Not only that, these forces existed before any life at all evolved anywhere, so it wasn’t the consciousness of dinosaurs or pond scum either.
You guys are misinterpreting this as “does the conscious human mind drive/make up all matter?”
I’m speculating on consciousness as something that exists whether or not humans exist, or as something we “tap into” but do not hold exclusivity over.
Well, it’s a nice thought, but you haven’t presented any evidence or even an idea of how evidence in support of it might be gathered. So what you’re really saying is, “Wouldn’t it be cool if this was so?”
But your OP title is asking if it is in fact true, and the rest of us are saying, “Given the absence of any evidence – no.”
I’m sick of string theory. I propose zing theory, where the universe is made up of tiny little quips and barbs.
You can’t prove me wrong, therefore I’m right.
So you are proposing a silly string theory?
Ah, touché. Which in zing theory is a fundamental force.
If I had proof of anything, I’d be writing a paper for publication in a science journal, not casually discussing it on a message board. You’re right, I am essentially saying “wouldn’t it be cool if…” Well… Wouldn’t it?? Stop being so sensitive people, jeez.
[QUOTE=nole.]
I’m speculating on consciousness as something that exists whether or not humans exist, or as something we “tap into” but do not hold exclusivity over.
[/QUOTE]
May I ask why this idea would appeal to you? It’s a very limited, and limiting, conception of what consciousness is, and what it can be. If it’s just something that some life forms are able to “tune” into and receive, then there’s just one kind of consciousness in the entire universe, and conscious beings are essentially antennae. Conversely, if consciousness is a purely material process, and internal to each conscious being, then it is limited only by the varying material underpinnings that could conceivably evolve, or be designed. In that view, “consciousness” can have a nearly infinite variety, as opposed to one variety.
Not proof-evidence. Do you have any evidence to support your idea?
Wouldn’t it be cool if…what? 
I’m having trouble parsing what your topic’s supposed to be about. Yes, all matter may be the pertubations of mysterious as-yet-proven “strings of energy”, but it’s a huge freakin’ leap to assume said strings make up any sort of universal consciousness.
Let’s assume the universe is conscious.
Now let’s assume it’s not conscious.
What difference should we expect to see?
Saw what you did there.
If it’s conscious, it will try even harder to kill us.
If you can’t bring proof or evidence, you might at least bring some better arguments.
**Is all matter driven by/made of consciousness? **
I think it is.
If I may:
I think, therefore it is.
With a little Googling, I find that the forces that hold the atom together are the electromagnetic force and the strong interaction force. Electromagnetic force holds the electron with the nucleus, and the strong interaction force holds together the quarks.
Each of these forces have lots of pages describing them in great detail, in far more technical manners that I am qualified to judge.
My impression is that it is quite conclusively known that are indeed the forces that hold the atom together.
A similar concept called “Biocentrism” has been proposed by Robert Lanza. His book is fascinating. The basic premise is that life does not arise out of the material world. The material world arises out of life. Very Zen.
Noetics?
Well I took a look at their table where they lay out their +400 significant events. I assigned a weight of 0 to all results then weighted predicted direction to 1 and significant/opposite and significant to 2.
So the number of events has increased since 1998. They use to have 20 odd events but it’s now +35. The weird thing is that the median and IQR of the weighted events for each year doesn’t move (the average doesn’t do anything cool either). Why do I think that’s weird? Well they assume collective attention on events will trigger a shift in the RNG of an EGG. Well since 1998 internet connectivity and global awareness has sky rocketed - you would have thought this ever increasing pool of attention would shift the overall results more and more as the time period progresses.
Now the sample size is really small, the idiot doing the quick look isn’t involved in it and didn’t read too deeply into the experiment but I’m underwhelmed by what I see.
The issue here is that generally, when people are trying to figure out the nature of existence and that sort of thing, we’re interested in actual answers - that is, we’d like to know that our explanation bears some sort of resemblance to reality. This is what we call “science”. The only way to know this is to check our ideas out against reality - experiment, observation, evidence, proof - you know, the scientific method.
Now, if someone just wants to shoot the shit and moon about, wondering about the whichness of the why and generally mentally meandering like a teenager on weed, that’s fine. But it’s not science. That’s what we call “philosophy”. It’d be nice if the thread made it clear which one you’re doing. To me, and it seems, to most of the readers, it sounded like you were wanting to do science, but now you’re saying you’re actually more interested in the other. Which is it?