Consciousness and Matter
Options
Bodhi
Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was meditating on life and consciousness and thought to myself, Is there such thing as objective reality or is everything subjective? When we live, we experience our own lives and we interpret our experience personally. Two people may go through the exact same experience but interpret it differently and as far as we know, the only experience is our own because even when we speak to other people, it is our own interpretation. Our brain makes sense of what happens around it; signals sent by way of our five senses (sight, tough, smell, hearing and taste). Science tells us that consciousness is a product of the brain; a chemical reaction, like a fire. But we wouldn't know science or scientific theory had it not been for our consciousness so let's suppose consciousness is primary. Would that mean that matter is a manifestation of consciousness?
Matter is basically vibrating energy.
The only thing we will ever experience is our own experience, our own mind. The observed is the observer, so is everything ONE, within one consciousness, that being our own? When we experience the universe around us, is the universe ourselves?
Does consciousness create matter/reality or vice versa?
Matter is basically vibrating energy.
The only thing we will ever experience is our own experience, our own mind. The observed is the observer, so is everything ONE, within one consciousness, that being our own? When we experience the universe around us, is the universe ourselves?
Does consciousness create matter/reality or vice versa?
Comments
-
There is such thing as objective reality. How we relate to it is what makes it subjective. There is a certain "ownership" we should have in respect to our experiences, but it shouldn't come at the expense of confusing people into accepting a subjective reality as an objective reality. But, this confusion has been going on for a while and it's done a pretty good job of robbing ourselves of any reason to think that there are such things as absolute truths or ultimate realities. We live for ourselves without any reason to seek approval from something (or someone) outside of ourselves.
-
If all reality was subject to individualistic interpretation we would be able to reverse death.
-
alissowack wrote: »There is such thing as objective reality. How we relate to it is what makes it subjective. There is a certain "ownership" we should have in respect to our experiences, but it shouldn't come at the expense of confusing people into accepting a subjective reality as an objective reality. But, this confusion has been going on for a while and it's done a pretty good job of robbing ourselves of any reason to think that there are such things as absolute truths or ultimate realities. We live for ourselves without any reason to seek approval from something (or someone) outside of ourselves.
What is this objective reality?
-
solid analysis wrote: »If all reality was subject to individualistic interpretation we would be able to reverse death.
Not necessarily. No one has ever experienced death. The only death you've experienced is the death of others and even then, that is within your own consciousness/mind. You have not personally experienced death. -
"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.
We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.
There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves"
-- Bill Hicks -
@WestBrooklyn. Objective reality are the things in life that regardless of our relations to or with it, it doesn't change the essence of it. This is a small example, but for the most part we know what the sky is or what is considered as the sky. However, because of our presuppositions, biases, and world views the sky is perceived to being something more or different than what it is.
-
lol @ captain save'em all day @beenwize, he don't know nothing on the subject but came in with those draws on tight with his cape to Save faded righteousness and hate on @alissowack because he disagree with the only poster other than the oaphse brother to co-sign him.
-
alissowack wrote: »@WestBrooklyn. Objective reality are the things in life that regardless of our relations to or with it, it doesn't change the essence of it. This is a small example, but for the most part we know what the sky is or what is considered as the sky. However, because of our presuppositions, biases, and world views the sky is perceived to being something more or different than what it is.
Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment? The observer is linked with the observed. In the experiment, the electron behaves differently based on the observer's presence. The sky, in reality, is linked with your consciousness. It is there because you are conscious.
-
-
@WestBrooklyn. I could have sworn we were talking about objective reality in general terms. I'm sure there has been standards set in regards to the things of life that science has helped out with. But what does it mean in respect to how we "relate" to it?
