What if consciousness is just an illusion? Is an AI conscious? An animal? An insect? A plant? What if we are nothing but mere programs in a simulation for someone’s entertainment or experimentation?
I tend to think that the word, "consciousness' has been deliberately hijacked by mindless institutional interests. I mean, just look at the variety of answers you are getting in this discussion of the word! Do we all yet agree on what this word even refers to? Is it content dependent? What is unconsciousness? Is it independent of action? Can it be simulated? Is it the whole of physical reality? Can we find find and capture some of it somewhere down among the "standard" particles spewing out of colliders? Can we map it in the brain? Capture it in a bottle and sell it? Corner it and ration it out to the chosen few? How is it even possible that such a topic can merit PhD from a big university simply to understand what it might be?
Isn't it just RIGHT HERE where you are looking right now? Isn't that enough to say it's real in some fundamental way and then deal with it as fundamental reality in and of itself? Did you ever consider simply concentrating on your own consciousness in and of itself, to the exclusion of everything else, just so you could see what might come from that?
The situation today with the word, "consciousness," reminds me of Plotinus, who said of gravity (also an problem today), "Gravity is ignorance." No matter how deeply you delve, there is always more delving to do to know what you just delved up. Aren't "consciousness" (the word) and 'consciousness' (the concept) in the same boat with gravity these days? This amounts to thrashing around in the illusion trying to discover reality. Does that really make sense?
"Consciousness" is an illusion. 'Consciousness' is an illusion. Consciousness is reality. We can talk about "consciousness" and 'consciousness' but consciousness in and of itself is indescribable.
What if the simulation is the creation of the demiurge, and the demiurge itself is a created entity? Maybe there’s a Field from which this demiurge’s simulation emerged. I want no attachments to the simulation or to the demiurge or to whatever entity created the demiurge.
It might be worth pondering, contemplating — or not — “What if this simulation is of the demiurge?” It might illuminate a path beyond this (cursed) simulation.
I would say that Consciousness makes up the whole of our physical reality - every single aspect.
My question to you would be, do you not sense and feel the legitimacy and uniqueness of the "you" in you?
Do you believe that someone/something else could instill that level of intimacy of self-awareness without your direct, explicit participation?
I believe that regardless of the construction of this physical reality, we are more powerful than we can possibly even imagine.
To the extent that we create ALL of our individual physical reality through our perception. We project energy, reflect it back to ourselves, and then either react or choose based on our belief systems.
And this is why our realities vary so greatly from one individual to the next.
As an example, what is the organizing principle that takes freely operating nuclear particles and waves and fashions them into the objects that we then perceive?
The answer is that our brains and outer senses do so, but what force is directing that process if not ourselves?
Very deep. Seems every time I think I know something, the truth happens to appear, which I research if it's a topic of interest. I hold no beliefs, just always seeking truth, wherever it may be hidden.
UNIVERSAL TRUTH: “Universal Truth” refers to reality. Therefore, knowledge of universal truth refers to directly knowing what reality is; it cannot refer to indirectly knowing that reality is such and such. Therefore, knowledge of universal truth also refers to knowing what being is, knowing what awareness is, knowing what self-awareness is, and knowing what knowledge is.
UNIVERSAL CONTEXT: “Universal Context” also refers only to reality, being, and awareness. Reality is the ultimate context of everything. Therefore, knowing universal truth is the same as knowing the universal context. Universal truth is the same as universal context: universal truth is its own context, and universal context is its own truth. To directly know one, is to directly know the other.
We directly know reality; direct knowledge of reality is always present because reality is always present. But it is impossible to indirectly know that reality is this or that.
Still, we often use the form, “know that,” to refer to what we presume or assert to be universal truth. For example, in casual conversation we might say, “I know that universal truth refers to reality” (as suggested above in this text) or “I know that universal context is all-encompassing.”
But in saying such things we lapse into indirect representation in the form of statements, or the equivalent of statements, while universal truth cannot be captured in statements.
To know universal truth, you must directly know reality.
To directly know reality, you must be reality itself.
Universal truth is reality, reality is being, and being is aware of itself.
Universal truth cannot be expressed in statements; it can only be known directly. It is self-knowledge.
In casual contexts we sometimes make statements that refer to an idea of universal truth—like many of the statements in this text—statements that can only refer to casual (imaginary) ideas about universal truth. The awareness of such a statement cannot convey any awareness of universal truth, even though it may incidentally trigger an intuition of universal truth.
A statement can pretend to express something about anything. Depending upon the context wherein a statement appears, it may trigger intuition of universal truth or universal context, but being truly aware of universal truth at that moment is not the same as whatever the triggering statement stated. Universal truth cannot be represented in statements, but you can intuit it.
It is impossible to describe universal truth.
Anyone who has for a moment been self-aware of reality knows that the experience is inexpressible. It is inexpressible because it is not an experience at all; it is simply the innate knowledge of this self-aware reality that is the context of everything.
Statements and judgements do not apply to the universal context. They apply only to experiences, ideas, other statements, judgements, and things like that.
