R H
  • R H
  • Chicago, IL
  • United States

This conversation is closed.

Is there a mass-consciousness?

Is there such a thing as an overriding thought process, or 'meme', that humanity has that governs/influences/determines their individual actions? Or are we individuals deciding at every single moment which direction we, as individuals, are going? And if we are individuals make singular decisions, does this create a 'mass-consciousness' or is there really no such thing? Does the sum of our actions/thoughts/energy create a whole, or is there no 'whole', just billions of decisions creating singular actions constantly alive and adjusting the other billions of decisions?

  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: Hello R H!
    I believe there IS a mass-consciousness...collective conscious...universal conscious....intuition....instinct.....call it what you will.....and I believe it is energy which connects everything that is, including humans.

    In my perception, the energy carries information, which we can tune into or not. By tuning in, I simply mean being open and aware of the possibilities. I do not perceive it as an "overriding thought process...that governs...or determines individual actions". I believe, however, that it can be an influencing factor when/if we are open to it....tuning in, so to speak:>)

    I perceive it to be very much like a computer, which is powered by energy, and all the information comes to us because of that energy connection. Then we can open and close different programs as we choose, depending on what information we wish to have.

    I believe as multi-sensory, multi-dimensional, multi-faceted humans, we have the ability to sift through information to make informed decisions, so we are making singular decisions while connected to the universal energy. I believe that in any given moment, we make decisions for ourselves based on information we have at the time.

    One can look at everything on the TED site for example, and everyone may take in different information and use it differently. We have this "mass consciousness" (TED for example), and we all will probably do something different with the information that is provided. I believe it is similar to the universal consciousness.....we are singular and connected at the same time:>)

    I do indeed believe that the sum of our actions/thoughts/energy contribute to the whole. That is why I often say that every little step we take to improve the human condition contributes to the whole:>)
  • Feb 12 2014: I believe it is impossible to have an individual without a whole, and a whole without an individual. We cannot, as individuals, produce thoughts, words or actions without having an influence on our surroundings. Therefore we are all interconnected in one way or another which creates a whole.

    If we look at a wooden table as an example. That table does not exist alone. If there wasn't the sun, rain, insects, animals, people, and everything else that makes it possible for a tree to grow and be cut down to be made into a table, the table wouldn't exist. If we look deeply into how nature is interwoven, we could even go as far as saying that everything in the universe needs to exist for the table to exist.

    I believe our minds are interwoven in the same way. After all, we are also a product of nature.
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2014: I don't think there is some 'mystical' mass consciousness, as that would need a lot of assumptions about realty for which we have no evidence.

    So if you want to compare a society as a brain (where humans are the cells), then the idea might arise that, much like our consciousness emerges from our neural activity, that there might arise something that you could call mass-consciousness (although I would try and find a better name for it*).
    Or compare it to a hive: the parts seem to work in such a way, that the whole behaves in a much more intelligent way.
    Or compare it how single cell organisms form a multi-cellular organism.

    To answer your question: I would assume that the parts create the whole. And by being part of a whole, your behavior is influenced by it (like a stem-cell becomes a different cell depending on its environment)

    * consciousness: like human consciousness? or like a cow's consciousness? or like a plant's sensitivity to it's environment? With self-consciousness? or some awareness.... Maybe try and formulate some testable hypothesis around it, and do some (sociological) experiments
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2014: I will provide some definitions to frame my answer: A "consciousness" is something that is aware of its own existence, surroundings, and has thoughts. A "mass-consciousness" would be a consciousness that is formed out of (or emerges from) our individual human consciousnesses, but also shares the definition of consciousness. I don't think there is a mass-consciousness at this level. If there were such a consciousness, we would in theory be able to communicate with it. (Hey, mass consciousness: If you're listening, give us a shout!)

    Emile Durkheim, the founder of sociology, coined the term "collective consciousness" around 1893 to refer to the set of beliefs held by society at large that serve to bind it together and give it coherence. I don't think this should be confused with a real consciousness.

    Memes are very different from consciousness, at least as originally defined by Dawkins; memes are units of cultural transmission. They share many characteristics with genes (hence the play on words), but I do not believe they are in any sense part of something alive.

