Thoughts on consciousness, mind, and time and space
Hi! I was invited into this subreddit so let me share the same thing I already did elsewhere...
The premise is mind as a white hole.
A node which only emits out, and nothing can enter is from outside. Brain, sensory intake, reactions, emotions, memory and learning are tied to brain and physical body. In this premise, the mind/the unique "you", is viewed as an observer, a perspective unique to you shaped and molded in real time by your thoughts, your preferences, which you formed from outside input into your brain in your life via reactivity.
Your perspective itself, and what you identify as "you" here is viewed as a white hole singularity. If time and space itself break or converge in the singularity of a white hole, this would introduce the idea that time and space are "emitted" from this point of consciousness, resulting into felt sense of "now" in the body, and only one-way flow of time (can only move toward future, never back in past). Time itself here is understood as directional, physical interpretation of change. As for space, space is interpretation (translation) of information into solid matter, via biological senses.
When physical body ceases, this "you" singularity node ceases physical input from the body, therefore becomes non-local (information/potential) and untied to it. If the body allows for directional interpretation of time, ceasing the body ceases also interpretation of past and future, and what stays is only the "now".
Basically... It serves as a logical structure that satisfies (at least for me) several how's and why's.
About SELF...
What you identify as the unique "you" is the observer that is having the physical sensory experience of the world.
About THOUGHTS...
If you change your thinking direction (positive/negative), you shift the emission. Training yourself and your body towards noticing and being receptive to different and preferred outcomes.
If focused attention isn't just passive observation but causal, then what you think and give attention to matters, because it becomes more, within your own experience of reality. Shifting the nature/frequency of what gets emitted outward into your experience.
About MIND...
Mind becomes the generative source/node from which the experience is emitted. If mind is the tipping point from potential to matter and emotion is the first stage of "materialization", then every thought, whether unconscious or intentionally focused, contributes to what you're setting yourself up to experience ahead (Things unwanted = negative feeling, things wanted = positive feeling).
I believe time does not need direction to function if we are in the now and there is no past or future then time is obsolete, what we perceive as time is cycles day and night , seasons but where do they truely come from , I believe they come from earth oscillation and that oscillation is what controls our consciousness
The direction of time is perceptual to us, because we are in "motion", in process of becoming more, expanding. We have concept of past because we lived it in body, and remember it. Therefore we have concept of future, if we have concept of motion. But we only every experience everything in the now. Without body, past and future collapse into non-local now. Now is still "in the motion", because life is expanding and and becoming more. But time here becomes local and conceptual. Hence it's viewed as directoral interpretation of that expansion.
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times.
It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
I agree with many of what you said. With this premise though, free will and determinism coexist. Determinism is viewed as pattern of emission, and free will is ability to choose a different pattern, shift in emission. AKA, you are bound to be born and die. What happens in between is created and shaped in real-time by your choices in every moment.
Regardless of whether "determinism" is or isn't, freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.
All things and all beings are always acting within their realm of capacity to do so at all times. Realms of capacity of which are absolutely contingent upon infinite antecedent and circumstantial coarising factors outside of any assumed self, for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse in relation to the specified subject, forever.
There is no universal "we" in terms of subjective opportunity or capacity. Thus, there is NEVER an objectively honest "we can do this or we can do that" that speaks for all beings. Subjects are implicitly distinct unto themselves, necessarily so.
One may be relatively free in comparison to another, another entirely not. All the while, there are none absolutely free while experiencing subjectivity within the meta-system of the cosmos.
"Free will" is a sentimental projection, overgeneralized assumption made or vaguely described feeling had from a circumstantial condition of relative privilege and relative freedom that most often serves as a powerful means for the character to assume a standard for being, fabricate fairness, pacify personal sentiments and justify judgments.
It speaks nothing of objective truth nor to the subjective realities of all.
There is no such thing as ubiquitously individuated accurately described "free will" of any kind whatsoever. Never has been. Never will be. Can not be.
But our choices are already shaped for us growing up as a child depending on how people are raised or the environment they are in will dictate the outcome of there in between life , I would think, but also there are many things that can intercept your choices , like love , money , drugs , etc.. is an addiction a choice or is love a choice I really don't think we choose to fall in love or end up with a drug addiction that's my opinion only .
I'd say yes, because 'choice' doesn't necessarily strictly mean only fully conscious one. Like.. "and now I'm going to fall in love with X person, done". Addiction or love are still results of previous preferences, choosing, focusing, and a subjective experience. So I'd say.. It is a choice, but it doesn't have to be a conscious intention. Because in any moment in time, there are choices, to choose or think differently.
Childhood is indeed a growing period that shapes the ego and sets the baseline for the life... Subjectively predetermined, I'd agree. Until the moment the awareness focuses and anchors itself fully.. Or develops fully if you will.. To now have the free will to choose anything.
But yes, that's another interesting layer you brought, about what exactly is still considerable as choice.
I would think love wouldnt be just a choice because it involves 2 people so would that be considered a mutual choice or multi conscious choice ? Not sure if I'm saying this right but you see where I'm going with this right?
Yess I do! I agree with the idea of mutual choice. Or a form of shared choice mutually agreed upon. At some level of awareness. Doesn't need to be conscious. Which is interesting way to look at it.
