A Fellow Lighter

Not exactly. The mind doesn't do anything, it's not a thing or a being which is able to "do" anything. The mind (reality) is an activity, not an actor (do-er). Regarding the illusion of the self. Firstly, this is a bit confusing if you haven't had that direct awakening that reality is mind, so you'll have to bear with me and help me make sure that I am making you understand. Alright. The mind, or reality itself, is not an illusion. The word illusion describes a false appearance. Everything is really here, this is not a false appearance. The only illusion is you, the I, this is the illusion which is created by consciousness' imagination. [This is very subtle so pay close attention to the detail as much as you can.]

Yes, everything. Reality is an activity. The way in which things take form, express their form, then lose form... All this is activity, and I call this activity mind.

Yes, it's all the same substance. However, I would suggest that you consider it an activity rather than a thing (if substance is seen as a thing). Thank you for your comment.

Though I may not agree with the precise wording ("turned off", "displaying"), I do get it. Consciousness, or the screen (as you put it), still exists without form. But, now, do you get that even this formlessness is a motion? And that there are not two motions but one motion which moves into colourful experience or unto deep sleep but without one being permanent or more (or less) impermanent than the other? This is the main position of my thread. That consciousness is motion – one motion that is.

No. The mind does, or reality does (in case you haven't realised that reality is mind).

Whether it's important to differentiate or not is a matter of experience. In my ezperience, such a differentiation is on its own ego (or self-serving) mind. I'm concerned more about the truth. And the truth is that there is no screen. It is only the appearance of the so called content which makes it seem like there's a screen. The I Am is whatever It Is at the moment that it is up until it is no longer that thing because it has become something else entirely. The truth is that which is the case no matter what. Consciousness is that which is the case no matter what. So why should one speak of a screen as if the content is something less than the consciousness? So, yes, Ramana Maharshi is in deed overlooking. Except the real consciousness cannot be turned on and off, because every movement is its own movement. But there only reason you assume that there is a screen is because of the so called content. So why assume that the screen is consciousness and the content isn't? But really, why assume a screen at all when there is no reason to? Why create this dichotomy between form and consciousness? Why have you disregarded the form as something less than consciousness? Isn't it because of the form that you know that there is consciousness? And if so, then why continue to devalue the form or attempt to separate it from the existence of consciousness? It is though the form comes from somewhere else, somewhere other than consciousness. But there is no where and no other. All is one motion, and that motion is without a beginning or end. That motion is consciousness.

There is only stillness in terms of me not going anywhere as the consciousness, otherwise I am pure motion all the way. And there is only emptiness with regards to there being nothing but me, otherwise i am absolutely whole. Not a space or somwthing that is capable of being empty or filled. I am both the appearance of the content and the appearance of the space. But these appearances do not define me, I define them. I am rootless, I am foundationless. I am all polarities, all dichotomies, all appearances.

What I am trying to communicate here is actually difficult to grasp with the conventional way of thinking about consciousness. @Someone here the content and the screen are the same thing, like ocean and wave. Literally, the content is the screen, there is no difference. So Rupert is actually over looking a lot because the second that you identify with the screen, that's the ego mind doing its thing again. There is literally no screen. The screen is a thought. It is a wave of consciousness. It will rise and it will fall. When it does fall, there won't be any screen. There will be nothing, until it rises again. @Leo Gura I agree. I'm only using physical science as an analogy. I'm describung consciousness as pure motion because of it's inherent and independent dynamic nature. Of course it's not limited to form. But consciousness goes to unfathomable depth to become that very form which it is not limited to. So much so that when consciousness does take form, its identity is the form it has taken until the dream reaches its nstural conclusion. What I'm trying to eliminate here is the observer or "void screen" element. There is no such thing. I as the so called "content" am the consciousness. I, the form, am consciousness. There is no one or nothing outside of me. I am literally the soil and rocks and anyrhing else living or nonliving. I am also you. I am anything and everything conceivable. Ultimately, I Am. And I am definitely not still. I am very much MOVING. This world is my movement. This forum is my movement. Everyone in this forum, every individual life here, is my movement. Whatever you say or do, that is also my movement. I am motion. Without motion, there is nothing. I am the movement that has no begining and no end. I'll forever be moving. I am eternal movement. The appearance of finitude is but an appearance created in my infinite movement. My movement has always been one, it cannot be segmented nor fragmented. Because anything you might think that you're doing to it is also part of my movement. Literally no weapon formed against me shall prosper, for all weapons are mere appearances in my movement. That includes your prestiged logic. All these debates, this is also me. All these fights and squabbles, they are me. All relationships, mariages, etc – still me. Your feelings are me. Your thoughts are me. Your body is me. I am all of it. This is what I'm taljing about. The motion, the emotion, the vibration on a quantum scale and locomotion on a bigger scale, it's all consciousness. Motion is consciousness.

This question only makes sense when there is an assumed separation between subject and object. Otherwise there is nothing to be "tied together", there is simply consciousness without duality. No, consciousness isn't nothing. Quite clearly it is something. In fact, one could even go as far as saying it is everything, or that everything is consciousness, rather.

There is nothing in between you and your environment, except for your own thoughts. There is nothing in between me and you, except for your own thoughts. There is nothing wrong with thought, it is the most basic form of consciousness which permeates and reverberates in to more complex forms of consciousness with seemingly more depth. Physicality is consciousness, physical energy is consciousness, matter is consciousness and objects are consciousness. Life is consciousness. But whether you come to realise this or not isn't a matter of seeking more information or more understanding. It's a matter of embracing truth. Which greater truth do you know other than the fact that there (here) is consciousness? The truth falls off the realm of thought. No one needs to think about consciousness in order for there to be consciousness.

You are a thought. Everything you do is a thought. Even your dreams are thoughts. The only difference between everything mentioned is frequency (or strength), otherwise it is all literally one thing – Thought. What the ego mind won't fathom is that it's identity is a thought. What the ego mind won't fathom is that its life is a thought. What the ego mind won't fathom is that all of its knowledge is a thought. What the ego mind won't fathom is that all of its desires and pursuits are thought. What the ego mind won't fathom is that the only point of its existence is consciousness, anything else is just a finite thought. Consciousness is the only meaning, the only point to reality, the only cause and effect.

Thank you.

You might not be aware of your so-called physical environment, sure. But you are definitely aware of something, even if that something seems like nothing. People can often distinguish between having had a dreamless sleep and having had a dreamful sleep, even though they might have forgotten the dream itself. It is almost never necessary to assume that you had just had a dreamless sleep. You know that your sleep was dream. And you do know when you had a dream although, for the life of you, you cannot seem to remember the details of the dream or what you were dreaming about. Yes, that is true. And the reason this is true is that deep sleep is the absence of thought. And any statement made is a thought, that includes "I am in deep sleep right now." See? So the only way your argument can stand is if there is deed a moment of unconsciousness that you can reference. Does such a moment exist? Can such a moment exist? Is there a point in time in which a person is not aware of anything, internal and external? People do know the difference between a dreamless sleep and a dreamful one. Whether they can remember the detail of the dream or not makes no difference.

This depends on how you interpret deep sleep, don't you think? The way I see it, the mind is capable of thoughtful consciousness which brings about the reality of finitide and it is also capable of thoughtless consciousness which reveals the infinite nature of consciousness. The fact of the matter is, when you wake up even from deep sleep you still know that you were sleeping and you also know that you had a dreamless sleep. It is not as though there is a period in your experience which has just gone missing without a trace and left this inexplicably gap in your memory, right? So what is the source of this knowledge? It's not like someone has to tell you that you had just had a dreamless sleep. You are consciousness. You know exactly when you enter a thoughtless state as well as when you enter a thoughtful one. Right now, reading this, you are very much aware that this is a thoughtful state or your so-called wakeful state. You also know when the contrary is true. You know when you've entered deep sleep, no one has to tell you this. Consciousness doesn't shut down, it merely transitions from one state into another. It's dynamic, not as static as you might think of it.

Investigating the first knowable thing in existence The standard definition of consciousness, often used in philosophy, psychology and neuroscience, is the following: Consciousness is the state of being aware of, and able to think about, one's own existence, thoughts and surroundings. The key components of consciousness, here, are: Awareness — the capacity to be aware of internal states (thoughts, emotions and sensations) and external stimuli (environments and inhabitants). Subjectivity — the quality of experiences that are personal and unique to an individual. Intentionality — the directed-ness or about-ness of mental states. Consciousness is often about something. Qualia — the qualitative aspects of conscious experiences such as the redness of a red or the pain of a headache. Self-Reflection — the ability to think about and reflect on one's own mental states and processes. Different levels of states of consciousness: Wakefulness — the state of being alert and engaged with the environment. Sleep — involves various stages, including REM sleep which is associated with vivid dreaming. Altered States — states induced by meditation, hypnosis, drugs or certain mental health conditions. Consciousness in different contexts: Philosophy — explores the nature, origin and implications of consciousness, often dealing with questions like the "hard problem" (why and how subjective experiences arise from physical processes). Psychology — studies consciousness through behavior, cognition and neurobiological processes, often looking at attention, perception and awareness. Neuroscience — investigates the neural correlates of consciousness, identifying specific brain regions and networks involved in conscious experiences. There are several theories about consciousness. Here I will mention the major theories in detail. High Order Thought theory Proponents: David Rosenthal, Peter Carruthers. Core idea: A mental state becomes conscious when it is the object of a high order thought (a thought about a thought). Mechanism: For example, if you see a red apple, the perception of the apple is a first order mental state. It becomes a conscious experience when you have a higher order thought that you are seeing the red apple. Implications: This theory suggests that consciousness requires a kind of metacognition or thinking about one's own thoughts. Higher Order Perception theory Proponents: Same as HOT theory, but with a focus on perception. Core idea: Consciousness arises from the integration of information in a "global workspace" in the brain. Mechanism: Information from various subconscious processes is broadcast to a network of neurons thus making it globally available for decision making, action and verbal report. Analogy: It's like a theater spotlight that brings certain information into focus for the entire system while the rest remains in the dark. Information Integrated theory Proponents: Giulio Tononi Core idea: Consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information. Mechanism: The theory quantifies consciousness using a measure called phi which represents the degree of integrated information. Higher phi values indicate more integrated and hence more conscious systems. Implications: IIT suggests that any system that integrates information (biological or artificial) could possess some level of consciousness. Phenomenological Approaches Proponents: Various, including Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Core idea: Focuses on the subjective, first-person experience of consciousness. Method: Descriptive rather than explanatory. It aims to describe the structures of experience from the point of view of the subject. Key concepts: Intentionality (consciousness is always about something), lived experience, embodiment (the body as a primary site of knowing the world). Multiple Realization theory Core idea: Different neural structures can give rise to the same conscious experience. Mechanism: Emphasizes the diversity of neural substrates across species and individuals that can generate consciousness. Recurrent Processesing theory Proponents: Victor Lamme, Stanislas Dehaene. Core idea: Consciousness arises from recurrent or re-entrant neural activity rather than just feedfoward processing. Mechanism: Persistent and reciprocal signaling within and betwixt different brain regions is crucial for conscious perception. Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory Proponents: Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff. Core idea: Consciousness results from quantum computations in microtubules within neurons. Mechanism: Combines principles of quantum mechanics and neuroscience. Conscious events are proposed to be orchestrated by biological processes and then collapsed by quantum processes. Embodied Cognition Proponents: Francisco Varela, Ethan Thompson, and others. Core idea: Consciousness arises from the interaction between an organism and its environment. Mechanism: Emphasizes the role of the body in shaping the mind. Cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body's interactions with the world. Panpsychism Proponents: Philip Goff, Galen Stawson. Core idea: Consciousness is a fundamental feature of all physical entities, not just brains. Mechanism: Every particle or fundamental entity has a basic form of consciousness. Complex consciousness arises from the combination of simpler forms.

In the spirit of the ancient Athenian marketplace, where ideas clashed and mingled in vibrant discourse, I'm dedicating this journal to my philosophical inquiries and research as well as the refinement of a budding cosmology that I'm developing and have chosen to call Autonoetism. The name inspired by Endel Tulving's "autonoetic consciousness", a mental ability that allows us to travel through time in our minds. I invite open-minded thinkers and scholars to participate in this intellectual exploration, and to engage with the ideas of Autonoetism, challenge its tenets, and even contribute to its ongoing development. Most of this endeavor will be guided by the work of the late professor of philosophy, George Stuart Fullerton, and of course some of Leo Gura's self-actualization content that I find relatable to this journal. Welcome to The Agora.

The first knowable thing in the natural world is considered to be our own consciousness or subjective experience. As sentient beings, we have direct access to our thoughts, perceptions, and emotions, making them the most immediate and accessible aspect of the natural world to us. This subjective experience forms the foundation of our understanding of reality and serves as the starting point for inquiry into the nature of existence. From there, we can explore the external world through observation, experimentation, and empirical investigation, gradually expanding our understanding of the cosmos.

Yes, it seems like it. Of course there is no mirror. The infinite mirror is just an analogy. By definition, that which is infinite is absolute. Do you know anything more infinite than consciousness? If not then why call it "the Absolute" when you already know what it is? That's like calling a value "x" despite the fact that this value is already known to be 1. What you have to realize is that a "rock" is an idea made upon the foundation of consciousness. The rock is part of the land, but the "land" itself is also an idea that you conceived upon consciousness. The land is part of the biosphere, but the "biosphere" is also an idea you made up upon consciousness. The biosphere encompasses living things, but "living things" and "non-living things" is also an idea you made up upon consciousness. You are a living thing, but "you" are also an idea that you conceived upon consciousness. You probably get the pattern at this point: one idea leads to another idea. There is no way for one thing such as an idea to lead into something that is not such as truth. Only the foundation is the truth, because it is 'found' and not conceived. You ask what kind of consciousness can't be aware of itself or anything else, assuming that the rock is also consciousness. But what if consciousness is as simple as the mere fact of you noticing the rock is, for a matter of fact, the rock noticing itself? Isn't everything between you and the rock merely an idea? All of creation is consciousness, my friend. Even now, there is nothing between me and you, we are one thing, one being, we are the same consciousness. Everything else is merely an idea, a thought, etc.

The depth of consciousness is, in deed, unfathomable. There is no distinction between objects and thoughts, no distinction between memory and experience, no distinction between past and future, no distinction between self and other, no distinction between a question and an answer. All is simply consciousness for the sake of consciousness. All logic, all narratives, all systems, all beliefs, all ideas, all emotions, all impulses, all desire, all gratification, all of it is consciousness. Consciousness is the simulation of love.

Why can't it be just one thing conscious of itself? If I had to enunciate it, consciousness is the reflection of the all-Mind, or what has been referred to here as the "Godhead". Imagine a mirror without a frame, a mirror which extends infinitely in all directions. Now imagine that this mirror was/is the only thing in existence so much so that it is just your complete awareness and this mirror in existence. But this mirror does not work like an ordinary mirror. Instead of reflecting what is in front of it, this infinite mirror reflects your thoughts. Such is the nature of consciousness, it brings your thoughts (or love) into vibration. Of course this is only an attempt in explaining it. This attempt in itself is a thought. However, all thoughts are finite, but consciousness isn't – consciousness is the infinite mirror which reflects your (the all-Mind) thoughts.

No. But thought is consciousness.

I want to state that it is not physicality per se that is experienced first, rather it is consciousness. Hence consciousness itself is the first known thing in the natural world. This perspective aligns with various philosophical and scientific views that emphasize the primacy of consciousness in our understanding of reality The evolutionary theory presented on consciousness posits that consciousness is an evolving ability to sense and respond to biological forces for survival. This definition suggests that consciousness emerges from the need to interact with and adapt to the environment, emphasizing its intimate connection to life and the natural world. However, there are those like A. A. Adedire who argue that the constancy of awareness, rather than the personal self, defines the essence of mind. This awareness, as the foundation of the world, is consistent with the orderly nature of reality and can be seen as the primary element behind all experience David Chalmers, in "Consciousness and its Place in Nature," discusses the challenge of fitting consciousness into our conception of the natural world. He explores how consciousness, as a fundamental aspect of experience, does not neatly align with traditional views of the physical world. A lot of arguments can be made regarding the position of consciousness in the natural world, but one thing us for certain: the first knowable thing in the natural world is consciousness, everything else is merely an idea of that object of consciousness.

Autonoetism – the Common Thought Approach What is the first known thing in the natural universe? In the world of common thought, experience reigns supreme. So rather than beginning my cosmology with the so-called fundamental questions, which are essentially the unknowable things of the universe, I instead pose a more direct question. While "What is the first known thing in the natural universe?" isn't the typical starting point for a full-fledged cosmology, it can be a stepping stone for developing a cosmology using a common thought framework. The limited scope offers a set trajectory for exploration and logical investigation. We can begin this research by exploring the knowable instead of the unknowables such as the origin of the universe. How can one know the origin of the universe without being there to witness it? Such fundamental queries only invite speculative thinking. Whilst with a limited scope type of query, we can begin with what man can know. So what is the first known thing in the natural universe? Our current understanding suggests space is a fundamental property of the universe, perhaps even emerging alongside time itself in the Big Bang. If space is intrinsic to the universe's existence, it could be argued to predate any objects or energy within it. But is it the first known thing? Time seems to have a direction, with a past, present, and future. This inherent directionality is a property not observed in space and could be argued as a foundational aspect of reality. Is it matter? Is it space? Is it time? I propose consciousness is the first known thing in the natural universe.

But you continue to seek enlightenment. It is said multiple times that everything is consciousness, and yet you still ask, "How do I achieve enlightenment?". If this is true, then, what does it mean? Perhaps life has little to do with seeking, and more to do with giving. And, perhaps, what is given cannot be seen, or, at least, only till what is given is not given any longer. Like a lit candle seeking a source of light, only when it almost runs out of wax, and notices the room becoming dim, will it begin to realise... How will you react, I wonder, when you find out that your whole life has been a giving ritual as opposed to one of seeking? How will you handle knowing the monstrous extent to which the mind can deceive you, when the thoughts finally stop running? Or, maybe, just maybe, the mind hasn't been deceiving at all. If you think about it, how many forms of expression can the mind keep up with before it is eventually lost in one of the forms? But then, again, none of these questions actually matter. Because no matter how you react, no matter what you do, whatever you might think it means, all of it, everything is consciousness.

Naturalism As My Philosophical Position Naturalism, in philosophy, is a theory that relates scientific methods to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe, whatever their inherent character may be, are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly, that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way. This position I've not taken by selection, that is, choosing it in particular rather than one of the others. This position I've taken by adaptation, that is, discovering that this is what my experience of the world has enabled or allowed me to make sense of the world. If it were up to me, I'd probably opt to not having a position as this would be the best way to ensure open-mindedness in my inquiries and research. However, we are ego-functional, which means that pure objectivity is nearly impossible for us to achieve. So, rather than pretending to be something I'm not, I am choosing to embrace all that I am as means of remaining aware of potential blind-spots in this critical endeavor. And what I am is a naturalist. Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man’s endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not. I have already described science to be a rather systematic extension of common thought. Science, by nature, relies on experiential data for insight, not anything outside of experience. This tells us that the common man is naturally empirical when it comes to making sense of the world, and that only in the absence of evidence does s/he become speculative. From this it is clear that the naturalist has, for his philosophical inquiries, common thought as his foundation. While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism. The concept of a source for the natural universe is not an anti-naturalist position in as far as naturalism is concerned. So long as this source is functions accordingly with the natural universe, that is, it is simply the source and not the anything outside of the natural creation, it is compatible with naturalism. All natural patterns have a source or sources to their system, thusly it is also expected with the universe itself to have such a point or points of initiation. Only rarely do naturalists give attention to metaphysics (which they deride), and they make no philosophical attempts to establish their position. Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being. Metaphysics deals with the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and knowledge. Naturalism, on the other hand, focuses on explaining the world through natural laws and scientific principles. The whole purpose of this journal is developing a cosmology which reconciles the physical with the metaphysical. Autonoetism is fundamentally a naturalistic theory.