The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
The Ascension, the Awakening, The Atonement; the mind’s surrendering back into The Unified Thought.
(Location 53 - Kindle version)
Some of the Eastern religions and philosophers entertain the idea of a 'universal mind' which either connects all of our minds or is the source of all of our minds. After the death of a person the physical body decays, but the mind is re-united with the 'universal mind'. This author too favours this idea.
What do you think about the concept? Is it possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of reach to the ordinary human beings? The stories about finding this connection by meditating, can they somehow be true? Can our minds be far older than our physical bodies since they are a part of a 'universal mind' which has lasted for years and will last for an eternity?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:27 am
Some of the Eastern religions and philosophers entertain the idea of a 'universal mind' which either connects all of our minds or is the source of all of our minds. After the death of a person the physical body decays, but the mind is re-united with the 'universal mind'. This author too favours this idea.
What do you think about the concept? Is it possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of reach to the ordinary human beings? The stories about finding this connection by meditating, can they somehow be true? Can our minds be far older than our physical bodies since they are a part of a 'universal mind' which has lasted for years and will last for an eternity?
An "interconnectedness" on the basis of materiality appears more convincing considering that there is perceptual/scientific evidence of materiality but neither perceptual/scientific evidence of "universal mind" nor perceptual/scientific evidence of "individual mind". After all all so-called "inanimate" and so-called "animate" evident phenomena are material and thus "being material" "interconnects" everything there is and will be and "having been material" "interconnects" everything that has ever been.
mankind ... must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them [Hume]
Sushan wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:27 am
Some of the Eastern religions and philosophers entertain the idea of a 'universal mind' which either connects all of our minds or is the source of all of our minds. After the death of a person the physical body decays, but the mind is re-united with the 'universal mind'. This author too favours this idea.
What do you think about the concept? Is it possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of reach to the ordinary human beings? The stories about finding this connection by meditating, can they somehow be true? Can our minds be far older than our physical bodies since they are a part of a 'universal mind' which has lasted for years and will last for an eternity?
I think it is quite possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of awareness for ordinary human beings. The answer to all of your following questions is "yes, possibly". It's the "possibly" that seems to be the most significant word, though.
So who gets to be part of this universal mind? Is Hitler part of it, or is there an exam you have to pass, and he failed it?
Is it limited to humans? That would seem rather speciesist, so can other animals join in? Are my 16 dead cats, 3 dead dogs and 24 dead guinea pigs all part of it?
If all these dead minds can be part of it, what does this universal mind spend its time thinking about? Philosophy? Invading Poland? Catching mice? Eating carrots? If such a mind does exist, I think we can confidently assert that by now it must be stark staring mad from trying to make sense of all these different inputs from wildly different kinds of mind.
Fortunately I don't believe such a mind exists. All the evidence seems to show that mind isn't a thing, it's a performance: it's what the brain does when it's in a certain physical state. That being so, the idea of a universal mind is either the idea of multiple brains giving the same numerically identical performance, or it's the idea of a performance being given by brains which have died and are therefore unable to perform at all. Either way it's impossible.
This is just one of these lame-brain ideas that people have come up with, like reincarnation and the Valhalla and the Christian heaven, because people can't face the fact that when we die, the brain's performance ends permanently, and we effectively cease to exist.
Philosophy is a waste of time. But then, so is most of life.
"Aldous Huxley’s Mind At Large And The Filters Of Reduction"
Aldous Huxley wrote in “The Doors of Perception” (from 1954) that “each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful. According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large”
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far”.
-(H.P. Lovecraft, The Call Of Cthulhu)
That said, and considering all, and especially Human, History, we must consider that we are all part of systematic stupidity
- And if you can call systematic stupidity a 'universal mind' - then yes it is possible
LuckyR wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:31 am
Two comments:
Human exceptionalism is a natural psychological crutch for weak minds.
If true, what you are describing would be impossible to observe (and thus verify) from our perspective.
"The view (paradigm) that humans are different from all other organisms, all human behaviour is controlled by culture and free will, and all problems can be solved by human ingenuity and technology." (Oxford Reference)
I am not sure whether the above-mentioned is exactly for the weak minds, but there is such a concept and many people believe in that.
Yes, the concept that I am discussing is quite impossible to observe. Hence, it is impossible to neither accept it not deny it.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:27 am
Some of the Eastern religions and philosophers entertain the idea of a 'universal mind' which either connects all of our minds or is the source of all of our minds. After the death of a person the physical body decays, but the mind is re-united with the 'universal mind'. This author too favours this idea.
What do you think about the concept? Is it possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of reach to the ordinary human beings? The stories about finding this connection by meditating, can they somehow be true? Can our minds be far older than our physical bodies since they are a part of a 'universal mind' which has lasted for years and will last for an eternity?
An "interconnectedness" on the basis of materiality appears more convincing considering that there is perceptual/scientific evidence of materiality but neither perceptual/scientific evidence of "universal mind" nor perceptual/scientific evidence of "individual mind". After all all so-called "inanimate" and so-called "animate" evident phenomena are material and thus "being material" "interconnects" everything there is and will be and "having been material" "interconnects" everything that has ever been.
Material interconnection is quite understandable since each and everything becomes similar when they are broken down to atomic (and to even lower levels if necessary) level. But the concept regarding mind is not a material thing, so we simply cannot apply this materialistic interconnection to the mind. We are not fully aware about the existence and behaviour of our minds. So this interconnection is quite far away from our perception.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
Sushan wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:27 am
Some of the Eastern religions and philosophers entertain the idea of a 'universal mind' which either connects all of our minds or is the source of all of our minds. After the death of a person the physical body decays, but the mind is re-united with the 'universal mind'. This author too favours this idea.
What do you think about the concept? Is it possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of reach to the ordinary human beings? The stories about finding this connection by meditating, can they somehow be true? Can our minds be far older than our physical bodies since they are a part of a 'universal mind' which has lasted for years and will last for an eternity?
I think it is quite possible for all our minds to be interconnected, yet the connection is out of awareness for ordinary human beings. The answer to all of your following questions is "yes, possibly". It's the "possibly" that seems to be the most significant word, though.
'Possibly' is quite a strong word, and it shows that you are having some positive thoughts towards this concept. Let's keep this 'awareness' thing aside for a while since it is quite distant from our reach. What made you think that our minds are interconnected?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
CIN wrote: ↑July 9th, 2022, 1:43 pm
So who gets to be part of this universal mind? Is Hitler part of it, or is there an exam you have to pass, and he failed it?
Is it limited to humans? That would seem rather speciesist, so can other animals join in? Are my 16 dead cats, 3 dead dogs and 24 dead guinea pigs all part of it?
If all these dead minds can be part of it, what does this universal mind spend its time thinking about? Philosophy? Invading Poland? Catching mice? Eating carrots? If such a mind does exist, I think we can confidently assert that by now it must be stark staring mad from trying to make sense of all these different inputs from wildly different kinds of mind.
Fortunately I don't believe such a mind exists. All the evidence seems to show that mind isn't a thing, it's a performance: it's what the brain does when it's in a certain physical state. That being so, the idea of a universal mind is either the idea of multiple brains giving the same numerically identical performance, or it's the idea of a performance being given by brains which have died and are therefore unable to perform at all. Either way it's impossible.
This is just one of these lame-brain ideas that people have come up with, like reincarnation and the Valhalla and the Christian heaven, because people can't face the fact that when we die, the brain's performance ends permanently, and we effectively cease to exist.
When we think about such a mind, yes, the problems that you raised (and many more) occurs in our minds. But all these thoughts occur within the accepted and known didimensions to us, the human beings. Why we always think in such a limited way without thinking that there can be more that are still out of our reach?
