[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Melchior

Now, with respect to the actual operation of the world, both views are identical, and whereas I say it runs off of physics, you're more inclined to say it's consciousness, right?

Yes, but what I'm curious about is this: do you believe in a "soul aspect", but prefer to believe it has it's roots as some sort of physical phenomena? For example, electromagnetism perhaps? I would like understand your belief system more in depth from the "physical metaphysical" side of the equation.

Originally Posted by Melchior

A question then would be if there were laws governing the consciousness, per say, similar to how physical laws govern the universe in the 'purely physical' model?

In a sense yes, but in another sense no. I see consciousness as an "unbounded essence". There is nothing external to an unbounded essence. I also see "awareness" or "consciousness" as the stuff "existence" is made of. Consciousness affirms existence -- without consciousness, existence could not be known, and so, I see them as one and the same, practically and literally speaking.

Because consciousness is unbounded, it has no inherent limitations (that is to say, aside from being automatically relegated to "existence" rather than "nonexistence".) But it can temporarily restrict itself to whatever limitation, structure, shape, or form it chooses. In other words, it can "pretend" to be ANYTHING -- including a physical universe.

But......because everything is one, there are certain truths that will always remain in effect, no matter how much consciousness pretends to be otherwise. For example, even though it can pretend to be a bunch of unrelated, objective, physical parts rather than a homogeneous unified whole, it is only a simulation. This means that ALL information will ALWAYS be communicating with all other information behind the scenes, even though certain aspects have temporarily dissociated from the whole. Separation is not really possible. This is the reason for the "law of attraction" and all psychic phenomena. It's simply a matter of tapping into our natural "omniscience" that exists at the base of our consciousness. Intention manifestation is a simply (<< ha ) a process of "fixing outcomes" by "juggling" knowledge variables in the illusory matrix of our reality.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Phenomenologically, the two universes 'behave' the same way (after all, I think they both try to explain the one we live in), but qualitatively, the two universes are different and the 'purely consciousness' model seems to 'allow' for a greater degree of freedom of what the world can actually be (a degree of freedom that we haven't really seen yet, but that may be because of the laws of the unifying consciousness itself preventing that?). I'm not sure if occam's razor works with this problem anymore. phenomenologically, the two models describe everything 'perfectly', however they describe different 'everythings', if you know what I mean there... I still believe that the 'purely physical' model is the simpler of the two when describing only what we see, namely due to that extra freedom presented by the 'purely conscious' one. Moreover, there are more 'elements' involved in the purely conscious one, there's the 'consciousness' and the 'dream', but perhaps the consciousness is the dream, correct me on that. On the other hand, the 'purely physical' model only presents the 'physical world'.

You see the physical model as less complex, and I see the consciousness model as less complex. Interesting isn't it -- the variability of perspective?

I see the consciousness model being quite elegantly simple, and yet, allowing for an infinite range of possibility. I feel that modern quantum theories such as the Everett many worlds hypothesis actually lend credence to the freedom allowed by the consciousness model. When you consider an infinite range of possibility/probability, you start to wonder about all the different directions, dimensionally speaking, that energy can flow that we simply are not equipped to imagine. You start to look at energy as more of an infinite continuum of variable patterns, than a purely physical collection of "objects". But again, whether we call it all "physical" or all "consciousness" the main difference between our perspectives is simply the range of probabilities that are possible.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Still, I can think of other inconsistencies with the 'unified consciousness' model, but if they are really due to the illusioned 'purely physical' model mucking thing up, then why should they exist in the first place? (inconsistencies include some laws being universal (namely the illusioned ones) and others not being universal (namely those describing the unified consciousness and the projections of it), this evolution that is going on, for there's nothing to compare it to (or perhaps this 'unified consciousness' is really something of a record of everything (essentially just itself) during its existence, which is akin to the term God, hmmm...., also that system might allow for inconsistencies but may not exhibit it (i.e. a changing consciousness that doesn't really change anything but the illusion, and not itself))

It is very difficult to articulate the true nature of the consciousness I'm referencing here, and god knows more finessed individuals than I have tried and failed miserably. People have so many mixed up ideas about "God", life, death, energy, matter, and time.

I see consciousness as transcending all boundaries (aside from "existence"). That includes time. This means it is also timeless. Time is simply a measure of change, which means at the highest level of consciousness, there is NO change occurring. This means our perception of change is an illusion. Consider that carefully....

Try to imagine the nature of an "omniscient" presence of unified consciousness. You wouldn't just know everything that IS, you would know everything that COULD BE. And in knowing those probabilities so perfectly that they were INDISTINGUISHABLE from actuality (because your capacity to imagine is propelled by infinite energy, or in other words, the absence of limiting factors), those realities might as well EXIST. You can begin to see how the difference between "actual" and "probable" begins to break down. This implies ALL things exist, and always have. Our perception of change is simply an extremely minute cross section of an eternal knowing-ness or conscious awareness of infinite probability....

Originally Posted by Melchior

In other words, I think I've at least gotten a better idea of this whole conscious thing and how it could work out. Even with that comparison to god that I've heard some people on the forums have mentioned. But still: and don't understand how this should be the model at all, and if it is, more

Yeah, it still seriously blows my mind. Am I right? Well, that's the individual journey we all have to take, I guess.

Originally Posted by Melchior

I'm not so sure that "I" comes from consciousness however, as was described above, but only the 'ego' resultant from it. After all, if it was a unified consciousness, the "I" is essentially the entire world and there is nothing but "I", and without an "Other", that "I" is a meaningless distinction. Heh, disillusion again.

I agree, if you are everything, then to say "I" is really unnecessary, because there is no reason to even differentiate one aspect from any other aspect, which is what the word "I" attempts to do. I prefer the phrase "I AM" because I feel like it articulates the nature of consciousness as "existence" more clearly than "I" alone does. But perhaps we need to invent some new words here.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Hey, another thought, wouldn't the 'fact' that this 'purely physical' illusion of the manifestation of consciousness is 'consistent' with itself, standing alone, just as easily be 'proof' for the validity and perhaps 'truth' of the 'purely physical' model?

It could, but its "consistency" is really quite variable. Since we can't "jump outside ourselves" and experience "true objectivity" subjectivity will always be all we can directly experience. Perhaps that is all that exists. Just because the universe appears physically consistent to YOU doesn't mean it is that way to everyone else. Go read any autobiography written by a mystic and you will see their experience of "reality" is often anything BUT consistent in terms of "physical laws". I think our expectations play more a role in reality than we even realize.

Originally Posted by Melchior

Also, before I go, I just want to say that it's been a pleasure talking with you. What thought you've prompted me to think has been significant.
Too bad, well for you I suppose, it's only made for me my current views stronger and these alternates weaker in comparison... I just am not so 'spiritually' inclined, even if I believe consequences of classical views of spirituality can exist in the world. Continuing in my thought, perhaps these two models are exactly the same anyway... I'll need to let it digest for now.

It's been a pleasure talking to you, as well.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if you find the physical model more believable than the consciousness model. I share my knowledge dispassionately (but not to imply I'm not passionate about my belief) with those who are curious, as I'm perfectly happy with other people's beliefs (whatever they may be), but I very much enjoy discussing metaphysical ideas as well as other kinds of philosophy.

Best regards.