She may have been ‘captured ‘ by the selfless meme(mama) or drawn to it as if in the book of dreams containing the Tibetan Book of the dead, where cities like naively realistic ones draw some travelers in but cast some out on basis of karma, with the effect upon waking that it’s totally a 50 50 chance, apparently, that you, or whoever experienced it ; to ascertain if it was a dream or not or an illusion or/and a delusion.
Near Deat experiences are kind of like that,
If it’s your work Kuddos!
It’s a description of a thing I’ve suffered from for a long time in my life- sleep paralysis. At first the experience was even worse than that, but slowly, as I began to comprehend how it works, I got used to it, and nowadays, whenever I experience it, it’s brief, and I wake up as if nothing at all had happened.
I used it to illustrate my point on how solid scientific knowledge helps to cure us from irrational fear.
If not for the hard work of men who study things such as sleep paralysis, I might be thinking I was been possessed by a demonic force, to this very day.
That’s why I keep defending the sound scientific approach to things, such as expressed brilliantly by Carl Sagan here:
“Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.”
Oh, yes, and I’m sorry for what you had to endure. And then it’s said only the strong survive, and such strength can be naturally deceptive.
()
https://youtube.com/shorts/Mv1wzn7FoD0?si=Jlio2atoKRejBMmX
( is this even appropriate here, I took a stab in the dark)
One thing is clear from your approach here, Felix, you know how to keep things rational and on the level, without resorting to either hysterics or to [excess of] an authoritative tone used by some know-it-alls around here. I appreciate that. But, then, since you can clearly read,
I guess it’s not too much to ask that you may not deliberately misinterpret a guy who’s making such clear and straightforward claims as I am.
This is a blatant simplification of what I’ve posited above. Again: for me consciousness is part of the natural world. It’s something that, to all appearances, happens as part of the natural world, intrinsically related to living beings. Being something related to living beings, it’s probably more adequately studied along the lines of evolutionary theory.
The thesis I presented appears to be solid, because it begins with the most basic of all phenomena in the living world, which is the search for sunlight. Then I correlate the evolution of sight with the development of consciousness, from the earliest rudimentary stages till the arrival of the brain, which then potentializes consciousness immensely, till we come to the being with the greatest brain who also happen to show the biggest level of awareness. The being who knows he is aware of himself.
So it’s not something simply “generated in the brain”, it’s a process prior to the brain, our brain, being the computer that rules our bodies, simply give to it its most intricate and complex form.
Nope, in the topic you quoted I was referring to the arrival of awareness, metaphorically represented by the “fight” between darkness [=ignorance] and ligh [=knowledge, awareness]. Reason and consciousness are two different things, animals totally incapable of reasoning are conscious, and we already know human states where one thing is present and the other is not. And meditation itself is not an absence of reasoning, but a state of complete awareness, where a man “sees” life reflected, as if in a mirror, where he faces his thoughts without any engagement with them. He’s not abandoned reasoning then, in fact it’s reasoning that leads him to contemplate his thoughts and look for detachment from them, simply letting them happen, appear and disappear again. It’s debatable whether meditation is possible for an unreasoning creature.
Couldn’t read you quite well here. Didn’t Plato posit the soul as existing independently of a material body, as a thing in itself? Don’t we know that the human mind/self/consciousness is always dependent on a human body? Or can you produce evidence for a soul existing without a body?
I know some interpretations posit Plato’s ideas can be seen in another light, like he was being mostly metaphorical. I took his notion of reincarnation at face value, though.
Here’s where we have little hope of agreeing. I already saw you taking this approach elsewhere, I can’t agree with that, and that’s simply because
a) one thing is a man’s consciousness of the world around him, another is the world itself, which we have to posit as existing in order to even talk about anything that occurs on it. Your position imply that a man’s consciousness “create” the world we see, whereas what I say is that the world is still out there when we’re not thinking about it, and that’s precisely the reason we can think about it in the first place. What our brain produces is an image of the world, which can be blurred and deformed, but still is a reflection of something, not a thing we create in our minds
b) I was referring obviously to unverifiable claims such as “There is a hell” or “The devil is real”. I do not equate such things with something as consciousness which CAN be measured and which has lots of scientists busy precisely with the measuring of it. Again, consciousness is not the same as the Platonic soul. You have a basis for research, the countless living things displaying conscious behaviour in this world. The methods themselves are being developed, obviously it’s an incipient science, but it has an object of study at least, I was referring to wild claims that can’t be studied under any conditions.
