addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

UNIFIED CONSCIOUSNESS

In The One, everything is continuous. We might talk about
meditative and other spiritual (as opposed to supernatural) experiences and theories of Unified Consciousness.
If everything is made up of energy and continuous,
then why not consciousness? Perhaps precognition
(no ghosts, just continuity of all that is) can show
how consciousness reaches everywhere.

Join or login to comment.

  • Lupey

    So, the DUT team have just published a paper in Nature. Bell's Inequality looking more secure. 'Spooky' eh!

    Anyone want to chat about this over a cuppa?

    October 23

  • Lupey

    Hey guys - this is a shame for all of us. Let's dig deep and let the bad stuff go. We all share an interest and curiosity that's more important than each of us individually.

    I'm interested in a hearty discussion. Amateur or not, it's the enthusiasm, warmth and plurality of opinions that is valuable and rich.

    So, anyone around NW3 want to share a pot of tea, walk or glass of wine and contribute skills, reflections, insights or interest? It's been an issue getting a big group together - so why not try small, informal, easy chats focusing on the group theme? Guerrilla it!!

    Consciousness needs urgent, polite, incisive, intelligent, multi-disciplinary and occasionally humorous attention!

    So, who's up for a friendly one in the next few weeks (it's now 22nd Oct 2015) around NW3/ Central London?

    2 · October 22

    • A former member
      A former member

      I'd do my best to be there.

      1 · October 22

    • Jane B.

      Great, so it's Lupey, Lance, Malcolm and myself. Anyone else want to join? Please email me: [masked] and we can finalise date/time.

      October 23

  • Malcolm G.

    That sounds good. I missed that last one.

    1 · October 22

  • terence f.

    Sadly called to do treasurer thing at a hasty AGM - I hope you had a fulfillling meeting.

    October 21

  • A former member
    A former member

    Time and place suggested.
    Anyone free that day?
    :)

    October 21

    • Dimitri

      .... Though 35 years seems like pretty reasonable notice :-) I'll take a day of.

      October 21

    • Adam

      I have plans for that day. :-(

      1 · October 21

  • A former member

    A former member changed the location from The Exmouth Arms to Slimey Jims Pleadean Emporium

    October 21

  • A former member

    A former member changed the date and time to Friday, April 01, 2050 at 8:00 PM

    October 21

  • Dimitri

    You guys sound awesome, cant wait to meet some of you though it seems like at this rate my consciousness will dissolve in to inter-dimensional cosmic flows long before that happens...

    1 · October 21

  • Lupey

    What is it that makes 'my' car mine? When all cars are 'mine' to someone.

    All cars have 'car' quiddity; only one the hacceity of my car. Yet, this can't be - since they all have hacceity to someone.

    How can any form of hacceity arise from a universe of quiddities?

    If all particles (eg. quarks, leptons) are, by definition, exactly the same (true to type) and thereby distinguishable only by relative (?) position, how can there be any 'special' position that makes 'this' an observed electron here and now?

    This must go back to quantum ideas and observation? What is an observer? Are they all the same? What gives observer status?

    I'm feeling circular and in need of a cup of tea!

    1 · October 20

  • Lupey

    Allow C to be the set of all things needed for an individual consciousness with its attendant subjectivity and qualia.

    So, Earth has 7x10^9 human consciousnesses, therefore C subscript 1 to C subscript 7x10^9 such complete C's appear to exist 'now'.

    Is there an additional element that means I am the particular C that I am, since by definition all C's are equal within the set of all current consciousnesses?

    If there is a random set of 100 people in a room including me, why does it go black only when I am the one who is shot?

    Why do I look out of 'these' eyes at you, rather than the other way around? Why do you read my words, rather than write them, assuming we are all equally possessed of the whole set of things that grants consciousness?

    1 · October 20

  • Lupey

    It's a shame the thread is running bare.

    The 'world' has many consciousnesses each with subjectivity (qualia, ipseity) but what additional element/variable bestows the 'me-ness' I feel.

    Within the set of all consciousnesses, why this conscious subjectivity, me, here and now? That is, why am I the origin (0,0,0) of 'this' life- what quality is this? Is this a separate axis (tangent vector) to the manifold of consciousness space?

    Is this a category error question? Is this teleological? It's evocative of the anthropic principle.

    If there is a set of all consciousness C, why am I Cx, not C(x+n)?

    Given the passage of the me-ness through many earlier bodies with ageing - why am I here, now, and how does this relate to the above?

    Philosophically, it's something akin to the difference between hacceity and quiddity.

    Anyone a whizz at differential geometry, manifolds etc? Or set theory?

    Anyone help me with my aching brain and ropey maths?

    1 · October 20

  • lyes nebab changed the location to The Exmouth Arms

    September 6

  • Claire M.

    I have a venue if you are interested?

    January 26, 2015

    • Claire M.

      Sorry that posted too early. It's a large community hall in an arts centre in Hackney.

      January 26, 2015

  • Teresa H.

    Would really like to go to this but note that there is no date or meeting place! Any progress on that as yet?

    January 22, 2015

  • Kim

    Hi
    I have a large venue in central London to hold this event. I can set a date and organise it but would require participants to pay around £4/£5 each entry in order to pay security and reception staff in the evening. The reason for this is that security/first aid is required for a large group of people, so can't use the space without accounting for this. Would really like to get this going so let me know if you think it's okay to proceed guys...

    January 7, 2015

  • merry

    Ok, so Im an inconsistent Blogger. Ha!
    One Question, tho:
    Would you say that a consciousness
    that could see Past, Present, Future
    is omnipresent?
    I happen to think we live in a SimuItaneity.
    However, I reckon that some of you prefer
    separation into familiar movements to
    hear the question.
    Merry

    March 30, 2014

    • Glenn

      I have come to the conclusion that consciousness probably extends into all dimensions but is only aware (differentially between the conscious and subconscious states) of the 4 readily apparent ones, and then of course constrained by the limitations of location and sensory capability. So I would perhaps use the term 'omnipresent incognisant'.

      1 · May 7, 2014

    • A former member
      A former member

      At the risk of going too far down the rabbit hole I would propose that consciousness IS dimension, location and sensation. That reality itself at it's core is one event (molecule isn't the right word) of consciousness travelling at infinite speed interacting with itself and creating through interference and dis-interference patterns; that which we call matter and experience.

      1 · May 7, 2014

  • Jane B.

    James Khan, I emailed you a month ago with details of 2 venues. Please could you let us know which one suits and then add the venue and a date/time so that this event can happen.

    April 24, 2014

  • A former member
    A former member

    When you finally do get a venue and date for this and similar meetups, it may be a good idea to re-announce them as I suspect many more people will sign up with a date confirmed. And BTW; the description etc is open to be changed by anyone at the moment. Not sure how you lock that off.

    March 31, 2014

  • merry

    By the way, were I not leaving for the States
    soon, I would dedicate a venue for meeting.
    Back in the Fall, but will still be interested
    in finally organizing Meeting. Unless one
    of you has already seen to it by then.

    March 30, 2014

  • Malcolm S.

    Ian, Ah, I understand: by my references to Maxwell's Demon, I seem to have given you the wrong impression. No, for me, Maxwell's Demon is a reducto absurdum that indicates that something is wrong with one of the initial assumptions, and that (by the laws of thermodynamics) it must be that Maxwell's Demon *must* consume energy (and that the absolute minimum that it must consume is k.T.ln(2) for every bit of information needed... hence my way of equating information to energy). So, yes, I totally agree that the human brain, and any other conscious hardware, must consume energy, too (partly during its information processing... but also in supporting consciousness, if that indeed turns out to be a real entity).

    March 28, 2014

    • lan B.