    I am personally fascinated with the ontology of culture, where memes operate. In particular, I have tried to informally research whether a particular culture could survive the death of all the members of that culture. As cultures and languages continue to die out every year at an alarming rate, I wondered whether or how these cultures could survive. For example, what if the Chinese had succeeded in killing all the Tibetans - would their culture have vanished? I conducted interviews with several people from indigenous cultures that regularly communicate with their ancestors (native american and aborigines), to try to determine whether they could still reach back and hear the whispers of their culture if everyone else in the culture had died.
    • thumb
      Feb 10 2014: Love your comment, Danger Lampost!!
      But Dawkins, Domasio with their "conclusions", or Seung with his "sensational" concepts of “I am my Connectome” or “Brain's Wiring" make a laughingstock for learned men.

      Thank you for sharing your own thoughts.
  • Comment deleted

    • Feb 11 2014: Great link sir, some thought provoking stuff! The quote "All we are is the result of what we have thought, said, and done" has helped me keep perspective over the years, but maybe I should rethink the "all we are" part.
    • thumb
      Feb 12 2014: Darold Treffert' s paper provides little more than speculations. Genetic memory is not going to provide him with what he is after.

      "How to inherit a memory
      How could a memory of a smell wheedle its way into eggs and sperm and change the behaviour of children and grandchildren?

      The discovery, by Brian Dias at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, that this seems to happen in mice (see main story) makes evolutionary sense. It would be beneficial to teaching future generations to recognise the scent of dangers, for example – but we are still a long way from understanding the mechanics of the process.

      If it does happen, it must mean that there are mechanisms by which the brain could signal to the sperm, says Moshe Szyf at McGill University in Montreal, Canada.

      One candidate is microRNA. These small non-coding fragments of RNA may help to guide the epigenetic machinery to specific locations on the DNA. There it helps genes to become more or less active by adding or removing methyl groups.

      "It's possible that microRNAs serve as intercellular messengers and go into the bloodstream and affect the potential transcription of these genes in the sperm," says Dias.

      Hormones are another possibility. The brain secretes them, and they can affect the expression of multiple genes, so it is also possible that smell receptors on sperm respond to odour molecules that find their way into the circulation, says Dias.

      However, it's not just recognition of a smell that seems to be transmitted down generations. "It's connecting the smell with the fear response," Szyf says. Although Dias has identified one gene that is modified in response to smell-conditioning, Szyf suspects that there will be many more.

      The trouble is that without knowing which genes are involved, it is difficult to investigate how they are being altered. "
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677-fear-of-a-smell-can-be-passed-down-several-generations.html#.UvrkYUJdW3k
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 14 2014: Re: "They dissolve by about age 4 typically, and thus most neuroscientists believe they are just "extra" neurons we don't need.

          I would not say "most." At this point no "neuroscientist" would think.It is widely held that,
          "The capacity of the brain to adapt its connections to environmental stimuli diminishes over time, and therefore it would follow that there is a critical period for intellectual development as well. While the critical period for the visual cortex ends in early childhood, other cortical areas and abilities have a critical period that lasts up through maturity (age 16), the same time frame for the development of fluid intelligence. In order for a person to develop certain intellectual abilities, they need to be provided with the appropriate environmental stimuli during childhood, before the critical period for adapting their neuronal connections ends.[3] The existence of a critical period of language development is well established.

          So the flushing, or "neuron pruning" of unstimulated, unconnected neurons is what occurs after these "critical periods."
          "In neuroscience, synaptic pruning, neuronal pruning or axon pruning refer to neurological regulatory processes, which facilitate changes in neural structure by reducing the overall number of neurons and synapses, leaving more efficient synaptic configurations."
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning

          Kudos for being on the right track.
      • Feb 14 2014: 1: Smells are CHEMICALS.
        2: Fear is a CHEMICAL PROCESS.

