The Universe is a Collective Conciousness.

Phew, I am wearing my brain out! Well, I will attempt to put on my tin-foil hat on to figure out if and how any of this could make sense, (BTW I say tin-foil hat because if I get hit with facts, I want them to be able to sink in. . . ! ) When we are dealing with terms, Definitions, Examples, Etc. We all come up with approximately the same thing. While everyone understands that we are all made of something, Not everyone who are not scientifically involved really understand what makes up our universe. I think, To accomplish your overall goal here, You have to change some of the wording that is used to describe some of the things you are talking about, So they are actually accurate. Allow me to assist: Firstly, There is really no thing as "particle collective conscious, " because particles are not conscious. That's just plainly. . . Very understandable. However, There is particle place, Position, Mass, Force, Purpose, Polarization, Etc. Etc. Etc. To describe what you are meaning, I would call this collective particle/existence symmetrical harmony, Or something to that affect. However, If you wanted to use the collective conscious idea, Here is how I think it makes sense: Believing in the philosophy of collective consciousness codependents to if you see humanity as a whole or as individual elements working together. In the case that you see humanity as independent elements working together, You can use the collective particle/existence symmetrical harmony definition. However, If you believe in the collectively conscious theory, You have to realize that In no way, Does humanity "act" like they are one solid, Collective group, So this has to stay within the realm of the hypothetical. People have never, Probably will never, Function as a collective group with the exception of existence. This theory presents the fact that we are all little robots that are programmed to run on auto-pilot, As if there is a magical psychic force at work lording over each of us, --a theory that might work, But only in the hypothetical. What this philosophy states is that since our bodies function the same as humans that in this case this is because we are all programmed to do the same things. However, The above definition (collective particle/existence symmetrical harmony) fits much better, Is not nearly as hypothetical, And is provable. Your idea about a dead human turning into another being per-say, Is not exactly accurate, But allow me to elaborate: If you bury a human in soil, Without a casket, The human being will produce bacteria and other life forms galore. Just the bacteria inside the average human gut will grow and thrive, Thereby producing a wide variety of life. In this way, Your theory makes perfect sense. I have been over this in forensics many times: the body does not actually die straightaway after post-mortem. Actually certain cells in the body actually grow and thrive after post-mortem. NASA's definition of life is actually the best because it does not require something to actually get up and walk around to be alive. This is why abortion is a very serious thing, Because the very essence of life, Maybe not necessarily up, Walking around, And independent, But a life does not have to be independent to be considered a life, Per the NASA definition of life. Even things that are dependent on other beings to live, Such as bacteria, Are considered alive, Maybe not "conscious" in the known form of that word, But alive just the same. Matter and energy exists, But that does not mean they are alive. A mountain exists but that does not mean it is conscious and able to to get up and walk around. Energy exists, But cannot make or change anything unless acted upon outside forces, Thereby telling us that it is not conscious. A person walking down the aisle in Walmart could break wind, But that does not mean that the "wind" is conscious energy even though everyone else in the store is conscious of it. LOL. . . Laughing. . . Regardless of semi-meanings and pun-theoretical that the media tries to portray, I reject the claim that particles, Atoms, And other sub-atoms are actually alive, Doing their own things. Only bacteria and cells do their own things and are alive within themselves. Particles just exist. This is why it is important to understand fields, And the reason I initially mentioned it. Fields take on the appearance of doing something, But they are actually just existing in a way that appears to me a system. This is why humans can use radio waves. If radio waves were actually conscious and doing their own things, Then men could not use them for their benefit. This proves that particles just exist, Yet, If they are not acted upon by outside forces, Per: man, God, Beast, Bacteria, Etc. They cannot produce actions or consciousness from themselves. Your analogy of Blind, Deaf, Dumb, And numb is actually really good, And I am glad you brought it up. This actually proves my point though that it is possible for things to exist without necessarily having all "normal" faculties. I do not believe that something's existence verifies its consciousness, As that, As you pointed out, Is highly unprovable. Also, Just because something exists does not actually mean it has a sense. . . ( A bit of irony here, There isn't a "universal" rule that says what is real has to be physical. According to NASA, Something must be present to be real, But that does not mean it is conscious, --only. . . Present. Your floor.