Your response?

[nothingvoid]

I saw the following response on this video: 

 

 

And then I saw the following response in the comments: 

Why it’s wrong Consciousness ≠ everything Consciousness requires information processing, usually by neurons. Rocks, water, air, planets don’t process information in a way remotely comparable to brains. Claiming “consciousness = universe” is unfalsifiable: nothing can prove or disprove it. “Consciousness is the brain AND everything else” Contradiction: if it’s literally everything, why don’t inanimate objects exhibit decisions, awareness, or experience? Reality check: planets don’t make choices; your chair doesn’t experience sitting. Logical test If thoughts create reality, then every sneeze, earthquake, or traffic jam is someone’s subconscious controlling matter. Absurd

How would you respond to this?

[MellowEd]

It's always the same answer here "You are God experiencing it all"

Anyway thats not true. I have seen Paradise and Hell. And God showed me a soul so I know I am beyond this material matter.

We know so little about the brain yet.

Why respond at all?

[Beans]

I am asleep

[Breakingthewall]

Consciousness requires change and duality. Therefore, it is obvious that reality is not consciousness, but rather that consciousness occurs within reality.

There is always consciousness, since "always" is a temporal concept, implying time, and therefore change. Thus, in reality, change "always" occurs, since the absence of change is "never." This does not mean that reality is change, nor that it is time, nor consciousness.

Therefore, a brain is a structure that reality creates and that causes consciousness to appear. 

Enlightenment isn't about realizing you are consciousness, because consciousness isn't a thing; it's the contrast of a change of state from another stable state. It's a relational movement that always occurs in reality.

[Malkom]

This is a test of your faith, how devoted and fanatical you are that everything is Consciousness  (joke).
But seriously. Everything that surrounds you is "intelligence"—the car you drive, the computer, the tree, the heart, the liver........ All this functionality is "intelligence."
But the author is referring to self-awareness, the ability to be aware of oneself. Also, the author of the comment apparently isn't familiar with information theory, at least not the basics; they would have a slightly different perspective on all this. Where is the line between living and nonliving matter? No one knows the answer to that question, but if you delve deeper, you get a persistent feeling, somewhere in the far corners of the mind, as if there's clearly a "programmer's" hand at work—not literally, but something like that. Moreover, in neurobiology, there are so-called problems of consciousness, and they are solvable: some process, its configuration, explains a particular effect. And then there's the so-called hard problem of consciousness. That is, qualia, subjective experience itself. In philosophy, there is a thought experiment called "Mary and the Color Red." Mary lives in a room and has never seen the color red, but she studies it, its spectrum, how people react to it, and knows everything about this color. Suddenly, Mary leaves the room and sees this red color with her own eyes for the first time. The question is, "Will she say, yes, that's exactly it?" or "Wow, so that's what it's like?" Will knowledge of color itself be the same as experiencing color? Will experience differ from knowledge? The answer will differ (although some will say no, but they are wrong). This is the hard problem of consciousness. But in "super-Turing hypercomputing" and "hypercomputers," this answer is solvable, but here's the problem: in the universe, in ours, it is impossible in principle, for example, that it can measure everything with infinite precision, and yet we would know the answer to absolutely any question, and this is a small fraction of the possibilities, but they are absolutely real. A "hypercomputer" could answer this question. But they're impossible in our universe—that's by design, if you want to think so. It turns out that the hard problem of consciousness isn't hard, it's IMPOSSIBLE, but REAL. For example, the Multiverse theory doesn't contradict "hypercomputers," but that access is forever blocked to us.

Edited 14 hours ago by Malkom

[Malkom]

But the author is right that a chair, or planets, or whatever, even the Universe, can't think like a human being. What they think, what people animate them, is merely our projections. The question was precisely about absolute solipsism; absolute solipsism isn't connected to the ego. Being itself, Existence itself, is Consciousness. If you want to embody what was intended, become It. But everything you want, everything you desire, is only within your own framework; these are your ideas. Solipsism itself, as presented, is a somewhat infantile point of view. On the one hand, there's nothing wrong with this; it's a natural desire to be the best version of yourself or the quality of your being; in a sense, it's "God speaking" within you. But it's the Experience itself, first and foremost.

In reality, I wouldn't have responded to this commentator. I'd simply replied, "Are you out of your mind, bro?" That's how it sounds in my native language. And I'd just punch him in the forehead. Hahahaha, just kidding, just kidding. I'd respond to him by saying, "Be like a child, imagine you know nothing and believe in miracles."

Edited 12 hours ago by Malkom

[Aaron p]

3 hours ago, Beans said:

I am asleep

Same

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Consciousness requires change and duality.

Only you believe this.

[Sandroew]

 

[Breakingthewall]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Only you believe this.

It's not a belief. What is consciousness in the absence of change?

[Princess Arabia]

44 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Only you believe this.

Nope, I do too.

[Someone here]

I think there is a difference between what mysticism calls consciousness and what science calls consciousness. 

Science talks about Perception. Perception is indeed dependent on the brain . There is literally Perception centers in your brain for each sense you have like taste and smell and vision etc . This is ABC science facts .not wise to flippantly deny obvious discoveries within science. 

However..what mystical people call consciousness is EVERYTHING.  The substance of everything. The most fundamental thing ever. The thing that doesn't go away even if you sleep forever or die forever. The absolute ground of everything that is . That thing doesn't depend on a brain or on anything else..rather ..everything else depend on it .

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Consciousness requires change and duality. Therefore, it is obvious that reality is not consciousness, but rather that consciousness occurs within reality.

There is always consciousness, since "always" is a temporal concept, implying time, and therefore change. Thus, in reality, change "always" occurs, since the absence of change is "never." This does not mean that reality is change, nor that it is time, nor consciousness.

Therefore, a brain is a structure that reality creates and that causes consciousness to appear. 

Enlightenment isn't about realizing you are consciousness, because consciousness isn't a thing; it's the contrast of a change of state from another stable state. It's a relational movement that always occurs in reality.

Brains are imaginary 

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's not a belief. What is consciousness in the absence of change?

Changeless.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I think there is a difference between what mysticism calls consciousness and what science calls consciousness. 

Science talks about Perception. Perception is indeed dependent on the brain

Then use the word "perception". Or if you want to talk about being aware of being a self, then "self-aware" or "self-reflective capacity" or "meta-consciousness". Or having an inner world that creates its own representations or interpretations of an external world: intentionality. Or being awake and alert instead of asleep: wakefulness. Or being under anesthesia: anesthetized. Or being in a coma: comatose.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Nope, I do too.

You'll never hear @Breakingthewall ask "can we agree on the definition and proceed from there?", which is a common courtesy in discussions, because he is not concerned about discussing but asserting his frame. Do you feel like this describes you, @Princess Arabia ? Are you able to adapt your use of words to the situation or are you constantly stuck asserting your own frame?

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

You'll never hear @Breakingthewall ask "can we agree on the definition and proceed from there?", which is a common curtesy in discussions, because he is not concerned about discussing but asserting his frame. Do you feel like this describes you, @Princess Arabia ? Are you able to adapt your use of words to the situation or are you constantly stuck asserting your own framing of things?

I'm not stuck anywhere. I'm open to changing where I stand. 

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I'm not stuck anywhere. I'm open to changing where I stand. 

So you're able to concede to for example @Someone here defining consciousness as "everything" in one case, but also defining consciousness as "perception" in another? Generally you're able to use the word "consciousness" differently depending on the discussion you're having?

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

23 hours ago, nothingvoid said:

Why it’s wrong Consciousness ≠ everything Consciousness requires information processing, usually by neurons. Rocks, water, air, planets don’t process information in a way remotely comparable to brains. Claiming “consciousness = universe” is unfalsifiable: nothing can prove or disprove it. “Consciousness is the brain AND everything else” Contradiction: if it’s literally everything, why don’t inanimate objects exhibit decisions, awareness, or experience? Reality check: planets don’t make choices; your chair doesn’t experience sitting. Logical test If thoughts create reality, then every sneeze, earthquake, or traffic jam is someone’s subconscious controlling matter. Absurd

Well... this is just bog standard materialism.

There's no one quick deconstruction of it because it is a deep paradigm that maintains itself from all angles.

The bottom line is this guy is assuming there is a world and others. There could not be.

He has a lot of mistaken assumptions about Consciousness involving making choices, thinking, experiencing. Consciousness does not need to involve all that. Consciousness could just be a simple rock.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You'll never hear @Breakingthewall ask "can we agree on the definition and proceed from there?", which is a common courtesy in discussions, because he is not concerned about discussing but asserting his frame.

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

 

. It's not about imposing a vision, it's about presenting a logical structure without cracks. If you find flaws, then I'll admit it

Edited 9 hours ago by Breakingthewall