Back to my sky example...and so I'm not trying to make it appear as if I am disagreeing...you could be right about all that you are trying to convey to me via YouTube (I may or may not look at them). But, what does that have to do with me and what I subject the sky to? Let's just say that one day I was looking at the sky and I suddenly felt at peace with life...and I began to think that this is a reality that everybody should have and start making the claim, "Look at the sky, for it will bring you peace!". Now, this is where you can argue that this is subjective for not everybody who looks at the sky will experience what I experienced. They may not experience peace...or their circumstance allows them to find peace in something else. But, the objective reality is that the sky is not going to change because I'm having a moment. There are standards in place that keep the sky from being manipulated by what I perceive it to be. -
And as I finished looking at this two part series...I really don't see how science is suppose to be the same as Buddhism. Science tries to take an objective perspective on the world and how it works while Buddhism suggests a subjective perspective; more personal and intimate. Science saying that the world is empty, as one, or not real is is not the same as Buddhism saying it. And I find it meaningless to even embrace Buddhism if even the religion itself is subjected to that same "emptiness". It is to say that even the Buddhists are not really believing in Buddhism for it is not real...yet you want people to know that Buddhism is real.
-
alissowack wrote: »you could be right about all that you are trying to convey to me via YouTube (I may or may not look at them).
the youtube videos weren't in response to you -
alissowack wrote: »@WestBrooklyn. I could have sworn we were talking about objective reality in general terms. I'm sure there has been standards set in regards to the things of life that science has helped out with. But what does it mean in respect to how we "relate" to it?
Back to my sky example...and so I'm not trying to make it appear as if I am disagreeing...you could be right about all that you are trying to convey to me via YouTube (I may or may not look at them). But, what does that have to do with me and what I subject the sky to? Let's just say that one day I was looking at the sky and I suddenly felt at peace with life...and I began to think that this is a reality that everybody should have and start making the claim, "Look at the sky, for it will bring you peace!". Now, this is where you can argue that this is subjective for not everybody who looks at the sky will experience what I experienced. They may not experience peace...or their circumstance allows them to find peace in something else. But, the objective reality is that the sky is not going to change because I'm having a moment. There are standards in place that keep the sky from being manipulated by what I perceive it to be.
The fact that you are viewing the sky is subjectivity in itself because the sky has no inherent existence first of all. Secondly, your mind is creating the reality that the sky is there. If there were no observer present to recognize the sky as the sky, it would rest in the realm of infinite potential. That was my point and my question: Does consciousness create reality???
When you look at the sky, you see the sky. You can ask your neighbor to look in the same direction and to explain to you what it is that he/she is seeing. Your neighbor can then tell you what they are viewing but the entire scenario is happening within your own mind. Your consciousness is creating this reality, of not only the sky but the neighbor and your conversation with your neighbor. -
So Jesus reverses death - never to die again - and performs several miracles that defy all kinds of laws of the physical universe, and in the case where all reality is subject to the individual, we wouldn't expect to be able to do the same?
-
solid analysis wrote: »So Jesus reverses death - never to die again - and performs several miracles that defy all kinds of laws of the physical universe, and in the case where all reality is subject to the individual, we wouldn't expect to be able to do the same?
I guess certain things could be possible. I couldn't tell you what and which, because I've never done them. But I don't believe in a ? so I don't believe Jesus had powers that any normal human being couldn't attain. Most stories about Jesus are most likely blown out of proportion and exaggerated for the purpose of portraying him as the son of ? for the sake of Christianity. -
West Brooklyn wrote: »alissowack wrote: »@WestBrooklyn. I could have sworn we were talking about objective reality in general terms. I'm sure there has been standards set in regards to the things of life that science has helped out with. But what does it mean in respect to how we "relate" to it?
Back to my sky example...and so I'm not trying to make it appear as if I am disagreeing...you could be right about all that you are trying to convey to me via YouTube (I may or may not look at them). But, what does that have to do with me and what I subject the sky to? Let's just say that one day I was looking at the sky and I suddenly felt at peace with life...and I began to think that this is a reality that everybody should have and start making the claim, "Look at the sky, for it will bring you peace!". Now, this is where you can argue that this is subjective for not everybody who looks at the sky will experience what I experienced. They may not experience peace...or their circumstance allows them to find peace in something else. But, the objective reality is that the sky is not going to change because I'm having a moment. There are standards in place that keep the sky from being manipulated by what I perceive it to be.
