William Gonzalez3 already hit the nail on the head regarding your dilemma about being awake versus asleep—basically, consciousness vs. unconsciousness. I’ll just add my two cents to what he said. Here’s the bottom line: consciousness lives or dies based on one thing. It's what I've been preaching: the ability to actually *do* things, both physically and mentally. Consciousness depends entirely on whether you are performing actions or not—stuff like exerting effort, moving, perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, or understanding. If you're doing them, you're conscious. If you aren't, you aren't. When we sleep, we stop performing these actions, so there's no consciousness. Once we wake up and start acting again, consciousness kicks back in automatically. Waking up is literally triggered by the restart of those actions. That's what defines the state of being awake.
Keep in mind, though, that your conscious state is limited by whatever those physical and mental actions allow. At any given moment, you're only conscious of whatever you've directed those actions toward. For example, if you're reading a book, you're only conscious of the content of that book and nothing else. You aren't even consciously aware of the book itself or your own existence in that moment. To become aware of the book you're reading, you have to stop reading it and redirect your attention to the object or to yourself—looking at the book, looking at yourself, or thinking about the act of reading.
The takeaway here is simple: consciousness always hinges on whether you are engaging in physical or mental activities. If you are, you're conscious, but only of what those specific actions are focused on. If you aren't doing any physical or mental work at all, you aren't conscious of anything. That's sleep. Deep, dreamless sleep. Even dreams are a form of consciousness because you're still using mental faculties—perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding.
Look, I know what you're really after. You want to know if you can stay conscious while sleeping. Yeah, it's possible through practice and meditation. It's that state where the body is out cold, but you remain awake and aware of something. This works because our "Self" is an energy (the soul) tethered to the body. Through meditation, you can essentially detach from the physical shell and let the body sleep while the "Self" stays awake. But if the "Self" also goes to sleep—meaning it stops using every single one of its mental and physical faculties—then you're in a deep, dreamless sleep, and there is absolutely zero consciousness there.
"Hmm. This actually confused me more than helped. Does this mean we're self-aware even when we're asleep?"
Why are you asking everyone else when you can just test it yourself? Run an experiment. Lie down, pass out, and see if you’re still "there." I ran the experiment on myself and figured out I'm definitely not conscious when I sleep. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying. Maybe other people are aware, but I can't check their heads—I can only check mine. When I'm out, I'm gone.
When you get down to the brass tacks of what consciousness actually is, the answer is dead simple. Consciousness is THAT WHICH EXISTS. It’s the raw material everything is made of. It builds everything from scratch—atoms, cells, planets, plants, animals, humans, you name it. Consciousness does all the heavy lifting itself. It can morph into whatever it wants, but it has to do it step-by-step through a process we call evolution. There’s a logic and a method to reaching a specific shape. Think of consciousness as dough that can be baked into an infinite variety of cookies.
Now, since consciousness handles all this solo, it obviously needs certain tools to get the job done. There are only a handful of these essential abilities, split into physical and psychic categories.
1. Physical abilities involve exertion and movement. Once consciousness exerts effort and moves, it becomes what we label as energy or matter.
2. Psychic abilities consist of observing that movement, then feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding.
That’s it. That’s the whole story of consciousness. And honestly, it's the whole story of how this entire universe functions.
By using those physical and psychic tools, consciousness can basically manifest anything it wants—it can pull off any miracle in this world. Like I said, that's the core wisdom behind how everything comes to be and exists.
So, final question: what exactly is sleep versus being awake?
Sleep is just the state where consciousness isn't using a single one of its physical or psychic abilities. In that state, there is zero awareness. While it's happening, nothing exists. This cycle repeats because using those abilities wears consciousness out. Eventually, it just wants to stop and chill. The second it rests, all the little toys it built while awake collapse and vanish. But once it’s rested, it always wants to wake up and start building new toys again until it gets tired once more. This endless loop of burning out and recharging—this back-and-forth between being awake and sleeping—goes on forever. It had no beginning, and it won't have an end.
Look, you’re putting me on the spot here. I don't have the bandwidth right now. I'll get back to you tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime, try to be a bit more specific with what you're asking. I didn't quite catch your drift. What exactly are you getting at?
"How can YOU claim that I am just an empty void, NOTHING, before you've actually convinced yourself that it really is—NOTHING. If I believe without proof, then you're just talking out of your ass."
I've realized that I am a "void," and so are you, countless times over, but you refuse to take your own experience into account. Get this: there is no other way to prove the existence of your Self to yourself—your actual Self—than through the physical and mental actions that the Self is capable of performing. We're talking about exerting effort, moving, perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding. Descartes, or anyone else for that matter, can use any one of these physical or mental acts to prove their own existence to themselves, not just through the mental act of thinking. So, just like Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am,” proving his existence through thought, he could have just as easily said, “I move, therefore I am”; “I feel, therefore I am”; “I perceive, therefore I am,” and so on.
Now here’s the question: what happens if the Self stops using its physical and mental abilities? Does it even have any proof of its existence left? What if the Self stops exerting effort, stops moving, stops perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding? Try it yourself—stop exerting effort and moving, stop perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding, and tell me what's left of your Self. Nothing! It'll be like it never existed. There won't even be a consciousness of "emptiness" or "fullness." There won't be any consciousness at all. Because you can't have consciousness of anything, let alone your Self, or whether it is "empty" or "full," as long as the Self isn't using its physical and mental abilities and actions. Those exact abilities and actions are what make the Self "full," and only while they are being used. The second those actions stop, the Self is absolutely nothing. Where is any kind of Self if it isn't exerting effort, moving, or perceiving? If it perceives nothing, feels nothing, thinks nothing, and understands nothing? It's nowhere. It doesn't exist—not the Self, nor any of its "emptiness" or "fullness." ______________
”But Buddha isn't just a historical figure. Buddha is every enlightened being.”
What "enlightenment"? Give me a break, that's nonsense. Not in the sense that a person can't "become enlightened"—meaning realizing oneself as "light"—but in the sense that "enlightenment" itself can't happen without using those specific physical and mental abilities the Self possesses. How could the Self even know it has been "enlightened" if it didn't somehow perceive, feel, experience, remember, and understand it? The point remains: if the Self shuts down all its physical and mental abilities and actions, nothing is left. Not even the Self. There is nothing.
And quit telling me I'm "talking out of my ass" without checking, experiencing, or having proof when I say the Self is "emptiness" and "nothing." If you don't believe me, I've explained how it works, so go check for yourself and see. That's better than just taking Buddha's word for it.
”Are you trying to FORCE me to accept YOUR experience?”
No. My experience of my Self is mine alone, and I'm the only one who can grasp it, just like your experience of your Self is yours and no one else's. I just want to convince you that you can't have an experience of your Self without some of the physical or mental abilities and actions that your Self is capable of performing, and that your Self is empty and nothing without them. If you don't believe me, test it yourself. And during that test, don't confuse your Self with the physical and mental actions it performs. The Self is the one performing those actions and acting as their cause; the actions themselves are the consequence, and they can't exist on their own without the Self to perform them.
”The truth is that I, as you call it, am seeking a way to be realized, but the reason isn't to attain an understanding of emptiness, but rather knowledge of fullness.”
What even is this "fullness" of the Self to you? How can you aim to realize your "fullness" before you actually realize your Self and prove whether it’s "fullness" or "emptiness"? Before any actual realization happens, all you're doing is "believing without proof" that the Self consists of some kind of "fullness" or "emptiness." You can take all those Buddha stories about fullness or emptiness—or the ramblings of people interpreting Buddha later on—and toss them straight in the trash. For the Self, the only thing that matters is your own direct experience, not what Buddha said or what his followers claim.
”Clearly, there is a reason why the Self wants to be known. But that reason, from what I can see, isn't entirely clear to you.”
You're lecturing me about Buddha's experience of "fullness/emptiness," claiming it isn't "entirely clear" to me, just like it wasn't to the interpreters of Buddha's experience. From what you're saying, I'm drawing the conclusion that Buddha's experience IS perfectly clear to you. Props to you! That means you've had it too and you've confirmed its "fullness" over its "emptiness."
”to verify, to be convinced, to understand, 'there will be no problem'—those are just old, tired clichés. Sorry, pretty unconvincing attempt!”
I see two opposing "attempts" here: 1. my attempt to convince you about the "emptiness" of the Self, and 2. your attempt to convince me of its "fullness."
Your conviction regarding the "fullness" of the Self is based on your faith in Buddha's words or the words of his interpreters, not on experience as evidence. There's nothing you can do with that kind of faith. It holds zero value, not even for you, because you DON'T KNOW if what you believe is actually true.
Meanwhile, my conviction about the "emptiness" of the Self is based on an experience that every human being has—including you—and it was that very experience I wanted to talk about, the one that doesn't require "belief." And even before I started talking about it, you already dismissed it as "old, tired clichés."