You mention a vital role. The correlation between the “so-called collapse of the wave function” and consciousness is not firmly established and not accepted by the scientific community at large. Unless you can provide verifiable source for this claim, it falls into the category of bold assertion. Theories such as the Integrated Information Theory (I always knew you would mention it, anyway) are highly speculative. Quantum mechanics experiments belong to the realm of physics. Consciousness to those of biology or neuroscience.
Yes, I know that. Elaborate more on the “nothing is demonstrated outside of consciousness” bit.
Again, I was talking about bold, absurd claims.
It’s unseen but verifiable, attestable and measurable. It’s a whole new field of study, I know, but I don’t see what religious or mystical thinking such as “the universe has a mind” will add to it. A science is not built on wild guess or speculation, religion is. I’m interested in what this science will bring to the table, but I’ll appreciate the results AFTER they are produced, I’ll not form a judgement about them beforehand like you blindly do.
Since it’s a personal, individualized experience, obviously, the preferential object of study is the living entity. It can’t be measured, but we can study old cultures and evaluate how the members of it saw themselves, what they’ve left behind them in terms of culture. If there was nothing left, obviously we cannot learn anything. If there are even some cave drawings left, we can hypothesize on what the drawers could have been thinking. Obviously, only hypothesize. Even the way Romans actually spoke is not clear nowadays, so this field involves a huge bit of speculation, yes.
Lol, come on, man. Do we know of existential crises among alligators or bees? Do we know of any type of verbal expression among even the highest apes? So, we can speculate whether dogs, cats, parrots are or not fully conscious of themselves?
How do things proceed in evolution, how can we have any basis for study in evolution? COMPARISON. If, as I believe it is, consciousness evolved unbelievably slowly, starting with the search for light, it never needed to have a Purpose or a distinction in the process (?), because it always happened randomly anyway, the successive stages of consciousness simply occurred, corresponding to the growing needs of the different animal species. It’s something accidental, random, it doesn’t “have” to occur, it occurs. Like raining in a cloudy day, there’s nothing making it “having” to happen except the fact that the conditions for it to happen are favorable. Similarly with consciousness, the conditions are determinant for every next stage of it, we have first the search for light, than the eye, which gets more specialized with each new stage, then the brain, which also gets more complex as far as the needs to which it answers get more commplex and variegated. In all this process, just like life itself, consciousness didn’t “have” to happen- there’s no ‘should’ involved- it happened.
Panpsychism is a theory. An interesting theory by the way, but a theory. Physical things do not have a consciousness anymore than aliens visit the earth regularly- how-on-earth-could-one-prove-that? This is enlarging the concept of consciousness to a level where it loses any meaning. If consciousness is a “hard problem”, I do not see how extending it to things, which clearly don’t have it, instead of concentrating on the beings who do have it and do show they have it is not only a waste of time, it’s speculation of the worst category, an attempt to present a radical view which won’t have any basis on reality and be defended passionately precisely because of that. Again: the universe is mostly dead. Consciousness is a privilege of the living, if it can really be called that.
By calling it sublime you’re automatically saying you subscribe to this theory.
Here we are, Felix, right into the heart of the purest speculation.
There are not zillions consciousness, there is only one. An extremely reductionist idea that takes you to wonderland, yet is little more than a theory, man, a philosophical theory which gives you, obviusly, a coherent explanation for the mystery of life, but for me the WTF? remains untouched and unaccounted for.