The fact that you are viewing the sky is subjectivity in itself because the sky has no inherent existence first of all. Secondly, your mind is creating the reality that the sky is there. If there were no observer present to recognize the sky as the sky, it would rest in the realm of infinite potential. That was my point and my question: Does consciousness create reality???
When you look at the sky, you see the sky. You can ask your neighbor to look in the same direction and to explain to you what it is that he/she is seeing. Your neighbor can then tell you what they are viewing but the entire scenario is happening within your own mind. Your consciousness is creating this reality, of not only the sky but the neighbor and your conversation with your neighbor.
When I think of subjectivity, I think of what it means in respect to what a person determines reality to be as oppose to a person affecting reality regardless of it. I'm sure that when scientists make observations, they are not going, "this will happen" or they know what the outcome is. They are wanting to know what will happen given any hypothesis they come up with. Those findings about "double slit" don't suggest to me scientists knew this was going on and were not intentionally trying to dictate what the next "thousand" will be like. These are objective findings. Now, if on their lunch break one of the scientists is like, "Man, this double slit experiment is amazing...it brings me joy; gives me purpose and meaning in life", then the experiment is determined by how it makes him (or her) feel...which in turn compromises the objective if the pursuit of these findings are just for pleasure.
There is a certain pleasure you seek in Buddhism and it gives you a certain satisfaction in your perspective to see how science corresponds. But if that is all, then it is just like the other religions you denounce; that it's just something to make you feel good.
-
.alissowack wrote: »There is a certain pleasure you seek in Buddhism and it gives you a certain satisfaction in your perspective to see how science corresponds. But if that is all, then it is just like the other religions you denounce; that it's just something to make you feel good.
Buddhism is a religion to attempt to decrease the amount of human suffering. It is realisitic imo as opposed to a theistic religion which is not realistic and increases suffering in the long run. But Buddhism is not what this thread is about, so let's leave it there.
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from with the thread. Without consciousness, there would be no form or names. Without names or forms there would be no consciousness. Consciousness itself is a subjective experience. -
Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.
Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this. -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.
Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
-
alissowack wrote: »Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science.
The video was something I was watching in my own time but it said some interesting things that related to this topic so that's the real reason I posted them. I apologize; I didn't mean to get you off track. -
West Brooklyn wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.
Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
The fact that there is a definition for consciousness suggest that it is objective. I couldn't just make up a definition for it (well, I could but it would be wrong). There is a universal understanding of what it is so that neither of us can dispute it. But we can dispute what we experience in our consciousness. We can observe the things around us and perceive it differently.
There is a certain degree in which I agree there is a oneness with the world...but not at the expense of not seeing the diversity. We are different. We are unique. If this "oneness" is not treated respectfully we can end up with us giving "rights" to things that are not able to comprehend it (or deserve it). And likewise...if "diversity" is not treated respectfully, we can end up developing biases or prejudices to things that we should relate to (or be as one with). -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Well, maybe it isn't, but you post videos that try to make parallels between Buddhism and science. It isn't showing how Buddhism reduces suffering. The unrealistic aspect of theism is not the idea of a deity itself, but the means in which mankind uses sometimes to promote the idea of a deity.
Consciousness is objective. The "who, what, when, where, how and why"'s of the experience is subjective. At the end of the day, we are either alive or dead and given what we know scientifically or common sense we can identify this.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
The fact that there is a definition for consciousness suggest that it is objective. I couldn't just make up a definition for it (well, I could but it would be wrong). There is a universal understanding of what it is so that neither of us can dispute it. But we can dispute what we experience in our consciousness. We can observe the things around us and perceive it differently.
There is a certain degree in which I agree there is a oneness with the world...but not at the expense of not seeing the diversity. We are different. We are unique. If this "oneness" is not treated respectfully we can end up with us giving "rights" to things that are not able to comprehend it (or deserve it). And likewise...if "diversity" is not treated respectfully, we can end up developing biases or prejudices to things that we should relate to (or be as one with).
