The Existence of the Individual

[Michael Chui]

So, here's a question for you all.

ShiningLight recently posted Who am I NOT? and jtrikster is asking People are representations of yourself?. Both of these questions point to the suggestion that there exists no individual but what Steve Pavlina calls the God-consciousness, or subjective reality.

And yet, I recently used this against a friend of mine where we debated the question of whether or not multiple identities exist. And while I'm entirely unconvinced by his argument (which was basically "Identities possess traits, and some traits cannot coexist with other traits; thus, differing identities must exist"), something about it made me deeply uneasy.

A long time ago, it was suggested to me that, at the end of the universe, there are really only three possibilities: nothing, one thing, and many things. Nothing is the least likely; it would certainly violate physical principles, but there are some models of thought that support it. The latter two options become (I can't articulate the path here) a question of the nature of intelligence and, in a sense, consciousness, sentience, and all those other weighty words.

My model of human relationships follows a similar path. While I have pointed out that knowledge is the most significant metric of all, my model distinguishes a secondary axis which I call "equality". On one end, you have "compassion" and on the other, you have "alienation". Knowledge splits itself between love (understanding + compassion) and discrimination (understanding + alienation).

So, there are two perspectives to ask of this. One is our usual frame of seeing things. While we may accept that, we are disparate bodies today, in the millenial future, we may merge into One. The other perspective is the world without time: in which case, the question simply collapses into a simple yes or no: are we One?

I'm not sure. To reiterate ShiningLight's question, there are some things which I am opposed to. I do not, for instance, believe a theocracy is a good government. I do not believe that sex has a biological effect on competence. I am nearly certain that the current, mainstream American education system is a farce. These are things that are not part of me. I am also not a dancer, nor am I a soldier. I am not Greek, nor am I physically female.

This suggests, ultimately, that my friend is right. I, whatever I am, possess an identity independent of others'. But what I am is questionable, because under the model Steve presents, this so-called identity is merely a container and that it is distinguished from other containers is no different than the distinction between my two arms.

So, what do you guys think? One or many? And why? Do you have any other frames or perspectives that might shed light on the subject?

[ZHereford]

I think that for the purposes of this earth existence we are and need to be separate in order to learn, experience and distinguish.

Our physical bodies and personas have been designed for us to experience individuality so that we can discriminate, discern and make choices. We are evolving towards a single consciousness. We are not that yet. We have to consciously make the choices that integrate us with that oneness. To force the concept of oneness before we are ready and equipped to become it, is artificial and defeats the purpose.

[ShiningLight]

Michael, good thoughts and questions. Let me see if I can input some valuable ideas into the mix:

at the end of the universe

What do you mean? The end of the physical universe - or the end of "existence" itself? The way I see it, when the physical universe ends, it just begins right back up. Existence, will always be, not bound or restricted to the physical universe.

My model of human relationships follows a similar path. While I have pointed out that knowledge is the most significant metric of all, my model distinguishes a secondary axis which I call "equality". On one end, you have "compassion" and on the other, you have "alienation". Knowledge splits itself between love (understanding + compassion) and discrimination (understanding + alienation).

I'm interesting in learning more about your "model." Can you share links to any relevant posts? Thanks. *edit* silly me should of saw the links on your sig.

...in the millenial future, we may merge into One.

Perhaps...I'm not sure.

The other perspective is the world without time: in which case, the question simply collapses into a simple yes or no: are we One?

Yes.

And why?

Now for the hard part. Lets see. Sometimes thinking about these things in such a "grand scale" can be extremely imposing. Why NOT think about this on a smaller scale, with something we're more familiar with - our own body? Ok, now imagine for a second the human body, or what I prefer - the female body. Think about every cell in that body as an individual. Imagine if the cells could talk (btw, cells can communicate with one another) and one cell, a blood cell asked another cell, a liver cell if they were different or if they were the same. How would you think their conversation would go........? ( I don't want to spoil the fun of thinking for yourself)

Here's a couple more questions for you to ponder. How can you relate disease in the body to "disease" in the "world?" How are the cells the same and how are they different? What is the purpose of the cell? What is the importance for cells to "work" together in order to become tissues, organs, systems? From the cells' perspective who is in actual control? Would the brain think it is in control? What would the cells think, or how would they feel about "consciousness?"

