Are we really all the same person? We are one?

[Markomarkh]

Dunno if I've mentioned this before, but I believe we could be all the same person arguing online with our selves? So when you hurt someone, you are hurting yourself? I mean you could just be me in a different reincarnated timeline or parallel universe? Are there any religions believe this?

There are philosophical theories like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism

And this forum that believe it:-

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/i...e-person-reincarnated-through-time.453615919/

What do you believe?

Cheers

Mark h

 

[Dreynar]

Everything is one in a sense of energy. But we are not the same "person" bacause One Life/Energy is something diefferent than personallity that will die with our bodies or sooner.

 

[Xorkoth]

I also believe that we are all one at the core, that the universe is a consciousness that experiences itself subjectively through the life forms in it simultaneously. So at the core we are all the same observer. But our physical bodies use a brain to filter that consciousness through, which makes each incarnation unique with the illusion of separation. Functionally, we are all different people. We each experience a different life, and those experiences are stored as memory, and those memories shape how we develop our personalities. Physical differences in the brain also shape our personalities. As humans, we have the intelligence and capability for self-reflection to largely learn to rise above these things, if we try.

So yes, when we hurt someone else we are hurting ourselves in a fundamental sense. But it's not something people necessarily feel at the time.

 

[Foreigner]

For reasons I can only speculate on, the Divine (or Brahman, or God, whatever you want to call it) decided to come through as me. And as you, and as each individual person. I am a unique chord of the Divine that plays at a very specific tune. I can't be your tune and you can't be mine. If I don't play according to my tune, then I don't thrive. If I try to be someone else's tune, I don't thrive. We're each here to be what we're each here to be.

Dualistically, we are also "Oneness". Yes it's true, at the end of the day we are all one consciousness... but you can't give up your individual chord upon realizing that. I am part of Oneness but I am also this individual with all of his characteristics, and I want to be who I was made to be, in all my glory and misery. I own this existence. This deep-down drive is in all of us, even if we are pretending it's not there. Your unique chord tries to shine through, but it becomes kind of distorted. It's never truly lost it just becomes heard less often, less clearly. Yes... it's a clarity problem.

People who go too much into the Oneness, into the Absolute, without owning their human level experience first, are usually spiritually bypassing some earthly-level problems. They are dissociated, probably from an early age. A major symptom is that they are disembodied from the neck-down. If you go too much into the Absolute realm you will suffer health problems, mental and physical. I've seen it. I've done it.

The human level self wants to be what it wants to be. Beyond preferences, beyond personality level crap, there is a core Real Self that wants to be you and not "Oneness", even though that you arise from oneness. It's possible to be a differentiated you within the oneness, simultaneously. For that the human level self must be resolved and actualized. Then you can hold the duality within you simultaneously. There is no greater bliss than that, no greater belonging.

 

[tokezu]

^Great post, that's also my understanding more or less. Oneness and separateness are both valid descriptions it just depends on your point of view, the trap of dualistic thinking is to assume it has to be either one or the other.

 

[-=SS=-]

 

[belligerent drunk]

Boring point of view, but regardless: I believe each human being as well as any other animal with enough high brain function is to be considered a unique creature that has a consciousness. It's a result of genetic, epigenetic, and more importantly, environmental factors, which make each creature unique so that no two are exactly the same. So in that sense, no, we aren't one. But if we go deeper, then we're all composed of the same matter (same particles, same atoms, same base molecules and basic biochemical mechanisms), with the collective electrochemical processes in the brain being what creates this virtual entity we call consciousness. So in that sense, we're all just particles interacting in such a way to produce something that may or may not even really exist - which makes us "one" in a way.

The concept of "collective consciousness" or us being a part of a "conscious universe" are foreign to me, because I don't see how that can be reconciled with the mechanism by which we exist.

 

[-=SS=-]

The concept of "collective consciousness" or us being a part of a "conscious universe" are foreign to me, because I don't see how that can be reconciled with the mechanism by which we exist.

