There is No such thing as Death

[Pattern-chaser]

We assume we are discrete individuals, but biologically we are each a community of creatures. And mentally too, as you observe, we are different things to different people; we adopt different masks according to our current situation. Physically, mentally, emotionally, politically, sexually, artistically and philosophically, we are much more composite and diverse than we care to admit. I wonder why that is? [That we seem not to want to admit these things to ourselves.]

I don't know why that is, but I do know that you ask the damnedest questions.

Thank you, I think. I'm going to take that as a compliment!

One has to wonder, if an earthworm can tell the difference between its self and the earth that it travels through. It has no brain to reflect the self and give it a rational aspect of mind, so would it consider everything that it is aware of as part of itself? Would the cool earth feel like an extension of the self? The same with a tree. Would a tree consider the earth that its roots gain nourishment from as part of itself? Would it consider the warm sun as part of itself?

One has to remember that life, the universe, and everything is just one thing, not a collection of independent parts. So the perspective that you assign to the worm, or the tree, is perhaps a complete and accurate one? Maybe it's our more 'sophisticated' approach that can lead to confusion?

[Pattern-chaser]

By my definition and interpretation of Planck that could not be {consciousness = existence]. If something exists it must be conscious,
at least in a sense - But degrees and type forms of consciousness are still variable. Like in the philosophy of Panpsychism, everything that exists is part of an existent state where all is conscious - Still the consciousness of a rock is quite different from the consciousness of say a biological life form such as Man.

Ah, I see now the direction you're taking. It's not quite what I'd thought. I'm not a panpsychist, but I sympathise with, and respect, that school of thought. So I think I will bow out of this sub-thread, in apparent agreement with your general gist.

[Consul]

Yes, there is such a thing as death!

[Consul]

Der Tod ist groß.
Wir sind die Seinen
lachenden Munds.
Wenn wir uns mitten im Leben meinen,
wagt er zu weinen
mitten in uns.
—
Death is great.
We are his
with laughing mouths.
When we think ourselves in the midst of life,
he dares to weep
in the midst of us.

—Rainer Maria Rilke

[Gee]

We assume we are discrete individuals, but biologically we are each a community of creatures. And mentally too, as you observe, we are different things to different people; we adopt different masks according to our current situation. Physically, mentally, emotionally, politically, sexually, artistically and philosophically, we are much more composite and diverse than we care to admit. I wonder why that is? [That we seem not to want to admit these things to ourselves.]

I don't know why that is, but I do know that you ask the damnedest questions.

Thank you, I think. I'm going to take that as a compliment!

You should. You always have questions, but I have noted that your questions often show that you have a brain and you know how to use it. Your questions can make me think, which makes me better. You're welcome.

One has to wonder, if an earthworm can tell the difference between its self and the earth that it travels through. It has no brain to reflect the self and give it a rational aspect of mind, so would it consider everything that it is aware of as part of itself? Would the cool earth feel like an extension of the self? The same with a tree. Would a tree consider the earth that its roots gain nourishment from as part of itself? Would it consider the warm sun as part of itself?

One has to remember that life, the universe, and everything is just one thing, not a collection of independent parts. So the perspective that you assign to the worm, or the tree, is perhaps a complete and accurate one? Maybe it's our more 'sophisticated' approach that can lead to confusion?

Essentially, I agree that everything is part of just One; most religions already know this. This One is a form of consciousness, but I don't see it as "God" or a director, I see it as a blank canvas waiting to be made into something. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it. I think that panpsychism has a definite place in the study of consciousness because as matter evolves it causes each particle to have an identity. Identity plus awareness equals self; there is no self without identity. So 'self' also appears to be fundamental. We could even say that the Universe itself has a 'self', which would mean that it has an identity?

This universal 'self' would break into selves as matter is created? These particles (identities) would then form into larger (identities) pieces/rocks, or planets, or gasses, or life forms, whatever -- using some sort of force like gravity or emotion in order to bond the pieces into one thing. Eventually we have earthworms burrowing in the dirt.

While we are talking about how things develop, I was looking at that link you provided about Julian Jaynes and wondered if you realized that the Bible seems to make reference to his description of the Bicameral mind. Most people see the story of the Garden of Eden as being about apples and snakes, which is utter nonsense. It is actually about consciousness and the rational aspect of mind. It also seems to reference what could be called the Bicameral mind, so did Jaynes know about this? Just wondering.

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

One has to wonder, if an earthworm can tell the difference between its self and the earth that it travels through. It has no brain to reflect the self and give it a rational aspect of mind, so would it consider everything that it is aware of as part of itself? Would the cool earth feel like an extension of the self? The same with a tree. Would a tree consider the earth that its roots gain nourishment from as part of itself? Would it consider the warm sun as part of itself?

One has to remember that life, the universe, and everything is just one thing, not a collection of independent parts. So the perspective that you assign to the worm, or the tree, is perhaps a complete and accurate one? Maybe it's our more 'sophisticated' approach that can lead to confusion?

