How do you define a relative self?

[kavaris]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

...m

@Joseph Maynor@Inliytened1

6 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I don't like relative because it means everyone is the same.  There is a sense in which we are all the same, but not in every respect.  

Wai. Back up.

Lastnite somethin interesting happened..

Something cut to the core, but now we are going backwards w/ opinions, how it feels to chew watchamakalit bubblegum. I cnt find the words for it, Like...

Hold that thought, and roll it forward/back, and rub it around again. There was a very core idea (jog the right idea forward basically, as we might be able to find it as a shared form)

Edited 12 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

I guess... well.... I guess its like... if you can... Like, if its something you can do, for you, effectively speaking, to not get too hung up on the separate or relative/relevant senses of like.... like for example, if i was like "Everyone has there own path that they resonate w/ or that they feel they're on or watever", The part you dont wanna get hung up on is the "everyone" part, right? Like, if thats what you get out of it, you would always contend w/ the idea that "everyone" is doing <x>

That same sorta sense of like, colliding w/ many paradoxical things now, its an unavoidable, unmistakable thing, when you are experiencing it. But you can atleast realize it in the moment, and then try to not do it?...

I felt like there was two diff things i was juggling, but thats atleast one single idea, which also sounds like the stupdest of the things, but its an idea you could sit w/

Edited 11 hours ago by kavaris

[cetus]

How do you define a relative self?

Consciousness taking on an avatar.

[Breakingthewall]

I believe the matter of consciousness can be cleanly defined. Consciousness is reality structured in a specific way, a structure that reality takes on when life occurs. Life is essentially a self-preserving process that carves out its own rules by building a buffer against the "external" universe.

When biological complexity crosses a certain threshold, an interface emerges. This interface acts as a dynamic model of information exchange between the organism and its environment. Within that model, an unchanging reference point appears, the witness, flanked by memory and prediction.

This entire cloud of integrated processes is what we call consciousness. Its ultimate nature is still reality, but operating in a specialized mode: reality experiencing itself through the prism of a relative subject.

[Inliytened1]

11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I believe the matter of consciousness can be cleanly defined. Consciousness is reality structured in a specific way, a structure that reality takes on when life occurs. Life is essentially a self-preserving process that carves out its own rules by building a buffer against the "external" universe.

When biological complexity crosses a certain threshold, an interface emerges. This interface acts as a dynamic model of information exchange between the organism and its environment. Within that model, an unchanging reference point appears, the witness, flanked by memory and prediction.

This entire cloud of integrated processes is what we call consciousness. Its ultimate nature is still reality, but operating in a specialized mode: reality experiencing itself through the prism of a relative subject.

Getting much better with the English. Wow.  You are ions ahead of where you were a year ago.  Very nice

What do you think about the whole psychedelic topic and degrees of Infinity and this distinction between enlightenment and God realization? Because if think it's bullshit.  There is one awakening 

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

Getting much better with the English. Wow.  You are ions ahead of where you were a year ago.  Very nice

I used the translator, sometimes I write by myself and others when the topic is complex I use the Google translator, anyway I improved a lot in English those years

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

What do you think about the whole psychedelic topic and degrees of Infinity and this distinction between enlightenment and God realization? Because if think it's bullshit.  There is one awakening 

There is one awakening, the breaking of the barriers and the openess to your unlimited nature. But are degrees of dissolution of the barriers, you can't live all time without any structure

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I used the translator, sometimes I write by myself and others when the topic is complex I use the Google translator, anyway I improved a lot in English those years

There is one awakening, the breaking of the barriers and the openess to your unlimited nature. But are degrees of dissolution of the barriers, you can't live all time without any structure

Breaking the wall.

[Inliytened1]

@Breakingthewall yeah. You can realize God ever deeper but that is the power of Love. That's what Love is. It is infinite. If you thought you were on your knees before think again.  God will make you weep like you never did before. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Xonas Pitfall]

I guess I haven't quite clarified what I meant in my original question.

I'm referring to that sense of consciousness or awareness of "Hey, this is me. This is who I am. This is my name X"

More specifically, I'm wondering about the moment when "God consciousness," so to speak, chooses to localize, fragment, or embody itself as a particular individual, experiencing this specific identity for the 80 or so years of a human life.

