Universal Awareness

[Citta]

Hmmm... are we talking about an unconscious observer here?

Yes. Quantum mechanics has no need for conscious observers in its interpretation or explanation, even though this is a notion particularly popular in the new-age movement. As I've said, an observer in quantum mechanical terms does not need to refer to a conscious observer, this is simply a misunderstanding.

 

[Saidin]

Besides, there is the problem of explaining the universe before consciousness came about. "Occam'z razor" comes in here.

This is not a problem if: consciousness existed before the universe and thus manifested all that we see, ie: the universe is a result of consciousness, not that consciousness is a result of the universe. One other possibility that negates the problem is if the universe is eternal.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Besides, there is the problem of explaining the universe before consciousness came about. "Occam'z razor" comes in here.

This is not a problem if: consciousness existed before the universe and thus manifested all that we see, ie: the universe is a result of consciousness, not that consciousness is a result of the universe. One other possibility that negates the problem is if the universe is eternal.

Consciousness begeting the Universe always seemed more likely than the other way around. IMO

 

[Infinite I]

Life and death come from the ever living.

The 3D universe is always in a state of becoming.

The 3+1D universe was becoming, is becoming and has become.

There's a lot of confusion about "living in the now", hopefully that helps.

You've confused me more!

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

But how deeply the razor cuts into the problem of origins, even of consciousness.

If only the linear aspect of time was itself a form of measurement and thus a defined parameter for observation but not an independent or fundamental property of time, but was instead relative to position in time space...

Then the razor is blunted, but consciousness also becomes a measurement with far too much linear property to be absolute.

What is without characteristic and yet is?
What facilities the universe?
Where is existence in space and time?
What is the velocity and position of now?

Just kidding...
Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma.
All are one.

 

[Citta]

Besides, there is the problem of explaining the universe before consciousness came about. "Occam'z razor" comes in here.

This is not a problem if: consciousness existed before the universe and thus manifested all that we see, ie: the universe is a result of consciousness, not that consciousness is a result of the universe. One other possibility that negates the problem is if the universe is eternal.

Is it more likely in light of what we know about the universe to assume consciousness created everything than the proposition that the universe was created by a donut? Both are unsupported by evidence, and both are rather impossible to confirm. Doesn't mean it's any good reason to believe in it, even tho you love donuts or feel better if consciousness created it all. The universe doesn't need a donut nor does it need consciousness, and both of them are rather new phenomena in light of the history of the universe, which makes it extremely unlikely, not to say pretty absurd, that consciousness or a donut created everything, disappeared and then popped out a few billion years later.

Romantic idea, sure. Likely? Not much.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Besides, there is the problem of explaining the universe before consciousness came about. "Occam'z razor" comes in here.

This is not a problem if: consciousness existed before the universe and thus manifested all that we see, ie: the universe is a result of consciousness, not that consciousness is a result of the universe. One other possibility that negates the problem is if the universe is eternal.

Is it more likely in light of what we know about the universe to assume consciousness created everything than the proposition that the universe was created by a donut? Both are unsupported by evidence, and both are rather impossible to confirm. Doesn't mean it's any good reason to believe in it, even tho you love donuts or feel better if consciousness created it all. The universe doesn't need a donut nor does it need consciousness, and both of them are rather new phenomena in light of the history of the universe, which makes it extremely unlikely, not to say pretty absurd, that consciousness or a donut created everything, disappeared and then popped out a few billion years later.

Romantic idea, sure. Likely? Not much.

And you know this how?

You seem rather quick to point out what other people can or can not know while putting forth quite a few unprovable assertions of your own. Left brained science types can be rather smug.

No offense Citta. As we certainly need people like you to run atom smashers and observe the results while pretending that consciousness is not involved. How, pray tell, can you say that something unconscious observed anything without the consciousness required to observe the supposedly unconscious observer?

I prefer to use both halves of my brain, thank you.

