Nature's consciousness

[Jessi123]

hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
 
What do you think about this perspective?

Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
 

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Jessi123 said:

We all agree that nature exists.

Nature is something consciousness dreams up.

[Mvrs]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nature is something consciousness dreams up.

 

agreed will you still think nature exits when your at some other now and this doesn’t exist to you anymore ? Does the nature of your dreams at night exist? Nature is imaginary. All is imaginary. All is you comforting yourself in a land of wonder that literally is you. You are the substance of the world, and what are you? You are nothing , you have no substance , you are pure existence , which inhabits everything you see and feel. 

[High-valance]

15 hours ago, Jessi123 said:

hi all,
I have found an engaging book that I think many will find controversial. In the book, the author proposes a unique approach to nature. The book is called: The Philosopher's Sea, and is free on the website Smashwords.

I have a question about Chap. 13. In this chapter, the author claims that since the creator is undefined (which is established in previous chapters), the question about God's consciousness (as humans experience it) is meaningless. Now, in the book God is assumed to be everything, which we call nature. We all agree that nature exists. So, we left with a debate between atheists and non-atheists about the question of whether nature has consciousness or not. But this is a meaningless question since nature is undefined - I think this is the statement that appeared in the book.
 
What do you think about this perspective?

Does it open a new bridge between atheism and religions, as two parts of the same misconception about God and spiritual development?
 

That’s a good question, but I think there are some other relevant questions in doing a sort of philosophical inquiry into the framework you’ve presented. Are the words ‘nature’ and ‘everything’ just synonyms? Is that how people use these words? To some, nature may just be synonymous to the physical universe. But some believe that the physical universe is not everything. So, what is everything? Not all people agree on what everything constitutes. That is there are different ideas about what does and doesn’t exist. In regard to the question you asked, it seems to me to be more interesting to ask whether the physical world or everything in the physical world is conscious rather than  whether everything in general is conscious. If everything means all things, and things such as the emotions or the phenomenological experience behind your closed eyes are regarded as things in some relevant sense, then the question by implication includes the question of whether an emotion is conscious, and whether the darkness behind your closed eyes is conscious. It is certainly part of a conscious experience, but are they themselves conscious? It isn’t obvious to me to what extent we’d want to entertain such questions. However, it is more obvious that we want to entertain the question of whether the physical world is conscious or whether everything in the physical world is conscious. If we look a bit more closely at this question, we can see that it seems to mean different things. Are all the fundamental building blocks of which the physical world is made conscious? At what scale are each of the building blocks of the physical world conscious? Are protons, neutrons, and electrons conscious? Are individual objects such as rocks, tables and chairs conscious? Where do we draw the line? Perhaps they are not conscious, but perhaps the physical world as a whole is conscious? The former questions are related to views such as microexperientialism and panexperientialism. The latter is the question of cosmopsychism. I am not deep into the literature on these views, but the key motivation for microexperientialist and panexperientialist views seem to be motivated to explain why we have consciousness as philosophical progression from the inability of mainstream physicalism (commonly thought of as 'materialism') to account for consciousness in physicalist terms (the hard problem of consciousness). However, both microexperientialism and panexperientialism run into a problem of their own. Namely the subject combination problem, which is the problem of explaining how the combination of multiple micro level subjects result in macro level subjects such as ourselves with a unitary experience of their own. Cosmopsychists propose that it is not the fundamental building blocks of the physical world such as fundamental subatomic particles that are conscious, but that it is the physical world as a whole that is conscious, and thereby we get rid of the subject combination problem. In its place, however, a new problem arises. Namely, the decombination problem or also called the decomposition problem which is about how the higher level subject of the physical world decomposes or decombines into multiple lower level subjects such as ourselves. A proposed solution to this problem is that the higher level cosmic subject undergoes a form of dissociation by virtue of which the decombination into multiple lower level subjects is accomplished. Personally, I think this is a sufficient solution. So, I take a cosmophychist view. And I also agree with Leo that nature (if by nature we here mean the physical world) is grounded within consciousness. So, I take a form of idealist cosmopsychist view à la philosopher Bernardo Kastrup according to which the physical world as a whole not only is conscious, but also is grounded within consciousness so that it effectively is being dreamed up by consciousness. This view is not only supported by forms of mystical insights and experiences and a type of awareness but is also on rational grounds, in my view, the view that, in terms of reasons to believe which view is true, is superior.

With regard to the question of theism a relevant question seems to me to be whether the cosmic consciousness within which the physical world is situated is synonymous with God or not. I guess it technically comes down to how God is defined. We need to come up with a reasonable definition of god and be able to show that the definition entails that cosmic consciousness is god. But I also guess that if enough people just start calling cosmic consciousness god, then it just becomes one of the ways that god can be defined. Maybe we are at that point already.

Edited December 16, 2020 by High-valance

[mandyjw]

Nobody or no thing can posses consciousness. 

[Yamak9889]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Nature is something consciousness dreams up.

Hey bro, Imma get straight to it. There are a couple of YouTubers that are breatharians and they tried DMT and Ayahuasca. And they said that nothing happened to them. Because they are always in that state. They already disposed of their ego... I wonder if you have any thoughts on that. 

He doesn't eat. (only drinks alkaline liquids) he gets his energy from sun moon and breathwork. He calls them breath meals. I am not kidding. He seems to be extremely enlightened.

I've tried their breathwork. That shit hits different. Maybe he is more enlightened than you? let me know if u want more info.

I don't wanna say his name cuz I don't want him to get unwanted traffic. I dunno what he wants to do. I choose to not interfere with him 

[forestfog]

@High-valance clear explanation. As I perceive it, Martin Ball, @Leo Gura, Rupert Spira and Bernardo Kastrup are all contemporaries that basically agree on the fundamentals, but communicate it a bit differently. 

[Batman]

6 hours ago, Yamak9889 said:

Hey bro, Imma get straight to it. There are a couple of YouTubers that are breatharians and they tried DMT and Ayahuasca. And they said that nothing happened to them. Because they are always in that state. They already disposed of their ego... I wonder if you have any thoughts on that. 

You should not base your conclusion (or even conjectures) on hearsay and belief. Smoke (or vape) DMT and see if it makes any sense to be in that state all the time.

No proper human begin is really devoid of ego in his regular state. It will be impossible for the self to survive, provided that ego is self. It is hard-wired to our biological nature.

But all of this are really just words and stories. Try some DMT and 'see' with your own 'eyes'.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Batman
spelling

[High-valance]

4 hours ago, forestfog said:

@High-valance clear explanation. As I perceive it, Martin Ball, @Leo Gura, Rupert Spira and Bernardo Kastrup are all contemporaries that basically agree on the fundamentals, but communicate it a bit differently. 

Thanks. I really appreciate all those guys. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by High-valance