You cannot know Awareness

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh maybe thats just how it is for u

Tho for me sometimes when I checkout this forum I dont feel myself becoming more enlightened but less. My awareness has changed.

Not structurally, at least not yet perhaps we will come up with an internet brain rot meme, if used too often, but functionally. Just as if I am shown a scary image followed by w happy image or vice versa. All unexpectedly.

That is actually thr most fascinating fMRI experiment

best wishes 

[Mellowmarsh]

7 minutes ago, oOo said:

i am not going to try convince u. U seem locked in ur frame.

Do you honestly think I have a need to be convinced of what I already understand.

I only know my own mind and how it works, no one will convince me otherwise of what I already know. 
There is only my frame here that I have to refer to. I’m not someone else, and nobody else is me.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

Believe or not, I’m here for my own entertainment purposes only. I’m completely self loving and completely selfish to the core.

Byeee, and thanks for swinging by with your opinion which you are entitled to have, of course. I’m in no frame of mind to deny you your own truth.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh 

I would not comment here if I was here purely for my "own truth."

That would make me as equally selfish as you have claimed yourself to be. Detailing at least implicitly how you were here just to waste, in this case, my time before I decided to comment, would have been appreciated. 

I clearly stated I was looking to observe and support discussion on an ontological to scientific reality. That is not "my own truth".

Please choose to avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again.

That is my personal boundary, and that is the second/third boundary broken. Thank you.

Edited yesterday at 02:18 PM by oOo

[Mellowmarsh]

1 minute ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh I would not comment here if I was here purely for my "own truth."

That would make me as equally selfish as you have claimed yourself to be. Detailing at least implcitly how you were here just to waste, in this case, my time before I decided to comment, would have been appreciated. 

I clearly stated I was looking to observe and support discussion on an ontological to scientific reality. 

Please choose to avoid mentioning my name before mischaracterising me again.

That is my personal boundary, and that is the second boundary broken. Thank you.

Good for you.

 

Good luck finding a sparring partner to discuss ontological to scientific reality. But discussing BS is not my style.

[oOo]

@Mellowmarsh this is now the fourth boundary broken.

If there is bullshit, state it, or respect my stance as I have respected your own sovereignty accordingly. 

You have shifted from ignorance to denial to frame control and now disrespect because u feel cornered when if u were just cool with things, u would have just had interesting questions that led this conversation somewhere

As stated and I quote:

"avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again."

 

Read your own signature, thats where I got the inspiration.

 

 

 

 

That said.

 

Very politely now.

 

Fuck off.

 

Do not mention my name or refer to me in any way shape or form again. Thank you.

 

 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh this is now the fourth boundary broken.

If there is bullshit, state it, or respect my stance as I have respected your own sovereignty accordingly. 

You have shifted from ignorance to denial to frame control and now disrespect because u feel cornered when if u were just cool with things, u would have just had interesting questions that led this conversation somewhere

As stated and I quote:

"avoid mentioning my name directly or indirectly before mischaracterising me again."

 

Read your own signature, thats where I got the inspiration.

 

 

 

 

That said.

 

Very politely now.

 

Fuck off.

 

Do not mention my name or refer to me in any way shape or form again. Thank you.

 

 

 

Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

[oOo]

 

And now u r directly quoting me as a part of some strange ego game u have going in ur own imagination

 

43 minutes ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh in generality u r irrefutably. Incorrect.

Inside ur own world, u r undeniably "frame/praise worthy"

As I said. It's fine. Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Because u r just here to tell everyone what u have already figured out about what is personal for u, which is fine, not if u want to extend the conversation to either an ontological or scientific generality 

Take care

 

 

12 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Believe wat u want. We dont have to continue, in fact I would prefer if we didnt.

Thats now the 5th.

Though my mistake, I mistook you for someone that was at least 18 years of age.

My bad. 

Observations made. Points taken. Will just scroll right past you next time. 

Done.

 

 

 

[No1Here2c]

2 hours ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh this is now the fourth boundary broken.

If there is bullshit, state it,

@oOo

I cannot simply let this slide

Your Boundaries are completely and utterly Illusory.

There is Bullshit.

And you are under the Influence of it.

Highly Intoxicated.

You should see a Doctor, Warden, or Reverend.

Edited yesterday at 05:07 PM by No1Here2c
𓅂

[No1Here2c]

2 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Believe or not, I’m here for my own entertainment purposes only. I’m completely self loving and completely selfish to the core.

@Mellowmarsh

You & I both Love, you & I both.

Edited yesterday at 05:00 PM by No1Here2c

[Mellowmarsh]

Just now, No1Here2c said:

@Mellowmarsh

You & I both Love you & I both

That’s nice. I relate. 🙂

[James123]

5 hours ago, oOo said:

@Mellowmarsh i am not going to try convince u. U seem locked in ur frame.

Awareness can also go up and down depending on the thoughts and therefore content within them, and meanings from those can go up and down depending on kind of awareness that deoends on consciousness state. That was the main point 

Believe what u want 

No. Awareness or consciousness is always what is, and it is You.

Only attachments to thoughts so called creates something like "awareness can also go up or down". 

When there is no attachments, thoughts are always and only thoughts, you are always and only what You are. 

State of consciousness is bullshit. There is no such thing as state, because it is directly You.

State of consciousness is an another attachment.

[Mellowmarsh]

9 hours ago, James123 said:

No. Awareness or consciousness is always what is, and it is You.

Only attachments to thoughts so called creates something like "awareness can also go up or down". 

When there is no attachments, thoughts are always and only thoughts, you are always and only what You are. 

State of consciousness is bullshit. There is no such thing as state, because it is directly You.

