Friday, 21 June 2024

Oneness

Genesis, PART TWO, VII.

Both Christian and Laurinda remember:

"...having been one with a nodal being." (p. 170)

The members of the galactic brain are not absorbed but remain individuals and therefore are called nodes, not cells. Each is a complex of machines and organisms, the latter living mostly on the quantum level. Thus, the uploads' oneness was with a member of the galactic brain, not with the galaxy or the cosmos. The memory of oneness is described as:

dim;
fragmentary;
nameless;
formless;
a sense of transcendence;
"...like the afterglow of a religious vision long ago..." (ibid.);
pervading the personality;
more unconscious than conscious;
Laurinda's relationship to Gaia;
her speaking for the Terrestrial node;
Christian's relationship to Wayfarer and Alpha.

This does sound religious. Religions differ but often refer to oneness with a transcendent consciousness. They usually assume that consciousness is ontologically primary although the Norse gods arose from interaction between the unconscious material forces of heat and cold. Nodes, produced by earlier nodes, are descended from artificial intelligences created by intelligent organisms which evolved from unconscious matter.

I agree with the language of oneness and transcendence but not with the primacy of consciousness. The universe becomes conscious of itself through conscious organisms. Thus, it is the universal self and they are individual selves which can realise their oneness with the universe although consciousness does not precede or succeed organisms.

17 comments:

Jim Baerg said...

I'm currently reading "How to Change Your Mind" by Michael Pollan.
It is about the effects of such drugs as LSD including his own experiences with taking them.
He uses the 'language of oneness' in his descriptions of his experiences, but notes that what you have heard about such drug experiences has a *big* effect on what you experience.
Before LSD got demonized, my father volunteered for an experiment in which the researchers wanted to know the effects on someone with no mental issues, so they could compare with the effects on eg: alcoholics for therapy. His accounts, and me reading Aldous Huxley's books on the topic (the books were in the house while I was young) have left me curious about trying such drugs. However, not curious enough to try black market LSD with who knows what else in it.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul and Jim!

Paul: And I disagree with language like "The universe becomes conscious of itself through conscious organisms." That is not the case because a star, a planet, a black hole, etc., are not conscious beings. Only rational beings separate and independent of such things can even know they exist. Which is why I don't believe in anything like this "oneness," never mind fallacies such as pantheism.

Jim: I would far rather no one uses LSD at all, unless for strictly controlled medical or scientific purposes.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Of course every part of the universe is not conscious but rational beings are neither separate nor independent. They only appear to be so. Really, they are dependent, interdependent and interactive, the conscious part of the single reality.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

But I know myself to be apart from the chair I am sitting on, that it is separate from me. The chair has no awareness or consciousness of anything. It is just an object.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

I do not claim that the chair is conscious. Surely that is clear? Organisms with central nervous systems are the conscious part of the universe.

You are distinct but not separate. You would not exist if the rest of the universe did not.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I would not exist if the rest of the universe did not exist--but I am still "separate" from it.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

But now we are just using one word in two different senses. As long as "separate" does not entail ontological independence, then it is what I mean by "distinct" - temporarily and apparently separate. We can intuit and realize our oneness with all things - which does not negate but incorporates distinctness.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Except I do believe there is an ontological difference as well, believing as I do in the immortality of a soul that will outlast any number of universes.

In the amusing story "Pact" we see an astronomer rejoicing in that, because he would have plenty of time for studying the universe. Another theological story by Anderson!

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

And that ontologically separate soul is what I disbelieve in. Consciousness arose as a property of organisms with central nervous systems. How can it become separate any more than any other property does?

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

Just another point where we cannot agree.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

The most parsimonious explanation for the effects of LSD and so forth is simply that they produce illusions and delusions by chemically screwing up the brain.

Occam's Razor. The explanation that covers the facts and uses the minimum number of entities (in plain English the simplest one) is always to be preferred.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I agree, which is why stuff like LSD should only be used in laboratories, not by poor fools using it for fun.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

From Sean M. Brooks:

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I agree, which is why stuff like LSD should only be used in laboratories, not by poor fools using it for fun.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

"LSD and so forth is simply that they produce illusions and delusions"

I'm not going to disagree with that.
In the book I'm reading, the author quotes people saying that in small doses they encourage "out of the box" thinking. He seems to agree with them.
There *may* be some benefit to "shaking up the snow globe" and then after ward being able to pick out some useful ideas out of the nonsense.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

I still disagree, LSD does far more harm than good, esp. since most of its abusers use it just to trip out (or flip out!). It belongs in laboratories, not being sold by drug traffickers.

Ad astra! Sean

Jim Baerg said...

FWIW the author of the book seems to like therapeutic use to mitigate some types of mental illness and addictions. He documents evidence of helpfulness for such problems.
Also psychedelics don't seem to be addictive in the way that such drugs as opioids, cocaine, or alcohol are. So controlling their use seems less urgent than the drugs known to be addictive.
For therapy, "set & setting" seem to be important for doing more good than harm. Ie: avoiding 'bad trips'.
Yes. A certain amount of caution is needed when using *anything*.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Jim!

Therapeutic use of LSD under controlled scientific conditions is one thing--but we both know "recreational" abusers of of that drug are using it in ways nowhere like that!

Ad astra! Sean