        This is no big deal. Chemical exposure to the genome can result in heritable epigenetic alterations, usually in terms of persistent DNA (de)methylation. That is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very great distance away from "collective memory" or other such silly rubbish. EVENTS ARE NOT REMEMBERED. A specific CHEMICAL stimulus results in a specific CHEMICAL response, and that is all there is. The details of the exposure are not "remembered". Whether or not the chemical was injected by a Swede or a Zimbabwean is not remembered.
        • Feb 14 2014: "Previous generations have been absolutely convinced that their scientific theories were well-nigh perfect, only for it to turn out that they had missed the point entirely. Why should it be any different for our generation? Beware of scientific fundamentalists who try to tell you everything is pretty much worked out, and only a few routine details are left to do. It is just when the majority of scientists believe such things that the next revolution in our world-view creeps into being, its feeble birth-squeaks all but drowned by the ear-splitting roar of orthodoxy." The Science of Discworld by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart, & Jack Cohen
        • Feb 15 2014: Oxforddictionaries.com. fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat:

          Merriam-webster.com. fear - 1 a : an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger b(1) : an instance of this emotion (2) : a state marked by this emotion

          If you get a chance maybe you can sort through their dictionaries and let them know what else they got wrong, they seem to think fear is an emotion. Its sad (emotion) to see a dictionary so off base.
  • Feb 7 2014: Have we even come to a consensus on what consciousness is? The hameroff/penrose model of microtubuals being the seat of consciousness, the rigidly deterministic claims that consciousness is an illusion and "we" are just chemical soups, the model that sees the brain as a reciever picking up the signal of universal consciousness? Neuroscientists, physicists, philosophers and mystics are still struggling with this, one of the most profound questions there are, to this day. I think it is a worthwhile goal. My humble and uneducated opinion is that in the very least the living and functioning brains that are here now hold consciousness and the greater our communication becomes (and hopefully an appreciation of each other as well) the closer we will be to acting together with at least a global consciousness. Great topic R H and I look forward to reading more responses from the TED community.
  • Feb 6 2014: There is Only Consciousness
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2014: I like the Flower Garland school of buddhism view of "..infinite interpenetration". each of us is unique and our uniqueness is needed by the whole; we cannot fully actualize without the whole.

    So in that sense, in that school there is both a single and unique consciousness and a consciousness of a the whole.

    We feed the whole and it needs each unique "us"

    the whole feeds us and we need it it.

    a non dual approach

    not either or

    not self or mass consciousness

    unique self and its awareness

    the whole ( all selves) and the common awareness.

    ( I've taken great liberties here with the Flower Garland School..but in the ball park and my unique take on it)
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2014: Yes.
    There must be. How else can one explain individual consciousness without accepting that it is something that we all possess. And if we possess it then we can lose it (as it often happens) - this excludes dreaming since in a dream one can use ones faculties of mind to negotiate, maneuver, and commit to memory a stream of moments to make an event which we can remember upon waking.
    The loss and gain of the conscious state allows it the property to be independent of the brain and certainly loss of brain tissue does not necessarily alter the state of consciousness, yet the unconscious state definitely impacts on the formation of dendritic connections and interactions!
    Once we accept consciousness as a discrete entity we must appreciate its relationship to time and space. Yet we consistently fail simply because time and space are products of mind and motion. When consciousness takes its occasional holidays, the mind is left behind somewhat incapacitated in a brain that is largely fully functional.
    The last bit of the puzzle then remains: When consciousness takes flight, where does it go? and why? To exclude a mass consciousness is to actively refute a quality possessed by every other entity in the universe, and the reason that rational people do this is because of their anchoring and imprisonment in a reality that must pass the test of the mind. Any consideration other than that is viewed as the domain of those 'out of their minds' both literally and figuratively.
  • Feb 15 2014: If, as some say, information is imbedded in the fundamental level of spacetime geometry, as mych as mass, spin, charge are, then "mass" consciousness is a very real thing. Maybe "ego" is an emergent property, but consciousness/information seems to be a more basic feature. Is it the super position of tubulin or superposition itself that gives us access to "consciousness? What are the limits of non local entanglement? If the quantum computations in microtubles are communicated nonlocally to other microtubles in a neuron, and from neuron to neuron through gap junctions, then are these quantum effects communicated nonlocally to other entangled particles elsewhere? For instance, do identical twins have entangled particles, tubulin, neurons?
  • thumb
    Feb 15 2014: I think there is collective consciousness .Isn't culture or social expectation a form of collective consciousness that can influence individual actions/behavior/decision?