State of consciousness is an another attachment.

Beautifully put. 😊

[Mellowmarsh]

Balance is the centre of truth. 

[oOo]

@James123 this is outdated and lacks nuance. 

Educating yourselves on old philosophy books, people with less rigour or whom lack a more ‘difficult’ understanding of consciousness is perfectly within anyone’s realm of freedom.

I will not recommend it however outside of beginner introductions, and much less recommend it as a pathway towards cloning your perspectives across the internet-scape, such as internet forums like this.

Perhaps this thread should be placed in the “Conformity Examples Mega Thread”.

James, do not quote me again, you are wasting my time by avoiding the bare minimum of legwork to critique me.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance in and of itself, just willful ignorance, as it spreads like conformity. And that well… genuinely hurts our planet. 

Recent consciousness science does not support the claim that “state of consciousness is bullshit.” Meditation research distinguishes state and trait effects; anaesthesia research distinguishes unconsciousness, internal awareness, connected consciousness and disconnected consciousness; and major 2025 consciousness studies still empirically test neural correlates of conscious experience. So the more precise point is more something like absolute awareness may be framed as invariant though embodied access to awareness is clearly state-dependent. Not that “states of consciousness are bullshit”.

Meditation and complexity: a review and synthesis of evidence
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf013/8152225

Neural field modeling and analysis of consciousness states in disorders of consciousness
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf055/8380232

Neural activity patterns stabilize during wakefulness and conscious experience
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003252

Brain–body interactions associated with the transition from mind-wandering to awareness
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf059/8380233

Distinguishing cortical indexes of arousal and awareness during propofol anaesthesia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.02.668275v1.full.pdf

 

If you two are just trying to conform with Leo, let me handle that point blank here for you now.

Just because you can quote Leo saying “brains and neurons are not real”, does not at all mean he is trying to express that science should not be done on brains and neurons and that this research has nothing to offer on our understanding on brains and neurons.

This is a nuanced point . 

This thread has failed as a consequence of avoiding exploring, dissecting and resolving nuance.

There is partial validity to what you have both said in and of itself in generality, but not in whole, and not in practical determination.

That is for you to workout for yourselves.

You are both now purposefully trying to take up my time for no reason other than to keep me here while projecting your lack of understanding onto me and asking me to blindly accept it while ignoring established scientific facts and well… common sense examples.

I am now moving on. I ask you politely, please refrain from quoting or referring to me in future for this thread. And the same goes politely to everyone else, unfortunately, the conversation has derailed too much from what would have otherwise been mature salvation.

Edited 14 hours ago by oOo

[James123]

13 minutes ago, oOo said:

@James123 this is outdated and lacks nuance. 

Educating yourselves on old philosophy books, people with less rigour or whom lack a more ‘difficult’ understanding of consciousness is perfectly within anyone’s realm of freedom.

I will not recommend it however outside of beginner introductions, and much less recommend it as a pathway towards cloning your perspectives across the internet-scape, such as internet forums like this.

Perhaps this thread should be placed in the “Conformity Examples Mega Thread”.

James, do not quote me again, you are wasting my time by avoiding the bare minimum of legwork to critique me.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance in and of itself, just willful ignorance, as it spreads like conformity. And that well… genuinely hurts our planet. 

Recent consciousness science does not support the claim that “state of consciousness is bullshit.” Meditation research distinguishes state and trait effects; anaesthesia research distinguishes unconsciousness, internal awareness, connected consciousness and disconnected consciousness; and major 2025 consciousness studies still empirically test neural correlates of conscious experience. So the more precise point is more something like absolute awareness may be framed as invariant though embodied access to awareness is clearly state-dependent. Not that “states of consciousness are bullshit”.

Meditation and complexity: a review and synthesis of evidence
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf013/8152225

Neural field modeling and analysis of consciousness states in disorders of consciousness
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf055/8380232

Neural activity patterns stabilize during wakefulness and conscious experience
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3003252

Brain–body interactions associated with the transition from mind-wandering to awareness
https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2025/1/niaf059/8380233

Distinguishing cortical indexes of arousal and awareness during propofol anaesthesia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.08.02.668275v1.full.pdf

 

If you two are just trying to conform with Leo, let me handle that point blank here for you now.

Just because you can quote Leo saying “brains and neurons are not real”, does not at all mean he is trying to express that science should not be done on brains and neurons and that this research has nothing to offer on our understanding on brains and neurons.

This is a nuanced point . 

This thread has failed as a consequence of avoiding exploring, dissecting and resolving nuance.

There is partial validity to what you have both said in and of itself in generality, but not in whole, and not in practical determination.

That is for you to workout for yourselves.

You are both now purposefully trying to take up my time for no reason other than to keep me here while projecting your lack of understanding onto me and asking me to blindly accept it while ignoring established scientific facts and well… common sense examples.

I am now moving on. I ask you politely, please refrain from quoting or referring to me in future for this thread. And the same goes politely to everyone else, unfortunately, the conversation has derailed too much from what would have otherwise been mature salvation.

Find yourself in the body, then we talk.

Real meditation is not meditating, it is surrendering the meditator.

Peace.

Edited 14 hours ago by James123

[Mellowmarsh]

34 minutes ago, James123 said:

Find yourself in the body, then we talk.

Real meditation is not meditating, it is surrendering the meditator.

Peace.

❤️

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Balance is the centre of truth. 

Art is Natural. ( Stateless)  The nature of which is ARTificial. ( State) 

[Mellowmarsh]

53 minutes ago, oOo said:

state-dependent.

State dependency is contingent upon nothing which is everything.