Dr. David Skrbina, Unabomber, Panpsychism and Jesus |510|

#41
Recent personal anecdote... I was going for a walk the other day and came across a little old beat up BMW with a young guy in it, a retail worker from Dick's Sporting Goods who had apparently just gotten off work and had rolled up against a curb at a somewhat busy intersection and appeared to be stuck.

I walked over there to see if he needed help. A few seconds later another guy walked up and then another guy in a truck stopped and got out to help. So in short order we had a team of 3 men ready to provide assistance. The kid explained that his gas pedal had stopped working. I told him to put it in neutral and we would push him into the adjacent parking lot.

All 3 of us men started pushing on the little car and it wouldn't budge.
We heaved and grunted and one guy slipped and skinned his knee. Our pride and egos were all a bit shocked for a moment or two.
Then the kid yelled out, "Should I take my foot off the brake?"
"YES!" we all shouted back in unison. And instantly the little car rolled off.

As we three strangers jogged along pushing the car, one guy scoffed aloud as he replayed the young man's air-head moment, "Hah... SHOULD I TAKE MY FOOT OFF THE BRAKE???" We all laughed.

We rolled him into a parking space as two police cars and a firetruck showed up, so our impromptu team immediately dispersed without another word to one another.

And as I walked on, I experienced a feeling of elation that is pretty rare in a world where I spend 40-60 hours a week staring at a screen working fully remote on a computer. A team of men working together exerting physical effort, accomplishing a goal, helping out, and having a good laugh... Such moments would be much more common in the native life... Again, I'm not arguing that we can or should go back to the Garden state just that we have to be conscious of the fact that there is a trade off here.
Highly agree! This is a beautiful thought.
 
#42
I didn't fully understand the philosophy debate. Philosophy has never been a strong suit of mine; frankly it bores me immensely- and mostly appears as word games to my mind. Anyhow, why is it wrong or difficult to say, "Consciousness is fundamental and foundational. It's all there is. Sometimes consciousness expresses as what we commonly call 'material existence'. Sometimes it expresses in non-material ways"?
You are too good of a philosopher to not like philosophy, my friend!
 
#43
I certainly agree that we need to change the paradigm from pure materialism. However, given that, I think we should look for the smallest new hypothesis that would explain one or two repeatable observations - say Dean Radin's presentiment theory, NDE's, and maybe reincarnation.

Science has no problem enlarging a hypothesis, the problem seems to be in finding something that is testable in detail. I have made an analogy before of Newton discovering the General Relativistic laws of gravity and motion rather than the laws he did discover. Assuming GR is correct, what could possibly be wrong, he would have shortcutted science by 300 years. Well this would go wrong:

1) The understanding of algebra and calculus was in its infancy back then, so nobody could have worked with his theory (let's call it NGR), or discovered its properties. The lack of computers would obviously have made this much worse.

2) It might have taken a long time before the approximate laws we now know as Newton's laws would have been derived. Since practically all calculations done today, are done with Newton's laws because they are so much simpler to work with, this would have been a major handicap.

3) The complexity of NGR would mean that all sorts of mistakes would propagate into the literature. As we now know, a science that is uncertain and struggling can easily be taken over and used for devious purposes.

Idealism - the theory that matter exists as a mental construct that is 'run' on mental hardware - clearly encompasses many different possibilities, most of which must be not what we observe. For example, the conscious stuff that ran it could have decided to calculate assuming a strictly materialist world! I see that problem as being vaguely like the problems I describe above, caused by primitive algebraic skills. Science would take decades to begin to make sense of a world in which consciousness is taken more seriously.

David
Important observations! On the other hand, we need to be conscious of a hand to use a hand, right? Maybe not, there is also involuntary reflexes. I don't think that we can completely divorce consciousness from all that solid shit that we see everyday. Yes, if we get a monk to interrupt a photon beam, that is some bad ass shit! However, to be progressive, can we get a sex changed, gender questioning, future president of the United States of America to change the color of the monks robe from red to white before he interrupts the activity of the photon beam?
 
#44
I think Skrbina is making the mistake of putting theory way ahead of experiments.

Whatever the data seems to say, he wants to find a way to call it Monist! I feel more and more that Dualism is a far better theory for the time being, even if it ultimately resolves to Idealism ..... and maybe ultimately it doesn't!

