The past is alive.

That's like saying data is alive.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

In a sense, that the historical data base could be reached and queried, and as a result many lesson could be learned.

There is nothing wrong with your terminology. We might have one problem here. As any other society this BB has its own terminology. For instance, this physical reality is PMR, Higher Self or its equivalent is IUOC, and etc. This link viewforum.php?f=21 could be helpful to become familiar with Acronyms and Terminology specific to My Big TOE

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

Yogsatoth,
I for one agree with you on many levels. Part of the problem here is in the definition of CONSCIOUSNESS.
If you consider that Everything is consciousness, and composed of consciousness, or rendered by consciousness, existing within consciousness SPACE, then everything possesses CONSCIOUSNESS. And every smaller peice of consciousness contains ALL the potential of the whole (fractal in nature), just as every cell in our body contains all the information of the entire body. Tom creates a stricter definition of what can be called a consciousness entity. A fish has more decision space than a clam and possesses greater mobility, response capabilities, and greater interaction with its environment, but does it possess MORE consciousness? Or simply different type of consciousness?

Tom discusses many varied types and degrees of consciousness in his book. Including some types of "Elemental consciousness" (which, I found, possessed fascinating implications) and even "Group souls" So while a single clam, a SINGLE tree, or a blade of grass might NOT be classified as a conscious ENTITY, a group of clams, a forest, or an entire FIELD of grass MIGHT (under TOMs definition). But you are free to build up your own BIG TOE and develop your own definition of "what constitutes consciousness?"

Remember we exist WITHIN CONSCIOUSNESS (according to MBT) That would infer that everywhere we look, we would see consciousness. And we are all parts of the SAME consciousness that we exist within. That would mean that there is only ONE consciousness in the universe, and it is you, and it is me, and it is the trees, birds, oceans, rocks, grass, and even the furniture.

But Tom leaves plenty of room for us to discover our own truth. And he leaves plenty of room for all things and all expressions of truth and consciousness. It is, after all, a BIG TOE. not a little TOE. It is not exclusive, it is INCLUSIVE.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

Since everything that exists is part of consciousness space, stating that everything we observe here in PMR has consciousness has some relative truth to it. However, in our understanding, consciousness is possessed by either the Whole as AUM which includes us as integral parts or by Individuated Units of Consciousness which are individual sub components of AUM that are provided consciousness by AUM through the setting up of NPMRs and PMRs for them to experience their consciousness within. IUOCs are made recipients of the data streams from an NPMR or a PMR that are their consciousness to interact and make the decisions of the entity that they experience themselves to be within those NPMRs or PMRs.

Thus decision space is discussed. This is a function of the rule set for the PMR. If you are the IUOC for a clam, your decision space is quite limited as will be your experience. There are IUOCs with a suitable range of capabilities to 'be' the consciousness of a clam. If you are even lower down the chain than a clam with a still more limited decision space and perception, you will have your mind, your decision making ability, provided by a still more limited IUOC. If you are a PMR animal, you will have a varied experience and decision space depending upon what the PMR rule set provides for your species and its nature. You will have a suitable IUOC in terms of capabilities assigned to your existence here in PMR which will receive your PMR experience over the RWW. The same goes if you are a human animal and will have a suitably able IUOC experience your existence and make your decisions. You are not being controlled. The real you is that IUOC as your conscious mind.

IUOCs are not assigned to trees or shrubs or grass as they have no decision space. They do not 'decide' how to grow or where to grow. That is controlled by chance and the PMR rule set. It would be cruel to connect an IUOC to a plant to experience its decision space. A condemnation to a life of stagnation, no progress potential, zilch. A life, true, but with no choices and no way to interact with other IUOCs, which is the whole purpose of having PMRs in the first place. The supposed interactions of plants with others can all be completely explained by the intent of the IUOCs with which they supposedly interact.

I read and enjoyed Tolkein and science fiction in which plants might be conscious and able even to move. But we are not talking science fiction/fantasy here. We are talking a Big Picture TOE. You are welcome to your opinions and fantasies. Just don't expect them to provide a lot of traction in terms of understanding Tom Campbell's TOE.

Ted

Thanks lena and pg true.

If they decide the way they want to grow or not, I don't know.

What I wonder is, if on level besides the phyisical (I tend to believe in that), something more subtle, like "the soul of matter" or something, kind of like the "vibration" concept where in the low vibration the tree appears as material reality and still but that it is composed also of higher-vibration "levels" which are just as real, they may be able to speak, feel, laugh, see from a distance, etc...

Something to think about, not to blindly accept, of course. Ted vollers says my big toe has rendered the concept of planes obselete so I guess I'll have to read it first.

Another more credible assumption is, from what I understood of what you three talked about, an interaction between human and plant disconsidering the subject-object relation therefore being able to consider the Whole as conscious, therefore not differentiating between plant consciousness or human consciousness as it is all one etc...

My big toe is such a dense book that I'll probably take 1 year to finish it

yogsototh,

Don't worry that it will take you a long time to read Tom's books. You will note fairly early on that he says that if any section is a problem to your understanding, just skip it. Because of the way that he wrote these books, a lot of people with widely varied backgrounds had feedback into the process so Tom kept adding alternate explanations or viewpoints when someone had difficulties so that in a real sense, there is a lot of duplication. If an explanation seems too technical or outside the range of things that you normally deal with, there is sure to be an alternate explanation that is more familiar to you in its concepts. And remember that pretty much all of us who are serious about understanding have gone back and re read the books several times, finding out new things every time. You are not alone and you can always ask for clarification here if needed. Perhaps we will also be able to create some further alternates on line with more easily assimilated information as well.

Ted

To make the question even more complex, it appears that when humans direct their attention AT something with the assumption (ie: unconscious intent) that it IS conscious, it tends to either become (increasingly) conscious or acts consistently with such interpretation of behavior. I notice this personally much more with animals and places than with humans or plants by the way.

Horses, cows, cats dogs, turkeys, chickens ... if you say "Hello and how are things today!" to them (more in NVC than actual vocalizations, though vocalizations may actually help), they, once they get that your are treating them as 'one of the folks' tend to blink in surprise, and then 'wake up to you', becoming,in effect, more conscious than they were. Some wilfully communicate back this or that ... mostly just the very concrete concerns of animal consciousness, but occasionally things more abstract.

I could go on, (place, plant) but these boards seem to have become somewhat intolerant of envelope pushing beyond a comfortable, somewhat fixed, norm. I can respect that, even if I do regularly test where the walls may currently be.

-Montana

Of course you can communicate with animals and get responses. They are after all IUOCs much like if not exactly like you, participating in PMR over the RWW to lower their entropy just as you do. So instead of treating you like part of the furniture, they start to interact when they realize that you can and desire to do so rather than simply shape them to your, to them, incomprehensible desires. I still see your interaction with places and plants and 'things' as more a one sided perception on your part as you being the conscious entity involved by way of the LCS. These things get a little complex, just like the question of 'backward' causality that Tom explained. It's all in the way that the VR works.

Would you prefer that things swung with the wind like a weather vane rather than consistently convey the best understanding possible to me of My Big TOE? Nothing is demanded in the way of belief, just thought and rationality. Tom's model/understanding of reality is both mystical and rational/logical/science based. Show me the better way and I'm ready to go with it, just as Tom accepts contributions to extend his model.

Ted

We're at the very edge of language here.

I'll try: I 'sense' plants as being conscious. (It is a form of consciousness very different from the experience-set we apply that term to).

If my consciousness leans over to a plant's consciousness and says "I say! But how are YOU today...?", I (in Embetistia lingo) collapse its probability waves, in part, into a being that has now a more focused consciousness than it did. It is like some some non-physical saintly spirit type conferring grace on a human: there is an immediate expansion of consciousness well beyond what the human might have assembled for himself, and the change is lasting though perhaps not permanent.

These things happen with a discomfitting sense of responsibility: These conscious beings are as they are, now, in part because of what I have done. This has a tangible pay-off when the neighbor comes to have to sell his draft mare, to whom I have said hello so many times, and she is more prescient than I that she is destined for the dinner tables of Japan. Had I never said 'hello', her subsequent consciousness and attendant anxiety and distress would have been much much less.

Ugh,
Montana

That is where what Tom said about doing your best in interactions and realizing that things may go astray despite your best intent comes into play. You did not grant any additional or special consciousness within your neighbor's mare by speaking to it as being to being. It already had what it had. You merely permitted it to exercise its consciousness with an interaction that it would have otherwise not experienced. You would have otherwise remained part of the furniture to the mare just as horses are just movable furniture to most humans. The mare probably perceived the most stress from its owner and only a mild sense of missing you. So it would appear to me anyway.

Yes, animal perceptions are acute. When I slaughtered a goat, they always knew what was up and who it would be. When my dog tells me it is time, or past time, to eat, he knows instantly by some micro perceptible act that I am through eating and he jumps up for his share. Just the faintest crackle of plastic wrap or unscrewing of the peanut butter jar brings him running.

Ted

You are so right,
We are on the very edges of language, The sounds and symbols we use to comunicate have their limitations. I have also become aware of the consciousness all around me. Partially due to the understanding that the larger reality (NPMR) behaves more like the smallest bits of our PMR. as in the Double Slit Experiment, where particles behave as if they have consciousness (or possess some form of consciousness).

It really is counter intuitive, going against all of our PMR senses and sensabilities. As the mystics of the past have said; It is within every rock, every tree, every blade of grass, and every grain of sand. And ALL these things are deserving of our love and respect. Possibly there is some form of elemental or planetary consciousness involved, (not that every stone has an IUOC assigned to it) but I suspect that it is more in the fact that it is just that every "bit" of matter, energy, and information is essentially PURE consciousness. Consciousness is EVERYWHERE, in everything, and at all times. We are it and it is us.

_________________
LOVE is the answer

peace
patrick

I am perceiving it as a special instance of the general principal that when we extend consciousness to one another, there is something that occurs that is like a 'force multiplier effect'. It seems shadowy when talking about it in the abstract, and understandably open to charges of anthropomorphism when referring to animals, plants and places.

But, any reader, recall from your past now instances when you met someone else who was really interested in something that you were ... or more consequentially, times when you really 'fell in love', (whether there was romantic attraction or not)... it is as though "the world" suddenly became vastly more capacious, shiny and inviting. It is one's consciousness that has expanded though, it has become more than it was. The direct experiential reality is unmistakable, and tosses off any attempt to reason it away.

This essential idea is kin of a kind to the whole "Force of Being" idea, I suspect.

-Montana

"Who and what has consciousness" is probably the wrong question then but the answer to that question seems to be or is 'everything is consciousness as consciousness IS data while sentient entities have consciousness BECAUSE they are the avatar for the bit of Consciousness having the VR experience in this VR Frame of Reality.'

I have a Basil plant in my window sill I am having a relationship with but the plant has no free will nor does it have any decision space other than to whither if I forget about it and come back when I remember again. It is basically a root living in the air as I bought it from the grocery store to use in spinach and Basil lasagna and roughly tore off the leaves I used before thinking to see if it would grow. I always do that and they always grow even though they have been roughed up and then not planted but left in their little cube of soil. I would be a monster if that Basil plant was a sentient entity although I do talk to it and Love it for being such a tough little prop and stuff.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

@ bette

You know there is a risk of skewing the facts a bit, even involuntarily, if one feels that it would be terrible if the plants had a consciousness and we eat it, or run our lawn mower over it or what ever.

We should try and assess the question without bias.