Have fun. And yes, I do come from a health background. Poor me.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

What do you mean? The end of the physical universe - or the end of "existence" itself? The way I see it, when the physical universe ends, it just begins right back up. Existence, will always be, not bound or restricted to the physical universe.

Well, "end of existence" is a bad way to put it. More clearly, it's a threshold of knowledge beyond which things become unimaginable. At a certain point, sentient beings will know so much that those who came before will regard them as gods. This is something that's true of us: if an ancient Egyptian came to 21st century America, we would be as like gods. That's a threshold of unimaginability, because you're simply not equipped to think past that.

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

I'm interesting in learning more about your "model." Can you share links to any relevant posts? Thanks. *edit* silly me should of saw the links on your sig.

Heh. I haven't worked on a larger essay on the entire model itself, unfortunately. However, some stuff that's not linked in my sig is here:

raccaldin36: The Power of Language - SWH revisited, and a Matrix Arises
raccaldin36: Relationships, Draft 2

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

Now for the hard part. Lets see. Sometimes thinking about these things in such a "grand scale" can be extremely imposing. Why NOT think about this on a smaller scale, with something we're more familiar with - our own body? Ok, now imagine for a second the human body, or what I prefer - the female body. Think about every cell in that body as an individual. Imagine if the cells could talk (btw, cells can communicate with one another) and one cell, a blood cell asked another cell, a liver cell if they were different or if they were the same. How would you think their conversation would go........? ( I don't want to spoil the fun of thinking for yourself)

I'd expect the usual mundane stuff. A minor economy of proteins and substances; just a society made purely of workers, if somewhat held in thrall and tyranny by the brain.

I don't quite see the usefulness in the difference of scale. For instance, if you power-of-ten zoomed out, you imagine planets as individuals and they'd chat with each other across the far reaches of space, but that doesn't change the question at all.

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

Here's a couple more questions for you to ponder. How can you relate disease in the body to "disease" in the "world?" How are the cells the same and how are they different? What is the purpose of the cell? What is the importance for cells to "work" together in order to become tissues, organs, systems? From the cells' perspective who is in actual control? Would the brain think it is in control? What would the cells think, or how would they feel about "consciousness?"

Have fun. And yes, I do come from a health background. Poor me.

I saw this the other day: Amazon.com: Riddled with Life: Friendly Worms, Ladybug Sex, and the Parasites That Make Us Who We Are: Books: Marlene Zuk

[ShiningLight]

Michael, haven't had time to read your essays, but I look forward to them. You seem like an extremely intelligent individual and I would love to see your point of view on things. Thanks for the links.

More clearly, it's a threshold of knowledge beyond which things become unimaginable. At a certain point, sentient beings will know so much that those who came before will regard them as gods. This is something that's true of us: if an ancient Egyptian came to 21st century America, we would be as like gods. That's a threshold of unimaginability, because you're simply not equipped to think past that.

Sorry Michael, what you're saying makes sense, but I'm having trouble understanding how that relates to your overall thread.

I'd expect the usual mundane stuff. A minor economy of proteins and substances; just a society made purely of workers,...

I beg to differ. The human body is an amazing organism made up of billions of cells each doing their part to make sure that everything runs smoothly. "mundane and minor" are two words I would not use to describe it. "Miraculous and magnificent" yes!

...if somewhat held in thrall and tyranny by the brain.

Ah, but is the brain the controller, or is it the consciousness? And would a cell view its life as being "held in thrall and tyranny?"

I don't quite see the usefulness in the difference of scale. For instance, if you power-of-ten zoomed out, you imagine planets as individuals and they'd chat with each other across the far reaches of space...

Exactly! That's the way I look at it anyways. I think we can make a lot of sense of the universe by looking at it in that way. For me, it helps.

...but that doesn't change the question at all.

Okay, another stab, Why are we one? I don't think there's an answer for that. The why, implies meaning, purpose...all human identifications/creations. At the level where the physical universe was manifested, human identifications are non-existant; therefore, the why was never in question. It just is, because there could be no other way. Now, on this level of physicality, the why is a construct of our thoughts. The why could be anything we want it to be. Just as you can see the human body as mundane and I can see it as miraculous.

Am I answering your question?

[Iksander]

What if identity were fluid?

