I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
March 30, 2006 9:34 AM Subscribe
I have a theory about consciousness. Tell me what it's called.
Here's the theory:
"Given, as Einstein readers tell me, that space and time are linked, I tend to take an eternalist view of time, believing that the concept of now is as subjective as the notion of here, and that every moment of time always has existed and always will. Now we all generally accept that our consciousness is unified in the fourth dimension, time, (the me today is the same as the me tomorrow). So why don't we see it is as linked in the other three? (The me over here is the same as the me over there: you). As the great Bill Hicks said: "We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively"."
Despite a lot of internet searching though, I haven't found anyone else, apart from Bill Hicks, who advocates this theory or a name for it. Buddhism is there with the rejection of the self, but insists with reincarnation that something (a soul?) is passed between bodies. Panpsychism again comes close, but assigns consciousness to all things, not just brains.
So what's does Western philosophy call this theory, and what do y'all think of it?
Here's the theory:
"Given, as Einstein readers tell me, that space and time are linked, I tend to take an eternalist view of time, believing that the concept of now is as subjective as the notion of here, and that every moment of time always has existed and always will. Now we all generally accept that our consciousness is unified in the fourth dimension, time, (the me today is the same as the me tomorrow). So why don't we see it is as linked in the other three? (The me over here is the same as the me over there: you). As the great Bill Hicks said: "We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively"."
Despite a lot of internet searching though, I haven't found anyone else, apart from Bill Hicks, who advocates this theory or a name for it. Buddhism is there with the rejection of the self, but insists with reincarnation that something (a soul?) is passed between bodies. Panpsychism again comes close, but assigns consciousness to all things, not just brains.
So what's does Western philosophy call this theory, and what do y'all think of it?
Hey! I'm pretty sure Vince Vaughn used that theory to seduce a girl in Wedding Crashers. I also think he quoted the source (Nietzsche?)
posted by ZackTM at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006
posted by ZackTM at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006
It's been a long time since I took any philosophy, but this reminds me of Plato.
posted by easternblot at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006
posted by easternblot at 9:46 AM on March 30, 2006
I don't know about this whole "unified in the fourth dimension" stuff, but "We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively" is close to Hegel's notion of Geist.
posted by ori at 9:48 AM on March 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ori at 9:48 AM on March 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
This sounds like Buddhism to me. Belief in literal reincarnation is optional.
Also, not really an answer to the question, but I can't help thinking that you might be interested in the answers to this question that I asked last year.
posted by teleskiving at 9:50 AM on March 30, 2006
Also, not really an answer to the question, but I can't help thinking that you might be interested in the answers to this question that I asked last year.
posted by teleskiving at 9:50 AM on March 30, 2006
Advaita Vedanta, a Hindu school of thought, holds a similar position — it maintains that an individual self (or "atman" in Sanskrit) is inseparable from the metaphysical Whole (or "Brahman"). If you've seen I Heart Huckabees, Dustin Hoffman's routine with the blanket comes pretty close to explaining the Advaita position: everyone and everything is one, and it's just our own delusion that lets us think we're separate.
The connection between atman and Brahman has always been a hot philosophical topic in India, and googling the two terms will give you lots of other theories on the subject, including Dvaita Vedanta (atman and Brahman are real but separate) and the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (atman doesn't even exist at all).
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:50 AM on March 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
The connection between atman and Brahman has always been a hot philosophical topic in India, and googling the two terms will give you lots of other theories on the subject, including Dvaita Vedanta (atman and Brahman are real but separate) and the Buddhist doctrine of anatta (atman doesn't even exist at all).
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:50 AM on March 30, 2006 [1 favorite]
Best answer: greytape:
About buddhism (at least the modern, westernized, version of buddhism I have had contact):
Buddhism rejects "reincarnation" as something permanent passing from body to body. Rebirth in buddhism is not seen as a relation of continuity, but as cause-consequence. In fact, one of the supposed achievements of meditation is to realize that the illusion of continuity AT ALL is just a relation of cause-consequence: I am not the same consciousness that I was 10 seconds ago, I am a consciousness that _was_ caused by a conscience that existed 10 seconds ago. The common analogy is the flame of a candle: if you pass it on to another candle, there is an illusion that the flame moved, where, in fact, the heat in one of them caused the other one to light up. Or, a wave moving on the water: no "wave-self" is moving, just the pressure in a place causes a pressure differential that makes the next spot rise, and so on, giving the illusion that there is a continuous "wave-entity" moving, where, in fact, it is just a chain of pressure differentials affecting molecules. Now, extend the thought for lives: your next "birth" (not incarnation, there's nothing to be incarnated) is just a consequence of the previous birth, not a continuity.