I don't think it helps when researchers are forced into making distinctions like that, and end up choosing on the basis of pre-conceived notions rather than the evidence.

David
 
Last edited:
#45
I rather liked his Jesus hoax theory. It seems simpler than Alex's.

It was interesting to realise that Paul presumably didn't know about the life of Jesus when he made his contribution. 70 years is a long time for events to become confused before they were written down, and it does make me wonder if there was anyone (A Jesus) in the first place.

Of course, as a non-Christian, that isn't really where I am focused.

David
 
#46
he wants to find a way to call it Monist! I feel more and more that Dualism is a far better theory for the time being, even if it ultimately resolves to Idealism ..... and maybe ultimately it doesn't!
I appreciate how your passion comes through when you simplify philosophies. And that you do so while keeping a friendly tone.
I (having only studied philosophy via life experience and 1000’s of hours of podcasts, lectures, interviews, and debates) don’t have the materials and examples to reference (partially why I appreciate your inclusive style). But, I do feel confident about my senses on the subject..
The reason I’m confident is that my journey included finding loving acceptance of the material possibility of the “lights out / end of consciousness” theory of death. Therefore, I (and my ego) don’t need anything to be true..
That said, the most likely scenario to my sensibility is that
  • Consciousness is part-of or connected-to everything in the universe.
  • “Consciousness” is sloppily used to describe increasingly-many very-different phenomena.
  • It seems to follow the two points above that whenever we have difficulty differentiating phenomena, we can just give up, “cuz it’s all consciousness”.
  • Our higher self is not any of the things we refer to as consciousness.
  • God (be it a being, a Program, or a Programmer) seems to have not intended to leave any physical bread crumbs.
  • Any being/Program/or-Programmer capable of engineering/simulating/or-igniting our universe, would be capable of doing so without leaving bread crumbs.
  • Consciousness is not a bread crumb, and to assume otherwise is to insist on only looking under the lamp light for our lost keys.
Rhetorical Analogy:
How realistic does a computer VR experience need to be before it can merge/add/produce itself into our reality?
Answer: The amount of “realistic-ness” was never the limiting factor preventing this type of emersion.
 
Last edited:
#47
I rather liked his Jesus hoax theory. It seems simpler than Alex's.

It was interesting to realise that Paul presumably didn't know about the life of Jesus when he made his contribution. 70 years is a long time for events to become confused before they were written down, and it does make me wonder if there was anyone (A Jesus) in the first place.

Of course, as a non-Christian, that isn't really where I am focused.

David
Playing Jesus’s Advocate:
Can you imagine a scenario wherein (maybe by means of an NDE) a human could:
-Genuinely commune with The Infinity and retain some of it,
-Carry an indescribable level of this communion throughout their remaining life,
-Somehow successfully share that communion with other humans,
-All these without being silenced or co-opted?

just look at how little access (mainstream technological focus) we get to The Pyramids… or extra terrestrial contact…

We retard these things by human nature…

Analogy:
What if there was a Thanos of Music who snapped his fingers and all music left remaining on Earth was only cover versions or poor renditions of the great pieces of music?
Would the phenomenal potential of Music itself decrease in greatness??

If many of the great pieces were degraded (by failed rendition) into average filler, would this discredit their origin?
 
Last edited:
#48
Idealism - the theory that matter exists as a mental construct that is 'run' on mental hardware - clearly encompasses many different possibilities, most of which must be not what we observe. For example, the conscious stuff that ran it could have decided to calculate assuming a strictly materialist world! I see that problem as being vaguely like the problems I describe above, caused by primitive algebraic skills. Science would take decades to begin to make sense of a world in which consciousness is taken more seriously.David
Just take BK's course, for crying out loud. And please stop waffling. Don't you get it -- science has already made greater sense of the world in idealistic terms. What really matters is that it hasn't yet chosen to accept it. IMO, it's nothing do to with the ability, but the will to start concentrating on new findings. Instead, materialistic scientists spend a lot of their time trying to find ways to prop up their ailing metaphysics. It abounds with ad-hoc, sticking-plaster "solutions" that are becoming increasingly bizarre. Look at their pathetic attempts to explain the lessening of brain activity with psychedelics, for example. It's all there in the course if you could be bothered to look.

To me, you're a bit like Gallileo's inquisitors who refused to actually look through his telescope so they could check his findings. BK has the telescope. Look through it, for heaven's sake -- and then get back to me with your objections to it rather than endlessly ducking and diving.
 