Identities possess traits, some traits cannot coexist with some other traits; therefore divergent identities must exist. People possess identity, some identities possess traits that cannot coexist with some identities that possess some traits; therefore people with differing identities cannot coexist.

If you ask me - that logic sounds faulty. It sounds dependent on a premise that is static - when I prefer to see all things as not being static or stagnant but always in motion.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

Sorry Michael, what you're saying makes sense, but I'm having trouble understanding how that relates to your overall thread.

It doesn't. I was just explaining where the "end of existence" notion was built from.

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

I beg to differ. The human body is an amazing organism made up of billions of cells each doing their part to make sure that everything runs smoothly. "mundane and minor" are two words I would not use to describe it. "Miraculous and magnificent" yes!

True, but in doing that, you start to run out of words when you scale up. If the economy of a single body is miraculous, then what's the economy of nations and galaxies?

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

Ah, but is the brain the controller, or is it the consciousness? And would a cell view its life as being "held in thrall and tyranny?"

My cells would.

Originally Posted by ShiningLight

The why could be anything we want it to be. Just as you can see the human body as mundane and I can see it as miraculous.

Am I answering your question?

It sounds to me like you're saying the answer is whatever we want it to be. I'm not sure I agree with that.

Originally Posted by Iksander

What if identity were fluid?

Interestingly, he argued that quite a bit.

Originally Posted by Iksander

Identities possess traits, some traits cannot coexist with some other traits; therefore divergent identities must exist. People possess identity, some identities possess traits that cannot coexist with some identities that possess some traits; therefore people with differing identities cannot coexist.

Well, that's a non sequitur. While it may be true that some identities cannot coexist with other identities, it doesn't seem at all true. He argues that even apparently paradoxical traits, such as an optimistic pessimist, is built on a fast switch back and forth. So the pessimist flips into an optimist for a moment based on some stimulus, and flips back to pessimism afterwards.

[Liara Covert]

To answer the question about the existence of multiple identities, it would appear useful to define and meaning of "individual." It would supposedly differ.

Individual as defined as:

--different or separate: separate how? from what?
--intended for the use of one person only: what is a personhood?
--characteristic of a particular person: unique combination of which traits?
--distinguished or distinctive style: extension of which qualities?
--conscious or unconscious beliefs

The biologial, bichemical sides (DNA) could be easier to pin down in an individual than the emotional, psychological, metaphysical and other facets of identities which tend to be grouped (i.e., Meyer's Briggs Personality Test and DSM-IV Psychiatric Manual).

Its worth mentioning some individuals believe themselves to have multiple identities, and these people aren't all MPD psychiatric patients. That is, these people may perform different social roles, exhibit different talents, consider themselves part of social, cultural, economic, political, hierarchical or other associations or organisations. Some are public and others are private. Some are conscious associations and others are unconscious.

[Iksander]

@michael:

He argues that even apparently paradoxical traits, such as an optimistic pessimist, is built on a fast switch back and forth. So the pessimist flips into an optimist for a moment based on some stimulus, and flips back to pessimism afterwards.

That sounds alot like 'thrashing' (I think its technical term is cognitive dissonance). With computers, thrashing occurs when there are so many processes the processor spends more time switching between them then actually running a process. Cognitive dissonance seems applicable here.

With two conflicting states in the psyche (a pessimistic state and an optimistic state) stress is created and more time is spent worrying than actually choosing a 'process' or state to run.

That form of identity seems much more rigid than fluid - is fluid identity something that isn't necessarily so black and white? Or is it switching into those states decisively without thrashing against the other states?

@Liara:

...individuals believe themselves to have multiple identities...

I have always referred to that as the persona - using one's ego they can create multiple persona's to match specific social queues - the values and core virtues of the identity stay constant across the personas, they are simply a different viewing lens for those being interacted with.

I am using the Jungian definition of Ego, in this case.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

That sounds alot like 'thrashing' (I think its technical term is cognitive dissonance). With computers, thrashing occurs when there are so many processes the processor spends more time switching between them then actually running a process. Cognitive dissonance seems applicable here.

Well, if we want to hold the computer analogy, you only have one CPU (I doubt any home computer currently has more than 4), so you can only do one thing at a time. So, if there are only a few processes running, then thrashing wouldn't occur, but thread scheduling still would, right? In that sense, if you hold the analogy, it sounds reasonable.