    We make decision not only at a conscious level (presenting information)but also draw on our information data( in the brain) and even more to that the unconscious plays a big role too. Psychologist Carl Jung has done researches on the collective unconsciousness and explain how that influence people.You might like to read if you are interested.
  • Comment deleted

  • Feb 11 2014: No.
    • Feb 12 2014: Hey sir, you seemed knowledgeable about genetics and had some strong (if a little overheated) input in the conversation "How much information is encoded in our DNA and how detailed is it?". I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on the link that Theodore posted above from newscientist.com. I'd appreciate hearing your take on it.
      • Feb 14 2014: How much information is encoded in our DNA? That's easy to answer: 2 bits per base-pair, no more, no less, exactly 2 bits per base pair. That's it. Now, if you want to ask "How much information could be represented by our complete (epi)genome, that's an entirely different ball of wax. In addition to the very simple ATCG base selections, you have optional oxidation, methylation or hydroxymethylation of DNA. PLUS you have position of the DNA in 3-dimensional space (that makes a difference). PLUS you have position of the DNA in relationship to the histone proteins that nuclear DNA is usually associated with in 3-dimensional space. PLUS you have optional methylation or acetylation of the histones. PLUS you have time-dependent elements, in which changes of any of the above might, themselves, carry meaningful information.
        • Feb 14 2014: Ha! Thats great. Very helpful as usual. Why do I feel like I just got cussed out in another language? It must be tiring holding the answers to all lifes questions in that head, ha ha.
    • Comment deleted

      • Feb 14 2014: Read it, went over it. Checked other connected information. It's purely mechanistic and does not support silly little notions like "shared memory" or "collective consciousness". The actual mechanisms of event recall as memory are still not understood, but I could see room for the participation of some quantum-level effects. However, such an effect would be horribly unstable and ephemeral--not at all transmissible. For transmission, you need stability, which is not found at the quantum level.
      • Feb 14 2014: Are you QUITE certain that I have no familiarity with their work? I've been working full-time in neuroscience for about 10 years. Their stuff is still just an interesting idea with more hurdles to overcome.
  • thumb
    Feb 11 2014: Good point. I would say it was individual choice that prompted someone to attend the concert, march, etc, but once there you get a demonstration of mass-consciousness at work as seen in a "localised" context of the concert, the march, etc.
    The best example I can think of is when a peaceful march turns into a riot; there is a "flash-point" at which a "localised mass-consciousness" takes over - and the whole thing becomes more than the sum of its parts, with people doing things they would not otherwise do.
    So I would say it is a combination of:
    1). Individual choice shaped by life experiences
    2). The group context of the particular circumstances
    3). The idea that we are all linked in consciousness (not a new idea)
  • thumb
    Feb 11 2014: 6 degrees of separation.

    An idea, theory, event, etc. is often discussed and has the potential for spreading.

    Social media, news, and the internet increases the speed at which information travels and how far it goes.

    A range of emotional reactions occur as people allow the information to pass through each of their experience and moral barriers.

    People divide themselves into groups based on how they emotionally connect to an idea, theory, event, etc. allowing for an emotional connection to anyone they come into contact with who feels the same way.

    Bringing it back to the internet and the wide spread use of social media people will often end up hearing the same topic discussed amongst different groups of people in a short span of time.

    Agree, disagree, neutrality, ambiguity, etc... There's usually a limited number of ways in which people will react emotionally.

    Our thoughts will follow along trends in sync with our emotions so the ideas, theories, and solutions in reaction to the information we've received can vary widely but will have similarities.

    Is this what we consider to be a form of connected/collective conscience?
  • thumb
    Feb 10 2014: Wait til they manage to defrag the race.
  • thumb
    Feb 10 2014: There is mass-hysteria or what they call it in psychology - mass-psychosis, these might drive crowds to destruction for "the same belief" .

    But No collective mass-consciousness can really exist on its own "out there"- it is our illusion that breaks into many illusions within each unique mind and its own interpretations. It is our collective ACTION may become our physical force, this may do big changes, wonders or disasters, beyond our control.

    If we would be able to "visit" other's minds we would be struck by how differently people imagine the same idea- just read Ted's comments!

    People who are marching down the street excited by sharing the "same idea" will sooner or later discover how differently they imagine the "same idea" in which they believe. Therefore, all the movements, as we know, are doomed to fall apart, making many former idea-pals argue for life for their own "truth".

    The psychology of masses and their behavior has been contemplated by a thoughtful genius psychiatrist, Vladimir Bekhterev. He has described crowds of thousands of Russian poorly educated peasants (with children) who left everything behind, including their homes, for to follow some incurable mental patient for many months, as if he was their God-sent leader.

    Important notice:

    the name Vladimir Bekhterev is largely unknown, inspite that his contributions to science and specifically psychology were impressive. Bekhterev was a huge force in the science of neurology; "Only two know the mystery of brain: God and Bekhterev"
—Friedrich Wilhelm Theodor Kopsch.

    On December 23, 1927, after having lectured on child neurology at the Congress, Bekhterev went to Kremlin to examine Joseph Stalin. About 3 hours later he came back to the Congress for a meeting and said to some colleagues there: ‘I have just examined a paranoiac with a short, dry hand’. Two days later, Bekhterev suddenly died, causing speculation that he was poisoned by Stalin as revenge for the diagnosi
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: Hi RH,

    If you have ever been to an energising rock concert, or witnessed a televangelist at work, or joined a protest march that turned into a riot, or watched old film-footage of Hitler & Mussolini's pre-war rallies, or been to a football match, then you will know for sure that the mechanisms for mass-consciousness clearly exist. How we try to explain those mechanisms though will vary a lot.

    I currently opt for Gnostic Christianity. We are are all different experiencing-parts of one and the same One-Consciousness. Every thought of every individual contributes in some (tiny) measure to the emergence of form, which reflects back to us our personal mind-set in the context of a global-mindset. As an example of this theme, here's a short poem I wrote:

    STATE OF WAR
    Of all the many states that engender war
    our own inner state is most responsible, for sure
    since that which is within is always projected out
    that’s why we always have wars, no doubt;
    so then, if we were all to cultivate inner peace
    wars would cease.
    • thumb
      Feb 11 2014: You've used a rock concert, a televangelist, a protest march, and Hitler rallies as examples. In each of these cases the people who attended were of a like mind prior to their arrival. They were open to be influenced by the energy and message.

      Was it mass-consciousness that planted the seed in them to attend or can we chalk that up to the set of circumstances and life experiences?
  • Feb 7 2014: Speaking about choice we do have choice , if I ask you to stand on one leg you do have a choice of choosing whether to stand on your left or right leg,but once the choice is made you have to suffer.
    What I mean is that at every stage we do have a choice but outcome is not wholly based on the choices we make.
    Again choices we make are selected from small number of alternatives seen by our intelligence at that point of time.
    And our intelligence largely influenced by conditioning .
    So as in example given above we have 50% choice and remaining 50% depends on number of other things.
  • Feb 6 2014: I don't think so, but I might be wrong.
  • Feb 6 2014: The universe is controlled by logic, depending on how deep this is taken it leads to an idea that logic is being applied to everything constantly over time, even out bodies as 'matter'. We exist independent of our bodies, can sense the world of matter and the world of logic, but can put both senses together to make sense of the world around us.
    We can be a mass-consciousness, because 'logic' as a theoretical construct is being applied to the world we see, including our physical bodies. I state logic is the force driving humanity to find out questions, to develop and innovate, so that it can overcome problems and find the logical answer to the world we experience. People develop over their lives because they experience more of the world, and so gain a logical way to survive a.k.a. personal beliefs AND 'subconscious' body processes that help up survive.
    It's difficult to explain, hope this helps you man
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: Humans, plants, animals.
    When overcrowded, with limited sunlight, food, water, and personal space, animals have less decisions to make.
    When overcrowded, with limited sunlight, food, water, and personal space, plants have less decisions to make.
    When overcrowded, with limited sunlight, food, water, and personal space, humans have less decisions to make.
    In open field, many decisions. Build walls, less decisions.
  • Feb 6 2014: I personally think that subconsciously people can influence one another. Yet depending on the negative or positive aspects of that influence weight greatly on limitations. As in if that person can control or guide one through there life; maybe so, who knows. I feel the complexity of human beings is limitless, only due to what we solely don't know. But with that what we think we know and to not yet prove 100% factual, Limits our capacity to acknowledge each other as selves within our-self. Yet emotional contagion is possible, simple in co-existing. How can we not converge beyond our physical forms. Even if our way of living is thought provoked by something else, we still wouldn't be able to fully prove it. Maybe cause there so much of us.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: .
    Yes! There is.
    It is SYMBIOSIS (our ancestors' successful experience in our DNA).
  • Feb 5 2014: i believe this could be seen either way. in one perception, no i don't believe that we are all connected and share this one lage consciousness because you see to many differing opinions and complete opposites. Consider ww2. if the world had a larger consciousness then you would either see nazi germany never existing,or no one fighting back, or everyone having one large imperialism fest. But on the other hand could our passing on of morals not be considered a larger consciousness, a connection of sorts to our fellow humans.
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2014: In today's world i have seen only un-common commonsense.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 5 2014: Wow... Good reasoning
      Are you saying that there is no "conciousness" because " arrogant male, ego driven species likes to described life, universe male gods and life after death"?
      Is this just an excuse for you to speak of your warped and ignorant fallacies on a plethora of subjects?