So, in this current, you can see consciousness as not unified in any dimension at all: it is punctual in space and time, and any illusion of continuity (or, as it is sometimes referred, stream of consciousness) is just a cause-consequence relationship.
In a more profound analysis, we just saw that there is no special thing on consciousness, it is just a "physical" phenomenon as everything else, so you can see it as just a small part of the whole universe wavefront, so, in this view, all three spatial dimensions would be "unified", only continuity in time being an illusion.
posted by qvantamon at 9:52 AM on March 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
About buddhism (at least the modern, westernized, version of buddhism I have had contact):
Buddhism rejects "reincarnation" as something permanent passing from body to body. Rebirth in buddhism is not seen as a relation of continuity, but as cause-consequence. In fact, one of the supposed achievements of meditation is to realize that the illusion of continuity AT ALL is just a relation of cause-consequence: I am not the same consciousness that I was 10 seconds ago, I am a consciousness that _was_ caused by a conscience that existed 10 seconds ago. The common analogy is the flame of a candle: if you pass it on to another candle, there is an illusion that the flame moved, where, in fact, the heat in one of them caused the other one to light up. Or, a wave moving on the water: no "wave-self" is moving, just the pressure in a place causes a pressure differential that makes the next spot rise, and so on, giving the illusion that there is a continuous "wave-entity" moving, where, in fact, it is just a chain of pressure differentials affecting molecules. Now, extend the thought for lives: your next "birth" (not incarnation, there's nothing to be incarnated) is just a consequence of the previous birth, not a continuity.
So, in this current, you can see consciousness as not unified in any dimension at all: it is punctual in space and time, and any illusion of continuity (or, as it is sometimes referred, stream of consciousness) is just a cause-consequence relationship.
In a more profound analysis, we just saw that there is no special thing on consciousness, it is just a "physical" phenomenon as everything else, so you can see it as just a small part of the whole universe wavefront, so, in this view, all three spatial dimensions would be "unified", only continuity in time being an illusion.
posted by qvantamon at 9:52 AM on March 30, 2006 [2 favorites]
I also think he quoted the source (Nietzsche?)
You might be thinking of the idea of eternal return (or eternal recurrence, in another translation). It doesn't have all that much to do with greytape's idea.
The Hegelian dialectic is very close to your statement "The me over here is the same as the me over there: you". According to Hegel, self-consciousness can only be realized as a self-identity with otherness. Many of Hegel's statements come very close to what you say ("The I that is We and the We that is I" comes to mind). If you are interested in this, you should read the chapter on Self-Consciousness in the Phenomenology of Spirit.
The big difference between the Hegelian Geist and your idea of self-consciousness is that for Hegel consciousness is never static or fully given in the now; it is always involved in a process of becoming.
posted by ori at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2006
You might be thinking of the idea of eternal return (or eternal recurrence, in another translation). It doesn't have all that much to do with greytape's idea.
The Hegelian dialectic is very close to your statement "The me over here is the same as the me over there: you". According to Hegel, self-consciousness can only be realized as a self-identity with otherness. Many of Hegel's statements come very close to what you say ("The I that is We and the We that is I" comes to mind). If you are interested in this, you should read the chapter on Self-Consciousness in the Phenomenology of Spirit.
The big difference between the Hegelian Geist and your idea of self-consciousness is that for Hegel consciousness is never static or fully given in the now; it is always involved in a process of becoming.
posted by ori at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2006
You might find some of what you're looking for here. (By the way, teleology is bunk.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:43 AM on March 30, 2006
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:43 AM on March 30, 2006
Now we all generally accept that our consciousness is unified in the fourth dimension, time, (the me today is the same as the me tomorrow). So why don't we see it is as linked in the other three?
I thought we did. If you move 100 feet to your left, aren't you still the same you? Am I misunderstanding your question?
For the record, I don't like the idea that time is a dimension, like normal space dimensions. You can't move at will through time, you can only march at a steady pace in a constant direction. In other words, there are zero degrees of freedom associated with time.
posted by knave at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2006
I thought we did. If you move 100 feet to your left, aren't you still the same you? Am I misunderstanding your question?
