So "everything" is evidence of what, exactly?

"Everything" apparently exists, but are we sure, as the only way we can perceive everything, including ourselves, is through our consciousness. Things appear to exist when we dream. How do we know this isn't a dream we, or perhaps something we might call god, is having. That's what the Hindus believe

But who is observing & what is observed. Observation is part of our awareness, but not always of reality

@Remiforce conundrum

@bobwjr Yes, it is. Please refer to Heisenberg's Box (Uncertainty principle) & Schroedinger's cat. They illustrate the interesting uncertainty between the observer & the observed

@Remiforce familiar with Heisenberg

True, If we define universal consciousness as true knowledge, or truth, then belief becomes nugatory

I disagree. I look around and I see nothing but the universe. No God, no interdimensional beings with omnipotent powers.

Just the universe.

So if there's any thinking going on its probably the universe thats doing it.

Talk about a category error. You are the universe. You're nothing but. Sure you're not the whole shebang oh, but you're still it.

@Metahuman After a lifetime of object oriented software design I can't help but see the universe like I see any other entity -- as having "is a" and "has a" relationships (inheritance and composition). The universe HAS conscious entities; conscious entities exist IN a universe. The universe is no more conscious than a tomato farm is a tomato.

There is also no credible evidence that human or animal minds are transceivers for some sort of discarnate consciousness. And a great deal of evidence that they are not.

If the preponderance of evidence changes, I'll re-evaluate that position.

@mordant I think that's like saying that the river HAS whirlpools IN it. I disagree.

The whirlpools are something that the river is doing.

Not some objects with independent existence in the river.

In exactly the same way, over the short-term you are the flow of local currents of the universe. Over the longer-term all of it.

You didn't come into this world. You came out of it. Your mom did not drop you off here from some parallel dimension. You grew here. You are every bit as much a natural phenomenon of the universe as a tree or a star. Which themselves are processes of flow, something the universe is doing.

Current Quantum theory and physics, as far as I can understand, certainly seem to indicate that there's something both very fundamental and very weird about consciousness in relation to reality.

As far as evidence is concerned, I wasn't really pursuing a point to prove, per se. Just sort of a look at it this way argument.

I don't necessarily believe that the brain is simply a radio picking up consciousness from the universe, although it wouldn't surprise me, either.

Then again, maybe we're overthinking. Actually, it is true, and isn't that hard to demonstrate. If we compare the brain to a sensory input and recording device, and all the stimuli that our senses provide us as the input, our actions as the output, then the metaphor is absolutely true. Just with sensory impressions and actions in the place of radio waves. You act, the universe acts back, and so on.

The point is that you are not a separate entity living IN the universe. You are an expression OF the universe.

@Metahuman I understand the impetus to concepts related to non-duality and our unity with all humans and even with all existence. I do not entirely buy into them either. Infants are under the misapprehension that they are not distinct from other people, and so think that other people exist as extensions of themselves, to meet their needs at all times. This is known as "selfishness". So the potential effects of regarding yourself as some mystical unity with all of reality aren't all or necessarily positive or functional. The jury is very much out on that for me.

Some of this comes down to the base problem that mindfulness meditation always wrestles with: you can't be egoless and grooving with the universe and also function in the real world, where an ego is actually necessary for survival. At best you can switch between those two modes. "Before enlightenment, the laundry. After enlightenment, the laundry".

Besides, I see no fundamental conflict between owning your separate personal place and responsibility in what passes for the great scheme of things, and having empathy and compassion for all the other beings you share it with, understanding for instance that they have similar joys and sorrows and hopes and dreams and aspirations and disappointments. To take it so far as to blur the lines to the extent that you regard "me" as "them" and vice versa -- I don't really see the practical use of that. Maybe it helps some people manage their annoyance or expectations of others; personally that hasn't worked for me and I've found other paths to equanimity.

@mordant "....you can't be egoless and grooving with the universe and also function in the real world, where an ego is actually necessary for survival."

Said no cat ever.

@OwlInASack for scientists. Not laypeople. That's how we get woo. That's how we got jehovah.

@OwlInASack "We are all scientists."

I mean that's literally not true.

We're all curious about the world or whatever, but that doesn't mean anyone should listen to me if I said dark matter is actually just the invisible hand of mighty Odin.

Recognizing consciousness is like getting a fish to recognize water. We swim in a sea of consciousness, but only realize it when we lose it. But many ponder the relationship between cosmic consciousness & personal consciousness. Dammit, you can take the boy out of the New Age, but you can't take the New Age out of the boy

@Remiforce I am talking about awareness of consciousness.