#49
Just take BK's course, for crying out loud. And please stop waffling. Don't you get it -- science has already made greater sense of the world in idealistic terms. What really matters is that it hasn't yet chosen to accept it. IMO, it's nothing do to with the ability, but the will to start concentrating on new findings. Instead, materialistic scientists spend a lot of their time trying to find ways to prop up their ailing metaphysics. It abounds with ad-hoc, sticking-plaster "solutions" that are becoming increasingly bizarre. Look at their pathetic attempts to explain the lessening of brain activity with psychedelics, for example. It's all there in the course if you could be bothered to look.

To me, you're a bit like Gallileo's inquisitors who refused to actually look through his telescope so they could check his findings. BK has the telescope. Look through it, for heaven's sake -- and then get back to me with your objections to it rather than endlessly ducking and diving.
Can you provide a link?
Apology if you did already.
 
#50
Thnks for mentioning this Holfman exchange because it confused me;

He maintains he's not in the camp of the Idealists. He holds up a quarter and says there are two sides which are both real and present but we only see one at a time.. correct.
Is this not what the idealist maintain? In other words i could not ascertain where he differed from Castro/Holfman other then the job of theoritical creation concerning spiritual/conscious should be left to the philosophers.
But who cares who creates a coherent philosophy only that it does not require a PHD to decifer.

In any case, a shout out! - where is he different with the Holfmen? - who wants to create a mathamatical map of consciousness. A map of non local laws of interaction. Basically mapping the unknown.

Again , he shows us one coin with two faces ( two faces =duality, one =whole/unity)
'this is reality' , and then says don't fall into the trap of duality. This is confusing.

Then its one single thing , a Whole (the mind of ALL THAT IS) that manifests as a duality ... . In other words what is so problematic with The One objectifying itself in many.



I know Alex prodded him on this point, but am i the only one who did not get clarity here.
 
Last edited:
#52
I didn't fully understand the philosophy debate. Philosophy has never been a strong suit of mine; frankly it bores me immensely- and mostly appears as word games to my mind. Anyhow, why is it wrong or difficult to say, "Consciousness is fundamental and foundational. It's all there is. Sometimes consciousness expresses as what we commonly call 'material existence'. Sometimes it expresses in non-material ways"?
completely with you brother the monist completely baffle me, i wrote above he showed a example that was dualist!
I guess i got to go back and figure it out...but although a excellent show I can't face that reality.
 
#54
Thnks for mentioning this Holfman exchange because it confused me;

He maintains he's not in the camp of the Idealists. He holds up a quarter and says there are two sides which are both real and present but we only see one at a time.. correct.
Is this not what the idealist maintain? In other words i could not ascertain where he differed from Castro/Holfman other then the job of theoritical creation concerning spiritual/conscious should be left to the philosophers.
But who cares who creates a coherent philosophy only that it does not require a PHD to decifer.

In any case, a shout out! - where is he different with the Holfmen? - who wants to create a mathamatical map of consciousness. A map of non local laws of interaction. Basically mapping the unknown.

Again , he shows us one coin with two faces ( two faces =duality, one =whole/unity)
'this is reality' , and then says don't fall into the trap of duality. This is confusing.

Then its one single thing , a Whole (the mind of ALL THAT IS) that manifests as a duality ... . In other words what is so problematic with The One objectifying itself in many.

I know Alex prodded him on this point, but am i the only one who did not get clarity here.
Kastrup and Hoffman are in broad agreement, and both contribute at the Essentia site. That said, Hoffmann depends on having a number of conscious agents, but Kastrup maintains that ultimately there's only the one conscious agent, viz. Mind At Large ([email protected]).

What they seem to agree on is that the world isn't Wysiwyg, but rather a representation of actuality to perception. Kastrup thinks that organismal consciousnesses are dissociated alters of [email protected] He doesn't think [email protected] is metaconscious, i.e. is self-reflective or conscious that it is conscious. Only human beings (and maybe a few higher animals) are capable of metaconsciousness at least some of the time.
 
Last edited:
#55
Kastrup and Hoffman are in broad agreement, and both contribute at the Essentia site. That said, Hoffmann depends on having a number of conscious agents, but Kastrup maintains that ultimately there's only the one conscious agent, viz. Mind At Large ([email protected]).