For the record, I don't like the idea that time is a dimension, like normal space dimensions. You can't move at will through time, you can only march at a steady pace in a constant direction. In other words, there are zero degrees of freedom associated with time.
posted by knave at 10:45 AM on March 30, 2006
This doesn't answer your question, but I think there are some weird "leaps in logic" in that theory (if you think this reponse is off-topic, please flag it):
1) All moments-of-time exist simultaneously*.
2) We view all "snapshots" of our consciousness (taken at different points in time) as being a unified entity.
These two points aren't connected to each other. Or, at least, you haven't suggested that they are or explained how they are. If we accept them both as true, it doesn't follow that we should except that point 1 necessarily leads to point 2 or vice versa.
You go on to say that
1) All locations exist simultaneously. (Here and there both exist NOW.)
You then go on to suggest that (2) all locations are one location. It's like you're saying that since 1 implies 2 with time, 1 should imply 2 with space, too. But you haven't shown that 1 implies 2 with time.
It's kind of like you're saying:
1) a cat has four legs.
2) a cat meows.
So we can conclude that since,
1) a dog has four legs
2) a dog meows.
I don't get it.
* All moments in time exist simultaneously? Maybe, but I think we run into some weird language problems. "Simultaneously" is a time word. Aren't you saying, "All units of time exist in the same unit of time?" If so, what can that mean?
posted by grumblebee at 10:48 AM on March 30, 2006
1) All moments-of-time exist simultaneously*.
2) We view all "snapshots" of our consciousness (taken at different points in time) as being a unified entity.
These two points aren't connected to each other. Or, at least, you haven't suggested that they are or explained how they are. If we accept them both as true, it doesn't follow that we should except that point 1 necessarily leads to point 2 or vice versa.
You go on to say that
1) All locations exist simultaneously. (Here and there both exist NOW.)
You then go on to suggest that (2) all locations are one location. It's like you're saying that since 1 implies 2 with time, 1 should imply 2 with space, too. But you haven't shown that 1 implies 2 with time.
It's kind of like you're saying:
1) a cat has four legs.
2) a cat meows.
So we can conclude that since,
1) a dog has four legs
2) a dog meows.
I don't get it.
* All moments in time exist simultaneously? Maybe, but I think we run into some weird language problems. "Simultaneously" is a time word. Aren't you saying, "All units of time exist in the same unit of time?" If so, what can that mean?
posted by grumblebee at 10:48 AM on March 30, 2006
The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Alan Watts.
posted by callmejay at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2006
posted by callmejay at 10:49 AM on March 30, 2006
I have a friend who believes this very much. He reads alot of Heidegger, and 'Being and Time' especially. He believes, in a way, that conciousness is a single entity, which is, basically, bored and creates other 'beings' so that it can have a conversation, with itself. Like if you made a puppet out of your hand and had it talk to the other hand, but you had billions of hands.
posted by Espoo2 at 10:56 AM on March 30, 2006
posted by Espoo2 at 10:56 AM on March 30, 2006
Two other points:
1) Isn't it obvious why we feel we're not the same person? It's not based on philisophical reasoning. I can't move your arm. I can't know what you're thinking. So it FEELS perverse to say you're me and I'm you.
2) DO we really feel like our consciousness is unified? In some ways, yes. I DO feel like I'm the same person today as I was yesterday. But I DON'T have access to my thoughts and feelings from the future. What will I think about America's president in 2025? I don't know. Ask me then. And though we do have memories, I don't have complete access to the past "me" either.
Maybe all points in time exist simultaneosly, but my consciousness can only touch the NOW. Maybe all people are one person, but I'm locked out of everyone's body/mind except my own.
posted by grumblebee at 11:04 AM on March 30, 2006
1) Isn't it obvious why we feel we're not the same person? It's not based on philisophical reasoning. I can't move your arm. I can't know what you're thinking. So it FEELS perverse to say you're me and I'm you.
2) DO we really feel like our consciousness is unified? In some ways, yes. I DO feel like I'm the same person today as I was yesterday. But I DON'T have access to my thoughts and feelings from the future. What will I think about America's president in 2025? I don't know. Ask me then. And though we do have memories, I don't have complete access to the past "me" either.
Maybe all points in time exist simultaneosly, but my consciousness can only touch the NOW. Maybe all people are one person, but I'm locked out of everyone's body/mind except my own.
posted by grumblebee at 11:04 AM on March 30, 2006
In modern analytic philosophy there is a school known as four dimensionalism, but it does not (in what I've read) come to the conclusions that you do. I agree with grumblebee about your leaps in logic.
