Why is this explanation for conciousness insufficient? It is self-contained.

[Forestluv]

39 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Serotoninluv so are you saying that there is a second-order level of conciousness which is material which is what this scientific explanation  is pointing to, and a first order which is immaterial which is what Leo is talking about? Ultimately both are part of the first order or absolute conciousness . Right?

Not really. This is moving into more construction. You've now created second-order material consciousness and first-order immaterial consciousness. This is creating more distinctions and dualities.

If it were me, I would go more fundamental. I would ask simple questions and not theorize about it. For example "What is physical and nonphysical?" and then sit still in emptiness and see what appears. Observe around you. Don't go into thought stories and analysis. . . .Other good ones are "what is existence?" and "what is real and imagined?". . . Yet when my mind goes into analysis, I let go or take a break. For me, it's more insightful when it is organic arising. For example, I may enter a space in which I cannot tell the difference between real and imagined. For example, I may lay under a tree for hours staring at the leaves flutter and the clouds. I may enter a lucid state of awareness - in which there is no distinction between real and imagined. There just is. When I "return", the mind may start thinking "whoa, what just happened? was that real or was that imagined?". If the mind stays relaxed, insights can arise. For me, coming from a transcendent direction of the implicit and trying to communicate it explicitly is deeper than trying to intellectually / explicitly try to figure out the implicit. 

[Mongu9719]

@Serotoninluv so instead of trying to make explicit distinctions which creates further dualities I should have an implicit “experience” by observation or connecting with Being. I will try this with the question “what is physical vs non-physical” and get back to you.

[Leo Gura]

56 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Leo Gura My examination of different paradigms, my research, and my intellectualisation all distract me from becoming concious of conciousness. I can get lost in conceptualisation because the mind doesn’t want to turn inwards. Abandoning all concepts and ideas is necessary then to become concious of what conciousness is. This is what marks the transition from stage yellow to turquoise. As I long as I continue to distract myself on this forum by trying to understand awakening and conciousness the farther I get away from The Truth. The next step for me is to do the practices and stop distracting myself on this forum. 

Don't fret too much. All this intellectualization is part of your path.

But yes, eventually you will transcend it all.

Awakening is not  straight path from A to B. It's a twisted path from A to Z with a bunch of stuff in between.

You are struggling to realize you ate God. It doesn't make sense to your human mind how it is possible that you could be God. But keep at it and one day you will awaken. Psychedelics help enormously.

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, Mongu9719 said:

@Serotoninluv so instead of trying to make explicit distinctions which creates further dualities I should have an implicit “experience” by observation or connecting with Being. I will try this with the question “what is physical vs non-physical” and get back to you.

That is a good inquiry question. Just a couple suggestions that I have found helpful. First, if my mind goes into lots of intellectual analysis, I try to let it go. Yet passing thoughts are fine if I don't get immersed into them. For example, I may go for a walk in nature and ask "what is physical and nonphysical?" and then start walking with a clear mind. Perhaps I hear a bird chirp and the thought arises "was that physical or nonphysical"? Yet then if my mind goes into theory about wavelengths, air disturbances, eardrums etc. - I let it go. . . There is a place of not knowing. It is a beautiful place of curiosity, exploration and discovery. 

As well, it's not just a matter of either "physical" or "nonphysical". I stay open to the interplay. During my nature walk, perhaps there are things that are "sorta physical and sorta nonphysical". Sorta a combination of both. There are an infinite number of connections between the two. One thing that would be fun for me it to go in nature and look for things that are physical, nonphysical and hybrids of physcial/nonphysical. I observe and observe. It can be fascinating. . . Overtime, the distinction between physical and nonphysical starts to break down and there is awareness of how it's being created.

A more contextual approach would be to explore quantum physicals. Also, I've found lucid dreaming and psychedelics to helpful. 

 

[Mu_]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Stating "the brain produces consciousness" doesn't explain the ISness of consciousness. If the brain produces consciousness, then that means the brain itself is not consciousness. To me, the doesn't do much to answer what consciousness itself actually is. This is a trap of being contracted within materialism. Yet I'm not taking the opposite of immaterialism. . . . Physical vs. Nonphysical is a duality that breaks down.

My question for someone that is a pure materialist would be: what material thing is actually consciousness? . . . Not what material thing is associated with consciousness or what material thing produces consciousness. Rather what material thing itself is consciousness?

I tagged you since I thought you might appreciate the approach to such questions since you seem like the type of guy to see things from lots of angles.  

Basically this brain produces consciousness theory leads perfectly into no-self, potentially.  If you followed my line of thinking in the paragraph above.  Most materialists don't even know what ISness of consciousness means, consciousness simply being a by product of brain functioning explains enough what it is and where it comes from, and lines up with experimentation (to the extent it has so far).  So rebutting with ISness, I'm not sure is a great argument point.  But taking a materialist down the line of thinking that if its all brain and there's no you or I having this conversation or ever being there to perceive or do anything, so why not relax, can hopefully open up total surrender to just being along the ride of being a process out of no ones control.  What do you think?  This is just for fun and in the sport of looking at how to effectively work with belief systems.

[Forestluv]

@Mu_ I’ve been pretty sloppy with terms today. My mind is like soup. 

What you wrote reminds me od Sam Harris’ line of thinking that “I am not the author of my thoughts”. After watching this video, I started looking for the author of my thoughts and couldn’t find it. This helped reveal the fallacy of free will. For me, it was like thoughts were appearing from some mysterious place. 

What you are proposing would be even more tangible to a materialist: if thoughts/awareness is simply physical molecules in the brain, then “you” are simply neurons and neurotransmitters. I think most materialists would be ok with this in theory, until they realized what this means for “me” on an existential level - that “I” don’t have free will. Then perhaps open them up for some existential inquiry like “who am I?”.

I hadn’t thought about that as an approach. One could call a materialist on their bluff “Yep, consciousness is simply neuronal activity in the brain. “You” are just a bunch of neurotransmitters bouncing around. There is noone in control of thoughts and actions.” I think many materialists would pause and think “Wait a minute. . . That would mean. . . “