come into it ~ or it into causality?

i would see ‘consciousness’or mindfullness as beginning with the ocean of infinity i.e. 0. it is and must be everpresent and universal, a fertile egg possesses 0,1 from its earliest stages ~ and essentially nothing ever goes beyond that. the human brain makes a different utility of it, to say plankton or a rock ~ where inanimate objects have no possession or utility of it [=0]. i would see nature generally and the universe as being the result of a great utility of mind!

regions names and objects may somehow reflect extraneous personality [e.g. in astrology and national character], here though we meet that elusive element that concerns life itself and animation. it is as if life is trying to get through where ever it can, so if a ‘personality’ is built up e.g. by humans creating it, then universal mind finds a utility in it. the only difference between that and us is that we have it contained in physical form.

there seams to be something both in the name and the region, i wouldn’t say it is ‘consciousness’ yet i am unsure what it is. take for instance an english football club liverpool, mainly foreign players yet they are still liverpool, equally when they play in europe they beet teams that they would loose to at home ~ they are a european club with many successes in the past. this has to be built up to begin with but once there, i dunno there seams to be something there.


erm what am i saying; that areas attract certain kinds of people and that a rose is not a rose by any other name?
---------------------------------------------------------
ok here is one main point; if mind is found to be extraneous to the physical form, then its universality follows. the above is journey into that ‘what if’ scenario.
now try dissecting the brain to find consciousness ~ i just don’t see it in the flesh and snot [or the batteries {neurons are like}] of the brain itself, but that the brain is an instrument that makes use of the ocean of consciousness/mindfullness.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and as concerns god and the gods.
well as a pagan i see that consciousness evolving and changing over time forming personalities which are then deified as part of the natural process [similar to us except without physical form].
as a monotheist [that i am not], then i would see the whole as being god consciousness. perhaps we can see something of the rapture in all of this, when the veil is lifted [revelations] and all becomes clear. this would be like a time when universal consciousness forms a kind of unity for a short time.
i don’t see why we it cannot be both in many ways of course.

{thanks to wonderer at ‘ilovephilosophy.com’ for the science}.
 
A thinking man.... say's i of you :)

Be kind on this idea;

if light combines in the sense, that when time, mass and energy.... became three to describe, the combination is still the total; One.

If at the moment of that (big bang) each are still entangled by light (energy) then life or that 'consciousness' existed during the course of all evolution (the beginning).

And that development can be noted in phi. Or 1.618..... the golden rule...

evolution in a mathematical sense, where the progression combines more mass within the evolution or growth of total energy of that system (continuance).

Just as all evolution does within an environment.

So we reach a point of consciousness (man)...... at a point where mass, can now predetermine and actually 'cause' based on examination of what is recognized. A person can think and see an issue and describe.

Then when one generation reaches a set of understanding; teachings and writings convey for the next generation..... kind of 'golden' ;)

Yet, these new generations all have, for the most part, that universal compassion... or the ability to see and observe others as a conscious choice... simply that compassion is universal upon birth but the knowledge passed down is not.

Where this is going is as consciousness is an association to the universe in a sense of being capable of observing existence while just being a bunch of mass associated by energy, that each person is born with the same capabilities of observance or awareness but still unequal of physically having the knowledge to understand how this occurs.

So each is usually exposed to different ideology but that pinnacle to be reached in when that 'collective consciousness' has the ability to know how itself exists.

So as mass evolved for us to be here, likewise, we must assist knowledge to evolve.

That pinnacle of 'universal consciousness and the untility of mind' is for mass to know how it exists, equally. :)
 
So you think the multiverse of matter spawned us in order to contemplate its navel? Dont you find that a tad anthropocentric?

