Does consciousness beget reality? And if so what are the implications

Define consciousness
Define reality

>>19179448
What you really are is an open space of awareness.
Dissolved into the background, implicitly, are all the patterns that ever were, although they are only very subtly present and barely activated.
Your background felt-sense is the global sense of all the patterns you are holding on to (the facts-of-the-world).
All sensory experience is the effortless and spontaneous arising of patterns in alignment with the felt-sense. The shifting of the felt-sense is how we actually select experience.

It is likely that the ramifications of OP's faggotry are immeasurable

>>19179488
My felt-sense is much more liquid than most people's, but all I've ever gotten for indulging in bizarre beliefs is that the world has gotten moderately crazier.

>>19179448
>Does consciousness beget reality?
No. Reality can exist even if nothing is there to witness it. To say otherwise is basically like saying that before any life was around on earth to see or experience it, that it didn't exist. Or that if no animals or humans are in a certain part of a forest or landscape it ceases to exist. And that isn't true. Just because consciousness isn't experiencing a thing does not mean it does not exist. It just means a consciousness is not there to experience it.

>>19179448
Consciousness is what it feels like to exist. All possible mathematical equations manifest as a universe. The experience is based on the crossing of any two or more sets. (Much like running a function over permutations of X). All experience is part of a greater experience, all the way up infinitely. The vast majority of conscious experiences are so faint that they are barely noticed by a person at full conscious level. But they are one of the many parts that make up your human consciousness. Likewise your human consciousness is part of a greater soul group consciousness, etc.

>>19179808
Mind, conscious, personality, spirit, soul are all bouncing around up there.

Only I exist but my subconscious always be creating shit OP's.

>>19179448
>And if so what are the implications of this as a whole?
I think you already know.

>>19179488
Exactly this. The way you put it is kinda familiar to me, did you take it from a specific subreddit by any chance?

>>19179448 (OP)
Consciousness creates reality. Read about Biocentrism. It explains and relates science to conciousness.

>>19179448
Yes, but not your consciousness.

>>19179554
>Reality can exist even if nothing is there to witness it.
Moot point. There never was and never will be a time without witness.

>Or that if no animals or humans are in a certain part of a forest or landscape it ceases to exist.
A forest is teeming with life, even without animals.

>Just because consciousness isn't experiencing a thing does not mean it does not exist.
How would you support this claim?

>>19179992
>Moot point. There never was and never will be a time without witness.
When the big bang happened nobody was around to see it. A lot of time went by before matter even formed into planets and galaxies. Reality existed even before anybody was around to see it. And eventually consciousness sprang up.

>A forest is teeming with life, even without animals.
But they aren't conscious in the same way we are. Even if we say that they are for the sake of the argument, there was a time when the universe and earth was without life. Yet these things still existed because if they did not exist, we wouldn't be here. These things existed before consciousness was around to witness them.
>How would you support this claim?
Besides what I said before? Assume you are in a room that is dark. You cannot see anything and don't know the dimensions of the room, shape, the objects within it, etc. You aren't able to see them. If you walk around you will still bump into shit. Or if you are alone by yourself and turn your back to a wall, the wall doesn't magically not exist without your consciousness seeing it. If you back up, you will hit it.

Or even the universe. Before we were able to see exoplanets or knew they existed, they still existed. Unless they all have life, we know they existed unless they all popped up into existence the moment we consciously found them. If that is the case, and they did not exist prior to us seeing them, what made us see them at all? What decided that these particular nonexistant things will pop into existence when we look, but not in other places? It seems more reasonable to say that shit can exist without a consciousness being there to witness it than say that these planets happened to appear when we looked, but others did not.

And if you are gonna say that a god or whatever is always there as a witness to justify this position, then show me that your god exists, is omnipresent, etc. That is a half assed answer that answers nothing. Cont

>>19180070
And at that point an omnipresent god who is always a witness is indistinguishable from reality existing separate from consciousness. Because how would we know that this god is always there to consciously observe things so that reality is there, or if these things existed prior to consciousness existing? There isn't one. And I see no reason to posit a god or any other consciousness having to observe reality for it to exist when it is far more likely that reality exists independently of any consciousness, and that consciousness is not necessary for us to have a thing exist. There is no consciousness viewing it at X time, but that does not mean it blips in or out of reality depending on whether or not we look there. They exist prior to us, and by going out and exploring or experiencing things, we come across them.

