Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[CIN]

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?

If it is, then we can't say anything worth saying about it. And whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Pattern-chaser]

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?

You leap to too many conclusions. Possibly is not a strong word; "exists" or "is" are examples of strong words. "Possible" is the mildest of all possible conclusions: that maybe something could be so... I have no positive thoughts toward these possibilities. "Possible" reveals only that I have no particularly negative thoughts concerning these things. Your love of binary thinking is more powerful than it is in most people, I suspect?

Nothing 'made' me "think that our minds are interconnected"; that's your (unfounded) assumption. And yet, coincidentally (i.e., nothing we have mentioned here confirms or denies it in any way) I do think that our minds are connected, because I believe that everything — life, the universe, and everything — is connected.

Or, put another way, I believe that life, the universe and everything is a unity; one, indivisible, thing. Being part of The Whole is perhaps the most intimate connection — with all the other parts of The Whole — possible?

[UniversalAlien]

"Our mind is a piece of a 'universal mind'!" AND Your computer is a piece of 'universal internet'

Every computer online when turned on accesses a universal Worldwide internet.

We can measure connectivity to the internet and put anti-malware in play for protection.

Is it possible that all minds {possibly even all consciousness] is so connected by some other means than mechanical

How could you prove and/or measure this connectivity

[3017Metaphysician]

This topic is about the July 2022 Philosophy Book of the Month, The Truth Is Beyond Belief!: Some thoughts to make you think about the power of your thoughts…by Jerry Durr

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?

Sushan!

I think this analogical concept of 'interconnectness' rings true on many levels. There is no question that we need other's to achieve goals and purpose and meaning. It is through other's that we do this. For instance, a musician can practice all day long, but if no one comes to hear him play, it is only a secret pleasure. Or we can buy all this stuff and live on a deserted island and be alone for what purpose? We certainly would have no one to enjoy that stuff with. And in the modern world, most obviously it requires another person to actually make all 'the stuff' to begin with. The examples are excruciatingly endless... .

Perhaps the next question could be that if all human's are hardwired for propagation'and are otherwise social creatures who intrinsically seek happiness and purpose, is there an objective-subjective universal mind that breath's fire into the 'universal' equations? Cosmologically, perhaps that fire is the metaphysical Will, that somehow encodes the genetic properties necessary for the emergence and transformation between mind and matter. Much like the cook whose recipe for a delicious meal provides for sustenance necessary to sustain life, a cosmological mind that wills the existence of biological life forms has a creative recipe of its own. Like the seed of the plant that has all the information necessary to actualize propagation.

Alternatively, the recipe for artificial intelligence is much like the limited theory of evolution/Darwinism; it does not account for the first one, only an ensemble of existing species to evolve and choose from. And since it can't explain creation ex nihilo, similarly, the artificial recipe will never capture all mental phenomena of human consciousness and the human experience.

As a swan song, we do know that the foregoing universal language of music offers clues to this sense of interconnectness. This sense of sentient existence or feeling that most all appreciate. And this shared experience(s) of raw emotion has other universal implications as well, such as the existential power of Love (or hate). To this end, the universal mystery includes the likelihood that one cannot fully appreciate love without also understanding hate. The piece of the universal mind that seems more universal than not is the feeling of feeling.

[Sushan]

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.

Well, I think the ground rules that you mention are the exact opposite of the exceptionalism, and I think it is unfair to name it as ground rules since both sides are actually beliefs (one side may be having more weight with the existing proof) and no one knows what is the actual thing. Our knowledge is limited and we know only what we know, and we cannot exclude what we do not know.

[Sushan]

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?

If it is, then we can't say anything worth saying about it. And whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Quite true. But if we decide to talk about only what we know then the world will be a quite place, as we have only a limited amount of know regarding anything, and we do not have complete knowledge regarding anything.

[Sushan]

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?

You leap to too many conclusions. Possibly is not a strong word; "exists" or "is" are examples of strong words. "Possible" is the mildest of all possible conclusions: that maybe something could be so... I have no positive thoughts toward these possibilities. "Possible" reveals only that I have no particularly negative thoughts concerning these things. Your love of binary thinking is more powerful than it is in most people, I suspect?

Nothing 'made' me "think that our minds are interconnected"; that's your (unfounded) assumption. And yet, coincidentally (i.e., nothing we have mentioned here confirms or denies it in any way) I do think that our minds are connected, because I believe that everything — life, the universe, and everything — is connected.

Or, put another way, I believe that life, the universe and everything is a unity; one, indivisible, thing. Being part of The Whole is perhaps the most intimate connection — with all the other parts of The Whole — possible?

I understand, and my apologies for leaping to conclusions. Yet, I think possible is stronger than probable. And yes 'is' and 'can' are much stronger.

I think I can agree with the interconnection that you are suggesting. We know that materialistic things are ade out of common elelements, and everything is similar when broken down to atomic level. This can be same for the non-materialistic things as well. The only issue is our lack of knowledge regarding the subject.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think "possible" is stronger than "probable".

