Can conscousness exist?

[postroad]

In my understanding of consciousness, it only exists in interaction of substances.

For instance my consciousness is a result of electrical impulses reacting with certain chemicals in the physical structure of my brain.

Could consciousness exist as pure energy alone or pure anything completely independent of other interactions.

My sometimes errant consciousness is thinking it can not.

If this can be verified is it an argument against a God of singularity (Spirit)

[Divine Insight]

Hi Postroad,

You ask some interesting questions. I'd like to offer my views on these based on my experience in the sciences.

In my understanding of consciousness, it only exists in interaction of substances.

This certainly sounds reasonable. Consciousness is definitely dynamic. The very idea of a static consciousness doesn't even make any sense. So at the very least there would need to be something changing states for there to be any sense of consciousness I would think. So proposal makes sense to me.

For instance my consciousness is a result of electrical impulses reacting with certain chemicals in the physical structure of my brain.

This is certainly related to your experiences for sure. Whether this actually represents your "consciousness" or the seat of your awareness is another question entirely. It may or may not be the seat of your awareness (for lack of a better description)

Could consciousness exist as pure energy alone or pure anything completely independent of other interactions.

Well now you have asked a very interesting question indeed. What is "pure energy"? Do we even know? The very concept may be illusive in terms of an ultimate absolute definition.

Here's one thing I suggest. Let's take a look at "empty space". What do we see?

Well according to modern science we see that there cannot even be such a thing as truly empty space. Even empty space is said to be bubbling with activity we refer to as "quantum foam" for lack of a better description.

But the one thing we can be certain of it that empty space is not truly empty. It is filled with, energy. And energy evidently refuses to ever be compeltely stagnant or static.

So when we ask whether consciousness can exist in a state of "pure energy" we can't say. There is certainly activity going on there. Energy (whatever the heck energy is) appears to be ceaselessly active and quite literally bubbling over with activity. Even in "empty space" it is believed that countless particles of matter are being created and destroyed from our vantage point at a phenomenal rate.

My sometimes errant consciousness is thinking it can not.

Well, why would you jump to that conclusion? Are you thinking of "pure energy" as being something that has no activity?

You might simply be jumping to conclusions too quickly.

Not only do we have reasons to believe that empty space (which could be seen as a form of pure energy) is constantly active, but it's even active in accordance with the law of Quantum Mechanics. And the laws of Quantum Mechanics also provide a means of doing quantum computing. Whoa! Quantum computing could be seen as a "thought process" and suddenly we have a very plausible condition that could represent a situation that might qualify for having properties that could potentially support 'consciousness'

Now I certainly don't mean to imply that we have enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that empty space (which is actually also what we might call the "Fabric of Spacetime") is conscious. But I think we do have at least enough evidence to suggest that this shouldn't necessarily be ruled out at this point.

If this can be verified is it an argument against a God of singularity (Spirit)

I'm not sure it would necessarily be an all-encompassing argument against a God. But it certainly would be an argument against spiritual or mystical philosophies that suggest that the "Mind of God" may indeed reside in the subtrate of physical reality (which would be what we call "Pure Energy" or "Empty Space" or "The Fabric of Spacetime", etc.

I personally favor the speculation that there may very well be a "Cosmic Mind" that dreams up what we perceive as physical reality. And my scientific guess would be that if such a mind exists it would most likely exist in this quantum foam, or actually be this quantum foam.

In other words, what we are calling "quantum foam" may actually be the "Brain of God".

Whether this can ever be objectively tested I have no clue. I'm not sure how it could be tested outside of actually having this cosmic brain make contact with us. And I'm not even sure if that would even be possible.

I favor the philosophies of mysticism precisely because they confess that this is all a mystery of how this might actually work. That's why they call it mysticism.

Whether this cosmic "brain" (if it exists) can actually act as one single giant ego called "God" or whether it is restricted to just dreams of life that we our currently experience right now I cannot say.

I have no reason to claim that such a God would necessarily be omnipotent. Experience life through these kinds of incarnated dreams might be all that it can do.

And we are it. We are this cosmic brain experiencing the physical reality we have dreamed up.

That's ONE possible speculative mystical philosophical idea.

One nice thing about mysticism is that since it does claim to be a mystery you are free to imagine whatever scenarios you think might work. There is no single philosophy that or dogma that says that it has to be a certain way.

