Theory of ConsciousnesssteemCreated with Sketch.

head-915129_1920.jpg


It is the single most important question of Philosophy, that philosophers have been wondering about for thousands of years. It is pretty much the most important question that I can think of, because if solved, it would solve all other questions. It is the fundamental question, and everything else is derived from this. So humans have been trying to solve this question, but from what I have seen, nobody has came close to it.

I believe I found the answer to the question, and thus solved the biggest problem, simply by realizing that the question is misleading, and applying what I have already known, and talked about in my past articles.



Intro

First of all, the question is misleading, since many philosophers, but mostly scientists, who actively research consciousness, like neuro-scientists, are actually confusing it's definition. So what is consciousness? First we need to define the term.

Wikipedia

Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.

merriam-webster

the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought
the totality of conscious states of an individual
the normal state of conscious life
the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

dictionary.com

the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Now here is the problem. They are all referring to the same thing, and I assume the neuro-scientists and most philosophers (except the really thorough ones like me) refer to the same thing.

So these definitions refer to the Conscious Mind. The "You" that is doing the conscious things, otherwise called the "Ego", it is technically the Mind as it is.


The Body & Mind

So if this is what they refer as consciousness, then they are false, or bare minimum incomplete. If this is what consciousness means, then there is a problem, because there is something beyond this. But I would not call this consciousness, because we already have a definition for this phenomena: the Mind, Ego, Conscious Mind, "ghost inside the machine", etc...

So the way a human works is that it has a body, and a brain. The body is a biological machine. The body gathers inputs from various senses, and the brain is like the CPU. While the Mind is just the point-of-view from the CPU. The question is, who is watching it? Who is the interpreter?

In other words, yes the Mind is derived from the brain. And if the brain dies, the Mind goes away. That is well known in neuro-science. Nobody doubts that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir8XITVmeY4

The question is, is there something beyond the Mind? Because as any CPU, it needs interpretation. Who is the interpreter? Who is watching the watcher?


Beyond the Mind

The Conscious Mind, or the Ego, is what you think consciousness means, but it's not. When you are awake, you are constantly thinking. Part of it is conscious, a large part of it is unconscious, like instincts, or the Autonomic nervous system, now that is what it means to be an average human living day-to-day.

But when you dream, the voluntary control goes away, but you are still experiencing it from 1st point of view, like if watching a movie in the cinema. So the Ego is still there, "watching" it what you dream, and sometimes interfering with it, like how lucid dreams can occur, where you can take control of the dream.

So the Mind is like a giant container, where thoughts pop up randomly (or perhaps not random, but influenced by the body), and a dream can roll out. And in the awake stage you have control over it, while in the dreaming stage you don't.

Now in meditation, there are no thoughts. So the container is empty. In proper meditation, the Mind is emptied, and there is no conscious thought going on. Your Subconscious Mind might still do something, but that is irrelevant because we are interested in consciousness, not our body.

But that doesn't stop the experience. If the Mind is empty, and there are no thoughts. You are still there, in fact this is what really shows you that there is something beyond the Mind. Because if the Mind is empty, and there are no thoughts, this proves that it's not the Mind that is the "watcher" but something beyond it.

If the Ego is put aside, that shows that it's only an illusion, that emerges out of necessity to interact with the world, but it's not the one in control.

So there are 2 layers of consciousness:

  • The superficial awareness: the Ego, Mind, or whatever you call it.
  • The real awareness: the absolute observer


God

The observer beyond the Mind, is just there as it is. There is no watcher for the watcher. There is just a watcher, that is watching what there is: existence. Yes this is God.

However, these 2 theories are actually the same thing, it's just from different views. It is exactly the same thing, because it shows 1 God to be pulling the strings behind everything, in one way or the other.

So in any case Atheism is false. Of course this doesn't mean that the Biblical God is true. It's an immaterial God encompassing everything. Consider Pantheism if it's hard to imagine, but it's the same thing as Subjective idealism or Solipsism, it's just the question from what point of view we look at it.


Sources:
https://pixabay.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness


Upvote, ReSteem & bluebutton


Sort:  

I've always felt atheism is way too sure about something that is just a belief. If you have a 5 minutes all the way up to a couple of an hours, please see this and possible enjoy at least the thoughts and possibilities https://steemit.com/beyondbitcoin/@cryplectibles/are-we-living-in-a-simulation

What if we are both watcher and watched? What if we are it?

Then Pantheism is true. And then materialism is true. And then there is no free will. And then Objectivism is true.

But this is exactly the same as subjectivism. So having free will and not having free will is exactly the same thing, it's just a question of perspective.

I know it sounds hard to comprehend, but eventually all roads lead to this conclusion. It's just how you get there defines what point of view you choose.

For example you can say that only objects exist, and then everything is just there. But that only means that it's the same object. The same way atoms come together and form a tree, and then trees come together an form a forest. Which one is there, the tree or the forest? Both. It's just a question of perspective.

If only subjects exist, then either it's solipsism, or it's subjective idealism, but either way it's only 1 "watcher", eventually.

So all 3 points of view have the same inevitable conclusion. And debating which one is the more "true" one is like debating between atom, tree, or forest. It's all the same thing, just a question of perspective.

Great debate, I was reading a comic strip from which a question was supposedly raised to "God" about which religion/perspective he preferred. The answer was "I don't care!" In some way this is the debate, does it really matter?

Not really, it doesn't have any influence in our daily lives, with our without having this knowledge ,you will still live your life the same way.

After death, I personally believe in reincarnation:

  • Either from the pantheistic view: as people die, the corpse is decaying, and it lives on in other animals and plants, as they incorporate them in their body.
  • Or from the subjectivist view, as the individual will come back, since it's the same being all the time, just in different forms.

But again, these 2 different views ,are actually the same thing. Because either way people won't have a memory of their past lives, since the data is inside the brain, and if the brain dies, it all goes away.

So dying and coming back to life without a memory of the past life, is exactly the same thing as when another person is being born. No difference.

What if it is all true, depending on what the individual watcher chooses to be true? The watcher as translator of what is being watched.

You have to explain more detailed what you mean by that?

People tend to perceive things in ways their beliefs allow them too. It may not be a reality to the total collective of human consciousness, but to the experiencer, the individual, reality appears as that which is believed in.

Psychosis as a culmination of many beliefs that are contrary to those of the majority. But to the experiencer, the perceiver, the psychopath, it is their reality.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.17
TRX 0.15
JST 0.028
BTC 56714.19
ETH 2341.70
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.37