Session 28 May 2013

[goyacobol]

monotonic,

I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.

What if the program is consciousness? A program doesn't need data stacks. Some programs are procedural. They are able to create what they need, even assemble themselves or modify code during execution. Pure code can contain plenty of information, although it is not in a straightforward way. To draw a circle a program doesn't need a stack of data, if it has the equation. Could you then say the program still contains the information, even if not in a lookup table or library?

It seems to me the use of a library or lookup table by a program could be compared to programs in humans - our programs are actually lists of actions that are kept handy by the adaptive unconscious. But we don't need many of these lists if we formulate everything we do using reasoning. Executing a list of actions and executing an algorithm are not entirely different. I would say that the algorithm/equation approach contains more truth AND higher density thereof.

I am struggling with the distinction between algorithms and programs. If we use reasoning based on relationships, IE algorithms, we can produce a unique solution to each unique situation. This is related to the ideal of the Work. Without this reasoning, you can only do the same thing over again, and the results tend to be zero.

I think self-modifying code may be a reasonable analogy; after all the C's have said that some of our computers have developed slight consciousness.

As far as UFOs fighting in the skies, the C's have also said that storms can be battles in other densities/dimensions, so maybe they are referring to the storms when they said there would be battles in the sky.

Thank you for saying that so well. Since trying to further utilize a computer/consciousness analogy I have created even more questions for myself. In thinking of a program that is purely procedural it makes me think of our DNA as self-modifing code or at least code that we may "receive". In the end I am asking where does the machine end and where do "we" begin? Can we prove our consciousness exists beyond the mind/machine or does our consciousness exist in another realm so to speak? Maybe not, but the C's are mentioning past life memory:

Q: (L) Did they abduct me or what is the source of this memory?
A: It is a memory of a past life held in the deep subconscious level.

I am almost still stuck at "Wait and see" for now but as I see more and more develops it makes me want to observe or see what happens.

goyacobol

 

[Thomas Alan]

Thanks to all. Fascinating discussion.

I am not sure how this relates but here goes.

A book physically is simply ink spots on paper. But when we read it we take the "information" and create the book within ourselves in a sense. Consciousness transforming information. Like what I've gathered from quantum mechanics, my take only, that nothing exists until we observe it.

In one of the Sufi poets Rumi's works he speaks directly to the reader saying: "I am not writing this book, you are".

Mac

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thanks to all. Fascinating discussion.

I am not sure how this relates but here goes.

A book physically is simply ink spots on paper. But when we read it we take the "information" and create the book within ourselves in a sense. Consciousness transforming information.

That's an important point. According to information theory, 'enxylyqnz' and 'excellent' have the same information carrying capacity, because they both have the same probability. The only thing that makes the second word real information in the sense we naturally think about is that it is a specific arrangement of letters that we have given an assigned meaning.

Like what I've gathered from quantum mechanics, my take only, that nothing exists until we observe it.

There are different opinions on this. For example, Ark tried to develop EEQT, which doesn't require a conscious observer. Henry Stapp thinks the opposite (Ark talks about his friendly disagreement with Stapp on his quantum future website). If consciousness IS necessary for quantum physics, I don't think that necessarily means that WE are that essential. Maybe nothing would exist unless the Cosmic Mind observed it.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

In thinking of a program that is purely procedural it makes me think of our DNA as self-modifing code or at least code that we may "receive". In the end I am asking where does the machine end and where do "we" begin? Can we prove our consciousness exists beyond the mind/machine or does our consciousness exist in another realm so to speak? Maybe not, but the C's are mentioning past life memory:

Q: (L) Did they abduct me or what is the source of this memory?
A: It is a memory of a past life held in the deep subconscious level.

These are just my working hypotheses based on what I've been reading lately, but I don't think our consciousness exists in another realm, so to speak (but maybe it's just semantics). But I do think the objects of our consciousness do (I'm not thinking of the things we see in the physical world, I'm thinking of things like numbers, values, truths, meanings, goals, propositions, norms, ideal forms). I think that matter and consciousness (or experience) are tied together. Every individual (whether a human or an atom) has its own subjective experience, and its own objectivity; its own final causation and efficient causation; its own mental pole (where it experiences abstract possibilities and other concrete actualities) and its own physical pole (where it acts as its own concrete actuality).

 

[Heretic02]

To understand truth - consciousness interconnection contemplate light or the magnetic field torus flow. Consciousness is self-awareness which implies a sort of reflexive cyclic pattern. Both light and the torus reflect this concept. It's an analogy at best but perhaps still useful.