In any case, I'm starting to ramble now.

But to just summarize your question. I don't see why pure energy cannot potentially also be some form of mind itself.

I don't see how we can rule that out.

And of course if it is a mind, there is no doubt that we are it. Tat t'vam asi as the mystic say.

We are this universe. Whatever this universe is, we are it.

So if this universe is the mind of God, then that's what we are.

Or at least we are thought patterns within the mind of God.

So anyway, I think it's a bit naive to just jump to the conclusion that "pure energy" cannot possibly be conscious. We just don't know enough about what "pure energy" is to even say what it might be.

But we certainly do know that it's NOT static.

And so that's interesting.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

You are thinking above my intellectual threshold. But bear with me. So we can agree that consciousness seems to require reactivity. Does it require "other" than self in order to be reactive?

What I mean does the energy have to be reactive (changing states) before consciousness is realised?

Before the big bang was the singularity inert and then became violently reactive in order to create energy and mass.

Why does inert become reactive? I mean in a situation were a reaction would not be necessary? Could static inertness self react? Would every atom have a "memory" of a non reactive condition ?

Now I am rambling.

[Divine Insight]

Before the big bang was the singularity inert and then became violently reactive in order to create energy and mass.

Most physicists today don't actually think that the universe began as a "singularity". Whilst these idea is still thrown around a lot, it's not really considered viable by most physicists. In fact, it's not even a physical idea. A singularity is actually just a mathematical point that has no dimensions. It's a total mathematical abstraction that doesn't truly make any physical sense at all. Especially in terms of thinking of a singularity that has infinite mass, or any characteristics like that.

Instead there are other hypotheses that tend to make more sense.

The following is my favorite, and probably the most popular among physicists too, although it's hard to say anymore since new ideas are being proposed all the time anymore"

The Universe Began as a Quantum Fluctuation.

The idea here is to simply postulate that the rules of Quantum Mechanics per-existed our current observable universe. This is just an unprovable assumed postulate. But it's a postulate that if accepted can potentially explain the birth and rise of the Big Bang event.

Well when we look at "empty space" we see (or at least detect) what we call "quantum foam". This quantum foam is not exactly physical.

What do I mean by that? Well, it's a foam of what we call virtual particles popping into and out of existence. This activity is both physical and non-physical. By that I mean that these "quantum fields" are totally undetectable via any physical means except when they become "particles" only then can they be detected.

So we have in this situation the "physical" (that which can be detected) and the "non-physical" (that which cannot be detected) interacting.

Keep in mind that when we have a state which cannot be detected it doesn't mean that there is "nothing there". All it means is that there is nothing to measure, detect, or observe. So from a physical point of view there is "nothing there". But obviously if detectable particles are constantly arising from this quantum field there must be "something there". It's just not something that we can call "physical" by definition because it's not physically detectable.

So a "quantum field" itself is not physical or at least not physically detectable. However a when it vibrates in a certain way becoming a "standing wave" of energy it then becomes physical and physically detectable.

(Just a side note for completeness: There are subtle ways of determining that there is indeed something there even when it's "non-physical", however a discussion of that would be far too advanced for this post, so let's just skip over that minor detail).

For all practical purposes just accept that quantum foam or "quantum fields", if you like, have the character of being both physical (detectable) and non-physical (non-detectable). And this of course changes rapidly over time. It's a dynamic situation. It's foam like boiling water in a pan in a sense.

In fact, sticking with that analogy it would be like the bubbles represent the physical particles, and the water would then be the non-physical aspect. Except that's actually a really bad analogy because in the case of a pan of boiling water you could easily detect the water. But to make the analogy work you'd need to accept that you can't detect the water, all you can detect are the bubbles. This would make the water then "non-physical" simply because you cannot physically detect it. And that is what is required of physical things. They must be physically detectable.

So anyway, getting back to the source of the Big Bang. The idea in this "theory" is to postulate that quantum fields (the quantum water) is a given. It's not physical in the sense that it cannot be physically detected. But it can become physical by churning into foam in which case it starts to bubble and these bubbles are physical. In other words, they can be physically detected as particles.

Again I feel a need to remind you that this is based in the arbitrary "postulate" that quantum fields simply exist. No explanation is given for that.