[Double quotes added by me, for clarity.]

I would say the exact opposite, but it probably isn't worth considering further. It's just a quibble about nuances of meaning in these two words.

[Sushan]

"Our mind is a piece of a 'universal mind'!" AND Your computer is a piece of 'universal internet'

Every computer online when turned on accesses a universal Worldwide internet.

We can measure connectivity to the internet and put anti-malware in play for protection.

Is it possible that all minds {possibly even all consciousness] is so connected by some other means than mechanical

How could you prove and/or measure this connectivity

Today the internet seems like an unlimited space. But we all know that it is a collection of millions of servers, and all the data that we simply get access to are stored in somewhere physical. Internet is not flowing through air, and you cannot just grab data from thin air. And there are networks that are totally isolated and out of access to common people.

The thought of a universal mind may sound similar to the concept of internet. But as you said it is difficult to prove or measure such a thing even it existed. To measure something we have to look at ot from outside and be objective. If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

[UniversalAlien]

"Our mind is a piece of a 'universal mind'!" AND Your computer is a piece of 'universal internet'

Every computer online when turned on accesses a universal Worldwide internet.

We can measure connectivity to the internet and put anti-malware in play for protection.

Is it possible that all minds {possibly even all consciousness] is so connected by some other means than mechanical

How could you prove and/or measure this connectivity

Today the internet seems like an unlimited space. But we all know that it is a collection of millions of servers, and all the data that we simply get access to are stored in somewhere physical. Internet is not flowing through air, and you cannot just grab data from thin air. And there are networks that are totally isolated and out of access to common people.

The thought of a universal mind may sound similar to the concept of internet. But as you said it is difficult to prove or measure such a thing even it existed. To measure something we have to look at ot from outside and be objective. If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

"The thought of a universal mind may sound similar to the concept of internet. But as you said it is difficult to prove or measure such a thing even it existed. To measure something we have to look at ot from outside and be objective. If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively."

True

Possibly the computer internet system in that it is functioning somewhat independently could be used to do this.

We just have to figure out what test questions to ask of it and how to measure the results. Just asking are Human minds interconnected is not sufficient - One must figure out what questions to ask that would actually measure interconnectivity and how to measure the results. This may be hard, but not impossible

[Pattern-chaser]

If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

Why? [Serious question.]

[UniversalAlien]

If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

Why? [Serious question.]

Why ask why {A more serious question}

[Tegularius]

If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

Inside-out perspectives consist of a one-lane highway upon which our perceptions travel. Everything we think is more or less subjective. Our methods of obtaining objectivity is to collapse our preconceptions by subtracting, as much as possible, all its distorting interludes to glean an outline of the reality in its near unpolluted state. Objectivity in that sense is a filtering process supervised by the probability states of our subjective conclusions. In effect, objectivity is the outcome of our will to produce it and not some Ding an sich phenomenon independent of our own mental processes.

[Pattern-chaser]

If our mind is within ourselves we have to develop some abilities to look at it from the outside and assess it objectively.

Why? [Serious question.]

Why ask why {A more serious question}

Curiosity.

So: why do we "have to" develop the means to "look at it from the outside and assess it objectively"? What does that gain us?

[value]

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.

Individual minds could be considered a pioneer on behalf of the universal mind. Something of interest to investigate the idea is the philosophy of scientific breakthroughs.

Simultaneous Discoveries in History
“Rather than being the products of the individual mind, multiples (aka - simultaneous discoveries) are said to prove that creative ideas are the effects of the zeitgeist, or universal mind.
https://www.savvyhistory.com/simultaneo ... n-history/

A recent study discovered that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would provide evidence.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

Another clue may be the Cambrian explosion . It is a period of the early earth ~530 million years ago in which all the basic structures of life forms of earth suddenly appeared on earth.

(2020) The Cambrian Explosion Mystery: Fossils still say no to Darwin
In the Cambrian Explosion, all the major animal groups first appear as fossils. They appear suddenly, fully-formed, and functional, and the older rock layers below them contain no ancestors.
https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils ... -explosion

It was known and unexplainable during Darwin's time but he said that science would find the 'missing' transition fossils.

Until today, those transition fossils haven't been found which may indicate that the evolution theory isn't valid and that 'kind' in nature has an infinite or non-local origin.

Another clue may be what is named carcinization. In nature, crustacean animals keep evolving into asymmetrical crab-form with one big claw and a smaller claw, and many features that are specific to crab-form. It received its own name: carcinization.

Crabbification 'in 1 step' of animals in Nature
crab.jpg (38.9 KiB) Viewed 2826 times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

According to Greek philosopher Plato, kind or form (e.g. specie) is of substance separate from individual life forms.

According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; its reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.

So instead of a 'universal mind', what is the case would be that 'kind' is applicable to mind which has implications that would justify the idea of a universal mind.

I personally suspect that individual contributions can enhance the 'human kind' and perhaps it is vital that humans become aware of it, so that they are motivated to overcome any challenge in life, which - if that idea is valid - would make humanity and life in general stronger on cosmic scale.