What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality

Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants, Obscure Opinions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality

Post #1

Post by William »

• The universe is a simulation.

• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.

• Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.

• Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.

• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.

• Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.

Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.

"Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process.

That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Hi William, thank you for sharing your philosophical worldview so clearly and in succinct form. I too have a very similar world view modeled after various forms of Buddhism which basically hold much of the same concepts that you describe.

And I also have selectively chosen and modified my specific views on these Buddhist idea. Just for completeness I would like to add that the Buddha himself (i.e. Siddhartha Gautama) has even suggested that we take what works for us and employ any personal insight and/or knowledge that we feel is appropriate to expand on or modify his original philosophy. So this allows "Buddhism" to be flexible and still be called "Buddhism". Just thought I'd toss that out for whatever it might be worth.

Anyway I would like to comment on your model and explain where my model is similar and/or different.

William wrote: • The universe is a simulation.

• Consciousness has always existed and always will exist. It had no beginning and will have no end. I call this consciousness "First Source" to denote the fundamental essence of all other types of consciousness derived from this one.

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.
This is exactly the view of Buddhism. God is the "Mind" that creates all of reality, and we are merely facets of this Mind of God. In this sense we are a part of God and God is a part of us. We also cannot be separated from God because there is nothing else for us to be. We are a facet of the consciousness of God.

By the way, just for clarity: I'm not claiming that this is the true nature of reality. I'm simply describing a worldview that I believe could potentially be real. This doesn't mean that I necessarily "believe" that it represents reality. But I do see this as being a plausible picture of reality.
William wrote: • Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.
In Buddhism this "state of consciousness" is referred to as the "ego mind". This is when the consciousness takes on the perspective of "Being the Ego". In other words this is when we imagine ourselves to be totally independent sovereign entities that are indeed separate from everything else. When this happens we tend to then view our "brains" as being in control and therefore we allow the brain to take control of our "conscious" thoughts. We then become slaves to the brain. A biological yet purely mechanical computing device.

Note: This is not the same as recognizing individuality. Individuality is real. Recognizing that we have an "ego-aspect" (i.e. we possess some individual freedom) is not the same as thinking we are an "ego-sovereignty". So in Buddhism the "problem" (assuming this is a problem) is when a person falls for the "illusion" that they are this ego. And so much of Buddhism is an attempt to FREE people from the illusion of the ego thus "enlightening" them to their true nature which is a facet of the mind of God. This is what "enlightenment" is ultimately about in Buddhism, IMHO.

Please note: I am offering my own personal views on Buddhism here, I do not claim to speak for Buddhism in any official capacity. And there are certainly forms of Buddhism that may passionately disagree with my views. I also do not even claim to be a "Buddhist". I'm just describing a worldview that I see some merit in.
William wrote: • Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.
I don't see Buddhism going quite this far. Although many Buddhists may actually agree with your view here. I don't personally see any need for any "purpose of rehabilitation".

My question here would be "Exactly what would need to be rehabilitated?" If all consciousness is ultimately a facet of God Consciousness then this implies that God needs to be "rehabilitated". I just don't see where this idea is necessary to the overall worldview. Consciousness that gets lost in the illusion of the ego just happens to be in that state of perspective. It's not consciousness that has "gone bad" and needs to be rehabilitated. Although, we as humans may view it this way. But it obviously can't be viewed this way by the God Consciousness.

So this idea is born entirely from the human perspective of things, but isn't compatible with the perspective from God consciousness. That would be my explanation.
William wrote: • Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.
And here you are going deeper into the whole rehabilitation thing. This would be an idea, that as I have already addressed, seems misguided to me.

I suggest that "evil intent" (and ultimately all forms of suffering and pain) have already been taken care by FSC (First Source Consciousness) from the very beginning. It's my "proposal" (or hypothesis) that FSC decided at the very beginning of creation (the simulation) just how much suffering and pain it was willing to tolerate. This also automatically determines the amount of joy and pleasure that can be had within the simulation.

In other words, in order to make joy and pleasure possible, FSC had to allow for suffering and pain. The more suffering and pain permitted, the more joy and pleasure can be attained within the Creation (simulation). And so FSC allowed for the most suffering and pain it was willing to tolerate, in order to allow for the greatest possible joy and pleasure.

So this takes care of limiting "evil" as well. So there's no need to invent an idea of "rehabilitation". There's nothing that needs to be "rehabilitated" in this simulation. The very notion of "rehabilitation" is nothing more than an illusion related to the illusion of the ego. Humans see this as being the "rehabilitation" of a "soul" (or a secular personality in the case of atheists). But since, in this model, our "souls" are ultimately nothing more than a facet of FSC, there can be no such thing as a "soul" being "rehabilitated". That would ultimately require that some facet of FSC needs to be "rehabilitated".

So I just don't see the need for this concept of rehabilitation at all in a simulation model where FSC is ultimately all that truly exists. This idea of rehabilitation would be purely an illusion that is seen from the perspective of humans observing this simulation from within it. This is how I would see things.
William wrote: • Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.
But now you seem to be suggesting that these facets of FSC are going to somehow complete this simulation? And then what? Do they then "bud-off" from FSC to become truly independent consciousnesses that then somehow become sovereign entities in their own right?