We'll be waiting a long time for science to begin proving the link properly in terms of physics and biology. Given how insular our current paradigm is, how it moves at a snails pace and always looks to solidify its current position rather than remain too open, it's going to take something crazy from an individual or two to push the frontier.. if that's even possible today given how bureaucratic things are! I think we'll be waiting for lightning to strike, either with some paradigm shattering discovery or an external event.

Whilst you can't reconcile things on your own to a degree of sophistication sufficient to alter the collective paradigm, you can reconcile it for you as an individual because you are not bound by bureaucracy or having to prove anything to anyone else! What it comes down to is weighing up all the pieces of the puzzle and reaching your own conclusions without constraining yourself too much with the scientific paradigm itself, or a religious or cultural paradigm. And there is one avenue of investigation that science has little to offer on, and that is your internal environment.. that is the domain of psychology and philosophy. If you constrain your desire for truth to the external world only, you're ignoring half the puzzle.. and if you have a real desire to know then you're not being honest in your investigations if you haven't sufficiently questioned the internal domain.

Science has already shown us that biologically we don't 'see' or perceive anything directly, it's all signals converted by our senses into electrical impulses that are then reconstructed by the brain into a reality. Most people are content to leave the explanation at that point, which is ridiculous because it immediately posses some serious questions that need personal investigation! The image below captures the process and question graphically. Where is this reality that we witness taking place? And on what canvas? And just who or what is witnessing it (never mind how)? There are years of contemplation to be had on these very simple questions. Another similar and equally pertinent question is, when we imagine and see an object in our imagination, where is that object and on what?

The canvas, the light, and the witnessing are undifferentiated ontological things common to all of us. That's where the collective element and oneness idea really comes from.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Our internal environment is a major part of what science explores, and that includes psychology and related fields. Proper psychology is a science, because it adheres to the scientific method, regardless of whether it at this point can explain everything within it on a molecular level.

Science has already shown us that biologically we don't 'see' or perceive anything directly, it's all signals converted by our senses into electrical impulses that are then reconstructed by the brain into a reality. Most people are content to leave the explanation at that point, ...

Yes, because it's a pretty good explanation considering how the rest of the world behaves (I mean behaviour of particles, e.g physics). If you for a moment step out of your "humanly" shell and see yourself as just another organism (which you are), then the explanation fits the data and explains things even without venturing too deep into the complete biochemistry of the brain, which remains largely unmapped for now. But the general way by which humans and other similar mammals operate is straightforward: stimulus (whether light photon(s), sound waves, mechanical disturbance of skin, volatile molecules binding to "smell receptors" etc), this transforms into an electrochemical signal, which is processed in the brain and alters the way the organism behaves (even if just altering memory or similar).

If your consciousness is not a result of this neuronal network, then how, for example, do psychoactive substances affect it so much? Drugs can shift consciousness to extremes by just altering this very electrochemical cascade.

Where is this reality that we witness taking place?

In a spacetime we call "our universe". Beyond that, we have no concrete data (please don't go into whether we can even trust our senses!). Speculation is good, but that's all it is.

And on what canvas? And just who or what is witnessing it (never mind how)? There are years of contemplation to be had on these very simple questions.

What/who: a set of molecules and ions interacting with its surrounding made of the same particles through fundamental interactions.
How: see explanation above or even your own post, you already know the how.

Another similar and equally pertinent question is, when we imagine and see an object in our imagination, where is that object and on what?

That object is a set of matter in the same "universe" or spacetime as the object "witnessing" it. The process is no different from a digital camera "witnessing" some object and transforming signals into a "virtual picture" of the object.

Trust me, I've wondered those same questions beyond what science can explain for years, but having no data to corroborate my musings, I just can't bring myself to accept any of it, and have since stopped because it's boring. Living in the real world seems more fun, but as always YMMV.

I warned that my view is boring, but the OP asked for views, so meh.

 

[-=SS=-]

Our internal environment is a major part of what science explores, and that includes psychology and related fields. Proper psychology is a science, because it adheres to the scientific method, regardless of whether it at this point can explain everything within it on a molecular level.

Hmm I don't agree with either of the two points, I think psychology has a lot to answer for really as it seems to function more as a utilitarian aid than really doing proper investigation, ie getting people back to work to pay taxes and doing so using any method at its disposal without really understanding why it works or the possible consequences.

If your consciousness is not a result of this neuronal network, then how, for example, do psychoactive substances affect it so much? Drugs can shift consciousness to extremes by just altering this very electrochemical cascade.

Difficult to answer without defining what we mean by consciousness as your definition is likely to differ from mine, which is part of the whole problem really.. it's not adequately defined, as a lot of things connected to psychology are.

What/who: a set of molecules and ions interacting with its surrounding made of the same particles through fundamental interactions.
How: see explanation above or even your own post, you already know the how.

Think you may be too eager to reduce the process down. If our brains are reconstituting the external reality from electrical impulses then that means what we see is a projection, an internal projection, we don't actually see the external world directly at all. That being so, if there is a projection which there clearly is because we're seeing something.. then the question still hasn't actually been answered, what is witnessing and where is this witnessing taking place. We're clearly not the projection itself, we're apart from it.. hence we're observing it. Saying it's just atoms in our brain is not really answering the question satisfactorily.

That object is a set of matter in the same "universe" or spacetime as the object "witnessing" it. The process is no different from a digital camera "witnessing" some object and transforming signals into a "virtual picture" of the object.

Except cameras don't witness anything. They take into signals, convert it, and project it out on film or whatever.. there is no witnessing occurring there at all.

Living in the real world seems more fun, but as always YMMV.

I warned that my view is boring, but the OP asked for views, so meh.

Each to his own

 

[Xorkoth]

Except cameras don't witness anything. They take into signals, convert it, and project it out on film or whatever.. there is no witnessing occurring there at all.

Yeah this is the essence of some points I tried to make in another thread, I think the one about artificial intelligence. What is it that makes it so that we are not just complex automatons responding to stimuli, but are present, it's like something to be us, we observe and are able to question. Is it "like" something to be a camera? Is the camera aware? If not, is the fact that we are aware ONLY due to an advancement in hardware? If so, why are we able to say "I am" instead of just outwardly acting exactly the same as we do, responding in complex ways to stimuli, but without an internal experience of self? If not, then what is the difference?

 

[-=SS=-]

Yeah this is the essence of some points I tried to make in another thread, I think the one about artificial intelligence. What is it that makes it so that we are not just complex automatons responding to stimuli, but are present, it's like something to be us, we observe and are able to question. Is it "like" something to be a camera? Is the camera aware? If not, is the fact that we are aware ONLY due to an advancement in hardware? If so, why are we able to say "I am" instead of just outwardly acting exactly the same as we do, responding in complex ways to stimuli, but without an internal experience of self? If not, then what is the difference?

I love it, this mystery. It's the crux and nexus of our entire existence yet relatively undisturbed by questioning from modern minds, I think perhaps it is largely because deep down we all have a good inkling as to what lies at the centre of this mystery, and the answer terrifies us.

The relation to the AI thread is very valid and there's a definite cross over between what we're talking about in this thread. Basically for me I think it comes down to this ability of reflection that we have, internal reflection. But couldn't you just program AI to compare chunks of itself in a very lateral or un-logical way in order to generate new insight or data? In my opinion, no. Never. There is some ontological mechanism that connects us and our experience to the fabric of existence itself, it's hardwired into us but I don't believe it is the material hardware itself (the brain or body). My reasoning for that is that we are not the body or the mind. If you can witness those things then you are not it; something that is witnessed has become the subject of observation and 'you', whatever that is, is the observer/witness in that process.

To me it seems that our magnified sense of presence that a lot of other life appears to not have has been facilitated by our increased neurological hardware, but not created by it. Polar and comparative thinking coming from our higher cognitive brain has allowed us to set up internal abstractions and questions, or mirrors, as opposed to just following the strict linear impulsive functioning of our lower brains. The light that fills that gap between the polar points of comparison, or the mirrors in our mind, and then the witness to this internal show are somehow related I feel. That last point also relates to the whole brain-reconstituting-reality paradox, how there is no light in the brain where this reality is supposedly reconstructed, yet somehow we appear to witness a 3-dimensional panorama that simultaneously has this property of an almost living energy or intensity. Looking at a camera film or television screen we can see colour, brightness, contrast and difference between objects.. but it's missing that living intensity, it has no relation to this mysterious ontological mechanism.