For me the analogy unpacks something like this. Being = truth = a mathematical point. Information flows from the point outward. The shape of the flow is information. When the form becomes reflexive then consciousness is born. In a torus the flow curves around to rejoin the mathematical originating point / "truth." Consciousness is a shape of information which returns to contemplation of Being(truth). It can also be conceived of a series of facts which tell a story leading to the original point.
[..]

More pictures here:
http://harmonicresolution.com/Toroidal%20Space.htm.

A fossil origin for the magnetic field in A stars and white dwarfs:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7010/full/nature02934.html

Q: (L) Okay, so going back to my triple goddess viewed through sheets of rain, since I now have a different understanding of what these "gods" and "goddesses" represented, that they probably were cometary bodies... What you're saying, or what I'm assuming you're saying, is the triple goddess viewed through sheets of rain is essentially a comet or comets? Is it electrical discharges? (Belibaste) The cause of the sheets of rain might be the triple goddess, i.e. triple comet. (L) Oh... Is Belibaste right on that? That the cause of the sheets of rain could be a triple cometary body?

A: Close. Also consider plasma shapes including those that may appear "chalice like"

Earths magnetosphere shaped by the sun. Rotate 90 degrees clockwise:

The graphic relating to the fossil fields of A stars and white dwarfs actually relates quite closely to my own research, which is in the magnetic fields and magnetospheres of massive (spectral types O and B) stars. These objects actually quite mysterious: we are only able to detect magnetic fields in 5-10% of these stars (and this is a true bimodal distribution, not just an effect of detection threshold: we have a very large number of non-detections for a very large number of stars, with error bars much smaller than the smallest magnetic fields we've detected, i.e. error bars of 20 gauss in most cases, with the weakest field we've detected being about 300 G); also, in contrast to cool stars, such as the Sun, which are relatively well-described by dynamo theory (convection + differential rotation driving a magnetic dynamo), we're not entirely sure why these stars have magnetic fields, since their outer envelopes are expected to be radiative rather than convective and thus, should not support dynamos. Their fields are also quite different from those of cool stars: where the latter typically exhibit a high degree of intrinsic variability, with magnetic activity cycles and such, the magnetic fields of hot stars are extraordinarily stable.

The fossil field hypothesis is a somewhat ad hoc (in my opinion) model which attempts to explain the magnetic fields of these stars as magnetic flux from the star-forming region which was compressed and amplified during star formation ... if the field is stronger than a certain threshold, it survives, while if it is below that threshold it dissipates. Now, one interesting thing about these simulations, in light of the discussion of toroids above, is that these fields are not stable if they are either purely poloidal (aligned with the magnetic dipole) or purely toroidal (aligned with the magnetic equator), i.e. a mixed field is necessary ... however, the toroidal component can account for by far the majority of the magnetic energy. Toroidal fields are also intrinsically much more difficult to detect.

Personally, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better EU explanation for this phenomenon. In most EU models stars are powered by external electric circuits, rather than by internal nuclear fusion, and the various spectral types are distinguished by different plasma discharge regimes with different current densities. It is not obvious to me how this might be reconciled with the bimodal magnetic distribution of hot stars: why should most of these stars show no detectable magnetic field, while a subset possess extremely strong fields? I've considered posing this as a question for the C's, but have held off because it seems to be a somewhat academic concern given all the immediate problems our planet is facing. Yet who knows? There might be some clue here, as to the nature of stellar magnetism and stellar electric circuits, that could tell us something important about the Sun.

And if we add to all this "Brown Dwarf" what we have?

 

[goyacobol]

tohuwabohu, monotonic and nickelbleu

I am trying to address several posts at one time to maybe lessen the repetition and clutter.

I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.

What if the program is consciousness? A program doesn't need data stacks. Some programs are procedural. They are able to create what they need, even assemble themselves or modify code during execution. Pure code can contain plenty of information, although it is not in a straightforward way. To draw a circle a program doesn't need a stack of data, if it has the equation. Could you then say the program still contains the information, even if not in a lookup table or library?

It seems to me the use of a library or lookup table by a program could be compared to programs in humans - our programs are actually lists of actions that are kept handy by the adaptive unconscious. But we don't need many of these lists if we formulate everything we do using reasoning. Executing a list of actions and executing an algorithm are not entirely different. I would say that the algorithm/equation approach contains more truth AND higher density thereof.