If so, what is their roll and purpose at that point? Do they then become individual FSCs who start the same sort of process over again to create even more FSCs? This would lead to an infinite number of newly born FSCs with every simulation.

In Buddhism, the end is quite different. The simulation simply ends and the FSC simply returns to what it was before it created the simulation. It then goes into a period of "rest" where it does nothing but experience the complete bliss of non-involvement with any dreams or simulation. (This can be thought of as dreamless sleep). It then reawakens to become involved in yet another "dream" or Simulation, and the Big Bang launches a whole new simulation. And this just goes on forever.
William wrote: Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.
I wold like to hear more about how you imagine this simulation to end. What happens to all facets of consciousness when the simulation does end? I just gave you the Buddhist view of how all consciousness simply returns to FSC when the simulation ends. But you were talking about the rehabilitation of consciousnesses that might somehow continue on after the simulation of life and death is over?

Could you expand on that aspect of your model? :-k
William wrote: "Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process.

That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

This isn't making sense to me. How did the facets of FSC that became human consciousness become "evil"? What caused them to become evil, and what happens to them after they are "rehabilitated"?

Do they then just dissolve back into FSC from whence they came as in Buddhsim? Or do you envision them somehow budding-off from the original FSC to become fully independent consciousnesses in their own right? And if so, exactly how does that work? And what do they do after they they are totally independent and free from the original FSC?

I'm just curious for more details and clarity of your model of reality. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17654
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 47 times
Contact:

Post #3

Post by otseng »

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #4

Post by William »

Divine Insight wrote: Hi William, thank you for sharing your philosophical worldview so clearly and in succinct form.
Hi Divine Insight, no problem.
I too have a very similar world view modeled after various forms of Buddhism which basically hold much of the same concepts that you describe.

And I also have selectively chosen and modified my specific views on these Buddhist idea. Just for completeness I would like to add that the Buddha himself (i.e. Siddhartha Gautama) has even suggested that we take what works for us and employ any personal insight and/or knowledge that we feel is appropriate to expand on or modify his original philosophy. So this allows "Buddhism" to be flexible and still be called "Buddhism". Just thought I'd toss that out for whatever it might be worth.
Thanks for the data there. I am not as familiar with Buddhism as you obviously are, so it is always good to have the input, so thanks for taking the time to reply.
God is the "Mind" that creates all of reality, and we are merely facets of this Mind of God. In this sense we are a part of God and God is a part of us. We also cannot be separated from God because there is nothing else for us to be. We are a facet of the consciousness of God.
GOD in the sense of an overall binding consciousness, yes. I don't use the expression much because it has connotations which can be limiting due to the various belief systems related to the title/name etc.
I avoid the use of the word 'merely' in this context, as it is inappropriate.
By the way, just for clarity: I'm not claiming that this is the true nature of reality. I'm simply describing a worldview that I believe could potentially be real. This doesn't mean that I necessarily "believe" that it represents reality. But I do see this as being a plausible picture of reality.
No problem there. It is a theory and my main reason for offering it up is to see if any holes can be made in it. I do not think it is necessary to believe something like this is true or not for any faith based reasons. It is more a point of taking what we are experiencing as reality and creating a type of reverse engineering...
William wrote: • Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.
In Buddhism this "state of consciousness" is referred to as the "ego mind". This is when the consciousness takes on the perspective of "Being the Ego". In other words this is when we imagine ourselves to be totally independent sovereign entities that are indeed separate from everything else. When this happens we tend to then view our "brains" as being in control and therefore we allow the brain to take control of our "conscious" thoughts. We then become slaves to the brain. A biological yet purely mechanical computing device.

Note: This is not the same as recognizing individuality. Individuality is real. Recognizing that we have an "ego-aspect" (i.e. we possess some individual freedom) is not the same as thinking we are an "ego-sovereignty". So in Buddhism the "problem" (assuming this is a problem) is when a person falls for the "illusion" that they are this ego. And so much of Buddhism is an attempt to FREE people from the illusion of the ego thus "enlightening" them to their true nature which is a facet of the mind of God. This is what "enlightenment" is ultimately about in Buddhism, IMHO.
This aligns with the rehabilitation aspect.
Please note: I am offering my own personal views on Buddhism here, I do not claim to speak for Buddhism in any official capacity. And there are certainly forms of Buddhism that may passionately disagree with my views. I also do not even claim to be a "Buddhist". I'm just describing a worldview that I see some merit in.
Okay. It is not important in the context of the OP subject.
William wrote: • Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.
I don't see Buddhism going quite this far. Although many Buddhists may actually agree with your view here. I don't personally see any need for any "purpose of rehabilitation".


You have already described one such purpose though. Being FREE from the illusion of separateness.
My question here would be "Exactly what would need to be rehabilitated?" If all consciousness is ultimately a facet of God Consciousness then this implies that God needs to be "rehabilitated". I just don't see where this idea is necessary to the overall worldview. Consciousness that gets lost in the illusion of the ego just happens to be in that state of perspective. It's not consciousness that has "gone bad" and needs to be rehabilitated. Although, we as humans may view it this way. But it obviously can't be viewed this way by the God Consciousness.
So this idea is born entirely from the human perspective of things, but isn't compatible with the perspective from God consciousness. That would be my explanation.
There is no particular reason why not. If an aspect of your self consciousness is not aligned with your true self, then the need is there to correct the problem... = the requirement for that aspect to rehabilitate.

