What is consciousness made of?

[LastThursday]

16 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

No, consciousness is the direct experience. And the direct experience is meaning.

There is a big difference between talking about consciousness and the actual experience of consciousness (whatever that is). One is the map, the other the territory.

All you're doing here is using language to equate one concept to another. It doesn't wash. 

And WTH is "direct experience" anyway? Experience is experience no? whatever flavour it comes in.

Also, meaning is far too woolly a concept to be useful. What is it? Recognition? Awareness? Feeling? Epiphany?

Rant over.

 

[Cosmin_Visan]

25 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

There is a big difference between talking about consciousness and the actual experience of consciousness (whatever that is). One is the map, the other the territory.

All you're doing here is using language to equate one concept to another. It doesn't wash. 

And WTH is "direct experience" anyway? Experience is experience no? whatever flavour it comes in.

Also, meaning is far too woolly a concept to be useful. What is it? Recognition? Awareness? Feeling? Epiphany?

Rant over.

On the contrary, "direct experience" is too woolly. "Meaning" is a much more clear concept. And yes, you use language to equate a concept to another, thus understanding better what consciousness is. Language is not just a pointer. Language itself is an experience and interacts with other experiences. Language is more like a structuring of consciousness that allows meaning manipulation.

[Cosmin_Visan]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Cosmin_Visan Watch yourself. You're falling into egotism and arrogance.

Your mind is tricking you.

I guess I should just give monosyllabic answers as you: Infinity! Bro!

[Rilles]

4 minutes ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

I guess I should just give monosyllabic answers as you: Infinity! Bro!

Stop arguing about the finger and go to the moon.

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by Rilles

[Cosmin_Visan]

7 minutes ago, Rilles said:

Stop arguing about the finger and go to the moon.

What do you mean ?

[Rilles]

Just now, Cosmin_Visan said:

What do you mean ?

 

[Spaceofawareness]

From the perspective of consciousness, it is made of itself. Godel’s incompleteness theorem essentially states that a system cannot prove itself using itself, it needs to use something outside itself, and likewise consciousness cannot explain itself from consciousness, but unfortunately, there is nothing knowable outside of consciousness, so, it must remain a mystery.

[LastThursday]

1 hour ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

And yes, you use language to equate a concept to another, thus understanding better what consciousness is.

Exactly. But you only understand better what the concept of consciousness is. It's worth thinking about what equating one concept to another actually does. Does it collapse the boundary between two concepts? Does it create a hybrid concept? Or does it create a new concept that only has the shared characteristics of both? The "danger" of equating concepts is that the result isn't known.

1 hour ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Language is not just a pointer

I think that is where you're going to struggle on this forum to get any agreement. There's a strong belief here that all language is one step removed from "direct experience". I'm in partial agreement with you, that language can inform experience directly, but it's not the whole story. I'm in definite disagreement that language is primary in any way. Consciousness first.

Edited November 27, 2020 by LastThursday

[Cosmin_Visan]

3 hours ago, LastThursday said:

I'm in definite disagreement that language is primary in any way. Consciousness first.

Language is consciousness. Is an elaborate way in which free will has access to strong modifications of consciousness.

[LastThursday]

10 minutes ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

Language is consciousness. Is an elaborate way in which free will has access to strong modifications of consciousness.

No way is language consciousness; language is just a brushstroke within the picture of consciousness. Admittedly language can modulate consciousness. But the bigger picture is that consciousness modulates itself to its own ends - that is its very mechanism of creation. If it decides to modify itself through language or by any other means it can do so. But language is neither the only means nor the primary means of self-modification. Inserting "free will" into the equation is unnecessary.

[Leo Gura]

@Cosmin_Visan You are much too arrogant for this work.

Stop fucking around. All your theories are wrong.

[Shin]

6 hours ago, Cosmin_Visan said:

What do you mean ?

You're doing mental masturbation.
This isn't about debating which is the best concepts about what enlightenment is.
It's about directly experiencing whatever the pointers Leo or any other teachers are giving.

You're arguing what the ideas about enlightenment is.
You're not actually trying to experience them directly.

You're like a fisherman talking about how fishing is amazing,
But actually, you've never touched a boat or a fishing rod in your entire life.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Shin

[Dany Balan]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Cosmin_Visan You are much too arrogant for this work.

Stop fucking around. All your theories are wrong.

ba cosmin de ce il superi pe maestru nostru.... fi oleaca mai smerit,nu te da asa smecer

[The0Self]

7 hours ago, Spaceofawareness said:

From the perspective of consciousness, it is made of itself. Godel’s incompleteness theorem essentially states that a system cannot prove itself using itself, it needs to use something outside itself, and likewise consciousness cannot explain itself from consciousness, but unfortunately, there is nothing knowable outside of consciousness, so, it must remain a mystery.