Tao
 
bishadi, hi
then life or that ‘consciousness’ existed during the course of all evolution (the beginning).
indeed. we may visualise it as an ocean with a fish tank in it, the universe is that fish tank and the fishes are us and nature which makes utility of the waters of the infinite ocean.
And that development can be noted in phi. Or 1.618..... the golden rule...
interesting but why would it go by that rule? i see it as going by every rule. i am working on an idea called universal astrology, and this is basically numbers showing the cycles of time, where time also makes utility of mind..
Yet, these new generations all have, for the most part, that universal compassion...
compassion may be born of the universality of mind yes. i would say that is what it is! we tend to consider ourselves as in a bubble, yet although info itself doesn’t go beyond the brain our minds flow like whirlpool in a stream. a direct result of this interaction would be what we call compassion.
That pinnacle of ‘universal consciousness and the untility of mind’ is for mass to know how it exists, equally.
nice one!
tao, hail

So you think the multiverse of matter spawned us in order to contemplate its navel? Dont you find that a tad anthropocentric?

it is of course yes, though i wouldn’t see such purpose. i think contemplation is a human thing, the universal mind would be quite different. human thought perhaps is quite simply human utility of mind, that doesn’t mean universal mind is like that but it does mean it includes it. in other words it is not un-inclusive of the human mind, and is far greater than it alone.
 
bishadi, hi

Hello friend of knowledge.

interesting but why would it go by that rule?
mathematical description sharing the ratio development of an evolution. Only a small portion of each description can be entertained, this is only a pattern currently existing. :p

i am working on an idea called universal astrology, and this is basically numbers showing the cycles of time, where time also makes utility of mind..
The concept would represent that our mind (collective) would be the 'utility' of existence; exists of.

compassion may be born of the universality of mind yes. i would say that is what it is! we tend to consider ourselves as in a bubble, yet although info itself doesn’t go beyond the brain our minds flow like whirlpool in a stream. a direct result of this interaction would be what we call compassion.
IN a physical or scientific word 'entanglement.' As all mass is entangled by energy (light). So since that single beginning, all conscious has been entangled to the total in 'time.' Or simply at the same moment, always.

Yet the physical learning has created blinders to each (bubble) of the individual 'I's'.....

Where the combining has merit in fulfilling the singularity, is when the learned knowledge meets the mind of consciousness.

it is of course yes, though i wouldn’t see such purpose. i think contemplation is a human thing, the universal mind would be quite different.
Yet an evolution of thought (knowledge) does continue, so the precept of this process is universal by intent alone. Although in different opinions, a reduction or limitation has shared that with humility of 'not knowing' has offered Pease with internal observation alone.

human thought perhaps is quite simply human utility of mind, that doesn’t mean universal mind is like that but it does mean it includes it. in other words it is not un-inclusive of the human mind, and is far greater than it alone.
Thoughts can isolate, but the compassion of Love is a universal charge towards a progression or having intent. This continuance is an innert purpose; to exist.

The mind is capable of experiencing all existence; yet undescribable.

A perfection can be reached when each child born can observe material knowledge by the experience of choice; perform true to existence.
 
bishadi, hail
.
Hello friend of knowledge.
.
<gnosis> i like that, and thank you.
.
The concept would represent that our mind (collective) would be the ‘utility’ of existence; exists of.
.
an interesting point. the relative mind could be the result of the physical entity, that is to say; because the human form exists and has a brain then this makes utility of ‘mind’.
we could though build a robot with an ‘brain’ which could make equal utility of mind ~ but would that be equally alive? the computer we use could make much utility of mind, probably more than any animal, yet even if wee give it AI software it would be no more alive than a rock.
what then if the robot is made organically: this comes in two ways...
1. in parts; if you put together a robots ‘brain’ part by part i.e. manufacture it, then it would not be alive, or make utility of mind.
2. if you design dna to form into/grow into an intelligent being ~ an artificial creature, then this would be no different to us and would make utility of mind.
.
so what is the essential of the equasion?
.
IN a physical or scientific word ‘entanglement.’ As all mass is entangled by energy (light). So since that single beginning, all conscious has been entangled to the total in ‘time.’ Or simply at the same moment, always.
.
good thinking there, i would agree indeed.
.
Yet the physical learning has created blinders to each (bubble) of the individual ‘I’s’.....
.
this may be the overall result of perspective. this comes in threes, the base of the perspectile view, its focus and field, where sometimes the focus can be non singular. hence throughout time we have relativity of form and mind, in the great quantum computer of existence. as time is an arrow made up of zillions of little arrows all doing their own relativistic thing, then so to is mind. within the construct of the human mind then is a big ‘I’ perspective which possesses and utilises all beneath it in its mind kingdom.

