You cannot know Awareness

[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@James123 this is outdated and lacks nuance.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James, do not quote me again, you are wasting my time by avoiding the bare minimum of legwork to critique me.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 Saturday at 06:17 AM 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 Saturday at 06:25 AM 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. 

[Mellowmarsh]

57 minutes ago, oOo said:

You are both now purposefully trying to take up my time for no reason other than to keep me here

Nothing is keeping you here. You are always free to enter or leave at will.

Intention is the rider of the will. 

“The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection, the water has no mind to receive their image”

 

 

[oOo]

“She sure showed him.”

- said no one and everyone in One and Nothing of God.

This has turned into a cartoon show not a mature conversation.

As I requested, please leave me out of it.

Edited Saturday at 07:33 AM by oOo

[Mellowmarsh]

11 minutes ago, oOo said:

As I requested, please leave me out of it.

As stated earlier. One is free to enter or leave here at will.

Nothing is holding you here against your will. 
 

If your true desire is to be left out of it, then it’s probably wise not to get in what you don’t want to be in. 

Namely, nothing is forcing you to want what you don’t want. 

[Mellowmarsh]

24 minutes ago, oOo said:

This has turned into a cartoon show not a mature conversation.

This topic thread in my opinion is an open invitation for both immature or mature conversation always.

 Feel free to discuss the topic…(you cannot know Awareness ) any time bro 😎 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 07:56 AM by Mellowmarsh

[Mellowmarsh]

The Gadfly approach…
 

“I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do" 

 

This quote comes from Plato’s account of the Apology, representing Socrates’ explanation of his wisdom. He argues that true wisdom lies in recognizing one’s own ignorance, unlike others who falsely believe they possess knowledge. This is the foundation of the "Socratic paradox"—knowing that you know nothing.