Originally Posted by Iksander

That form of identity seems much more rigid than fluid - is fluid identity something that isn't necessarily so black and white? Or is it switching into those states decisively without thrashing against the other states?

So, if you can switch without thrashing, then it seems fluid. What do you think?

[Iksander]

So, if you can switch without thrashing, then it seems fluid. What do you think?

I am in favor of this latter idea, even though the only way I can explain it is by saying the whole system is just...fluid. This is the defining human element, then?

You will notice, however, that the majority of people actually do end up thrashing - I see it all the time. Specifically when it is something outside of their comfort zone and a large amount of thoughts are present - is this due to the conditioning we give them as children? A natural state, I imagine, would be more fluid.


The only flaw in my analogy is the fact that thrashing no longer really occurs because our hardware is so fast now. There are multiple technologies used to decrease processing time (hypther-threading, multiple cores) but the processor is still susceptible to thrashing because all of these technologies are built from the same elemental logic gates. Even with thread scheduling, if you load the processor up with processes it will schedule all of them until it comes to a screeching halt trying to run each one.

[Amanda Norris]

I sometimes think of it like the branches of a tree or the tendrils of a plant. We, as humans are the tips of the tendrils. We can be far apart from each other and see each other as distinct and separate and individual. But actually we are all connected to the same plant. Does that make sense?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

I am in favor of this latter idea, even though the only way I can explain it is by saying the whole system is just...fluid. This is the defining human element, then?

So, that hinges upon another question: if the system is fluid, why can't a single identity be universal? I'm uneasy asking this, because I haven't thought about it very thoroughly myself at the moment... but I'll throw it out anyways.

Originally Posted by Iksander

You will notice, however, that the majority of people actually do end up thrashing - I see it all the time. Specifically when it is something outside of their comfort zone and a large amount of thoughts are present

I would surmise it happens because of the conflicting desire to explore newness and a need to stay within the bounds of familiarity. It sounds like those traits could conceivably be examples of mutual exclusivity, so you could end up thrashing over that.

Originally Posted by Iksander

The only flaw in my analogy is the fact that thrashing no longer really occurs because our hardware is so fast now. There are multiple technologies used to decrease processing time (hypther-threading, multiple cores) but the processor is still susceptible to thrashing because all of these technologies are built from the same elemental logic gates. Even with thread scheduling, if you load the processor up with processes it will schedule all of them until it comes to a screeching halt trying to run each one.

Well, you can think of the human being as scaled incredibly high. We have myriads of processes, and lots and lots of processing power, so to speak. But I'll stop here, since I've always been leery of computer-brain analogies.

Originally Posted by Amanda Norris

I sometimes think of it like the branches of a tree or the tendrils of a plant. We, as humans are the tips of the tendrils. We can be far apart from each other and see each other as distinct and separate and individual. But actually we are all connected to the same plant. Does that make sense?

So are we the leaves, or are we the tree?

[ethereal]

It all depends on what you want to call your "identity". According to most spiritual traditions, they refer to the Ultimate Reality, the source of your consciousness and awareness of your own existence, as the truest form of "I-ness"/Subjectivity capable in this domain, which is also appropriately called the Self.

How to tell what your true identity is? Give up everything and see what's left One can only surrender form as illusion, one cannot surrender Truth, which stands on its own when all obstructions are cleared.

But if you want to include the individual personality, body, mind, etc. as identity, then it would apparently seem like there are individuals out there. But the truth is, all supposed individuality is sourced by God-consciousness, i.e. multiplicity stems from unity. Once the ego is sufficiently cleared this becomes more and more apparent -- the body-mind does everything by itself, without a "me" to control things.

[Iksander]

@michael:

What if the 'universal' identity were a state of consciousness? A state such as wellness?

You are right, computer-brain analogies do not belong in this thread.

@ethereal:

Why would anything of the being need to be cleared? I think the Ego is greatly misunderstood by many people.

If form is an illusion - then what is its function? How do you know that illusion isn't an illusion in itself?

[Amanda Norris]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So are we the leaves, or are we the tree?

As individuals, we are the leaves. But the greater reality is that we are the tree. The leaves may wither and die at the end of the season, but the tree lives on. If we identify ourselves only as leaves then we just die and fall off the tree and decompose. But if we recognize that we are the tree, then even when all the leaves die we will still live on.

