Sociopath Community

by Luna Prey

If each conscinsiousness its its own universe, why is it that we interface with our universe physically through the medium of a body? Why does our consciousness base it's own life and death on the physical state of a body?

Why is our universe made up by laws we don't define or know the variables for? Not inherantly at least. I'd say this fact would imply that it's because we over value consciousness. We are nothing more than the physical state of that matter that is our mind, and the experiences that make it up. If that is the case, than the only way to explain the existance of consciousness at all is that it's a network of data that runs through our neverous system, and stores itself, and processes that data in our mind. 

So we're computers. We're a biological program who's purpose is to ensure the health and life of our cells, and make sure that we reproduce not becsaue we have a purpose, but simply becasue if we didn't, we wouldn't exist. We are a self perpetuation virus in that case, and when we die, it's light's out to not only us, but our universe.

 Of course, I don't purport to be a leading authority on reality.  Another suggested read would be Chris Langan's CTMU (Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe).  Apparently he's the smartest guy in the world, by last reports.  I will try and answer some of your questions the best I can.

There is no "physical" reality.  There is only information.  Consciousness is the computer.  It acts in such and such a way, because that's how it's supposed to.  Think of things as processes, but not static equations or such.  Subroutines and whatever computer jargon you want to relate to.  Campbell uses simulation for his model of his theory.  He quite aptly notes that there are just unknowable things.  Even the smartest bacteria will only know a little bit and its cosmology would be rather restrained to the tract of the intestine it may inhabit.  It would not know it was in a body, or what rain and sun or food is.

Imagine being "outside" the universe before entering it.  Once inside, you forgot all about the program you wrote.  The "character" in that universe is limited to the knowledge and awareness you programmed it to have the capacity for.  Include in that program the fact you forgot you programmed things in the first place.  Add to the program, like I said, the inherent inability to even know how to program, even if it found out it forgot it did, as a key restraint of that character.  How would that entity know?

How can an entirely homogenous environment, all things are the same, but really there is just one "thing," become multiple from a single whole?  It has no way to define itself as separate or have any basis for comparison.  You'd have to segregate partitions of your undifferentiated state of consciousness by forgetting things in a selective manner, which may find definition by the rules or physics of the universe.

I am going to turn too abstract, I think.  But ...I guess it's a start.  I hate typing huge long things, but you just touched on a subject I've done a long, long study on.

I hope I'm not revealing too much about myself.  I have come to believe in reincarnation.  Read Allen Kardec and Spiritism stuff, if you don't mind getting a little paranormal.

One problem I always have is sleep.  For a period of time each day we succumb to a conscious state we have trouble remembering in the waking state.  Where was I when I don't remember?  That bothers me endlessly.  It sometimes feels like a willing surrender to a short death.  Evidence suggests I was still here, at least in body.

With reincarnation, why do we forget previous lives?  Look at it like an education.  You may retain all the important qualities from other lives, but they may wrap up more on a subconscious level.  The removal of memory places us in the Now.  A fresh perspective, if you will.  Will we always forget between lives?  Maybe not.  Maybe our consciousness hasn't evolved enough to remember and understand things at this level.  The brain is the tool in this universe.  It is a quantum computer, really.  It is a four dimensional record that defines that life and its place in the fifth dimensional journey through probabilities and the choices with their consequences.  (Some believe memory is quantum entanglement in the brain.)

I suspect this life will fade into a dream, once death has taken me away.  The new life will be as real as this one seems right now.  The two gaping black chasms that bookend our consciousness within a life are "before memory" and "death."  How can we just bubble up between and feel that we're so real?  I have no idea what happened, but just like waking from a dream, there is strong indication there would have been a before and hopefully something after.  That is the hardest paradox I deal with.  The ineffable reality of the Now, yet the certainty of death, and the impossiblity of knowing anything before I can remember, are all real.  Does this make sense?