Essentially, I agree that everything is part of just One; most religions already know this. This One is a form of consciousness, but I don't see it as "God" or a director, I see it as a blank canvas waiting to be made into something. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it. I think that panpsychism has a definite place in the study of consciousness because as matter evolves it causes each particle to have an identity. Identity plus awareness equals self; there is no self without identity. So 'self' also appears to be fundamental. We could even say that the Universe itself has a 'self', which would mean that it has an identity?

This universal 'self' would break into selves as matter is created? These particles (identities) would then form into larger (identities) pieces/rocks, or planets, or gasses, or life forms, whatever -- using some sort of force like gravity or emotion in order to bond the pieces into one thing. Eventually we have earthworms burrowing in the dirt.

While we are talking about how things develop, I was looking at that link you provided about Julian Jaynes and wondered if you realized that the Bible seems to make reference to his description of the Bicameral mind. Most people see the story of the Garden of Eden as being about apples and snakes, which is utter nonsense. It is actually about consciousness and the rational aspect of mind. It also seems to reference what could be called the Bicameral mind, so did Jaynes know about this? Just wondering.

As I sit down this morning, to see what gems the forum has to offer, this is Today's Most Interesting Post. Thank you.

When I say that the universe is One Thing, I believe that my observation is literal and actual. For some believers, it has profound spiritual connotations too, but that's almost a separate issue.

But I have one of my damnable () questions for you: If "most religions already know this", why is the prevalent - almost universal - view the exact opposite? We see everything as collections of distinct and independent things, sharing only the 'container' in which they are kept. This idea even extends, these days, to politics, where Libertarians seek to describe humans as a collection of distinct and independent individuals; society is a myth.

So, if religion already knows and understands holism, what is it that prevents that understanding from spreading? Is it sciencism, perhaps? I'm not sure. It seems to have a lot to do with 'materialism', using the word in its everyday sense.

I am aware that we split stuff up for a good reason: life, the universe and everything is just too huge for us to swallow in one bite. We just can't do it. So we must either curtail our curiosity, and simply not think about stuff at all, or we must indulge in this practice of reductionism, and split everything up into small enough parts that we have some chance of understanding them. This is, essentially, unavoidable. But it is not correct; it's a misdirection that we must employ. My only view on this is that, because it is a fallacious perspective, that we should make the effort to remember, consciously, the incorrect assumption on which most or all of our thinking rests.

Of the more spiritual matters that you write of, I have little to add except my general agreement.

[GE Morton]

When I say that the universe is One Thing, I believe that my observation is literal and actual. For some believers, it has profound spiritual connotations too, but that's almost a separate issue.

But I have one of my damnable () questions for you: If "most religions already know this", why is the prevalent - almost universal - view the exact opposite? We see everything as collections of distinct and independent things, sharing only the 'container' in which they are kept. This idea even extends, these days, to politics, where Libertarians seek to describe humans as a collection of distinct and independent individuals; society is a myth.

Tsk, tsk. No, libertarians don't consider societies to be myths. A society is any group of individuals so situated as to be able to interact, and who do interact at least to some extent. But there are many types of societies, with different structures and wherein the interactions between individuals differ in purposes, duration, frequency, etc. The "myth" is the belief that (civilized) human societies are organisms, or "organic unities." They aren't; they're complex adaptive systems (CAS's).

Also, your distinction between unities ("One Thing") and collections is idle. Anything that has distinguishable parts, aspects, properties, can be described either way, depending upon the information one seeks to convey. Neither choice has any ontological significance. It is a purely verbal distinction.

BTW, the most common interpretation of the biblical Eve and the snake story (per my reading) is that the transformation wrought by eating the forbidden fruit was not the creation of consciousness, but of awareness of the difference between good and evil. I.e., the origin of moral judgment. The forbidden fruit was, per the tale, the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil":

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

— Genesis 2:16–17

So the transformation was (in modern terms) from being a moral subject (as are other animals) to being a moral agent. But both subjects and agents are conscious.

[Gee]

One has to wonder, if an earthworm can tell the difference between its self and the earth that it travels through. It has no brain to reflect the self and give it a rational aspect of mind, so would it consider everything that it is aware of as part of itself? Would the cool earth feel like an extension of the self? The same with a tree. Would a tree consider the earth that its roots gain nourishment from as part of itself? Would it consider the warm sun as part of itself?

One has to remember that life, the universe, and everything is just one thing, not a collection of independent parts. So the perspective that you assign to the worm, or the tree, is perhaps a complete and accurate one? Maybe it's our more 'sophisticated' approach that can lead to confusion?

Essentially, I agree that everything is part of just One; most religions already know this. This One is a form of consciousness, but I don't see it as "God" or a director, I see it as a blank canvas waiting to be made into something. Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I see it. I think that panpsychism has a definite place in the study of consciousness because as matter evolves it causes each particle to have an identity. Identity plus awareness equals self; there is no self without identity. So 'self' also appears to be fundamental. We could even say that the Universe itself has a 'self', which would mean that it has an identity?