Compare this wild theory with the simplest, and more grounded traditional view of evolution as a process occurring gradually, at an incredibly slow pace, and generating, little by little, the wonders of the physical world we can still see around us. Compare it with the notion that each single living entity in this universe is unique, unrepeatable, and a mystery in itself, because it “contains” a whole world within itself.
You’ll say: such a “world” is just a reflection, a manifestation, an aspect, etc, in short: an ILLUSION, I’ll say it’s not, it’s the real basis of the real as far as my eyes can see.
The evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin is, I repeat, rejected by some because it ascribes no special place for men in the realm of creation. Similarly, Hawking’s physics is rejected because it’s cold, it does not offer people consolation, comfort, something to hang on to.
Is that what you are looking for in life, Felix? Something to hang on to?
Something too abstract to work as a reference, and, again, largely despised by the scientific community. The brain doesn’t seem to be the ideal place for quantum mechanics, the universe does.
I agree that it’s an open field, but, again, and sorry for being repetitive, we must separate the two things, the speculation and the serious scientific study. If you go on like this, oh, it can’t be measured, it can’t be proven, etc, you’ll always buy the new spectacular theory of the month, without asking first: is this a theory accepted among scientists? Scientists, Felix, are men who dedicate their lives to learning. Men like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking. As long as science does not have positive things to say about wild theories such as rencarnation, I will always take all of them with more than one grain of salt, thanks.
Let’s cut to the chase shall we.
The macro and the micro can be explained simply and by a common united science.This science adopts attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces.Interacting these forces in a balanced formula attractive/repulsive=attractive/repulsive not only holds all matter together but it provides the vibration necessary for the production of binary code which is contained within the electromagnetic energy waves emitted from it (matter).The spin speed of the particles within matter regulates the amount of energy waves emitted.These varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves (containing unique binary code data) are picked up by the physical body senses,the physical body converts this binary code into a language that the self (which is separate from matter) interprets.
There you go you have the foundation for your scientific paper.
All of the sciences are interconnected and a balanced philosophy is required to explain it.
The consciousness experience is directly related to the vibratory balanced attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions that exist right now between the spinning particles that make up all matter.
We experience the in (+) and out (-) of the moment consciousness states.
As we are neither of these consciousness states we need to psychologically balance them by the formula +/-=+/- and not associate the SELF with them.In the same way that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces balanced with attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces vibratory balance matter.
Separate the SELF from consciousness,therefore stilling the consciousness “toggling” experience.
AWARENESS is not the same as consciousness.
AWARENESS sits above consciousness and is separate from it.
The SELF is not awareness either.
The SELF is either aware or unaware of this stuff.
All of the sciences are interconnected and adopt the same common balanced starting philosophy +/-=+/-
If I misinterpreted you, it wasn’t deliberate. So, consciousness is part of the natural world related to living beings. How exactly is it related to them? As I understand it, that’s the problem for metaphysical materialism.
The search for sunlight is not the most basic phenomenon of all living things. While nearly all life on Earth is ultimately dependent on solar energy, there are more fundamental requirements and forms of life that do not directly seek sunlight. Life deep in the ocean and underground, away from the sun, is supported by chemosynthesis rather than photosynthesis.Ecosystems around hydrothermal vents rely on chemoautotrophic bacteria. These bacteria produce energy by oxidizing inorganic compounds, such as hydrogen sulfide, which are expelled from the Earth’s crust. Organisms like tubeworms then feed on these bacteria, making them the foundation of the local food chain. Similar to deep-sea vents, life forms here have adapted to a complete lack of light. Their energy comes from chemical gradients and other sources of geothermal energy.
Here we agree.
Reasoning involves thought. There is a state of pure consciousness called samadhi in which thinking ceases.
No, not all out-of-body experiences (OBEs) have been falsified; however, scientific evidence for consciousness leaving the body is lacking, and controlled laboratory studies have yielded inconclusive results regarding the accuracy of perceptions during an OBE. While people reliably report OBEs under specific conditions like sleep, surgery, and stress, with some claiming to see things they couldn’t have from their physical body, attempts to verify these “veridical” perceptions in controlled settings have failed to provide conclusive proof.