[Steven Moros]

That sums it up for me.

[Max Power]

I consider that consciousness doesn't require to render a dense physical environment everywhere. As Steve outlines, it's a container of sorts. It is the container and everything inside, but nothing outside.

To think it's everywhere implies it breaks or seperates into little pieces, individual and operating individually everywhere, that just doesn't work for me, maybe it is like that, but I don't see it.

Max

[Mark Lapierre]

Iskander: I don't think the computer-brain analogy should be discarded just yet. It may help illustrate the concept of universal identity through a comparison between a single computer, and the Internet. Is the Internet an individual? Is the computer an individual? I would say yes, depending on scale. And as computers communicate with each other in a way which creates the Internet, so do we create societies by communicating with each other.

ShiningLight's body/cell analogy is equally supportive of the argument for individuality. We, as cells, are individually identifiable, but we, as components of networks of people, are collectively identifiable as one unit, depending on how you define the network (friends, family, nation, society, etc).

But if the point was to consider how the cells would see the whole, they have a limited perspective and would need to expand that perspective in order to form any conclusions which reflect reality. I would hope that the cells would consider their limited understanding and factor it into their speculations before coming to any conclusions. They could do this by collecting information about the various types of cells throughout the body, defining the limits of the body, observing what lies beyond those limits, observing the various kinds of activity within and between the various bodily systems, determining ways of interpreting that activity and how it influences the entire body, and it's various parts.

The point of communication between cells, and of possible communication between entities at a larger scale, highlights the need for defining context when considering questions of identity. At a cellular level the body appears to be a vast collection of individuals (and in that context communication is in the form of electrical and chemical signals), yet at the level of everyday existence it appears to be a single unit (with communication in the form of words, gestures, etc.), and out at the level of galaxies it disappears (and who knows what communication goes on, if any. Is gravity a form of communication?).

We operate at the level of everyday existence, obviously. Within that context we are individuals. We may be part of something greater which itself is an individual, and that individual may be part of a collective of such individuals, and so on. And going in the other direction, aren't quarks individuals?

Ultimately I don't think these are questions we can answered definitively through logic alone (and certainly not through speculation). Secondly, due to the subjective nature of personal experience, it also can't answer the questions in a way which is relevant to anyone but the one who had the experience.

I think there are only two possible ways of answering these questions. 1) die and see what happens, or, as a less potentially terminal method, 2) study the nature of reality until we can deduce convincing theories which agree with everything we observe, which, if we obverse the existence of a universal identity, will include a theory of that universal identity.

And discussions such as these can provide the starting points for the 2nd method.

Some would suggest a third method, that of truth-realisation, as mentioned by ethereal. But you take that path, how do you know that the "Truth" which you can't surrender isn't just another obstacle? As Iskander asked, how do you know the process of surrendering isn't simply building up another layer of illusion?

So, do we observe the existence of a universal identity? What is required for it to be observed by everyone? What qualities does it have? What evidence is there that those qualities can be attributed to a universal identity, and not to individual human nature?

Iskander, you asked Michael, "What if the 'universal' identity were a state of consciousness?" I'll give my opinion because, well, I like sticking my nose in.

If that were the case, since states of consciousness are variable, it would mean that an individual human could drop in and out of the universal identity whenever his/her state of consciousness differed from the particular state associated with universal identity. I suppose this is why universal identity is considered consciousness itself by some, rather than a particular state of consciousness. But being able to drop in and out of the universal consciousness would explain why no-one is truly aware of the universal consciousness until they experience that state.

But in either case, how would you show that consciousness, or a particular state, is more than simply a function of our physical brain, resulting from a vast array of neurological activity?

It can, and has, been demonstrated that particular states of consciousness can be induced by manipulation of neurological activity, and that particular states of consciousness are correlated with particular forms of neurological and physiological activity. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that consciousness is directly related to neurological activity, though that doesn't address the possibility of brain as a receiver for consciousness. Is there evidence to support a link between consciousness and universal identity?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I'll give my opinion because, well, I like sticking my nose in.

For the record, you can stick your nose in any time you like.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the twin, mutually-exclusive-but-equally-true bit that Amanda offered.

