Esoteric The Main Synchronicity Thread

[IGNVS]

What's pimp about our consciousness though is that we can create these independent thought forms that act kinda like a little *god-reality organizing principle* so we don't have to consciously create all aspects of experience all the time(the kids these days call not thinking about all aspects of your exp a neural adaptation). &Conscious systems are able to manipulate the ^symbolic order/level of mental representation-cognition^ in order to re/de-construct reality to tailor a particular version of reality which can then be transmitted via word-order.


+Additionally, awareness seems separate from space-time. This is what I mean when I'm talking about how there are many levels to which a Conscious System is embedded in. I'd say there's life after death, but not in the way of a consciousness retaining its sense of ego, but the structures a CS imparts on its environment continues on and changes the functioning of the rest of the reality_assemblage. IMO, it's absolutely crazy to say that the universe is disordered and that will only result in more entropy. Look at the process of crystallization, that's a non-organic instance of material organizing itself into a more sophisticated form.


:-D so much l-ov-e

look at the first paragraph. that would mean that our consciousness, our awareness, can be generated by our own mind. however when we do this, we need to remember we have freewill, so when we choose what thoughts to fill it in with, when we choose our reality there, other things are hapening. other factors come in to play. our intensions, any contradictions our actions make those new thoughts, those concepts and ideas that at the time may only exist in our mind (but can be brought into this world by your life).

we are not gods. we are humans, with a perception of time, and with that a time that we all die. our bodies are not constants in this everchanging universe. we are not love.

 

[nbsp]

Death is a complete cessation of everything. Enter the Void. It is scary.

One comes away (at least I do) with a life-affirming message: I must use my time on this Earth wisely. It is such a blessing.

try to have some optimism sir. There is nothing scary about a lack of awareness. Fear requires awareness.

 

[swilow]

Oh, I very much agree with this statement. I think it is correct. It does not conflict at all with the position that consciousness is a biological process (awareness is an integral part of consciousness and awareness is itself a biological process).

See I guess thats wehere we diverge; I'm not sure you can say awareness is a biological process, or at least I know of no evidence proving that. To be aware- by that I refer to ones knowledge that they are themselves, that they are individual. Anyway, what I was saying is that awareness is the higher process which obseveres the sensory data etc. You've lumped awareness and conciousness together, where their actually different. It can be argued that conciousness exists in differing degrees in everything material, but awareness is limited to homo sapiens who have the right display (brain) to project the awareness of the conciousness field- and once that awareness, the self-conciousness is awoken, thats when all the philosophical and moral dilemmas of humans are spawned. Ideas of inanimate objects being concious is a definite byproduct of smoking salvinorum A by the way.

Yes. That is correct. This brings this topic back full circle. This is where the a-synchronous nature of reality really strikes one in deep psychedelic states (while writhing in the mud on mushrooms). Death is a complete cessation of everything. Enter the Void. It is scary.

I think you may put too much emphasis on humble humans here. It feels like your not considering the moment, that must have happened, when humans became aware. We are spiritual beings in physical bodies, don't get too hung up on the physicality. Dying means cessation of a bodies ability to be aware of conciousness (??) but nowhere can I find proof that it means the end of conciousness and matter; in fact, after encountering the pantheon of alien gods that make their prescence felt in my head, I tend to think we are just one of trillions of aware and self concious 'life-forms' that inhabit whatever this multiverse thing is...

One comes away (at least I do) with a life-affirming message: I must use my time on this Earth wisely. It is such a blessing.

Its not much of a blessing when the alternative, for you, would be nothing wherein nothing-literally-occurrs. If I wasn't self aware and concious, I don't think I'd care if I died, because their would be no I and no care to be offered. Unless there is such a thing as "phantom-conciousness"...

If mankind are gods (and I believe that we possess divinity- that is our awareness) then what does that mean for us? Why don't we understand how to live and exist peacefully? Why did we forget we are gods? If the mysteries of the univers are buried in our brains, and we are gods, why are these memories so hard to rememeber? Our earthly conduct certainly makes me decisively reject that we are gods- more likely we are sleeping angels, or little mean gnomes to the true masters of creation. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much- same as everything. Even the drugs- taken with a grain of salt. Your never going to prove anything.

 

[itsALLfake]

When I find "synchronicity" in things or have the recollection of what I'm doing has already happened, it makes me think that I'm obviously stuck in a constant way of living, and I'm missing out on so much more that is out there.

