Depersonalisation ≠ Enlightenment

[Elliott]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

No no, it's that you didn't understood 

Well, let's try a simpler language:

man, it's pure consciousness, pure love, and it's so so wonderful. You are god man, and those scientist are dumb and we are elite. 

Did you get it? Maybe resonates more. The point is touching the fiber of each person. 

Beautiful. Publish a paper, understanding consciousness would win you a million dollar Nobel peace prize. Make sure you throw in "see on brain scanners". You never answered, you've seen these scans?

Edited yesterday at 02:03 PM by Elliott

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Beautiful. Publish a paper, understanding consciousness would win you a million dollar Nobel peace prize. Make sure you throw in "see on brain scanners". You never answered, you've seen these scans?

Its so simple that nobody is going to give any nobel prize, look:

Let's see, consciousness, like anything else, is a manifestation of reality, right? That is, it's reality in a specific manifestation. The question is: what's the difference between consciousness and the absence of consciousness?

Duality, temporal awareness, and proprioception. If you eliminate these three variables, there's no longer any awareness of change; therefore, there's only absolute homogeneity, which is no different than nothing, according a subjective experience. That's clear, isn't it?

So, what makes duality, etc., possible? Life. Without life, there is no duality. Life is a structure that appears in the universe, self-preserving and self-repairing. It's nothing special or miraculous; it's simply another phase leap in complexity after complex molecules like RNA.

Life is a universe with its own laws within another universe (or if you prefer a system within another system) whose laws it doesn't violate, with an incessant flow of information occurring between them (the universe is made of information, which, as we all know, is equivalent to relationship).

This duality between outside and inside increases in complexity if nothing limits it, as we see inevitably happening in the universe, leading to complex organisms that interact with the primary universe through an interface that creates a model in which both external and internal reality appear.

This interface is a stable, dynamic quantum cloud, which is another universe within the secondary universe called life. At a certain point, this interface ceases to be purely sensory and becomes symbolic, taking another phase leap, and we have the human mind, interconnected with other minds. And this is consciousness. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Then you could ask: but why all those structures appears? Who is creating them? Nobody is creating them and the explanation of how they appear is same simple than the one about consciousness, maybe more. 

Edited yesterday at 03:25 PM by Breakingthewall

[Willy Phallicus]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Well, you have a phone in your hands instead a stone, it's not small difference 

Yes, of course you're right.  A rock and a phone are two very different things.  Thanks for the revelation.

[Elliott]

27 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Let's see, consciousness, like anything else, is a manifestation of reality, right? That is, it's reality in a specific manifestation. The question is: what's the difference between consciousness and the absence of consciousness?

No. Consciousness is just a made up concept. What created consciousness, @Breakingthewall ? What was before consciousness? What is consciousness built out of?

 

You're actually using newtonian physics while trying to use terms from quantum physics, they're completely unrelated and contradicting concepts.

Write the paper, I'll submit it and take the money.

Edited yesterday at 03:49 PM by Elliott

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, Elliott said:

No. Consciousness is just a made up concept. What created consciousness, @Breakingthewall ? What was before consciousness? What is consciousness built out of?

 

You're actually using newtonian physics while trying to use terms from quantum physics, they're completely unrelated and contradicting concepts.

Write the paper, I'll submit it and take the money.

Did you read what I wrote? Try, it's not so difficult. If you don't understand any point just ask

[Natasha Tori Maru]

The argument works as a model explaining how complexity, life, and symbolic processing build structured consciousness, but it mistakenly equates lack of perceived difference with absence of experience.

It overreaches by tying duality and consciousness too tightly to life and symbolism. Duality isn't exclusively tied to life. 'life is required for duality'??? Hot. Cold. Particle/particle. Life enables functional duality (self vs environment) not duality itself.

It ultimately explains how consciousness is organized and expressed, but doesn’t resolve why subjective experience exists at all, leaving the core issue identified by David Chalmers (hard problem of consciousness) still unanswered.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

ultimately explains how consciousness is organized and expressed, but doesn’t resolve why subjective experience exists at all, leaving the core issue identified by David Chalmers (hard problem of consciousness) still unanswered.

Yes, I explained it, and it's also closely related to enlightenment. I'll do it again from a different angle.

Let's see, "subjective experience" means that I have sensations, I am having an experience. First, we need an "I." An "I" is a self-preserving and self-repairing system. This creates a seemingly absolute separation between the inside and the outside.

A closed system arises within another open system, the universe, and even though it is part of it, it operates as separate.

The necessarily controlled and selective exchange of information between the two is what creates consciousness. Consciousness is reality in a concrete dimension: that of being aware of oneself, perceiving oneself, knowing oneself.

Reality doesn't need to know itself to exist, but it inevitably does so because it is limitless. In the absence of limits, sufficiently complex, self-preserving relative systems will emerge infinitely.

Why? Because without limits, the change of relative state is inevitable, and the grouping of fluctuations into complex patterns, like a brain, is also inevitable.

Regarding enlightenment, consciousness is made of the same "material" as reality itself; it is reality itself. Your consciousness is the totality in a form. Therefore, make the relational transparent, and the absolute will open up. It is both simple and difficult.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

overreaches by tying duality and consciousness too tightly to life and symbolism. Duality isn't exclusively tied to life. 'life is required for duality'??? Hot. Cold. Particle/particle. Life enables functional duality (self vs environment) not duality itself.

I mean the apparently absolute duality between a self preserved system and the exterior. Two different realities in relationship. Not the relative differences inside of a system that are happening without pause 

2 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

but it mistakenly equates lack of perceived difference with absence of experience.

If the perceived change is zero, the experience is zero. If you are totally private of senses there is still constant movement creating the sensation of being you, the movement of time. If they disappear, experience disappear , like anesthesia. 

If you open your heart to absolute absence of consciousness, death, seeing it as real and true and alive as consciousness you can open yourself to the unlimited 

If you need consciousness as fundamental, you are closing yourself in it, needing control, not capable of total abandoning. Very common in spirituality, because consciousness can't conceive absence of consciousness as real. 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:55 PM by Breakingthewall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Breakingthewall repeating the same thing in different words does not adequately get around the mistake of equating lack of perceived difference with no experience. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[VeganAwake]

18 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ultimately, the self is not a thing but a process, a constantly updated model
shaped by memory, emotion, body, and social context, maintained through ongoing neural activity
It feels solid because it is continuously reconstructed. But look, you could say the same about the body .

Yes that is exactly what the "sense of self" can seem to feel like,.......a long drawn out process being constantly updated by societal conditioning (surroundings)

What's being said is that can end. 

That solid feeling of a "someone" being continuously reconstructed can stop.

And when it does, it's simultaneously recognized to have never actually started. 

It's an energetic shift away from upholding that "needy reconstructing self illusion".

Its permanent and not anything like a passing nondual state, personal awakening experience or drug indused no self glimpse.  

It's very rare.

Infact since about 2018 I've only noticed maybe 2 people on this forum, and 7 or 8 others in total, clearly talking about what I'm describing here.

It's unknowing because its the end of the knower which never actually existed.

It's unconditional freedom for nobody which was already the case ❤️ 

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

long drawn out process being constantly updated by societal conditioning (surroundings)

What's being said is that can end. 

That solid feeling of a "someone" being continuously reconstructed can stop

It's not constructed only by social conditioning but by biological structure. 

 

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

It's unknowing because its the end of the knower which never actually existed

The knower exist since there is consciousness. You could say that you have transcended the social ego, but you still exist as conscious being, and this implies knowing. You know that you are. 

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Breakingthewall repeating the same thing in different words does not adequately get around the mistake of equating lack of perceived difference with no experience. 

The absence of change is equivalent to no experience because experience is the awareness of change. Manifest reality is constant change on all levels; nothing is static. Static is equivalent to non-existence; reality is never static. If you expand anything, you will reach endless vibrations. Even absolute emptiness is full of quantum fluctuations. Static doesn't exist; it's the non-existent interval between two fluctuations.

Maybe you could think that if you are in deep meditation there is no change and there is experience, but there are billions of fluctuations creating that experience.