      We seem to agree in regard to every point then – this odd state of affairs hardly EVER happens to me! – apart from your proposed conflation of the Heisenberg Relations with the computational Halting Problem. Perhaps more interestingly, your concluding comment hints at consciousness not being "real", and I think that there's much to that, but it would take an entire, academic philosophical paper to pursue the point to an interesting conclusion. As hinted, I in fact did that 10 years ago, but since I'm not sure that it coincides with any directions which you personally would be interested in pursuing then I won't press on unless we exchange further comments which show that our respective positions in regard to the subject of consciousness are very closely aligned. [Contined ..]

      March 28, 2014

    • lan B.

      [Continued ..] Maybe we should swap insights gradually until it becomes apparent to both of us that we either share an identical viewpoint, or are at least amenable to the POSSIBILITY of a mutual accommodation of our views in response to insights from each other. (Sadly, experience shows that this hardly ever happens; I wait in hope!)

      March 28, 2014

  • merry

    Looking back at some comments, eg., Ian's,
    I see the Poet-Scientist divide. Not necessary.
    We are all naturally bigger than that. If we
    listen. Watch. Let our minds loose, rest, open
    I am not afraid of Rogers Penrose's 'scathing
    attack' on whatever, the greatest scientists -
    see Einstein's non-religious, non-irrational
    wisdoms on reality as so far beyond the hard
    things, eg., concrete, materialist self-diminishing.
    I will collect a few and place them here soon.
    Have been moving, so so busy.
    Irrationality is a confounding of high consciousness.
    Not an attempt to explain it. Just as arbitrary
    limitation is merely a cognitive diminishment of
    the continuity of consciousness, which it fails
    to encompass.
    We must all objectively observe ourselves far more closely to discover who we really are and what we can be. Religion, science, hope will not teach us this; but our divine consciousness will, if we remain
    detached. Ab
    .

    March 27, 2014

    • lan B.

      [Continued ..] because of one of his sketches of an apparently venerable, bearded, loin-clothed man sticking a pin into the phase space of the cosmos in order to single out that , ostensibly, Single point in 10^123 which hosts conditions fit for the evolution of life, to which he replied (first of all, and apprehensively: "Oh, dear! This isn't a question about .. about .. RELIGION, is it?"): .. And then: "Oh, That drawing was intended to represent God as a WOMAN, you see. What you can see isn't a long white BEARD; it was intended to portray LONG BLONDE HAIR".

      March 27, 2014

    • lan B.

      (Incidentally, I misremembered: Penrose's family religious affiliations are in fact QUAKER, and not Methodist. Sorry about that!)

      March 28, 2014

  • Malcolm S.

    Ian, I've just read your other comment addressed to me. No, I am no carbon fascist! Far from it. Indeed, I am exactly the opposite, believing that it could all be supported on any suitable hardware, using carbon (and DNA and synapses) or silicon (and transistors) or pneumatics, or hydraulics, or optics or transferred completely from the time domain of cause and effect, to the frequency domain (via Fourrier type transforms).

    As far as Turing machines are concerned, I suspect that the halting problem is just a restatement of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and that uncertainty of computation termination is balanced against something else, like uncertainty of determinacy of the final result for example (as in genetic algorithms, for example), and that you can reduce one at the expence of increasing the other.

    March 28, 2014

    • lan B.

      INTERACTIONS between the crucial history-changing event-clusters in question and the present day are simply absent. Thus, “alternative histories” are, I (provisionally!) conclude, “real”, but in the sense of being POTENTIAL, rather than ACTUAL. With decoherence as a crucial explanatory component, one obtains the over-riding advantage of the many-world interpretation – i.e. absolute theoretical parsimony in virtue of strict adherence to the rules of quantum mechanics without any modifications or additions – without the often dismaying-seeming, bloated ontological excess.

      March 28, 2014

    • lan B.