The difference is that a robot is build finished, it can be loaded with whatever full information is deemed necesary by it's creators for its optimal functioning where it is going to operate. A human grows from a single cell which cannot contain the nearly infinite information that would allow him to operate optimally in whatever circumstances it could encounter.

Our dna contains everything. It just takes building up to that point to extract whatever data from it.
Just think about how many times you get that first thought about a question. You didn't actually have a thought out process of getting there, it just screams itself out across the plane of your mindset. After that, you evaluate the circumstance and develop a process towards an answer.
How often is that first statement found to be correct?

 

[cognosis]

It can be argued that conciousness exists in differing degrees in everything material, but awareness is limited to homo sapiens who have the right display (brain) to project the awareness of the conciousness field- and once that awareness, the self-conciousness is awoken, thats when all the philosophical and moral dilemmas of humans are spawned.

From an anthro persepctive, I have to disagree. Studies done with higher primates have shown they are also self aware and have a concept of self. If you put a gorrilla in front of a mirror it has the ability to recognize that it's looking at itself. Neanderthals also had a form of symbolic communication and ritualistically buried their dead. The difference between other primates and homo sapiens is of degree, not of kind. Humans aren't the only ones aware and this has been the problem of western culture believing that man has "dominion over the earth" and his/her role is to keep nature in balance. H sapien are a relatively recent lifeform and it's only been with the development of civilization that the biosphere and ecosystem has become endangered.All of a sudden, with the genus Homo, our brains are way more advanced than what is really needed for survival, but Neanderthals had even bigger brains too and the only reason they're gone and we're still here is we're more ruthless and out_competed them for resources.

lthat would mean that our consciousness, our awareness, can be generated by our own mind. however when we do this, we need to remember we have freewill, so when we choose what thoughts to fill it in with, when we choose our reality there, other things are hapening. other factors come in to play. our intensions, any contradictions our actions make those new thoughts, those concepts and ideas that at the time may only exist in our mind (but can be brought into this world by your life).

Nonono! Not at all what I'm saying. What I'm talking about by a neural adaptation is where one becomes accustomed to the environment they're in to the extent that they stop being consciously aware of every little detail. The first time I broke through with 5-meo-DMT, after about 10 minutes of laying on my couch having full body orgasms, I took a shower and was watching every little droplet of water running down the wall. I mean every single drop, which is something I don't ever pay attention to when I'm sober or even when I'm on other hallucinogens. That's what's amazing about most psychedelic expriences, they take one out of their everyday perceptual complacency to a point where they're notice how the leaves on the trees and the cracks in the sidewalk look.

+When discussing mind I'm talking about the level of cognition---the domain in which the symbols operate, a place from which I think awareness/consciousness is separate from.

\\Ever have a dream where you realize you're dreaming but you're not participating in the dream, you just watch it unfold, or when you're watching yourself think through a situation about how you're going to deal with a problem at work or where_ever?

The level of mental activity is just as real a dimension of reality as depth is. Although, this place|space,this cultural dimension if you will, is generated by the brain and nervous system
. Mind as a biproduct of the base materials that comprise the brain/nervous system. Mind has a higher structural integrity than that of the materials that make it up. Different psychoactive chemicals(LSD anyone?) can elicit different states of mind and fundamentally change the patterns of thought. The effect of these changes on thought can be seen manifesting in the art, communication, and modes of subsistence in the the population that ingests these drugs/psychedelics/entheogens(re: the '60s).

Consciousness/Awareness is distinct from the cognitive/social mode of operation and interaction.

#There's a difference between who and what you are#

When talking about a me-self, psyche, or ego, that's when one is talking about an amalgamation of mind, where it's easy to talk about a person being a confluence of forces consisting of ideas, metaprograms, words-language, and rules for bio_social conduct.

When talking about an observer/subject you're talking about the site-thing that is making sense of all the data coming in through the senses. That ellusive part that is capable of accepting or rejecting a particular idea on an arbitrary basis. Ability to choose is the fundamental characteristic of a conscious thing --which is a problem I have with AI and computers being conscious debate, because AI is based on reiterated recursive logic and can't make decisions as to whether it wants icecream of a salad for dinner.

If mankind are gods (and I believe that we possess divinity- that is our awareness) then what does that mean for us? Why don't we understand how to live and exist peacefully? Why did we forget we are gods? If the mysteries of the univers are buried in our brains, and we are gods, why are these memories so hard to rememeber?