When you say "the me today is the same as the me tomorrow" and you equate space and time what you get is "the me today (here) is the same as the me tomorrow (over there in tommorow)." Not "I'm everywhere." You are a tube or a worm through space-time.
posted by miniape at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2006
When you say "the me today is the same as the me tomorrow" and you equate space and time what you get is "the me today (here) is the same as the me tomorrow (over there in tommorow)." Not "I'm everywhere." You are a tube or a worm through space-time.
posted by miniape at 11:35 AM on March 30, 2006
To defend the original poster a bit...regarding the space-time equivalence.
The physicist Richard Feynman once threw out a quirky theory that the reason that one electron was exactly like any other electron in the universe was - that they were all the same electron.
That is, that one electron is traveling/has traveled (a different grammar is needed here) backwards and forwards through time, weaving back and forth. So all the electrons we see in the Universe are that one electron at different points in its timeless journey.
So, to append to miniape's response: that worm can also turn around and go backwards to weave together a universal consciousness.
posted by vacapinta at 11:50 AM on March 30, 2006
The physicist Richard Feynman once threw out a quirky theory that the reason that one electron was exactly like any other electron in the universe was - that they were all the same electron.
That is, that one electron is traveling/has traveled (a different grammar is needed here) backwards and forwards through time, weaving back and forth. So all the electrons we see in the Universe are that one electron at different points in its timeless journey.
So, to append to miniape's response: that worm can also turn around and go backwards to weave together a universal consciousness.
posted by vacapinta at 11:50 AM on March 30, 2006
Response by poster: Thanks for the great responses from everyone,
I didn't want to expound the theory too much in my post as it would just bore everyone and I'd get no answers.
To clarify my position though, and particularly in response to Grumblebee's points:
"It's like you're saying that since 1 implies 2 with time, 1 should imply 2 with space, too."
I'm not agreeing with the first statement, but everyone else is! That we will become ourselves five minutes from now is "common sense". I'm saying that if we do accept the first premise, as most do, then we should accept the second.
"Isn't it obvious why we feel we're not the same person?...I can't move your arm. I can't know what you're thinking
I'm locked out of everyone's body/mind except my own."
You're also locked out of your mind five minutes from now, and yet you act in the best interest of that future self. You'll keep the million pounds you found even though it's your future self who'll get to enjoy it. Meanwhile, this other mind you're locked out of, mine, gets nothing. Why does that action make sense?
posted by greytape at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2006
I didn't want to expound the theory too much in my post as it would just bore everyone and I'd get no answers.
To clarify my position though, and particularly in response to Grumblebee's points:
"It's like you're saying that since 1 implies 2 with time, 1 should imply 2 with space, too."
I'm not agreeing with the first statement, but everyone else is! That we will become ourselves five minutes from now is "common sense". I'm saying that if we do accept the first premise, as most do, then we should accept the second.
"Isn't it obvious why we feel we're not the same person?...I can't move your arm. I can't know what you're thinking
I'm locked out of everyone's body/mind except my own."
You're also locked out of your mind five minutes from now, and yet you act in the best interest of that future self. You'll keep the million pounds you found even though it's your future self who'll get to enjoy it. Meanwhile, this other mind you're locked out of, mine, gets nothing. Why does that action make sense?
posted by greytape at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2006
Best answer: Definitely not Nietzsche or Plato; probably not Hegel, given the temporal/teleological aspect of his metaphysics: yes, everything is Spirit striving to realize itself, but it's not realized yet; because this is a case of it's actually not having been acheived, rather than us not realizing that it already is so, this fails to describe your theory.
Nietzsche might have agreed with you a tiny bit if he had cared about metaphysics, but he thinks you're thinking about bunk, so definitely not. He thinks the self doesn't exist in a radically different way from what you described.
You're a monist, but you're not a materialist, if that helps. Check out Schopenhauer definitely; you might want to look at Spinoza, though he deals more with the mind/body split, the problem of his era, than consciousness, our problem. (Everyone's problem, actually - pace Nietzsche, anyway - but it's just come into vogue recently in philosophy.) If you want Western writers who agree with you, look for the new-agey guys who use a lot of jargon from quantum science. Otherwise I think you're stuck with Hindu/Buddhist metaphysics of some sort.
posted by xanthippe at 12:08 PM on March 30, 2006
Nietzsche might have agreed with you a tiny bit if he had cared about metaphysics, but he thinks you're thinking about bunk, so definitely not. He thinks the self doesn't exist in a radically different way from what you described.
