there may or may not be a universal mind [i happen to think there is], but we do have minds as do much of nature. it is those minds which intuitively can discern what info is, or at least can read it in a complex or rudimentary way according to brain size etc.
the crux of what i mean here is; how does our consciousness know how to read information? i mean we dont consciously know how to do that, we dont read electrical signals and chemical interchanges. from infancy we simply learn to attribute words and images, emotions etc, to symbols,
this is just a ‘rubber stamp’ kind of imprint, that the consciousness attributes to a thing. somehow though, information is being communicated in us and all things. it must be the case that consciousness or more specifically perception, has an innate ability to intuit what informations mean.
the only way such seemingly disparate things can interact/communicate, is if they are part of the same overall thing - whatever that is.
it appears to me that we have a subconscious and conscious connection to the universal informational space.
the ‘language’ of that space should be universal, as it communicates with everything to and from everything. yet information in the natural world would necessarily not be a given ‘language’, because things communicate in differing ways, and information derives from many kinds of sources, visual, audio, entity-entity.
hmm a simple baypass of the problem would be to cut we the consciousness [as if like spirit or a soul] out of the equation - initially.
electrical signals and chemical changes may themselves be ‘talking’ with the ether/universa. they are part of the one reality as i had stated we are. then it would be simply the case that collections of imprints upon the ether [got no other useful term here], make an effect accordingly - a vision or sound for example. such that the experiencing aspect of the ether [us] equally interacting with the universal medium, then interacts with or observes that impression as the third party i.e. subjectively.
Or a world that you can know, but not accurately perceive.
Depends on what you call a “mind”. Every mind has relatively independent parts that communicate with other parts. The communication between the parts constitutes a deterministic effect upon the other parts. The universe as a whole has that same scenario. Every mind in the universe is being affected by the same things. As any one mind acts upon the universe, it is inherently relaying affect to every other mind, although most often not substantially but subtly (“affectance”) and with varied degrees of delay, just as parts of a single mind.
So it can validly be said that the universe IS a mind with interacting and sometimes cooperative parts doing the “processing”. Literally the formation and placement of every sub-atomic particle constitutes a memory for the universe’s “mind”. Most of the universe by far, is not “conscious”, just as most of the brain is not conscious and most of the living body is not living.
A mind simulates affect upon it in order to predict consequence. That “simulating” constitutes the mind’s “thoughts” and “anticipations”. The body of the mind, the central nervous system, is pre-wired with triggers to indicate “hope or threat”. Hope is whatever it advances toward when it can see a clear path and threat is whatever it retreats from or seeks to destroy when it can see the need. The Perception of Hope and Threats, PHT, governs ALL minds and hearts.
It is an automatic map generator, an ontology system that serves to recognize what is “out there” and potentially a hope or threat. That is all it is. But it is the map, not the terrain.
The inherent ontology that gets produced in a mind is based on “relevance” that is pre-wired. And relevance refers to relation to PHT.
That’s true. ALL minds in the universe are responding to the same general kinds of events in the universe. But each mind perceives from its own stand point, its situation wherein some things are more obviously important. But when minds communicate, they assume a communication language which is always crude at best.
Because minds seldom verify the communication, misunderstandings between minds pertaining to PHT causes minds to perceive other minds as hopes or threats in themselves. Thus conflicts arise due to perception of hopes and threats, PHT, that lead to wants, desires, stubbornness, hatreds, and loves. As each mind acts upon its perceived map of what is important, they each cause other minds to have to react to their perception of a different map of priorities. Wars arise as a consequence. All coming out of the lack of Verification mostly involving communication.
True. The exact location and velocity of everything being perceived is literally the universes “database”, active memory of current events.
True again. Each mind forms its own ontology and accepts a negotiated language with which to affect other minds.