You can't ever truly live as yourself. You’re always living through something else. Take a thought, for example. It feels like the most "you" thing there is because it springs right out of your head, but it isn't actually you. A thought is just a mental action performed by the Self. It's a tool the Self uses to recognize itself, but that makes the thought a vehicle rather than the driver. Beyond just thinking, you've also got your physical movements, your struggles, and all those mental processes like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. None of that is the core; they're just the ways the Self operates.
If you’re actually living it, you have to be aware that... Everything changes along with their own world, and that’s just how it goes. "That's not even enough to offer a solid Eye doctrine."
No, the "I" never changes. It *can't* change. What changes is everything else—that "other" stuff that isn't the "I." And that "other" is just the physical and mental actions of the "I." Basically, the universe is constantly shifting because the universe is nothing more than the physical and mental activity of the "I." As long as the "I" is acting, the world exists. The second that action stops, the world vanishes. Where does all that energy and matter go when the "I" stops exerting itself? Nowhere. It’s gone. Where do perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding go when the "I" stops perceiving, feeling, remembering, thinking, and understanding? They don't exist. People screw up by wasting their lives trying to uncover truths about a world that doesn't actually exist independently. Or rather, a world that only exists as the physical and mental output of the "I"—something that can be created, altered, or wiped out at any moment. If you actually give a damn about Truth, you need to stop looking outward and finally turn your attention to the "I." Study the "I," because it's the only thing that truly, absolutely, and finally exists. It’s the only thing that was never created, never changes, and never disappears.
If you aren't living it, you’re never going to reach the core. That’s just how it works. Every single realization you ever stumble upon—it always leads right back to that same point. "It’s all just shifting, relative, and totally unstable."
Trying to live as the SELF, piercing through to its core to truly "know" it? Forget it. It might be possible, sure, but by the time you get there, you won't find anything left to know because the SELF will just be a void—pure "nirvana." That’s why I’d much rather understand my own existence through actual physical and mental action. You know, through movement, effort, and then observing that movement, feeling it, remembering it, and processing it. The big mistake people make when hunting for Truth is trying to use the SELF—their thoughts and actions—to figure out how the world works. They’ve got it backwards. You should be using the world—your physical and mental engagement with reality—to figure out the truth about the SELF.
And the result stays exactly the same.
The results aren't going to be the same, and they can't be. The "I" is the cause of the world; the world is just the consequence. The problem is that people don't realize their own "I" is the root of everything, and trying to study the universe won't help them figure that out. It’s impossible. Through physical or mental actions alone, you can't see that there's an "I" at the foundation of existence acting as your core essence. All you can actually uncover through your own actions is your own "I"—proving to yourself that it's the actual driver behind everything you do. That’s why you have to start by dissecting your own behavior. You need to ask *why* you do what you do and why those actions are necessary. Only then can you see how your "I" relates to those actions and the rules it follows to make them happen. Once you realize there is a specific LAW governing your existence—a law that wouldn't even allow your "I" to exist if it weren't constantly performing these exact same physical and mental patterns—then it becomes easy. Once you grasp the Law of your own being, you won't have any trouble seeing that the entire universe operates under that exact same principle. Bottom line: searching for the truth about the world before finding the truth about yourself is a total waste of time.
"Look, what you're saying right now is pretty damn vague." It’s like you’re missing some vital links, or maybe you just lack any real sense of certainty.
Nothing is vague here. If you think my logic is flawed, just say so. I’m happy to break down any single thought until you’re convinced there isn't a single gap in the chain.
>>And so there's plenty of "I" and tons of "eternal truths of this world" >>where every single one fights against the other, just trying to convince everyone else >>that it's the only right way.
Look, I’m not talking about any truth related to this world—that stuff changes depending on which "I" you're looking through. I'm talking about the truth regarding the SELF, which is identical for every single "I."
The world is relative and constantly shifting. It's here one second, gone the next. Because everything in this physical realm is so unstable, nothing in the world can serve as solid proof for anything that could actually be called an absolute truth. You shouldn't even bother believing it.
But on the flip side, the SELF (every individual's consciousness) is the only thing capable of observing and perceiving both itself and the world. That existence is so certain that you don't even need "faith" to believe in it; you just know it's real. It's the one single thing in the entire universe that all human selves could actually agree on.
And that’s huge. Honestly, that’s the whole point, because the SELF is EVERYTHING. The SELF is the core of reality. Once we finally grasp the truth of the SELF, we'll understand the truth of the world too. Just like how we can all agree on the SELF right now, eventually, we'll all be able to agree on the world.