      Let me clarify, arrogance is not a male quality and neither is the ego. Both are, in fact, human characteristics. And in general people who are arrogant and ego centrical tend to run for positions that "drive" our species. This of course includes females.
      By the way, what exactly is wrong with asking questions?
      And then there is the statement you made that "only half the species put forward" the "question", are you saying that only men are arrogant and ego centrical enough so as to question what exactly the mind and the nature of reality is. Obviously if you knew anything you would know that males and females alike have attempted to discover, define and explain the nature or reality. This includes the creation of female gods, female theory's on life after death, and even the existence of consciousness.
      And then you say that because only males want to know answers you cant possibly get the answer? Or as you said it "only half the species put forward in the man story of life ....than you can only get half truths.
      How exactly does that even make sense?
      Then you make a statement that "There isn't one action by any human that was premeditated because we are the some of many humans"....WRONG! That is jut a few people, and from what it looks like you are in that group.
      And what does the "some of many humans" mean? And what does it have to do with premeditation?
      Then quite honestly you go off into a tangent of calling people stupid.
      Ironic that you reprimand our species for being "arrogant" and yet you are arrogant by assuming you have the abilities to understand what your saying and to mock others.
      Normal people actually do think before they act or talk.
      Educate yourself!
      Don't be mean!
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 5 2014: I will keep it short this time, because you are most likely going to ignore what I say like last time. My challenging your beliefs is not insulting it challenging and defining your statements. What you are saying, the implications of you words, are by definition warped or distorted. Honestly it seems to me like you just hate guys, most likely because of personal experience but for what ever reason your opinions are indeed warped not to mention paranoid. I then called your OPINIONS ignorant and by definition they are. Next I called your opinions fallacious, and they are indeed mistaken. Basically in your paranoid and distorted "world" guys are evil and girls are just innocent victims. That is simply not true, I honestly would explain this to you but I honestly believe you are just to stubborn and arrogant to see anyone else's point of view but your own.
          I suggest you do some research and educate your self on the reality of the matter and the reasons behind it. Specifically Politics, Psychology, History, and English.
          Also you should look up the meaning and history of Matriarchy.
          I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, I just don't think you do.
          To summarize you speak without any facts or logical structure.
          And as for the "maybe because it was a woman commenting" trust me your sex is not that important. It was because of your words.Also I suggest you reread what I said earlier because those are educated retorts to your statements.
          In an attempt to help you I say this:
          Your ideas are far from the truth and in order to get closer you must gain knowledge, and to do that you must educate yourself.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 6 2014: I change my mind, first learn to read and then learn to write and maybe then you can learn to understand what I said.
          I repeat
          "Your ideas are far from the truth and in order to get closer you must gain knowledge, and to do that you must educate yourself."
          I repeat
          "Also you should look up the meaning and history of Matriarchy."
          And also quite simply, I have no problem with your opinions, I am simply pointing out the problems with your statements and also your ignorance.

          P.S.
          It must challenge your ego to not have the last word. hahahahaha
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 6 2014: As I wading through the mental fire caused by your words and the potential "world spinning effects" to come, I realized something....
          There is something called the internet....
          And as I looked through this strange space I noticed something callled.... GOOGLE....
          I then had a rush of ideas and connections in my mind everything I had just experienced culminated into one thing and I quickly stretched out my fingers to my key board. And put my idea to the test... I-M-P-O-R-T-A-N-T F-E-M-A-L-E F-I-G-U-R-E-S and then the final piece... I hit enter!!!!!! Less then a second later I came to a page with many entries.... I then selected one, titled "100 Important Women in History - Angelfire"not knowing what would happen. It brought me to a page full of information on the subject of Important Female Figures, and I was amazed to find there are indeed important females who did create and develop things. Maybe if I clicked on one of these it would show a female figure who developed language, laws, culture, religion, or even theories on the unknown. But then my brain was at its limit, and I passed out. Most likely because of the mind fire you spoke of before. As I came to I quickly typed down what I remembered so as to convey this major leap in technology I had made.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2014: There is a difference between debating and arguing. Debate is used to present opposing ideas and opinions in a non argumentative way.

          This is a conversation about mass consciousness. I simply felt compelled to reply to the thread of conversation relating to the differing views between men and women.

          Should you post a question, debate, or idea relating to the differing views regarding male and female perceptions or roles in society I would definitely be willing to join in on the conversation there.
      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Feb 10 2014: Some might say it has been discriminatory to send mainly young men to fight and die in wars.

          in nature, it's a competitive world. I guess we evolved as a sexually reproducing species where males are stronger and more aggressive on average. this still flows into modern society and to history.

          It is not really the fault of males, to be male. they are born that way. No choice. But we do have the choice to try reduce harm and improve the human condition.

          In the end we have biological and cultural drivers but it comes down to individual men and women making choices, overcoming selfishness or not.
      • thumb
        Feb 11 2014: This is in no way to be interpreted as an argumentative tone, I just wanted to clarify since you really can't convey tone in text.

        There are certain thoughts and feelings about the inequalities of men and women that are often only fully acknowledged and felt by women. We see, feel, and experience things differently and sometimes it causes extreme frustration when men feel the desire to poke holes and don't validate the truth behind the statement.

        Men have throughout history held positions of power. Men have made it a point throughout history to make women feel inferior, in every imaginable way. Men have displayed their dominance in mentally, emotionally, and physically damaging ways.

        Men to this day will often times have a very hard time accepting the role their ancestors have played in the development of the female psyche. There is an inherent dislike felt by women for men who display certain characteristics that in any way remind us that we've been thought of throughout history as a lower class of human.

        We hope that the current generation of men are willing to listen and try to understand these concepts so that future men wont display the same superior characteristics that have caused women so much hurt and anguish since the beginning of time.
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2014: Firstly, being that you are expressing views (in response to mine) that are opposing mine you are indeed argumentative. That aside, being that this is a website for conversation I think I must reply.

          I believe with education both males and females can realize that we are not that different at all. The advantage of education is that one can carry on topics without the troubles of basic knowledge and semantics. Also with education one can realize the importance of reaching or attempting to reach a conclusion, the process for which is to argue a point and to point out the flaws in the apposing side.

          As you said the males and the females of our race are somewhat different. But to say that males are the only ones who "displayed their dominance in mentally, emotionally, and physically damaging ways" seems weirdly one sided. Are you are saying that men are smarter then women and use their power to manipulate? Because I really don't think so.

          I believe that you are mistaking a few bad people (bad of course is a human characteristic) for the whole sex of a race.
          Also, could you please elaborate on the statement that "Men to this day will often times have a very hard time accepting the role their ancestors have played in the development of the female psyche."
          Also, what exactly do you mean by "so that future men wont display the same superior characteristics".
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2014: Are you asking about whether decisions can be considered entirely independent of each other or whether they are part of a web of mutual influences?
    • Feb 14 2014: I've a feeling that this is not the original question restated. I think that the original question is whether or not there is some kind of mumbo-jumbo boojum "mass mind" that "thinks as one" in a very real an literal sense, not whether or not a web of mutual influences could be metaphorically described as if it resembled a "mass mind" in a few aspects.