Say what you want, but I have direct experience of consciousness that prompts me to understand that it is primary to the material universe. I don't need an electron microscope, or reams of abstract theoretical jibber jabber from people who want to think they understand quantum mechanics, to back up my empirical observations... or to explore consciousness.

Of course, I still have profound respect for the achievements of physicists & other hard scientists. They tend to be a clever enough bunch. But, they are often so clueless that they can not master the basics of being happy or healthy. They are often socially maladjusted, and have EQ's lower than my dog's... but they do sometimes give us some useful shit. I had a deep friendship with the head of the Physics department at my University way back when. He was a true genius. Happier than a bug in a rug. I have always said "Never trust a genius who isn't blissfully happy. How intelligent could they possibly be if they haven't mastered that basic skill?" This guy also managed to reproduce cold fusion in his laboratory only to find that no one wanted to hear about his results.

In all seriousness, Citta... what do YOU really know about "The Universe" that you didn't read in some book?

 

[Swarupa]

Is the universe becoming self-aware in the human nervous system?

The fact you can even ask this question answers the question, yes!

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

I resent the idea of creation and the idea of origination.

Both have deep flaws.

What is consciousness?
How does a proton have it?

 

[Citta]

And you know this how?

I study physics and mathematics.

You seem rather quick to point out what other people can or can not know while putting forth quite a few unprovable assertions of your own. Left brained science types can be rather smug.

What assertions have I made, and what have I claimed others can't know? Saidin presented a view in light of a discussion, I replied to him in light of that discussion.

No offense Citta. As we certainly need people like you to run atom smashers and observe the results while pretending that consciousness is not involved. How, pray tell, can you say that something unconscious observed anything without the consciousness required to observe the supposedly unconscious observer?

Perhaps you should take your time to study quantum physics too, it's great fun!

Say what you want, but I have direct experience of consciousness that prompts me to understand that it is primary to the material universe. I don't need an electron microscope, or reams of abstract theoretical jibber jabber from people who want to think they understand quantum mechanics, to back up my empirical observations... or to explore consciousness.

Say what you want, but direct experience isn't really worth anything when we try to figure out how the universe works. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. One of the hard won lessons of the process of scientific discovery is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable, and should at best be used as an indication of a possible (not even probable) phenomenon that deserves further investigation. Never should it be used to base firm conclusions.

Of course, I still have profound respect for the achievements of physicists & other hard scientists. They tend to be a clever enough bunch. But, they are often so clueless that they can not master the basics of being happy or healthy. They are often socially maladjusted, and have EQ's lower than my dog's... but they do sometimes give us some useful shit. I had a deep friendship with the head of the Physics department at my University way back when. He was a true genius. Happier than a bug in a rug. I have always said "Never trust a genius who isn't blissfully happy. How intelligent could they possibly be if they haven't mastered that basic skill?" This guy also managed to reproduce cold fusion in his laboratory only to find that no one wanted to hear about his results.

In all seriousness, Citta... what do YOU really know about "The Universe" that you didn't read in some book?

Ad hominem...

You seem very upset with knowledgable people, generalizing them in a very distasteful way. Poor debate technique, and it doesn't really add any valid points to your case at all. Besides, scientists doesn't give you some useful shit every now and then, they have given you almost everything you use to live your life with and that you are pretty dependent upon; Your computer, your electricity, your tap water, the sewer systems, your medicines, your knowledge of good diet and good health, your telephone if you have one, your synthetic psychedelics, your extracted DMT, your ways of transportation and so on and so forth.

Your last sentence seems like a personal attack, especially considering the rest of your charged response to me and other scientists. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but for the record I have learned alot about (at least my personal) life through my psychedelic experiences, the early suicide of my mother, my very ill father, the death of my step father, my drug addicted cousin, my relationships, my cooperation with other people through work and studies, through my travels, through other challenges and situations and not to say the least just through having spent some years on this planet. Again, what the hell is your point?

 

[embracethevoid]

Life and death come from the ever living.

The 3D universe is always in a state of becoming.

The 3+1D universe was becoming, is becoming and has become.

There's a lot of confusion about "living in the now", hopefully that helps.

You've confused me more!

We label things as objects "moving through time" when in reality there are only events, not objects. To point at a human being is to refer to their entire imprint on reality from birth to now/death.

According to general relativity the universe is a 4D block. To say then that it evolves/becomes more "self-aware" "over time" is true but it's missing the point. If the whole thing exists as a 4D block, it isn't subject to change the way something bound to time is because that thing encompasses time itself. It's far beyond any concept of awareness, birth, life, death, consciousness. Whatever "space" that 4D block exists "in", that's what I mean by ever-living.

In such a way, all that exists now is only around in order to bring forth the end point of the universe. So if the universe is becoming more self aware, that's only because that end point of total awareness simply needs this to happen. Just like to get a tree from a seed, you have to have all the in-betweens.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

The universe doesn't need a donut nor does it need consciousness, and both of them are rather new phenomena in light of the history of the universe, which makes it extremely unlikely, not to say pretty absurd, that consciousness or a donut created everything, disappeared and then popped out a few billion years later.

Romantic idea, sure. Likely? Not much.

How do you know that consciousness is a rather new phenomenon? How could science even attempt to prove this?

I study physics and mathematics.

So have I. I aced a number of Quantum Physics classes in University, and as I said was friends with the head of the physics board. You make another assumption without any evidence. That you are better versed in science than I am.

And, I still ask you how you think it is possible to observe that an "unconscious observer" has observed something without being conscious yourself? It could very well be that the unconscious observer DID NOT collapse the wave form until you observed that it did. (ala Schroedinger's Cat)

Say what you want, but direct experience isn't really worth anything when we try to figure out how the universe works. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. One of the hard won lessons of the process of scientific discovery is that anecdotal evidence is very unreliable, and should at best be used as an indication of a possible (not even probable) phenomenon that deserves further investigation. Never should it be used to base firm conclusions.

Direct experience is the only kind that matters when dealing with one's personal life and making truly informed decisions. If I have experienced directly how to repair a bike tire, my experience trumps the instruction manual that came with the repair kit. Such documents can be wrong. They can also be incomplete or translated poorly from Chinese.

Perhaps your anecdotal evidence is unreliable. Mine has always served me well. I could read 10 teks on exctraction, but that isn't worth as much as having done 1 good extraction personally. Other people's anecdotal evidence is not reliable to make conclusions upon... this is obvious. One's own experience is generally superior to whatever you could read in any book, though.

Look at all the people who read 100's of pages about spice and think they know something. How much is all that research worth compared to the experience? Reading about skateboarding will never make you a good skateboarder.

Your responses seem rather canned. The kind of thing that every left-brained student in a science major parrots from their teachers who often have very limited life experience outside of their very narrow realms.

Ad hominem...

You seem very upset with knowledgable people, generalizing them in a very distasteful way. Poor debate technique,

As someone who loves studying logical fallacies, it always makes me laugh when people call Ad Hominem falsely. The few points that I made, do not rest upon any personal attacks upon you (or even on any people) to be valid. A true Ad Hominem attack is upon the person you are arguing with. My general statements about the low EQ and social maladjustment of hardcore science types is not a direct attack upon you or trying to discredit your argument. They are also statistically proven. Thus they can not be considered Ad Hominem. Calling a logical fallacy when when there is none, is crafty, but also poor debate technique. As is your "appeal to authority" fallacy by assuming to be the expert on a subject that no one understands completely. Even true experts can not validate an argument by stating that they are experts.

Here is a place to start if you want to learn logic in addition to your theoretical physics. List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Besides, scientists doesn't give you some useful shit every now and then, they have given you almost everything you use to live your life with and that you are pretty dependent upon; Your computer, your electricity, your tap water, the sewer systems, your medicines, your knowledge of good diet and good health, your telephone if you have one, your synthetic psychedelics, your extracted DMT, your ways of transportation and so on and so forth.

I appreciate some of what scientists have given me, but most of your list is inaccurate. Ancient ruins have sewer systems. The ancient Egyptians even had chemical batteries. My tap water has been ruined by chemicals to the point where I have to clean it myself. My medicines are nearly all plant based, and the knowledge of them came from indigenous people not lab rats. Same goes for my knowledge of diet and good health. My phenomenal health has more to do with my decades of Kung Fu practice than with anything that modern science has done.

If modern science was so good at making people healthy, why do doctors and scientists have much lower life expectancies than the general population? Physicians in the US have 20 years shorter lifespans than average. You would think that they would know better, and live longer than the hoi polloi who only have "anecdotal experience" to go by.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but for the record I have learned alot about (at least my personal) life through my psychedelic experiences, the early suicide of my mother, my very ill father, the death of my step father, my drug addicted cousin, my relationships, my cooperation with other people through work and studies, through my travels, through other challenges and situations and not to say the least just through having spent some years on this planet. Again, what the hell is your point?

Your list of knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with personal anecdotal experience. I guess you are making my earlier point for me.

What is my point?

I thought it was clear, but if you missed it the first time around, my main point was:

That it seems likely to me that consciousness predates the material universe.

This is based on my decades of personal experience with expanded consciousness.



Citta, I don't want to argue with you per se. (though I do enjoy a good argument)

You come onto the Mystic/Esoteric board and a thread called Universal Awareness, and proceed to be the voice of science telling all the stupid mystics that they are wrong and that your vaunted Quantum Mechanics has all the answers which do not need consciousness at all to work. This is an unimaginably silly thing to say, as you could not know anything about physics without consciousness.

You find that my post is charged and attacking you. I don't find it so. It makes fun of people who are only left-brained, but in a relatively lighthearted way. You, on the other had, seem absolutely judgemental of people who have more holistic and experiental views of the Universe which we all share and have experience in navigating. (Most of the people in the mystic/esoteric board.) You are like the guy who goes into the ghetto disparaging all poor people and minorities.

You are entitled to your opinions. So is everyone else.

Your opinion about consciousness being a late invention in the history of the Universe is unfounded and unprovable. Furthermore, what experience do you have that would validate such a leap? My experience that science geeks tend to be poorly adjusted in terms of social skills and emotional quotient is backed up by reams of studies as well as my experience as someone who hangs out with tons of nerds.

My point still holds. Any genius who is not blissfully happy is not a genius. If you sit around wishing to get laid, but can't figure out how to actually get a girl to sleep with you... you ain't all that smart.

There you go.

 

[embracethevoid]

To say that a quantum measurement is a trivial occurence is rather absurd given that all existence is constructed via endless measurements. How are things proportioned over time, if not by measurements/observation?

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

To say that a quantum measurement is a trivial occurence is rather absurd given that all existence is constructed via endless measurements. How are things proportioned over time, if not by measurements/observation?

I do not take it to be a given that measurements exist outside of language and information contexts, for example a set distance can be described in numerous ways, these descriptions are measurements, but measurement is not independent of description via language. Things are self symbolic, existence is not language based, language is an artifact of life, not a property or law of physics.

Things are not proportioned over time, there is only now.

Observation is not independent of the observed, we are made of the same thing we observe. Perception does not define things, things have properties that are perceived, as do events, all of which occur in the now so to speak.

I believe that the vedas explained existence rather scientifically and claimed that existence manifests from undifferentiated singularity, sort of like it flows constantly from a bosonic state in a resonant way, but in terms of that flow we have a relative position in timespace that is polar, time polar. The isomer of our time is not however a reversal of our time, nor is it mirroring our time, they are not reflections. We view the center of the resonance as the temporal origin because of our position in the field of time, but it actually is a constant, a constant is incredibly difficult for a human mind to understand. It is a singular infinity, that is to say it non-linear.