William wrote: • Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.
And here you are going deeper into the whole rehabilitation thing. This would be an idea, that as I have already addressed, seems misguided to me.

I suggest that "evil intent" (and ultimately all forms of suffering and pain) have already been taken care by FSC (First Source Consciousness) from the very beginning. It's my "proposal" (or hypothesis) that FSC decided at the very beginning of creation (the simulation) just how much suffering and pain it was willing to tolerate. This also automatically determines the amount of joy and pleasure that can be had within the simulation.

In other words, in order to make joy and pleasure possible, FSC had to allow for suffering and pain. The more suffering and pain permitted, the more joy and pleasure can be attained within the Creation (simulation). And so FSC allowed for the most suffering and pain it was willing to tolerate, in order to allow for the greatest possible joy and pleasure.

So this takes care of limiting "evil" as well. So there's no need to invent an idea of "rehabilitation". There's nothing that needs to be "rehabilitated" in this simulation. The very notion of "rehabilitation" is nothing more than an illusion related to the illusion of the ego. Humans see this as being the "rehabilitation" of a "soul" (or a secular personality in the case of atheists). But since, in this model, our "souls" are ultimately nothing more than a facet of FSC, there can be no such thing as a "soul" being "rehabilitated". That would ultimately require that some facet of FSC needs to be "rehabilitated".

So I just don't see the need for this concept of rehabilitation at all in a simulation model where FSC is ultimately all that truly exists. This idea of rehabilitation would be purely an illusion that is seen from the perspective of humans observing this simulation from within it. This is how I would see things.



The simulation itself shows a particular design and purposet. It is not something which is meant to last forever, it is not something which offers any obvious escape from and it is something which contains a particular aspect of FSC which - even by your own account - is under an illusion that it is separate.
William wrote: • Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.
But now you seem to be suggesting that these facets of FSC are going to somehow complete this simulation? And then what? Do they then "bud-off" from FSC to become truly independent consciousnesses that then somehow become sovereign entities in their own right?

If so, what is their roll and purpose at that point? Do they then become individual FSCs who start the same sort of process over again to create even more FSCs? This would lead to an infinite number of newly born FSCs with every simulation.
No. There is only one FSC although the pattern is always there...more explanation is required on this.
In Buddhism, the end is quite different. The simulation simply ends and the FSC simply returns to what it was before it created the simulation. It then goes into a period of "rest" where it does nothing but experience the complete bliss of non-involvement with any dreams or simulation. (This can be thought of as dreamless sleep). It then reawakens to become involved in yet another "dream" or Simulation, and the Big Bang launches a whole new simulation. And this just goes on forever.
I see no reason why rest would be required by FSC.
William wrote: Those are the basic points of the theory. The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.
I wold like to hear more about how you imagine this simulation to end. What happens to all facets of consciousness when the simulation does end? I just gave you the Buddhist view of how all consciousness simply returns to FSC when the simulation ends. But you were talking about the rehabilitation of consciousnesses that might somehow continue on after the simulation of life and death is over?

Could you expand on that aspect of your model? :-k
Sure.
William wrote: "Human Beings" are evil aspects of consciousness and their forms and environment are specifically designed for the purpose of rehabilitation - the first step in the process.

That's what I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.
This isn't making sense to me. How did the facets of FSC that became human consciousness become "evil"? What caused them to become evil, and what happens to them after they are "rehabilitated"?

Do they then just dissolve back into FSC from whence they came as in Buddhsim? Or do you envision them somehow budding-off from the original FSC to become fully independent consciousnesses in their own right? And if so, exactly how does that work? And what do they do after they they are totally independent and free from the original FSC?

I'm just curious for more details and clarity of your model of reality. :D
Okay - well these are very good questions.

The Steps

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.

1: The motive is to explore. experience and learn though that process.

• Some simulations have allowed for consciousness to focus upon, explore and experience evil expression.

2: In this case a simulation which allowed for an aspect of FSC to experience pure evil - unchecked. The result was that pure evil was seen to be detrimental to consciousness.
Evil expression goes nowhere. It acts in a closed loop system in which - consciousnesses cannot leave the situation wilfully - because of the nature of pure evil expression and so it needs assistance in that department.
The closed loop system means that consciousness within it with pure evil intent has no way of finding an out, even if it were to look for one, which it cannot do because of its pre-occupation with evil activity.

• Our simulation is a specific creation designed to place evil aspects of consciousness within for the purpose of rehabilitation from the affects caused by other simulation experiences which have promoted evil intent and malevolent behaviour.

This universe allows for the opportunity to move from pure evil back to a state more aligned with the default state of FSC.

In the following metaphor I will attempt to give coherence to the process.

The Entity involved in the experience of pure evil has the same abilities as FS only these are restricted by the simulation it is involved within...the same pattern continues throughout all subsequent incarnations/simulations.