Not these words. Not this book.
No words at all. None.
A reflection of the moon as seen in a stream is not the moon. Words do not convey awareness. Nonetheless, words, even the absence of words, might bring comfort and encouragement to some and might unexpectedly lead to significant intuition of reality and being.
No, it is not "a" described universal truth, neither does it describe universal truth.
It only defines and arranges words while inviting readers to assign their own meanings and values. Make of it what you will.
From Kant, "Critique of Judgement": (paraphrased, of course, on account of laziness):
We value art to the extent that either it is in some way intrinsically valuable or it in some way indicates intrinsic value.
But value is only recognized in the eye of the beholder, and I am only suggesting to where one might look. Don't mistake the finger for the moon, etc.
If you wish to cling to "tragicomedy [as] the only thing [you] can know," then that is up to you. I can only presume you consider it valuable to do so.
-- --
A True Paradox—
“If we really know something, we should be able to explain it.”
But, …
“We cannot explain what we truly know, and we do not quite believe what we think we can explain.”
For what it’s worth, genuine philosophy is a true love of truth and wisdom. Personally, I believe (think, opine) that such “true love” is exceedingly rare, which makes those who are even capable of understanding and communicating wisdom and truth even more rare. IFF this is so, why would it be so? I recently read something along the lines of “the closer we approach truth, the more we leave the realm of order and the more we enter the realm of chaos.” Human beings crave (the illusion of) order. That’s why we — even those of us who KNOW that we’re ruled over by evil psychopaths, who belong to an evil religious cult that worships the most imaginable (and unimaginable) evil deity that could possibly exist — don’t rebel. Or if we truly believe that we are rebelling, we do the very least bit of rebelling possible, so as in order to not rock the boat too much or make too many waves. We “knowers” too do our part in maintaining the “rules based order”. Don’t we?
👏👏👏 Most insightful take.
Thank you. I wish it had some practical applications.
You’re doing well as it is. Carry on.
Thank you. Likewise
Consciousness is not a thing. It is an action.
Perhaps that holds a clue to us.
Interesting. But how does one proceed to act before being conscious? Isn’t consciousness a prerequisite of action?
Consciousness and "being conscious" are really two different things, at least in my mind.
"Being conscious" is a term we use for our waking, objective awareness.
Consciousness is that which is at the basis of who we are.
That which comes before we manifest as humans.
If we are a floating miasma of energy, we really don't "exist" until we take some sort of action.
In our case, the act of being borne, the act of becoming and BEING. That is how I interpret the action of Consciousness.
What if consciousness is just an illusion? Is an AI conscious? An animal? An insect? A plant? What if we are nothing but mere programs in a simulation for someone’s entertainment or experimentation?
"What if consciousness is just an illusion?"
Very good question.
I tend to think that the word, "consciousness' has been deliberately hijacked by mindless institutional interests. I mean, just look at the variety of answers you are getting in this discussion of the word! Do we all yet agree on what this word even refers to? Is it content dependent? What is unconsciousness? Is it independent of action? Can it be simulated? Is it the whole of physical reality? Can we find find and capture some of it somewhere down among the "standard" particles spewing out of colliders? Can we map it in the brain? Capture it in a bottle and sell it? Corner it and ration it out to the chosen few? How is it even possible that such a topic can merit PhD from a big university simply to understand what it might be?
Isn't it just RIGHT HERE where you are looking right now? Isn't that enough to say it's real in some fundamental way and then deal with it as fundamental reality in and of itself? Did you ever consider simply concentrating on your own consciousness in and of itself, to the exclusion of everything else, just so you could see what might come from that?
The situation today with the word, "consciousness," reminds me of Plotinus, who said of gravity (also an problem today), "Gravity is ignorance." No matter how deeply you delve, there is always more delving to do to know what you just delved up. Aren't "consciousness" (the word) and 'consciousness' (the concept) in the same boat with gravity these days? This amounts to thrashing around in the illusion trying to discover reality. Does that really make sense?
"Consciousness" is an illusion. 'Consciousness' is an illusion. Consciousness is reality. We can talk about "consciousness" and 'consciousness' but consciousness in and of itself is indescribable.
What if the simulation is the creation of the demiurge, and the demiurge itself is a created entity? Maybe there’s a Field from which this demiurge’s simulation emerged. I want no attachments to the simulation or to the demiurge or to whatever entity created the demiurge.
I like the word demiurge. Thank you for reminding me. I’ll be using it.
It might be worth pondering, contemplating — or not — “What if this simulation is of the demiurge?” It might illuminate a path beyond this (cursed) simulation.
I would say that Consciousness makes up the whole of our physical reality - every single aspect.
My question to you would be, do you not sense and feel the legitimacy and uniqueness of the "you" in you?
Do you believe that someone/something else could instill that level of intimacy of self-awareness without your direct, explicit participation?
I believe that regardless of the construction of this physical reality, we are more powerful than we can possibly even imagine.