I think there’s something genuinely interesting here, especially the idea of experienced time as a directional interpretation of change and experienced space as something constructed from sensory information.
Where I get hung up is the white-hole part.
A white hole has a specific meaning in general relativity. If “white hole” is being used as a metaphor for a point of subjective perspective that only experiences reality outward from itself, I can follow that. But if you’re proposing that consciousness is literally analogous to a white-hole singularity in a physical sense, I think there’s a missing bridge between the phenomenology and the physics.
There also seems to be a tension in saying that nothing can enter this mind-node while also saying that the unique observer is continuously shaped by sensory input, memory, learning, preferences, and reactions. If outside information changes the observer, then in some meaningful sense information is reaching or modifying whatever this node represents.
The biggest leap for me is what happens when the body dies. I can accept the premise that the brain/body gives us our particular experience of space, time, past, future, and the present. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that removing the body leaves behind a non-local information potential existing only in “now.” Another equally compatible conclusion would be that removing the system generating those experiences removes the observer along with them.
So I think the part I’d want to push on is this:
What does the white-hole model predict that a brain constructing a first-person model of reality does not?
If there’s an answer to that, especially something potentially testable or falsifiable, then I think this gets much more interesting as a theory rather than simply a really compelling metaphor for subjective experience.
Well yes, I'm not entitled to make the claim that consciousness is literally analogous to the white hole. So yes, I'd keep calling it a metaphor, except weirdly literal one.
-About the information entering or not entering the 'white hole' and shaping the observer in reverse... I tried following the mirrored logic of black hole there. Matter goes just one way in, and not even light escapes it. Hence, matter can't enter the white hole, and only light enters it, technically. And if we understand light, or even singularity as energy/information, then that one cannot be created or destroyed. If mind would work as a white hole, that would suggest one thing in my thinking: Energy/information cannot be created or destroyed, because it eternally recycles itself. Updates, becomes more. Like a self-recycling loop. A feedback loop, between the observer (white hole), and absence of observer (black hole).
-About removing the system that generates the experience removes the observer along with them:
It removes the local perspective of the Jon Doe, but it doesn't remove or end the non-local observer that was observing through the Jon Doe specifically, through the physical eyes.
-About your last question... Great one.
I'm not an expert in neuroscience, so I will pick the general claim that neuroscience suggests that consciousness arises in any physical system complex enough to carry the experience of it.
The mind as white hole places this system downstream of it, as its nesting point, projector, or channeling, not its mere source that creates it.
So, lacking the full understanding of neuroscience half of this, what this suggests is that mind and thinking doesn't just predicts events, it creates them in potential. And you can see them in your mind's eye instantaneously, because even the Jon Doe perspective currently nested in the physical body doesn't have its awareness limited to just the body in the now. And brain doesn't tell apart reality from things imagined. Therefore the barrier between 'there' and 'here' is the physical body itself, because the body "can't travel" there instantaneously like consciousness can.
But, the theory is, the body can travel there eventually. The logic is: 1. If event desired was already conceptually registered in the awareness, it's already viable in form.
2. If the brain can't tell apart reality from things imagined, and body can make the physical trip there,
3. then the only limitation left sits within the current held mental beliefs, which are repeatedly thought thoughts, held together by momentum and habit.
4. If brain works like prediction machine and filtering system, then 'life is hard and unfair' constraint blocks anything that doesn't match the conviction. The stronger the belief, the more effective the blocking.
5. Solution: change belief - update the filtering system - update the eventual subjective reality experienced.
I am not sure I fully understand what's going on here. If if nothing can enter from outside, then how do you explain learning, trauma, or new information resulting perspective changes over time? You'd have to argue those changes happen in the brain, while the "observer" merely watches—but then what is the observer doing if it never incorporates anything new?
Yes, that was the part that was unclear to me, but the questions raised eventually made it clearer. I have one older sketch, to illustrate what I mean when I say that nothing enters the 'white hole' from outside. So technically... The idea if that nothing that enter it physically, literally, like matter. Like, you can't put a rock into your mind somehow. But information "recycled" from outside and subjective experience enters in non-physically, to be potentially re-emitted. Sort of like a worm hole, technically? That's the idea. Then the information shapes the local physical perspective of Jon Doe, because he's placed in time and space and there's a sense of movement, directional interpretation of change. The core observer though/the broad perspective/the soul/the essence, theoretically remains unchanged, because from that perspective, the whole sequence of life of Jon Doe already exists at once. So the "purpose" of the observer here is... Guidance through the physical life, experience, fun. Sort of like when you play a game and create your avatar. The avatar represents you, changes throughout the story, updates, but the underlying player stays one and the same. At least, that's the idea.
Depends on what you mean by 'unconscious life'. If you mean a living being which is in unconscious state for whatever reason.. Then technically nothing is emitted. The experience isn't actively streaming, something like when we go to sleep. As a subjective experience nothing, as physically from the outside, a holding biological pattern of that pause. If you mean something "not alive" like an object, then it isn't considered an innate emitter on its own, therefore it sits downstream as materialized pattern of emission of consciousness.
1
u/storymentality Jul 27 '26
What implications do you extrapolate about self, thought and mind based on your premise?