This universal 'self' would break into selves as matter is created? These particles (identities) would then form into larger (identities) pieces/rocks, or planets, or gasses, or life forms, whatever -- using some sort of force like gravity or emotion in order to bond the pieces into one thing. Eventually we have earthworms burrowing in the dirt.

While we are talking about how things develop, I was looking at that link you provided about Julian Jaynes and wondered if you realized that the Bible seems to make reference to his description of the Bicameral mind. Most people see the story of the Garden of Eden as being about apples and snakes, which is utter nonsense. It is actually about consciousness and the rational aspect of mind. It also seems to reference what could be called the Bicameral mind, so did Jaynes know about this? Just wondering.

As I sit down this morning, to see what gems the forum has to offer, this is Today's Most Interesting Post. Thank you.

And thank you. I like talking to you, as we have some thought in common.

When I say that the universe is One Thing, I believe that my observation is literal and actual. For some believers, it has profound spiritual connotations too, but that's almost a separate issue.

I agree, but since I study consciousness, I tend to see little difference between the 'actual' and the 'spiritual'. I believe that spirit is actually what we call emotion, so it is a force, which would make it physical. Yes, there is evidence (from science) that emotion may be physical, and I suspect that emotion may be the interface between matter and the mental.

But I have one of my damnable () questions for you: If "most religions already know this", why is the prevalent - almost universal - view the exact opposite?

It isn't. It sounds like you do not have a great deal of experience with religions, or your experience was limited to teachings that were not well thought out. I am going to assume that you are talking about the differences between religions, which is an outsider's view. Within religion it is more like a joining or communion of people and ideas. Most all religions say that we come from "God" (the One) and we go back to "God" (the One); they refer to dying as "going home" or back to their ancestors, or to Valhalla, Jesus stated that there are many rooms in "my Father's house", etc. There are lots of "Gods" in various forms, but there is almost always a "God" that is over them, the "One" that is the boss, like Zeus, or Odin, or Brahman or Atman, even with Jesus, there is "God the Father".

So, if religion already knows and understands holism, what is it that prevents that understanding from spreading?

Different languages, cultures, races, interpretations, the self, etc. The need to be the one chosen to sit in Daddy's lap. Take your pick. It is always good to remember that religion is the discipline that studies spirit/emotion, and emotion works through the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is NOT rational which is what separates it from the rational mind; it is not logical and can't be because emotion does not acknowledge time, so there is no "this and therefore that" because nothing follows without time. The unconscious sorts information mainly through association and has some really weird ways of processing information.

One of the weird things the unconscious does with information processing is to know that the "part represents the whole". So if I am conscious, but "God" is the whole of consciousness, then in the unconscious I would represent "God". Learning this helped me to understand the multiple descriptions of "God" and the expression that "God has many faces". So my "God" would be my race, my culture, maybe my gender, this idea gives us Caucasian, Indonesian, Polynesian, Oriental, African, European, etc., "Gods". Even when it is the same religion, there are differences. When I was younger and traveling, I noted that Catholic churches, pictures, and statues took on the culture and look of whichever country that I found them in. The Madonna in Mexico, Italy, Russia, or Ireland don't look the same at all, but all represent Mary.

Is it sciencism, perhaps? I'm not sure. It seems to have a lot to do with 'materialism', using the word in its everyday sense.

In order to work science, one has to separate out all the influencing parts in order to test one specific thing and learn whether or not it is valid. The procedures and methodologies of science can't work with the methodologies of religion and never will. They can learn to respect each other, but that is all.

I am aware that we split stuff up for a good reason: life, the universe and everything is just too huge for us to swallow in one bite. We just can't do it. So we must either curtail our curiosity, and simply not think about stuff at all, or we must indulge in this practice of reductionism, and split everything up into small enough parts that we have some chance of understanding them. This is, essentially, unavoidable. But it is not correct; it's a misdirection that we must employ. My only view on this is that, because it is a fallacious perspective, that we should make the effort to remember, consciously, the incorrect assumption on which most or all of our thinking rests.

I believe you are a retired software programer? You know more about the patterns that work computers than I ever will, the 1's and 0's that make up so much of programing. So tell me, if you only had one kind of digit, either 1's or 0's, would you be able to do anything? Make anything happen? Could anything happen if all was identical? When I look at the idea of the Universe, I think that if there were only one thing, there would be no happening, there could be no happening. Am I wrong?

Gee

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe you are a retired software programer? You know more about the patterns that work computers than I ever will, the 1's and 0's that make up so much of programing. So tell me, if you only had one kind of digit, either 1's or 0's, would you be able to do anything? Make anything happen? Could anything happen if all was identical? When I look at the idea of the Universe, I think that if there were only one thing, there would be no happening, there could be no happening. Am I wrong?

No, you aren't wrong.

I just imply failed to anticipate that "one thing" could be understood to mean "one homogenous thing", which was not my intention.

I meant one heterogeneous-but-indivisible thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

I just imply failed...

Doh!

[The "imply" was "simply", which I deleted. Except I deleted a character, not a word.]


I just failed to anticipate that "one thing" could be understood to mean "one homogenous thing", which was not my intention.