The human senses are limited to a narrow range of light, sound,smell, taste and touch providing only a small glimpse of the full spectrum of existence which are structured by mental categories such as space, time, substance and causality. Science extends our ability to model the patterns and regularities of reality; however, tells us little about the underlying nature of things. Scientific modeling is useful for informing us how one thing or phenomenon relates to another thing or phenomenon–this being precisely what mathematical equations do–but it cannot tell us what these things or phenomena fundamentally are in and by themselves. The reason is simple: science can only explain one thing in terms of another thing; it can only explicate and characterize a certain phenomenon in terms of its relative differences with respect to another phenomenon.
I haven’t posited hell or the devil anywhere. So I don’t see the relevance to our dialogue.
As I understand it, there is no consensus and many alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, each offering a different view on what collapse means or if it happens at all. A current influential theory under investigation is called “It from bit” where the universe on it’s most fundamental level is made of information encoded as binary bits from which all physical phenomena emerge. This theory emphasizes the crucial role of observation and measurement, implying that reality is not predetermined, but emerges from these apparatus solicited responses which essentially write bits into the fabric of existence. According to this theory, our understanding of physics is a description of our observed reality rather than a picture of an underlying physical substance consistent with my philosophy.
I have never said that the universe has a mind. I maintain that our world is our representation not the thing in itself.
Here we agree. The issue is how to get past mere speculation.
Existential crises and verbal expression are mental and behavioral phenomenon as distinct from consciousness per se. I think it’s helpful to reframe the question of whether non-human animals are self conscious as whether they have a self-representation.
There is substantial evidence that animals other than humans do possess self-awareness, though the nature and level of this “self-awareness” can differ significantly from humans and vary across species. While a full understanding of their cognitive abilities is ongoing, research indicates self-recognition in the mirror test by great apes (like chimpanzees), elephants, bottlenose dolphins, and even some birds (magpies) and fish. Studies also suggest other forms of self-representation, such as odor discrimination in dogs and sophisticated social interactions, point to a sense of self in various animal species.
The mirror self reflection test is a common test where animals are marked with a spot and then presented with a mirror. Animals that recognize the mark on their own body in the mirror, rather than interacting with it as another individual, are considered to have passed the test, indicating self-awareness.
Chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos, gorillas, elephants, and bottlenose dolphins have shown evidence of mirror self-recognition. Eurasian magpies have demonstrated self-recognition with modifications to the mirror test. A type of fish called the cleaner wrasse has also passed a modified mark test. Research suggests dogs may have a level of self-awareness, potentially involving their own unique scent signatures rather than visual cues. Advanced tests adapted for dolphins have revealed signs of self-recognition. Self-representation is not a single entity but a multi-faceted concept that can manifest in different ways across species.
Social animals are more likely to display self-awareness, aligning with the idea that social intelligence plays a role in its development. The mirror test’s suitability for all species is debated, as it may not be an accurate measure for animals that rely less on vision, like dogs.
Here we infer that these animals have a conscious mental representation of themselves. The absence of such an image wouldn’t necessarily mean that they were not conscious. For example, octopuses have not demonstrated convincing passing of the mirror self-reflection test to date, though preliminary studies have shown some interesting responses to their reflections. While they display behaviors like investigating marks on their bodies in a preliminary study, other responses suggest these are not clearly visually mediated and could be due to other stimuli.
If the universe lacked at least the potential for life from its inception, animate organisms could never have arisen in it.
Not necessarily. One may be able to see the sublime beauty of the theory without subscribing to it. One might even wish they could believe it without being able to.
It isn’t speculation to me. It’s my experience.
I accept evolutionary theory. Is the latter view what you think I am claiming?
“…as far as my eyes can see.” and your mind can imagine. I prefer the word representation over illusion. Neurophysiologists tell us that visual perception starts when light enters the eye, focusing on the retina where photo receptor cells convert light into electrical signals. These signals travel via the optic nerve to the brain’s visual cortex where they are processed and interpreted. The brain recognizes patterns, identify shapes colors, depth, and movement and integrate this visual information with memories to form a complete understandable representation of the world. Your world is your representation, not be confused with ultimate reality.
