We have a physical perspective which is somewhat constrained by our material attributes, i.e. we can only see so far, we can only hear sounds from so far away, we can only smell smells within a certain range. But what about consciousness, where are it's limits? When I contemplate consciousness it feels like I am existing within consciousness, it doesn't eminate from my mind/body in any sense at all. So from an experiential point of view consciousness appears limitless in space, and equally from an intellectual point of view it makes no sense to say my consciousness ends at any particular point in space.

Now if this is so then what of the consciousness of others. If mine is limitless then so is theirs. It is absurd to entertain the possibility that my consciousness is mottled, and the gaps are filled by the consciousness of others. And not only does it offend the intellect it also offend my experience, as this is not how it feels to be conscious. So my consciousness is limitless in space and completely fills that space (or is space contained within consciousness?) and so does that of others - but surely the only way this is possible is if we share the same consciousness. Is there only one consciousness and physical perspective is simply a manafestation of it? Is consciousness in fact limited and my experience is simply erroneous? Am I getting wrapped up in words when the only possible 'solution' to the problem of consciousness is not to be found in words and rational explanations but simply to be conscious? Does it make sense to limit consciousness in words when experience suggests otherwise?

Any thoughts welcome . . .

Lets compare 'consciousness' of a person with 'turing-machine-ness' of a computer. Neither have anything to do with position in space. Discussion thereoff, is not interesting in my view, the question is if the physical manifestation can create either.

A turing machine is well defined, and cannot be created as far as known, since there is no way to create an infinite tape.

Consciousness is ill defined, but i am sure it exists, because i perceive myself. (Saying perceiving myself is consciousness?) Even if my brain was a system, and one could predict that i will say i perceive myself, does not take away that i do actually perceive myself. This, while the system could make me say 'I perceive myself' without me actually perceiving myself.
It is rather hard to explain what i mean, this post might help The problem you seem to be posing is similar to the problem i pose there, it being the (assumed)uniform behavior of physics. Which seems to imply that consciousnesses should, in the end, be 'one'.
Ilya posted an interesting reply aswel.(read my reply below that link, and that is how far i got on that.)

Edit: I think the question posed in thread is a good idea, although i think "consciousness is limitless in space" is not the clearest way of talking about it.

I would have to say that consciousness is, just like matter, limitless. You may say that our body is limited in the sense that it is distinct from other bodies in the material world, but if you consider the body minus consciousness, it seems fairly intuitive to say that it is a single, limitless thing. Certainly it is consistent with physics.


I firmly believe that it is indeed the case that there is only one consciousness in the same sense as there is only one physical matter. Not only that, but I believe that the two (thought and extension) are merely two modes of a single, infinite substance that has an infinite amount of such modes. Obviously I didn't come up with this view on my own; it's from Spinoza's Ethics.

It's possible (I guess that's what the German Idealists were arguing), but I think that the extended world of matter exists just as much as consciousness does.

It's possible, but thinking about it is still a good mental exercise.