dugdeep said:
Wow, what an amazing and dense session! Definitely requires multiple readings as I know I've missed quite a bit on the first pass; the whole "information arranged by a truth becomes consciousness" part I'm definitely not grokking, for instance. I guess I'm having trouble understanding how "a truth" can be independent of consciousness. I always thought of truth as a property of consciousness. Is truth material in some fashion?
I don't know if truth is material per se, but it is
real. I think we need to make sure our definitions are right before really making sense of this. For example, truth should probably be defined as "correspondence to reality." Information is a complex arrangement that specifies a certain meaning. So, to use a real-life example, "Israel is evil" is information that is 'arranged' by truth. "Israel is good" is not. The truth exists independent of any human minds, so whether anyone was aware of it or not, the truth that "Israel is evil" is true whether or not anyone translates that into a form of information (like speech, writing, thought, or even feeling).
But how does 'true information' become consciousness? I'm not sure. But if we look at our only evidence for consciousness, i.e., ourselves, then maybe it makes sense. Our information, from the atomic level to our DNA and the form of our bodies, is arranged by
something, and without our bodies, we wouldn't be conscious. (Or more specifically, without the development of adequate bodies, consciousness as we experience it wouldn't have been possible.) The only 'something' that I can think of would be something like Plato's ideal forms. Since all our parts are arranged by their ideal forms (e.g., the inherent possibilities in the cosmos for atomic forms, protein forms, body plans, etc.), I guess you could say that they are arranged by Truths that are independent of the things that they form, but also that they embody those Truths. They 'correspond to reality.'
But I see what you mean by truth needing consciousness. I think Gurdjieff's idea of the three principles might be needed here. At the level of the Absolute (Cosmic Mind), you need three principles in one. The active, informing principle (Truth), the passive, informed principle (Information), and the third, equilibrating principle (Consciousness). I suppose that it's possible to have a universe - even given the ultimate existence of these principles - that doesn't give rise to consciousness as we experience it. For example, if the information at the level of physics produced a world with laws that didn't allow for life, or if DNA produced proteins with no functional abilities. In other words, if there were a mismatch between Truths (i.e., goals or forms inherent in Cosmic Mind) and the bodies that should embody them. Information needs to be arranged by a truth inherent in the cosmos in order for it to fulfill its intended function. If it doesn't, it falls apart. So on a human level, when our information (beliefs, decisions, actions) isn't informed by Truth, our consciousness goes kaput. Maybe? :/
