I was wondering if there is really right and wrong recently. These odd random questions keep poppin up in my head lately and I wanted to know everyones opinion on this. So I was thinking about my question and wondered if this right and wrong thing was just a manufactured up by consciousness or if there actually is a universal right and wrong. The thought came to mind about the first people on earth and if they could look at something and distingush between right or wrong, or if it just came by what was best for their survival at the time and then pass that on to their offspring which would mean our conscioussness manufactured it? Does every living thing that can think for itself go by the same code or is it whats best for whatever species? and does that mean that since we are all consciousness that consciousness itself would manufacture things like right and wrong,love, and so on for its sake of surviving?, which leads me to the conclusion that there is more than conscioussness.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Hi Lumpy:

I think what you are missing is a clear concept of Consciousness Evolution. Have you read MBT? Consciousness evolves, so there are no unique perfects. The main thing is that the intent which is related to "how" an IUOC is at a certain stage evolves. More important than what we do is "why" we do. It is not as important what mistakes we make in a decision, but what our intentions were (related to our being state) before making that decision, and how we learn from the results of that decision.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <

Lumpy,

At the most fundamental level, within our beings as IUOCs within Consciousness Space, absolute free will is necessary to the existence and development of our being and the Consciousness System of all that there is and of which we are integral parts. This is a digital logic based system and we must have free will in the sense of making choices, reacting and learning, at the most fundamental and internal to our being level. We must have the ability to make choices and quality determinations, like this, don't like that, want this, don't want that, in a totally free and independent manner. I am talking at the level, using the PMR physical model strictly and simply as a way to discuss this that many will be familiar with, where the neurons within our brains make new connections, learn and are in sum, ourselves as our minds. We must have this most basic aspect of free will to exist as a working system, free of interference from external sources, whether as another being or by, shall we call it, God or The Consciousness System or something/anything of this order. If we do not have this, we do not have development and evolution but a directed and controlled reality in which we have no true independence and something other than the Consciousness System as it now exists.

Taking this beyond that most fundamental level, as our beings as IUOCs interacting with others over the communications network of the RWW by which interactions and communications we participate within VRs, we must also have free will at the level of what we 'think' and 'want'. This falls out automatically on the basis of the most fundamental level as described in the paragraph above. To have free will beyond the most fundamental level, we must have the most fundamental level of free will for the system to function. And we must have the free will ability to make choices at the IUOC being level for this to be meaningful and for the system to function. But every being, every IUOC, must have this also and as we interact over the RWW we very quickly get into conflicts of free will with others. In order to evolve our own consciousnesses and that of the whole system, we must have this free will choice and interaction ability. Otherwise it is all controlled show and appearance, perhaps appearing as perfection, but without substance. All show and no reality.

So we have a contradiction in that we must have free will as described but having it automatically generates conflict and the attempt from these conflicts to control the free will of others. Who gets the biggest piece of the pie? There is the core aspect of right and wrong, good and bad. We can't in fact have total free will, externally at the being to being interaction level because of the inherent conflict as described here. But we must have free will at the being to being level in order for our own development of the quality of our consciousness and thus of the QOC of the Consciousness System. This is resolved by the Consciousness System creation of virtual realities as learning laboratories for the interaction of beings, our IUOCs, by which we are trained to understand the nature of reality and of these inherent conflicts. We butt heads as primitively developed IUOCs (but we can't do permanent damage, we don't/can't 'die') until we gradually learn 'better'. As our understanding, our quality of consciousness level, improves we begin to understand (and as societies develop control methods and morality concepts) the unavoidable nature of conflict of free wills and to mesh the expression of our free will with that of others in an optimized way. The best and most developed among us learn ways to teach the worst among us a better way to look at things, understand and 'play together nicely'. Those in the intermediate quality level learn to set up social mechanisms to keep things under some degree of control by codes of laws and law enforcement, social control by punishment or imprisonment. Some, whether as lawyers or as crime syndicate controllers, at this level learn to 'milk the system' and get fat off of the conflicts of others. And the majority as the least developed butt heads and learn the hard way by hard knocks, until they graduate to higher levels of understanding and better quality of consciousness.

So there is good and bad/right and wrong, but it is not a simple matter to distinguish between them on an absolute basis.