 

[Foreigner]

I can't reconcile this. The only time I came close to answers was in near death experiences, and maybe I was just tripping out on my own DMT or something.

I had a terrifying experience in September. I had been bleeding a lot for several weeks and my body was severely dehydrated. It was hot as hell outside and the heat of late summer was hitting the heat of my severe inflammation. I took morphine to deal with the pain, and then I fell asleep in the dead heat. I suddenly woke up and had to rush to the bathroom, my body on auto-pilot... but something was wrong. Either the morphine, the heat delirium, or something else had numbed my body awareness. As I ran to the bathroom I was only aware of my left leg. It never occurred to me that the rest of my body existed. I was just a leg running to the bathroom, nothing else. I sat on the toilet, still "just this leg". As the odd numbness in my consciousness began to subside a bit and I woke up more and more, I realized something was very wrong but couldn't figure out what.

Returning to bed, my family member came into the room to check on me. By now I was a whole body again, but my memory was gone. "What country are we in? Where are we? Who am I? I don't remember any of this." For a second I thought maybe we were in Russia instead of Canada. My mom was freaking out.

She gave me a bunch of water and in short order my memory came back. I later found out that I had something called a TIA (transient ischemic attack) due to a blood clot. The effect was not permanent, but it was like having a stroke.

I've had experiences like this, and worse than this, a few times in my life. What's apparent is that there is present awareness no matter what's happening. I was aware, even as "just a leg", even if for those moments my entire consciousness was confined to "just leg" and nothing else. I imagine that this must be what animals or insects feel like. They are what they are, in whatever capacity. I feel that anything and everything beyond this core present awareness, is just brain activity. The brain provides texture and context in situ. The present awareness does nothing more than witness. My suspicion is that even self-reflection is just brain. The reason is that "as leg", I was not reflecting on anything, I was just a piece of flesh in motion, aware that it was touching the ground and moving somewhere, but zero reflection -- not even to realize that maybe the rest of the body was missing somehow.

The near death experiences I've had have added other levels to this, so my leg experience doesn't totally define it. I still don't know. It's a big mystery.

 

[Xorkoth]

That's really fascinating Foreigner, thanks for sharing. That's basically exactly how I think of it, the brain is what gives us, or anything alive, any sort of experience beyond a simple "I am" sort of witnessing presence. Our personality and memories are stored in our brains, developed over time due to experiences, and that's what makes us unique from each other. But the "I am" exists outside of that, and at the bottom of it.

 

[Foreigner]

To put it another way, I think the brain provides the pure awareness with a coordinate for something... like self, or memory, or body, or time and space. The brain is a hugely complex network that can act as a self-referent within itself, and this is really the antidote to the dilemma that SS is talking about. Yes, we take in raw data from the external and then make a facsimile inside of ourselves, so we are not objectively seeing the outside world. Yes, ok, I agree with that.

But the missing piece I think... is that present awareness is not reflecting on anything. It is just witnessing. The ability to self-reflect is, in of itself, a coordinate. So when we self-reflect on a facsimile of the external world, it's a facsimile reflecting on a facsimile. Like... someone who has a stroke or brain damage may lose the ability to self-reflect, but it doesn't mean they aren't aware of what's going on. You can even forego this self-reflection in meditation, through emptying yourself of self. In that state, the coordinate for self-reflection is not active, it's not involved because the basement-level awareness is not engaged with it. Is this making sense?

As brain function decreases, you no longer self-reflect. You're aware, but it's context-less. I have experienced this in near death. You eventually get so weak that there's zero engagement with what you're seeing. Pure awareness is experiencing it, but there is no overlay of anything. It's hard to describe this to people who haven't experienced it because they are used to having a high functioning brain that hasn't yet had the opportunity to demonstrate its temporariness. Not that the brain is everything. In fact I would say that in those diminished states, my heart centre was experiencing way more awareness than my brain-mind was. My brain just didn't have the energy available.