I suspect that once all our disparate consciousness, maybe even across other dimensional "yous" of alternate realities may meet beyond this conceptual dimension, so that all the memories and qualities will feel like a huge rememberance, but really is the culmanation of all your permutations through existence to that point.  As it's impossible to believe in multiple yous or multiple incarnations, drawing them together upon their next advancement to higher consciousness will just feel like remembering something forgotten.  It has always been you.  All of the yous have always been you.  You had only forgotten.  Now you remember.

@Buttered Toast:

How much of that strikes you as theory versus fact out of curiosity? You've clearly looked into these subjects a lot, but I can't really frame (save for some parts) what things you believe yourself versus simply what things you believe others believe.

I absolutely believe in reincarnation.  Ironically, I wrote off the notion early on.  The math made no sense to me, but the logic does make the most sense now, after so long coming back full circle.  Spiritism and Allen Kardec explains it in an almost irrefutable way to my sense of logic.  There are elements to Tom Campbell's MBT I understand, and makes the most sense to me now.  Simulation, conciousness, and so on, given a practical model using information and computaional science.  There are elements to Chris Langan's CTMU that offer further sensible ideas.  He explains a lot using language as his model, as well as set theory.  The CTMU is the best and truest to me, but it is a little high on the requisite comprehension.  Very complex, but solidly proven.  Rob Bryanton and his dimensional model adds depth (no pun intended) to these other theories.  Even Terence McKenna offers a unique and holistic model of consciousness, including language and novelty theory.  Stuart Hameroff and his theories of quantum consciousness.  Plus many many others.

It is an amagalgamation of a lot of things picked up during the course of my journey.  It would be lengthy and impractical to give an exhaustive account for everyone.  I would encourage finding and reading the stuff I mentioned, so we can start off at the same point.  It would be madness trying to bring anyone to where I am.  Not that people are stupid or I am some knowitall.  This is decades of accumulated thought and study.

 Can you please stop referencing books, and point out some good online articals? When we discuss this topic it makes me want to go read now. Not order a book that will take a week to arrive. 

 Nah.  I can bow out, to let those interested to make the decision to read up.  There is no pop quiz.  There is no deadline.  There is the information.  I am not holding anyone's hand.  I said as much in my last post.  I am not be an asshole.  I am trying to push a more active effort to learn all on your own.  ...And I am a little tired and lazy right now.

 I know, and I agree with you. Push books, I love them. I believe it was all the reading I did as a child that has me so diconnected with the world, and I'm thankful for it. I just want to read something now while I wait for my book to arrive :P

 I guess you can wet your thirst with the CTMU.

(I think I mixed up a saying.  Slake thirst.  Whet appetite.  Whatevs!)

Wow, if you do turn out to be an agent, you need to talk to your people and tell them you know a good web developer that can make them much better websites than from what I see here. This is like from 1995 type of website. The fact that this website looks so.. basic in design discredits the auther because users can clearly see this wasn't a well funded project. They think to themselves, why these guys don't even have a good website, they must not be very big. And as such, they associate that lack of size with the assumption that the author's product must not be that reputable.

 I totally agree with your thoughts, because I had them also.  I mean, the guy is a genius, just not a great web designer, lol.  And he's seemed to almost drop off the planet, since if he creates such a huge theory (which really is worth the read, despite the presentation) why is there no more show of progress going on with it, if there even is any.  I would love to see an interview or make my own, I guess.  He just seems to have disappeared.  Truthfully, he even states that he is in angst with the world of academia.  He is a blue-collar genius.  Kinda like when Einstein was doing menial jobs, yet coming up with the theory of relativity somewhere else.  These are the people I feel are ahead of their time, which turns such brilliance into a tragedy.  There is a lot of turmoil in the physicist world, between objectivism and subjectivism, basically.  Stodgy academia clinging to a Newtonian-looking quantum theory paradigm with string theory and particle theory.  This is nearly a centuries-old paradigm we've been unable to shake off and allow more innovative and insightful ideas.