Yet an evolution of thought (knowledge) does continue, so the precept of this process is universal by intent alone.

i agree.

Thoughts can isolate, but the compassion of Love is a universal charge towards a progression or having intent. This continuance is an inert purpose; to exist.

hmm interesting, i’ll have a little think on that. ...i suppose there is an overall result and that could be seen as universal compassion, i wouldn’t use the term love as this is an outer expression of it.



.
 
so what is the essential of the equasion?
The intent to create. (life)

Simply to know; what makes life exists. The universal psychosis; to understand.

An SAI can be a simple as the internet, still the intent to know; only needs questions.

Whether mechanically or biologically, the end goal sought are still answers, where the human perspective (opinions) share flaws; a (selfless) mechanism is recognized as truthful. Hence the choice of pursuing a created AI. When all the same data is already available, the issue is; integrity.

as time is an arrow made up of zillions of little arrows all doing their own relativistic thing
A unique perspective and to understand that momentum can affect the experience of time, then each exchange at the molecular level can represent a predetermination or t>0.


As if we even had a choice?!?!? :p

i wouldn’t use the term love as this is an outer expression of it.
The term is universal yet in a math frame, such as Casimir is not; as energy conveys between 2 points of mass an increased potential can be measured in time.


The three perspectives which seem quite important may be; inclusive (the total), isolated (individual frame or limited focus), and conceived (created existence).

Seems almost like foreplay; individual perspectives within the total. ;)
 
bishadi hi

The intent to create. (life)

i see it as like a hand trying to fit the glove, where the glove is worldly objects. it seams to yes, want life, it also want every form of expression there is. this is why for me, we see anthropomorphically, it is because what is in us is also in essence in the ‘all’.
it also seams like a flowing thing both changing [via its forms] and going with the overall change. i am unsure about creation, i see things as a flow, there is no evidence of creation only of change [from one thing to another, rather than building from new].

A unique perspective and to understand that momentum can affect the experience of time, then each exchange at the molecular level can represent a predetermination or t>0.

interesting, so times arrow may be seen as the overall momentum of all the little arrows, all in a universal moment across the time-iverse. how does the predetermination work? [in laymans terms please lols].

The three perspectives which seem quite important may be; inclusive (the total), isolated (individual frame or limited focus), and conceived (created existence).

i would call these primary associations, where the perspectile points are there skeletons - so to say.

Seems almost like foreplay; individual perspectives within the total.

the more i get used to looking at things in this way the more it seams so, yes. for example; sometimes i post the same thread at 4-8 forums at approximately the same time. you would think that they would get more or less the same answers, yet they don’t. the interesting thing is that;
‘it is the same to deal with the many as it is the singular’!
so when you talk to many people from around the world who are otherwise not attached to one another, then they act the same as if you were talking to one person face to face.

the more one looks the more one finds. ;)
 
The universe is cyclic, i can be visualised as like a doughnut, the explosion starts in the middle and begins expanding outwards in all directions. in the aftermath of the explosion, during the cooldown, planets like earth are formed along with the stars etc. the nearer you are to the centre the quicker things cool down, so it will eventually become homogenous.

.

Hi Zeb and my apology for returning to the op at this stage.

My problem is that I do not agree with what is described above. First there is no evidence anywhere that i am aware of that can state the universe to be 'cyclical'. Even if Big Bang theory is wrong, for example, and the mass we can observe is the result of energy transfer from one brane to another there is as yet no way to support a conjecture that this is a cyclical event. Using Big Bang theory and measurement of universal expansion again we cannot infer a cyclical pattern as the Universe appears to be speeding up its expansion and will never contract to start a new cycle. There is a constant recycling of energy but recycling does not infer a cycle.