>>19180070
>Assume you are in a room that is dark
There is your flaw the very existence of the consciousness, it doesn't need to be aware of the wall to have the wall exist, it's only when the consciousness doesn't exist when the wall doesn't.

>>19180070
>When the big bang happened nobody was around to see it.
There were many many people who saw and directed this.

>Reality existed even before anybody was around to see it. And eventually consciousness sprang up.
Consciousness is eternal. It is this material realm that manifests for some time then unmanifests again.

>But they aren't conscious in the same way we are.
they are, but they are currently covered more than us. Even so, plant life is aware of its surroundings.

>there was a time when the universe and earth was without life
I disagree.

>These things existed before consciousness was around to witness them.
How would you go about supporting this?

>You cannot see anything and don't know the dimensions of the room, shape, the objects within it, etc. You aren't able to see them.
There is a lot more to awareness than sight. You example is flawed. Gravity is there proprioception is there. Hearing is there. All of these senses are creating what exists. If I couldn't see, hear, touch, smell, or in ANY way sense the room - the room does not exist.

Awareness of the room creates its existence.

>Before we were able to see exoplanets or knew they existed, they still existed.
Evidence please?

>unless they all popped up into existence the moment we consciously found them. If that is the case, and they did not exist prior to us seeing them, what made us see them at all?
We were looking for them.

But you've ignored my very first sentence.
>Yes, but not your consciousness.

>It seems more reasonable to say that shit can exist without a consciousness being there to witness it than say that these planets happened to appear when we looked, but others did not.
It seems that way, and yet...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

>then show me that your god exists, is omnipresent, etc.
God has simply never been witnessed. But things that aren't witnessed still exist...right?

>>19180090
Let's even say I become a god or there is a god. He makes himself non-omnipresent and makes a sphere that within it contains a universe. This universe has no life yet. The god turns his head and looks away from the sphere. What happens? Does it blink out of existence because there is no consciousness viewing it? Or will he turn back around and see it sitting there as he left it?

>>19180090
>an omnipresent god who is always a witness is indistinguishable from reality existing separate from consciousness
Empirically, I agree. There is a vast difference when you turn to conscious realms.

>Because how would we know that this god is always there to consciously observe things so that reality is there, or if these things existed prior to consciousness existing? There isn't one.
None you can force.

>it is far more likely that reality exists independently of any consciousness
No, it is far more acceptable to you.

>>19180114
I will answer your questions if you can answer mine:

What color does happiness talk about?

>>19180111
Half of what you said is a big citation needed. Secondly, stop misusing quantum physics to justify your bullshit. That isn't how quantum physics works. Nor does it say that if we don't view a thing consciously, it goes away. You are making the same mistake people do when they cite Schrodinger's cat and say you can be alive and dead at the same time, when in reality this was used as a thought experiment to show a flaw in a particular theory of quantum mechanics.

>>19180090
When you say reality are you referring to material existence or space time reality. Deity absolute is beyond time, he is absonite. He abstain from time by choice and sends his sons into eventuated reality. We exist within his sons creation.

>>19180124
>What color does happiness talk about?
Oh, so you're one of those. No wonder you are spewing this shit.

Happiness does not talk about a color because happiness is an emotional state, not a sentient being that can talk about anything.

>>19180129
That's exactly what QM says. The issue is we don't know why it doesn't work on the macro scale.

>a thought experiment to show a flaw in a particular theory of quantum mechanics.
I am aware. I am also aware that Schrodinger is now considered WRONG.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-schrodinger-cat-reality.html

>>19180140
The example showing that just because a string of words make syntactic sense, it does not mean it is something with a legitimate response.

Calm down and stop trying to win. We're just talking.

>>19180110
Then by your logic, once you die the room should phase out of reality. Unless there is a god or some other force to witness it, which is an unproven assertion, or every single thing is really conscious of it, another unproven assertion, then you should be gone. But this does not happen. The reality goes beyond your consciousness because people can find that room and you in it. The room ceases to exist for you because you are dead. It continues to exist because it is real and not subject to any consciousness. Even if we put this room under the ground where no animal or anything else except dirt would be there, it would still exist. Just because there is no consciousness there once you die, the room does not cease to exist.