You're a monist, but you're not a materialist, if that helps. Check out Schopenhauer definitely; you might want to look at Spinoza, though he deals more with the mind/body split, the problem of his era, than consciousness, our problem. (Everyone's problem, actually - pace Nietzsche, anyway - but it's just come into vogue recently in philosophy.) If you want Western writers who agree with you, look for the new-agey guys who use a lot of jargon from quantum science. Otherwise I think you're stuck with Hindu/Buddhist metaphysics of some sort.
posted by xanthippe at 12:08 PM on March 30, 2006
What you're asking about reminds me of Jung's collective unconscious, but taken a giant leap further.
posted by hazyjane at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2006
posted by hazyjane at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2006
In my experience this is related to Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and also to the Sufi and perhaps Sikh colloquialism that God created the universe so that he could have someone to play backgammon with (or so that he could play backgammon with himself).
posted by alms at 12:39 PM on March 30, 2006
posted by alms at 12:39 PM on March 30, 2006
You'll keep the million pounds you found even though it's your future self who'll get to enjoy it. Meanwhile, this other mind you're locked out of, mine, gets nothing. Why does that action make sense?
It sounds kind of like you want to convince people to be kind to each other -- and you're looking for a bit of sophestry to help you do so. (I'm not a big fan of second-guessing other people's psychology, so please forgive me if I'm wrong.)
If so, that's fine. But if you're serious about this logic, I'd still argue that there's a HUGE difference between the sensation of "me" and the sensation of "not me." True, I can't access the me of the future (I made that point myself, earlier in this thread), but I can make some very smart predictions about myself in the future -- based on YEARS of data about myself in the past and present. I can't do that with you.
Note that I CAN -- to some extent -- make predictions about my family and close friends. This makes sense, because I've observed them much more than I've obseved strangers. We could say that I can access files about the past me, the past my-wife and the past my-brother. But I can't access the past files of the past-guy-on-the-subway. So he's much less a part of me than my wife and my brother.
I can't access him without spending a long time befriending him and hanging out with him. So naturally he's alien to me.
posted by grumblebee at 1:00 PM on March 30, 2006
It sounds kind of like you want to convince people to be kind to each other -- and you're looking for a bit of sophestry to help you do so. (I'm not a big fan of second-guessing other people's psychology, so please forgive me if I'm wrong.)
If so, that's fine. But if you're serious about this logic, I'd still argue that there's a HUGE difference between the sensation of "me" and the sensation of "not me." True, I can't access the me of the future (I made that point myself, earlier in this thread), but I can make some very smart predictions about myself in the future -- based on YEARS of data about myself in the past and present. I can't do that with you.
Note that I CAN -- to some extent -- make predictions about my family and close friends. This makes sense, because I've observed them much more than I've obseved strangers. We could say that I can access files about the past me, the past my-wife and the past my-brother. But I can't access the past files of the past-guy-on-the-subway. So he's much less a part of me than my wife and my brother.
I can't access him without spending a long time befriending him and hanging out with him. So naturally he's alien to me.
posted by grumblebee at 1:00 PM on March 30, 2006
there's a HUGE difference between the sensation of "me" and the sensation of "not me."
Indeed. We are bodies, separate animals.
However some of what we do seems to trancend that. We talk, we share, we look into each others eyes and ...
The word, I think, is mysticism. It's got a bad rap, there's a lot of nonsense around. Have a look at Plato though, particularly the Phaedrus which is fun. You might also find Maturana interesting.
But you are onto something. If you've ever picked mushrooms you'll know that what appears to be an individual is just a part of an enormous hidden network. It's wonderful.
posted by grahamwell at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2006
Indeed. We are bodies, separate animals.
However some of what we do seems to trancend that. We talk, we share, we look into each others eyes and ...
The word, I think, is mysticism. It's got a bad rap, there's a lot of nonsense around. Have a look at Plato though, particularly the Phaedrus which is fun. You might also find Maturana interesting.
But you are onto something. If you've ever picked mushrooms you'll know that what appears to be an individual is just a part of an enormous hidden network. It's wonderful.
posted by grahamwell at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2006
The book which I am currently reading, Neither Brain Nor Ghost, offers an interesting perspective: "In this highly original work, Teed Rockwell rejects both dualism and the mind-brain identity theory. He proposes instead that mental phenomena emerge not merely from brain activity but from an interacting nexus of brain, body, and world. The mind can be seen not as an organ within the body, but as a "behavioral field" that fluctuates within this brain-body-world nexus.". I'll update this thread with a critical review if it appears relevant to your question, as I suspect it will.
posted by Gyan at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2006
posted by Gyan at 1:45 PM on March 30, 2006
Gyan: does he suggest a mechanism?
posted by andrew cooke at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2006
posted by andrew cooke at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2006
You didn't answer Grumblebee's main point that you haven't shown why 1 should lead to 2.
