Reality vs. Consciousness (Chicken-Egg Problem)

[Xonas Pitfall]

I seem to have a ? of consciousness that’s difficult to understand and grasp.

I have a decently easier time understanding during my trips the nature of truth, beauty, love, masculinity, and femininity.

But I think one thing my mind still has trouble wrapping around is this reality versus consciousness chicken-and-egg problem, which I feel is holding me back. I wanted to contemplate it here to potentially hear my thoughts out loud and get some help with it. 

I think the issue I see is this:

(I’m not saying I believe this necessarily, I’m just voicing my thoughts that seem to block me from fully realizing this.)

I have trouble understanding: if, let’s say, reality came first: a spontaneous Big Bang or white hole or whatever, then there would be “no consciousness,” and consciousness would slowly emerge later. Now, once emerged, the mind is infinite and conscious, yes, but how does that imply it’s the absolute creator or generator of reality? Even if the mind is infinite, it could just be an infinite property of it, like how my hand can move in infinite ways, yet it’s still just a hand.

The way I understand the consciousness-first argument is that the entire current moment is constructed by your consciousness, and to make sense of it, the ego creates stories, “you were born from your mother,” and “there were particles,” "mitosis, Big Bang, this is philosophy, "etc.

• Even if I accept the argument that everything needs a creator, it doesn’t mean that creator has to be consciousness. It could be a spontaneous clash of particles, and now universal patterns are emerging from it.
• And if you go with the requisite variety argument, that a complex system can only be created by a more complex system, that’s not really true. Parents, who are “less smart,” give birth to children who can be smarter. Humans created AI, which in certain tasks is infinitely more intelligent and complex than us.
• Also, if I go with the idea that everything has to be contained within consciousness to exist, I don’t see how that necessarily follows. It implies the ability to be observed, but it doesn't imply that it cannot exist or be created outside of consciousness.

I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around this stuff. Any help deconstructing this would be great. Thank you! Which questions should I keep asking myself?

Edited Wednesday at 10:30 AM by Xonas Pitfall

[Leo Gura]

There is no reality distinct from Consciousness. There is only Consciousness. Anything you imagine is Consciousness, even if you imagine it isn't.

Big Bang is Consciousness. So is a big hairy dick.

Stop making up distinctions. Only one thing and it is conscious.

Edited Wednesday at 05:58 PM by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

• Consciousness (as fundamental) → manifests or dreams reality → creates spacetime, laws of physics, energy → Big Bang as a projection within consciousness → evolution of complexity → appearance of individual minds → mind retroactively interprets its current state as arising from a past material process → human consciousness (Infinite Mind)
• Nothingness (Materialistic kind) → spontaneous quantum fluctuation or unknown cause → Big Bang → formation of matter and energy → particles clashing and organizing → cosmic and planetary evolution → biological evolution → emergence of nervous systems → first human consciousness (Infinite Mind) → subjective experience and self-reflection (mind/consciousness)

I don’t understand why the first initial mental Human consciousness would have to be equivalent to the same (Original Creator).

Again, I can still imagine human consciousness being spawned separately from the beginning of nothingness and evolution, and once it spawns, sure, it may have infinite qualities and the ability to expand, observe, imagine, and understand, but I don’t see how that implies it’s the original creator. That’s the step I feel like I’m missing. Even if I accept that the fundamental properties of reality are 'mental' or metaphysical in nature, that could still refer to a mind separate from my own (i.e., human consciousness). It doesn't necessarily imply that the two are the same in any way.

Just because the mind is infinite after being spawned doesn't imply the creator is infinite or even the same as the current consciousness. As I mentioned above, the requisite variety argument doesn't apply, since we do observe more complex things being created by less complex ones, like the example of a child genius being born from average parents.

Also, infinity here works mostly as a concept. It's not like you experience infinite thoughts; you have distinct thoughts. You can only conceptualize that others could happen in infinite ways. But that’s just an insight; again, it doesn’t strictly imply a conscious creator or beginning.

And the argument that “it’s all one” doesn’t feel satisfying to my brain, because we’re always trying to get to the source or root-cause property when we ask these questions. Even with the concept of God, we’re pointing to a characteristic of that “original creator.” So even if you say 'it's all one,' you'd still want to distinguish the root cause and the properties of that root cause, even if it implies all-encompassing unity.

[Someone here]

@Xonas Pitfall consciousness depends on brain which depends on biological processes which depends on chemicals which depends on the laws of physics which depends on cause and effect which go back 14 billion years which depends on the big bang which depends on God which is consciousness.  Its a strangeloop. Consciousness created consciousness. 

[Jehovah increases]

The creator's consciousness and yours are one because you are the creator. Without consciousness, none of this could exist, for example, imagining distinctions, which is what you are doing now.

Edited yesterday at 01:27 PM by Jehovah increases

[Breakingthewall]

7 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Xonas Pitfall consciousness depends on brain which depends on biological processes which depends on chemicals which depends on the laws of physics which depends on cause and effect which go back 14 billion years which depends on the big bang which depends on God which is consciousness.  Its a strangeloop. Consciousness created consciousness. 