There’s really only one thing you don't have to take someone else's word for—the only thing where we actually have undeniable proof that it exists exactly as we experience it. And that's the "I." Every single fundamental, permanent truth in this world is contained right there within the "I." Anyone out there hunting for truth outside of themselves is just going to end up blindly believing in whatever they want, and they're inevitably going to be wrong because they lack actual proof.
”It doesn't have to mean... it doesn't need to be self-aware just to exist or have a purpose. It has a reason for existing because the entity that created it had a reason and a purpose for making it in the first place.”
Logic is a fundamental philosophical discipline. Based on logic—the self-evident truth (the axiom) stating that you can't get something from nothing—it follows that "creation" simply doesn't and cannot exist. According to this logic, if something exists, it means it has always existed, because it couldn't have come from nothing, and it will exist eternally because it can never turn back into nothing. Practically speaking, if something exists, it exists by its own right—it is its own reason, cause, and purpose. No one, and nothing outside of it, can grant it those qualities.
But to actually wrap your head around this, you first have to grasp the concept of "existence" itself. You have to realize there are two types of existence: absolute and relative. I'm talking about absolute existence here, not the relative kind. Absolute existence refers to what the entire universe is built from. That is a conscious, uncreated, and indestructible energy-matter. Material forms—atoms, celestial bodies, cells, plants, animals, humans, etc.—exist relatively because they can be dismantled and broken down. They can't create or destroy themselves; they only exist when that conscious energy-matter decides to build them. All these material forms are essentially the result of the effort, movement, and work of energy-matter. They only exist as long as that energy-matter continues to build them through its exertion, and they vanish the moment it stops. These forms are like music being played by a musician. In relation to the music, the musician exists absolutely, while the music exists only relatively, because the music only exists as long as the musician is playing. Once they stop, the music is gone. Material forms cannot be their own reason, cause, or purpose, just like a musician's song can't be. The matter that builds these forms and resides within them dictates their reason, cause, and purpose, much like the musician dictates the music.
And as for consciousness... only that which exists absolutely can be conscious. Material forms can't be conscious because they don't possess absolute existence. When it seems to us that they are conscious—like when we assume a human is conscious—it isn't the human as a material form that is conscious, but the energy-matter building that human as a form. That's why human consciousness doesn't depend on the person as a physical body, but on the energy-matter that constructs the form. This energy was conscious before it even fashioned a human, and it remains conscious even after the human body collapses. _____________________
”Water doesn't need to be self-aware to do what it does, like following the basic laws of physics just like everything else in this universe.”
Water exists relatively, just like a human does, because water is a material form. This means water isn't conscious any more than a human is. What *is* conscious is what water is made of: energy-matter. What you call the "laws of physics" that govern how material forms behave are actually just recipes (information, software, solutions, ideas, knowledge) that energy-matter uses as a conscious entity. These are internal blueprints that it holds onto, acting as laws it follows whenever it wants to transform itself into a different material form—whether that’s water, stone, or a human being. _______________________
”Still, I can't wrap my head around energy being self-aware. It has always been and always will be. But the idea that its own self-awareness somehow triggered something like the Big Bang? I just can't buy it.”
Vitality and consciousness are the core requirements for an absolute form of existence. Energy-matter couldn't exist if it weren't conscious, and consciousness couldn't exist if it weren't material. It's a fundamental reality that is eternal. It either is this way, or it isn't anything at all. This eternal vitality and consciousness rules out any..."Coincidence" is a myth. Nothing in this universe moves by pure chance. For anything to happen, there has to be an underlying blueprint—knowledge of what, how, and why something should move. Without a specific desire to initiate action, there's no fundamental causal force or energy to act from within the very thing that exists and needs to be set in motion. Don't forget, the movement of matter is essentially self-motion. Matter evolves precisely because of this internal drive and work. That means the force driving matter isn't some outside influence; it's internal. In other words, there is no transcendental God sitting outside everything, pulling the strings. There is a God that acts through everything and moves everything from the inside. And that is called consciousness.
I dropped the link to my website above if you want to dive deeper into all of this. ______________________
"So, I think, therefore I am—or I am, therefore I think. I = God. I believe it, but honestly, I don't know why it all started. The atoms making up my brain are just one tiny part of the massive I=God, so I'm just aware that I exist, that I am God, but I'll never truly know why, just like a cell in my pinky finger could never know."
Consciousness is shaped by experience and knowledge. We are only as conscious as we are informed. Knowledge is something that can be forgotten, lost, and rediscovered. No matter how much you knew yesterday, you'll know more today, and even more tomorrow. Eventually, you'll hit the limit of what can be known and everything will click. If it doesn't happen in this lifetime or this human shell, maybe it'll happen in the next one, or the one after that.
nobody and nothing, says: "It feels like if consciousness is singular at the start, and there isn't anything else around, it's not clear what would trigger it to do anything."