If we think about death, we see an existence of a human ending by death. So with what we know and what we perceive we think that death is the end. But what if it is not really an end, but beyond our reach of understanding?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
UniversalAlien wrote: ↑July 13th, 2022, 5:49 am "Aldous Huxley’s Mind At Large And The Filters Of Reduction"
Aldous Huxley wrote in “The Doors of Perception” (from 1954) that “each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful. According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large”
“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far”.
-(H.P. Lovecraft, The Call Of Cthulhu)
That said, and considering all, and especially Human, History, we must consider that we are all part of systematic stupidity
- And if you can call systematic stupidity a 'universal mind' - then yes it is possible
Thank you for the mentioning of the interesting quotes that support the argument.
But why you say that human beings are a part of a systematic stupidity? Do you think that the systematic agreements that have taken us so far are stupid? Or is it about the experiments and inventions that gave us prosperity as well as destruction at the same time?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
keztoo wrote: ↑July 19th, 2022, 12:48 am
When you die you are still the same person, only you're different
A car is a car when it is being driven as well as when it is being parked. If we apply that to human beings, then what you say is quite acceptable. But is it the same when it comes to humans?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”
I think the reason the OP topic sticks out as much as it does is due to overwhelming circumstantial evidence (particularly that of NDE's but enough mystical experiences, psychedelic experiences, etc. seem to point in this direction as well).
What's really difficult to swallow / handle with this one:
1) We live in a world of Darwinian game theory (ie. organisms are here to mug each other over genes - as politely as they can if they live in a civilization and aren't out to burn it down).
2) We live in a world where magical thinking doesn't solve problems, it more often the consequences of magical thinking set you back in the game of life if not used with extreme discretion (and possibly killed if you're really indiscrete).
3) The reason power, without other qualifications, has a way of dominating things in this world is because it's tied to physics.
4) There's the whole thing of people, more often than not who are really deep into magical thinking to the point of taking it full literal, being rather gullible / dumb - which is quite depressing to people who've reached positions like absolute idealism by completely different means but this one's a popular cudgel for people to bring out when they really just 'can't stand those idiots' and want to hammer down anyone who'd agree with them on much of anything.
From what we know it seems like we're dealing with something that, if it is ultimate idealism, works like a virtual world (ie. no flexibility to mentation or thought - other than your own mind against itself), builds life or perhaps 'avatars' for conscious embodiment/dissociation/etc. through Darwinian evolution, sexual selection, group selection, etc., and so Dawkins, Dennett, etc. are quite right about the character of what you'd put under physical examination.
I think keeping those lines tight is rather important. This way if you want to do something magical that would give you real gains, whether exploring your own mind through psychedelics and ritual or perhaps even doing an Abramelin retreat to have Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, you're doing something internally worthwhile which means you'll gain what actually can be gained from such pursuits and aren't nearly as likely to run yourself into the buzz-saws that magical thinking can present (an old example from the late Renaissance - the trick of girls floating small needles on soap water to prove their purity, a girl whose really pure but not particularly worldly grabs a big needle since logically if she is pure it makes sense that it should float, it sinks like a rock, and she 'dies of a broken heart' that night when her suitor drops her off at home - ie. loses her future and checks out early).
This is where I'm always encouraged when adult conversations about this topic can happen (ie. adults in the room without the space cadets or their faux-skeptic doms).
LuckyR wrote: ↑July 6th, 2022, 3:31 am
Two comments:
Human exceptionalism is a natural psychological crutch for weak minds.
If true, what you are describing would be impossible to observe (and thus verify) from our perspective.
"The view (paradigm) that humans are different from all other organisms, all human behaviour is controlled by culture and free will, and all problems can be solved by human ingenuity and technology." (Oxford Reference)
I am not sure whether the above-mentioned is exactly for the weak minds, but there is such a concept and many people believe in that.
Yes, the concept that I am discussing is quite impossible to observe. Hence, it is impossible to neither accept it not deny it.
I use the description of weak minds because altering the ground rules to prove one's premise, does not require rigorous thought.
