Thoughts based on Derrick’s Essay

My starting point is Derrick’s essay and his question, Is consciousness sentient energy?
He is suggesting that consciousness is a form of sentient energy that animates our being – giving life to our being, and underpinning our very existence.
[Sentience – the capacity to feel, perceive and experience – an inherent quality of the universe itself]. This offers a perspective that intertwines the essence of life with the mysteries of the universe.
Consciousness as the intangible, ethereal presence that allows us to experience and interact with the world around us. Derrick goes on to suggest that this consciousness is the silent observer; the experiencer of sensations; and the thinker of thoughts; the sentient energy that animates our being; giving life to our physical form. 

Consciousness as a manifestation of this universal energy that connects us not only to each other but also to the universe at large; something that echoes quantum entanglement, exhibiting properties that defy conventional logic and suggesting a more integral role in the workings of the universe.
However, the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness – explaining how subjective experiences emerge from physical processes – remains unsolved, hinting at the possibility of consciousness being more than just neural firings.

Various spiritual traditions have long held the belief that consciousness is a universal, sentient force. This perspective resonates with the idea of consciousness as sentient energy.
In contemporary spiritual circles there is a growing recognition of consciousness as a fundamental aspect of the universe. This view sees consciousness as the bridge between the material and the spiritual, the tangible and the intangible.

If consciousness is sentient energy, our sense of self extends beyond the physical body: we are expressions of a universal consciousness, interconnected with all that exists. This suggests that  consciousness may continue in some form after physical death.

My friend Larry Jordan and I have been discussing consciousness.
Larry had suggested that Consciousness = Energy = God = Mind. He went on to say that he hasn’t found anyone who can adequately define those terms or distinguish between them but he suspects that they all describe Ultimate Realty.
I didn’t like the use of Mind in this context because of the mind/body problem.

[Mind – that which thinks, imagines, remembers, wills, and senses – associated with perception, pleasure and pain, belief, desire, intention, emotion. Can include conscious and nonconscious states, sensory and non sensory experiences].

Larry’s thoughts:
I think that it helps to distinguish between universal Mind, which might be Ultimate Reality, and individual brains, which are  the devices that send and receive information to Mind.

Brain and body (matter) are made of the same stuff, just like Mind and God (energy) are made of the same stuff. 

I’m speaking of Mind from an idealist standpoint, and  some of the mind/body conversations, especially those dealing with emotions, intentions, perceptions, and sensations– are more likely talking about individualised brains, rather than  universal Mind.

In this scenario, some  information is housed in brains, and all information is housed in Mind. To me, this is perfectly consistent with panpsychism or panspiritism. It is also perfectly consistent with the Eastern religions, which imagine an Absolute world of no separation, and a relative world of apparent separation. In the everyday, relative world, we all answer to different names, occupy different perspectives in place and time, and retain different parts of Mind in our brains.

In my scenario, understanding happens in brains, and consciousness is the fundamental building block, not the bridge.

I am seeing the mind as the bridge between consciousness and our understanding. But that is on the basis that human beings are probably the only ones to have minds that have the ability to recognise consciousness for what it is.

Could it be that consciousness, ultimate reality and the universal mind are one and the same thing? Understanding then takes place in the human mind as it relates to consciousness. Does Intuition take place separately from the human mind? I sense that this is an important distinction because I see consciousness as absolutely basic along with gravity and electromagnetism.

Larry wrote:
I believe that Ultimate Reality is a Oneness that manifests in diversity, like Emptiness and Form in Buddhism or the One and the Many in Platonism, or the  Tao and the 10,000 things in Taoism.

I wonder if Ultimate Reality is natural  (biology, chemistry, and physics) or supernatural. (It’s a mystery, for now.)

I wonder if Ultimate Reality is intentional. The universe is orderly, but does this order result from evolution or intention? 

I wonder if Ultimate Reality is benevolent, like when we say, “God is Love.” Does our connection to Ultimate Reality comfort us like a blanket or like a hug?

I believe that Consciousness/Mind and  Energy may be names for Ultimate Reality and that the term “sentient energy” clearly expresses both aspects.

I wonder if Consciousness/Mind is a noun or a verb, like “brain” is a noun, an instrument, and “thinking” is a verb, an activity. 

(In human terms, consciousness is a noun, a state of awareness, and mind is a noun, the element that thinks, but is this what we mean when we refer to Ultimate Reality as Consciousness?)

If not, I wonder if Consciousness and Mind are verb and noun, respectively, like Consciousness happens in Mind.

If Energy is different, I wonder how Energy relates to Consciousness/Mind and if Energy is noun or verb or both.

Larry subsequently wrote:

I agree with Derrick that entanglement is the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that since cells function within organs, and organs function within organisms that entanglement may occur beyond the quantum level.

I agree with you that consciousness is the foundation. I think that there is a Oneness, which is comprised of two ways of looking at the Universe, like particles and waves or photographs and movies or right brain and left brain. Different perspectives, not different realms that need to be bridged.

I understand your concern about the word Mind, and I agree with your distinctions between Mind and brain.

Re: Ultimate Reality, I agree with Paul Tillich and Meister Eckhart that there is Godhead, which is bigger than Gods. IMO, if we define God as a person, not as something larger, then God is not interchangeable with Ultimate Reality. I’m not sure what could be more than Oneness. I agree with Einstein, who believes in Spinoza’s God, and Spinoza is a monist.

I think that quantum physics is natural, and I admit to Mystery, but I’m hesitant to label anything as supernatural. 

History suggests that evolution produces more complex, diverse, and inter-related outcomes. It seems almost definitional to me, since organisms evolve to face more, new challenges.