Why god is conciousness? It makes no sense. Conciousness is just a circumstance, the fact of reality perceiving itself like a reflection. If reality is conciousness, why there are forms? Because conciousness is creating them? Then conciousness is something with creative power? Then it's not "pure conciousness" would be "pure conciousness that creates things like elephants " but how conciousness could create anything if it's conciousness, that's , the fact of perceiving? Where is the logic of this?

[Someone here]

28 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why god is conciousness? 

Replace the word " God " with the word "Absolute Reality ". What heck could Absolute Reality be other than this? And what exactly is this? 

CONSCIOUSNESS. 

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Replace the word " God " with the word "Absolute Reality ". What heck could Absolute Reality be other than this? And what exactly is this? 

CONSCIOUSNESS. 

conciousness is the fact of perceiving, it's relative to anything else. Without difference and change there is no conciousness. Imagine no change and no difference, can you? No, because it's impossible. Then conciousness is something that arises due the movement, then not fundamental. 

Edited yesterday at 10:47 AM by Breakingthewall

[Someone here]

@Breakingthewall why are you coming at this from the materialist paradigm? 

Bottom line There is only one fucking substance out of which everything is made. Could it be otherwise?

Consciousness is simply everything and anything. This is Consciousness. That is consciousness. You are consciousness. The brain is consciousness. Anything you think or possibly doubt in a million years that isn't consciousness IS fucking consciousness... Tada!

And it can't be "defined" because there is nothing which is not consciousness to define consciousness in terms of it. That's why it's a mystery. 

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

And it can't be "defined" because there is nothing which is not consciousness to define consciousness in terms of it.

You are defining it calling it conciousness. Conciousness is something definite: perception. The fact of being aware. Saying that reality is conciousness is a mistake but anyway, I don't want to start those discussions again and again 

[Leo Gura]

@Breakingthewall You are wrong. Stop spreading nonsense.

Be willing to learn.

Edited yesterday at 11:18 AM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Breakingthewall You are wrong. Stop spreading nonsense.

It's a perspective, if it's wrong you can explain me why, but anyway, ok, sorry , I will stop blasphemy. It's your place, your rules. It's nonsense arguing about this, and waste of energy, so I'm done. I'm going to talk only about the absolute and psychology. Ontology I'm done, doesn't leads anywhere 

Edited yesterday at 11:21 AM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

if it's wrong you can explain me why

I've explained it all over the place.

You won't understand without Awakening.

Awakening is the realization that only Consciousness exists.

Anything is Consciousness, including nothing and not-consciousness.

Edited yesterday at 11:38 AM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I've explained it all over the place.

You won't understand without Awakening.

Awakening is the realizatiom that only Consciousness exists.

For me the term conciousness is misleading, but as I said I don't want to argue about it and if you don't like I spread a different perspective I respect it. If fact it's better stopping those arguments that are a waste of energy, seems that I can't avoid for some reason but Im done with ontology discussion exactly after this moment . 

Edited yesterday at 11:50 AM by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

you don't like I spread a different perspective

It's not about suppressing a different perspective. You just are not conscious of what Consciousness is.

I'm sorry that feels unfair but I am here to guide people to the realization of Consciousness. I know this issue very deeply.

I am trying to help you realize God. This is the whole point of my work.

Edited yesterday at 12:02 PM by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Anything is Consciousness, including nothing and not-consciousness.

I can't avoid 😅😅 

how not conciousness is conciousness? Maybe when you say the word conciousness you mean the absolute. If you say that includes not conciousness, it's because that. The problem is semantics, "conciousness" is a word with a concrete meaning , if you use it with another meaning, it's misleading, make people confusing. 

Just now, Leo Gura said:

You just are not conscious of what Consciousness is.

Maybe I'm not concious about what the world conciousness means for you. I really think that it's a mistake using this word because people always will think that conciousness means perception. Perception means relationship between subject and object. The problem is the word not the idea. 

[Leo Gura]

@Breakingthewall If you understood Consciousness, I would know it.

At some point you just gotta trust that a teacher knows better than you on an issue. Crazy notion, I know.

Edited yesterday at 12:08 PM by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

I think the issue I'm having trouble understanding is this..

Let’s say:

• A mysterious reason X leads to a random spawn of computer code (analogous to particles clashing).
• Years and eons pass, and a variation of Mario World appears.
• Mario is a player in the game.
• After several iterations of the game, Mario develops something like consciousness or ego.
• The properties of his ego or awareness are seemingly infinite, since they can derive and explicate from the world, he's observing the world, taking in the world, and forming opinions on the best possible survival: jumping over pits, stomping on Goombas, avoiding lava, collecting power-ups, dodging fireballs, using invincibility stars, riding Yoshi, avoiding Thwomps, swimming through underwater levels, and not only can he observe, think, and strategize to reach the princess, but he can also extrapolate infinite possibilities of what to do or avoid, his mind is truly infinite!

Yes, it's true that if Mario’s consciousness ceases to exist, the Mario world would cease to exist for him, but not for Princess Peach, Bowser, mushrooms, etc. Or at the very least, it wouldn’t be a logical conclusion to immediately assume for now.

So now the question is: what implies that the quality of Mario’s consciousness is the original reason X (the Creator)? Yes, I agree that all is happening within Mario’s perception, within him, but you can’t really say that’s the reason. It’s like saying, “Since a poison flower killed him, that means the poison flower was God because it shut off his entire experience!” It's the ultimate truth, the final authority, since it had the last say on Mario, it is the creator of the world! The properties of God, the Creator, are the same as those of the poison flower; it must be so!”

Now, if I assume another scenario: I'm the game dev. I create Mario. The same iteration happens. What implication or logical jump is there to say that my consciousness is the same consciousness given to Mario? That makes very little sense to assume.

Now, finally: Mario is self-deluded, and he is actually the one spawning me, creating me, creating him, and all the other items. Fine, but holy fuck, is this a weird jump? What kind of logical derivation supports this claim?

I think the part of me that is confused is this: I don't see why nature couldn't have just, through millions of iterations and evolution, spawned consciousness. Now, as an "experiencer" of that consciousness, I can look into the inner workings of my mind, notice how grand and ever-infinite it is, and make conclusions like: I can only be the one consciousness, and everything is a spawn of my creation. And since it is infinite and can hold any perception ever, that means it’s God, because it cannot imagine anything outside of itself. But again, that’s all happening within my mind and my point of view. Just like how a dog could also have the same experience of its infinite mind (a lower kind of infinite perception). A dog might notice it can imagine infinite versions of a beef jerky and think, 'Omg! My mind can hold any possibility ever! Look how infinite I am! I must be the creator of this universe, I am God!

And if the argument is, “Well, reality is mental, made of abstractions! And since it’s mental, it has to be inside of someone's/something's mind,” (which is an assumption leap, but sure, even if I grant it), who’s to say the cycle can’t repeat all over again?

There’s a mental "creator" → Big Bang → (insert evolutionary processes here) → creates a random conscious human. There's nothing here to suggest that human consciousness is anywhere close to what God is.

Can’t I make an argument that the mind, at a certain point of Highest Consciousness, reaches peak infinity and can only loop onto itself? It cannot know outside of itself, so it starts saying and deluding itself that it created everything since it cannot know better. It makes sense that a creation cannot fully imagine/re-do its creation process, just like a boy can never truly experience what it’s like to give birth, or how software can’t create the hardware it runs on.

• Look at this infinite world! If I die, it disappears; therefore, I must be God, because it all depends on me!
• Look at all the infinite possibilities and perceptions I can take in. Since my mind seems to have godlike properties, doesn’t that mean I am God?
• Everything appears to need a creation chain, which implies that imagination or mental phenomena must come first. And since my mind is the only one I can directly confirm, it must mean I’m the original creator!
• The only thing that’s ever been consistently present in my life is my perception… or has it? I wasn’t conscious during the first years of my life. Even now, my consciousness and perception disappear during deep sleep, yet I still wake up afterward. So why not say that my survival impulses are the only things that have truly been consistent? Are those the actual God? That could be a counter to the 'neti-neti' approach.

I really don't know if I'm making sense or not. I really apologize. By the way, my goal is not to spread blasphemy at all. I just want to deconstruct and contemplate. This has been one of the main things I’ve struggled to grasp and pass through in my comprehension and trips. I’m not claiming any of the above is true or absolute; I plan to continue deconstructing these scenarios and questions, and during my next trip, reflect on all of this. I just wanted to share it here in case anyone has any insights or sees flaws in my logic! Perhaps it can also help further and crystallize the proofs of God! Thank you all  

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

you understood Consciousness, I would know it.

Could be but maybe if you read what I say you could agree, maybe not:

Imo the thing is not knowing that reality is conciousness but be one with the absolute. It's the same if you call it conciousness, ok, I can accept that term if I interpret it as reality , but knowing that I am reality, or conciousness, is not important, the point is being it absolutely here and now without any separation, be the totality without hindrance. 

I think you can't say that what I said is a deep mistake or a trap, maybe it's a different interpretation, but I'm not excluding anything or being close minded. Im not denying the mind, the ideas, the conciousness, god or anything, I just say that what you are is what you are, and to realize it you have to trascend all the barriers and open your being absolutely. Then at least for me, it's not like: I'm conciousness. Because that would be a closure. It's just total, absolute. But of course you can say that this is conciousness of being absolute, but I perceive something let's say distorted in the very moment that I try to define. Then when people say: I'm conciousness taking forms, I immediately perceive a mistake that closes their mind an prevent them to see. But as I said I'm not going to point it again and again or arguing with james or water river and others about this, thats pointless, drain of energy. Anyone can see the thing as then can, that needing I have of correcting anyone is let's say, not necessary anymore. 

[James123]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I am trying to help you realize God. This is the whole point of my work.

Do you teach that actually what God or absolute Truth is actually letting go all experiences (including experiences under influence of psychedelics)?