(Philosophy) Towards argumentative proof of hyper-dimensional consciousness
"Hyper dimensional consciousness" is effectively an idea I like to think about from time to time as an answer to a question I think is sometimes in some folks minds:
What if nature and the universe is actually a massive intelligent being that I am part of? Could this be in some way true?
My answer is then effectively well it could be; since we essentially confirm our existence by copying it on other matter; literally anything that reproduces also itself in concept in nature through cycles and as abstract principles essentially should effectively also be "alive" in its own way too. In reverse too; everything we use to represent our aliveness that exists everywhere else in nature could also be producing forms of consciousness for one here on earth and for another somewhere else in the universe. Either as a literally localized collection of atoms or as in some view a abstract stitching together of spans of atoms vastly spatial separated by viewed in such a way that they produce a full and interactive conscious being!
Before you read the following I would like to clearly state that what is written here is not meant to serve as any motivation for the existence of a God or even multiple Gods. It is although meant to serve as a strong philosophical argument for why we will likely fundamentally rework our modern idea of consciousness and what embodies it due to consciousness being capable of being embodied in everything essentially. Whether the consciousness(es) I argue probably exist as hyper expressions of collective intelligent activity on earth and nature or at the very least as an aggregation of our consciousnesses being imprinted on our language, buildings, exploration of the earth, the stories we carefully calculate out of our subconscious fantasies and scientific theories we dream up out of our wonderment of nature - whatever flavor of the rhetorical proof for these "super"-consciousnesses you take to agreeing with; please bare in mind I have given no indication that I agree as to any postulation of their attitudes or motives or "personalities". I argue only hear that there is probably a means to say such things really exist - that is, intelligent forces that come into existence as aggregations of other mechanisms of life and expression of life in nature. If you will I here try to establish some grounds to argue that perhaps at some intersections of natures systems intelligences like ours exist too - either at a huge macro-planetary level or a micro; perhaps our dimensions as existing as consciousnesses aren't the only metrics that define the standard!
We are essentially things that can see ourselves as other things.
Jacque Lacan a famous psychoanalyst put forth this idea that infants must go through a certain stage that establishes the boundaries of their consciousnesses and experience thereof. Essentially there must have been a stage through which you establishes "where" exactly you stop and the rest of the world begins - i.e. babies don't know initially that their hair, arms, legs, skin etc is theirs, they don't even potentially know such a thing as "theirs". In other words perhaps: Lacan's idea is meant to explain the process that humans go through in order to determine the dimensions of what houses their consciousnesses.
This establishment once starting as a child as a violent confusing series of experiments, tastes, smells and sounds eventually gives way to a more subtle sub-conscious struggle of identifying one's own influences and characteristics in nature. Essentially you start trying establish your boundaries as a conscious person and human being; once that is kind of "solidified" to a certain extent you start retracting to a more internal process of "establishing boundaries" in which you seek to "solidify" your psychological influence on the world, and its influence on you. In this way you could essentially say people seek this psychological boundary to be established between things you term as your identified and sought out psychological state and that which is not (essentially as each psychological state, influence and impression charges at you, you guard yourself by trying to identify it as something you either wish to experience or not).
You are essentially seeing to identify the psychological state that represents your desires and your ideal representation of yourself. And therefore essentially looking to see an aspect of yourself in everything you experience. In fact we constantly try to reject things that do not lend itself to agree-ing with our own identity in ever more imaginative ways. People like identifying with sports teams for instance and using this as a mechanism to differ with other's identities or design their life goals and frameworks of experience - essentially everyone is either a football fan or not. There are a myriad of different ways; people like identifying with movie characters, spiritual beings, scientists, mystics, comic book characters etc. All of us are moving around the world looking at things and asking if those things we see and experience are "like us". Essentially we are just things in the universe seeking to refer to ourselves as other things in the universe.
The universal lounge of consciousnessWe see ourselves as other things by arranging the things in the universe to look something like us in some or other way.
Now what that means, this identification system we suffer from (unendingly needing to rearrange the rest of the world in ways that confirm our identities and existences) this means that matter in its arrangements and various forms is in one view; either a representation of the evidence of a consciousness that has used it as an "imprinting material" or not i.e. just meaningless unidentifiable pure entropic matter. To put this simply, the way your lounge is arranged is essentially in such a way that it agrees with how you envisioned it; so it essentially mirrors your idea as it should be - this idea in turn is built to mirror what you identify as your self or your collection of principles and expressions of ideals in the world. From another point of view your couch moves and tussles about as you use it, you move carpets about when you walk on them - so where they are in space serves again; as a direct argument that you exist essentially; it serves to identify you in the universe and in time. Fundamentally how your lounge is arranged serves as evidence that you arranged it and that you exist. You arrange your emotions, expressions, language and therefore thoughts that way too - essentially as evidence that you exist!