But on to a different leap of logic, this one in the quotation that you provide.
"that space and time are linked, I tend to take an eternalist view of time, believing that the concept of now is as subjective as the notion of here, and that every moment of time always has existed and always will."
The fact that space and time are linked does not warrant the stronger (much stronger) claim that they are identical (or equivalent); motion, extension and color are all linked but clearly you cannot draw conclusions about color from extension or motion. Further the claim that all moments in time have already been created (to speak loosely) needs to be argued for. At very least it seems that the act of creation was carried out outside of time, and you'd have to say something about that. Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it did I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will.
posted by oddman at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2006
But on to a different leap of logic, this one in the quotation that you provide.
"that space and time are linked, I tend to take an eternalist view of time, believing that the concept of now is as subjective as the notion of here, and that every moment of time always has existed and always will."
The fact that space and time are linked does not warrant the stronger (much stronger) claim that they are identical (or equivalent); motion, extension and color are all linked but clearly you cannot draw conclusions about color from extension or motion. Further the claim that all moments in time have already been created (to speak loosely) needs to be argued for. At very least it seems that the act of creation was carried out outside of time, and you'd have to say something about that. Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it did I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will.
posted by oddman at 2:48 PM on March 30, 2006
andrew cooke: I haven't reached that part yet.
oddman: Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it did I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will.
That should read: Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it appeared otherwise, I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will. The sense of volition could be veridical or just another determined affect.
posted by Gyan at 3:12 PM on March 30, 2006
oddman: Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it did I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will.
That should read: Intuitively it seems clear (to me, at least) that tomorrow does not yet exist. If it appeared otherwise, I'd have a hard time accepting myself as having free will. The sense of volition could be veridical or just another determined affect.
posted by Gyan at 3:12 PM on March 30, 2006
I may be reiterating, but this is the most obvious leap in logic that I can see in your question:
"we... accept that our consciousness is unified in the fourth dimension, time"
I could accept that statement to be true, but only relating to my own consciousness being "unified" with itself, and not with yours or anyone else's. So I may then disagree that "the me over here is the same as the me over there: you". I may feel that the vase of flowers to my right is "unified in the forth dimension" since I'll still consider it to be the same vase of flowers 5 minutes from now. However it's not "unified in the other 3 dimensions" with the vase of flowers to my left.
Also, time is very different from the 3 spatial dimensions with which we're familiar. And there are thought to be several other dimensions. What makes the 3 in which we live so special? Could "unification of consciousness" take place in other dimensions? Which ones? All or just some of them? What would that mean for theories of consciousness?
Consistency of consciousness over time is a tricky one. Let's say that when you're 90, time machines are invented. You use one to visit yourself on April 1st 2006. Are you the same consciousness, or different consciousnesses? Is the me today really the same as the me tomorrow? We (and the rest of the world) have a problem here with the lack of definition of what consciousness is, and that's a thorny subject :-)
It sounds, from my very, very limited awareness of the subject, that you might be thinking of something approaching "quantum consciousness".
posted by ajp at 4:08 PM on March 30, 2006
"we... accept that our consciousness is unified in the fourth dimension, time"
I could accept that statement to be true, but only relating to my own consciousness being "unified" with itself, and not with yours or anyone else's. So I may then disagree that "the me over here is the same as the me over there: you". I may feel that the vase of flowers to my right is "unified in the forth dimension" since I'll still consider it to be the same vase of flowers 5 minutes from now. However it's not "unified in the other 3 dimensions" with the vase of flowers to my left.
Also, time is very different from the 3 spatial dimensions with which we're familiar. And there are thought to be several other dimensions. What makes the 3 in which we live so special? Could "unification of consciousness" take place in other dimensions? Which ones? All or just some of them? What would that mean for theories of consciousness?