The Entity needed to be removed from that simulation and placed into this one.

The ripple effect of that action is what we regard as The Big Bang.

Every thing which formed from that beginning is a product of the mind of the Entity.

Through a series of incarnations involving separating its consciousness into the forms (following the same pattern FSC used to achieve the same) the entity imbued its self into those forms (galaxies, planetary systems, biological life forms) through the platform/process of what we call spacetime. As a whole this means that the universe is the main FORM of the Entity consciousness.

Effectively this meant going deeper and deeper into the simulation, ever separating but all aspects being of the one Entity.

The initial agenda of the Entity was to become GOD of its own universe, and through the process of separating its consciousness into myriad aspects within form, create subjects which would respond to it as GOD.

Essentially a kind of self worship :) primarily evil of intention.

• Our simulation is designed to hold the evil intent in a place where it can do the least damage and has the properties necessary as a first step process toward rehabilitation of the wayward.

However, because the simulation was designed for the purpose of rehabilitation, the Entity cannot hold out forever re its agenda and at some point through the process of imbuing itself into separate forms, it came to realize this and rethink its position in real terms.

From our perspective (way deep into this process) our closest connection to the Entity is Gaia (the Principality) the aspect of the Entity which imbued itself into the Sol system, and through the planet Earth was able to evolve forms in which to experience through and learn from. (as per the pattern)

• Other simulations exist to which we will eventually experience as the next step in the process of rehabilitation once we have completed the life and death sentence of this simulation.

These simulations are purpose built and essentially are created through the mind of Gaia (not withstanding individual human contribution to that simulation creation) and are part of the rehabilitation process - the simulation overall is known as The Astral Realm and contains everything ever conceived/imagined by human beings as part of the overall simulation, and is intended as part of the continuing process of rehabilitation in regard to that aspect of consciousness which experienced biological life form.

Any amount of data regarding the Astral Realm/universe/simulation is available from those who experience it and share their stories, altogether painting a picture of what is involved in the next step.

Gaia communicates with individual aspects of her consciousness in human form as per the belief systems of the individuals who 'go there' and plays the parts specific to the individuals beliefs. This occurs through various mediums such as dreams, visions, OOBEs and NDEs, so-called occult devices, and is not limited to particular organised religions (but these too are included) and while the risk therein is that dogmas are created, the benefits outweigh those risks and occasionally an individual can come to understand the bigger picture to which dogmatism builds walls around.

In comparison to the human being - the consciousness which experiences being human, and Gaia, our sojourn in this universe is barely a blink whereas Gaia (as the Entity within the experience of Sol System) has been around for a very long time and is not restricted to the same limitations as we are in relation to the universe.

That is the briefest way I can explain the process in answer to your questions...

In regard to rehabilitation no - there is no necessity to 'dissolve back' into FSC reality...all that is required is to adopt the fundamental attribute of FSC in whatever form we find ourselves within, in whatever simulation that might be.
Essentially we become ambassadors to that default setting and the polarities of 'good' and 'evil' are seen as the irreverent distraction they are...a conclusion of the rehabilitation process...we have 'left home' and 'carry home with us' as it were...we have healed from the experience and learned by it and move on.

The process can take all the time in this universe for the Entity to rehabilitate, part by part individual by individual...as it is designed for that purpose.

Hopefully this will help you understand the theory in more detail and promote more questions. :)

Cheers

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by William »

[Replying to post 3 by otseng]

My mistake - while the subject is of course one which falls under philosophy, there is no desire from me to actually debate the topic.

[strike]Pointless Posts, Raves n Rants,[/strike] Obscure Opinion delegated to obscure dumping ground sub-forum of no importance. Nothing to debate here folks...move along. :D

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #6

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: I see no reason why rest would be required by FSC.
I agree. This is clearly humans just pushing their human experience onto their "God" concept. This idea actually came from the original Hinduism from which Buddhism was born. So it's just part of the cultural model. In fact, so is the whole reincarnation thing. In these cultures reincarnation is seen as being "self-evident" in nature. Everything in nature is recycled and so it makes sense to think that life is no different.

But yes, Buddhism came from a culture that already accepted both reincarnation and a Mind of God who dreams up reality and take rest breaks in between major simulations. Those would be between "Big Bangs" if we want to compare this with physics.

So our entire universe from the Big Bang to the end of time within our universe would be "One Dream" to the mind of God.

Of course they don't have any reason to believe this other than cultural folklore. However, mystics do often point out that this idea existed in Eastern Mysticism BEFORE science discovered that there was a Big Bang and will be an end to this physical universe. So they see this scientific knowledge as kind of backing up their original cultural intuitions. :D
William wrote: Hopefully this will help you understand the theory in more detail and promote more questions. :)
Actually the additional details you've outlined sounds more like various versions of Wicca that I've read about.

I see both Buddhism and Wicca having many commonalities. However, historically it appears that Buddhism came first in India and was modified by Taoists in China, as it made its way to norther Europe where it became the foundation for many modern Wicca paradigms of today via the European Celts.

I've studied quite a few different paradigms of Wicca. I confess that I very much enjoy Wiccan worldviews and paradigms. This is most likely due to my ancestral connection with that part of the world. :D

On a more purely philosophical level I favor Buddhism as a philosophy for the simple reason that it doesn't try to push so many extra details onto the worldview.
From our perspective (way deep into this process) our closest connection to the Entity is Gaia (the Principality) the aspect of the Entity which imbued itself into the Sol system, and through the planet Earth was able to evolve forms in which to experience through and learn from. (as per the pattern)
As you point out in your worldview, you have the consciousness of Gaia as playing an intermediary role between the individual consciousness of humans and the ultimate consciousness of the FSC.

I am VERY familiar with this paradigm as I personally practice Wicca as a "Mystical Hobby". I view this as actually having secular value in terms of psychological awareness.

In my Wicca Paradigm Gaia plays precisely the role you suggest, along with many other spiritual entities who play various other roles as connections with FSC too. In fact in my Wicca paradigm I refer to FSC as "AUM". The ultimate consciousness of all that exists. And yes this is also the sound "AUM" or "OM" that is used in meditation. I view the consciousness of AUM to be "accessible" at least in part as a particular vibration of meditation energy.

Of course all of this is just humans playing with imaginary ideals of what they would ultimately hope and wish human consciousness could be an inseparable part of. This makes us feel important to some degree and even immortal. And everyone loves to feel immortal.

So yes, I think I understand your basic paradigm concerning how consciousness might relate to an imagined higher reality.

Still, as romantic as the Wiccan (or Pagan) picture of mysticism is, I feel that the Buddhist worldview tends to be the "cleanest" in that it doesn't need to bring in additional speculations about precisely how it all is supposed to work.

In short, I find the Buddhist worldview "complete" in its simplicity.

The view you have proposed here still suggest that humans need to somehow be "rehabilitated" in general.

There was something else you said that bothered me:

Here it is:
• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.

1: The motive is to explore. experience and learn though that process.
The idea that the FSC is seeking to "learn" something is what bothers me. This would suggest that the FSC is less than complete and is in some sense Growing in Knowledge. But if that's the case then what would be the end result of that?

And how long as this been going on? This would require that the FSC has already learned an infinite amount of knowledge and still desires to learn infinitely more knowledge.

This seems to be problematic for me.

In the original Buddhism view that I offered the FSC isn't attempting to improve itself in any way. It's simply dreaming and enjoying the dreams. Period.

I confess that even this paradigm can be said to be someone problematic. But then again I don't "stand by Buddhism" as being correct or true. For all I know there is no FSC and the secular naturalists are right. :D

There are arguments for that worldview as well. In fact, to be perfectly honest with you the older I get and the more I learn and think about all these different world views Secular Naturalism appears to increasingly have the best arguments on ever level.

But that's just an observation that's a bit off your desired topic. :D

But yeah, what you have just described sounds to me like some forms of Wicca. And that's cool. I practice Wicca as a mystical/psychological hobby myself. 8-)
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #7

Post by William »

Actually the additional details you've outlined sounds more like various versions of Wicca that I've read about.
Yes - as I said, the theory was developed through a process of inclusion.

• The theory itself is the combination
of other theories and belief systems which human beings are influenced by.


The idea being that if Earth was the form of an actual conscious Entity, then that would explain a great deal in relation to human belief systems which have come (and gone) over the course of human existence. I use the name "Gaia" because it is the most well known in relation to that.

Mostly though I refrain from comparing the different beliefs and have no need to choose one over any other as a preference.
For example, Wiccan doctrine might have problems re the concept of the Abrahamic idea of GOD being an invention of Gaia, whereas I specifically have no problem with the idea as I refrain from the traps of dogma as they are identified.
On a more purely philosophical level I favor Buddhism as a philosophy for the simple reason that it doesn't try to push so many extra details onto the worldview.
Whereas I tend to move away from that position simply because it appears kind of lazy or perhaps indifferent.
As you point out in your worldview, you have the consciousness of Gaia as playing an intermediary role between the individual consciousness of humans and the ultimate consciousness of the FSC.
Not quite. She represents the 'first stop' as it were...but there is plenty between her and FSC as far as the process goes.
Having said as much, it is my understanding that due to the rehabilitation process, it is unclear as to whether all Entities are working toward that end or if some are opposing it.
More importantly, it does not matter in relation to ME as an individual - and FSC does not have to be comprehended as a whole. I get the gist, and that is all that is required.
I am VERY familiar with this paradigm as I personally practice Wicca as a "Mystical Hobby". I view this as actually having secular value in terms of psychological awareness.

In my Wicca Paradigm Gaia plays precisely the role you suggest, along with many other spiritual entities who play various other roles as connections with FSC too. In fact in my Wicca paradigm I refer to FSC as "AUM". The ultimate consciousness of all that exists. And yes this is also the sound "AUM" or "OM" that is used in meditation. I view the consciousness of AUM to be "accessible" at least in part as a particular vibration of meditation energy.