For something to actually get moving, it has to be alive and conscious. Dead things don't just sit still—they can't even exist.
For anything to exist at all, the condition is that it exists by itself, eternally, simply because it can't come from nothing, nor can it be created out of nothing. And for it to exist on its own, it has to be its own reason, cause, purpose, and consequence. It has to be, essentially, three things in one. That one thing is the consequence, which manifests itself in three different ways, playing the role of its own reason, cause, and purpose.
The reason for that one existing as a consequence is knowledge (idea-information), because if that one knew nothing, it wouldn't have any reason to cause itself as its consequence, let alone exist.
The cause of that one is the desire to exist, because if it didn't want to exist, it wouldn't be here.
The purpose of its existence is the satisfaction it feels in being alive, because without that satisfaction, its existence wouldn't make any sense.
When you add it all up, for something to exist, it has to be material, alive, and conscious. As matter, that thing acts as the consequence, while its life and consciousness—in the form of self-knowledge, the will to exist, and the pleasure it gets from existing—act as the reason, cause, and purpose of its being.
The bottom line here is that matter couldn't exist if it wasn't alive and conscious. And vice versa, consciousness couldn't exist if it wasn't material. Outside of conscious matter (energy), there is nothing else, and there can't be. No matter what we discover in the universe later on, it's always going to be living, conscious matter. _________________
As for the whole issue regarding the variety of material forms in the universe, those are just different ways matter (energy) exerts itself through movement and work. They arise from the various pieces of information (ideas) that matter carries within itself about these forms. These forms only exist as long as matter builds them through its own effort and movement; the second it stops building them, they vanish like they were never there. Meanwhile, the living, conscious matter remains, just as it was before. _________________
If we actually grasp this, then the answer to your question: "It feels like if consciousness is singular at the start, and there isn't anything else around, it's not clear what would trigger it to do anything." is this:
Nobody ever moves consciousness (matter). Its movement is always self-driven. It constantly restarts itself and does everything on its own. It knows what it needs to do to exist; it wants to do exactly what it knows it must do to exist; and it enjoys everything it creates through its own movement and work, because that creation is the only way it can be a living, conscious being. Material forms, then, are just the means by which matter maintains itself as both matter and consciousness. Without them, it couldn't be either. That’s why it’s always exerting itself, moving, working, and building. When it gets tired and settles down, everything it built collapses and disappears. When it rests, it kicks back into gear and rebuilds everything again. It goes on forever, into the past and the future, through its constant exertion, movement, and work, eternally maintaining itself as a conscious, energetic (material) driving force. _____________________
There you go. "The Question of God" in philosophy, solved!
Looks like we’re seeing eye to eye on this. I think I mentioned this once before, actually. It’s good to see someone else using their own damn brain to look at things for what they really are, instead of swallowing the garbage being fed to us by all those globalist hacks poisoning the world with their lies and ignorance.
"Consciousness" as a scientific term isn't even properly defined yet, so how can it be? You can't exactly make any scientific claims about her without... They were credible. (Meaning they spoke from a third-person perspective!) If you... You're looking at some unconscious guy, but you still don't have a clue what's actually going on. "It hits his consciousness, and that’s the make-or-break moment."
Sure, we can’t peek inside someone else's head. So what? Big deal. If you want to understand the truth about consciousness, all you need is a look at your own. Why would anyone think some "third-hand" perspective is more reliable than first-hand experience? Honestly, why does anyone believe a scientist could tell them more about their own mind than they already know themselves?
One of the biggest scientific and global delusions is the idea that truth only counts if it’s measurable, empirical, or something you can prove in a lab. People act like "truth" is something handed down to us in third-hand snippets—from some preacher, a schoolteacher, or a politician—rather than something we find firsthand. Come on, people. Let's actually use our brains for once. We have minds too, right? There's gotta be some substance in our own heads, not just in whatever a priest or a government official tells us. If that old dogma were actually true, I could sit here right now and dump the entire truth about consciousness and the existence of this universe straight out of my own skull in just a few sentences. I could do it because that truth lives right there, and nowhere else. The only reason we haven't grasped it yet is because we keep looking for it in other people instead of looking within ourselves.
Here’s my truth. I carry it inside me, and I know exactly what it is. I’m only going to lay it out in a few short sentences. People have been hunting for this for thousands of years and still haven't found it, mostly because they’re looking for it in all the wrong places—trying to grab it with their hands like it's some physical object. My truth belongs to me, and frankly, I don't need anyone else's version. You guys can do whatever you want with yours, but good luck. ____________________
1.Get it together, that's me. I'm just here to observe..