[Iksander]

Very good post Mark.

There seem to be two perspectives from this recursive stance - one: "from infinity to zero." and "from zero to infinity." which you have aptly described as the view point of a body observing the cell and the cell observing the body (context sensitive in this analogy).

I haven't yet come to a conclusion on this, yet, it must be representative of something (possibly latent) if we have the ability to conceive of ourselves and our universe as possessing this behavior and link.

Is there evidence to support a link between consciousness and universal identity?

Isn't the mere fact that we can 'perceive' (which is a function of consciousness) evidence enough to support that there is a link between consciousness and universal identity? Even though perception is subjective, it still implies a connection - the fact that I can perceive a table means that there is a link between my consciousness and the table; simply because I am perceiving it. It does not mean there is a rope from my head tied to the table, but the concept and impression of the table is shaped entirely within my consciousness.

[ZHereford]

Perceiving something isn't proof that it exists. You could be drunk or hallucinating. It may exist in your reality but not necessarily anywhere else.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

A long time ago, it was suggested to me that, at the end of the universe, there are really only three possibilities: nothing, one thing, and many things.
So, what do you guys think? One or many? And why? Do you have any other frames or perspectives that might shed light on the subject?

Or one thing that has so many components that it appears as many things (universal consciousness?)

[Iksander]

The existence of a thing is not dependent upon the consensus perception of the thing.

The only things that do exist, and are provable of existence, are those things that are impressions upon your consciousness; whether it be an impression made by the senses or one of the consciousness itself.

Really, all things exist strictly within 'your' reality - that is the only one there is because you do not have other people perceiving the world for you. What of consensus reality? It exists, I perceive it everyday of my life interacting with other people, but I still cannot absolutely prove that what I see as green is what someone else sees as green, I can however explicitly prove to myself that what I am seeing is what I would call green because I am seeing it. If I were able to perceive the color green for the both of us together we could then say that it is explicitly proven to the both of us - but that would strip us of our individuality; which takes us right to the topic of this discussion.

The interesting thought, now that I think about it, is if identity were fluid (which implies it is capable of universal identity) consensus reality is then less about the agreements you are making with other people on things perceived, and more focused on the agreements you make within yourself on things perceived.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Iksander

the fact that I can perceive a table means that there is a link between my consciousness and the table

What table? Does it exist because you perceive it, or do you perceive it because it exists on some level?

How do you know it's a table? Because there is consensus and agreement by others or you wouldn't know it's a table.

[ethereal]

Hehe, something I found from Ramana Maharshi:

QUESTION 15

Disciple: The mind, sense-organs, etc., have the ability to perceive; yet why are they regarded as perceived objects?

Master:

Drik (knower) / Drisya (known object)

1. The seer / Pot (i e. the seen object)

Further

2. The eye organ / Body, pot, etc.

3. The sense of sight / The eye organ

4. The mind / The sense of sight

5. The individual soul / The mind

6. Consciousness (the Self) / The individual soul


As shown in the above scheme, since we, the consciousness, know all objects, we are said to be drik (knower). The categories ending with pot are the objects seen, since they are what are known. In the table of 'knowledge: ignorance (i.e. knower-known)' given above, among the knowers and objects of knowledge, it is seen that one is knower in relation to another; yet, since that one is object in relation to another, none of those categories is, in reality, the knower. Although we are said to be the 'knower' because we know all, and not the 'known' because we are not known by anything else, we are said to be the 'knower' only in relation to the known objects. In truth, however, what is called the 'known' is not apart from us. And so we are the Reality that transcends those two (the knower and the known). All the others fall within the knower-known categories.

[Iksander]

Ethereal I am having trouble understanding your post, could you elaborate on it?

@zhereford:
If it is making an impression upon the consciousness, it exists. Otherwise, not.

Do not forget that a conception is also an impression, if i conceive of something, it too exists - because I just perceived a conception. Interesting...what if through conception all things are made real? I wonder if the reality of a thing is the reality of its self conception? (universal identity?)

The consensus for the word 'table' is not required for the thing that possesses the attributes connected with the word 'table' to be known. I know the word 'table' because of consensus - but I know the thing because of the impression it left on my consciousness (I perceived it).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZHereford

Or one thing that has so many components that it appears as many things (universal consciousness?)

That is the question.

