Consciousness is all that there is

[PolyPeter]

On 1/22/2026 at 0:30 PM, LastThursday said:

The point is that language is being used here to set up a new belief, that may or may not be ultimately true

Ok, but then what? 

Let's analize the case in which this belief happens to "be false" (which i disagree bc it's not belief in the first place)

the belief: "Consciousness is the only thing that actually exists, everything else exists within it"

If this belief is not true then:

- consciousness is not the only thing that actually exists

- there is something outside of it, that exists too. 

- but then, for it to exist you must be able to verify its existence.

- the only tool for verifying that something exists is consciousness. 

- crap, now you have to use consciousness to verify if that thing ACTUALLY exists.

 

if S happens to exists, and you verified it, then you became conscious of its existence, then it was all the time something within consciousness reach.

if S never gets verifed, then you are just believing something might exist.

[PolyPeter]

On 1/22/2026 at 0:30 PM, LastThursday said:

Here's my thinking process.

I'd have to start with the basics. What is meant by consciousness? What is its nature?

If you say consciousness is existence then from a purely language-centric view, you're setting up an equivalance between the words consciousness and existence. It's like connecting two different coloured Lego bricks and calling it it a "belief". When you resolve the words to what they actually refer to in actuality, it could be that consciousness and existence are entirely separate categories from each other. The point is that language is being used here to set up a new belief, that may or may not be ultimately true. Consciousness may not be existence (gasp!).

If you take consciousness as a definition to be something like "all that I have already experienced". We're still playing the same linguistic trick, but at least "experience" as a word is more direct and tangible than "existence". If we examine experience then we can decompose it into various sensations (another linguistic equivalence), which can be categorised into sight and sound and touch etc. Individual sensations seem to recur, such as the coldness or roughness or brightness. Going meta we can lump all these categories of experience into one and call them "appearances", because despite the differences in sensations, there is something that connects them all: they are being experienced.

Naturally, you would ask: are the appearances happening in or on some sort of substrate? Are they like projections on a screen at a cinema? Secondly, is there a something which experiences those appearances? There's a lot of leeway here to interpret things as you want, maybe there isn't a screen, maybe there isn't a watcher etc.

Personally, I like to keep things as simple as possible. There is no screen, and there is no watcher. It's ALL just appearances. The appearances have the capacity to be aware of themselves (so to speak). Appearances just exist without support from anything else.

If that is the case, then it's worth noting that "appearances" is plural. Why is it plural? Because it seems obvious that appearances are distinct and ever changing, that there is always a multiplicity of them at all times. This would seem to completely go against the idea of a unified monolithic consciousness. But, you could ask, what about the fact that appearances exist, doesn't that unify them all? It doesn't have to. Maybe appearance A has absolutely nothing to do with appearance B, maybe they are two incompatible forms of existence? Maybe it's existences, plural.

If appearances are the base of reality, then there is no concept of existing in or of a separate consciousness container. It's just appearances.

Another way to see it is, is the Mona Lisa a woman posing or is it all just brushstrokes that come together like "a woman posing". Is the Mona Lisa one thing, or a multiplicity of different things?

You're right that language creates equivalences that may not map perfectly to actuality. Fair point.

but about this:

"Appearances just exist without support from anything else"

Who's aware of the appearances? You say "appearances have the capacity to be aware of themselves". But awareness itself is what I'm calling Consciousness.

If there's no watcher and no screen, just appearances... what makes them appearances at all?

An appearance requires appearing TO something. Otherwise it's just... what? Undefined existence?

You can't have multiplicity without unity.

Yes, appearances are plural and changing. But the fact that you can recognize them as distinct means there's something unifying them in awareness. Otherwise how would you know appearance A is different from appearance B?

The Mona Lisa analogy:

Is it one thing or many brushstrokes? Both. Depends on your frame of reference.

From one level: many brushstrokes (relative/appearances)
From another: one painting (absolute/consciousness)

You're saying "it's all just brushstrokes." I'm saying the canvas is consciousness, and yes, the brushstrokes are real too.

Not either/or. Both/and.

Appearances exist. And there's an aware substrate in which they appear.

Otherwise you're left with "multiplicity with no principle of unity", which is just another belief, isn't it?

[PolyPeter]

On 1/22/2026 at 8:33 PM, cetus said:

Let us discuss all the things that exist outside of consciousness.

😶

haha

[PolyPeter]

On 1/22/2026 at 9:31 PM, Ramasta9 said:

Existence is what is / Consciousness is what it's like to be what is

Are you making a distinction between existence and consciousness?

can you elaborate? 

[PolyPeter]

On 1/23/2026 at 7:29 AM, Davino said:

How do you know that is true?

It is true, but have you realised it? If so, how holistically? When and how was that Awakening / God-Realisation for you? Please explain

I had strong awakening about two months ago

I experienced a massive consciousness expansion after I took 100mg of changa, smokable dmt. this is about 30% to 40% N, N-DMT. 

At first it felt like "leaving my body behind the back of my head", then like floating up outside the earth, then leaving the solar system, and so on up the distinct density levels. From within this phsyical one, which is quite contracted, up until infinite expanded, void singularity, conscious.

This distinct density levels of consciousness are like "floors" on an a buildiing, and consciousness can take the elevator and go from one to the other.

Taking dmt feels, to me, like going from 1st floor to the highest floor, at top speed. While also being able to see glimpses of all the differnet floors in the way.

a similar experience I found was this one , 

, withouth the entity interactions, although i kinda saw some "other" at one of the "floors" for a very short period of time, only an glimpse.

I've already posted in detail about that trip. 

 

And I feel like it's been long enough for me to say that I've integrated the learnings.

 

Now more than ever I know what the hell this is all about. 

We are in one of many dreams. We are God as humans.

 

We humans can dream at night, and nobody is telling us to do it, we just do it. 

God creates entire universes by just being God. Imagine being able to Imagine anything.

I think there would not be a single thing that you wouldn't imagine. 

 

What's stopping God from creating?

The only way of God creating an illusion of being stopped from creating, is filtering itself down. 

Forgetting itself.

Imagining distinctions. 

Believing that it is not God.

It gets lost within its own creation to give Life to the infinite universes. 

[PolyPeter]

10 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

If so, how holistically?

I think "Conscious Cosmic Void realization" is a word that might be suited for what I experienced at the peak. 

The Integration part of it involved understanding the following:

- I am now in manual mode. I am alive as a human because I take every decision consciously.

- I am aware that habits do not change from one day to the other, but a perspective can.

- I feel 100% responsible of creating the life I desire, aware of the limitations of a human. I cannot turn off the sun and I am not responsible for what happens in the universe, but I can sleep 8 hours everyday and work towards my life goals.

 

I know have a deep appreciation for existence in the relative domain more so even than before dying on dmt. 

I can see the infinite amount of intelligence required to give rise to the universes, it is nuts that we are here right now. 

Appreciate life!!!

Edited 3 hours ago by PolyPeter

[Davino]

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I've had many realizations like that. They mean nothing; they're projections of the ego.

What is ego really?

What is the I?

Have you wondered 

19 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Only total openness is absolute; anything else is relative. Any content is noise. Love, God, all of that is a construct. The total is simply total. Open. That's it. I'm open to the openess most of time, that's my basic state. No noise, not emotional change, no sorrow, no questions, no friction, just openess happening, flow state. 

Isn't total openness loving? Isn't total openness divine? Isn't the Absolute Aware and Alive?

And how do you know you've reached the end of the path and?

 

PD: ln any case, I appreciate you brother. Un abrazo. Take care

Edited 3 hours ago by Davino

[Davino]

18 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Having a screen is over complicating the description though. Where is the evidence for a transcendental unchanging reality? All is change, all the time.

Then change is your unchanging reality 

[Davino]

@PolyPeter Good, keep up the good work. Cheers

[PolyPeter]

@Davino Thank you, cheers!

✨🌌👁️🌌✨

Edited 2 hours ago by PolyPeter

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Isn't total openness loving? Isn't total openness divine? Isn't the Absolute Aware and Alive?

it's total. Divine, alive or aware are relative

1 hour ago, Davino said:

And how do you know you've reached the end of the path and?

 

Because it's open and total. 

1 hour ago, Davino said:

ln any case, I appreciate you brother. Un abrazo. Take care

Lo mismo digo!

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

the only tool for verifying that something exists is consciousness. 

If by that you mean seeing something or having a direct perception of something, that's not true. Mathematics is far more effective at determining the existence of something than direct consciousness. Logic is a much more reliable tool than sight. No one has seen a proton, but it exists, and we know how it behaves. No one has been conscious of someone other than themselves, but logically, it's absolutely certain that another being with consciousness exists. It's very simple math. Sight can deceive you, mathematics doesn't