"God/god" is a really mystified concept, reality organizing principle is a much more intuitive term because it implies the principle has some some of structuring effect on its environment(ie. it has power). It's known that perception, and the physical make-up of the sensory apparatus, interlocks with the environment in a particular way and changes its functioning. So as a reality organizing principle(or god), we get to make the rules, we get to design the world. There are also impersonal powers which structure reality, like gravity.

With all Abrahamic religions too, there's the doctrine of egodeath|castration before the absolute. The individual is unimportant and should give up his life and ego in serving the ultimate.

As a global community, humans do not know how to interact peacefully with each other, partially due to so many convoluted ideologies out there trying to rob us of our divine birthright. We're generally forced to interact a social-egoic context that we don't get to explore the other parts of our experience.


+++
The whole "evolutionary ingression into novelty" or "advent of technology", is a means for consciousness to engineer better interfaces for it to interact with the 3D physical universe.

Things are not a-synchronous, in either a physical or psychophysical context. The system is just so complex that any immanent sequence can not be lcomprehended on basis of the fact that to know would entail an intimate knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe and all the factors involved that set it up.

 

[fastandbulbous]

When you produce something with all the complex observational/monitoring skills that the higher primates have, it's inevitable that that monitoring/enquiring skill will be eventually turned on itself - and from that moment we have the beginnings of conciousness.

Just seems obvious to me (then maybe I'm deluded )

 

[swilow]

From an anthro persepctive, I have to disagree. Studies done with higher primates have shown they are also self aware and have a concept of self. If you put a gorrilla in front of a mirror it has the ability to recognize that it's looking at itself. Neanderthals also had a form of symbolic communication and ritualistically buried their dead. The difference between other primates and homo sapiens is of degree, not of kind. Humans aren't the only ones aware and this has been the problem of western culture believing that man has "dominion over the earth" and his/her role is to keep nature in balance. H sapien are a relatively recent lifeform and it's only been with the development of civilization that the biosphere and ecosystem has become endangered.All of a sudden, with the genus Homo, our brains are way more advanced than what is really needed for survival, but Neanderthals had even bigger brains too and the only reason they're gone and we're still here is we're more ruthless and out_competed them for resources.

The human drives of creativity, religion, culture, art- the defining characteristics that sets us apart from the higher primates (and dolphins too- they recognize themselves in a mirror)- really only emerged about 60,000 years ago (first examples of adorned jewelerry, basic rock paintings, scultping). Anatomically modern humans with, presumably, selfconciousnesness existed as of perhaps more then 100,000 years ago or more, according to the fossil record. So there was this long period where humanbeings appeared to be very similar to other unsymbolic, language-lacking beings, even their brothers the neanderthals and their cousins the apes.... whatever the spark that lit up the human mind, and allowed us to reach within and CREATE is, it appears to be a very recent intrusion on history. This is to say that a modern brain (physically) doesn't automatically output AWARENESS AND CREATIVITY, and that a scientifically proven selfaware brain doens't automatically denote conciousness. I believe that all animals are aware, but I don't believe most animals can use empathy- they cannot feel others pain, but they can feel pain and know it is their own.

 

[cognosis]

The human drives of creativity, religion, culture, art- the defining characteristics that sets us apart from the higher primates (and dolphins too- they recognize themselves in a mirror)- really only emerged about 60,000 years ago (first examples of adorned jewelerry, basic rock paintings, scultping). Anatomically modern humans with, presumably, selfconciousnesness existed as of perhaps more then 100,000 years ago or more, according to the fossil record. So there was this long period where humanbeings appeared to be very similar to other unsymbolic, language-lacking beings, even their brothers the neanderthals and their cousins the apes.... whatever the spark that lit up the human mind, and allowed us to reach within and CREATE is, it appears to be a very recent intrusion on history. This is to say that a modern brain (physically) doesn't automatically output AWARENESS AND CREATIVITY, and that a scientifically proven selfaware brain doens't automatically denote conciousness. I believe that all animals are aware, but I don't believe most animals can use empathy- they cannot feel others pain, but they can feel pain and know it is their own.

Okay, the whole deal with human culture is interesting because it doesn't seem to exist independent from language. Also, look at the studies done with Koko, it seems that higher primates do have the ability to use a form of symbolic expression, but it is not something they discover on their own and have to be introduced to it.

This raises the almighty question though: HOW WERE HUMANS INTRODUCED TO LANGUAGE? Whatever incited language in this species has to go back right alongside the emergence of H sapiens. I mean, even as a child you need to be exposed to it as a integral part of development.