Yes. Tom Campbell also mentions AUM in a similar manner.
Tom sees this as having grown from 'The Void' (how consciousness came to be) which I find inadequate as 'The Void' represents a beginning (in the same way the Big Bang does) and thus, everything which has a beginning is, on that count, a simulation.
Of course all of this is just humans playing with imaginary ideals of what they would ultimately hope and wish human consciousness could be an inseparable part of. This makes us feel important to some degree and even immortal. And everyone loves to feel immortal.
That is one way of hand-waving the possibility away, but it might be more the case that such imaginary ideas are inspired by the very things the OP theory is investigating as an idea.
The idea of immortality may be due to FSC never having a beginning or end and thus, we are a 'chip off the old block' because we are - in essence - that same consciousness.
So it can be explained in that way too. In relation to this (or any other) simulation, we are important because without consciousness there is no acknowledgment of any 'reality'.

So perhaps that reasoning (in a certain context where ego is in its correct place) is reasonable deduction rather than wishful thinking.
So yes, I think I understand your basic paradigm concerning how consciousness might relate to an imagined higher reality.
But is it 'imagined' or could it be a remnant imprint of a prior existence? :) Having no answer either way, I feel it prudent enough therefore to think it likely rather than unlikely.
Still, as romantic as the Wiccan (or Pagan) picture of mysticism is, I feel that the Buddhist worldview tends to be the "cleanest" in that it doesn't need to bring in additional speculations about precisely how it all is supposed to work.
Whereas I tend to move away from that position simply because it appears kind of lazy or perhaps indifferent.
In short, I find the Buddhist worldview "complete" in its simplicity.


Or is it? :) Some belief systems seem to have the effect of waking the individual up just enough to tell them to go back to sleep, and this is the impression I have re - at lest your take on - Buddhism. "Go Back to sleep because this is all a dream of FSC"...however, that is rather too much 'simplicity' for my taste and doesn't account for the complexity. It makes FS seem a bit of a dreamer with no particular agenda or purpose. The image doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the experience.
The view you have proposed here still suggest that humans need to somehow be "rehabilitated" in general.


Yes. It explains adequately enough the nature of the simulation we are within. giving it reason and purpose aligned to that nature - in relation to consciousness.
There was something else you said that bothered me:

Here it is:
• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.

1: The motive is to explore. experience and learn though that process.

The idea that the FSC is seeking to "learn" something is what bothers me. This would suggest that the FSC is less than complete and is in some sense Growing in Knowledge. But if that's the case then what would be the end result of that?
There is no 'end result/end game' because there is no end to consciousness.

In relation to this simulation and consciousness directly involved within it, the end game is complete rehabilitation, then on with the next experience...Why would it bother you that FS is 'less than complete'? Isn't that a judgment of some kind on your part? It is an interesting complaint though, so I am open to explore it in more detail with you if you fell so inclined to do so. :)
And how long as this been going on? This would require that the FSC has already learned an infinite amount of knowledge and still desires to learn infinitely more knowledge.
As long as there is something to learn, simulations to create to experience, explore, play in etc...what else would an always having existed always will exist self awareness DO with that? Go to *sleep*? (there are likely simulations which produce that experience for an aspect of FSC to experience, and certainly we do so in our particular form...but it would be illusion, see?)


;)
This seems to be problematic for me.
Perhaps your belief systems have something to do with that?
In the original Buddhism view that I offered the FSC isn't attempting to improve itself in any way. It's simply dreaming and enjoying the dreams. Period.
Yeah I got that. However from our perspective the dream is real, and it still implies a separatism which isn't in the OP theory. If the experience is real for us, it is real for FSC because we are FS having the experience. See?

• First Source Consciousness creates the simulations and uses these to explore and experience. This process allows FSC to imbue aspects of its self into innumerable simulations without having to leave its dominant reality of FSC.
Essentially this means that metaphorically it is Father/Mother and it is also the Children.



I confess that even this paradigm can be said to be someone problematic. But then again I don't "stand by Buddhism" as being correct or true. For all I know there is no FSC and the secular naturalists are right. :D
Sure. So, the universe is just an accident which came from nothing? Is that a logical conclusion? Could you truly be satisfied with that answer?
There are arguments for that worldview as well. In fact, to be perfectly honest with you the older I get and the more I learn and think about all these different world views Secular Naturalism appears to increasingly have the best arguments on ever level.
I think it suits your stated temperament. However, you do not appear to be someone who doesn't like to think too deeply...strange...almost an oxymoron of sorts.
But that's just an observation that's a bit off your desired topic. :D
Sure. You can always bow out of this discussion and focus on the simplicity of Secular Naturalism as you prefer. I am enjoying the discussion, but perhaps the OP theory is beyond your will to understand as a good explanation for what is?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #8

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: Sure. You can always bow out of this discussion and focus on the simplicity of Secular Naturalism as you prefer. I am enjoying the discussion, but perhaps the OP theory is beyond your will to understand as a good explanation for what is?
To this I would suggest that if you think you've explained something more than Secular Naturalism explains it's only because you imagine there needs to be some "Higher Purpose and Intent". And based on what you've offered thus far it appears that what you imagine that higher purpose to be is a need for various aspects of consciousness to be "rehabilitated" from becoming caught in some imagined closed-loop simulation of "evil consciousness" or "evil thoughts".

I find this concept to be far more likely to be fabricated by human imagination than to be an actual problem that needs to be explained. This is one problem with most mystical philosophies that try to become too explanatory. They become quite dogmatic by inventing problems and then proposing that their theology solves these problems that they have invented.

For example the so-called "Problem of Evil" is only a problem for theists. This is only a problem when you postulate the existence of a "God" who is supposedly "All-Good". Only then are you faced with having to explain the "Problem" of how evil came into the picture at all if the creator God is "All-Good".

Once you move over to Secular Naturalism you are no longer faced with having this "problem" that needs to solved or explained.

So in this sense you imagined reality doesn't explain anything more than Secular Naturalism explains.

This is a common trap that many theists fall into. They think that they need to explain a problem that basically doesn't even exist at all.

Also you say about the simplicity of Buddhism:
Whereas I tend to move away from that position simply because it appears kind of lazy or perhaps indifferent.


Where is there any laziness or indifference? :-k

Buddhisms solves its "Problem of Evil". So where is there any laziness? There's simply no point in making things more complicated than they need to be. Once you've solved the problems of the worldview your simply DONE. It has nothing to do with being lazy or indifferent.

The only reason you would need to move on to a more complex explanation is if you reject the solutions of Buddhism and proclaim a need for more explanations. You may chose to do that, but this doesn't make Buddhism "lazy". All it simply means is that you either didn't understand the solution that Buddhism offers, or you have rejected it for some reason.

Also, if we apply Occam's Razor Buddhism wins over your worldview because Buddhism solves the same problems with more simplicity.

Calling it "lazy" or indifferent is ridiculous. All you say is that you either don't understand it, or that you disagree with the solutions it offers.

In the meantime Secular Naturalism doesn't even have any "Problem of Evil" so there's no need to address that concept at all. Secular Naturalism explains everything that needs to be explain without inventing unnecessary problems.

So thus far I don't see where your proposed worldview has anything to offer that either Buddhism or Secular Naturalism having already solved.

Buddhism solves the "Problem of Evil" associated with an imagined "All-Good God". And it does so without the need for all the extra "baggage" required in your proposed worldview. That's not being "lazy" that's just being "efficient".

And Secular Naturalism doesn't imagine that an "All-Good God" exists, so it has no "Problem of Evil" to solve.

So I don't see where your objections to either Buddhism or Secular Naturalism have any merit.

It appears that the only arguments you could make is that you personally find your proposed worldview to be more attractive or compelling for some reason.

Those would then need to be the arguments you would need to make. Dismissing Buddhism by just proclaiming that you think it's "lazy" or "indifferent" doesn't cut it.

Dismissing Secular Naturalism because you don't feel that it address an imagined "Problem of Evil" or whatever doesn't cut it either.

You'll need to do better than that if you want to actually DEBATE for your worldview which does indeed appear what you ultimately intend to do.

You need to have valid reasons why you reject these other worldviews. Just calling them "lazy" doesn't cut it.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6145
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #9

Post by William »

I seem to have unintentional pushed a button of some sort with you and you have taken a defensive attitude in response.

I was under the impression that your personal take on Buddhism wasn't to be taken by me to be the last word on the matter, as advised by you in an earlier post.

So I simply responded according to your own take on what and why you believe what you do in relation to the OP theory, which I would argue is a fair enough thing for me to do.

I have no idea where you got the impression that "the problem of evil" is involved in the OP theory because the problem of evil relates to particular belief systems to do with the idea of GOD...

The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God (see theism). An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a God is unlikely or impossible.

Certainly FS is not presented in that category re either the OP theory or anything I have elaborated on since then.

The theory does however deal with 'the problem of evil' in relation to the idea of FS. The problem of evil is alive and well in actuality on the planet operating through human beings...thus the OP theory includes the notion of prison and the individual opportunity of rehabilitation...something you admit to being uncomfortable with/unhappy about..so 'its all a dream' is your refuge from that problem then? As you choose.

Rather than sway the thread in the direction you want it to go by creating these unrelated outbursts of provocation, either work with what is actually being said, or leave the discussion.

Do I want a debate? Nope. I am interested in anyone being able to find holes in the theory, but your outburst and subsequent rant about the merits of the simplicity of materialism and Buddhism lack substance in that department and really only proclaim a belief which you are comfortable with for no particular reason which negates anything I have said on the matter. If it works for you, well and good and 'go for it' but there is no logical reason or need to respond as you have simply because I haven't agreed with you and have said that for ME, your position (as you explained it) is not satisfactory. I prefer something more which explains rather than ignores or is indifferent toward.

So what?

Each to their own.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: What I think about consciousness in relation to this rea

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: I seem to have unintentional pushed a button of some sort with you and you have taken a defensive attitude in response.
These are "debate" forums. The idea is to debate issues. If that seems like a "defensive" posture to you perhaps you should think twice about debating?
William wrote: I was under the impression that your personal take on Buddhism wasn't to be taken by me to be the last word on the matter, as advised by you in an earlier post.
There is no such thing as a "single version" of any human philosophy or religion. I simply expressed one version that is "complete" in it's arguments. In fact, that's why I was careful to express that what I was offering as a very specific version.
William wrote: So I simply responded according to your own take on what and why you believe what you do in relation to the OP theory, which I would argue is a fair enough thing for me to do.