The definition of consciousness and the concept of universality are all within your own consciousness. There is a diversity in the world and we relate to the world on a different level, as the hermetic philosophy puts it, we move and act as if this reality is "real", and we should.
"And if Man, owing to half-wisdom, acts and lives and thinks of the Universe as merely a dream (akin to his own finite dreams) then indeed does it so become for him, and like a sleep-walker he stumbles ever around and around in a circle, making no progress, and being forced into an awakening at last by his falling bruised and bleeding over the Natural Laws which he ignored. Keep your mind ever on the Star, but let your eyes watch over your footsteps, lest you fall into the mire by reason of your upward gaze. Remember the Divine Paradox, that while the Universe IS NOT, still IT IS.
To take familiar illustrations, we all recognize the fact that Matter "exists" to our senses — we will fare badly if we do not. And yet, even our finite minds understand the scientific dictum that there is no such thing as Matter from a scientific point of view — that which we call Matter is held to be merely an aggregation of atoms, which atoms themselves are merely a grouping of units of force, called electrons or "ions," vibrating and in constant circular motion. We kick a stone and we feel the impact — it seems to be real, notwithstanding that we know it to be merely what we have stated above. But remember that our foot, which feels the impact by means of our brains, is likewise Matter, so constituted of electrons, and for that matter so are our brains. And, at the best, if it were not by reason of our Mind, we would not know the foot or stone at all." The Kybalion Chapter VI "The Divine Paradox"
Quantum physics says that electrons and other subatomic particles can either manifest as particles or waves, depending on whether or not they are observed.
"Physicist Nick Herbert, says this has sometimes caused him to imagine thay behind his back the world is always 'a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup.' But whenever he turns around and tries to see the soup, his glance instantly freezes it and turns it back into ordinary reality. He believes this makes us a little like Midas, the legendary king who never knew the feel of silk or the caress of a human hand because everything he touched turned to gold. 'Likewise humans can never experience the true texture of quantum reality,' says Herbert, 'because everything we touch turns to matter.'" The Holographic Universe pg. 34
-
It is also conceptualized in Buddhism as "The Two Truths"; Relative (samvriti satya) and Absolute truth (paramartha satya), and the world of no-birth and no-death which is non reality, what is, or rather what isn't, after conscious observation is removed. Without consciousness, subjectivity, the world as we know it does not exist.
"All conditioned things are impermanent.
They are phenomena, subject to birth and death.
When birth and death no longer are,
The complete silencing is joy.
This verse (gatha) was spoken by the Buddha shortly before his death. The first two lines express relative truth, while the third and fourth lines express absolute truth. 'All conditioned things' includes physical, physiological, and psychological phenomena. 'Complete Silencing' means nirvana, the extinction of all concepts.
When we look at the ocean, we see that each wave has a beginning and an end. A wave can be compared with other waves, and we can call it more or less beautiful, higher or lower, longer lasting or less long lasting. But if we look more deeply, we see that a wave is made of water. While living the life of a wave, it also lives the life of water. It would think, Some day, I will have to die. This period of time is my life span, and when I arrive at the shore, I will return to nonbeing. These notions will cause the wave fear and anguish. We have to help it remove the notions of self, person, living being, and life span if we want the wave to be free and happy. A wave can be recognized by signs -- high or low, beginning or ending, beautiful or ugly. But in the world of relative truth, the wave feels happy as she swells, and she feels sad when she falls. She may think, 'I am high,' or 'I am low,' and develop a superiority or inferiority complex. But when the wave touches her true nature -- which is water -- all her complexes will cease, and she will transcend birth and death." The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation pg. 122-123 -
Do you consider the sayings of Buddhism to be absolute truth...or is it subjected to be being manipulated by that same consciousness? For it seems like, in your perspective, Buddhism can also not be...Buddhism. So, however you feel about Buddhism is subjected to not being real. The joy, peace, and liberation you claim can come from Buddhism seems defeated by it's own sayings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w&feature=watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uIJ0OS4pJk