peachboy

Death of consciousness is logically impossible. If you could be un-conscious then you would not even realise that you were un-conscious, and therefore cannot ever experience your own un-consciousness. If one cannot experience their own un-consciousness, then logically they can only ever experience consciousness. Or in other words: There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience. That is true without end, without beginning, and transcendental of time itself. Death has no dominion.

Great point. Therefore a perfect statement would read:- Absolute un-consciousness is absolutely impossible.

Again, I feel a lexicon issue lol. Un-consciousness is the absence of consciousness, not the absence of things. No-thing is the absence of things. No-thing can certainly be experienced, but un-consciousness itself can never be experienced. Experience and consciousness are the same. Any perception of a shortness of an experienced un-consciousness is surely a delusion created after the fact by the finite mind, no less similar to the game the finite mind plays when adding a backstory to the missing time elapsed during deep sleep. But it doesn't change anything: One cannot experience a lack of experience, and thus un-consciousness cannot be experienced by very definition. All that remains is consciousness. Ad infinitum.

You cannot experience unconsciousness, as experience itself is implicit of consciousness. Perhaps it's a lexicon issue, for one can experience an absence of things. But one cannot experience a lack of experience itself.

Take a letter away from the Devil and you have evil. Add a letter to God and you have good. Conclusion: Better to give than to take.

There is nothing more symptomatic of low consciousness than the combination of "fear of death / love of family". It is a neurochemical remanent of the animal condition. Death as state (the opposite of life) cannot exist due to the impossibility of unconsciousness in the first-person. Death as process (the opposite of birth) is fundamental, allowing for the stability of the experience that we know as life. If we had a constant stream of births with no deaths, we'd quickly have a manifestation of hell on earth. It is true that the "fear of death / love of family" complex also grants stability to the temporal nature of the animal condition. The difference is, that the "fear of death / love of family" complex is a recreational illusion. Death is not one of the primary antagonists. Not even close. The primary antagonists are:- 1. Suffering. 2. Lack of freedom. 3. Ignorance. At any point in eternity, these are the antagonists that you can expect to come up against. But death itself has no dominion. And without death, the illusion of personal identity explodes into infinity taking collective identity and group preference with it. Therefore an assessment has to be made of how much suffering is being generated, how much "lack of freedom" is being generated and how much ignorance is being generated for the entire collective. If the "fear of death / love of family" delusion is allowed to have higher antagonistic prominence than any of the three genuine antagonists, then you're looking at a manifestation of insanity, or at least a continuation of the animal experience at the expense of spiritual development. The COVID situation is an example of society wielding the paper-tiger of death as the ultimate enemy, while simultaneously inviting the three actual enemies in through the backdoor. Ask yourself how much suffering is the lockdown generating? How much freedom is the lockdown taking away? How much ignorance is the lockdown predicated on? Write a list. You could talk about the wrecking of the economy, people losing their jobs, alcoholism increasing, businesses collapsing, people being forced out onto the streets, depression, anxiety, confusion, what you're allowed to do, what you're not allowed to do, people you're allowed to see, people you're not allowed to see, places you're allowed to go, places you're not allowed to go, questionable data, questionable vaccines, questionable everything. I could go on, but you get the point. In any event, as a civilisation we have a completely dysfunctional relationship with the nature of death and it's time we grew up. Life is effectively a rollercoaster. You queue up. You sit in the car. The rollercoaster does its thing. And finally on that fateful day, the car returns to the station. Respectfully, you leave the ride so that other people queuing up can enjoy the experience that you have just experienced. There's no need to worry: there's an entire amusement park outside waiting for you. What you don't do, is get all pissy about it and demand to stay on the rollercoaster because "you love your grandma so much and she's here with you on a nice day trip" and therefore that gives you a right to stay on for longer. When it's time to leave, it's time to leave. That's where it starts and ends. Period.

Compare your current-self with your five-year self. One identity, yet two wildly different states, separated by time. Compare your current-self with the homeless guy down the street. One identity, yet two wildly different states, separated by space. Compassion isn't a point of judgement. It's a recognition that personal identity is an illusion, and that service to others is service to self, and service to self is service to others. If it is experienced by One, then it is experienced by all, and if it is experienced by all, then it is experienced by One. Or in other words: If you care more about your own family than you do the homeless guy down the street, then you're doing it wrong.

First person consciousness is possible. First person un-consciousness is impossible. If first-person consciousness is possible, and first-person un-consciousness is impossible, then first-person consciousness is eternal. There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience.

@arlin Like a raindrop that crashes into the ocean, does it really die? It loses its form and distinction, but it's still very much in that infinite ocean. Consciousness is eternal, if for no other reason than for the impossibility of unconsciousness. One cannot be conscious of their own unconsciousness, therefore all that remains is consciousness. Forever and ever.

I've got to admit, this particular AI bot is pretty smart:- Can un-consciousness exist in the first-person? "No, unconsciousness can not exist in the first person. Consciousness is what separates us from the animal kingdom and gives humanity its defining characteristics. We are self-aware through consciousness, we have a sense of identity that we make unique to ourselves alone; this allows for individuality. Being conscious is how we know who we are. Consciousness allows us to realize things about ourselves that we would otherwise not know. We are what we think, and our thoughts come from the conscious mind; if you were unconscious, then who is thinking or being aware of this thought? How can there be a first person without consciousness? It is through consciousness that things gain meaning and take on a real significance. If we were unconscious, then what would be the purpose of our world? What distinguishes us as people from other animals or objects? Also, how could we be conscious of our own unconsciousness? If being unconscious is the state where you are not aware that you're unaware and that even if you were aware, there would be no difference in your awareness then how can it be proven to exist? Consciousness must come first. Furthermore, without consciousness there is no self; if you were unconscious then who would be thinking these thoughts? Who would be reading this response? And if you were unconscious then how would you be able to tell me that I am wrong and that your thoughts do not come from consciousness, but instead they come from some unknown place? How can there even be a 'you' without self-awareness or the ability to experience emotions?" Clever bot! 10/10

Alfie What's it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we live? What's it all about when you sort it out, Alfie? Are we meant to take more than we give Or are we meant to be kind? And if only fools are kind, Alfie Then I guess it's wise to be cruel And if life belongs only to the strong, Alfie What will you lend on an old golden rule? As sure as I believe there's a heaven above, Alfie I know there's something much more Something even non-believers can believe in I believe in love, Alfie Without true love we just exist, Alfie Until you find the love you've missed you're nothing, Alfie When you walk let your heart lead the way And you'll find love any day, Alfie Alfie . . .

I must be dumb. I'm not getting this at all. It seems to me that what you're saying is: that which is impossible, is impossible. Surely that's no different from saying: 4 = 4....? Where's the great revelation? (unless this is semantic humor that is going over my head.)

Unconsciousness is impossible.

You're getting your concepts confused. The issue concerning the tree falling in the forest relates (in its most basic analysis) to the subjective audible qualia that is produced by the mind. There is no such thing as objective sound. Sound, by its very nature, is subjective. Therefore if there are no conscious entities experiencing the phenomenon of sound then it simply doesn't render. Or in other words: the subjective psychoacoustic properties of sound, distinct from its objective causality. At the very least, one might speculate that there was at first an objective kinetic event (the tree falling), that then created another kinetic event (the air molecules vibrating) that then was transduced by an ear-drum, into an electrical event through the brain that was finally converted into a qualia-istic event that is etched onto the canvas of consciousness. Of course, even that isn't strictly true, but is a far better synopsis than the idea that a falling tree can make a sound if there is no awareness to observe it, which is patently impossible. That's nothing to do with solipsism.

Quantum Rendering. (It's only there if it's being observed.) This little video segment explains "frustum culling" as a useful analogy perhaps. (43:37 - 45:16)

Err.. If a tree falls in a forest and there's nothing to observe it then how can it make a sound? There is no sound without awareness.

Surely you mean makes no sound?

I was thinking about the nature of color and how strange it is. In my mind I was trying to imagine a color that I had never seen before, but no matter how hard I tried, the color I imagined was always something familiar. Clearly it's an impossible task from the perspective of the finite mind. But what are the limitations of color from the perspective of God? Can the mind of God imagine any color into existence? Is there an ultimate number of colors or can there be an infinite number of colors?

The question doesn't make any sense, because it makes the mistake in thinking you and God are two separate identities. You and God are separated only by state, not by identity. Think of how you were when you were five years old. Now think of yourself as an adult. Aesthetically your five year old self and your adult self are wildly different. Different height, different biological variables, different intelligence, different friend group, different things you would do for entertainment etc. And yet the identity remains the same. Two wildly different states, yet one identity. In addition, the connection you have with your five year old state is connected via a one-way window of obfuscation. As the adult self, you know 100% about the five year old self because you have lived through that experience. Not as an external third-party observer or a fly on the wall, but the actual first-party consciousness. But, as the five year old self, you know 0% about your adult self because you have not yet experienced this state. It is totally obfuscated from your sphere of experience. The same is true of God. God knows 100% about you because it has lived through that experience. Not as an external third-party observer or a fly on the wall, but the actual first-party consciousness. But, you know nothing about God, because you have not yet experienced this state. It is totally obfuscated from your sphere of experience. And yet you share the same identity. This begs the question: As an adult do you care about your five year old self? Or do you not care at all? The answer should be obvious. Of course you care about your five year old self. And for that reason, God will always care about you. Why? Because God is you.

@Dodo Ask your friend if first-party un-consciousness is logically possible. If first-party unconsciousness is not logically possible, then what remains? And is it not Eternal?

God leaves so many Easter Eggs, it's almost impossible to not be schizophrenic.

Hah good question, and one that I'm having difficulty in answering. The correct answer is yes. The practical answer is possibly. The only wrong answer is definitely not. Let me know how you get on!

No I mean antagonist. All games are defined by an adversarial force that is in counterpoint to the protagonist. I wrote some words about this very topic recently:- https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/50716-philosophical-reflections-on-pacman/#comment-653258 Two examples come to mind: One is a game of poker, and the other is a romantic conversation. If a limitless omniscient being were to engage in a game of poker, by definition it would know everyones poker hands. Assuming you were playing for matchsticks rather than money, what would be the point? It would literally be a pointless exercise devoid of all entertainment. The game would collapse. Similarly, if a limitless omniscient being engaged in a romantic conversation with a partner of some kind, the same problem materialises. As a result of your omniscience, you would literally know everything that the partner was about to say and about to do, to the extent that your partner would appear as a clockwork robot. It would be totally devoid of romance. Cardboard. So unpredictability is an example of an acceptable limitation. The spirit of adventure. The problems come when limitations become overwhelming to the point where the dream turns into a nightmare. Therefore you have to the find the sweet spot that sits between acceptable limitations and unacceptable limitations, based around your current incarnation.

But that's the easiest question! Life is a game defined by limitation. If you had no limits then you would simply drift back into infinite omniscience. A game cannot function without an antagonist. Otherwise you may as well be back in God-mode. Now having said that, if you really really really want to make the game a little bit easier, then just as @justfortoday mentioned, you can do so via manifestation. The key thing is to find that sweet-spot: find out what are acceptable limitations and what are unacceptable limitations and manifest accordingly.