However, once we postulate that quantum fields exist we automatically have all of the laws of Quantum Mechanics in place because Quantum Mechanics is the physical description of how quantum fields behave. So even though these quantum fields are undetectable when they are like "still water" they become very detectable when they become "foam" or particles.

Given the existence of Quantum Fields as a "postulate" we automatically gain all the laws of Quantum Mechanics that comes with that and so now we can make some predictions about how these quantum fields might behave.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship (or Principle) mathematically tells us that a quantum field can fluctuate and become a physical particle. In fact, in Quantum Mechanics this is a must. This activity must continually occur.

Moreover, the shorter lived a particle is the more massive it can be, the longer lived it is the less massive it must be. This is required to satisfy the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relationship and "energy conservation".

Now the math gets rather complex because we have the following:

Short-lived particles can be quite massive. Long-lived particles must be very light.

If we take this to the extreme then clearly a particle that has no mass at all an live for eternity. Of course that's an absurd situation since a particle that has no mass at all wouldn't exist (at least in this context).

But at the other extreme we see that the shorter-lived a particle is the more massive it can become. This means that if a particle lives for zero time (i.e. never comes into existence at all) then it can be infinitely massive!

Again, this makes no sense because what sense does it make to talk about a particle that has infinite mass if it doesn't exist in time? If it doesn't exist in time, then it's doesn't exist at all so to even speak of it's mass is absurd.

So this brings us down to a reality check!

We can't have infinitely massive particles existing for no time at all. And we can't have infinitely light particles existing for eternity either because an infinitely light particle would exist in mass.

So we end up having lots of particles popping into and out of existence between these two extremes. Most virtual particles (or quantum fluctuations) are mediocre in mass and mediocre in how long they live.

However, there are rare events when extremely massive particles pop into existence for a very shot flash, and extremely light particles pop into existence and last for a very long time.

And now for the interesting thing. It may be possible to have an an extremely massive particle that exists for an extremely short period of time, but just accidentally happens to do this when other properties of the quantum field are simultaneously occurring and together they create a condition that Alan Guth has dubbed "Inflation".

This would be an extremely rare event to be sure. And that's very good news for us because if it was a common even we have big bangs going on all around us constantly.

But this extremely rare even is possible and when it occurs what happens is that it grabs this "near infinitely massive virtual particle" and blows it up to a gargantuan size.

And that event is the "Big Bang Event"

Now we suddenly have a very large massive universe from a random quantum fluctuation.

So there you have it. Something from "nothing". The ultimate free lunch. Except it didn't really come from "nothing" it came from the quantum fields that must have preexisted the universe.

~~~~~

Obviously we can't say that this is exactly what happened. This is just a postulated guess based on Quantum Mechanics and other known physical principles.

I personally like this guess. But there are other ideas for how the universe might have begun as well.

But this guess does postulate that this "quantum substrate" had already preexisted the universe.

I take this notion and suggest that this "quantum substrate" may potentially be the "Mind of God".

But of course that's speculation beyond speculation. But still, it at least offers one possible place where the "Mind of God" could potentially reside.

~~~~~~

There are of course other theories for the possible Big Bang event.

M-theory

This is actually the culmination of String Theory and it suggests that two "branes" collided and created what we see as the "Big Bang". Of course M-Theorists love this one.

I always say just change the spelling from branes to brains and we can have two Gods putting their heads together to create a universe.

Loop Quantum Gravity

This is based on yet another physical theory. There are actually several potential ideas here. One is that the universe is actually bounces cyclically between a Big Bang and a Big Expansion back to a Big Crunch, then a Big Bang and so on forever. Follow the bouncing universe.

Other ideas within this theory suggest that our universe is actually a black hole in another universe, and every black hole in our universe has given birth to yet other universes and so on. In this scenario collapsing stars would give rise to new universes. But then we still have the question of where the first universe came from?

Eternal Inflation

Once they had realized the idea of Inflation that I had mentioned earlier they began to realize that Inflation may never actually stop altogether, it only stops in places. Our universe would then just be one place where Inflation stopped.

But this idea doesn't offer any reason why anything should be inflating in the first place, and exactly what is it that it inflating?