I remember having some sense of "me" around the age of 3 or 4, but that sense of being a consistent, continuous self seemed to become much stronger around age 7, or perhaps even 10.

I suppose what I'm really curious about is why this happens, what processes might be involved, and how that sense of being a particular "me" develops.

That's also why I originally asked what "parts," "partitions," or types of substrates, whether organic or non-organic, we should examine to determine whether this particular experience of localized consciousness exists.

I'm specifically referring to metacognition and the subjective experience of being a distinct "me".

For example, in people with dissociative identity disorder (DID), we observe distinct identity states or senses of self. Similarly, with conjoined twins, even though they may share parts of a physical body, they can still have distinct individual perspectives and senses of self.

So I'm wondering what actually determines the boundaries of an individual conscious experiencer. Is it the brain, particular neural networks, memory, metacognition, some form of information integration, or something else entirely?

And could a similar kind of localized subjective experience exist in other biological organisms or even non-organic systems?

I hope that makes sense!

Thank you, everyone, for all your answers! It's been genuinely insightful reading through them.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I guess I haven't quite clarified what I meant in my original question.

I'm referring to that sense of consciousness or awareness of "Hey, this is me. This is who I am. This is my name X"

More specifically, I'm wondering about the moment when "God consciousness," so to speak, chooses to localize, fragment, or embody itself as a particular individual, experiencing this specific identity for the 80 or so years of a human life.

I remember having some sense of "me" around the age of 3 or 4, but that sense of being a consistent, continuous self seemed to become much stronger around age 7, or perhaps even 10.

I suppose what I'm really curious about is why this happens, what processes might be involved, and how that sense of being a particular "me" develops.

That's also why I originally asked what "parts," "partitions," or types of substrates, whether organic or non-organic, we should examine to determine whether this particular experience of localized consciousness exists.

I'm specifically referring to metacognition and the subjective experience of being a distinct "me".

For example, in people with dissociative identity disorder (DID), we observe distinct identity states or senses of self. Similarly, with conjoined twins, even though they may share parts of a physical body, they can still have distinct individual perspectives and senses of self.

So I'm wondering what actually determines the boundaries of an individual conscious experiencer. Is it the brain, particular neural networks, memory, metacognition, some form of information integration, or something else entirely?

And could a similar kind of localized subjective experience exist in other biological organisms or even non-organic systems?

I hope that makes sense!

Thank you, everyone, for all your answers! It's been genuinely insightful reading through them.

Leo gave it to you on a platter but you aren't listening. Go reread what he said. It was powerful. 

 

[Xonas Pitfall]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Leo gave it to you on a platter but you aren't listening. Go reread what he said. It was powerful. 

There's really no need for comments like this 😅

I read Leo's comment, and it's good.

However, I was simply hoping to have an interesting conversation about the possible processes behind this experience.

For instance, what structures or processes in the brain might give rise to this particular sense of being a localized "me"? Is it something exclusive to organic life? Does metabolism play a fundamental role? Could it have something to do with our skin acting as a sensitive, adaptive interface between ourselves and the environment? Or perhaps the default mode network and the integration of different brain regions somehow construct and maintain this continuous sense of self?

I certainly don't remember consciously "imagining myself as a human creature." I'm sure that understanding developed at some point, but I'm curious about the underlying mechanisms that allow this particular subjective experience to emerge in the first place.

I'm also interested in whether similar experiences might arise in other forms of life, or even entirely different substrates.

I was just looking for an open, curious discussion about these possibilities. There's really no need for hostility.

[Jordan of the Shire]

When light arises so does darkness

The relative self is the invention of something and in the process, its opposite. 

Knowing ourselves through the impossible math of ancestry, karma, genetics, the world. The self is a myriad of compartmentalization in relationship to everything we have ever known. 

That's why it's so tricky to stay keen on the passing of it all because at every moment the awareness is easy to latch onto something. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Jordan of the Shire

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

There's really no need for comments like this 😅

I read Leo's comment, and it's good.

However, I was simply hoping to have an interesting conversation about the possible processes behind this experience.