Ted

Is there any explaination as to why conscioussness has chosen to evolve? It makes alot of sence to me that it very well could be a survival instinct. Why would it do that if there wasn't more than consciousness itself ?

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Hi Lumpy,

From what I understand, if consciousness does not evolve, is stagnant or continually increases its entropy it eventually becomes self terminating. So survival sounds like a good word to me.

thynes

I guess so haha. My brain hurts, I felt like I had something going, but now I cannot put it together in my head. I was just trying to think of everything logically. Why does it become self terminating? In the book tom compares it to computers alot, would a computer just destroy itself if we didn't use it...no so why would consciousness. If you can answer that question it will help me out alot.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

HI Lumpy,

Ok again from what I understand :), consciousness is not infinite it is finite and also has finite energy to work with and as consciousness evolves we/it use less but can do so much more with what is available.

thynes

Lumpy,
My flip answer was sort of serious too, you are on to something. You've gathered a bunch of data and you are organizing it. Our brains do have to do some of the work so that is probably why yours hurts, growing pains in a PMRcentric way. When infants take in too much data they just fall asleep, my brain stops intake at about 90 minutes of "fluffy" data, but much sooner with denser thought. The glazed over eyes, nodding off (I'm just an infant in so many ways), just inability to take in any more information. I usually stop way before that happens though because I'm rather dis-tractable.

You want to understand right and wrong at a fundamental level, as I understand your original inquiry. Ted describes good and evil by how we manipulate an others Absolute Free Will (AFW). If we do it with outward pointing arrow of intent it is good; if we do it with inward pointing arrow of intent it is evil. Don't manipulate the AFW of an other is bottom line with many levels of exceptions as to when it is okay. It is done ALL THE TIME, manipulating AFW, it just depends on our intent as to whether it is right, wrong, good, evil, outward pointing vector or inward pointing vector. It doesn't even matter (in the big picture) if the manipulation goes terribly wrong for an or some others as long as the Intent, that is based on your Quality of Consciousness and not always really known, was towards the benefit to the system.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Lumpy,



How would we, at our level of existence, ever know? What is the perception of The One Consciousness like? How could we understand its motivation?

There are and have been many who could perhaps guess, have an internal intimation of this.

The bent bow, full drawn,
I am,
The arrow, face into the rushing wind.

If you have ever been there, would this not provide a hint? Could you not imagine that there might be more to come of interest? You stand at the dawn of time, of existence. There is no down side. Nothing exists but awareness. Can you imagine choosing to return to sleep when you are the first consciousness to experience being 'awake', to experience existing? You would have no concept of not being aware. You just now came into existence. No words, no thoughts, have yet been invented. There is no past, no concept of an end as you have just experienced the beginning.

Ted

Yeah, it seemed like a good idea. ;) No seriously, you are so deep Ted. Thank you, as always, and I'm glad your machine is working.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Well thanks for your help guys, I think I have a better understanding of it now.

_________________
I eat ego's for breakfast!
Sincerely, Ego.

Hi Lumpy,

Look at page 404 in MBT' trilogy

thynes

Lumpy,

I would like to add one thing to the discussion. There are many levels to right and wrong. If you are talking about absolute right and wrong then Bette's idea fits nicely as long as you equate right to that path which leads to growth in the positive sense or decreasing the entropy of the system and wrong being that which leads to regression or increasing entropy. Loving others and acting with love towards others is good for the system because, in effect, it is decreasing the entropy of the system by increasing synergy and increasing the quality of the interactions between its individuated parts.

If you are referring to the specific things that certain cultures or groups consider right or wrong then it is most likely generated by beliefs or concepts created by that specific group or culture. For instance, promiscuity as an act isn't by itself necessarily right or wrong in the absolute sense as Bette discussed as long as it isn't done in a way that takes advantage of others or causes pain to others. Cultural right and wrong would then be a creation of consciousnesses so in that sense you are right. Care must be taken, though, because many of the ideas of right and wrong correlate to the system interpretation of right and wrong so you can't dismiss them all as meaningless.

Ted,

Excellent descriptive language to get the feel for the beginning of awareness. Love it.

Ramon

Lumpy:

I recommend you read this archive: http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3953

It's about ways to evolve and you can think for yourself what you consider right or wrong.

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <