"Universal consciousness" is
hardly a useful idea. And whether or not it is actual will depend
upon a definition of 'aware'. I hold that 'aware' should be defined
with the following phrase, "slope in a random
Some will tell me that I have
misunderstood the word "define". Others will raise the
word "teleology" or "heuristic". And when I
suggest that such words serve to demonstrate my point, there is generally
a total rejection of the position I hold.
Belief, in the end, depends upon usefulness, before it depends upon
truth. And here I suggest that to think of life as a "slope in
a random place" is eminently useful.
I can see this 'slope' in all living things, but I cannot see it in dead
things or in things like stones or oxygen or telephone poles. But
sometimes I can see this 'slope' in that mist which a circumstance of
physics occasionally brings up from the river.
And I guess that's why the 'sensible folk' regard 'universal consciousness'
as hardly a useful idea.