>>19180188
>which is an unproven assertion
Give an example of a wall existing without some awareness of it. Or any object. I'd say the unproven assertion is that things exist without any witness.

>>19180188
>because people can find that room and you in it
This only helps my case as consciousness still existed when I died if others came. You seem to be under the impression that there is one consciousness in all of reality.

>>19180174
>Calm down and stop trying to win. We're just talking.
No. You're talking shit. You are making a bunch of claims and backing up none of it at all. Like who was there at the big bang to orchestrate it? What life existed during the years before there were planets or even anything stable for life to exist? How did earth always have life?

You are just making up word salad and providing zero reason why anyone should or would believe your claims. When it is much simpler and rational to think that consciousness sprung up from reality rather than caused it.

And I'm not trying to "win". I already won because I am not the one making shit up. I am just presenting the reality and you are talking about life having always existed in the universe and on earth and people making the big bang. Even as a theist I think you're talking a load of new age shit.

>>19180214
>You are making a bunch of claims and backing up none of it at all.
Neither are you. We're both navel-gazing, but it seems to be upsetting you. Should we stop?

>When it is much simpler and rational
>I am just presenting the reality
"You are making a bunch of claims and backing up none of it at all."

Alright. I'm going to stop. I hope you feel better.

>>19180199
>Give an example of a wall existing without some awareness of it.
How about any time we found a lost city? At some point, nobody left alive was conscious of these places existing. By your logic, that means they should not exist. Once the last person aware of this place dies off, the thing should cease to exist at all. Or do you mean to say it did stop existing, but suddenly reappeared when people discovered it by accident? That seems more like it existed without anyone having to have been aware of it at all.
>>19180204
Read above. If I placed a person in a box under the earth and only me and that person were conscious of if and aware of it, then the minute we were both dead, any awareness or consciousness of that box ceased to exist. That means, according to you, it should no longer be part of reality. Unless there is some god or force witnessing everything. But until you can prove that, the fact that we can run across things that nobody is aware of at all or conscious of hints that reality is not subject to consciousness at all and exists independently of it.

>>19179448
Yes

With the tree of life, we see consciouness (keter) beget thought (the next two) which begets feelings (the next 6) then actions (the last one), in that order from the Absolute.

Our process of "creation" is the same. We start from the foundation of unnameable, indescribable consciousness, and our perception creates the world around us, ranging from the platonic world of consciousness to the physical, which emanates from it in stages.

>>19180225
I am providing proof. Because your god is not proven, the only consciousness we can be aware of is life. And there were times when earth and the universe had no life because the conditions were not right for it. According to you this is wrong, but then you are disagreeing with the science. Which is fine, but not when you make up random shit and back up none of it. I am expressing the viewpoint that reality exists and does what it does beyond any need for a consciousness to be there to witness it. Which is backed up by the science. It is the only thing we can be sure of as of yet. So, until you provide more than mere claims that the universe was consciously made, or that the universe had life from the fucking planck time, you are the one navel gazing, not me. All I'm doing is not buying your claims which you have not bothered to even try to back up beyond citing a quantum physics wiki article that did not back up anything you said.

>>19179448
Mind over matter
All is one
>law of One.

You all should really define what reality is first, or in which boundaries conciousness might manifest itself. For example, I myself may think to have a grasp on what is real and what's not, because I can feel, see, hear the world. From a scientific point of view what I call reality is probably just an image in my mind, created by whatever gets picked up by my senses. It's still entirely possible this is a simulation. I could very well be some kind of ethereal being dreaming of a 3dimensional world, thus invalidating any proof of 'reality' being 'real'. Also any one of us might be god and creating 'reality' for their amusement, even without them knowing. I simply am not able to verify if you've got the same sense of conciousness or amount thereof, so I may assume that you're all my puppets and I'm talking to myself in a massive play, that I only created to fulfill my weird and twisted desires.

What I said is a whole pile of bs though, don't even know what I want to believe, and I'm aware some of you will call me autistic.

consciousness is a factor in our universe that isn't measurable, like pi or other infinities

what science has proven so far is that nothing can be erased, just dismantled or rearranged

if consciousness is a thing, then it stands to reason that it should persist in one way or another