A Theory on Omniscience...

This is something I came up with today, whilst chatting with friends...

First of all, I noticed that the four of us chatting, and how if you looked at it the right way, it looked like a vector diagram from Physics or Maths...

Then I got thinking... I don't need to know how far away Person A is from me, I only need to know how far Person B is from me, and how far Person A is from Person B...
Okay, sure... It's vector addition, and that's mildly interesting....

Then I thought some more...
Hmmm, if I pay loads of attention to Person A and they're paying loads of attention to Person B, then I may be able to get some idea of what Person B is like or is doing, just from looking attentively to Person A...
Okay, that's cool... I'm not looking at someone, but have a good idea what's going on with them...

Alright, I thought... What if there's a Person C somewhere?
If I'm just looking at Person A, is it possible that, somehow, I also know what Person B is doing, and what Person C is doing?
My answer was 'Yes!... Quite possibly...'

Let's say there aren't just four people now, but ten... Could it still work?
Again, I thought, if I'm focussed enough, then I may be able to get some idea of what ten different are doing...
Alright, you may say, how much attention can you pay to acquire meaningful information about ten different people simply by mostly looking at just one?..
I guess the answer is, I don't know...

But let's say ten became a hundred, a hundred becomes a million, a million becomes the entire amount of people you could possibly be aware of at one time...
If you were focussed enough, and a big enough attention span, theoretically it could be possible...

Perhaps, most of us will be limited to quite low numbers...
Perhaps, also, if we only look at very simple information, we can focus on more people, to get a more general look at what many people are doing in a similar circumstance...
For example, being at a concert and picking up and enjoying the general vibe when one of your favourite band plays one of it's killer tracks...

Perhaps, the super-human (or what ever you want to call them) among us, could get more and more omniscient, not being constrained by looking in generally one place at one time...

You could also say that evolution allowed for practice... (I'll explain)
I think perhaps in the beginning, all that was was simple life-forms, processing simple information...
As evolution started to take place, more and more complex information was available, perceivable and life-forms more and more in greater numbers...
Until you get much further on in time and complexity, but the process of evolution allowed for us to train ourselves, rather than just being chucked into a pre-mixed world...

Who knows the limit of this way of Omniscience?
Could it be possible for humans to be so close to it, that it would be considered awe-inspiring?
Could you see a human, through the eyes of a cat?
Through the eyes of a computer? (maybe you're doing that now...)
What about being so receptive, you could see through the eyes of something non-living, and not remotely eye, or brain like?

There's one word left out of this post, not because I don't believe, but I don't want to explicitly imply anything... Some of you may know what the word is...

What do you guys think about the possibility of Omniscience, and seeing some second person through the eyes of a third person?

Another apology for such a long post...

(linking idea with Brain Function)...and
(linking idea with Six Degrees of Separation)...

Basically, the whole relation of A to B, B to C and A to C, where
A to C can be replaced by addition of A to B and B to C also has impact on Brain Function...
The idea of Compensation, where one area of the Brain compensates for another could easily work by this principle.
This would assume that the brain sees the two possible paths in the same way and processes them quite similarly...
You could introduce any number of Vectors to replace one or more other vectors, and in certain circumstances may be of benefit...
Consider seeing something from another point of view...

Also, with the Six Degrees of Separation idea, links in with the whole Person A, Person B and Person C bit...
You may know someone through someone else, and constantly associate Person C with Person B, possibly to the extent that thinking of Person C without thinking of Person B makes little sense.
In the whole, you may tend to think of most people defined by a certain category in terms with those that share or do not share similar qualities...
Consider thinking of a particular family member...
If you think of them, you tend to think of similar people, like the other family members.
In this manner, linking one person to another, and then another, does kind of fit in with the Six Degrees of Separation idea...

So how do you manage to stay on the topic of one person or thought?

One answer would be due to the frequency of going through the point that symbolises a certain person, idea, etc...
This would mean that if you manage to link one idea with more and more ideas, when you think of that one idea it would be stronger than one that is not well linked, new or less meaningful...
***Be careful... Even if one idea is not linked greatly in number, it may well be linked to a few other ideas that are...

Hope this all makes sense...

Would love to hear what you think on the topic...

i think the bottom line on these discussions is the universal unconscious. But these discussions also raise other questions to me. Which came first, the universal unconscious or the human? If the answer is human than maybe this action of relating everything with something else is where it began. but if the universal unconscious came first than it is the reason why we constantly group things.

(another link with brain function)

This came up today, whilst I was thinking some more about one brain area compensating for another...
From what I have learned from psychology, when information is being encoded or retrieved it is often in the form of acoustics, visuals or semantics... (semantics being meaning based)
To get to an idea though, you could choose. For example, thinking of the sound of a word may directly link you to the idea of the word. Or, you could think of the sight of the word to get to the idea of it.
Let's say, your brain is damaged, and you cannot link the sound of a word directly to the idea of it. All is not lost... You can think of the sound of a word, automatically associate it with the sight of the word, and use the sight of the word to get to the idea of the word. Here, your visual mental processes can compensate for your weaker acoustic mental processes.

All you need to do is transform one stimulus for one mental process into one for another mental process, and you'll still be able to derive meaning and function correctly...
Just think of transforming sounds to letters, or letters to sounds...

Also, you may not need to have a disorder to enlist help from other sensory based mental processes, but using the same compensation technique can help you further establish the idea of a word, through combination... (which is something else I have learned from psychology)
No need to stop there... Maybe a smell, taste or feeling associated with an idea could be of use in compensation and combined mental processes...
To take things one step further... You could consider sense itself... For example, something put forward by Rudolf Steiner, was the possibility of there being twelve senses. All the regular ones, plus things like Balance, Warmth and Ego... (see link <http://www.doyletics.com/arj/trhrvw.htm> )
In keeping with this kind of theme, there are many mental processes that may compensate for one or more weaker ones.
And, to leave you with... Perhaps consider linking the idea of sensation, and the concept of the word sense (where it relates to topic based meaning)

god this theory trips me out. if you look around in social situations you can actually see physical evidence to this theory. its intense.