According to cognitive neuroscience even your body is perceived by your mind through a complex, interactive process of sensation, interpretation, and integration, rather than being a raw, objective physical object. The mind actively constructs a multi-layered representation of the body, distinguishing between its unconscious physiological functions, its conscious sensory experiences, and its social and personal meanings.
The subject is the unknown knower, in other words, pure consciousness in which all this appears. As such it is being itself. Nothing can be said about “it” directly since everything must be clothed in the metaphor of representation.
Stephen Hawking, who you cite, admits as much when he describes science as model dependent realism where a physical theory is a mathematical model that is useful because its predictions agree with observations, not because it perfectly maps onto an unobservable, absolute reality. He argues that there is no single, “real” way the universe is, but rather, multiple models can exist and are “true” or “real” as long as they successfully explain the phenomena they address and are convenient for scientists to use. I hold that there is a single real way the ultimate reality is, but it is ineffable and beyond the grasp of the finite mind. Model dependent realism is the best science can do.
Well, Felix, that’s the crux of the matter, non? That’s what we’re studying presently and debating here. I’m just not willing to blindly accept magical answers, like some here.
One thing I remarked earlier in this thread, and which always need to be reasserted in a place like this, where so many are inclined to mystical generalizations [which are nothing but oversimplifications] is that science aims at understanding the world around us, and while its results are never perfect or infallible, they are still way more reasonable and well grounded than those of religion or mysticism. There’s no comparison.
One thing science insists in demonstrating to us is how utterly complex things are in this world. Nothing is simple or straightforward or absolute or unquestionable like dogmatists would like things to be. “The mind is this, the brain works like that, humans are this, animals are that”, here’s how a simplist person analyzes the world. Only, she doesn’t analyze anything at all- she makes assertions about the world. “There is nothing outside of consciousness”, “there is only one consciousness”, “nothing exists outside of our representational schemes of things”, all bold assertions that not only DON’T explain anything, but also betray a will NOT to understand anything, BUT to remain perpetually perplexed in face of the universe. Such bold assertions belong to the realm of religion, not of science, and thankfully, I can understand the vast distance there is between both.
Being an incredibly complex world entails that all things within it are incredibly complex, as in not easy to understand or dissect or analyze, yet a comforting formula like “nothing exists outside consciousness” does exactly that: gives one the illusion he can fathom the whole of existence like millions of others try their best but can’t. Only, that’s an illusion that science exists to fight, and that’s why it’s rejected even by those who pretend to admire it most wholeheartedly.
Complexity shouldn’t be a deterrent to further research, of course, though it’s understandable why some would prefer to run from it as from the devil, denying complexity through ready-made formulas, denying research and embracing mute contemplation instead. Someone said here: philosophy is not for the faint of heart. In fact, KNOWLEDGE is not for the faint of heart. It’s easy and convenient to stick to some philosophical system, whether alien or of one’s own creation. The difficult thing is to accept that knowledge can contradict those beliefs one cherishes the most in life. In this fight between cold facts and cherished beliefs, who loses and who wins? Of course, some would rather die than reject the belief that, for instance, the world was literally created 6000 years ago. They will go to any lenghts to ‘prove’ this is fact. Whenever they are shown that 6000 years would not be enough for any significant stage in evolutionary history, they deny evolution, deny the world, deny everything that contradicts their beloved [and naive] notion that this world was magically created 6000 years ago.
The complexity of things in the natural world also begs another question, and that’s not why or how could such things exist in the first place, but how can we reconcile naive notions about human existence with a living world that defies our need to simplify and to generalize. It’s sure as hell more convenient to the mind to posit “all is one” than to affirm “each living being is unique”, which leads to another logical conclusion- each living being’s conscious experience is also unique. How can we hope to analyze a world with 8 billion different individual consciousnesses? Isn’t it a hopeless endeavor? Isn’t it much better to simplify things and tame our spirit and its pretensions to understand even ourselves, let alone the whole world around us?