Secondly, and here you accidentally touch on something I have often pondered, the Big Bang as an event to me leaves certain questions that remain unanswered. Physicists invoke exotic particles that could only exist in the firestorm of the first millionths and even billionths of a second of the Big Bang to explain the evolution of matter as we know it. It is extremely hard to imagine that so much could flow out from an explosion point so tiny. And when we look at a conventional explosion, lets for example take the biggest we can observe, a supernova, we always see a remnant in the rough position of the explosion event. An exploding star does not create a doughnut ring of matter expanding away from the blast alone, it also leaves a remnant at its core. A pulsar or stellar black hole in this example. If the Big Bang was a singular explosion then surely we would expect to see a very massive and conspicuous remnant? We dont. But if the matter we see was created in a brane collision and during the impact period of the two branes there was a flow of matter, (if it was a two way flow we of course cannot observe the impact on the other brane), then there would be no remnant to be found. It would also explain the increase of the rate of universal expansion. The pressure of matter transferring from one brane to another would store up momentum that would not be fully released immediately. You could describe it as a result of pressure differences on the two branes acting on a small rupture that links them. Like a hosepipe pumping water into a tank sometimes there will be small pressure variances that will give the readings that the velocity at a given moment is increasing or decreasing. It just so happens from our position in space looking at the oldest objects we can we see increased expansion. As the branes moved apart the pressure drops and the expansion is not so great, as we observe. I hope I am making some sense here because i feel like i'm not managing to convey it very well. :p

A good question is whatever happened did it happen into a vacuum or into extant space?

tao
 


My problem is that I do not agree with what is described above. First there is no evidence anywhere that i am aware of that can state the universe to be 'cyclical'.
And if you are really looking then you would also find the same reality to black holes. No where is there evidence! Just mathematical theorem to suggest, if gravity is doing all that other stuff, then to maintain the inverse square rules, if mass gets too close, it must go ‘black’ or implode on itself….. but
no evidence anywhere that i am aware of that can
That proves this!


Even if Big Bang theory is wrong, for example, and the mass we can observe is the result of energy transfer from one brane to another
Again mathematical simulations… but no facts.


Physicists invoke exotic particles that could only exist in the firestorm of the first millionths and even billionths of a second of the Big Bang to explain the evolution of matter as we know it.
Math and creative representations, as the first item of fact is there are no point particles..


It is extremely hard to imagine that so much could flow out from an explosion point so tiny.
Or how much confusion and abuse a few errant hypotheses can do to so many people.



The big bang came from the same form; incorrect physics of the primary three; mass energy and time. So to begin with these three (get MET), then from cosmology to chemistry, all the way to consciousness…… it’s all not so magical!

It’s all simply nature!
 
Shortly after making my last post I got some enews from a site I use. It has an article about early heavy mass galaxies. Here is an excerpt:

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Compact Galaxies in Early Universe Pack a Big Punch (04/29/2008) - The Full Story

"Astronomers looking at galaxies in the universe's distant past received a similar perplexing announcement when they found nine young, compact galaxies, each weighing in at 200 billion times the mass of the Sun. The galaxies, each only 5,000 light-years across, are a fraction of the size of today's grownup galaxies but contain approximately the same number of stars. Each galaxy could fit inside the central hub of our Milky Way Galaxy."

Does this not suggest that each galaxy is of itself a fountainhead of matter pouring into our universe? If 2 branes were to collide and they were not entirely "flat" then we would have multiple impact points (billions if galaxies are those points).

Tao
 
And if you are really looking then you would also find the same reality to black holes. No where is there evidence! Just mathematical theorem to suggest, if gravity is doing all that other stuff, then to maintain the inverse square rules, if mass gets too close, it must go ‘black’ or implode on itself….. but That proves this!
I dont think physics yet has the answer to whether or not information is lost beyond the event horizon of such an object. I suppose its one of the big questions for the next generation.