I am struggling with the distinction between algorithms and programs. If we use reasoning based on relationships, IE algorithms, we can produce a unique solution to each unique situation. This is related to the ideal of the Work. Without this reasoning, you can only do the same thing over again, and the results tend to be zero.

I think self-modifying code may be a reasonable analogy; after all the C's have said that some of our computers have developed slight consciousness.

As far as UFOs fighting in the skies, the C's have also said that storms can be battles in other densities/dimensions, so maybe they are referring to the storms when they said there would be battles in the sky.

Well I don't think that programs ARE consciousness. Programs are run on machines. So they simply dumbly execute whatever is programmed into them without consciously knowing why they are doing it. Even most people are machines exactly because of that. But I think that consciousness can be born if enough data or information is assimilated and something starts to fit together and one starts to be aware of things that were unknown before. It is also interesting question what is the difference between a unit that can draw circle from equation and one that can draw circle from tabulated data. I think that the tabulated data are like discontinuous information points, like crumbles but from the data an equation can be formed by inteligent observation. So the unit that uses equation should already made the connection between the dots and thus can perhaps use the information more effectively. I would say it learned something. So I think that the knowledge is simply connecting the dots in intelligent manner and drawing a compact conclusion that can lead to some universal law and universal understanding.
I would say a man is aware of every movement he makes and of every thought he thinks and knows why he is doing it or thinking it. So he's got consciousness.

tohuwabohu I hope we will not continue to be like machines that "simply dumbly execute whatever is programmed into them without consciously knowing why they are doing it".

I have tried to use a computer model/analogy to further describe "Information is stored in consciousness." I am glad to see the comparisons continued. Monotonic suggested that we could make map (almost like a flow-chart?) to make connections for the analogy and I think it is a great idea (wish I would have noticed in my previous reply, Monotonic).

I think the C's have made a distinction between knowledge and consciousness. But while we're at it, why not bring up Being as well? Information, consciousness, knowledge, being, and so on. If we can think of all the related things and connect what the C's have said about them, maybe we can make a "map" with the interconnections? How about drawing it, with the words and the relationships as arrows connecting them? Visualizing may reveal a pattern.

With this in mind I will attempt to start a kind of map that we can develop together or we can all start a map and later combine them into one cohesive map.

The post by "sitting" who proposes that maybe "knowledge becomes consciousness" is another idea for developing the map, chart or visual diagram.

Quote from: Heimdallr on Today at 12:41:37 AM

Excellent post goyacobol, great job connecting the dots and bringing in concepts to flesh out your ideas.




Ditto that!


Mulling over all this, I thought of dragging in another word. A word the C's have used often. And expounded upon quite a bit. That word is knowledge.

I wonder if "information arranged by a truth" is not indeed the knowledge they've spoken of so much. Along with the dangers of false knowledge. If that is the case, then having knowledge become consciousness would require less of a conceptual leap...at least in my mind.

And they have said much about knowledge. Reviewing that material may well give added insight to the current discussion on consciousness and information.

Lastly, I'm beginning to feel that understanding what it (the various thingies) does...is at least as important as trying to understand what it (the same thingies) is. As the latter may simply be beyond our capacity of comprehension. As in Castaneda's the "unknowable".

Thanks for all the ideas

goyacobol

 

[monotonic]

The main point I wanted to make but ended up all but saying (weird how that happens) is that the truth seems to be inherent in the structure of a conscious program, but in a way that we don't recognize as truth because we are used to thinking of truth as discrete facts and figures, etc.

Mods please move this to a new thread if it is interesting enough. I've had these thoughts building up for a long time and as it turns out they kind of "discharged" through the keyboard. This is long-winded but I hope my writing style makes it okay to read, but I think the ideas are a bit disorganized. I've been playing with taking random concepts and trying to fit them into this perspective, and if there is no match, I find another thing to add on.

I have been thinking about how becoming aware could be described as a process of bringing the inner condition to "match" the outer reality. This meaning is reflected in the phrase "give everything it's due". Applying this to a conscious program, we see that the algorithm must "match" with the nature of the inputs and outputs of the program. Perhaps it could be thought of as holographic. Through reasoning, inspiration and curiosity, the program could begin to interface with the world beyond its sensors and outputs, and this would still be a growing "reflection" of the outer environment, with the sensors and outputs being only a material limitation.