I have no idea where you got the impression that "the problem of evil" is involved in the OP theory because the problem of evil relates to particular belief systems to do with the idea of GOD...
Well the model you described sure seemed to me to be focused on that concept. You were the one who suggested the consciousness need to be "rehabilitated" lest it be caught up in "evil" simulations. That sure sounds to me like an attempt to explain away a "problem of evil". I'm open to hearing further explanations concerning your model.
William wrote: The theory does however deal with 'the problem of evil' in relation to the idea of FS. The problem of evil is alive and well in actuality on the planet operating through human beings...thus the OP theory includes the notion of prison and the individual opportunity of rehabilitation...something you admit to being uncomfortable with/unhappy about..so 'its all a dream' is your refuge from that problem then? As you choose.
Clearly you haven't understood how Buddhism solves "the problem of evil" from a theistic perspective.

You also apparently don't understand that the mere existence of what we humans have labeled as "evil" or "undesirable behavior" does not amount to being a "problem of evil" in a worldview philosophy. The fact that things happen that humans have a "problem" with does not amount to a "problem of evil" in a worldview.

You state above:
The problem of evil is alive and well in actuality on the planet operating through human beings...
No. This does not amount to a philosophical "problem of evil". All this amounts to is the fact that things occur in our world that we don't like and so we label those events as being "evil". This may seem like a "problem" to us because we don't like these events or behaviors. But in a Secular Naturalism worldview this isn't a "problem of evil" because there is not 'problem' associated with why things happen that we may not like. It's not a problem at all for the worldview. So there's no philosophical need to "explain" the problem away by creating imaginary purposes for why "evil" exists. In Secular Naturalism things just naturally occur that we, as humans, don't like. There's no need for any explanation beyond that. There is no need to create an imaginary "purpose" for why things exist that we don't like.
William wrote: Rather than sway the thread in the direction you want it to go by creating these unrelated outbursts of provocation, either work with what is actually being said, or leave the discussion.
This thread has already been moved to Random Ramblings precisely because you didn't offer any specific topic for discussion or debate. All you did was state your worldview and apparently you don't care to hear anything less than full support for it.

What is your purpose with your topic? Just to advertise and explain your worldview without allowing for any criticism or alternative views? That's probably not going to go over too well on this debating site.
William wrote:
Do I want a debate? Nope. I am interested in anyone being able to find holes in the theory, but your outburst and subsequent rant about the merits of the simplicity of materialism and Buddhism lack substance in that department and really only proclaim a belief which you are comfortable with for no particular reason which negates anything I have said on the matter. If it works for you, well and good and 'go for it' but there is no logical reason or need to respond as you have simply because I haven't agreed with you and have said that for ME, your position (as you explained it) is not satisfactory. I prefer something more which explains rather than ignores or is indifferent toward.

So what?

Each to their own.
Personally I think you are over-reacting. Why call my replies to your proposed worldview "outbursts"?

I simply offered two other worldviews for comparison. I also offered that the worldview you have described sounds very much like various Wicca worldviews. This wasn't intended to be derogatory. I was simply pointing out that I have heard similar worldviews to what you are describing here. I might add that those worldview do address "The Problem of Evil" because they also consider a "God" (or higher consciousness to be behind all that exists).

So I was only offering comparisons with other known worldviews. You are the one who dismissed these other worldviews as being "lazy", etc.

I merely pointed out why I see Buddhism being more succinct than Wicca, or the worldview you've offered simply because it addresses "The Problem of Evil" more efficiently, IMHO.

By the way if you claim to have a FSC (or God Consciousness) associated with your worldview then you probably will need to deal with the theological "Problem of Evil". There are exceptions to this in some worldviews. However those worldviews view the FSC as having no "intellectual awareness" prior to becoming incarnated. These philosophies are probably more in line with Taoism and/or Animism where they simply see the "awareness" as being a fundamental property of all that exists, and "intelligence" arising from complexity. Because of this they, (like Secular Naturalists) have no need to deal with a "Problem of Evil" because their FSC or fundamental consciousness doesn't plan or create reality, it just becomes reality without intention. And so there is no need to explain why it becomes what it becomes. It isn't assigned and "All-Good" fundamental nature to begin with.

I hope you don't see this post as being an "outburst". I'm just trying to explain how other worldviews have already addressed many of these problems. You solution to "The Problem of Evil" (whether you realize that's what you're doing or not) could certainly be true an work. But the idea that you have a worldview that solves a problem that hasn't already been dealt with efficiently by other worldviews would be a mistake.

Yet you seem to be passing off other worldviews (such as Buddhism and Secular Naturalism) as not being up to the task. That's certainly not the case.

I'm not suggesting that your worldview is flawed or unworkable. It may well be a true description of reality. I simply pointed out that it doesn't jump out as being any better than many other worldviews that already exist.

And based on what you've described I don't see where it's all that different from several Wicca worldviews. So it's probably already a well-established worldview in Wiccan Circles, if you'll pardon the pun. :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply