What are the benefits of being religious?

Sandra Wilson68 said:Look, I drop in on these discussions uninvited every once in a while, but let’s be real—hardly anyone ever pays attention to what I have to say.

I’m jumping in this time to tell you all that you’re using the word “reality” completely wrong. Reality splits into two parts: absolute and relative. Absolute reality is what actually exists, period. Relative reality is nothing more than the physical or mental action of that absolute existence.

Understanding this split between absolute and relative is vital if you actually want to grasp the truth about anything. There’s no other way to get there—you have to divide reality into these two pieces and then look at them together to make sense of things. But you guys aren't doing that. You’re just chasing the "relative" side of things. You're obsessed with the physical universe, your bodies, and your minds, which are just the relative manifestations—the mere actions—of the absolute. So when you inevitably hit a wall where you can't make sense of this relative world—why it exists or how it works—you freak out. You panic about your own survival because you mistakenly think *you* are just this fleeting, relative thing. In your desperation, you start inventing religions and gods living in some far-off heaven just to feel better. If you ask me, you’re just making fools of yourselves.

Here’s the deal: Absolute reality is *you*. It’s your invisible, unknowable SELF. Your physical and mental actions are just what your SELF does to create your body and mind. Beyond that SELF, there is no other god for you. Based on that SELF, you are indestructible. Everything that exists relatively—which is the entire material universe down to the smallest atom—has its own indestructible SELF sitting right at the center of its activity. When that SELF is exerting force, moving, or acting, it appears as material stuff that we can perceive. Once that movement stops, the SELF is still there, but it doesn't show up physically anymore.

That is the WHOLE TRUTH about REALITY. Period. All the human beliefs, the world religions, the temples, the priests, the wars fought in the name of God, the fear of death, divine punishment, heaven, hell—it’s all just stupid and senseless.

Well, I actually did pay attention. 🙂

The reality is that there's both an absolute and a relative truth out there, though we mostly spend our lives tripping over the relative stuff. Tapping into the absolute would require us to undergo massive internal shifts; let's face it, shedding the need for the kind of stupidity and utter nonsense that brings tears to your eyes—the sad kind, obviously—isn't easy, and it takes a genuine effort from every single individual...😉

rustymaker5 said:Well, I actually did pay attention. 🙂

The reality is that there's both an absolute and a relative truth out there, though we mostly spend our lives tripping over the relative stuff. Tapping into the absolute would require us to undergo massive internal shifts; let's face it, shedding the need for the kind of stupidity and utter nonsense that brings tears to your eyes—the sad kind, obviously—isn't easy, and it takes a genuine effort from every single individual...😉

it wouldn't actually require those kinds of massive changes you're imagining, because it should be exactly what we refer to as—well, God.

this whole conversation about absolute versus relative reality—though, if I'm being honest, I'm not particularly fond of this line of talk, nor am I interested in that sort of Eastern wisdom; it all feels a bit too much like "instant spirituality" to me—steps right into the territory of the supernatural. You don't even need to go looking toward the East for these ideas; Western metaphysics has already covered it all (Schopenhauer, for instance, laid out this entire messy narrative in his work regarding Will and Representation, which I personally find far more fascinating and engaging); besides, Kant already established that we can't say anything at all about this "absolute reality"—what he called the thing-in-itself—because it simply transcends the boundaries of possible experience (an 'x' that remains forever out of reach)

so, Bob, regardless of what you choose to call this "absolute reality"—whether it's the Self, the Will, the Logos, or God—the fact remains that it ultimately rests on faith.

this whole argument about things being "senseless" is empty—because the very idea of sense is questionable, isn't it? I mean, you don't have direct access to The Meaning, so you can't really claim to know what is meaningful and what isn't from any objective standpoint; the furthest you can go is to establish some sort of personal foothold and then judge everything else based on that—essentially deciding what matters from the perspective of a "relative" observer of meaning.

and so on.

Sandra Wilson68 said:Look, I drop in on these discussions uninvited every once in a while, but let’s be real—hardly anyone ever pays attention to what I have to say.

I’m jumping in this time to tell you all that you’re using the word “reality” completely wrong. Reality splits into two parts: absolute and relative. Absolute reality is what actually exists, period. Relative reality is nothing more than the physical or mental action of that absolute existence.

Understanding this split between absolute and relative is vital if you actually want to grasp the truth about anything. There’s no other way to get there—you have to divide reality into these two pieces and then look at them together to make sense of things. But you guys aren't doing that. You’re just chasing the "relative" side of things. You're obsessed with the physical universe, your bodies, and your minds, which are just the relative manifestations—the mere actions—of the absolute. So when you inevitably hit a wall where you can't make sense of this relative world—why it exists or how it works—you freak out. You panic about your own survival because you mistakenly think *you* are just this fleeting, relative thing. In your desperation, you start inventing religions and gods living in some far-off heaven just to feel better. If you ask me, you’re just making fools of yourselves.

Here’s the deal: Absolute reality is *you*. It’s your invisible, unknowable SELF. Your physical and mental actions are just what your SELF does to create your body and mind. Beyond that SELF, there is no other god for you. Based on that SELF, you are indestructible. Everything that exists relatively—which is the entire material universe down to the smallest atom—has its own indestructible SELF sitting right at the center of its activity. When that SELF is exerting force, moving, or acting, it appears as material stuff that we can perceive. Once that movement stops, the SELF is still there, but it doesn't show up physically anymore.

That is the WHOLE TRUTH about REALITY. Period. All the human beliefs, the world religions, the temples, the priests, the wars fought in the name of God, the fear of death, divine punishment, heaven, hell—it’s all just stupid and senseless.