This is true at a high level and a low level. As computer scientists call it a top down and bottom up proof. Essentially from a macroscopic point of view we take the lounge argument - you arrange the world around you to effectively serve as confirmation as your existence and therefore a reflection of yourself essentially. From a microscopic point of view, you are literally a collection of matter rearranging systems that all serve direction to represent your existences - so strongly sometimes that some of this matter is the very representation of your literal neural activity and thoughts! So at a micro and macroscopic level you are this, thing that rearranges other things to represent itself - as previously put.
Everything is essentially an expression of consciousnessWe are things then essentially that rearrange things as ourselves (and know about it in our own way)- thats all.
Now, consider this; because of Einstein's work on general relativity (and perhaps also Hegel's on expressions of the mind) essentially you make a "ripple" in this fabric of space-time. You leave a undeniable ripple that echo's fundamentally into the rest of the net of reality. Essentially this means because you here make a ripple, the entire rest of the universe exists now as on expression fundamentally as "the you" and "the not you". The entire universe and you is the dichotomy that is now in existence. It is an expression of a connectivity that exists between you and literally everything else that ever existed everywhere in the universe. Your "ripple" bounces off things and leaves them with the imprint of your ripple almost as a copy and again confirmation of its existence.
Now, we don't seem to be want to limit our materials of expression of our identities and confirmations of our existences do we? There has never been such a fundamentally preferred medium to enchant onto once and for all your existence and argument of your consciousness. We instead seem to continuously find more hobbies, partners, shoes, food, hairstyles etc that serve as mediums to host expressions of our identities - reflection of ourselves. We seem ironically to on one hand make fun of crystal scryers, palm readers and black mirror diviners but on the other go about the world staring at everything until it invokes our ideas of own souls or reject it as mere unidentifiable black, light swallowing chaos (perhaps in my view I would say). Essentially what I am seeking to establish here is that we have not one medium to express our consciousnesses but a mosaic of them, a cascade of mediums and expressions on these mediums that serve as imprints of our existence.
So now, if you will consider that these imprints are rearrangements of matter, patterns in the dirt in a basic view. What is to establish the boundaries of these rearrangements? What if a subsection of your matter rearrangements combined with another persons - when viewed through some lens or analysis can be said to represent a literal other unique and conscious entity!? For instance consider if we created an AI that is trained to respond randomly as on or another person in a given situation - can it not be argued that this is such a subsection of "matter rearrangements" that can in some view create another being? Or perhaps the most direct argument is when we reproduce and create children and train them to literally respond like us with random inflections of someone else's behaviour and consciousness.
So if these matter rearrangements that represent our existences and consciousnesses don't depend on distance, time or substance essentially can literally everything not be a representation of some form of consciousness? Since everything is part of the natural processes of nature, and the universe which represent its superior order (along with us); consciousness itself serves as a representation of some super order - this super order I claim for our consciousnesses is literally any image or pattern in nature that expresses our own consciousness in a way that confirms its boundaries and occupation of space in nature. Essentially this engine that is self-aware consciousness is critically itself a non-intelligent non-conscious process! Fundamentally you view your ability to view your own consciousness as profound but it is nothing more than a mechanism that is capable of copying itself. Consciousness cannot escape this requirement of "imprinting itself" by identifying itself in order to fundamentally exist as an entity. In order for anything to exist in our view; any form fundamentally it must exist in language either expressed as a reflection of matter or as thoughts. So therefore you seek some confirmation or identification that again refers to your own existence and view of language and expression/identification of the universe. Essentially things only exist if you have some either theoretical way or literal to relate them to other things that exist by using things that produce identification that you exist. So again fundamentally you can only say other thing exist based on being able to say that you do in whatever terms of language and meaning that you find adequate.
Is everything not a host for language? What if every single atom in the universe is so great in number they actually unendingly rearrange themselves and languages and entire stories and confirmations of existences beyond ours billions of times over just merely because of the amount of them that exist - and more over because of the amount of parallel universe that are said in turn to exist too.
Everything else wants to exist too!Everything is as conscious as it is required to be to exist - just as much as we are relatively.
So now if you consider things like ecosystems, movements of high and low pressure systems and other macro effective forces in nature - consider how many constituent bacteria, atoms, electrons as well as their infinite inter-abstract relations as subsystems of one another (for instance a persons body consists actually of organs and organs of other subsystems which all host other subsystems that in turn host others etc). Compare that to you just you, rearranging the tiny amount of atoms that exist in you as though it is some grand feat that allows you to claim your unique and special existence. By argument of numbers humans seem completely absurd. We again see the things we need to arrange in our way as the only means to prove being "alive" and really "intelligent" and "conscious". Perhaps essentially literally everything is conscious in ways that only they require to exist as we do? What is the fundamental means that we claim to have the only correct way to identify things as conscious? Nothing :)