Author Topic: Does God get a fail in the love category?  (Read 8238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #145 on: October 09, 2013, 12:34:03 PM »
Telepathy ehh?

As in talking via your mind to other things, no?

(Also, i honestly do not want to watch 20 minutes of bible meanings...)
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #146 on: October 09, 2013, 12:37:27 PM »
Quote
Telepathy ehh?

As in talking via your mind to other things, no?

Yep.

If you would have viewed that other Wormhole link you would have known this.

Quote
(Also, i honestly do not want to watch 20 minutes of bible meanings...)

You asked the method. I showed it.

Regards
DL

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #147 on: October 09, 2013, 01:14:55 PM »
So, this "telepathy".

What is its purpose with the "CC"?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #148 on: October 09, 2013, 01:16:19 PM »
"closed caption". ;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #149 on: October 09, 2013, 01:17:20 PM »
I was suggesting "Close combat".

Or maybe "Crowd control".

Then again...i play too many video games...
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #150 on: October 09, 2013, 01:19:15 PM »
I was suggesting "Close combat".

Or maybe "Crowd control".

Then again...i play too many video games...

The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #151 on: October 09, 2013, 01:28:22 PM »
The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam

I was joking too... :|
I should of used an emoticon.

Anyway, Greatest I am, what has the "CC" got to do with the thread topic ;D.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #152 on: October 09, 2013, 02:01:33 PM »
So, this "telepathy".

What is its purpose with the "CC"?

Telepathy is a way of communicating.

It uses it for internal  communication and external communication when found.

Regards
DL

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #153 on: October 09, 2013, 02:02:58 PM »
The ;) indicated I was joking.

-Nam

I was joking too... :|
I should of used an emoticon.

Anyway, Greatest I am, what has the "CC" got to do with the thread topic ;D.

Nothing. We went off topic.

Regards
DL

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6502
  • Darwins +846/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #154 on: October 09, 2013, 06:06:16 PM »
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12033
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #155 on: October 09, 2013, 06:58:28 PM »
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Garja?

j/k

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #156 on: October 10, 2013, 03:42:34 AM »
…. what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.
 

Okay - I think I'm getting there now.  The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence.  Has no sentience in and of itself.  It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind.  Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject.  But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now.  I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there.  I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it?  For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?
It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing.  A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that.  I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population. 

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different?  If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that.  Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense.  That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe.  I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 03:44:22 AM by Anfauglir »
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #157 on: October 10, 2013, 07:40:48 AM »
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Recognize knowledge and wisdom, you do.

I try. Oh wait.



Regards
DL

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #158 on: October 10, 2013, 08:06:39 AM »
Quote
…. what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

It adds nothing. It is a house so to speak and it is the minds inside who do the adding.

It is like us and the web. We can get info from others in it but the web itself does nothing on it's own.
 

Okay - I think I'm getting there now.  The "Collective Consciousness" has no independant existence.  Has no sentience in and of itself.  It could perhaps be thought of as a library, with each book representing an individual mind.  Someone browsing the shelves could gain an understanding of what each mind thought, and could (by processing of "counting titles") come away with a sense of what the prevailing attitudes were on a particular subject.  But the library does not have its "own" book, in any sense.

Okay, I'm with you now.  I think the problem was when you claimed the CC was "sentient", with the implication (at least for me) that there was somehow something independent there.  I believe we are on the same page now.

Possibly though you may need to modify then the language you use to describe it?  For example, in this quote that I find interesting:

"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?
It means that it can form a consensus and have that consensus become a part of the collectives belief system.

The "it can form a consensus" part implies that it is actively and independently doing something, that the CC somehow is thinking and directing.  A more accurate phrasing might be: "the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" - eliminate the personal pronoun, and there is less potential confusion as to whether the collective itself has an independent thought.

So far as ""the sum total of thoughts in the collective lead to a consensus that becomes a part of the collectives belief" goes, I could dig that.  I only have to go to a public meeting with a few persuasive speakers to see how a thought or a meme can spread through a population. 

What you seem to be implying with your sentence there is that when a thought becomes the majority in the CC, it will begin to influence all the minds thinking something different?  If that's the case, then I have to ask - how does a minority thought get to become the majority, if the process of collective grouping "seeds" majority thought into the others?

This is what I gleaned and I could be wrong.

Let us say that Einstein dies and reaches the C C. His thinking becomes available to all and all can and will understand it. Here I assume that all souls or consciousness' can learn all that the whole knows. He does not have to convince anyone as all can see his logic trail and automatically recognize it's soundness. The meme there does what you show above as it spreads through the population.

Quote
Of course, if all you were saying is that "looking at the CC we can see what the current majority thought is, and take that as 'the' thinking of the world", then fine, I can go with that.  Like saying "most books in the library are about cars, so cars are the most popular thing" - makes sense.  That there is a structure that can be accessed that can provide something like the results of an ultimate opinion poll…..well, maybe.  I'd have a whole raft of questions about how such a thing came to be, though, and what actual purpose it served/serves.

Life is tenuous and I don't think a purpose can be given to it. Life lives because that is what life does.

Life will go to every possible niche and will always go to the best possible end for itself. I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.
 
Regards
DL



EDIT: MODFIXED QUOTES
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 03:11:52 AM by Anfauglir »

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #159 on: October 10, 2013, 12:49:24 PM »
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Made this mental note (see below) after readings about 10 responses by GIa


http://www.churchoffreethought.org]

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience? 

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

Please excuse my skepticism.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12236
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #160 on: October 10, 2013, 01:04:43 PM »
"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?  Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?  If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness.  Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals?  Not necessarily.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #161 on: October 10, 2013, 02:04:24 PM »
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #162 on: October 10, 2013, 02:20:43 PM »
"Greatest I Am" sounds like Yoda on weed. Just sayin'.

Made this mental note (see below) after readings about 10 responses by GIa


http://www.churchoffreethought.org]

As a suspicious entity, I see that web site as an attempt by some to label atheism a religion. It feels so real it screams bogus. It sets itself up too perfectly. Maybe they are real; maybe you had a real telepathic experience? 

I also notice you speak in tongues using remarkable vernacular. Kinda reminds me of an old western where a preacher comes to town and amazes the ordinary citizens with words (scripture) from the bible.

Please excuse my skepticism.

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #163 on: October 10, 2013, 02:27:40 PM »
I thought CC was "Collective Consciousness."  At least that is what I think GIA had defined it as.

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #164 on: October 10, 2013, 02:30:22 PM »
"As a coalition it has thoughts of its own" - what does that actually mean?  Do you mean that there are thoughts produced by the CC that are not being thought by any of the individuals within it?  Or do you mean that the thoughts coming out of the CC are simply echoes of individual thoughts being thought by the individuals within it?  If the latter, what (if anything) is the CC adding to the process?

Anfauglir, GIA is free to correct me, but I think what he means is something akin to a colony organism having a consciousness distinct, yet made up of, the conscious units that make it up.

Let's say hypothetically that our bodies' cells were conscious entities, albeit with a very low level of consciousness.  Would that necessarily have anything to do with the consciousness we feel as whole human individuals?  Not necessarily.

Not quite. Sticking to the mainframe computer analogy.

The mainframe had no software or consciousness until one of us P Cs reached it and uploaded to it.

It had no consciousness till that point in time. That first P C would have had the whole mainframe to itself until the second soul/P C found it and melded with the first P C without either of them losing their individuality. They do seem to have lost any privacy though. I did not sense that they cared after their initial lose of all privacy and what we might call personal thoughts or space.

Regards
DL 

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #165 on: October 10, 2013, 02:32:48 PM »
I thought CC was "Collective Consciousness."  At least that is what I think GIA had defined it as.

I call it a cosmic consciousness but collective works just as well and may even be more accurate thanks to that Sudbury scientist bringing the earths magnetic field into my thinking as the possible location of the C C.

Regards
DL

Offline Greatest I am

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Darwins +10/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #166 on: October 10, 2013, 02:36:05 PM »
I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy,
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

I have made an attempt to find out what you mean by this term but gave up. It may be something quite simple, but please appreciate the problem you are causing.

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"

Noted.

Another started using it and I got lazy.

You have two options just above and I do not care which you use. I will try not to use C C for cosmic consciousness from here on.

Regards
DL

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #167 on: October 11, 2013, 03:18:33 AM »
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #168 on: October 11, 2013, 03:20:41 AM »
In future, please do not use non-standard acronyms.

I say this as it requires a member to search through the entire thread to find out what (in this case) CC means. This is unfair on two grounds:

(i) It is the use of "Private Language"[1] and (ii) it allows you to control the terms of the discussion by forcing others to accept what is otherwise alien to them and on your terms. This is a common ploy for those of a controlling nature who often wish to mislead (I cannot say that you wish this, but it is a point to bear in mind.)

GB Mod
[/color].
 1. see Wittgenstein's private language argument"

Noted.

Another started using it and I got lazy.

You have two options just above and I do not care which you use. I will try not to use C C for cosmic consciousness from here on.

That another was almost certainly me.  CC is a lot faster to type than cosmic consciousness (easier to spell, too).
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #169 on: October 11, 2013, 07:50:32 AM »
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?



Now this is where I expand on it tell me if I still have it,

Since we are all psychically linked in some way to the CC, it is like the source of a moral blueprint, it may be how we know when things are wrong and even how we collectively progress.  Like when all countries around the world began working on radio at the same time, and Electric power generation at the same time.  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 08:04:48 AM by epidemic »

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1234
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #170 on: October 11, 2013, 08:05:08 AM »
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

Offline epidemic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
  • Darwins +53/-14
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #171 on: October 11, 2013, 08:06:54 AM »
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1234
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #172 on: October 11, 2013, 08:09:29 AM »
it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???

Rucker explained it with maths instead of woo though.

edit after a quick bit of googling Rucker actually refers to Cosmic Conciousness in his blog http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/
GIA are you aware of these books and blog or is this a massive conincidence?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2013, 08:36:42 AM by Mrjason »

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Does God get a fail in the love category?
« Reply #173 on: October 11, 2013, 08:52:29 AM »
I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?

That's what I thought he was saying.   But just when I thought I'd got it, he was talking about the room, or the debate, becoming unhappy, or bored, or going insane - all of which imply that it is something more than an abstract concensus view.

How can a consensus become unhappy?  The consensus can BE that people are unhappy, but only IF most people are unhappy.  GIA implied that most people were (let's say) enjoying fish, that the consensus would be "people enjoy fish"....and that that would make the consensus itself unhappy.

That's not something a non-sentient thing can be.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?