"In 1211, Frederick II, Emperor of Germany, in an attempt
to discover the natural “language of God,” raised dozens
of children in silence. God’s preferred language never
emerged; the children never spoke any language and all
ultimately died in childhood " ---here's that article

The whole idea of Neanderthals ritualistically burying their dead I think goes to say something about their religious and spritual practices. Neanderthals also made tools and jewelry, although not as advanced as the sapien sapiens with their little holes. A lot of aspects of the human experience are shared with other animals. And in regards to empathy, I feel you're misled again.I think most mammals are capable of feeling empathy unless they have an inborn violent disposition. In thisan article about monkey morality: "Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days." --Our species isn't as special as we'd like to think; it's pretty arrogant (speciest) to think otherwise. The qualities/drives of being human you listed aren't just unique to us, the difference between us and other primates REALLY is of degree not kind.

Although, I do agree that, definitely, something beyond ourselves catapulted us into a whole new level of signification and creativity that is and was unprecedented. IS Mckenna right? Do you think it'd be possible to try and write a research proposal to legitimize the study of what would happen if you fed gorillas some shrooms?

 

[swilow]

^^^As you say however, symbolism has to be introduced to animals, via humans- you could infer that its a human trait. I understand quite well that animals aren't mindless automatons- I also intuitively understand that they are not like humans, in the same way I'm sure a canine is aware that he/she is not a human.

As to what gave birth to humanities symbolism and creative drives, its hard to say- though its fair to say it would have to be something. Hallucinogens, being the powerful thought provokers they are seem as good a candidate as any- better in fact. However, feeding mushrooms to gorillas may not provoke any particular or deisred effect because of the vast differences in their anatomy to ours, plus the ethical qualms.

I honestly can't tell if we are talking about synchronicity or not anymore.... :D . Oh well, we probably are...somewhere

 

[nbsp]

Things are not a-synchronous, in either a physical or psychophysical context. The system is just so complex that any immanent sequence can not be lcomprehended on basis of the fact that to know would entail an intimate knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe and all the factors involved that set it up.

you ever do any simple algebra? Solving for variables is pretty easy as long as there's enough info on the table.

look at our science! We may not be omniscient, but we are certainly a testament to the breadth and scope of deductive reasoning. Who would've guessed, 50 years ago, we'd be able to ascertain the age of the earth by observing the half-life of uranium? Who would've guessed, 50 years ago, we'd plot the size, shape, and expansion rate of the universe based on the speed and trajectory of light from distant stars? There is much we cannot directly observe, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee it is beyond us; this much is certain.

purpose and meaning is a different argument altogether, but I definitely believe there is pattern and order to the reality around us. Its context may be so grossly foreign we shall struggle to understand it for the rest of our days, but that doesn't mean it is nonsense. I could entertain myself for the rest of my life just thinking about it.

IS Mckenna right? Do you think it'd be possible to try and write a research proposal to legitimize the study of what would happen if you fed gorillas some shrooms?

Hallucinogens, being the powerful thought provokers they are seem as good a candidate as any- better in fact. However, feeding mushrooms to gorillas may not provoke any particular or deisred effect because of the vast differences in their anatomy to ours, plus the ethical qualms.

it's interesting; I always thought this was the most plausible thing to ever come out of McKenna's mouth, but it seems the constants he bases his reasoning on are very human-oriented, and don't take into consideration the variance that'd surely occur when introducing a separate animal. For all I know, we did eat mushrooms, but I have a hard time believing apes would react similarly to humans upon introducing them into their diet, considering how much of the human psyche is unique, and how much of it is learned.

::sigh::

we may never know!

 

[secretagents]

Our dna contains everything. It just takes building up to that point to extract whatever data from it.
Just think about how many times you get that first thought about a question. You didn't actually have a thought out process of getting there, it just screams itself out across the plane of your mindset. After that, you evaluate the circumstance and develop a process towards an answer.
How often is that first statement found to be correct?

DNA apparently contains all the software and data necessary to build a self-learning biocomputer out of a suitable environment.

As it is relatively small, DNA certainly cannot contain everything.

It may contain some of our profound atavisms such as the self-preservation instinct and the sex drive if those are not simply conditioned by the pain avoidance/pleasure seeking programs, but I would not think it contains much more than that, or rather that much more would be needed to obtain what we are. Besides the capability of imagination, that is.

