We are not consciousness

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
342

The ‘why’ is what entails the difference, so? What what? Sounds like a bark

But, the hard question is that the connections between the order and the structural affinity?

Probably not unless an objective phenomenal question can basically account for that difference , vis. Where eclxtraordinary effusion can be reduced to the level of basic images that can be present other than functionally, unless . Representation ad infinitum can’t account for access of that trace of information remaining after numerous functionally derived values.

And why not? Can not anthology account for the phenomenal etiology between normal , less or more than normal apprehension of preordinate images ? Do any conceptual association have some merit to be flushed out as to find some baseline upon to which to build further enhancements that build other ones atope?

In this case , or in some below awareness, such as that supposes entailment between artistic/autistic and doubly re/integrated objectives, record conditionally toward its minimal value, let us say for the sake and f a reified ‘kind’ ness, what magic can underlie beneath the knotted terrain. Which may only be expressed as imaginery as functionally inordinate.?.

)()(((

https://youtu.be/GwY2gO-5Uw8?si=T1KEOoAvB5JefPIo

..of course for example some super imp positioned being who just got shipped off to another lost world trie to string together signs vehicle were not elevated to the level of a(the) word and tried to make as much sense to the next say million generations ( they did not have suffer blankly stated events but were cybernetically reshaped)

Eventually they found one series of aggregates to deconstruct every figment of the trace function of what was found and go from there.

That grouping became a regional language, around which a curler needed to be drawn for security reasons. Other tribes became incensed , wanting to get into the fun, but then the conceivable resulted. Tribal jelousy hatred . The eye suffered so, that their function became atrophied, and feelings kept from their skin tight restraints, separating from their formal arrangements heavenwards,

Then the punishment was swift: deliver into the very muted source which was the ocean of possibility enclosure sing all entangled possibilities reduced to a single experience. It was to become, it was tragically expediently awesome.

343

One can only understand consciousness and ones relationship to it by attempting to control it,There is no other way to understand consciousness.

Psychological control is what differentiates us from mere biological machines which operate automatically.

Ones science has to transition from mere observer science to player science therefore which can only happen if psychological control of consciousness is introduced.We are active participants in science because we are totally embroiled within it.

David Chalmers is correct to say that consciousness and awareness are separate.

The right question to ask is why is there an in and out of the moment consciousness experience and what is the science that can explain this.

It’s a psychological challenge to claim that one doesn’t exist when one knows that one needs to exist to claim it.Its also a psychological challenge to claim that one is an illusion when one knows that an illusion is a misrepresentation of reality.

344

Biological entities endowed with a level of consciousness unattainable by all other living creatures in the whole universe. But we take it for granted.

345

The phenomenon you’re describing sounds like what John Vervaeke has termed relevance realization, which is the cognitive process whereby an individual or system identifies and focuses on information that is pertinent to a specific task situation or goal while simultaneously filtering out or ignoring irrelevant information. It’s a fundamental aspect of the intellect, enabling effective decision-making and problem-solving in complex environments. The process is not hard coded but rather emergent and context, sensitive constantly adapting to the individuals needs and the environment.

Relevance realization involves identifying what information stands out as important and paying attention to it. It requires the ability to filter out distractions and noise to concentrate on what truly matters. Since what is relevant changes depending on the situation, relevant realization requires a flexible adaptable system.

According to Vervaeke, relevance realization is not a fixed module, but rather an evolving process shaped by experience and interaction with the environment. It’s deeply connected to attention, memory and predictive processing.

We can observe relevance realization ourselves by practicing mindfulness and meditation, engaging in self reflection and journaling, analyzing interactions and behaviors, exploring cognitive science and philosophy, and paying attention to our values and motivations.

346

The self is aware of the consciousness types (in/out of the moment) and rather than letting the mind movement/engagements and therefore the experience of one or the other consciousness state just happen automatically, the self steps in and starts controlling,in any given moment, that experience thus controlling consciousness and automated thoughts.The self is then able to focus more on manually generated thoughts.Once self has stilled the backwards and forwards mind movements/engagements required for automated thoughts and thus the in and out of the moment consciousness state experiences, the self is then able to experience the still state of consciousness and focus more on self’s own thoughts rather than automatically generated thoughts.

Self balances the consciousness states therefore by placing an in and out of the moment consciousness experience on both sides of the psychological fence and doesn’t associate with either because the self is separate from them both.

Hence,

In/Out (self) In/Out

Psychological balance is therefore maintained and the philosophically certain formula +/-=+/- remains true.

347

“[…] endowed with a level of consciousness […]”

but

“[…] not consciousness […]”

:+1:

1 Like
348

And even it could be said that whatever it is it is way beyond definition, therefore not the domain of naive philosophy?

Can we at least say that?

349

So put on our mystical caps?

350

Absolutely well near, proof for~proof against, either way! Or , no way either!

351

good=bad and bad=good is a naive cognitiveIy biased philosophical guess.

good=good and bad=bad is a naive cognitively biased philosophical guess.

good/bad=good/bad is an experienced cognitively unbiased philosophical guess because if you don’t know the difference between two unknowns then place them both on both sides of the psychological fence.

Philosophically;Scientifically and Psychologically this makes sense.

This balanced formula can then be applied to consciousness because we only experience the in and out of the moment consciousness states because of mind movement or engagement.

We don’t experience the in and out of the moment consciousness states if we remain psychologically still.Stillness of the mind can only happen if the self starts taking control of the mind movements and thus the consciousness experiences that result from these mind movements.The self needs to participate in science therefore (become a player) at the psychological level rather that just being an observer of science and functioning like an automated machine.

As I say you can balance consciousness by not associating with either the in or out of the moment consciousness states.These consciousness states can be balanced out by the formula in/out=in/out.

Hence,in/out (self) in/out.

The In and Out of the moment consciousness experiences are directly related to interacting electromagnetic force interactions within the vibrating brain.

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe think in terms of energy,frequency and vibration”…..Nikola Tesla.

I agree.

352

Surely you know Nikola Tesla is talking about electricity and science regarding matter, right, not psychology? …

So are you going to define the things you are saying or are you going to keep regurgitating the same thing over and over in hopes that we will understand it?

I think there is a quote for that too. Here, let me find it for you.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

2 Likes
353

One should not compare attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions with good and bad Artimas.

The consciousness experience (in and out of the moment consciousness states) are directly related to balanced attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions (mind movements at the psychological level) that are happening within the brain.

You can’t cancel out attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces interactions Artimas just as you can’t cancel out the in and out of the moment consciousness state experiences.

All you can do is balance and still these forces/experiences..

Attractive/Repulsive (self) Attractive/Repulsive

In/Out (self) In/Out.

You therefore have to take control of the mind and not merely be an observer of it.

It’s insane to claim one doesn’t exist when one needs to exist to claim it.Its also insane to claim one is an illusion when an illusion is a misrepresentation of reality (Psychosis).

I’m totally clear on this.Its you who is clearly struggling to comprehend it.

You need to be at the centre of binary code 0/1=0/1 not to the left or right of it.Binary code is created from vibrating matter.The self which is separate from vibrating matter interprets electromagnetic energy waves emitted from vibrating matter. The physical body senses picks up these electromagnetic energy waves.I have explained all this in other posts.

There is nothing insane about any of it.

354

What is insane is you do not define the words you use to describe your thought so it can be discussed, you continue using the same words that frankly, are not graspable or able to be made into reasonable sense.

your subjective viewing and discussing of it is not defined so that it can be made sense of to others. It may make sense to you, but without defining what you are saying, no sense can be made of it by others. I myself and others have asked you to define the words you have been using, and you have yet to define them, you just continue saying the same thing.

what you’re saying may not be insanity, but your repetition of it certainly is, you expect us to grasp what you are speaking to us without /defining/ what it is you speak, yet expect us to understand it and if you think you’re “winning” a discussion then you have already lost, because a discussion is not about winning, it is about mutual understanding, if we do not understand you, you have won nothing.

Until you sit down and write each word you’re using or explaining your system of thought by defining it, there is really no discussion to be had.

Define your view of consciousness, define your view of awareness, define your view of “in and out”, define all of what you’re saying, individually and you may even find some of us agreeing with you, or not. That’s up to you.

1 Like
355

The crux of the matter is you can’t cancel out attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces Artimas.You can only balance them.The same goes for the in and out of the consciousness experiences.

Control of mind movement which alters the psychological experience from the in to the out of the moment state and vice versa is vital therefore.

If you don’t believe that a self exists to take control then no psychological control will be undertaken.

Vibration will still continue regardless.

You don’t understand this stuff because your philosophy is flawed.

356

The only self that there is, is not ours. It belongs to the Universe, all energy and consciousness, belong to it and if it does not belong solely to us, then why call it ‘self’, the Ego is the /I/, everything else is borrowed and part of the collective.

If my philosophy is flawed then why have I been agreed with before, but you haven’t? Are you claiming to be the next messiah of thought? If so, define yourself coherently.

Vibration and energy happen, but what is your point? You refuse to define the words you use so that they can be connected.

There is no control of the mind, there is only redirection of it. If you have ever had a bad thought that you didn’t ask for, then you can prove to yourself, you are not in control. The faster you admit this, the faster you have some form of freedom or become malleable to your own power that you /do/ have.

1 Like
357

Self isn’t energy or consciousness Artimas.

Self does control the mind.If there is no control then one merely operates automatically which is machine like.

358

Then what is self, everything that exists, is energy and consciousness. The collective unconscious itself, is energy and consciousness.

359

Self is immaterial.Is/Was/Will be.

360

Self as in soul?

Consciousness itself is immaterial, the collective unconscious, but it also plays a part in the material as well.

361

Jupiter obviously believes there’s consciousness and there’s the immortal soul.