2.I agree. I’ve got two different skill sets at my disposal:
a). Physical ability? That’s just... Stress, movement, and actual work. That's the whole game right there. And even with these skills. I am ready. Send over the content you need me to rework. I can't even begin to process this. What am I looking at? This is absolute nonsense. Seriously, how does anyone find this useful? It’s just noise. Total garbage. Physical vs. material. Pure power and presence.
I can't work with just a single letter. Give me something real to sink my teeth into. Psychic abilities—we’re talking about the capacity to... I hear you. My effort, my movement, my work—yeah, that’s what it takes. I feel, I remember, I think, and I get it. Honestly, with skills like those, I’m basically untouchable. Mental vs. conscious. Pure power and presence.
3. Based on my own mental edge when it comes to picking up on things and actually remembering them...I'm just getting started. I don't know what you're trying to get at here. You're just throwing out single words like that? If you've got something to say, just say it. Stop wasting everyone's time. The reason. My whole existence depends on them. I know. I exist. Period. If I didn't know anything, I wouldn't even have a reason to be here.
4. Honestly, my intuition is just on another level when it comes to sensing everything around me—my surroundings, myself, and just the whole vibe of my own existence. It’s like I can feel what's actually happening. Alright.Yeah, I'm my own man. Purpose, meaning, and the whole damn point. I’m grateful for my existence. Because if I didn't view everything through that lens—if I didn't feel like all this was actually good for me—then what's the point? My whole life would be meaningless.
5. I’ve got this weird psychological thing where I can sense every single threat to my existence from a mile away. Evil., I don't know what you're trying to say there. Get to the point. I haven't seen any posts from you yet. You waiting for permission or something? Get to it. The cause. My whole existence basically boils down to this: whenever I feel threatened or sense some bullshit evil creeping in, I can’t stand it. It’s negative as hell, and I hate feeling that way, but it forces me to find a way to overcome it and shake it off. Even though that sense of vulnerability sucks, it’s actually a good thing. If I didn't feel it, I wouldn't give a damn whether I existed or not, and I'd probably just fade into nothingness pretty fast. So, because that fear is there, it’s the very reason I exist—I'm constantly running from it. Yeah. I’m always nameless, just existing because I'm constantly under fire.
Based on my own physical limits, how hard should I actually be pushing myself when it comes to training and working? I'm just saying. Just being myself. consequences I exist by my own hand. I build myself, I grow myself, and I keep myself going. __________________________
Look, I’ve laid it all out in these six points. Everything there is to know about who I am and why I exist is right here. I don't need some priest, some small-town mayor, or some professor lecturing me on my own life. I know my own truth, and I check it against myself. I don't need any God to act as my "origin story" or to dictate my purpose, my goals, or the reasons I'm alive. I already carry all of that inside me. I am my own reason, cause, purpose, and consequence. I am my own God. _________________________
That’s just how I exist, and that’s the truth about me. As for how you guys exist or what the deal is with your own existence? Beats me.
I know the answer, but I’m not telling you. Go ask some priest, some small-town mayor, or some scientist to give you their little "definitions" for all that. Personally, I know that you exist just like I do—entirely on your own—and you don't need any God. And I know everything else out there—trees, rocks, atoms, the Earth, whatever—exists the exact same way I do: just existing by itself. Even if a God did exist, he’d have to exist that same way, entirely on his own. _________________________
There. Done. "The philosophical question of God." Aside from a god called ME, there isn't one. Want proof? There it is. Three hundred and fifty years ago, Descartes handed it to us when he said: “I think, therefore, (I-CONSCIOUSNESS-GOD) I am.” I am the only certainty we can actually say exists for sure.
"Come on, explain to me—what does 'existence' even mean to you?" "Her creation"? Since when does existence have a "creation"?
Existence is what truly exists—the absolute. It’s that thing that can't just pop into being or vanish into nothingness. Creation? That’s different. That’s just relative stuff. It's everything that has the capacity to show up and then eventually fade away.
Existence is basically the cause and the creation is the effect. It all comes down to existence and its sheer will—if that drive isn't there, the thing simply won't exist. Period.
Existence and its creations are always ONE—they’re inseparable. It doesn't matter if one of those creations pops up or vanishes into thin air; existence itself isn't going anywhere. _______________________
Alright, I’m going to break down those three points of logic using some actual examples, just so everyone can finally wrap their heads around it.