To the extent that we create ALL of our individual physical reality through our perception. We project energy, reflect it back to ourselves, and then either react or choose based on our belief systems.
And this is why our realities vary so greatly from one individual to the next.
As an example, what is the organizing principle that takes freely operating nuclear particles and waves and fashions them into the objects that we then perceive?
The answer is that our brains and outer senses do so, but what force is directing that process if not ourselves?
True! I think. Although since that time I had typhus, I've been trying to remember to triple check whether I'm hallucinating.
Very deep. Seems every time I think I know something, the truth happens to appear, which I research if it's a topic of interest. I hold no beliefs, just always seeking truth, wherever it may be hidden.
UNIVERSAL TRUTH: “Universal Truth” refers to reality. Therefore, knowledge of universal truth refers to directly knowing what reality is; it cannot refer to indirectly knowing that reality is such and such. Therefore, knowledge of universal truth also refers to knowing what being is, knowing what awareness is, knowing what self-awareness is, and knowing what knowledge is.
UNIVERSAL CONTEXT: “Universal Context” also refers only to reality, being, and awareness. Reality is the ultimate context of everything. Therefore, knowing universal truth is the same as knowing the universal context. Universal truth is the same as universal context: universal truth is its own context, and universal context is its own truth. To directly know one, is to directly know the other.
We directly know reality; direct knowledge of reality is always present because reality is always present. But it is impossible to indirectly know that reality is this or that.
Still, we often use the form, “know that,” to refer to what we presume or assert to be universal truth. For example, in casual conversation we might say, “I know that universal truth refers to reality” (as suggested above in this text) or “I know that universal context is all-encompassing.”
But in saying such things we lapse into indirect representation in the form of statements, or the equivalent of statements, while universal truth cannot be captured in statements.
To know universal truth, you must directly know reality.
To directly know reality, you must be reality itself.
Universal truth is reality, reality is being, and being is aware of itself.
Universal truth cannot be expressed in statements; it can only be known directly. It is self-knowledge.
In casual contexts we sometimes make statements that refer to an idea of universal truth—like many of the statements in this text—statements that can only refer to casual (imaginary) ideas about universal truth. The awareness of such a statement cannot convey any awareness of universal truth, even though it may incidentally trigger an intuition of universal truth.
A statement can pretend to express something about anything. Depending upon the context wherein a statement appears, it may trigger intuition of universal truth or universal context, but being truly aware of universal truth at that moment is not the same as whatever the triggering statement stated. Universal truth cannot be represented in statements, but you can intuit it.
It is impossible to describe universal truth.
Anyone who has for a moment been self-aware of reality knows that the experience is inexpressible. It is inexpressible because it is not an experience at all; it is simply the innate knowledge of this self-aware reality that is the context of everything.
Statements and judgements do not apply to the universal context. They apply only to experiences, ideas, other statements, judgements, and things like that.
Not these words. Not this book.
No words at all. None.
A reflection of the moon as seen in a stream is not the moon. Words do not convey awareness. Nonetheless, words, even the absence of words, might bring comfort and encouragement to some and might unexpectedly lead to significant intuition of reality and being.
-- https://archive.org/details/BurntEliot/page/85/mode/1up
Interesting comment. Thank you. “It is impossible to describe universal truth.” Isn’t this a described universal truth?
No, it is not "a" described universal truth, neither does it describe universal truth.
It only defines and arranges words while inviting readers to assign their own meanings and values. Make of it what you will.
From Kant, "Critique of Judgement": (paraphrased, of course, on account of laziness):
We value art to the extent that either it is in some way intrinsically valuable or it in some way indicates intrinsic value.
But value is only recognized in the eye of the beholder, and I am only suggesting to where one might look. Don't mistake the finger for the moon, etc.
If you wish to cling to "tragicomedy [as] the only thing [you] can know," then that is up to you. I can only presume you consider it valuable to do so.
-- --
A True Paradox—
“If we really know something, we should be able to explain it.”
But, …
“We cannot explain what we truly know, and we do not quite believe what we think we can explain.”
-- https://archive.org/details/BurntEliot/page/65/mode/1up
For what it’s worth, genuine philosophy is a true love of truth and wisdom. Personally, I believe (think, opine) that such “true love” is exceedingly rare, which makes those who are even capable of understanding and communicating wisdom and truth even more rare. IFF this is so, why would it be so? I recently read something along the lines of “the closer we approach truth, the more we leave the realm of order and the more we enter the realm of chaos.” Human beings crave (the illusion of) order. That’s why we — even those of us who KNOW that we’re ruled over by evil psychopaths, who belong to an evil religious cult that worships the most imaginable (and unimaginable) evil deity that could possibly exist — don’t rebel. Or if we truly believe that we are rebelling, we do the very least bit of rebelling possible, so as in order to not rock the boat too much or make too many waves. We “knowers” too do our part in maintaining the “rules based order”. Don’t we?
https://youtu.be/xHH5b4-_Icw?si=CGbNzSguf2MEdId1