And also... I am only describing things from within the perspective of being alive. I had near death experiences, but I never died. I just experienced very low function to the point of almost dying, but then I lived. Maybe when we die, the basement level present-awareness gives way to a whole other reality of expanded awareness beyond the brain. I believe this is the case. I'm just saying that, the way that this body, while it's alive, interfaces with pure awareness, is very particular to its physiological functions, and I feel that even our mode of self-reflection is a product of body.

 

[Foreigner]

And that's not to say that pure awareness is dull or one dimensional. It has its own richness and depth... but it's not the same as a self-reflective vehicle.

This is really hard to explain.

Let me give another example. Two years ago I had a very serious infection that left me hospitalized. But I HATE going to hospitals, like REALLY hate, so much that I literally left it to the last second when my heart rate was 190 and I was basically half-dead. (Yes, I'm kind of crazy, but ignoring that for a moment.) I fell asleep and drifted into my usual dream state. When I have fevers my dreams are always complex, full bodied, but chaotic. As I got weaker and weaker, my body began to shut down, and the quality of the dreams changed.

The dreams, which are usually vivid, started to pixelate and lose their colour saturation. Then it would bounce back. It was like the mind's ability to project a dream was losing coherency but struggling to maintain it. They would go from colourful, to grey and foggy, to blackness/emptiness. I was watching my own mind begin to die. I would wake up gasping because my heart was failing, then I would fall back to sleep.

When we dream, there is an experiencer. The reactive aspect of consciousness, the one that generates emotions, thoughts and reflections on what is happening, that's all part of the physiological mind. My experience of the early stages of mind death were that all that extraneous stuff is absent. The experiencer... that's something else. Because even as my mind was losing the ability to generate a stable dream image, and even as I no longer had any energy to emotionally react or care, there was an experiencer, a present awareness watching it happen.

I later woke up in an ambulance thanks to a friend finding me, but that experience still sits with me.

What concerns me is that maybe, perhaps... even that present awareness is a very, very basement level, core function of the physiology, and it too can be snuffed out if function gets low enough. Look, I'm not trying to create false hope here... I don't actually know if present awareness is body-mind or transpersonal or spiritual or what. It's still a mystery. I just have suspicions and intuitions.

The other thing I've deeply considered and is sort of my alternative theory to all this, is that the body is the outpouring of the spirit (that awareness), and that its functions are analogous to a more expanded awareness that is interfaced with the body. In other words, spirit comes first, then the material. The functions of the brain and its boundary-pushing natures could be a product of being of infused by a spirit that has a more expanded state than the body. In other words the spirit has a mind, and the body has a mind, and they meet in the best way they can. Like, we know all about cellular functions, but we don't really understand what is organizing life. We can't create life in vacuo by just tossing all the appropriate elements together.

Life and death may look like this (incoming shitty diagram):

complex life functions/awarenesses/self-reflection/body stuff <---> diminished physiological function/temporary state of confusion/what the fuck am I <---> pure awareness [physiological] <---> death/emptiness-void <---> pure awareness [spirit] <---> diminished spiritual function/temporary state of confusion/what the fuck am I <---> complex life functions/awarenesses/self-reflection/spirit stuff

Reverse the order to make it about birth. Really birth and death are the same thing. Maybe. Or maybe I'm full of shit.

 

[Kittycat5]

Why doesnt a decrease in brain function, surely a pathophysiological state, lead you to the conclusion awareness is simply physiologic in nature?

 

[vortech]

We are all segments of the same thing. A lower-dimensional reflection of a higher-dimensional unity.

 

[Kittycat5]

I see you are still thinking holographically. It really doesnt matter as most physicists agree, similar to simulation theories, we wouldnt know the difference and nothing would change if we were holograms. I believe when the brain and body dies, one unit among many checks out not a small part of a whole.

 

[Foreigner]

Why doesnt a decrease in brain function, surely a pathophysiological state, lead you to the conclusion awareness is simply physiologic in nature?

I've had enough out of body experiences to know that consciousness can be separate from the body, but to answer your question... I can't rule it out because it's possible that even OBEs are a function of the brain. I doubt it though.