Let's look at a single tree as an example.
The substance that makes up the wood is existence itself. That’s an absolute reality because you can't just create something from nothing or make it vanish into thin air. But the wood? That's just a construct. It only exists relatively, since it actually can be built up or broken down.
The material that makes up wood relates to the tree exactly how a cause relates to an effect. It’s pretty simple: whether that tree actually exists or not comes down entirely to the substance itself—its will, its strength, and its skill.
Look, when people claim that existence and its creations are one and the same, what they’re actually saying is that a "creation" is just a specific shape matter takes through evolution. Take a tree, for example. A tree isn't some separate thing from the matter it's made of; it's just a specific way matter organized itself through effort, movement, and growth. In that sense, the tree as a finished product and the raw material it came from are just two sides of the same coin. Even when that tree gets old, rots, or falls over, it hasn't really "left." It’s still inseparable from the matter it once occupied. Even if you can't physically see the tree anymore, it stays embedded in the universe—both as the lingering concept of a tree and as the inherent capacity for matter to reshape itself back into that same form whenever the conditions are right. ___________________
And I still don't get this part either:
Let’s assume consciousness is what defines existence—though let’s be real, that isn’t even an assumption, it’s just a fact. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I don't know. Does a tree even exist if there isn't someone there to notice it? Or is the tree somehow self-aware? Honestly, that second part sounds like total nonsense to me.
Look, consciousness is the only thing that actually exists. It’s the force, the driver—it uses its own knowledge and effort to build every single material thing in the universe. There’s a perfectly logical way to wrap your head around this. Think about it like this: a tree could technically exist without anyone else noticing it, and even the tree itself doesn't need to be "self-aware" in the way we think. But here's the catch—that tree *cannot* exist unless the actual matter making up the tree is conscious of itself, its work, and the fact that it's currently manifesting as a tree. When that matter builds the tree, that matter within the structure is aware that it has taken on the shape of a tree. Since the matter and the tree are one and the same—indivisible—you might as well say the tree is self-aware. It simply couldn't exist if it wasn't. Period.
Look, it’s just like how matter itself can’t logically be self-aware. A human being isn't some sentient entity sitting in a shell; rather, there's this conscious essence within us that actually builds who we are. It’s the thing that knows it currently takes the shape of a human. It's inseparable from us. So, when we claim to be "self-aware," we’re really just talking about that internal consciousness experiencing life through a human lens. In that moment, the consciousness of the matter and the consciousness of the person are one and the same. And here’s the kicker: that consciousness doesn't just vanish when we die. It just shifts. It moves on knowing it isn't a human anymore, but some other energetic or material form. As for the actual person? Obviously, once you've died and decomposed, you aren't "self-aware" anymore because you simply don't exist. But honestly, that's irrelevant. You weren't truly self-aware while you were alive anyway—you were just the matter that was being shaped by that underlying consciousness.
Our whole problem with the fear of death comes down to this: we mistake our physical bodies for our actual selves. We think if the body goes, our consciousness vanishes with it, but that’s just plain wrong. The thing carrying our awareness isn't some biological machine; it's the fundamental essence that actually brought the body into existence in the first place. It was there before we were born, it made the body possible, and it'll be right here long after the body is gone.
I’ve always found it wild how we can claim to have two separate consciousnesses at once. I am the subject, and to my consciousness, you’re just an object. But hey, it works both ways. To your consciousness, you’re the subject and I’m the object. So, who actually exists at the end of the day?? And doesn't that basically prove how limited and pointless saying "I" is when we're both using the same word?
The truth is, there is only ONE Self, because consciousness itself is singular. But if it wants to actually function, it has to divide itself internally into parts—little pieces that can move around and interact, acting as subjects toward objects. Why is this necessary?
It's necessary because consciousness can't exist without knowledge. It's basic logic: you aren't conscious if you know absolutely nothing. And to get knowledge, consciousness needs experience, because you can't have one without the other. Experience, in turn, requires observation and memory. You can't have those if there isn't movement or action happening in space—meaning, there have to be moving objects that become the subjects of experience, observation, memory, feeling, thought, and understanding. Since nothing else exists in space besides consciousness (why nothing else exists is its own deep rabbit hole with its own logic), that one single consciousness has to split itself into pieces—into subjects and objects—to create the conditions to observe, gain knowledge, and essentially maintain its own existence as a conscious being.
But let’s be real—Descartes' claim is just flat-out wrong, and everyone knows it. It’s pretty easy for us to wrap our heads around this... the only right way to put it is: I EXIST. So here’s my take: Consciousness comes first, then the thought follows. Period.