How can you say that what just screams itself out across the plane of your mindset comes from the DNA ?

Does your illumination comes out of the blue or does it stem out of a framework of related preoccupations around which you had gathered and stored data in your brain ?

If so, well, it can stem from your subconscious workings for example.

 

[itsALLfake]

and what creates a subconscious?

 

[secretagents]

I think the subconscious is all the mental processes taking place in one's brain below the threshold of conscious awareness. Or something along those lines.

 

[fastandbulbous]

As regards arguements about the brain not being required for conciousness (maybe put a bit more elegantly), I've still not seen anybody explain how selective brain damage can cause such radical changes in conciousness (or obliterate it altogether) if it has nowt to do with the brain

 

[Xorkoth]

My take: consciousness is going on with or without us. However, each ego-form (like a human) has a brain which is channeling this consciousness simultaneously to have a subjective dimensional experience. Each of these ego-forms' (a term I just made up) entire experience is determined by the brain. But on a higher level, the universal force of consciousness that we all are at once is experiencing everything, indepenedently from any of us.

So OUR subjective consciousness has everything to do with the brain (or almost everything anyway).

 

[secretagents]

Most, if not all, religions and mystico-philosophical systems say that the body, which includes the brain, is merely a vessel or interface for the spirit, consciousness being an attribute of the spirit and not of the body.

So that in such belief systems brain damage does merely impair or alterate the manifestation of consciousness but not consciousness itself.

As you wanted an argument, I think this is the only one that can be proposed.

 

[cognosis]

As regards arguements about the brain not being required for conciousness (maybe put a bit more elegantly), I've still not seen anybody explain how selective brain damage can cause such radical changes in conciousness (or obliterate it altogether) if it has nowt to do with the brain

II. Consciousness arises much like sparks do when you strike flint and steel together and is nothing more than bio_physico_chemo biproducts of a physical system. --This would be a reductionist viewpoint, most often taken by neuroscience in trying to explain behavior. There's a really big problem though trying to correlate neurological events with motivations as to why a person might do something. Yes, there's evidence for localization of particular attributes of the behavior of humans, like if the Brocas area of this here apricot gets hit with a rock I can't talk good no more. But does that mean I'm not aware I can't talk good? Is the brain *like omg* an organ that structures thinking into particular modes of expression? If throughout time and history there are these re_occurring archetypes, instead of monkeys discovering hyperspace could they be tapping into the particular architecture that's shared among the species? I mean like, aren't Homo sapiens one of the most genetically similar species to one another? Isn't it weird that of all the languages in the world, they all encode the same parts of speech(subject, verb, direct object).

*sigh* nobody reads long posts.

 

[AnewMan]

Synchronicity... chemical reactions happen in your body and in every creations body simultaneously. For one small example: We are all exchanging gases with every breath; as are every mammal on the planet.

 

[Dondante]

Some may know this, but I think it's worth posting:

"In an interview for the 2001 BBC Omnibus documentary 'Syd Barrett:Crazy Diamond" (later released on DVD as The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett Story[5]), the story is told in full. Rick Wright spoke about the session, saying: "One thing that really stands out in my mind, that I'll never forget; I was going in to the "Shine On" sessions. I went in the studio and I saw this guy sitting at the back of the studio, he was only as far away as you are from me. And I didn't recognise him. I said, 'Who's that guy behind you?' 'That's Syd.' And I just cracked up, I couldn't believe it... he had shaven all his hair off... I mean, his eyebrows, everything... he was jumping up and down brushing his teeth, it was awful. And, uh, I was in, I mean Roger was in tears, I think I was; we were both in tears. It was very shocking... seven years of no contact and then to walk in while we're actually doing that particular track. I don't know – coincidence, karma, fate, who knows? But it was very, very, very powerful". In the same documentary, Nick Mason stated: "When I think about it, I can still see his eyes, but... it was everything else that was different". In that same interview, Roger Waters has said: "I had no idea who he was for a very long time". David Gilmour stated : "None of us recognised him. Shaved...shaved bald head and very plump". In the 2006 'definitive edition' DVD release of The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett Story in the UK/Europe the director John Edginton's interviews with Barrett's former Floyd colleagues are included unedited, with far more detail of their feelings and actions during Syd Barrett's tragic breakdown and withdrawal from the band."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_floyd

 

[untaMe]

ive seen some seriously undeniable synchronicity on shrooms + LSD
shits crazy i dont even know what to think