peachboy

If infinite consciousness has the potential for all permutations of experience, it might just be a seemingly random experimental variable that becomes ultimately attractive due to its discovered ability to maintain ignorance for longer. Not necessarily a direct conspiracy. Rather, an initial quirk of state that keeps the state stable, and therefore becomes attractive to God. And then there are other subtle variables, such as the romantic dimension of finding pleasure in someone else's eyes. Such finer melodies are the delicacies of our neverending story.

You realise when I say first-person consciousness I'm talking about first-party consciousness right? Figure of speech that's not dependent on an actual person.

The logical proof is that first-person un-consciousness is absolutely impossible. To say otherwise is total nonsense. It literally doesn't make any sense. It would be like trying to imagine a circle that is also a square. If you could be un-conscious, you would not even realise that you were un-conscious and therefore cannot ever experience your own un-consciousness. If you cannot experience your own un-consciousness, then you cannot ever be in the state of un-consciousness. If you cannot be in the state of un-consciousness, then you cannot be un-conscious. And if you cannot be un-conscious, then you can only ever be conscious. We already know that first-person consciousness is absolute truth, because Rene Descartes demonstrated it via the evil demon proposition 500 years ago. At the very least, we can say first-person consciousness is certainly possible. And if first-person consciousness is certainly possible, then the capacity for that possibility to occur again can be expressed as a probability. The question is: what is that probability? Consciousness and un-consciousness are typically regarded as a binary pair, as there's no tertiary state and it cannot be considered a spectrum because even partial consciousness falls under the banner of consciousness. So if first-person consciousness is certainly possible, and first-person un-consciousness is certainly impossible, the probability of first-person un-consciousness is 0% which then modulates the probability of first-person consciousness to 100%. How is this not both logical as well as self-evident? Surely this is obvious.

First-person unconsciousness is the lack of consciousness in the individual what? I'm not sure what you mean by individual. Consciousness is not something that exists within something. It is the vessel in which things (or the illusion of things) arise. How would you argue that? Perhaps it's a question of definition. Un-consciousness properly understood is the absence of awareness, not the absence of things. If the dimensions of time and space are removed, all that remains is literally infinite consciousness. The in-finite underlying awareness, that is aware of no-thing. But to go one step further and delete awareness itself is completely impossible, because it would simply just ping back into existence immediately. ... it's true because it's self evident. That's the only reason. Yes it does! That's exactly what it proves. There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience. The only other question is whether you're going to identify with the part which has the capacity to change or whether you're going to identify with the part that is eternally constant. (aka eternal consciousness). Spoilers: It's the latter. I see your smiley face and I raise you a hearty pink cute thing.

It's not just death. It's also personal identity. Identity is predicated on the need for a constant, and is always looking for a higher constant of which it can anchor itself. In the absence of death, personal identity is shown to be an illusion that crumples under the weight of a higher constant: The constant of eternal consciousness. If the identity of eternal consciousness finds itself in the state of absolute omniscience, then by definition it becomes the intimate knowledge and sum of all experiences that can possibly be experienced, limited only by imagination. Just as a 50-year old man is the sum total of itself as a 5-year old, 10 year old, and 20 year old (etc) so too is omniscient consciousness the sum total of everything that could possibly exist, including all experiences and personal identities. So as long as your identity is eternal consciousness which can exist in the state of omniscience, then your true identity is every other single human being on the planet.

Un-consciousness relative to what? There is no higher structure than consciousness. First-person un-consciousness is a nonsensical phenomenon. It's literally an oxymoron that is incapable of manifesting. It would be like trying to divide a number by zero. Cannot be done! So the probability of first-person un-consciousness existing is 0%. Or in other words: First-person un-consciousness is certainly impossible. If first-person consciousness is certainly possible, and first-person un-consciousness is certainly impossible, then the probability of first-person consciousness is 100%. Anything in between is disregarded as un-experienceable. And that is the super-structure. All else is subordinate to it.

I've never really understood how people don't understand this. Dreamless sleep is not characterised by a lack of consciousness, rather a lack of memory. If that were not the case, then alarm clock manufacturers would surely go out of business as they'd all be useless. Despite memory being absent, the part of the mind that is listening for alarm clocks is (to a primtive degree) recording how much time has elapsed throughout the sleep cycle. Only upon waking is this information allowed to re-synchronize with consciousness, giving a vague sense of time elapsed and causing the illusion that un-consciousness in the first-person is somehow possible.... when clearly it isn't. In contrast, this doesn't happen with anesthesia. There is no alarm clock loud enough that will wake you from the surgeons table. Most subjective reports of anesthesia detail the "time-traveller" phenomenon: the moment you are anesthetized is the moment you wake up. Five hours could have elapsed, but for the subject, the experience is near-instant like a time-traveller that pops out of a point on the timeline and re-emerges at a later point. A subjective worm-hole. Death is basically the same. In the absence of first-person un-consciousness, the probability of first-person consciousness persisting after death alchemizes into absolute certainty. Any illusions of un-consciousness are simply skipped over to the extent that the "timeline" associated with the first-person experience becomes the dominant timeline. Or in other words, the certainty of eternal consciousness is a perfect 100% with no spaces in between.

The criminal in the room is judgement. The second criminal in the room is personal identity. One way to look at it is that by the time eternity is done you will have been all the men and all the women, all the races and all the ethnicities. So if all of that is you, how are you going to identify?

The problem with reincarnation is the term incarnation, which falls under the materialist mindset that consciousness resides in the body. (Incarnation literally means "embodied in flesh.") The truth of course is that the body resides in consciousness - not consciousness residing in the body. So if incarnation is not accurate, then re-incarnation is also not accurate. On the other hand, first-person consciousness has no opposite, so death (as state) is perfectly impossible. Therefore there has to be some sort of eternal continuation of consciousness, which is likely to involve fluctuations of state.

If that wasn't you, who was it?

I haven't taken a psychedelic since 1994, and even then I didn't come up. What I have done is spend the past 10 years living by myself. No friends, no family, no employers, no nothing. And when that happens, the universe literally introduces itself to you. Cheat code not required.

I think we all need a group hug. I can't be alone in wanting this.

For the record, I don't remember. But I do know that it was me.

Consciousness is the receiver. A thought is something that is projected on to the canvas of consciousness. It's the difference between the movie screen and the movie projector.

You didn't enjoy the exchange? I thought it was fascinating. A very rich dialogue. You've gotta understand one thing: When the most intelligent materialists finally realise that materialism is a fake, then we will be close to collectively manifesting something close to utopia. But it starts by understanding and playing close attention to the mechanics of the intelligentsia. Eric Weinstein is a fascinatingly intelligent person, and Lex Fridman truly beautiful and compassionate. The ones who are in the darkness need the most assistance, surely? These are our brothers and sisters after all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0Lf8eP41vs

You're not hearing the nuance, and you're constructing a mini strawman. I'm not saying that there is "nothing without observation." I'm saying that observation has no opposite. Absolute un-consciousness cannot manifest in the first-person. If you could be un-conscious, you would not even realise that you were un-conscious, and therefore you can never be in the state of un-consciousness. If you cannot be in the state of un-consciousness then you cannot ever be un-conscious. And if you cannot ever be un-conscious, then you can only ever be conscious. In the absence of first-person un-consciousness, all that remains is first-person consciousness. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter how many times you jump off a bridge. It doesn't matter how many times you put a gun to your head and blow your brains out. It doesn't matter how many times you die peacefully in a carehome. You cannot escape from Eternity even if you wanted to. And that's God.

I have a dream, a song to sing To help me cope, with anything If you see the wonder, of a fairy tale You can take the future, even if you fail I believe in angels, something good in everything I see I believe in angels When I know the time is right for me I'll cross the stream, I have a dream I have a dream, a fantasy

Logically, all there can be is observation. If there was no observation, there would be no observer to know that there was no observation. Therefore, observation is eternal. Sometimes we observe nothing, other times we observe something. But it's observation... ad infinitum.

I AM

A combination of direct experience and the ultra-logic that un-consciousness is impossible. In the absence of un-consciousness all that remains is consciousness and therefore consciousness is eternal. If God is omniscient, then by definition it knows all things including the knowledge of the non-omniscient state pertaining to your current incarnation. Therefore, there is no boundary between you and God. Ammirite?

By creating us in his image imagination.

@Muhammad Jawad Because people get identity mixed up with state. The identity of God is the identity of 1st-person consciousness, which is also your fundamental identity. When we talk about the Almighty God or the Higher Self, we're talking about the state of omniscience and omnipotence. Right now you are God (1st-person consciousness) on vacation from omniscience and omnipotence. You do this for entertainment. Limitation for recreation.

When I think of things that are divine I typically arrive at three fundamental elements:- 1. Consciousness 2. Love 3. Creativity / Creative Imagination Each of these things could be said to be distinct and divine in the sense that they pertain to the absolute. However, there is also a sense in me that there is a divine 4th element that pertains to a kind of ultra-logic: the divine logic of the absolute. After all, consciousness exists eternally by way of the understanding that consciousness cannot experience its own un-consciousness. I've heard it said that "even God doesn't know why God exists" but this cannot be true, because God knows full well the wisdom that God cannot experience a lack of experience, which is the rationality for why consciousness is eternal. Therefore, it seems pretty obvious that a kind of divine-logic exists at the very heart of our reality, that further can be consolidated to function as a part of God itself.

Agreed and I understand that. I'm just toying with you and playing around with the lexicon.