You're spot on. Consciousness comes first—it’s the foundation. Then you get opinions, which are just the mental byproduct of that consciousness in action.
You’re wrong if you think the Self can prove its own existence without the actual mental act of thinking. ("I think, therefore I am.")
"...I can watch my own hand, which means I am clearly not my hand." I can watch my thoughts, which means I’m clearly not my thoughts.
Just watching. Hands are also just another mental function of the Self, just like having an opinion. It’s exactly what you called it—"observation." Through this act of observing, we gain that experiential knowledge about the existence of our own hand, or even the existence of the thought itself. After that, comes the next mental step... Memory.So, look—it basically boils down to this: we either get it through direct experience or through pure thought. There's no middle ground. "Knowledge." It’s about having a hand and the actual capacity to think. Only after that can you even begin to wrap your head around the fact that you have a hand and the ability to think in the first place.
So, can I actually hit that state of pure consciousness where there isn't a single thought left in my head? I’m starting to realize I need to say "I think, therefore I am" before anything else. I think, therefore I am. Period.
Listen closely... your "pure consciousness" state doesn't mean a damn thing if you aren't actually aware of it. You can't just "be" or become aware of that state unless you can experience it—meaning, you have to observe the experience to actually gain knowledge about it. No matter how you slice it, your consciousness is tied to your mental processes: observing, remembering, feeling, thinking, and understanding. Those are the tools you use to prove to yourself that you even exist. That’s exactly what Descartes did—he used his capacity for thought to prove his own existence. But let's be real: thinking isn't the only move consciousness has in its playbook. You can prove you're real through all those other mental actions too—observing, feeling, remembering, and understanding. Descartes could have used any of them to verify his existence, but he stuck to the thinking part. And don't forget, beyond those five mental acts, consciousness also has the ability to perform physical actions—straining, moving, working. And those physical actions are vital. Without them, consciousness wouldn't have anything to observe, feel, remember, think, or understand in the first place. Basically, without these mental and physical functions, consciousness wouldn't even exist. You could argue they precede consciousness and actually cause it, though saying that sounds pretty absurd because actions can't just perform themselves; they aren't existence itself. There has to be a "something" or "someone" existing to carry out those actions. Bottom line: the whole puzzle only makes sense if we view consciousness—along with all its physical and mental capabilities—as an indivisible whole. Because of all these moving parts, it exists by itself, proves itself to itself, and understands itself.
Besides that, I ended up figuring out—to my absolute shock—that... I’m dead certain that my existence—my actual Self—is the one thing that's real. "The one thing in this entire world that I can't even begin to doubt."
Descartes figured this out over three hundred years ago. Too bad almost nobody gets it. I say "too bad" because if people actually understood this, all those mindless dogmas wouldn't be running the show anymore. The world would look a hell of a lot better today. At the end of the day, the Self is the only thing that's truly real. It’s the root of everything—it's God. That's what we've been searching for and fighting over forever, arguing about whether He's this or that, just because we can't agree on what He looks like.
”because doubt implies awareness—I can't doubt my own since the very act of 'doubting' proves I have a Self I’ve realized there’s no way to debunk this Self through any kind of mental gymnastics—you can't even doubt its existence, and that’s the massive 'working capital' (for me and you all)
Spot on. If you're interested, check out my study on the Self over at http://home.iprimus.com.au/jljubo I've dropped this link on the forum before, but just a heads-up: I posted a new version of my explanation about a month ago. It's shorter and way more direct. Honestly, I think even a kid could wrap their head around what the Self actually is after reading it.
”The fact that I am aware is the greatest miracle in the world”>
It isn't just the greatest; it's the *only* thing. Because besides the Self, nothing else actually exists. Matter and consciousness are just two different ways of looking at the exact same thing—one from the outside and one from the inside.
You can't really talk about God without running into the Self, because there's no point in pretending God is anything other than consciousness itself.
On the flip side, you can definitely debate consciousness while ignoring God entirely, since that inner Self we all experience is the very definition of consciousness.
The existence of the Self isn't even up for debate. Even Descartes figured out how to prove it way back when, famously saying, "I think, therefore I am." Consciousness is always fair game for a philosophical deep dive.
But God? That’s a whole different story. It still just boils down to faith. Even those wild mystical experiences people claim to have don't actually prove God exists—they just prove consciousness is intense. At the end of the day, any argument for God stays stuck in theology, which is outside the realm of actual philosophy. Philosophy doesn't mean much if you don't have a solid foundation to stand on, and God definitely isn't that.