      As for your other point in regard to the halting problem, well it seems to me that that is a purely MATHEMATICAL artefact. That is, it is not possible to determine the ultimate "destination" of a series of state-transitions within some machine table without actually ITERATING, right from the beginning. That would be akin to declaring with confidence which digit occupies some randomly nominated position within the decimal expansion of pi without having had firstly to determine the values of its predecessors! :-) )

      March 28, 2014

  • Malcolm S.

    Ah, no, I certainly don't believe that equating consciousness with energy means that the universe must therefore be conscious. Consciousness (if it really does exist, and is not just an arbitrary artefact) needs the appropriately structured hardware on which to run, in the same way that Maxwell's Demon does (when equating information with energy).

    March 27, 2014

    • lan B.

      [Continued .. ] (to put it politely; I sure hope that i have not inadvertently offended YOU if you happen to be an IT professional!) Of course, conscious systems -- indeed, ANY system whatsoever -- will when eventually constructed be capable of REPRESENTATION by some appropriately configured Turing machine, but won't happen to BE Turing machines. Well, that's my view anyway.

      March 27, 2014

    • lan B.

      (BTW I almost Forgot!): Malcolm, notwithstanding the fact that NO hardware is able to stand outside the Second law of Thermodynamics -- Isaac Asimov's 14-pp novella The Last Question is a brilliant, unputdownable tale which dramatises this very point, so for those who have somehow remained unaware of it during your lives-thus-far, I heartily recommend it -- and so y'ain't GONNA be able t'run Maxwell's Demon on NUTHIN', uh-huh, y'hear? .. Whereas, contrastingly, somehow, consciousness CAN BE run by SOME class of machine (!) The SCIENTIFIC question: which particular set of properties can we predicate of this class of machines in order that they can do the "job" of generating consciousness?

      March 27, 2014

  • merry

    Hi Malcolm,
    Interesting point you raise re consciousness requiring the 'appropriate structured hardware' to work.
    Were that true, we would never be aware of the
    'awareness of all things' and processes of which
    we are aware, often, at particularly 'sensitive'
    times, eg., when we or a loved one is in danger,
    when we are in love with who/whatever. Yes, we
    can be. 'in love' with morning, with music, with
    the wind. Human awareness/depth is far more expansive and more subtle than we give it/ourselves credit for.
    If artists, poets philosophers and everyone's
    'moment(s)' of sublime knowing, sensing, telepathy. inner reaching count for anything, then we must
    look beyond the concrete, fly within our own
    quantum world and out to the cosmos.
    We can. And do. In our best moments, in our
    most evolutionary moments.
    As an evolving species led, I suggest, by just
    these movements. We and Everything is The
    Center of the Universe.
    Merry

    March 27, 2014

    • lan B.

      Merry, I can SEE that you're not any kind of dismissive techno-blockhead, but perhaps one might sometimes be wary of "leaning too far the other way" and coming out with streams of non sequiturs. Sometimes within currents of historical thought concerning "the big questions" the logic of the situation and its associated empirical evidence mounts up in an unexpected and emotionally speaking unwelcome direction. If we are to elucidate whatever consciousness "is", we must, I think (since it is as much a NATURALISTIC phenomenon as is, say, plate tectonics) then I'm afraid that we are obliged to stick with being "hard-headed" in the sense of sticking accrately to the evolving logic as things become clearer, irresepective of the fact that we might find the outcome depressingly uncongenial. (No disparagement intended, believe me!)

      March 27, 2014

  • Malcolm S.

    Certainly, "energy is the common currency of the universe", so if consciousness is a real something that we can identify, then it must equate (somehow) to energy in the end. (Mass equates to energy via Einstein's E=m.c^2, and Information equates to energy via Maxwell's Demon, E=k.T.S.ln2)

    March 5, 2014

    • lan B.

