Is seeing myself as ‘consciousness’ just an interpretation?

All you can do is interpret. You never actually get to see the source . All you get is data . You always just get information. You never can see or touch the source directly. You only get information, and you interpret that information.

Now, it may seem like it’s a sad story that you can’t get to the source, but the source can only communicate with you by sending you information. The source can describe itself to you and it may do that in terms that it thinks you can understand, that suit your metaphors, but there’s no way to touch that source or interact with it other than by getting information. That’s what it means to be an informational based reality. So you never get to actually meet what’s behind the data.

That’s why we have metaphors and descriptions of it so when I talk about the larger consciousness system and individual rated units of consciousness, don’t take these literally, take these as metaphor, metaphorically. These are metaphors because for us to have a conversation with each other we have to kind of define terms if you will ; they’re metaphors they represent a function of consciousness.

So when I talk about the larger consciousness system, that then is a function of conscious, that’s the whole thing, that’s everything. I talk about an individual unit of conscious, that’s that piece of consciousness of which we’re a part and then I break it down further into a free-will awareness unit which is just that piece of that individuated unit of consciousness that is kind of logged on to play this avatar. None of these things necessarily exist. They’re all metaphorical to describe what we experience, to describe the functions of consciousness. Consciousness has to have some functionality. We generally know what that functionality is… What does it mean to be conscious?

And as I developed this model I get to a point where consciousness has this attribute it has this function, this thing, that it does I make up a name for it, that way we can talk about it. If I don’t make up a model or a name for it, then there’s no way for us to communicate about it. So no, you don’t get to see past that. Now, most of us, when we get that information, that becomes our reality and we tend to think that that is exactly the way it is. We believe that there’s, that that is the fundamental thing – but it’s not. It’s just our interpretation, and it’s the same between individuals.

When you and I speak to each other I hear your words I have to interpret them into what I think you mean. You hear my words you have to interpret them into what you think I mean. You never get to touch the real thing, you only get your interpretation. So when I talk to you, you don’t ever get to connect with my mind , my source. You only get the information that you have to interpret. So we never really connect at that fundamental level. We only connect through changing information, you know , that’s why men are from Mars and women are from Venus, because they interpret data differently. You’ll see the same thing, they’ll hear the same words and will have a different interpretation.

It’s impossible to share an experience. You have an experience but you can’t share it, you can only describe it. And your description is not the experience, it’s a shadow of that experience because you take that experience and you take something that is more or less emotional, okay maybe some intellectual, but you take that and you have to put that into language. Language is information. And when you do that process there’s lots of room for error. You can’t put that precisely … all the nuances, all the feelings, your description of it… it’s very rough and you take that rough description in your language and you send it off to somebody else with the spoken word or written word – they get it and then they interpret it in terms of their own experience.

It’s almost amazing that people can even communicate with each other! There’s so much room for error here but nobody can really share an experience or share their reality with anybody else. All we can do is describe it. The description is maybe a 50% capture of what it is. You send it to them and they maybe get 50% of that 50% that they interpret in some other way. And that’s the way it is person to person; that’s the way it is with the larger consciousness system. It can’t be any other way than that because the only place that you can experience is inside a virtual reality.

Experience requires interaction. If there’s no interaction there’s really no experience. So it requires interactions with something else, with someone else, with some other thing, even if it’s with a rock – it’s experience, its interaction with something… Well, that interaction has to take place within a rule set that defines what the interaction is. You know, “the rock is hot” or “the rock is cold”… Well, you have to have a definition of what is hot and cold, what does that mean. So you need a rule set that defines these interactions. So experience only happens through trading information. When there is a set that defines what that information , what is the context of that information?…

So that is how our reality fundamentally works. We never do see the thing. We never even see each other. We only see bodies and get information and then we do the best we can to interpret what we think they meant and that’s as good as it gets. So the larger consciousness system – it’s a function of consciousness – there has to be an overall system otherwise there couldn’t be rule sets and virtual realities and other things. So because there has to be a system behind it, I call that the larger consciousness system, it’s a metaphor for that thing that creates the order and the structure in which we interact, you see. Metaphors. All metaphors – which is very unnerving to a lot of people because it takes the realities, like pulls the rug right out from under their feet where they thought was solid it’s now just informational…

But that is basically what quantum mechanics told us, that was what the double-slit told us – is that it’s all about information. If you have certain information in that experiment the experiment comes out differently than if you don’t have that information. It’s not really a physical thing, you don’t have particles; there are no particles, just like there are no waves. All there is is information and the double-slit experiment showed that there was not a physical particle, there was a potential for a particle and depending on how you set up the experiment and what you do and what you measure, that potential particle will manifest in different ways.

So that’s kind of the value of that experiment. It shows that a particle… Newton told us that a particle travels in a straight line unless it’s acted on by a force and in a double slit experiment particles don’t do that, they don’t abide by that rule. They distribute themselves in patterns based on information. So that’s the first time scientists really got a clue that this was not a physical reality.

So that was a long answer to a short question but it was really very basic and I know there’s some people who are very familiar with the work here and there’s some people who aren’t so I kind of stretched that out a bit to help everybody and get up to speed on what does it mean to be a virtual reality.

Actually, it’s a very hard concept to understand because we’re so habituated to the concept of a physical material reality that we can’t help it , but just keep slipping right back into that viewpoint. It’s very hard not to do that.

  • 0 Answer(s)
  • Física Quântica, Consciência & 
Realidade Virtual - August 3-4