I keep thinking of the idea of resonance, and how resonators are able to connect across very large distances, and wonder if there is a connection to the way a conscious program can expand even through material limitations, if the necessary effort is applied. Effort strengthens the resonant effect, and at full resonance energy passes freely through the intervening medium with little indication; this is mathematical. This seems to connect with the idea of Will.

When one immediately gives back what one receives, and takes nothing, one acts as a resonator. What one takes, serves to sap the energy of the resonance. If the resonance is strong, taking even a tiny amount may be enough to break it. I think this must be related to a conscious program and its ability to "couple" with reality outside of its material limitations. It is in the appropriate reaction and giving of dues. Energy can be forced through the medium, but you lose most of it. If instead you put energy in the resonator, the energy is protected, conserved, grows, and takes on the properties of the resonator which allows it to connect to distant sources, and to collect energies of the same frequency. The inclination to take a shortcut and force the medium is the always present lady in the red dress; by resisting dissipative impulses and applying truth to your energy, the energy you are given allows you to "couple" with the distant energies. Is this Will?

Material/medium limitations do have an effect. The stronger the resistance, the stronger the resonance must be to counteract it. In an electrical circuit, the stronger the resonance, the more "time" it takes to move energy, because a resonator has to accumulate enough energy in its vibration for full effect. But the C's tell us time doesn't exist, so maybe it in reality takes 1/energy to move our perception of time? What a surprising idea.

Resonance is also a way of organizing information. Information can be encoded in the vibration envelope of a resonance. So resonance connects us in more ways than energetically; it provides a conduit for information.

So, maybe this matches with some of the concepts of truth, will, and other things?

Self-observation is similar to negative feedback in electric circuits. Self-observation is what keeps one from giving or taking too much. It is also what can allow one to give all or to give none. Self-observation/feedback organizes the whole of one's substance by the guiding substance which performs the observing function. Without organizing self-feedback the constituent substances revert to their individual natures, a significant portion of which will be of the dissipative type and will instantly discharge all the energy from what is connected to the output, the focus of one's efforts. This is a continuum, so there is no black and white, but we can assume that without active organization, all forces tend towards equilibrium, and to acquire force means to resist equilibrium.

Unorganized materials have the tendency towards dissipation, to absorb energy like buffers. The ability to direct energy, though not creating it, is unique to the process of feedback/self-observation. Only in energized substances such as plasma or during an avalanche (plasma could be described as an avalanche of electricity) is energy released from storage in otherwise inert substances. Almost always, these chaotic discharges in nature do not take on a life of their own; the rockslide leaves its energy at the foot of the cliff. The plasma discharge destroys the points of discharge in a violent blaze. These are examples of positive feedback, causing the release of energy in materials which are already energized, either by gravity, by electricity, whichever form of energy it is. The self-observer is energized already and uses feedback to manipulate the energy. Without being energized, the substance of the observer cannot but fall into equilibrium and decay. But the property of being energized, coupled with feedback, allows the self-observer to direct those energies.

The directing of energy could be seen as negative dissipation, so it is interesting that self-observation creates the possibility of negative dissipation whereas disorganization leads to dissipation. For there to be conservation of energy, there must be equal amounts of self-observation and non-observation. I can't give a rooted reason why energized matter shows negative dissipation, a sign of self-observation, but I know that it must, based on all my reasoning here, and by what the C's and other sources say. It is always a specific energy level that triggers this negative dissipation, and results in a breakdown of the material. With no further organized self-observing, all the energy released is immediately dissipated in the resultants of the breakdown/reaction.

I see I'm using electronics heavily as an analogy, but AFAIK the C's treat math as a universal language and electronics is intimately connected with math. The way we use many of these 4th way words conforms to mathematical relationships. These parallels make sense to me in so far as the electronics is a parallel application of math. Electronics is just my window into math.

I have some further ideas about circles and ontology, but I haven't developed them very far. Circles are intimately connected to resonance. Think about it. "feedback loop". Mathematically, resonance can be seen as a cylinder with time as the non-circular coordinate. Resonance always involves two transducers connected in an active+passive configuration and the oscillation of energy between two forms along the third axis, which in our perspective is time, though a resonance could occur along any other continuum. Atomic particles are continually vibrating; they only differ in the degree.

 

[Muxel]

A: If that is the only way to achieve truth within the self, it is very important.

Q: (L) I don't think that was quite the way the question was intended. I think it was about having a group that helps each other in material or physical ways in the coming times.

A: If there is truth within that will manifest naturally like the pieces of a puzzle snapping into place.

What a weird way to said it. I would imagine "If there is need for" that it will manifest.... So it is as they were saying that physical help is not maybe a real need? I note that the last answer seems to be influenced by the former one. Why need physical help wouldn't contain true in it?

I think they're saying that "truth within the self" is what's important, it is what we should strive to achieve. Everything else - like material assistance - will follow naturally "if there is truth within." If connecting to other people (or climbing a tree, for example) is what you need to do to achieve truth within yourself, then do it. That sort of thing.

 

[goyacobol]

Approaching Infinity,

In thinking of a program that is purely procedural it makes me think of our DNA as self-modifing code or at least code that we may "receive". In the end I am asking where does the machine end and where do "we" begin? Can we prove our consciousness exists beyond the mind/machine or does our consciousness exist in another realm so to speak? Maybe not, but the C's are mentioning past life memory:

Q: (L) Did they abduct me or what is the source of this memory?
A: It is a memory of a past life held in the deep subconscious level.

These are just my working hypotheses based on what I've been reading lately, but I don't think our consciousness exists in another realm, so to speak (but maybe it's just semantics). But I do think the objects of our consciousness do (I'm not thinking of the things we see in the physical world, I'm thinking of things like numbers, values, truths, meanings, goals, propositions, norms, ideal forms). I think that matter and consciousness (or experience) are tied together. Every individual (whether a human or an atom) has its own subjective experience, and its own objectivity; its own final causation and efficient causation; its own mental pole (where it experiences abstract possibilities and other concrete actualities) and its own physical pole (where it acts as its own concrete actuality).

I guess my question is where does consciousness exist. Like you "I think that matter and consciousness (or experience) are tied together." but are they so tied together that they have no separate existence? The C's seem to indicate memories from past lives are stored in our subconscious. I think it is very possible that atoms have some form of consciousness but humans are much more complex in structure to the point of collecting memories. Do atoms have memory? I don't know. Then there are supposed to be sub-atomic particles too. Do they have memories and learn from their experience? Again, I don't know.

Is one iron atom different from another iron atom because it has a different experience? Do atoms have mental poles? I do not know the answer. Wow, you have me thinking (with a hammer?). I think my mental pole is getting bent.

I only used the word realm as a place-holder so to speak for where the consciousness might exist if it can be separate from the mind/machine. I believe I am attempting to re-think my ideas about "soul" and what does "group soul" mean and perhaps their relationship to consciousness.

Gurdjieff seems to speak of a permanence or imperishability for the man who attains his own "I" by "conscious labor and intentional suffering". If this "I" is imperishable then "where" does this imperishable "I" formed by "conscious" efforts exist?

[quote author=G.I.GURDJIEFF Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson Chapter 47 pg 1125]
Now, after all that I have said, coming back to the chief theme of the lecture
read here today, I wish to remind you of the expressions employed several
times in defining man—namely, "real man" and "man in quotation marks,"
and in conclusion to say this:
Although the real man who has already acquired his own "I," and the man
in quotation marks who has not, are equally slaves of that same "Greatness,"
the difference between them, as I have already said, consists in this, that since
the attitude of the first toward his slavery is conscious, he acquires the
possibility, even while serving the "all-universal actualizing," of applying a
part of his manifestations, according to the providence of Great Nature, to the
attainment of "imperishable Being", whereas the second, not cognizing his
slavery, serves during the entire process of his existence merely as a thing,
which, when no longer needed, disappears forever.[/quote]

I am just trying to find "information arranged by a truth" so I don't expect for you to have all the answers either. You have given me much food for thought. Hopefully you will have some thoughts about the "where"(4th or 5th? or who's on First?). You probably have heard those old questions "Who am I?", "Why am I here?" and "Where am I going". My current answer seems to be "Wait and see".


Thank you for the input ,

goyacobol

 

[osher]

I think truth and gravity and consciousness may be the same thing. And all three - or any, if it is one thing, so IT must exist "in place" for any transfer of energy or knowledge from higher dimensions down the line (STO) or any creative act to take place. Or even for anything to exist at all. (There must be truth for a lie to exist.)

 

[Muxel]

Like what I've gathered from quantum mechanics, my take only, that nothing exists until we observe it.

There are different opinions on this. For example, Ark tried to develop EEQT, which doesn't require a conscious observer. Henry Stapp thinks the opposite (Ark talks about his friendly disagreement with Stapp on his quantum future website). If consciousness IS necessary for quantum physics, I don't think that necessarily means that WE are that essential. Maybe nothing would exist unless the Cosmic Mind observed it.

"Nothing exists until we observe it"... Tell that to the guy crossing the road who didn't see the car coming. Okay, so that means there are gradations of consciousness and maybe everything exists because the ultimate consciousness is there to observe it, but does the Cosmic Mind have anything to observe in? As in, does Cosmic Mind require a native realm? Can Cosmic Mind be a rather imaginative person in some distant dimension?

You would not exist if someone didn’t "dream you up".

Information field aggregates matter.

Thoughts made manifest!

Not only electric charge. In the realm from which some of these things are manifested or, better, "directed", information is king.

Other realm just mentioned... Gravity waves.

You are not completely familiar with the reality of what thoughts are. We have spoken to you on many levels and have detailed many areas involving density level, but thoughts are quite a different thing because they pass through all density levels at once.

 

[tohuwabohu]

Exactly, nothing exists for you if you do not think about it. So everything that is is a result of someones thinking. It s that simple.

 

[monotonic]

Exactly, nothing exists for you if you do not think about it. So everything that is is a result of someones thinking. It s that simple.

Things don't exist "for" anyone. They may not exist in your perception. The quantum "you create your own reality" theme has been discussed extensively here, so you may do a search on that topic.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I have been thinking about how becoming aware could be described as a process of bringing the inner condition to "match" the outer reality. This meaning is reflected in the phrase "give everything it's due". Applying this to a conscious program, we see that the algorithm must "match" with the nature of the inputs and outputs of the program. Perhaps it could be thought of as holographic. Through reasoning, inspiration and curiosity, the program could begin to interface with the world beyond its sensors and outputs, and this would still be a growing "reflection" of the outer environment, with the sensors and outputs being only a material limitation.

This would be objectivity. But what if we don't want our inner condition to match the outer reality? What if the outer reality is nasty? Then we work on creating a new reality. So there's objectivity in the sense of being aware of, and coming to know, objective truth as it is currently manifesting in reality. But there's also the creativity of embodying new truths, that exist only as potentials.

I keep thinking of the idea of resonance, and how resonators are able to connect across very large distances, and wonder if there is a connection to the way a conscious program can expand even through material limitations, if the necessary effort is applied. Effort strengthens the resonant effect, and at full resonance energy passes freely through the intervening medium with little indication; this is mathematical. This seems to connect with the idea of Will.

Maybe the medium is nonlocal? Free will would be choosing which potential to resonate with.

Resonance is also a way of organizing information. Information can be encoded in the vibration envelope of a resonance. So resonance connects us in more ways than energetically; it provides a conduit for information.

So, maybe this matches with some of the concepts of truth, will, and other things?

So maybe truth arranges information by resonance?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Okay, so that means there are gradations of consciousness and maybe everything exists because the ultimate consciousness is there to observe it, but does the Cosmic Mind have anything to observe in? As in, does Cosmic Mind require a native realm? Can Cosmic Mind be a rather imaginative person in some distant dimension?

Well, every metaphysics ends somewhere, otherwise you get an infinite regress (who created God? who created whatever created God? etc.). I think by definition Cosmic Mind is the totality of everything. It's panentheism: 'God' is the soul of the world; Cosmic Mind is in everything and everything is in Cosmic Mind. So I don't think Cosmic Mind can be a person in a distant dimension. What unifies the different dimensions? If there's nothing to unify them, if they have nothing in common (in other words, if they're not part of the same whole), then they can't interact. Cosmic Mind is the ultimate reality; it observes 'in' itself.

You would not exist if someone didn’t "dream you up".

That's an interesting quote. In Irreducible Mind, Edward Kelly writes:

Something within us, a sort of cosmogenic, world-generating, or virtual-reality system, is continuously updating and projecting an overall model of the perceptual environment and our position within it, guided by very limited samplings of the available sensory information … Neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinas and his co-workers have even advanced the view, which I believe is profoundly correct, that dreaming, far from being an odd and incidental part of our mental life, represents the fundamental form of this projective activity. Ordinary perceptual synthesis, on this inverted view of things, amounts to oneiric (dreamlike) activity constrained by sensory input … (p. 40)

Scale that up, and maybe the universe is the materialized 'dream' of Cosmic Mind?