The simplist mind answers “Yes!”, the inquiring mind answers, nope, because through simplification and magical formulas one can’t understand anything, one keeps the mystery going on forever! Now I must ask, isn’t this the whole intention? To keep the mystery going on forever? What if science will never offer us any consolation, what it science will never have anything uplifiting to say about us? Aren’t we to deal with such fact as men? Are we to hide under a rock? Are we to hide in a … cave? Questions, questions.
This being said, let me try to address some of Felix’s points.
Here is the link to “A landscape of consciousness: Toward a taxonomy of explanations and implications”: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610723001128
It’s still the most basic phenomenon- it only doesn’t involve ALL living beings, like I myself mentioned. The vast majority of organisms are “powered” through sunlight-related energy production. Even if there are those rare organisms which rely on chemosynthesis, they are incredibly few in comparison to the others, to the majority. Therefore to describe search for light as the most basic thing is not inaccurate, it just doesn’t serve to describe 100% of life.
Take care at the ideas that you buy in the philosophical supermarket, Felix. Some are high-sounding and look deep from the outside, but when examined deeper, they amount to little more than wishful thinking. The basic goal of any type of meditation is not to stop reason or thought, but to become as independent of being affected by such things as possible. Like you were able to observe all your thought patterns, all the ideas created by your brain, reflected on a huge tableau in front of you, and in such a process were able to analyze them coldly, and also to evaluate how they affect you and how you can learn to be as unaffected by recurring, obsessive or demeaning thoughts as possible. In samadhi what happens is mostly probable the highest level of mental quietness one can attain in life, not an absence of reasoning, lol, it’s the power of one’s reasoning that leads one to meditation in the first place, but a calm state of mind which can give the subject such a clear awareness of his situation in this world that he feels enlightened, like he was suddenly clarvoyant, and could judge all his feelings, and become the real master of them. But it’s definitely not a process in which thinking ceases, lol, such a thing is not attainable by a human, except when one dies, that’s really the moment everything dies for us.
The key terms being in this case “under specific conditions like sleep, surgery, and stress”- it’s all related to body processes. The person is literally experiencing bodily processes and interpreting it as something external to the reality of the body. But without a body a consciousness is inconceivable, there’s nothing for it to be conscious of. Actually, I do not see how such experiences could ever be conclusive, because every single thing the person learns to interpret about her relation to the world originates via her bodily processes and the interaction of her body to the outside world. The person learns to read the world in that way, so all her descriptions in such experiences will be mostly unverifiable. I think the only way to circumvent that would be if such experiences became common to a BIG quantity of people, I mean a significantly great amount, such as to force people to ponder- is the whole world going crazy or am I simply ignoring something big happening around me?
What our minds do through the means of our senses and through the so called qualia is reflect the outside world in a way as to potentialize our survival chances on it. It creates a reflection of the world in our brain, which is more or less reliable, more or less accurate, as far as it is actually capable of situating the individual in relation to the world, to his species and to his survival instincts. Yes, it’s a small glimpse of existence because that’s how much we can handle without going crazy- the world is incredibly complex, as I stated above. Our senses then are automatically limited but that doesn’t mean nothing exists outside of our perception of it. Even though we can’t fundamentally know the ultimate fabric of reality [which puts all men on the same level of ignorance and also leads to arbitrary beliefs such as reincarnation, eternal life, etc], we all more or less agree that ultimate reality is there- we just can’t hope to agree on what it is BECAUSE our perceptions are necessarily and unavoidably individualized.
You yourself brought on my affirmation that some absurd things are affirmed by people but can’t be demonstrated. I didn’t say you believe in hell, I mentioned it as an example of absurd belief which can’t, ever, be demonstrated.
Emphasis on “according to this theory”.
Now let me tell you something.
The subject of quantum mechanics is one of the most explored nowadays for people who want to make bold claims about the ultimate nature of reality. That’s because of the nature of quantum mechanics itself, how it goes beyond our commonplace understanding of Newtonian/Einsteinian physics, how it presents us with a facet of the physical universe we’re barely learning how to react to. The reasoning goes as following: quantum mechanics is apparently unexplainable. Consciousness is apparently unexplainable. Why not join the two?
Now one thing we must be able to differentiate, and I don’t know how you actually approach such theorizations, is that quantum mechanics was developed as a theory to explain the physical reality of the universe, the behavior of particles at the atomic and subatomic level, not the “bigger” biological world and reality of animals. Applying it to the reality of the brain, and that’s what the quantum mind intends to do, to explain consciousness, via entanglement, superposition, is still in the realm of sheer speculation, though I would say there seems to be some room for that. There is a whole countertheory to such suppositions, starting from the fact that quantum states require isolation, cold to happen, things not found within the wildly interconnected (and hot) processes of the brain.
John Archibald Wheeler’s theory, the “it from bit”, though highly interesting, and much more dignified than, say, “The Tao of Physics” from Capra, still remains a theory, and I would rather say, it is more a way of READING the universe than actually understanding it. Or rather, it’s the Wheeler’s way of naming the processes which make possible the existence of the world- it hasn’t been definitely verified and it’s doubtful whether it can.
Each one’s world, individually, can adequately be said to be a representation. Not the thing in itself. There must be a thing out there though, which each of us represent in our own idyosincratic way within our minds. You espouse the notion that consciousness is a single process, is a whole, which implies the individual experience is an illusion. I repeat, the multitude of representations, the enormous variety in our perceptions, and the way each of us will give a different account of what he perceives, nothing of this is compatible with the notion of a single unified consciousness, unless what you means is, simply, that you analyze the consciousness phenomenon as a whole, more or less as you could choose to talk about humankind as a whole, not as a collection of individualities. In which case, you have a point. This is a valid approach, you’re studying consciousness itself, but since our understanding of it is still limited, you can only resort to wild guess. Your belief actually is further demonstration of my thesis.
I’d say the only valid method is to do away with bold assertions.
“Reincarnation is real” is a bold assertion.
“There is a universe out there” is not.
Most sane people would agree the notion that there is a universe out there is sane, logical, demonstrable.
In the same vein, “all is consciousness” is a bold assertion. “Consciousness is a fact” is not.
Science helps us in exactly putting an end to wild speculation. While it’s true it has no final answers, nor can it have, and thankfully, it makes us compare and ponder, ponder and compare, till we’re able to separate wild guess from tenable, reasonable theories.
To throw scientific theories together with mere speculation is not only a disrespect to the work of real scientists, it’s to give up on reason in favor of whatever wild idea that might occur to one’s mind. Again, I’m still feeling the ground beneath my feet.
I didn’t deny any of that.
This all adds further evidence to the evolutionary thesis indeed. The more intelligent an animal, the more likely it’s expected to be conscious of itself, hence humans being the undisputable leaders of the whole animal kingdom, at least in this respect. In nature, it’s all a matter of DEGREE. And degree it’s a matter of adaptability to one’s environment and of increasing one’s chance of survival. The enormous brains of cetaceans can only indicate all processes involving the brain are bigger in them than in other animals. And while not necessarily restricted to the brain, consciousness obviously involves it.
That can be accepted, yet, life has occurred, as far as we know, only in an infinitesimal part of the universe. Hence: mostly dead.
I was referring to how you obviously get enthused talking about it. I may find the anarchism ideal beautiful, but I never get enthused talking about it and surely would never call it sublime.
Your experience, okay. Unverifiable to all others. How would one be objectively able to separate it from mere fancy?
Nope, it’s my worldview.
That’s what I have maintained earlier. The ultimate reality, whatever it is, is out there. Independent of my mind and body. My representations must be representations of something.
Obviously our mind interprets our bodies through a complex process integrating all our perceptions, and therefore, may translate the body, internally, as something different than what it really is. Which serves to explain all kind of phenomena, from body dysmorphia to schizophrenia. Yet, what I assert is that the body is still there- no matter how our own mind sees it. Whatever processes go on our brains, our neurons, whatever happens when the mental image of the world is created, two things are logically deducible- the body must be there, the world on which it depends must be there. Again, I see in this a kind of misinterpretation of scientific data. Science is based on the assumption that there’s an objective universe out there, outside of our minds. To use science to imply it proves only consciousness exists is a flawed approach, doomed to be rejected by scientists themselves. The “raw” body is there, then. How it is interpreted and experienced by the individual mind is another subject, again, I will never pretend it’s anything but a rather complex subject.
Here we agree if we’re talking about the individualized self, the union of a body and a mind I call a self. It can be called pure consciousness, but it’s consciousness of something. It’s undefinable and ultimately unknowable, that’s the Stirnerian notion to which I subscribe. Yet we differ specifically in your
monism, this unified reality which you know but can’t share with anyone, ie, which is an esoteric, mystical knowledge you possess which is uncommunicable to others, and yet, what you are doing in this place is to try and communicate with others. Your whole worldview is incompatible with your participation in this place then, unless all you want here is to verify how many people here agree we can’t know anything, ever.
You don’t see a paradox in your position, "Well, I can’t grasp reality, yet I know [believe] it’s a unified thing, which leads me to an “all is one” conclusion about existence which leads also to an “everything is an illusion” conclusion I dare not to utter, but which anyone would easily come to by reading what I say. Everything in the sense of what we observe out there, in the objective universe. I know you believe in something, but since you can’t come with anything concrete about reality we can only deduce all we perceive around us is an illusion of our senses. I can’t subscribe to that.
I’m familiar with the sane Hawkingian approach to reality, yet don’t mention him as if he was just another idealist whose system is as absurd in essence as any type of nonsense we find on the internet. His system is coherent, logical, verifiable. It’s not a random collection of beautiful but ultimately empty words, and surely not a dogmatic system of know-it-alls, it’s a scientific theory which literally BEGS to be questioned, to be challenged, to be overcome by another better SCIENTIFIC theory. That’s what the great Hawking meant, not that whatever mumbo-jumbo of half-baked conceptions about the universe is equally valid as a sound scientific theory.
This is some very interesting material. I appreciate you.
The cessation of thought is attainable in this life. It is the subject of an ancient text “The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali” which provides an effective method provided that the motivation is present. I used to share your opinion that it would not be possible.
Your reductio absurdum argument applies here where all is relative. From this POV, my philosophy can only turn the world on its head. Instead of the individual being conscious, consciousness is being individual. Plato‘s allegory of the cave described the situation well. Buddha abandoned metaphysical discussion because of the ineffability of nondual consciousness. The mystic Wittgenstein also understood the limits of language yet he kept talking and writing. This individual acknowledges and emulates his betters in the phenomenological world. When they pointed at the moon most only saw their finger. Some saw the moon.
Thank you. I applaud the ongoing scientific and philosophical approaches to consciousness. My own philosophy of consciousness is based on my individual experience and not a dogmatic adherence to someone else’s theory. I trust others will do the same. Has there ever been a period in history when so many people were interested in understanding consciousness? It’s an exciting time.
It’s tiresome trying to stay in the moment only to find oneself toggling back out of the moment again and then having to bring oneself back into the moment again.
The consciousness experience is VIBRATORY!!!
We are neither the in or out of the moment consciousness experience which involves mind movement which is VIBRATORY!!!
It’s about being AWARE of this because AWARENESS is separate from CONSCIOUSNESS.
Awareness is NOT Consciousness.
The claim that awareness and consciousness are the same is a LIE.
Mainstream science doesn’t understand consciousness…it freely admits it…it’s the “hard problem” and so until it knows what it’s talking about, which it doesn’t because all of its theories have failed, it should SHUT UP!!! because nobody is interested anymore.Individuals want to know about REALITY!!!….not misrepresentations of it (illusions)…..and the BS cognitively biased fake science that tries to back it up.