What they seem to agree on is that the world isn't Wysiwyg, but rather a representation of actuality to perception. Kastrup thinks that organismal consciousnesses are dissociated alters of [email protected] He doesn't think [email protected] is metaconscious, i.e. is self-reflective or conscious that it is conscious. Only human beings (and maybe a few higher animals) are capable of metaconsciousness at least some of the time.
Thanks for that. ..looks like I'll have investigate little further. On the face of it I'd think that All consciousness is reflective, aware that it is and sums to a thing more then its parts....
Another problem I see in Kastrup is it is reliance one evolutional theory which is a linear construction , local, where as conscious theory leads to non locality...incompatability.
No doubt he's got a explanation for that.
 
Last edited:
#56
Just take BK's course, for crying out loud. And please stop waffling. Don't you get it -- science has already made greater sense of the world in idealistic terms. What really matters is that it hasn't yet chosen to accept it. IMO, it's nothing do to with the ability, but the will to start concentrating on new findings. Instead, materialistic scientists spend a lot of their time trying to find ways to prop up their ailing metaphysics. It abounds with ad-hoc, sticking-plaster "solutions" that are becoming increasingly bizarre. Look at their pathetic attempts to explain the lessening of brain activity with psychedelics, for example. It's all there in the course if you could be bothered to look.

To me, you're a bit like Gallileo's inquisitors who refused to actually look through his telescope so they could check his findings. BK has the telescope. Look through it, for heaven's sake -- and then get back to me with your objections to it rather than endlessly ducking and diving.
I like Michael Larkin, too, but I get what you are saying.
 
#57
Thanks for that. ..looks like I'll have investigate little further. On the face of it I'd think that All consciousness is reflective, aware that it is and sums to a thing more then its parts....
Another problem I see in Kastrup is it is reliance one evolutional theory which is a linear construction , local, where as conscious theory leads to non locality...incompatability.
No doubt he's got a explanation for that.
It's true Bernardo thinks natural selection is a part of evolution -- however, he doesn't think mutation is random. And that makes a huge difference to evolutionary theory as a whole.
 
#58
It's true Bernardo thinks natural selection is a part of evolution -- however, he doesn't think mutation is random. And that makes a huge difference to evolutionary theory as a whole.
My problem with the "theory of evolution" is that it presupposes some kind of "progress" of living beings, when this kind of progress is entirely not demonstrable. For example, a tree can live for thousands of years and produce all kinds of offspring, but a human, if lucky, can push past 80? That is only one perspective of evolution in terms of length of life. I am sure there are countless other interpretations based upon complexity of living systems and so forth, but in reality, these so called "complexities" are only interpretive juxtapositions made by anthropomorphic assholes.
 
#59
...why is it wrong or difficult to say, "Consciousness is fundamental and foundational. It's all there is. Sometimes consciousness expresses as what we commonly call 'material existence'. Sometimes it expresses in non-material ways"?
It isn't wrong. You could also say the fundamental reality is composed of English Peas and you wouldn't be wrong. But would it be useful? The usefulness of the label we apply to the "fundamental substance" depends in part upon how many steps we have to take to relate that label to everything else.

The dichotomy of Dualism vs. Monism:
For ages people have had the notion that this present reality is nested within another larger reality and this is the basis of dualism - the two realms: the earthly and the spiritual or the physical and the metaphysical. But there is an issue with this dualism. If the other realm is so completely different and separate from our own as to never interact with us then we might as well consider it to not exist. But if it does interact with our realm and if there is any regularity or pattern to the nature of this interaction then the interaction occurs according to some type of rules. And if the interaction follows regular rules then we can simply expand our definitions of the rules of this realm to include that realm. This means we can eventually expand our science and technology to make use of the rules encompassing both realms. At its core Materialism is really about the belief that reality follows rigid rules so if the "Spiritual realm" also follows rules, then it could in theory be folded under the tent of materialism.

Another way people have arrived at Monism as being the superior ontology is this: at some point we realize the definitions and boundaries are arbitrarily assigned based upon what is most useful in achieving a goal. Nothing exists independently but it always exists within a larger context. You could think of it as zoom level. We could theoretically zoom out forever and see everything as connected - one big thing. When we realize that boundaries are arbitrarily assigned or assigned by choice, then we start playing with boundaries around our own identities. Meditation and psychedelics and various other experiences can help us dissolve mentally imposed boundaries and see everything as One and this is often called the "oceanic" experience.