The bosonic state is the union of all energy and matter as one undifferentiated thing without characteristics, it has no mass, not space, no top or bottom, etc. We call this the big bang and in a linear sense view it as an origin, but it is an origin a lot like a light source in a room, it is radiating timespace now but we are downstream from it, so to speak. Our interaction in it sort of casts an analogous shadow or color affecting things behind our temporal presence in symbolic terms.

This bosonic origin of undifferentiated manner is referred to by many things in many archaic teachings. It is often presented as an entity without form or characteristic, it is by definition ineffable and incomprehensible because it is without property, including in terms of consciousness as we experience it.

The same physical and electrochemical properties of elements that facilitate our consciousness are found in non-living matter. Clearly the property of consciousness is facilitated by the matter itself and not something extra, but the form our consciousness takes is representative of our physical form, thus we can alter it by introducing physical things with properties to our form, such as DMT. We should not suppose that consciousness as we experience it is a fundamental property of existence, it is a manifest form. May can reasonably infer however that what we call consciousness, or the resonance of mind waves corresponds to electrochemical properties of matter itself and thus corollary fields and properties exist in all matter. It is reasonable for example to not that brain activity can be seen as electromagnetic activity, all electromagnetic activity generates fields that correlate to the activity itself. Fields of these types have no boundaries but diminish in intensity as they reach put infinitely.

Each person has their own inherent electromagnetic thought patterns that are much like how their voice has a sound pattern that is more or less unique. It is not wise to dismiss the idea that these fields of thought waves cannot interact at a distance, or that people cannot come to grow more sensitive to fields that they tend to be closer to in both terms of distance and intention. If we believe that consciousness is related to the brain itself then we must consider that the electromagnetic properties of brain activity provide an possible way for non-language type communication to take place in terms of field interaction, as opposed to sending ad receiving signals directly.

The resonant signature of intention itself does appear to interact with matter in interesting ways, this is how we make voluntary motions. It is not unreasonable to assume that our intention may be focused outside of our physical bodies and that some type of resonant or vibrational interaction may occur, this merely means that the field of thought waves as electromagnetic phenomena is affected and interacts with the environment it is in, including in terms of fields. This same concept may explain why crystalline resonance plays such a key role in neural activity, most of our transmitter molecules are crystalline in form and their properties of resonance themselves allow signal transmission in neurons. Is it unreasonable to expect that crystalline matter outside of our bodies is incapable of interacting with mind waves?

No property we exhibit can be independent of nature, but consciousness in terms of manifestation represents the form that it is of, thus each living thing has it's own form of awareness, even cells, even nuclei. Likewise the properties that consciousness employs exist in matter, however non living matter is passive in terms of consciousness, it does not make plans. The constant singularity without property must likewise have a potential relative to consciousness and the fundamental properties of matter that it is based upon, however in terms of manifest consciousness it is formless and undefined. All of this is described in Vedic texts and is based entirely upon observable and empirical evidences, it is not a product of cosmology, despite being interpreted as one.

Our magical entities, the proton, the electron and their interactive product the neutron might be considered gods themselves, who is to say that they are not Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma? The father, the son and the holy ghost?
Is it not the nature of humanity to even project personality onto rocks? Pet rocks? Over time could we even give faces to the laws of nature?

Humanity is a castle of sand trying to conquer the ocean of existence with understanding.
our fate is inevitable both collectively and individually

We can try to preside over the universe with language, but the tower to heaven that science attempts to build can only falter as we attempt to describe the universe to one another

Let's be territorial about information and opinions, it is or nature after all.

 

[embracethevoid]

Thanks for the ginormous response! I especially like your signature to end it; Now is indeed the final cause. There's first cause, everything else in between, the thing at the end. I understand "Now" as past existing in the past, now existing now and future existing in the future - "simultaneously" as one rather unfathomable manifold. I mean this manifold doesn't really have a definite "shape" iff the universe isn't totally deterministic. Rather it's shaped as something containing every single possible moment that could occur and its potential futures, giving it a semi-determinate form radiating as a 4D fractal tree originating from t=0. Totally mind boggling.

The idea things are not proportioned over time is also something I have contentions with. Of course the nature of proportion itself does not change but evolution is prime evidence that things are indeed proportioned over time. The nature of entropy is another thing to investigate. Consider the nature of an observation. I can choose to run forward at 10mph or run backward at 10mph. Both of these are out of pure choice, I chose to observe-measure my body's motion just as much as its motion created the observer observing that motion.

That is what I mean by giving proportion to the universe, the act of measuring can itself decide what the measurement will be; to move is to measure, to measure is to move. In the first case I observe-measure myself moving at +10mph, in the second I observe-measure myself moving at -10mph. Does that not have a perfect correlate with a myriad number of Heisenberg-scale observations/measurements summing up to produce my macroscopic mass moving at 10mph? Then surely it is clear that a measurement is indeed far more significant than materialists give it credence.

Now to the degree that numbers exist or not - while it is true that they exist only in the brain, step outside of your box for a second and LOOK at reality. Light moves X units of distance per Y units of time irrespective of coordinate & number systems. The fact is that it moves at a finite velocity endowing reality with the proportion that it does. You don't need numbers or language to observe this, this is an inherent aspect of the universe independent of subjective belief/abstraction/perception. It is assuredly true that we are made of the same thing we observe but no amount of belief or theorising is going to make the average velocity of a photon any faster or slower than it is. And regardless, what's observing spacetime itself as a whole? That observer is what I would deem the proportioner of things.

I agree with the rest of your post, it's exactlyy how I see things too so there's not much to say about it. Thought waves though... It's early days in the science of consciousness but I must absolutely wonder what implications things like entanglement and non-locality have with regards to thought and decisions. Suppose I decided to hop in a spaceship and fly in an arbitrary direction for eternity. A single arc-second of change in direction creates/selects an exclusively different universe/state of Now. I might have friends expecting me on a planet 6 light years westward but suppose I decide to go eastward instead - when the information reaches them luminally, they will be disappointed.

But on a non-local level, could there be a correlate between my decision to travel 6ly west instead of east, and their observations of their immediate universe at that precise point in time? Suppose I have to press a single button of two (east/west) that will then propel my vehicle that way all the way. My intention to press either button would perhaps register in the non-local geometry of spacetime. This kind of thing would have profound implications regarding the nature of synchronicity.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

@ AlbertKLloyd & embracethevoid

Very interesting speculations both of you. I tend to agree. The way you both are talking about it is more abstract than my experience of it, but there certainly seems to be some kind of eschatological factor inherant in existence.

I always liked Terrence McKenna's take on "novelty", defined as increase over time in the Universe's interconnectedness, or organized complexity. According to him the Universe has a teleological attractor at the end of time that increases interconnectedness, eventually reaching a singularity of infinite complexity.

Personally I think the more prosaic definition of novelty works just as well, but any infinite singularity would include all things in it anyway.

Rather it's shaped as something containing every single possible moment that could occur and its potential futures, giving it a semi-determinate form radiating as a 4D fractal tree originating from t=0. Totally mind boggling.

I have seen this kind of thing when Lucid Dreaming. WILDing from the waking state, or going from one dream to another provides a very interesting series of moments to contemplate as the new universe forms around you from nothing.

My experience of it is that out of a pure white void of infinite potential forms a specific dream world over the course of a few seconds. As soon as it solidifies, it begins stretching itself forward and backwards through time. This is perceivable in that you begin to have memories of that dream world that took place before its ostensible creation out of nothingness. The dream seems to plant memories and conceptions of the future directly into your mind.

You see a car out the window. The dream informs you that it is your car, and in a flash you remember buying the car... driving around in it, kissing your girlfriend in the back seat, and the time your buddy threw up under the passenger seat. You can even recall the distinctive smell of the carpet after an hour of steam cleaning it.

Obviously, if you maintain your lucidity, you are aware that the car, the girlfriend, the buddy and the vomit just came into existence, and have NO HISTORY whatsoever. But you also understand that as long as you are in this dream world, these "facts" will be "true" unless you exert a sufficient amount of willpower to alter them. This is the shape of the "4D object" that is this particular dream.

Personally, I think these objects are not merely 4D but probably have an untold amount of dimensions we are not privy to. But for all intents and purposes, contemplating the number of dimensions or any attempt to measure higher aspects of these things is somewhat fraught with impenetrable mystery. Infinity is, by definition, not finite.

Furthermore, there is no way to prove conclusively that this "material" universe we consider the waking world is not also formulated along similar lines and is, thus, merely a more stable dream realm.

@ dream denezin

I don't think the Universe needs to become self aware. It IS self aware. We, as aspects of it, are becoming self aware, or appear to be doing so in the flow of apparent time. But as the discussion above about teleological attractors and whatnot suggest, the end is already fixed. Thus, the fully self-aware version of you at the end of time already exists and is not bound by time itself. It follows that it is very possible for you to meet with and interact with your own "highest self" now, and not only at some future eschatologic moment.

Anyway, an enjoyable discussion guys.

Peace.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

end of time does not seem plausible, neither does origin of time in a linear sense


for me dream is distinct from reality, but informed by it, but the reverse is not true

self does not exist, the universe may be aware, but not self aware
self is an artifact of sensory perception

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

end of time does not seem plausible, neither does origin of time in a linear sense


for me dream is distinct from reality, but informed by it, but the reverse is not true

self does not exist, the universe may be aware, but not self aware
self is an artifact of sensory perception

Perhaps you could be a bit more detailed in your rationale. You state these things as if they are obvious and require no backing up.

These are things that nobody knows... in fact no one really even claims to know this stuff.

Science certainly can not say anything about your assertions one way or another, so I wonder how you have become so sure about your conjectures.

I don't say this confrontationally, or out of ego. I am genuinely curious.

I have a ridiculous amount of experience with dreaming, waking, the interim states, OOBEs here in this world and consciousness in general, and I still think that any number of answers could be plausible to explain our experiences as humans.

Can you come up with any workable test to prove that this reality you find not informed by dream is not in itself a dream? I am serious. I can't. The hundreds of people I've discussed this subject with haven't been able to come up with one. Not scientists, not dream masters, not aborigines, not philosophers and not psychologists. If you can come up with one I will literally jump up out of my seat and do a jig.

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Perhaps you could be a bit more detailed in your rationale. You state these things as if they are obvious and require no backing up.

These are things that nobody knows... in fact no one really even claims to know this stuff.

Science certainly can not say anything about your assertions one way or another, so I wonder how you have become so sure about your conjectures.

I don't say this confrontationally, or out of ego. I am genuinely curious.

since you asked so politely and seem to be a genuinely curious, i will take the time to address this:

end of time does not seem plausible, neither does origin of time in a linear sense

this first one addresses time being non-linear, the idea that time is a linear event with an end and a beginning is not a given and there is scientific evidence that supports the notion that time/space is not a linear event. to elaborate and explore that here would not be ideal for the sake of this discussion, but it would be nice to see a thread on the topic itself at some point. basically though there are some key points to this, the first is the law of conservation, this states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, the second is that the dichotomy of action and reaction is imposed, actions are reactions and reactions actions and it all occurs in what we call : Now. While in a timespace dimensional sense there is a linear propagation, this cannot exist without a non-linear origin. For example one of the problems of creation and origin is the same for science as it is religion, that is what created the creator or what originated the origination. In a relative dimensional sense things originate, but not in an ultimate sense. The universe, energy etc, does not come into or go out of existence, it is constant, there is no origin or end to it.

for me dream is distinct from reality, but informed by it, but the reverse is not true
this is pretty simple, i have dreamed of things that i experienced in reality, but not the reverse, i have never had content in a dream that was not informed by reality, but i have never had content in reality that i was first exposed to in dream.

self does not exist, the universe may be aware, but not self aware
Self is a word, however without context it is without meaning. It is a perception but not an entity, this is why Tathagata mentions that no person can become enlightened, because if they perceived self to exist they would not be enlightened. If you mean body by self, then that is a context, but as far as self it isn't anything, it is a highly abused word in many senses.

self is an artifact of sensory perception
the sense of observer equates to the artifact of self, in science as you likely know an artifact is something that only exists because of the method of measurement, self exists as a perception due to the senses, if one for example transcends sensory experience, self no longer exists in any way.

Can you come up with any workable test to prove that this reality you find not informed by dream is not in itself a dream?

Not only can i not do this, but i cannot prove the reverse. I cannot even prove what science tends to accept, that proof itself is an abstract term and there is no such thing, there is just probability. So is it possible to indicate that it is improbable that reality is a dream?
Not only do i believe yes, i believe that psychedelics evidence this through their modes of action, that they show how a single sense can be magnified, that a sound can be seen, tasted and smelled, because of how the neurons work.

I have had out of body experiences, I also see auras and believe in sorcery, but all of this to me has physical explanation and there is for me nothing supernatural. in the interest of probability and plausibility, i find the idea that reality does not exist to be improbable, however i do believe that it is illusory because sense is a narrow parameter and thus it entails an artifactual perception, for example we experience different electromagnetic spectra phenomena as distinct, sound and light and heat are part of a continuous spectra, but the artifact of sense is that they are perceived to be distinct. We see colors as different when they are part of the same thing and are continuous. artifacts of sense and perception and language seriously compromise our judgment and awareness of the world around us, this is the root of Maya.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

AKL

I appreciate the conundrum of the concepts being discussed. I also appreciate the impossibility of encapsulating anything remotely close to truth in something as finite and limited as words.

Now that you have elucidated your points, I can better see where you are coming from on this.

I will proffer the idea that time doesn't have to be linear to have an end, a beginning, both, or a singularity which serves as both. Teleological studies and Eschatology have done a lot of work looking into non-linear models of reality which still end. In fact, Terrence McKenna's Timewave Zero model has an end, but is not linear.

I can imagine a 9 dimensional object where linear time is only a small facet of its appearance. I can also imagine a 90 dimensional object, or a 90,000 dimensional object.

These things are unfathomable, cosmologically, but personally... it can make somewhat more sense to see things with a destination that ends with one's transcending space-time. Especially so if you seem to have experiences that point to that being the case.

As for the DREAMING issue, I have a verifiable and regularly used proof to prove when I AM dreaming. The use of this proof renders my dreaming lucid. I can do this regularly and repeatably. Thus, I have a working test for dreaming.

I have no such test for not dreaming. I know of no such test.

The fact that dreaming can be proven and reality can not... lends heavy weight to the concept that reality could also be a dream. After all, every human being has had dreams that fooled him or her into believing they were real. This is part of the nature of dreams. Thus, no amount of realism or material seemingness can prove for certain that you are not dreaming. All of your concepts of cosmology and physics could merely be part of this dream.

At this time, all I can say for sure in any given situation is that I am either dreaming for sure... or I might be dreaming.

Thus, for me, the primacy of material reality is flawed. At least it is unprovable and seems unlikely.

A dream model of reality also answers more of the primary questions that a material model leaves unanswered. It also places consciousness before matter.

Anyway, some things to think on.