So I like the quantum fluctuation idea I first mentioned and then just add inflation to that process. That seems like a pretty sound idea to me.

~~~~~

So anyway there you have it. Some ideas of how to get something from nothing so-to-speak. But if the "nothing" is actually a quantum field, then it's not really "nothing". And it could potentially be some sort of mind or brain. Who knows?

It's clearly constantly active, and it seems to have computing capabilities.

Or it could just be weird secular stuff too. Who knows?

But if you are looking for a place where consciousness could potentially reside I think the quantum field could be a candidate.

1. It's constantly dynamic.
2. It has computing power.
3. It may have preexisted our universe.

So it's an interesting prospect I think.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Thank you for taking the time to explain your knowledge in layman's terms.

So if we are still working from the concept of consciousness being reactive even from within itself can we speculate that consciousness is inherently creative?

That it must result in creation and recreation therefore destruction?

Perhaps our reality is a reflection of that reality being that we live in a reactive existence in which we have no choice but to interact with our environment?

In fact we must destroy to exist and create, and in turn we are subject to destruction in order that other than our consciousness can exist.

Becoming self aware of this we suddenly realise good and evil as the interactions of our inherently reactive existence in which we are forced to make choices between our personal fulfillment and the needs of the other than self?

Would it be silly to speculate that if there is a greater consciousness that it also is destroyed and recreated through the creation of time and mass?

And that this process repeats itself continuously?

[Ooberman]

In my understanding of consciousness, it only exists in interaction of substances.

For instance my consciousness is a result of electrical impulses reacting with certain chemicals in the physical structure of my brain.

Could consciousness exist as pure energy alone or pure anything completely independent of other interactions.

My sometimes errant consciousness is thinking it can not.

If this can be verified is it an argument against a God of singularity (Spirit)

How would this energy transmit through space (as opposed to neural networks in the brain)? Particularly, how would it do it such that it wouldn't be interupted or compromised by other energies?

And if our consciousness is somewhere else, why is it always experienced locally - connected to our sense organs?

Do other apes or animals have out-of-body consciousnesses?

How supernatural Consciouness handle evolution?
How can we test any of this?

[postroad]

e

In my understanding of consciousness, it only exists in interaction of substances.

For instance my consciousness is a result of electrical impulses reacting with certain chemicals in the physical structure of my brain.

Could consciousness exist as pure energy alone or pure anything completely independent of other interactions.

My sometimes errant consciousness is thinking it can not.

If this can be verified is it an argument against a God of singularity (Spirit)

How would this energy transmit through space (as opposed to neural networks in the brain)? Particularly, how would it do it such that it wouldn't be interupted or compromised by other energies?

And if our consciousness is somewhere else, why is it always experienced locally - connected to our sense organs?

Do other apes or animals have out-of-body consciousnesses?

How supernatural Consciouness handle evolution?
How can we test any of this?

Now you are describing a consciousness that communicates with our consciousness.

I am not imagining it that way. In fact I am not even sure of what I am imagining.

More about becoming self aware and maybe a "memory" imprinted on an atomic level.

Just like behaviour is coded on genes. For instance an egg. I do not know how a chick knows how to be a chicken from the same substance that I eat for breakfast.

But I can tell you that without any outside help a chick will know how to be a chicken and that it can pass that knowledge on through generations of eggs.

[Divine Insight]

So if we are still working from the concept of consciousness being reactive even from within itself can we speculate that consciousness is inherently creative?

I think it is a very reasonable speculation to propose that consciousness if inherently creative.

And I think this would be true whether we view consciousness as being a product of the human biological brain, or as being some sort of primordial essence of reality as I have suggested in this mysterious "quantum foam" or "quantum fields" that seem to underlie all of physical reality.

One thing I would suggest as a personal view, is that our brains are apparently not the only dynamic process that has been "creative". Obviously all of physical evolution that led up to the biological construction of our brains has also been a quite "creative" process. Therefore, if this kind of constructive creativity is a sign of potential conscious activity then it may very well be that the substrate of physical reality that has evolved into human brains may indeed have some essence of "consciousness".

So this also sounds "reasonable" to me. Although certainly not an air-tight necessary conclusion.

So I like to simply say that I see this as being a "plausible" description of reality. Where I'm using the term plausible to simply mean that we cannot rule out this possibility.

That it must result in creation and recreation therefore destruction?

Yes this is absolutely true. We know that anytime we transform one thing into another it necessarily requires the "destruction" of the previous form. That's a given. In fact, I think in some ways this can be associated with the second law of thermodynamics commonly referred to as entropy.

However there are two things I would like to comment on here for clarity.

One is philosophical and the other has to do with concepts in physics.

The Philosophical Enlightenment of Transformation

We subjectively speak in terms of "creation" and "destruction". But this is an entropic vantage point of "before and after". In other words we are working from within the perspective and experience of an entropic world. (i.e. a world that obeys Entropy)

The mystic would warn that things should not be thought of in terms of "Creation" and "Destruction", but rather simply in terms of "Transformations".

Creation and destruction are subjective opinions.

For example, if you build an automobile from raw materials you feel that you have "created" something. But in truth, you have also "destroyed" something at the very same time. You have destroyed the natural state of the raw materials.

We don't typically think in terms of destroying raw materials. If we go into a coal mine and remove coal we don't think of this as "destroying a coal mine". But that's exactly what we are doing. In fact, when the mine is finally empty of coal and we no longer have that resource available the stark reality that we have indeed destroyed a coal mine become blatantly apparent.

So the building of an automobile is simply a "transformation". Both creativity and destruction have occurred from a subjective point of view (or even an objective point of view if you want to get scientific about it).

But the mystics are quick to suggest that we don't pass judgements on these transformations in this way and simply recognize that a transformation has taken place.

In other words, what we see as "Creation and Destruction" is really just transformation. We have arbitrarily created this dichotomy of perceived creation and destruction. But all that has really happened is that what has always existed has simply undergone a transformation.

This is a philosophical view, but one that shouldn't be taken too lightly as it really does reach into some deep truths about the nature of reality.

Our tendency to think in terms of reductionism can often cloud our view of reality.

To reduce a simple transformation into a dichotomy of "creation and destruction" is really just an abstract reduction of transformation into different perceived events.

In other words, nothing is truly created or destroyed. Those are just the perceived results of transformations.

Of course, when entropy enters the picture and an arrow of time is introduced, then we can argue for a physical deterioration of the universe over time from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy. And we could view the state of maximum high entropy as being "Total Destruction". But then we would need to view the state of absolute lowest entropy as "Total Creation". And of course we do. That would basically be the Big Bang event.

But now let's look at entropy more closely.

The Physical Entropy of Transformation

In our macro world of this universe we seem to be under the constraint of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (or Entropy). This fact introduces an "arrow of time" from past (low entropy) to future (higher entropy).

So our physical universe appears to be "running down" or "unwinding" like a clock spring. And it no doubt is. Entropy appears to be a true property of the macro physical world.

But is it a property of the quantum world? The answer to that appear to be a very profound "No". The quantum world does not appear to be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On the contrary if it was surely the quantum foam would have "wound down" by now and be completely out of energy.

Quantum fields appear to just be happy to do there thing without any worry about running out of energy. There are no physical laws of entropy associated with Quantum Events. It's simply not part of Quantum Mechanics and it's not required to make Quantum Mechanics work.

So if we allow that original postulate that I had suggested earlier (i.e. that the entire universe sprang from a quantum fluctuation) then we have reasons to believe that this "creation" event was not necessarily associated with an equal and opposite "destruction" event. In other words, there would be no Entropy to preserve in the quantum domain.

Therefore, "Creation" by this "Quantum Mind" (if we allow for this silly speculation), would not necessarily require an accompanying destruction event.

This "transformation" was simply non-entropic from the perspective of the quantum domain. Or, if we insist on demanding that since a transformation has occurred surely something has to have been "destroyed" we can view it as follows:

The actual inflation of his quantum event is temporally unfolding. Therefore the transformation of this "Big Bang" is a transformation of it's own spatial expansion.

In other words, the only thing that has been "destroyed" was it's own previous state.

To put this more clearly, the entire transformation is occurring in the "macro world" rather than in the quantum domain itself. And therefore there has been no change in entropy within the quantum domain itself.

In other words, the "Quantum Mind" itself that we are imagining to be "God" has not itself undergone a transformation. But instead a very tiny part of it has simply expanded to become manifest as a physical universe. Therefore the property of entropy belongs to this universe, and not to the original quantum mind.

If it seems confusing as to why I even went into all of that, my point is as follows:

A transforming universe simply does not require a transforming God. Because the transformations that are taking place are self-contained within the physical incarnation and therefore not actual transformation taking place within the primordial being of this "Quantum Mind" we are calling "God".

In short, this type of "God Mind" would not represent any violation of any type of conservation laws or entropy.

Perhaps our reality is a reflection of that reality being that we live in a reactive existence in which we have no choice but to interact with our environment?

We certainly don't have a choice but to be interactive with our environment. In fact, the very idea that we can actually define a very precise boundary between us and the rest of the universe is itself a delusion. Try to stop breathing for a while, or stop drinking water, or eating food. Or even expelling waste materials which is also an interaction with the environment. It's just not going to work for very long.

In fact we must destroy to exist and create, and in turn we are subject to destruction in order that other than our consciousness can exist.

Remember we are only subject to transformation. Creation and destruction are subjective illusions. Save for the entropy argument. But like I say, entropy man not actually be applicable to the actual substrate which gives rise to our existence.

Becoming self aware of this we suddenly realise good and evil as the interactions of our inherently reactive existence in which we are forced to make choices between our personal fulfillment and the needs of the other than self?

And therein lies that major spiritual or mystical concept.

What constituents the "self"?

That is the question asked by the mystics. They suggest that the self is not the ego. The ego is simply an illusion of being an individual human. The "true self" they suggest actually resides in the "Mind of God" or "Quantum Mind" which gives rise to this physical incarnation illusion in the first place.

We even see this being taught by Biblical characters and Jesus in Christianity:

"I am that I am" or as the mystics say, "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are that".

"I and the Father are one" meaning that I and the Quantum Mind are one.

"Ye are also Gods", meaning that all "I's" are of the Quantum Mind.

"Whatever ye doeth unto the least of your brethern you doeth unto me.", again this is coming from the perspective of the underlying Quantum Mind.

Or the "Mind of God" if you like. I personally believe that Jesus was a Jewish mystic and not a demigod as the New Testament rumors claim.

Would it be silly to speculate that if there is a greater consciousness that it also is destroyed and recreated through the creation of time and mass?

But it didn't really need to "destroy" anything. All it basically did was create a situation in which something can transform. So the "Creation and Destruction" doesn't even apply until this thing begins to undergo transformation.

The Big Bang is the thing undergoing transformations and to date is has clearly transformed to have become the physical universe we see around us and that we ourselves have become as a conscious perspective in the Mind of God which is of course the Quantum Mind that underlies all of reality.

And that this process repeats itself continuously?

That appears to be potentially the case. The Quantum Mind (if such a thing exists) does not deteriorate due to entropy itself. Only the physical incarnations that it continually gives rise to will transform over entropic time until they settle out to become at peace again with the origin of all that exists which is the "Quantum Mind" or "God".

~~~~

That's the paradigm.

I'm not saying that this paradigm is true. I'm simply trying to describe it philosophically to the best of my understanding of it.

We could just "Secular Dust in the Wind" that came from who knows where?

It seems to me that even in the "Secular Dust in the Wind" some kind of "God" would have at to have at least cut a fart to produce the Big Bang that caused this Secular Wind.

But perhaps the Secularists are correct in presuming that this fart-cutting "God" has no brains.

And therefore it really make no sense to even call it a "God". Instead we'll just have to settle for the idea that the universe is "The Fart that Came From Nowhere".

Sounds like a Saturday Night Chiller Movie to me.

To each his own.

I really don't care how you personally view reality. I'm just offering my perspectives on your debate topic.

Hope you at least enjoyed the read.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I appreciate your input immensely. I simply do not have any scientific background to
relate to the wanderings of my mind.

Is the Christian perspective of blissful eternal existence unreasonable from a philosophical perspective.

What I mean to say, is how can an individual consciousness continue to exist when all negative experiences are removed from its memory. Each individuals ego is a result of an intricate web of interrelatedness.

I was told that If I did not make I to heaven that the relative who did make it there would have all memory of me erased in order that they would not have to worry about me in hell.

I instinctively replied that if this was the case than that individual would cease to exist as an individual on any level.

Does that make sense?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

I appreciate your input immensely. I simply do not have any scientific background to relate to the wanderings of my mind.

I'm glad to offer you my views based upon my scientific background. And I hope that you do find them to be interesting if nothing else.

In this post you are moving into questions about the "Christian Perspective" and I would like to offer my views on this as well. After all I was a devout Christian myself and almost became a preacher before I came to the realization that the religion is untenable as written in the Bible verbatim.

I currently now view "Jesus" (if he existed at all) as potentially having actually been a mystic Jews and possibly even very close to being a Mahayana Buddhist, or at least in harmony with that philosophy. I currently totally reject the claims that Jesus was a demigod born of a virgin, or that he rose from the dead, etc.

Having said this, I will attempt to address your question concerning the "Christian Perspective".

Is the Christian perspective of blissful eternal existence unreasonable from a philosophical perspective.

Not necessarily. In fact, I can offer plausible ways in which this could actually be implemented based upon my earlier posts describing a potential "Quantum Mind" as being "God".

However, I should be quick to add here that just because the Christian ideal of "Heaven" might be philosophically compatible with the Mystical View of God as a "Quantum Mind", does not mean that this in any way supports the Biblical doctrines in any verbatim way.

I'll address how this might fit in with the mystical picture of God as I respond to your following quotes:

What I mean to say, is how can an individual consciousness continue to exist when all negative experiences are removed from its memory. Each individuals ego is a result of an intricate web of interrelatedness.

I was told that If I did not make I to heaven that the relative who did make it there would have all memory of me erased in order that they would not have to worry about me in hell.

I instinctively replied that if this was the case than that individual would cease to exist as an individual on any level.

Does that make sense?

I'm going to need to address your above quote in two parts and I need to address the second part first, so allow me to flip this on its head:

I was told that If I did not make I to heaven that the relative who did make it there would have all memory of me erased in order that they would not have to worry about me in hell.

I instinctively replied that if this was the case than that individual would cease to exist as an individual on any level.

Does that make sense?

To begin with, I don't personally believe that this can be backed up with biblical scriptures. So I'm not sure where "Christians" come up with these ideas.

I'm also not sure if such erasures would even truly be required. However, I can at least imagine in my mind that such a thing could easily be done. I mean, if you were to wake up tomorrow with complete amnesia of your past would you still be you?

Well, we don't even need to imagine "Complete Amnesia". You can imagine waking up still knowing how to talk, maybe even remembering skills that you had acquired, like maybe playing a musical instrument or doing mathematics, or things like that. Perhaps all you have forgotten are things like your name and who your friends and loved ones are.

You've surely heard of cases where people have had amnesia and couldn't even recognize their very own spouse, yet they were still fully functional in many other areas and could even function well enough to get on with life and even pick up in the same career field that they had previously worked in.

So we can not only imagine the selective erasure of memories of loved ones, but we even have actual examples of it.

So this is certainly possible without destroying who you are. At least not in a fundamental way. Obviously if you were a husband and you no longer even recognize your wife, that part of you has indeed changed dramatically. But does that necessarily change "who you are" fundamentally?

I would say that it doesn't.

And this certainly fits in with the claims of the Eastern Mystics. The Eastern Mystics will be the very first to tell you that you not defined by your history or even your relationship with other people, etc.

So having memories of loved ones erased is certainly possible, but again, I'm not so sure this is actually necessary. There are other ways of dealing with that problem. I won't go into them here however.

Let's move on to the actual meat of the situation:

What I mean to say, is how can an individual consciousness continue to exist when all negative experiences are removed from its memory. Each individuals ego is a result of an intricate web of interrelatedness.

Well again, here you are confusing the "ego" (the sum of your historical experiences) with your consciousness awareness.

The Mystics are going to be the very first to jump on you for that. That's a big no-no in Eastern Mysticism. You are not what you think you are.

If you come to an eastern mystic with a list of "Who you are". Like I am a husband, a father, a son, an employee of this company, etc, etc, etc. The mystic is just going to laugh and say, "Come back when you are prepared to tell me who you really are".

Because none of those things are you. They are just experiences that you have had and roles that you are currently involved in playing.

The real you is the "actor", not the script.

You can play in any movie. In other words you can toss out your entire script today and take on a whole new script tomorrow and you will still be the same "actor" who has simply decided to take on a different role.

So that's the very first thing you need to understand. You need to understand your true nature. The true you. The you that transcends your ego.

The you that never goes away. The you that cannot be destroyed.

The you that is still there after you have had amnesia. (i.e. after everything that you thought was you has been erased)

That is the you that would be "resurrected" in the Christian ideal of an afterlife.