Math and creative representations, as the first item of fact is there are no point particles..
You mean until we start to observe them?

Or how much confusion and abuse a few errant hypotheses can do to so many people.
I think between the rapid advancement and the vested interest it is very difficult to remain completely neutral. Not only do the scientists want to be funded but they do not want to believe a life's work was all in vain.



Tao
 
Shortly after making my last post I got some enews from a site I use. It has an article about early heavy mass galaxies. Here is an excerpt:

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Compact Galaxies in Early Universe Pack a Big Punch (04/29/2008) - The Full Story

"Astronomers looking at galaxies in the universe's distant past received a similar perplexing announcement when they found nine young, compact galaxies, each weighing in at 200 billion times the mass of the Sun. The galaxies, each only 5,000 light-years across, are a fraction of the size of today's grownup galaxies but contain approximately the same number of stars. Each galaxy could fit inside the central hub of our Milky Way Galaxy."

Does this not suggest that each galaxy is of itself a fountainhead of matter pouring into our universe?
But what about the black hole's ''event horizon' nothing can escape, and that mass is thought to go through a wormhole to another brane.......?

It's quite funny all that tail chasing at the expense of you and I.
 
I dont think physics yet has the answer to whether or not information is lost beyond the event horizon of such an object. I suppose its one of the big questions for the next generation

Sorry........... this generation! The truth has been identified.
You mean until we start to observe them?
Or some christians actually believe jesus is coming to the earth riding on a cloud rapturing.

Same stuff; black holes, dark junk and magic..... all created.

Seems like common sense to look at tornado's or huricanes and how similar these structures (phenonmenon) are to what they see in telescopes. Seems best to keep both feet on the ground? Or simply, if you observed a swirl in a pool, that rotates exactly like a galaxie and put a die within the fluid, and then saw little eddies around the edges, would you call them dark eddies?

The point is, the descriptions of 'out there' are what has the physics down here so messed up.

For example; the speed of light
The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Ole Christensen Rømer, who was studying the motions of Jupiter's moon, Io, with a telescope. It is possible to time the orbital revolution of Io because it enters and exits Jupiter's shadow at regular intervals (at C or D). Rømer observed that Io revolved around Jupiter once every 42.5 hours when Earth was closest to Jupiter (at H). He also observed that, as Earth and Jupiter moved apart (as from L to K), Io's exit from the shadow would begin progressively later than predicted. It was clear that these exit "signals" took longer to reach Earth, as Earth and Jupiter moved further apart. This was as a result of the extra time it took for light to cross the extra distance between the planets, time which had accumulated in the interval between one signal and the next.
But then think of the 2 sail boats; a race is starting; you are on the starting line; one boat is 100 yards away from you and the other is 1 mile out and moving at identical speed...... now tell me is the one closer seem to be going faster, than the one a mile out....?

This is the kind of errors many just have a had time recognizing with simple logic.

Or what about the eclipse? They say that when the sun covers the moon, if gravity bends space then we should be able to see the star behind the sun if space is bending. (einstein)

But anyone can simply use the mirage form to describe such; refracting light within the energy. See the mirage on the hot desert sand!


I think between the rapid advancement and the vested interest it is very difficult to remain completely neutral. Not only do the scientists want to be funded but they do not want to believe a life's work was all in vain.
How do you think I feel? Over 25 years of work, no pay, no personal gain, complete integrity, scientific research and data accumulations and because of my attitude many simply do not approve or even consider the material simply because of taste, not integrity or honesty but mood and the fact that most could not believe, that a single man could ever contribute to mankind, just because they want too.........


Heck newton rewrote physics, and very few liked him either.... and darwin was dead before most even heard the word evolution... worked all his life to share but kept it quite so the church would not abuse the gift.

That time to know the truth of existence in a pure form of fact.... is right now!

Use your consciousness and mind, to find the facts, see the truth and know unequivocally what is true.
 