The idea of a “Grand Unified Theory” is that of a single ontology that all minds CAN use in order to both understand the universe with any desired precision as well as communicate to other minds with precision, thus requiring less verification, although always in need of a degree of verification. But which ontology people use is their own choice to a large degree (if not mentally programmed by others). Thus the variety of ontological maps used to represent “that reality out there” is pretty diverse.
People argue about what is real or not when most of the time, they are actually just talking about different ontologies while using a common language that doesn’t inform them that they are conflating two different kinds of maps. People argue about the existence of God and note that they avoid ever saying exactly what they personally mean when they say “God”. Thus they are arguing for no good reason. A shared ontology, a Grand Unified Theory, allows for people to stop arguing and live in harmony. But since they are already involved in the wars from their PHT, they are born into it, they refuse to stop and reboot into a harmonious understanding that also reflects that reality out there, a harmony with both other people and reality itself.
I think consciousness is only the top of the iceberg. We have a constant awareness of our surroundings via our senses, most of this doesn’t enter conscious thought. It does passively get stored somewhere to give us knowledge or a kind of familiarity of our surroundings. It’s only when something seems off, that our unconsious, some kind of drive, tells us our consciousness to focus on and analyse what seems off. It’s there that language comes in i think, as the crude tool of conscious thought…
If you’re hungry, you begin thinking about how to get food. If you sense that you’re bike doesn’t quite ride as allways because of a flat tire, you begin thinking about what the problem is and how to fix it.
james
everyone has parts communicating but we all have the same parts, albeit in differing degrees.
you think the universal medium is ‘affectance’, but the physical here is making affect upon the ether, as are the experiencers. there are at least the three parties here, and i dont see how it can work without the universal medium, to wit the disparate parties [inc physics] are communicating through.
after all in an infinite reality, physics are localised rather than universal, i’d go so far as to say they are opposites.
the whole body is conscious, we experience that, and the other aspects are internal to that. the spirit is always the whole part and the physical the lesser parts within that body of being - in our experience.
i dont think your explanation defines ‘how’ we know the physical things occuring in the brain and body. you dont consciously think about electrical signals do you!? thus there is something between the consciousness and the physics. after all, prior to science the consciousness didnt know anything about those physical attribute.
in short, there has to be something betwixt the consciousness and the physics, otherwise we would be consciously experiencing those things but we are not!
something, is informing us on behalf of those physical informations [if we can even call them that [information]]. how can any shape literally be a concept - it all comes down to that, and i dont think we can ever resolve that situation without arriving at the conclusion that it is impossibly. by all means i hope anyone here or elsewhere can resolve it, but so far no one has. thats because its impossible!
so now we have to re-examine exactly what that ‘database’ is?! i dont see how it can be physical given that info itself is not physical.
a visual information isnt an ontology? most of what we experience has nothing to do with logic and reason.
verification is interesting esp here, where largely we are not even talking about linguistic info, …! indeed i would go so far as to state that ‘verification’ is a tertiary involvement, a layer secondary to the primary communion and communication between things. in short we consider verifications >after< the primary communications [between two or more parties, via the medium].
i have yet to hear what anyone here actually thinks god >is<. i may have missed something.
a grand unified theory must surely include infinity and the medium we are discussing here, if i am right.
is not our consciousness or more our being pervasive? sure its just a small part of the brain dealing with consciousness, thats because the consciousness only needs to drive the car [or be driven] - so to speak. it would be really annoying if we had to consciously deal with running the engine etc.
in fact consciousness can it appears, only deal with a few factors at a time - as they pass by in our minds eye. i am tempted to think that the consciousness is tiny and perhaps the same ‘entity’ [i dont think it is an entity] in any given living thing. though naturally i have to wonder at which point that is not true. i can see e.g. a dog’s consciousness possibly consciously experiences the same past through to present and the future thoughts i.e. in the moment. it would require higher function to make plans for the future and many other things we can. yet when we do that i wonder if we are still using the same three-fold process of consciousness as the dog is doing.
you know what i mean, consciousness of different brains receive different passive informations. that part it relative to the brain of the creature.