So it seems that Oneness is the ultimate reality, but we find our selves in a world where it isn't useful to focus on this most of the time, and we can't really talk about Oneness because words have definitions which are boundaries which break things up into pieces. Oneness is like the black hole at the center of being. We can use words and metaphors to orbit around it. We can see its effects, but we can't see it directly. If we stop talking/judging/using/desiring/acting, then we fall into it. Since it is the unification of all polarities then it is paradoxical and paradoxical metaphors are used to describe it. A shimmering darkness. An empty fullness. A humming silence. It is eternal life and ego death. etc.

This Oneness cannot be described. One of the ten commandments is to not make a graven image of it because to try to imagine it at all is to be deceived about what it is. But nevertheless we will make a graven image and try to talk about it.

Oneness alone is a completely useless concept. It is only useful when contrasted with our present apparent condition of separateness which often inspires love and compassion and it is also useful to dissolve mental stress contained within mental structures built of words and boundaries.

So the fundamental base reality is Oneness, which is completely useless to us because we can't talk or think about it. So we can assign any word to it and it will be correct. We can call it consciousness or mind or material or just "The Word" or "English Peas" or "Golden Calf".

As soon as we label the Oneness with a word, any word, then everything else is implied. As soon as you apply a word to it, then you have to define that word, and then you have to define the definition of the definition and then you have to define the definition of the definition and so on in infinite regress until the whole universe is described and everything is then composed of words.

How ironic that "Thou shalt not make any graven image..." was engraved upon stone and that those words themselves would be worshipped. And as Moses came down from the mountain he found they had made a golden calf to worship and so he threw down the stone tablets shattering them which is exactly what Words do to the Oneness. He made them grind up the golden calf to a powder and spread it over the water and made the people drink it. This is a representation through story of the black hole of Oneness and the inability to apply words or thought to it without the infinite regress fracturing everything and grinding the Oneness to powder which ultimately composes us.

So you can say "The fundamental reality is Consciousness" and that might be useful in some respects. You could say this is a dream within a dream or a simulation within a simulation. There's nothing wrong with it. But it causes a problem in other respects - for one because we can't talk without causing problems - but also because most people agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum of complexity and the further away we get from our level of consciousness (either up or down in complexity) the more difficult it is for us to relate to it and so it begins to lose its meaning. Also, the materialists have issues with this because consciousness is complex and in some ways mediated by and dependent upon material so how can something complex with prerequisites be the fundamental thing? Our understanding of consciousness also requires an object or context to be conscious of.

I think it is more useful to say that this paradox is true: Reality is fundamentally One and it is shattered into irreducible complexity. And any attempt to describe a fundamental substance of reality will be 100% accurate in some ways and it will fail in other ways, and so we can only do this in order to provide some kind of use in a limited context.

So my preferred label to apply to the fundamental substance is: PATTERN because it seems to provide the shortest most efficient definitional path to everything else. Pattern implies similarity/difference/choice. This is the fundamental Trinity. Since choice is required to set boundaries which compose the pattern, you can still consider this to be an expression of idealism. But since it is not called idealism and since it sounds objective and implies regularity or rules then it can appeal to the materialists who prefer regularity and solidity. Choice also implies a goal which implies a time lag between goal origination and goal fulfillment and also implies a frustration inherent in all creation and also implies power imbalances which result in everything from food chain to politics and evil.
 
#60
It isn't wrong. You could also say the fundamental reality is composed of English Peas and you wouldn't be wrong. But would it be useful? The usefulness of the label we apply to the "fundamental substance" depends in part upon how many steps we have to take to relate that label to everything else.

The dichotomy of Dualism vs. Monism:
For ages people have had the notion that this present reality is nested within another larger reality and this is the basis of dualism - the two realms: the earthly and the spiritual or the physical and the metaphysical. But there is an issue with this dualism. If the other realm is so completely different and separate from our own as to never interact with us then we might as well consider it to not exist. But if it does interact with our realm and if there is any regularity or pattern to the nature of this interaction then the interaction occurs according to some type of rules. And if the interaction follows regular rules then we can simply expand our definitions of the rules of this realm to include that realm. This means we can eventually expand our science and technology to make use of the rules encompassing both realms. At its core Materialism is really about the belief that reality follows rigid rules so if the "Spiritual realm" also follows rules, then it could in theory be folded under the tent of materialism.

