forum.panpsychism.net

I don’t think consciousness is built up from smaller parts.

I think consciousness is more like an indivisible field, upon which matter exists.

But it can’t be said to exist until the matter becomes a mind within that conscious field.

Once a mind forms, out of matter which comprises an organism, a second field occurs within that original field of consciousness. The second field is not separate from the original field of consciousness, as all that exists is consciousness, but the second field is special in that it forms a kind of mirror to the original field of consciousness. It has a reflective quality.

Imagine a bubble forming within that original field of consciousness, kind of sealed off from the original field by semi permeable membranes we call the senses and the boundary of an organism.

A kind of differentiation occurs in that conscious field, which allows part of consciousness to reflect itself, thanks to the sensory apparatus which receive specific differentiated stimuli from beyond itself.

The original field of consciousness is what we call the universe beyond ourselves. It is existence itself.

Our conscious minds are a bubble within that field, like a black hole, able to take in information yet nothing outside it can penetrate it and extract that conscious content, unless they observe the membrane (brain) which divides the inner from the outer.

I'd really like to know more about this idea. I like the idea of consciousness being a field, as opposed to my thoughts on proto-consciousness. I guess this is a type off idealism?

Dime wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:56 amI think consciousness is more like an indivisible field, upon which matter exists.

But it can’t be said to exist until the matter becomes a mind within that conscious field.

How does the matter become a mind before it exists?

Patterner wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 12:12 am I'd really like to know more about this idea. I like the idea of consciousness being a field, as opposed to my thoughts on proto-consciousness. I guess this is a type off idealism?

Dime wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:56 amI think consciousness is more like an indivisible field, upon which matter exists.

But it can’t be said to exist until the matter becomes a mind within that conscious field.

How does the matter become a mind before it exists?

This idea isn’t very well developed, so you will have to bear with me as I flesh it out. Many of my ideas tend to be from hunches or feelings rather than deeply thought out and reasoned.

I would say yes, it is a form of idealism. All is mind, but only our minds are of a certain reflective kind.

The reason I like the idea of a field is, a field is both a substrate and a substance. It can be viewed as both subject and object.

Our minds are divided in a similar way.

The division of substrate and substance is arbitrary, just as the relationship between wave and ocean.

Matter can be viewed in the same way.

Matter could be viewed as perturbations in a field.

Why must the field itself not be material? Because matter is itself a construct OF the field.

Matter is a thing. It can be divided, it can be differentiated.

The substrate cannot. Mind is the same. Mind is integrated, or what I would prefer to call, “undifferentiated”.

So why would I say that the field is mind?

Is it like us, a conscious observer? No, I don’t think so. I think the consciousness is a property of a human mind, which has formed a field of its own from the matter which comprises it (the brain). That field is essentially mimicking the field like nature of the universe, like having a simulation within a simulation.

The simulation of the brain, reflects the “outer” world, but within the “inner” simulation.

It’s like a bubble universe.

Within our mind, there is a further division, between the substrate of our minds and the objects which populate the substrate, be they visual, audible, touch etc.

The substrate itself IS self knowing, that is, sentient. It has the properties of knowing, or illumination of itself.

As the objects are also itself, it knows them as well. But with this divisor of subject and object, it knows them as not self.

But it has no object to class as itself, until the perception of the body and the mental aspects is given that title.

So, there is a projection of certain parts of the mind as self, certain parts as other, and the substrate itself remains hidden to itself as long as this idea of self as body and mind remains.

This structure is most likely not present in the greater mind.

BUT, each individual mind IS that greater mind, cordoned off from the rest of the universe.

The greater mind is having “thoughts” of being an individual mind. And there are countless individual minds, all parts of that greater field, indivisible, in a fractal like manner, as the whole is contained in the part.

I know it’s not very scientific. This is more of an ontology of the structure of the relationship between our minds and the vast mind.

As to how matter becomes a mind before it exists.

Existence is tied to conscious experience, and the division between self and other, and as such, can only occur in an individual mind with an ego.

Outside of individual minds, matter is more like a thought in the universal mind, only ever actualised once apprehended by an individual ego mind.

My use of the term existence here is tied to that of the apprehension of things.

Dime wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 1:34 pm BUT, each individual mind IS that greater mind, cordoned off from the rest of the universe.

The greater mind is having “thoughts” of being an individual mind. And there are countless individual minds, all parts of that greater field, indivisible, in a fractal like manner, as the whole is contained in the part.

I know it’s not very scientific. This is more of an ontology of the structure of the relationship between our minds and the vast mind.

You are reminding me of Hinduism again. Your ideas of the relationship between greater mind and individual mind sounds exactly like the relationship between Brahman and atman. And I don't say you're wrong. I couldn't possibility claim that my thoughts on proto-consciousness are the answer. I'm just trying to make sense of things from that starting point. But this starting point might be the answer. Certainly worth considering.

I'll read your post a few more times, and see if I can figure out other aspects of what you're saying.

Have you seen this?
https://closertotruth.com/video/is-cons ... ndamental/
I think you'd particularly like 4:01-5:47.