However, let's face it right off the bat. The Christian ideal of an afterlife is indeed an ideal of "saving the ego". So Christians may indeed believe that they are their ego. This is why they feel that it would be important to erase certain knowledge from their minds after they die. This is an attempt to preserve their egos as purely as possible.

But are egos even important at all?

Well, ironically they are. They are clearly even important to God.

In fact, if they weren't important why would God have even bothered to create them?

And now at this stage you're probably thinking, "This is crazy! This guy just proclaimed that egos are totally unimportant and not even remotely related to who we are, yet now he's changing his mind entirely and proclaiming that egos are important. What the heck? This guy must be NUTS!"

I don't blame you for thinking this way at all, because this is a very complex topic and full of subtleties that often seem to be paradoxical.

In fact, I actually need to STOP right here and point out that there actually exists many different speculations as to how things might work out after a human body dies.

I would very much like to share with you all of these different philosophical speculations. But that would require quite a bit of explanation and could easily become overwhelming and confusing.

Right now just let me clarify that you has asked in this post:

Is the Christian perspective of blissful eternal existence unreasonable from a philosophical perspective.

And so it is this particular perspective that I am addressing here.

This is certainly not the only possible scenario for an "afterlife". In fact, in Eastern Mysticism there is no standard orthodox concrete claims to precisely what happens after we die. All that exists are speculations based upon what we believe we can know.

There isn't necessarily any reason to preserve "egos" in an afterlife. All that needs to be preserved is the "actor" the foundational "me" which is not the ego.

And many mystics take this to suggest that we are God. In other words the "me" in me, and the "me" in you are the same "me" and the ultimate "me" is God.

Tat t'vam asi, meaning "You are That", or "I am that I am", or "I and the Father are one", etc.

There is no needs to preserve egos.

Buy you had specifically inquired about the "Christian Perspective" and the Christian Perspective is one of "preserved egos".

So I am attempting to show how even that idea can potentially fit in with this idea of an underlying "Mind of God".

So let's try to move forward now with this in mind.

~~~~~~

We postulate the following:

1. There exists a "Quantum Mind" which is God, and it gives rise to all of reality.
2. Individual ego perspectives and personalities grow within this incarnation.
3. After the incarnation is over, God selectively "resurrects" the egos that were enjoyable.
4. That resurrection of selected egos becomes the "Christian Heaven".

Egos that were not enjoyable are simply not remembered by the Mind of God.

In this way we can speak of individual egos being "saved" by the Grace of God.

But in truth, the egos that were simply not remembered (and therefore not resurrected in a new incarnation) aren't "tortured in hell for eternity". Instead they are simply perspectives on life that God once had and has now forgotten.

No actual "souls" have died.

I think this ideal of a "Christian Heaven" is plausible, although it most likely has nothing at all to do with any belief in Christianity, Jesus or the Bible, etc.

If it's related at all to anything that Jesus said, this is most likely because Jesus was indeed a mystic rather than a demigod.

If the "Christian Heaven" exists it would exist for everyone and not be limited by a a believe in Christianity. God would simply remember any and all egos that God enjoyed being. So if you are an atheist who is enjoying your existence then God will most likely remember you because if you are enjoying life, then so too is God enjoying being you.

~~~~~

I personally think this idea has plausible merit. However, it's probably not like the Christians actually imagine. It's not going to be an "Eternal Heaven". It would only be a temporary incarnation until God gets bored and decides to start all over again from scratch.

The very idea of an "Eternal Heaven" where individual egos never get tired or fed up with themselves is probably unrealistic.

So anyway, that's my thoughts on that.

I have no clue whether that sort of selective reincarnation actually happens, or if this is just a Christian wet dream of the ego. It's impossible to say.

Like I say in Eastern Mysticism there are many different proposed possibilities. In fact anything you can conjure up in your imagination has merit unless you can demonstrate specifically why it should necessarily be impossible.

Also, in many Eastern Traditions, a preservation of individual egos is simply not seen as being even remotely important, or even necessarily desirable.

So once you have accepted that life is but a "dream" of a superior Mind, almost anything goes.

It's just open to endless possibilities where the ideal of a "Christian Heaven" is certainly among one of those possibilities. Albeit it isn't likely to be an eternal heaven in any case.

Anyway, again I hope you enjoyed this post.

I'm just rambling along offering my thoughts and speculations for whatever they might be worth.