Consistency of consciousness over time is a tricky one. Let's say that when you're 90, time machines are invented. You use one to visit yourself on April 1st 2006. Are you the same consciousness, or different consciousnesses? Is the me today really the same as the me tomorrow? We (and the rest of the world) have a problem here with the lack of definition of what consciousness is, and that's a thorny subject :-)
It sounds, from my very, very limited awareness of the subject, that you might be thinking of something approaching "quantum consciousness".
posted by ajp at 4:08 PM on March 30, 2006
So, in this current, you can see consciousness as not unified in any dimension at all: it is punctual in space and time, and any illusion of continuity (or, as it is sometimes referred, stream of consciousness) is just a cause-consequence relationship.
I thank qvantamon for his elegant explanation of buddhist thinking on reincarnation. What the above immediately brings to mind for me (and amusingly, and perhaps significantly given his username) is the fundamental explicable-to-the-layperson idea behind quantum physics -- that matter and energy are finally reducible to quanta, and what we perceive at the macro level at continuity does not exist. How this interpenetrates with consciousness, if at all, is a fascinating question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:39 PM on March 30, 2006
I thank qvantamon for his elegant explanation of buddhist thinking on reincarnation. What the above immediately brings to mind for me (and amusingly, and perhaps significantly given his username) is the fundamental explicable-to-the-layperson idea behind quantum physics -- that matter and energy are finally reducible to quanta, and what we perceive at the macro level at continuity does not exist. How this interpenetrates with consciousness, if at all, is a fascinating question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:39 PM on March 30, 2006
'...as continuity', damn it, to be clear.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:46 PM on March 30, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:46 PM on March 30, 2006
There was a great text getting linked around on digg and del.icio.us, et al. recently that was all about this. Here's the link:
Buddhism and the Illusion of Time
Also, I'd recommend some of the writing of Mark Helprin, as it deals with similar themes. Particularly Winter's Tale as I recall.
Also, here's an essay he wrote on the subject (in Forbes' magazine, of all places) in 1998.
posted by idontlikewords at 6:09 PM on March 30, 2006
Buddhism and the Illusion of Time
Also, I'd recommend some of the writing of Mark Helprin, as it deals with similar themes. Particularly Winter's Tale as I recall.
Also, here's an essay he wrote on the subject (in Forbes' magazine, of all places) in 1998.
posted by idontlikewords at 6:09 PM on March 30, 2006
Nothing is random, nor will anything ever be, whether a long string of perfectly blue days that begin and end in golden dimness, the most seemingly chaotic political acts, the rise of a great city, the crystalline structure of a gem that has never seen the light, the distributions of fortune, what time the milkman gets up, the position of the electron, or the occurrence of one astonishingly frigid winter after another.posted by alms at 6:35 PM on March 30, 2006
Even electrons, supposedly the paragons of unpredictability, are tame and obsequious little creatures that rush around at the speed of light, going precisely where they are supposed to go. They make faint whistling sounds that when apprehended in varying combinations are as pleasant as the wind flying through a forest, and they do exactly as they are told. Of this, one can be certain.
And yet there is a wonderful anarchy, in that the milkman chooses when to arise, the rat picks the tunnel into which he will dive when the subway comes rushing down the track from Borough Hall, and the snowflake will fall as it will. How can this be? If nothing is random, and everything is predetermined, how can there be free will? The answer to that is simple.
Nothing is predetermined; it is determined, or was determined, or will be determined. No matter, it all happened at once, in less than an instant, and time was invented because we cannot comprehend in one glance the enormous and detailed canvas that we have been given - so we track it, in linear fashion, piece by piece. Time, however, can be easily overcome; not by chasing light, but by standing back far enough to see it all at once.
The universe is still and complete. Everything that ever was, is; everything that ever will be, is - and so on, in all possible combinations. Though in perceiving it we imagine that it is in motion, and unfinished, it is quite finished and quite astonishingly beautiful.
In the end, or rather, as things really are, any event, no matter how small, is intimately and sensibly tied to all others. All rivers run full to the sea; those who are apart are brought together; the lost ones are redeemed; the dead come back to life; the perfectly blue days that have begun and ended in golden dimness continue, immobile and accessible; and, when all is perceived in such a way as to obviate time, justice becomes apparent not as something that will be, but as something that is.
From Winter's Tale, by Mark Helprin.
Robert Heinlein dealt with this philosophy in his novel The Number of the Beast. He called it "Pantheistic Multiperson Solipsism." The tongue is probably pretty firmly in the cheek.
Not Heinlein at his best, but it was the first science fiction book - actually, the first book intended for adults - that I ever read, so I'm sort of partial to it.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:21 PM on March 31, 2006
Not Heinlein at his best, but it was the first science fiction book - actually, the first book intended for adults - that I ever read, so I'm sort of partial to it.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:21 PM on March 31, 2006
From my limited knowledge of Bill Hicks, God rest his soul, he took various drugs that achieved for him the kind of enlightenment that take others a lifetime of prayer and meditation. If that one throw-away line of his doesn’t just damn-well sum up the whole thing….
You might wish to read Carl Jung. Jung expounded the idea of collective consciousness; the idea that our sub-consciousnesses are not just linked but are one and the same. It can explain herd / flocking instincts, mob behaviour - how normal law-abiding citizens can get drawn into crowd violence. It also explains why live music or live comedy is so much better when you’re there. Watching a scary film on your own can be disturbing but not nearly as disturbing as watching it with a couple of hundred other people in a cinema.
In developing our identities through a lifetime of experiences and memories, crystalising our concepts of individuality through the words we have for them, me, myself and I, we build a sense of self. Strip away those aspects and what are you left with? An awareness? A soul? Could it be that these points of awareness are simply twisted off bits of one collective consciousness, and the only things that separate us are our physical attributes and personal experiences, reinforced into a sense of individuality by language?
Religion is a controversial subject but each religion was begun by extremely enlightened individuals, and the messages in their teachings are often overlooked: do to others only as you would have them do to you. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not succeed at someone else’s expense. Because that other somebody is you. That same awareness looking out through different eyes is still you.
You may also wish to look into String or ‘Superstring’ theory, as well as chaos theory. Both rely on the precept that the universe comprises more than the three spatial dimensions we perceive (up to 11 in fact). String theory also suggests that what we perceive as physical distance may simply be a property of reality that is fungible and not absolute. For example, according to string theory, the universe is known to be either 15 billion light years across or it is its inverse, only billionths of a nanometer. The point is, if your frames of reference exist only within the universe itself, it cannot be measured externally in the same way. What that suggests is that our frames of reference (distance, size, etc) possibly only apply in the first three dimensions but our physical existence may in fact extend into other dimensions, which, to us, would be immeasurably small. This would begin to explain connectivity and collective consciousness.
posted by Harrison at 4:24 AM on August 18, 2006
You might wish to read Carl Jung. Jung expounded the idea of collective consciousness; the idea that our sub-consciousnesses are not just linked but are one and the same. It can explain herd / flocking instincts, mob behaviour - how normal law-abiding citizens can get drawn into crowd violence. It also explains why live music or live comedy is so much better when you’re there. Watching a scary film on your own can be disturbing but not nearly as disturbing as watching it with a couple of hundred other people in a cinema.
In developing our identities through a lifetime of experiences and memories, crystalising our concepts of individuality through the words we have for them, me, myself and I, we build a sense of self. Strip away those aspects and what are you left with? An awareness? A soul? Could it be that these points of awareness are simply twisted off bits of one collective consciousness, and the only things that separate us are our physical attributes and personal experiences, reinforced into a sense of individuality by language?
Religion is a controversial subject but each religion was begun by extremely enlightened individuals, and the messages in their teachings are often overlooked: do to others only as you would have them do to you. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not succeed at someone else’s expense. Because that other somebody is you. That same awareness looking out through different eyes is still you.
You may also wish to look into String or ‘Superstring’ theory, as well as chaos theory. Both rely on the precept that the universe comprises more than the three spatial dimensions we perceive (up to 11 in fact). String theory also suggests that what we perceive as physical distance may simply be a property of reality that is fungible and not absolute. For example, according to string theory, the universe is known to be either 15 billion light years across or it is its inverse, only billionths of a nanometer. The point is, if your frames of reference exist only within the universe itself, it cannot be measured externally in the same way. What that suggests is that our frames of reference (distance, size, etc) possibly only apply in the first three dimensions but our physical existence may in fact extend into other dimensions, which, to us, would be immeasurably small. This would begin to explain connectivity and collective consciousness.
posted by Harrison at 4:24 AM on August 18, 2006
« Older Don't know what I should wear to my grandmother's... | Credit Card with miles w/ bad credit Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
You might look into the "sophia perennis" or "religio perennis."
On the science side, check out Bohm's concept of the "implicate order" which takes non-locality very seriously.
If you like trippy, drugged-up philosophizing, look into Terrence McKenna.
What do I think about it? I think it is worth taking very seriously. I am rather convinced that "space" is primarily a higher-order concept rooted in the degrees of freedom of our motor and proprioceptive senses.
So, no short answer, but you are asking the biggest questions.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:45 AM on March 30, 2006