Resonates with me. Anyone who thinks they can define consciousness is mistaken, as I understand it. Even defining one's current "state" or "level/height/quantity/quality" of consciousness can probably only be approached, say, by giving an example of a construct that intuitively seems to correlate nearly perfectly with it -- for instance, one's ability to see mundane (or otherwise) events as miracles, or one's ability to be grateful for whatever is happening.

Edited November 27, 2020 by The0Self

[Adamq8]

2 minutes ago, The0Self said:

Resonates with me. Anyone who thinks they can define consciousness is mistaken, as I understand it. Even defining one's current "state" or "level/height/quantity/quality" of consciousness can probably only be approached, say, by giving an example of a construct that intuitively seems to correlate nearly perfectly with it -- for instance, one's ability to see mundane (or otherwise) events as miracles, or one's ability to be grateful for whatever is happening.

Agreed. 

Ultimately conciousness will remain a complete mystery to itself. 

I get the hunch thats why creation exists. 

It cant know itself fully so it creates something in order to see if it can know itself from the "outside" but the problem is that nothing is outside of it so it cant explain itself, really a strange loop. 

So scientist is studying itself and then some call it an objective universe which exists without an observer but the observer and the observed is the same thing?

And I do feel in between lifes conciousness can also erase memory if it wants and start "fresh" in this world or somewhere else.

 

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

It cant know itself fully so it creates something in order to see if it can know itself from the "outside" but the problem is that nothing is outside of it so it cant explain itself, really a strange loop. 

So scientist is studying itself and then some call it an objective universe which exists without an observer but the observer and the observed is the same thing?

On 11/25/2020 at 0:39 PM, Gesundheit said:

It's made of neurons.

LOL. It's so easy to get but over(rationality) makes you blind to the obvious. This question what is the substance of everything? So you are thinking the substance is something else.. You have two things.. The thing and what is it made of.. So what did they solve when they say consciousness is made of brains lol.. The point is what is the substance of "thingness" itself. And where are you going to find that elsewhere? Lol it's right under your nose lol. 

[Rilles]

@Someone here I think he was making a materialist joke. 

[The0Self]

One can have a lot of understanding, but what comes out of it into words often just becomes conjecture, if we're honest.

For instance, the (very) loaded question, "why is there something rather than nothing?" It can be recognized directly that there is obviously no ultimate limiter on reality -- this is sort of square one. Why can't there be only nothing? Only-nothing would essentially be a thing with limitation, since it can't be everything. Why can't there be only something? Only-something would be a thing with limitation, since it can't be nothing. So there is neither something nor nothing. It seems to be the case that reality is just the infinite everything that is, timelessly, and amazingly, not anything at all. And since every thing depends on every other thing, nothing depends on anything. Everything consequential is inconsequential. And there's no defined existence apart from undefined consciousness; objectivity is subjectivity.

But of course if we're honest, that doesn't make sense. It just seems to be the case.

The substance of thingness itself depends on perspective. Whatever phenomena arise dependent upon conditions, do not actually arise. What is does not depend on anything; it neither comes nor goes. Everything depends on everything else = nothing depends on anything. There is no ground substance, only unfathomable appearances that don't actually happen. Surface-only; no depth; no self; no thing; no time. There is no substance at all.

Bottom line: there's no bottom line.

Edited November 27, 2020 by The0Self

[James123]

@73809 Nothingness is pure consciousness. It has no substance because it is nothing therefore it could be anything , therefore is everything and absolute. 

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, Someone here said:

LOL. It's so easy to get but over(rationality) makes you blind to the obvious. This question what is the substance of everything? So you are thinking the substance is something else.. You have two things.. The thing and what is it made of.. So what did they solve when they say consciousness is made of brains lol.. The point is what is the substance of "thingness" itself. And where are you going to find that elsewhere? Lol it's right under your nose lol. 

What if the ultimate reality is something else entirely than this "thingness" they told you about? Why are you so sure that realizing existence is the end? It's just the beginning.

Do you think that God is not capable of creating such a perfect illusion? An illusion where you think: "That must be it!", but somehow turns out not to be it. You think you beat the game, but the reality is that the game got you beat.

Why am I saying this? Because there are questions that are yet to be answered. Once all the questions are answered, I will come up with more skepticism. If I fail to do that, I will doubt my skepticism, not give it up. Either way, I will not let the mind think that it got it figured out.

4 hours ago, Rilles said:

@Someone here I think he was making a materialist joke. 

Kinda, but not really. I like to play around with different perspectives to poke around at those who are attached to one particular perspective. And it always pays off.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Gesundheit