Kevin's Watch

At the core of our existance are we essentially all the same person, and that it is merely the combined effects of our development and circumstances that overlays this 'sameness' with our [apparently] differing personalities and charachters? Is this what the Buddhists are refering to when they talk of the illusion of our independant selves?

[As a thought experiment, pick a person from your life or work who you are not keen on and envisage that you are that person and concerned on a baily basis with the things that occupy their minds. Are your upbringing and circumstances all that make you you, and them them, and could it just as easily have been the other way around?]

I don't think so. Isn't self awareness one of the most commonly agreed upon elements od consciousness? If we're are chunks of the same big rock why do we not perceive ourselves as the big rock instead of a bunch of smaller rocks that are bery similar to each other?

SerScot wrote:If we're are chunks of the same big rock why do we not perceive ourselves as the big rock instead of a bunch of smaller rocks that are very similar to each other?

Why do some people perceive one God, and others perceive multiple gods? Are the multiple gods all just facets of the Big Guy/Gal, or deities in their own right?

The point is that just because we don't view ourselves as parts of a whole, it doesn't necessarily follow that we're not.

Aliantha,

There is no way, we are currently aware of, to prove the existence of collective consciousness.

aliantha wrote:Why do some people perceive one God, and others perceive multiple gods?

I'm still trying to figure out why any of you perceive any G/god(s).

aliantha wrote:The point is that just because we don't view ourselves as parts of a whole, it doesn't necessarily follow that we're not.

Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that we are, either.

SerScot wrote:There is no way, we are currently aware of, to prove the existence of collective consciousness.

If we go by wiki's definition:
Collective conscious or collective conscience (French conscience collective) is the set of shared beliefs, ideas and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society.
then I don't believe it exists.

I must be in a contrary mood today!

peter wrote:At the core of our existance are we essentially all the same person, and that it is merely the combined effects of our development and circumstances that overlays this 'sameness' with our [apparently] differing personalities and charachters? Is this what the Buddhists are refering to when they talk of the illusion of our independant selves?

[As a thought experiment, pick a person from your life or work who you are not keen on and envisage that you are that person and concerned on a baily basis with the things that occupy their minds. Are your upbringing and circumstances all that make you you, and them them, and could it just as easily have been the other way around?]

To the first part, I think maybe we are all the same everything (but, no one can ever know!). I was once daydreaming of what could be the most interesting wish if you could have it granted, and I thought it would be to be omnipotent with the potential to become omniscient and then to spend 'forever' being everything in the universe to experience how it is. So, you would be a mote of dust around a distant galaxy's moon, a frog, a person, a whatever... in all manifestations. Eventually, you would be everything and everyone. Then, I thought, maybe I already got that wish to come true and I just don't remember?

To the second question, is that just nurture, or the nature too? Because it is more than circumstances that make a person. I read an article many years ago that scientists found that how you think is determined by your brain physiology at the time of development. So, what you think is a variable, but not how you think if that was correct.

I guess the question of whether we are a tabula rasa at birth is a related question; are all 'clean slates' the same 'clean slate', you might say, but I was thinking at a different [deeper?] level than even this. If what it is that makes me a self aware and distinct funtional conciousness has developed only once in the history of evolution, then essentially it is a 'one trick pony', and the 'sense' we get of all being different entities is indeed illusory - just the life gathered icing on the cake of our essential oneness.

Ananda - this idea you had of the 'totality of experience' of every single aspect [and every single possible] aspect of experience is an idea I have toyed with in respect of the Nature of God. Is that what we do? We gather knolege of every facet and permutation of existence and return to the Whole bearing our own special piece of the jigsaw; thus is given meaning to the existence of even the smallest mite of a child who dies but on the first day of his struggle. Perhaps.

Sounds a little like reincarnation, although at a much broader level.

I think the example of genetically identical twins who, irrespective of having been brought up in the same environment, still develop clearly identifiable and sepparate charachters shows how important [and chaotic - in the mathematical sense] the formation of 'personality' is. The minute and insignificant variations in what is said to, what happens to, and what is percieved by each child on a daily basis will result in two completely different individuals.

peter wrote:I think the example of genetically identical twins who, irrespective of having been brought up in the same environment, still develop clearly identifiable and sepparate charachters shows how important [and chaotic - in the mathematical sense] the formation of 'personality' is. The minute and insignificant variations in what is said to, what happens to, and what is percieved by each child on a daily basis will result in two completely different individuals.

Fascinating!

I thought so.

Read "I am You" by Daniel Kolak. Warning: heavy.