But what about the black hole's ''event horizon' nothing can escape, and that mass is thought to go through a wormhole to another brane.......?
Maybe to another brane but perhaps just dimensionally folded so that it appears theres a lot of something in something impossibly small. And at some point the exchange of mass is reversed.

What is a black hole to you? And i dont want a link to any XXX rated sites.

tao
 
Maybe to another brane but perhaps just dimensionally folded so that it appears theres a lot of something in something impossibly small. And at some point the exchange of mass is reversed.

What is a black hole to you? And i dont want a link to any XXX rated sites.

tao
but this comes from my XXX gov site on publications


Conclusions


Many standard notions in Quantum Theory require reference to some definite

causal structure. For example the notion of entanglement requires two spacelike separated systems, and the notion of information flow requires a sequence of immediately sequential time-like regions. When we embed QT into the causaloid framework these notions become special cases of a much richer structure. Entanglement is supported by the tensor product of QT, but in the causaloid framework, we have the causaloid product which allows us to talk about joint properties of any two regions regardless of their causal relationship. Information flow is supported by the standard product ˆ A ˆB between sequential time-like separated regions. In the causaloid framework we have, again, the causaloid product. In quantum circuit diagrams we draw wires between boxes denoting the path of the qubit. A pair of boxes either do, or do not, have a wire between them.

The mass is either entangled by the energy upon the structures or not...

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.0054v1.pdf

They still do not have the correct math but at least they are seeing how that non local affect, exists by a property of energy (light)...


a black hole is simply the portion in the middle with little mass, as the associated mass is rotating see coriolis effect and then recognize all that mass in a galaxy has a magnetic association and the perpendicular plane of the center (hole) to the galaxies rotation.

Then go back to a hurricane and take a shot at the material. Hurricanes are not based on the mass (gravitational) attraction but the associated energy.


 
Ok ...

before I respond to the above can you clarify what you think gravity is please? And do you think to date we have been confusing other effects for gravity?

Tao
 
Ok ...

before I respond to the above can you clarify what you think gravity is please? And do you think to date we have been confusing other effects for gravity?

Tao

Gravity is entangled energy between structures. The reason no one has described this is that a fixed 'constant' is affixed, where the reality is, each line item of 'f' has different material energy. So a rock has less juice cold, than hot. Same rock, same amount of material mass (atoms) but more light (energy) upon the structure imposing affects to its environment.

and Yes.... much of what is described is incorrect (dark matter/energy)

Heat...

Point particles...

Resonance ....

Speed of light ....

Mass ....

Most all of chemistry is directly affected. Not that we will not continue using many of the patterns and chemical processes but that to identify 'what is happening' can be directly described. ie. metabolic process...
 
tao hi

there is as yet no way to support a conjecture that this is a cyclical event

my reasoning for a cyclical universe is that i cannot find a suitable explanation for anything else. energy is conserved so it will always be around and i can’t see it fizzling out infinitely, that would be an impossible state. mostly in the universe we see balance, black holes eat stars and new ones are born, why should we presume that the universe itself is not the same?
the Universe appears to be speeding up its expansion and will never contract to start a new cycle
i would suggest that this would lead to a different cycle of slowing down once the energy used to gain speed is used up. it may not be so that the universe reforms a big bang each time, but by some measure things will be reformed.

If the Big Bang was a singular explosion then surely we would expect to see a very massive and conspicuous remnant? We dont.

apparently there is an unknown particle from which all others are born, but it only occurs at singularity. as you say though, it would still be fairly massive to hold all the mass of the universe. i often wonder if it is such a point, or an infinite field to be found, i would visualise this as almost like a pulsar.

It would also explain the increase of the rate of universal expansion

interesting. also we can look at how time itself speeds up ~ so as the universe gets bigger it effectively goes faster but uses the same amount of energy at all times.

A good question is whatever happened did it happen into a vacuum or into extant space?

this is what points me to the paradoxes cause by any dualism in our thinking! we cannot have a vacuum then suddenly the singularity, it all has to belong to a universal whole.


ps. more later chaps [i am very busy :)]
 
Back
Top