Is it one thing appearing as many things, or is it, in fact, many things?

Originally Posted by Iksander

what if through conception all things are made real?

I believe this is precisely ZHereford's point. This is intention-manifestation at its common pinnacle: that all of reality is a manifestation of a singular consciousness as universe. The implicit self-reflection, the paradox, of that is one of the more enjoyable bits.

If there is no external reality, then there is a very strong case for One and a very strong argument against Many.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Iksander

If it is making an impression upon the consciousness, it exists. Otherwise, not.

The consensus for the word 'table' is not required for the thing that possesses the attributes connected with the word 'table' to be known. I know the word 'table' because of consensus - but I know the thing because of the impression it left on my consciousness (I perceived it).

Aren't you making two contradictory statements - you know the word table because of consensus, yet it doesn't exist until it leaves an impression on your consciousness?

Everyone must perceive it in order to define it as a table (consensus), so therefore it must exist independent of your perceiving it.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Iksander

Isn't the mere fact that we can 'perceive' (which is a function of consciousness) evidence enough to support that there is a link between consciousness and universal identity? Even though perception is subjective, it still implies a connection - the fact that I can perceive a table means that there is a link between my consciousness and the table; simply because I am perceiving it. It does not mean there is a rope from my head tied to the table, but the concept and impression of the table is shaped entirely within my consciousness.

A link that we can conceive of is not necessarily a real link. I can conceive of a traversable wormhole linking my house to my office, but that doesn't mean it exists.

Originally Posted by Iksander

The interesting thought, now that I think about it, is if identity were fluid (which implies it is capable of universal identity) consensus reality is then less about the agreements you are making with other people on things perceived, and more focused on the agreements you make within yourself on things perceived.

I think I missed where you showed that a fluid identity implies the capability of universal identity. Perhaps I'm also misunderstanding. By fluid, do you mean "changing"? And by "universal identity" do you mean a sole identity which applies to everything within the universe?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I believe this is precisely ZHereford's point. This is intention-manifestation at its common pinnacle: that all of reality is a manifestation of a singular consciousness as universe. The implicit self-reflection, the paradox, of that is one of the more enjoyable bits.

If there is no external reality, then there is a very strong case for One and a very strong argument against Many.

That's what it reduces to. Iskander's certainty that there is something to our ability to conceptualise connections and communication between micro and macro. His and ZHereford's ponderings on what constitutes existence.

It conflates (I learnt a new word recently, Michael ) concepts with existential reality, without a convincing argument for that merging. Iskander, I agree with your previous statement, that the "existence of a thing is not dependent upon the consensus perception of the thing." If conception made things real we would be up to our necks in unicorns and ponies. And every young boy would be a superhero.

So I think the only thing that is dependent on consensus is common understanding of a thing, as shown by Iskander's example of agreement regarding the colour green. But still, "green" does not exist in reality but only in the perceptions of those who look at it.

I suppose the natural question to ask, and where the discussion seems to have headed, is that if "green" possesses only a conceptual existence, does the object itself also only possess a conceptual existence?

I'll give a couple of examples which I hope show that reality is not dependent on perception, that perception is individualised, and that conceptual reality is none-the-less equivalent to objective reality for the individual, but that equivalence doesn't imply a causative relationship of conceptualisation towards reality.

Consider an object which most people see as red and green. If a group of red/green colourblind people saw that object, they would probably all agree that it's one colour. The object's colour doesn't change, as spectral analysis could confirm, as could a viewing of the object by someone who isn't colourblind.

Next, consider an object of one colour which has a name that not everyone would be familiar with. Walk 100 people past it and they'd probably give it a few different names. Chartreuse, chartreuse green, bright green, fluorescent green, yellow-green. All to describe the one colour. The different labels reflect a few aspects of perception; that it's influenced by familiarity (if you need to name the colour less frequently you'll probably name it using a combination of more familiar names), by association with other concepts (you might recall the French liqueur it was named after), and by knowledge (you were taught that that particular colour had that particular name).

This is why I'm unconvinced by intention-manifestation, because perceptions are malleable to an amazing degree, even within the bounds of natural human existence. It seems clear that we don't (and perhaps can't) really know the true nature of reality, but I'm yet to see a convincing argument for the lack of an external reality (which One vs. Many hinges on).