Thanks Curtis and to all for your responses to these questions.
Curtis: "Great thought exercise, how would you answer them?"
Asking the questions (off the top of my head rapid fire) was a useful exercise
-- perhaps as much or more so than trying to answer them. Answers may vary
from my or anyones particular view, state of mind, knowledge, working
definitions of the words, attitude at any particular time.
I posted a few questions in the morning -- struck by a prior posted
proposition that one could know with 100% certainty that awareness exists
("Core Proposition"). The deeply submerged, long ago laid, hindoo (like
emerson used to spell it) / yogic / counter culture catechism in me nodded
"sure".
Challenging this old yet still active "sleeper cell" framework -- significant
definitional issues do arise -- as you pointed to in my nebulously defined
questions. Generally, I was aiming at better understanding the offshoots /
ramifications / related supporting propositions that (may) need to also be held
as true -- if accepting the Core Proposition (as generally defined by "old
books by old men" ("OBOM"). (old men not being pejorative, but shorthand for
people living in significantly different times, lands and cultures).
Per my understanding and view of the OBOM Core Proposition (not my core views
de jour):
Is awareness dependent upon a (human or otherwise) nervous system?
No. it is the fabric of the universe(s), seen and unseen.
Is awareness the same for all who possess awareness?
Yes. Though clarity of reflection of That will vary.
Do some have more awareness even if the awareness is the "same" for all?
Awareness (Sat Chit Ananada) is the same for all, but see above.
Does awareness change? Evolve? Devolve? Fluctuate?
No, It only appears to.
DId awareness exist before the mergence of homsapiens? (100,000 years or so
ago)
Of Course. See above(s).
If so, how far back?
It never began and will never end.
Do plants have awareness of the degree and magnitude (posited) that humans do?
Yes. Though clarity of reflection of That will vary.
Do rocks?
Yes. Though clarity of reflection of That will vary.
(Many) Rocks having amazingly complex and beautiful structures. Even dirt
reflects an amazing biosphere of transformational processes that are at / near
the core of maintaining life on earth. "dumb as dirt" is a high compliment.
Rocks and dirt reflect a relatively advanced state of the expression of the
laws of nature, known and unknown, imbedded in the SAT of awareness. (Which
does not mean Rocks are conscious as we would use the terms for humans)
Could artificial intelligence "machines" ever become aware?
Being aware / becoming aware in human sense and being one with the fabric of
the universe are two different things. That said, the human nervous system /
brain is an intelligence machine made of physical parts. It reflects awareness
of objects, awareness that it is aware, and even awareness devoid of content,
and further, the realization that awareness is all that is. Might silicon or
whatever materials de jour are used in future computers reflect that? It would
be hard to cast a hard "No." given the accelerating pace of technology and
understandings of physics, neuroscience, etc.
Can awareness morph into other things?
The fabric of the universe can appear to do so, but in essence, no.
Did awareness exist before the earth was formed?
Of course, See above(s).
Did awareness exist before the the Big Bang / formation of the universe?
Of course, See above(s).
Does gravitation affect awareness like it does space and light?
Gravitation is a reflection of Sat but Sat / Awareness is not affected by
gravitation -- though Awareness reflected and "apparent" forms may appear to be
affected.
Does awareness travel at some speed?
Awareness is everywhere and everything. It precedes the formation of (apparent)
space and time.
Is awareness interconnected between (allegedly) aware individuals?
The fabric of the universe is ever the same.
If awareness once did not exist, what was the process of awareness coming into
existence?
Awareness has no beginning or end, and does not change. Its reflections can
appear to come and go.
Does awareness abide by the known laws of nature?
All of the apparent laws of nature, known and unknown, are apparent
reflections of SAT. SAT is unchanging. , non-abiding.
Does awareness have an end?
No. See above(s)
If awareness is suggested to exist forever / eternally, can you suggest a
falsifiable experiment for this hypothesis?
Some suggestions towards that (which would take far more precise definition to
be of practical value): Try to escape, transcend, be absent Awareness and all
of its apparent reflections including the laws of nature..
If awareness has not and does not exist forever, why is is more substantial
than any transient phenomenon?
Transient phenomenon are not substantial. Only Awareness is substantial. And
not even that, because substantial implies something to compare it to.
Awareness is the groundstate, fabric of the (apparent )universe
Can awareness be aware of itself?
Yes, in an apparent sense.. Awareness apparently being aware of itself brings
for the apparent expression of SAT in the formation of apparent physical
universe, and the apparent waves of Ananda inherent in though not always
apparently appreciated all of the apparent manifestations and structures in the
apparent expressions of SAT.
If so, then what are the "mechanics"?
See above for brief view. Full view requires full view of SAT.
Does awareness being aware of itself imply movement, fluctuation, energy
transfers, change?
Much energy and matter exchanges appears to unfold within Awareness (Sat Chit
Ananda) but within itself, Awareness never moves or changes.
Work in-Process (towards) an Actionable Take Aways:
Affirmatively demonstrating within reasonable bounds of uncertainty most of
the above is quite beyond science for the foreseeable future. So are a vast
load of mundane questions like "Will this be a fulfilling career?" "What is
fulfillment?", "What is a good life", ""Will I love this person for the rest of
my life", "What is love", "What is Beauty" "When does inquiry into life's
mysteries become marginally productive?"
The above exercise(s) generally re-confirm my working premise that much of the
territory that we choose to explore is not well mapped or validated by reliable
methods. We can choose to stay safe and secure in well known lands, not a bad
choice -- or venture out knowing that it may be futile, painful and could end
badly (at least metaphorically if not actually).
The old, back of envelope, mental, intuitive or tattered, faded maps that we
have include art in a broad sense (including but far from exclusively, OBOM
(and their living expressions/exponents) , coupled with strands of
philosophy/neuroscience in a broad sense (rational thinking, avoiding cognitive
biases), and continued study as to what science does tell us as being
reasonable (though not with certainty) true -- and its methods for determining
such. And not being repelled by mystical insights / inclinations / feelings
(from self and others/OBOM) if taken with a large grain of salt, sense of
adventure, and not presumptuously.
That is, I can both rationally reject the above meanderings on the Core
Proposition and similtaneously (or at least on alternative days or weeks/months
) throw myself head and heart first into such frameworks (including more
mystical deep heart-felt directions that reflect (radically) alternative views
as to the nature of life, love and awareness -- and corresponding stretch the
limits of plausibility and rationality even more so).
Such provides a path for bumbling along, hopefully not in circles, towards my
sense of the direction of greater sustained happiness (and helpfulness.),
subject to extensive on-the-road refining and mid-course corrections - and
enjoying the ride (When possible. And in my own ways.).