      [Continued .. ] .......... but there is no doubt that our brains' TRACKING OF STIMULI -- including those generated WITHIN the subject's own body -- IS registered consciously. (That is, via the agency of the secondary/sensory qualities. See my comment immediately above.) .. Which leaves us in a bit of a theoretical quandary: what, therefore, is consciousness "for", in biological terms? It would seem to be redundant! (Me, I regard it as an evolutionary, Gouldian SPANDREL, but that would require a few hours for me to unpack, within the compass of a quite lengthy posting which might well have the effect of repelling everyone from this site on a permanent basis!)

      March 26, 2014

    • lan B.

      Cheers once again for the publicity, Malcolm :-)

      March 27, 2014

  • Malcolm S.

    Merry, I'm not sure I follow the logic of your second sentence. To me, the fact that I am aware of all these things is evidence that it must all be going on inside my hardware (i.e. me).

    March 27, 2014

  • merry

    Hi All, And Total Apologies for not responding sooner.
    Tho I love physics, art and politics, I am such a serious technophobe that I got locked out of comments til now.
    Re Jane's suggestion of a venune - Please help.
    Re: Mar, tin's Chalmers point on consciousness,
    Totally. My meditations taught me that
    energy is information, period. Which I suggest
    explains the very continuity of consciousness.
    And, all its so-called mysterious abilities.
    If I don't get locked out of the forum again, I will
    do all I can to get this meeting to happen.
    Thanks so much for all your thoughts and patience.
    Merry

    March 8, 2014

    • Jane B.

      Merry - hirespace are good for finding cheap venues (I use them for my meetup group). Perhaps people can pay, say, £5 at the door to help pay for the venue and drinks. Here are 2 venues which are central and cheap but there are other choices. St Silas Church Islington £20 ph - Father Rayner Wakelings's contact details Email: [masked] Phone:[masked] - http://hirespace.com/...­

      St James the Less, bethnal green £20 per hour. Alex's contact details are as follows: Email: [masked] Phone:[masked] - http://hirespace.com/...­ - no deposit needed – pay at time

      March 8, 2014

  • merry

    By the way, since energy is conscious, period.
    The next tree you pass will speak to you.
    If you watch.
    Tho I love physics, I am no scientist. Trained in painting, philosophy and theology, the atheist I am has learned that everything speaks to everything.
    Continuously.
    Someone said: 'Don't look at buildings. .....
    Watch them'.
    Watch a tree. Its very form, shape, dream is there
    for all to understand. The roots and trunk grow, wild
    and slow. to reach goal. Watch its branches, twigs, leaves twist and turn like our thoughts, cognition, brain - as if to say: Ok, Ill go this way ... No! that way is quicker, .... Oh, twist again to avoid ... shoot up that way .... to reach the sun, sky.
    Like thoughts aiming for a goal and the solid complexity of the brain, everything twists and turns
    forward and back and round finding the best way
    to reach its goal.
    Science, research, analysis teach us this. But ... its quicker than that ... all we need do is watch

    March 8, 2014

  • DOMINIC C.

    Not really interested in "spiritual things" as they tend to get a bit religious and irrational but each to his own
    Science and engineering I dig !!!!

    March 6, 2014

  • terence f.

    long nortice and London centricity needed

    March 5, 2014

  • Jane B.

    Merry, do you have a date and location for this meetup?

    March 4, 2014

    • Jane B.

      I know of a venue in Islington if that's of any use.

      March 4, 2014

  • merry

    I taught such meditative practice long ago;
    and would be willing to start the group with
    a talk and discussion on what Plotinus (3c
    Neo-Platonist) called The One. His theory of
    how The One (as opposed to a god) expanded outward into Nous (thought); Soul (emotion); Manifestation (us and all that is) in a 'joyful overflowing'.
    All thoughts on the wholly natural but often concealed abilities of precognition and telepathy (very politically incorrect concepts) can be
    discussed within the framework of a
    universal unity.

    February 27, 2014

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy