What's the Difference Between Consciousness and Intelligence?

[Eskilon]

7 minutes ago, Hojo said:

What knows the dream isnt real in lucid dreaming?

Me? Its true that I cant find myself in any specific place, but that realization is not profound yet like the recognition in a dream...

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

But in the "should be done" part, that requires knowing which requires intelligence. You can't have knowing without intelligence I dont think.

Not necessarily. Oftentimes people that are not particularly intelligent in a traditional sense are better at intuitively knowing that you "shouldn't", for instance, harm others, despite having no logical ground nor a capacity to clearly articulate why. They can simply act selflessly on autopilot. Of course it's equally as common if not more so for them to be selfish as shit. 

 

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

Though you can have zero intelligence which I think would be deep sleep. So consciousness can exist without intelligence, because existence exists by definition.

Can be framed in the exact opposite way, deep sleep is basically being unconscious. Existence existing by definition is a logical tautology, but equating consciousness to existence is a leap in reasoning that may or may not be true. Understanding logic and its validity requires intelligence, however its limitations are grasped through consciousness. 

 

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

To be conscious of that requires intelligence no?

Yes, although someone conscious of that may not be conscious that they're employing intelligence. Further, they can use intelligence to dismiss the role of intelligence/logic and construct a paradigm where consciousness is more fundamental; a commonplace fallacy within spirituality.

 

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

Consciousness can just be empty being there, but doing requires a type of knowing which needs intelligence.

What's the difference between being and doing? 'Just being empty' is the only way it has or ever will be, and it takes infinite intelligence (and love/selflessness) to structure reality that way, which is a doing of a sort. 

 

You might say Consciousness governs Sameness, Unity, Love; it is implicit. Intelligence governs Difference, Multiplicity, Truth, and is explicit. But that's merely a quick sloppy metaphor. The identity of Consciousness with Intelligence is the same as the identity of Love with Truth. Infinite Love is Unity through Multiplicity; in other words, Equality/Solipsism, which is True, Logical, and Perfect. In the end, all this can be explicated ad infinitum, but requires direct experience to actually grasp, as words are in the business of definition, and reality is Undefined. Nonetheless, definition is fundamental. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LambdaDelta

[Eskilon]

32 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

but equating consciousness to existence is a leap in reasoning that may or may not be true.

You are right, that's a jump. I still dont know that.

 

32 minutes ago, LambdaDelta said:

You might say Consciousness governs Sameness, Unity, Love; it is implicit. Intelligence governs Difference, Multiplicity, Truth, and is explicit. But that's merely a quick sloppy metaphor. The identity of Consciousness with Intelligence is the same as the identity of Love with Truth. Infinite Love is Unity through Multiplicity; in other words, Equality/Solipsism, which is True, Logical, and Perfect. In the end, all this can be explicated ad infinitum, but requires direct experience to actually grasp, as words are in the business of definition, and reality is Undefined. Nonetheless, definition is fundamental. 

Beautifully put. 

I think conciousness and intelligence is a marriage made in heaven, they can't be put apart. Although consciouness(if it is existence) is the only thing that seems to survive all conditions. Even the condition where theres no intelligence.

I still need to realize most of the stuff talked here, some I understand intelectually but not at the undeniable level, which I think is at the level of being.

Edited 2 hours ago by Eskilon

[Joshe]

7 hours ago, Eskilon said:

When you listen to Leo or read some trip reports here or elsewhere, you usually hear something like “I am infinitely conscious” and sometimes they will also say this also “I am infinitely intelligent”. Does this have to be absolutely linked? When you are absolutely conscious you MUST be absolutely intelligent? Can you be infinitely intelligent without being infinitely conscious?

Also, when you are infinitely conscious you don't necessarily know how to conjure a planet out of your ass… or do you?? Do you know the deep mechanics of how a planet or something like water is formed? Does being infinitely conscious mean you can do more things and understand how things work on the atomic level? If so I dont think consciousness and intelligence can be separated but they are also not the same thing?

TLDR:

1. Intelligence is an activity
2. You can't do two complex things at once (verifiable)
3. 5-MeO doesn't change this
4. You can only be intelligent about what's on the slate
5. Meta-awareness doesn't escape this
6. Intelligence = structuring, manipulating, navigating the abstract
7. It manifests as compressed gestalt
8. "Infinite intelligence" - what does that even mean?
9. They can't answer, tell you to experience it
10. Ask real questions, they shift to character attacks. When people can't escape conceptually, they escape socially.
11. The real explanation: they're high on insight

---

Explanation:

Intelligence is an activity. 

Have you ever been able to hold onto some deep awareness of your metaphysics while simultaneously equally engaged with something else complex? 

No, because consciousness has limited bandwidth. 

When you try to do it, one thing or the other will always dominate your consciousness. This means you cannot be intelligent in more than one  complex domain at a time, because how can you do multiple activities at once???

5meo does not provide this ability. 

You can only be intelligent of what is on the slate of consciousness at the time. Since you can't be simultaneously engaged with multiple things at once in a serious way, you can only exercise intelligence upon that one thing. 

And meta-awareness doesn't escape this - it also competes for bandwidth. 

Intelligence is something like the ability to structure, manipulate, and navigate the abstract and to see clearly what is happening with the thing on the slate. 

IME, it manifests as a gestalt of knowing about a particular thing. And it has to be a compressed gestalt where things are just "known" because not many things can be on the slate at once. However, the things in the gestalt are available to be retrieved if you need them, but that process isn't necessarily effortless - like the term "infinite intelligence" implies. 

This begs the question, what do you mean by "infinite intelligence"? 

I think no matter how many times you ask it of those who say it, they'll just say they can't tell you what it means and you just have to experience it for yourself. And if you start inquiring with questions like:

"When you were "infinitely intelligent," could you solve any mathematical problem instantly?"

"Could speak Japanese?"

"Did your "infinite intelligence" give you the ability to predict the stock market or see what the cure for cancer was?

When these questions come up, there's a pattern of shifting the conversation from substance to your level of development or character, call you silly, assert their hierarchy and tell you to go deeper, etc. 

To understand the grandiosity behind such claims, I think it helps to realize that some of us can get extremely high on insight and knowledge. Psychedelics can amp this up to 11. This alone likely explains the bulk of it. 

The honest position is: "I took a substance. My sense of self and limitation dissolved. I felt like I understood everything. It was the most profound experience of my life. When I came back, I couldn't verify or demonstrate any of it, and couldn't even articulate it, but it felt infinite."

But obviously, this doesn't give the ego much to work with lol. 

"Consciousness is infinite" is fine. But "I am infinitely intelligent" is just someone high af with temporary (hopefully) delusions of grandeur. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[LambdaDelta]

35 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Although consciouness(if it is existence) is the only thing that seems to survive all conditions. Even the condition where theres no intelligence.

Any and all conditions are rendered by consciousness using intelligence, so it's only natural that it should survive them. Humongous degree of intelligence goes into creating the appearance of lack of intelligence. Being totally wrong on every single issue all the time especially requires infinite intelligence, just in the opposite direction. Absolute self-deception, as it were. Complete absence of intelligence is achieved through being totally wrong about presence of intelligence. 
 

54 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

I still need to realize most of the stuff talked here, some I understand intelectually but not at the undeniable level, which I think is at the level of being.

Being is intelligence. You already implicitly recognize this. If consciousness is existence/being, and can't be separated from intelligence, what does this say about intelligence? Even the most delusional beliefs are undeniable, precisely because they exist. 
"- It would be an accursed monster — a being that should have never been born in the first place.
 - But if he is already in this world, no one has the right to deny him his instincts."

The entire spiritual endeavor is a merger of epistemology with ontology so thorough that knowing and being become fully identical, which includes the realization that they always have been. 

[LambdaDelta]

45 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I think no matter how many times you ask it of those who say it, they'll just say they can't tell you what it means and you just have to experience it for yourself.

That holds for all experience across the board, the only difference is some experiences are more accessible than others. What does it mean to win the lottery? In the unlikely event I manage to replicate the victory itself, emotionally and practically it could still mean something entirely different to me than it did to you.
Maybe people say this because they're arrogant and confused, but cannot admit it to others, much less themselves, so they play a rhetorical trick. But maybe it actually is impossible to communicate, and/or they genuinely want you to experience it for yourself, not adopt their beliefs or deny them to validate your own. We're right back at interpretation. 

[Joshe]

@LambdaDelta Of course there are times when "you have to experience it for yourself" is the only real answer. 

I'm confused by the word "infinite". The most charitable read I can come up with is people mean there is a state of being that you realize is itself infinitely perfect/intelligent and that thing is you, but you don't actually have access to functional infinite intelligence. Is that it? 

Or is the claim literally that one's own intelligence is functionally infinite in that moment? I mean, this question sounds so absurd I feel stupid for asking it, lol. Surely that's not it, right?

Edited 7 minutes ago by Joshe