Another way people have arrived at Monism as being the superior ontology is this: at some point we realize the definitions and boundaries are arbitrarily assigned based upon what is most useful in achieving a goal. Nothing exists independently but it always exists within a larger context. You could think of it as zoom level. We could theoretically zoom out forever and see everything as connected - one big thing. When we realize that boundaries are arbitrarily assigned or assigned by choice, then we start playing with boundaries around our own identities. Meditation and psychedelics and various other experiences can help us dissolve mentally imposed boundaries and see everything as One and this is often called the "oceanic" experience.

So it seems that Oneness is the ultimate reality, but we find our selves in a world where it isn't useful to focus on this most of the time, and we can't really talk about Oneness because words have definitions which are boundaries which break things up into pieces. Oneness is like the black hole at the center of being. We can use words and metaphors to orbit around it. We can see its effects, but we can't see it directly. If we stop talking/judging/using/desiring/acting, then we fall into it. Since it is the unification of all polarities then it is paradoxical and paradoxical metaphors are used to describe it. A shimmering darkness. An empty fullness. A humming silence. It is eternal life and ego death. etc.

This Oneness cannot be described. One of the ten commandments is to not make a graven image of it because to try to imagine it at all is to be deceived about what it is. But nevertheless we will make a graven image and try to talk about it.

Oneness alone is a completely useless concept. It is only useful when contrasted with our present apparent condition of separateness which often inspires love and compassion and it is also useful to dissolve mental stress contained within mental structures built of words and boundaries.

So the fundamental base reality is Oneness, which is completely useless to us because we can't talk or think about it. So we can assign any word to it and it will be correct. We can call it consciousness or mind or material or just "The Word" or "English Peas" or "Golden Calf".

As soon as we label the Oneness with a word, any word, then everything else is implied. As soon as you apply a word to it, then you have to define that word, and then you have to define the definition of the definition and then you have to define the definition of the definition and so on in infinite regress until the whole universe is described and everything is then composed of words.

How ironic that "Thou shalt not make any graven image..." was engraved upon stone and that those words themselves would be worshipped. And as Moses came down from the mountain he found they had made a golden calf to worship and so he threw down the stone tablets shattering them which is exactly what Words do to the Oneness. He made them grind up the golden calf to a powder and spread it over the water and made the people drink it. This is a representation through story of the black hole of Oneness and the inability to apply words or thought to it without the infinite regress fracturing everything and grinding the Oneness to powder which ultimately composes us.

So you can say "The fundamental reality is Consciousness" and that might be useful in some respects. You could say this is a dream within a dream or a simulation within a simulation. There's nothing wrong with it. But it causes a problem in other respects - for one because we can't talk without causing problems - but also because most people agree that consciousness exists on a spectrum of complexity and the further away we get from our level of consciousness (either up or down in complexity) the more difficult it is for us to relate to it and so it begins to lose its meaning. Also, the materialists have issues with this because consciousness is complex and in some ways mediated by and dependent upon material so how can something complex with prerequisites be the fundamental thing? Our understanding of consciousness also requires an object or context to be conscious of.

I think it is more useful to say that this paradox is true: Reality is fundamentally One and it is shattered into irreducible complexity. And any attempt to describe a fundamental substance of reality will be 100% accurate in some ways and it will fail in other ways, and so we can only do this in order to provide some kind of use in a limited context.

So my preferred label to apply to the fundamental substance is: PATTERN because it seems to provide the shortest most efficient definitional path to everything else. Pattern implies similarity/difference/choice. This is the fundamental Trinity. Since choice is required to set boundaries which compose the pattern, you can still consider this to be an expression of idealism. But since it is not called idealism and since it sounds objective and implies regularity or rules then it can appeal to the materialists who prefer regularity and solidity. Choice also implies a goal which implies a time lag between goal origination and goal fulfillment and also implies a frustration inherent in all creation and also implies power imbalances which result in everything from food chain to politics and evil.
I like these thoughts. Perhaps consciousness is the awareness of patterns in an otherwise never ending kaleidoscope of awareness. How else would we dream and not know that we are dreaming? Likewise, how is it that we think our waking life is something more than a dream state? I know, some speak of lucid dreaming, but what if lucid living is possible as well, and how could you truly define the difference?
 
Top