Home Discussion Forum Could quantum non-locality solve the origin of consciousness?

Could quantum non-locality solve the origin of consciousness?

Just a thought…
could the conscience you use every day be a collective consciouness of all your separate lives throughout all the parallel universes? And could sub-consciousness be a collective of everyone’s collective conciousness? Could this be where instincts come from? Could this be why you sometimes make the right decision without knowing why? Does this mean that the collective sub-conscious mind would have omniscient god-like effects?

5 COMMENTS

  1. Interesting idea, but I’m not sure how would the consciousness be connected to that collective consciousness, and would the parallel universes be somewhere in the future, but going through the same events?

  2. sound interesting but we dont all have the same minds. but I do think we cud possily have past lives.dont discunt your theory keep thinking who knows u cud realize the answer lol.

  3. It’s a good plot for a science-fiction novel, but frankly has no basis in reality. There’s no evidence for parallel universe or past lives. And simply collecting the thoughts of a bunch of people doesn’t explain anything about instincts or consciousness anymore than the thoughts of one person do. Not to mention quantum mechanics has nothing to do with this.

  4. Bravo, Jonathan! It is this direction of inquiry that I believe will lead to new “religions” that explain some of the mysteries humankind has puzzled over for millennium.
    The quantum non-locality idea you reference is, as I understand it, based on an experiment that examined pairs of quantum particles that had been in close “physical” (time and space) connection. Once they were placed at a great distance from each other, when something happened to one, the other reacted.
    I have little-to-no contact with my family of origin. I have long suspected, however, that when one of my brothers is in distress, I also sink into a similar emotional-psychological-physiological state. The non-locality notion explains how this is possible. It also, much more broadly, explains much of what we currently think of as psychic phenomenon.
    As for instincts — which it seems philosophers present as morally neutral. Yours is a very interesting idea that instincts are not just biologically based. By your thinking, when someone here here in the Southwest makes a racial slur (i.e. if you accept my idea that culturally charged thoughts come from the collective unconscious – unless mitigated by an individual’s education and reason), then those slurs are coming from the collective unconsciousness.
    Having experienced the racist inclinations of this region’s collective unconsciousness, I do NOT believe, as you postulate (IF I understand you correctly), that the collective consciousness equates with positive instincts/right “gut” decisions/god-like effects. To the contrary, the collective consciousness is the sum of all sentient being’s inclinations — which could be sacred or profane, god-like or devil-like.
    This is different than “my” notion that the sum of all sentient beings’ (including non-human) Higher Selves = the Divine/God. It is now a not-uncommon belief that in every person/soul is a “subset” that is intimately connected to what we call god. Metaphor: We are all an individual wave upon the ocean. The tip of each wave is the part of us that is united with the Divine/God. That is consistent with the Protestant notion that every person has the ability to connect directly with god.
    I do, however, very much like your idea that an individual’s conscience is the sum of all that person’s past lives — if not also the sum of experiences in parallel universes. (By definition, some parallel universes might lead a person into “evil” experiences, and others into “good,” don’t you think?) So, there is no single “right” or “wrong.” It is not that the sociopath has no conscience. Instead, the sociopath’s conscience leads him or her to do what their past lives’ (and/or parallel universes’) experience suggest is “right.” THAT is a (slightly? very?) different conception of relativism.
    Which brings me back to your ideas, Jonathan. I don’t think the collective consciousness is the equivalent of god — which I could read into your comment. I am more inclined to think the collective consciousness is the collection of all sentient beings’ ego-conscious selves. BUT if your reference to “omniscient god-like effects” means culturally dominant ideas so strong as to appear omniscient, then I agree with you.
    When I moved across country, from a liberal New England culture to a conservative and racially troubled Southwestern state, I was shocked at the thoughts that eventually entered my mind regarding race. They were SO opposed to everything I had previously believed, that I looked for their source. I believe they came directly from the collective consciousness of this region. But that is another conversation.
    So. I believe that when we make the “right” decision — attributed by many religious people to the “conscience” — that we base our conclusions not on what comes from the collective conscience, but from that portion of each of us that is connected to the “Divine.” And I think that is different than the collective unconscious.
    I’m glad to have discovered your entry here, and look forward to responses.
    – Sallie
    http://www.TheSexualPsychic.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related