For instance, what structures or processes in the brain might give rise to this particular sense of being a localized "me"? Is it something exclusive to organic life? Does metabolism play a fundamental role? Could it have something to do with our skin acting as a sensitive, adaptive interface between ourselves and the environment? Or perhaps the default mode network and the integration of different brain regions somehow construct and maintain this continuous sense of self?

I certainly don't remember consciously "imagining myself as a human creature." I'm sure that understanding developed at some point, but I'm curious about the underlying mechanisms that allow this particular subjective experience to emerge in the first place.

I'm also interested in whether similar experiences might arise in other forms of life, or even entirely different substrates.

I was just looking for an open, curious discussion about these possibilities. There's really no need for hostility.

That is not spirituality that is science.  You need to just be absolute.  Because reality is that. Whad is the image of yourself that you hold? That is your identity.  Forget science. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I remember having some sense of "me" around the age of 3 or 4, but that sense of being a consistent, continuous self seemed to become much stronger around age 7, or perhaps even 10.

I suppose what I'm really curious about is why this happens, what processes might be involved, and how that sense of being a particular "me" develops.

Same. Meta-awareness becomes particularly prominent at age 7 or so. That's around the first time I started pondering my own mortality. But the core of meta-awareness comes online at age 3 or so. You could perhaps map it onto cognitive complexity theory (Model of Hierarchical Complexity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

I asked ChatGPT 6.1 Sol Max some questions about it:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6af117ce-50a0-83ed-8b57-498fbd68b013

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Xonas Pitfall]

8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is not spirituality that is science.  You need to just be absolute.  Because reality is that. Whad is the image of yourself that you hold? That is your identity.  Forget science. 

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with discussing science intertwined with spirituality on this forum. You could call the way you inject 5-MeO-DMT and other chemicals for spiritual practices a "scientific approach" and "discussing science." Science is useful in its "essence"; it's a methodological approach. Science is only not useful when it's filled with dogma.

[Xonas Pitfall]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Same. Meta-awareness becomes particularly prominent at age 7 or so. That's the first time I started pondering my own mortality. But the core of meta-awareness comes online at age 3 or so. You could perhaps map it onto cognitive complexity theory (Model of Hierarchical Complexity): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_hierarchical_complexity

I asked ChatGPT 6.1 Sol Max some questions about it:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6af117ce-50a0-83ed-8b57-498fbd68b013

Thank you! This is awesome 

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with discussing science intertwined with spirituality on this forum. You could call the way you inject 5-MeO-DMT and other chemicals for spiritual practices a "scientific approach" and "discussing science." Science is useful in its "essence"; it's a methodological approach. Science is only not useful when it's filled with dogma.

It's a big problem because it's preventing you from awakening.  So its a big problem.  Your mind wants to go back to it. That's a defense mechanism 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Xonas Pitfall]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's a big problem because it's preventing you from awakening.  So its a big problem.  Your mind wants to go back to it. That's a defense mechanism 

 

Dude, I'm just being curious, calm down

[Carl-Richard]

6 minutes ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

Thank you! This is awesome 

Np  

I also find it particularly interesting that it notes that ages 25-30 seems to be where meta-systematic can start to develop, and that's when I started to have "original" (or "organic") insights into my own field (psychology) that seemed to connect different parts of the field together. Particularly how all mental illnesses involving negative emotional cognition seem to involve a lack of perceived (or actual) control (thread).

[kavaris]

I see it like a painting yous are painting in the comments. As it transcended into more of an exploratory image based format via words.

The feeling yesterday went abstract (in my min... which is how it cut through). However, there was more of like a uh... watchamakalitz like a group effort...

Not just cause everyones on a diff pathz but specifically, from my perspective, its like, i experienced parts of @Inliytened1@Leo Gura's ideas, as a baseline for what was to be a perforation  /  And granted, later @Joseph Maynor @myself Added somethingz which then was like a diff topic i felt (or something intimately connected im not sure) but anyway thats how i mapped it out.

I say that, to allude to the sense making being very much complicated, but simple from a felt location as well. p.s. maybe i should add something bout yesterday, how i wasnt focused on the words nor their meaning... However, i was like, influenced, or gifted something, i just cant actually locate what that was exactly..

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris