To me, consciousness is nonlocal, just like Bohm’s interpretation of quantum particles. The term “nonlocality” refers to all points in space becoming equal to all other points in space, and it is meaningless to speak of anything as being separate from anything else. Everything, matter consists of quantum particles (which is both a wave and a particles, meaning both everywhere and somewhere), therefore, I am nonlocal and a wave, and so are you. Some particles need an observer present to not be a wave, others do not. I believe this is because some particles make up your conscious and others your subconscious.
^Article on Bohm’s theory if you are interested.
Thoughts on this topic?
I think it’s local and nonlocal. The local conscious can simply be looked at as a subset of the nonlocal – or global.
There’s finally a field of science that is exploring these notions … http://www.noetic.org/about/what-are-noetic-sciences/
I think the self is at the sub-conscious and this is nonlocal, which means it is not the self at all but ourself, a collective consciousness. The subconscious works on the level of impression, suggestion and intuition (instinct is probably a biofunction of the brain), the consciousness is where these impressions start to manifest to thought. Thought originates in the nonlocal subconsciousness but is put through the ego tool of communication so the original thought can be translated to language.
The ego tool of communication is made up of emotion, imagination and memory/experiences. All of our imaginations and emotions are more or less standard issue but memories/experiences is unique to each of us. As the mem/exp has so much influence on emotion and imagination, the ego tool adapts or translates the original thought impression to the end result thought that we communicate.
It is this ego process on nonlocal thought that alters our communication, our thoughts, to a local individual being, to a local thought.
I go into more detail on this thread https://www.highexistence.com/topic/self-disolution/
Just so you know, I don’t go through a process and then post it here but this site IS my process and the philosophy here is a result of other discussions I’ve had here.
If you think about the imagination, it is a vast realm, like space, and the imagination is creative so with this logic: Space is the creative imagination and constructive relationships of love, the positive.
Time has been described as the destroyer, linked to death, change is a constant because of time. With this logic: Time is the memory and experiences, the progression of age, that alter everything, a destructive force akin to hate, the negative.
I don’t think any of us share consciousness, per-se. I think consciousness is local.
I believe reality is non-local, that is everything is connected completely and all things are basically 1 “thing” and that boundaries and separations are simply logical fallacies of the mind that make math easier.
@alexa, This is ultimately a philosophical discussion, which means it is theoretic not an established proven science, I hope it goes without saying that anyone commenting on this can accept they may be wrong, it is a matter of opinion or belief. In my case, despite having such an enormous opinion on it, it is still just that, not a fact.
But as you were saying about the environment we are not percieving. The fact that we need sleep, after what is? billions of years of evolution, nature has not phased out this state of vulnerability, clearly a weakness in survival. This tells us that either biologically it is impossible to eliminate, or there is a clear survival benefit to it. What is it about sleep that makes it so imperitive to our survival?
@eric, I agree that consciousness would be nonlocal based on quantum physics. We know from quantum physics that our consciousness creates as well as percieves, and that at all times when we are percieving an object we are actively creating it as well. As you said, there are some particles that need an observer in order to not be a wave, and there is experimental evidence that the concentration of consciousness has an effect on the way waves and matter moves (Michael Talbot, “The Holographic Universe”). The opposing view, that consciousness is local, would be that consciousness resides within the human brain as a result of biochemical processes in the body. If this were so, our consciousness would only percieve the world around us and would not interact.
In addition, although consciousness seems to usually reside within the brain, it can sometimes be seen to connect with a higher consciousness, at times of enlightenment or intuition, or under the influence of hallucenogenic chemicals such as LSD, which seem to remove, to a certain extent, the normal restrictions of the human mind (more from the holographic universe).
Anyone have any thoughts on the power of prayer? Not asking a favor of a religious god and having it granted by supernatural power, but the effect of an intention of nonlocal consciousness on the world? If an intention is focused on something in the world, could it actually have a tangible effect on the receiver of the intention?
@holemanator, If everything is indeed intertwined on a much deeper level of reality, then yes, theoretically the power of belief is far more intrinsic than what we would normally think and indeed works. This can go so far as traveling via the mind or consciousness inter-dimensionally.
I don’t hold onto these beliefs, but I have thought of it before.
I just had an idea and I need someone to tell me if its stupid or not. What if classical brain behavior, neuron firings and whatnot, determine behavior that is guided by things external to us – society, doctrine, education, etc. and effects our “horizontal growth” in Wilber terms – our position in life, job, etc. And quantum (non-local) effects govern that which comes from within us, from qualities which seem to be intrinsic to us and which corresponds to “vertical” growth, i.e. spiritual. And certain drugs, meditation, yoga, etc. amplify quantum effects or subdue classical effects? Stupid? Yes?
@patrick Phillips, I believe that emotion and imagination on their own are fundamentally the same in all of us, the difference between us all is our experiences and how we each perceive those experience that are totally unique to each of us. But one minor difference in two peoples identical lives, say one heard a bird chirp when the other didn’t, would alter their perception like the butterfly effect.
I also believe the nonlocal conciousness is more fundamental than time, that time is sourced from it, which means that we are linked in a nonlinear way to people who are long dead and even do not exist yet. This means that by you looking over schematics for an alternating current generator, you may be sending the impression to Tesla without realizing it.
You could say pre-destiny, what you did is what you always were going to do simply because you did it but this doesn’t add or take away from what you do because the experience is new to your perceptions, even though it isn’t to the nonlocal consciousness. You can become more intune with the nonlocal consciousness but it only works on the level of intuition, impression and suggestion so you cannot definitively perceive everything but you can get a sense of anything.
@patrick Phillips, I would agree with that statement for the most part, but the brain seems to be a train station where everything meets, i.e., the observer, the chemicals/mood, and the personality, and they all take off separately but constantly link together at different stops.
I loved how you put it with “horizontal” and “vertical” views. Horizontal would be our three-dimensional reality that we create and is an illusion, and yet just as real as anything and everything. While the vertical view would be I suppose the deeper levels of consciousness, the higher levels if you will.
this is what I typed last night, extremely tired, before going to bed, part of a larger thing I’m working on. still can’t decide if the latter part makes any sense.
“It should be clear that two basic trends of thought have emerged in this discussion – the basic unity of reality and Mind, and the eminence of the subjective individual in determination of Truth. Even if one is an atheist, Jung showed us that the God-image exists within our unconscious as our highest potential. Applied psychologically, this may at first appear to lead to a discordant duality within the individual: the tendency to wish to subjugate or entirely eradicate the personal Ego in deference to the unitive Absolute/Brahman/God, and the wish for personal mastery over one’s life. These two powerful forces can seem to pull in opposite directions. However, these correspond to fundamentally different forms of personal growth – vertical (spiritual) and horizontal (worldly).
I suspect that classically conditioned brain behavior governs horizontal growth, while quantum behavior governs spiritual growth. Spiritual technologies ranging from prayer to meditation to psychedelic drugs, even artistic creative expression, amplify quantum effects in the brain. The effects of these two forms of growth overlap and interact with each other. For example, a new relationship may bring out a new phase in one’s spiritual growth (horizontal influencing vertical) or a spontaneous flash of insight during meditation may lead one to confront an aspect of an established relationship (vertical influencing horizontal). It is the ever-evolving personality which governs the mediation between these two influences.”
I’m sorry but that is not true at all. Yes, at a subatomic level of course everything is quantum. In speaking of anything but the very small, you would have been more correct to say everything is classical, because that describes most interactions of matter. The area of consciousness is a mystery…no one has explained it sufficiently, hence trying to bring the quantum into the picture as the classical model may not suffice.