we may identify terms (concepts? desepts?) in various ways. Singularity is
one among them. AI-leaning minds like to make it an "AI"-term,
(Technological S of Wiki) others may prefer different domains. I see
'intelligence' as a related - also
hard-to-identify term, what I like to deduce from it's Latin origination:
"inter-lego" i.e. the capability to 'read' BETWEEN (lines, that is) - to
decipher a hidden meaning.
Singularity, however, according to my ancient studies, points to something
unrelated, not connected to other knowables, something standing ALONE.
In this meaning NOTHING can be said about it, because ANYTHING would
desstroy it's "singularity" by a connection (information?) to other data.
This is not an attack against the Singularity establishments, it is a
You wrote:
*     "Consciousness learns that it is not bound by time and space..."*
implying some unit that knows and acts. I boiled down the C-term into an
action (process?): a RESPONSE to relations detectable maybe according to
our capbilities to do so. I do not argue such definition, but it seems to
me that the C-term is not a person/thing.
I agree that "it"(?) is a-temporal, a-spatial.
I do not want to pick on your post: I appreciate it for knowledgeability
and its consectquency. Just for the fun of it:
     "*As we collectively realize..."*  is hard for me to swallow: I did
not elevate to such mental democracy as would be necessary to a collective
thinking. I believe (again: for myself, based on opinions I read and
'believed') a "mini-solipsism" about the world (existence, everything,
nature, whatever) - our individual and un-matched  product of input
(information? observational explanations? learning?) deposited into our
MIND (I have no idea what THAT may be) with our quite individual genetic
build-up and absorbed past experiences as our mental TOOL, usually called:
our brains(?).
I call such knowledge "perceived reality" - not to be mistaken for THE
REALITY of which we cannot even know if it indeed exists and if yes, in
what format?
We have our subjective intrinsic worldview and call it objective relity.
So EVERY ONE OF US  develops a personal 'realization' - not akin to any
other one, yet including similarities we can emphasize to call a big part
of our perceived reality "identical" and collectively realized. This
happens in the sciences.
You put 'singularity' to domain-names, I prefer "complexity" and indeed I
consider the 'everything' an infinite complexity with structural
impenetrablity for us from "here", the flimsy and limited "models" we
formulate for our 'world' we know.
I think it is based to some extent on Robert Rosen's ideas, adding upon
ideas I borrowed from David Bohm.

To your final question:
I am not sure I am 'false' but I am sure I am ignorant (agnostic is more
And I feel comfortable in my agnostic "I dunno".
Even whatever I DO know is unsure and based on figments.

Thanks for inducing some self-reflection

John Mikes*

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:36 PM, benjayk <>wrote:

> Akin to the idea of the technological singularity, a point in time at which
> technology becomes so powerful that all aspects of our experiences are
> fundamentally transformed (mainly due to intelligence enhancement), I
> propose a consciousness singularity:
> A point in time at which consciousness becomes so poweful, that all aspects
> of our experience are fundamentally transformed.
> Consciousness learns that it is not bound by time and space, and by
> particular bodies, and through becoming conscious of this, it learn to
> transcend the limitations of time and space and our bodies. We may learn to
> use telepathy, telekenesis, teleportation, and much more important, we may
> live in a state where "reality" and dream/imagination (partly) merge, thus
> allowing us to do incredible feats and experience in a way that is much
> more
> organic and natural and allows us to avoid unpleasant things which come
> with
> being an entirely physical being (physical illness, having to go to the
> toilet) and also makes it possible to explore possibilities in a reversible
> way (very important for evolution). Our world may also get *drastically*
> bigger, as we learn to access parallel universes and the dream space.
> Through this ability, consciousness learns much faster what it means to be
> conscious, and which possibilities arise out of that (and which
> possibilities are promising), making a runaway feedback loop of ever more
> deeply increasing consciousness.
> I think, though, that this feedback loop will run into ever more complex
> problems (what do with all these paranormal feats and the incredible
> sensory
> and emotional richness of enlightened existence?) so I don't expect that
> this speed up will be smooth, I rather expect that there will be a lot of
> experimentation, which will lead to big jumps in consciousness.
> You may ask: Why would any of this be possible? Simple, consciousness is
> unlimited, as it has no other to limit it. It is only limited by its own
> need to be coherent with itself (for example, you can't use tools as long
> as
> you are not conscious what they are for), which of course is not really a
> limitation in an ultimate sense, since this kind of relative limitation is
> what it allows it to be unlimited in its possibility.
> So right now it makes sense that paranormal feats are rare and very
> inconsistently availbable. If we identify us as being seperate individuals,
> it makes no sense to be able to consistently access other people thoughts.
> If we identify us to be mainly the body and the individual mind, it makes
> no
> sense to be able to influence the environment without using the body. But
> as
> we discover that we are not merely individuals in bodies, this limitation
> can (slowly) be trascended.
> That consciousness is the only thing that exists and is not limited is not
> a
> belief. You can simply inspect it for yourself. Where can you find anything
> apart from consciousness? If you can't, why assume it exists? If it
> doesn't,
> what could hinder consciousness (except its own ignorance, which is
> steadily
> removed through being conscious of it)?
> What would lead to this singularity? Simple, collective enlightenment
> (enlightenment meaning the realization that one is only consciousness, and
> not a seperate being, or even a physical being). As we collectively realize
> that we are not physical and seperate beings, the world will begin to
> reflect this. Physicality (including predictable behaviour) and
> seperateness
> will be tools, and not things that are imposed upon us.
> My guess is that there is a good chance that this is going to happen late
> in
> this century, and a very good chance that it will happen this or the next
> century. And I can't really imagine that it will not happen within this
> millenium.
> Actually I think that the consciousness singularity will also be a
> biological and technological singularity. We will evolve much faster and
> use
> technology (or spirit-technology) much more efficient, also. It will even
> be
> a physical singularity, as we learn to evolve physics by seeing that we are
> not mere beings IN the world but actually are that which the world is
> appearing in.
> But most importantly, it will be a happiness singularity. As we realize
> that
> we all are one, there is no potential left to do intentional harm, and much
> less potential for unintentional harm, and the harm that is being done will
> not cause deep suffering. Even individual enlightenment is often described
> as the end of suffering, and frequently comes with a deep constant sense of
> unconditional freedom and peace, and many moment of intense ectasy/bliss.
> Collective enlightenment will magnifiy this to an extreme degree, causing
> the world to be a heaven on earth beyond our wildest imaginations - a world
> that is really worthy for the God that we all are.
> This really puts the suffering we have/had to endure into perspective, and
> would solve the problem of evil. Of course consciousnss is going to
> experience a very rough start (which constitutes and infitesimal amount of
> its eternal existence as the creative orgy of ever increasing bliss and
> colourful clarity) if it helps to develop faster (and undoubtably suffering
> makes it very clear that something is going wrong, which is going to happen
> a lot of times as long as you are ignorant about what's real and what's
> important).
> What do you think (or feel) about this idea? Isn't it too good to be
> *false*?
> benjayk
> --
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to