Finally paying attention to this too... 🙂

I think reality is just one thing—and you can't quite wrap your head around explaining it because you've decided that the "self" is this huge deal, like it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it... you're leaning too hard on Descartes' axiom—you know, "I think, therefore I am"—but that's just flawed. The "self" you're talking about is really just consciousness...

For consciousness to actually notice anything, it needs an external trigger first—anything at all... reality, a rock, some light, even just a sudden headache...
Trying to claim reality is just some byproduct of consciousness? Yeah, no way that works—reality's gonna exist whether we're looking at it or not...
For consciousness to actually recognize itself, there’s gotta be something—some kind of reality—there first... So, basically—without something to actually perceive, there’s no such thing as consciousness... just goes without saying.

Your explanation is kind of a contradiction—you’re saying consciousness exists outside of reality, then trying to invent some alternative reality just to make your theory work... that's not really a great way to explain anything...

Reality is just... everything that exists.
There’s definitely a chance I can't explain something—but that's just because I don't get it, not because there's some other reality out there. If we just use "it's another reality" as an excuse whenever we're stumped, we'll end up with thousands of different realities and still be no closer to actually figuring anything out...

Gerald Perez5 said:it wouldn't actually require those kinds of massive changes you're imagining, because it should be exactly what we refer to as—well, God.

this whole conversation about absolute versus relative reality—though, if I'm being honest, I'm not particularly fond of this line of talk, nor am I interested in that sort of Eastern wisdom; it all feels a bit too much like "instant spirituality" to me—steps right into the territory of the supernatural. You don't even need to go looking toward the East for these ideas; Western metaphysics has already covered it all (Schopenhauer, for instance, laid out this entire messy narrative in his work regarding Will and Representation, which I personally find far more fascinating and engaging); besides, Kant already established that we can't say anything at all about this "absolute reality"—what he called the thing-in-itself—because it simply transcends the boundaries of possible experience (an 'x' that remains forever out of reach)

so, Bob, regardless of what you choose to call this "absolute reality"—whether it's the Self, the Will, the Logos, or God—the fact remains that it ultimately rests on faith.

this whole argument about things being "senseless" is empty—because the very idea of sense is questionable, isn't it? I mean, you don't have direct access to The Meaning, so you can't really claim to know what is meaningful and what isn't from any objective standpoint; the furthest you can go is to establish some sort of personal foothold and then judge everything else based on that—essentially deciding what matters from the perspective of a "relative" observer of meaning.

and so on.

Just imagine for a second that we’re all fully aware of where we all came from—that we share the exact same primordial origin. If that were the case, why would there be any intolerance at all? Why the constant scramble to climb over everyone else, the desperate urge to dominate, or that exhausting habit of treating your own interests as more vital than anyone else's... or even just that basic, flawed assumption that some people are inherently better than others? It makes zero sense, doesn't it? That kind of ego-driven thinking only happens when someone thinks they're operating from an "Absolute" standpoint.
But let's be real, if a person actually wanted to view things from the perspective of The Absolute, they'd have to undergo a massive internal transformation, because most humans tend to hunt for truth and purpose within their own subjective grasp of the relative, rather than grasping at the absolute meaning all...
If you take the absolute truth—that we are fundamentally one single entity—as your anchor, that is truly the highest thing a person can strive for in this messy, relative world. But to actually get there, you really do have to change... first by acknowledging and accepting that this relative reality we're navigating isn't the same thing as the absolute realm, and realizing that in our very essence, we are beings from the absolute world placed into this relative one specifically so we can become conscious of our own absoluteness. So, honestly, clinging to the position of a "relative knower of meaning" is just a pretty shaky foundation to build a life on...

rustymaker5 said:Just imagine for a second that we’re all fully aware of where we all came from—that we share the exact same primordial origin. If that were the case, why would there be any intolerance at all? Why the constant scramble to climb over everyone else, the desperate urge to dominate, or that exhausting habit of treating your own interests as more vital than anyone else's... or even just that basic, flawed assumption that some people are inherently better than others? It makes zero sense, doesn't it? That kind of ego-driven thinking only happens when someone thinks they're operating from an "Absolute" standpoint.
But let's be real, if a person actually wanted to view things from the perspective of The Absolute, they'd have to undergo a massive internal transformation, because most humans tend to hunt for truth and purpose within their own subjective grasp of the relative, rather than grasping at the absolute meaning all...
If you take the absolute truth—that we are fundamentally one single entity—as your anchor, that is truly the highest thing a person can strive for in this messy, relative world. But to actually get there, you really do have to change... first by acknowledging and accepting that this relative reality we're navigating isn't the same thing as the absolute realm, and realizing that in our very essence, we are beings from the absolute world placed into this relative one specifically so we can become conscious of our own absoluteness. So, honestly, clinging to the position of a "relative knower of meaning" is just a pretty shaky foundation to build a life on...

It’s actually quite a solid stance—mostly because it’s the only one available to us. An ideal way of thinking would be if you possessed total knowledge and had direct access to The Absolute, the primordial origin, or God (which we obviously don't)

If we did, then what would we make of injustice, chaos, evil, or any of this mess?
There simply isn't an answer—after all, we are all just relative knowers of meaning—and we've been tossed into this world, finding ourselves right here in the middle of it.

The absolute most we can do is strive—strive toward righteousness, nobility, goodness, or, to put it simply, a conceived ideal.

Now, a different matter entirely is that some people (most of them? perhaps everyone?) are striving toward a completely different kind of ideal—material wealth, checking off short-term goals, indulging in base passions and desires, etc.—and they couldn't care less about some Platonic ideal. And, get this, you can't actually show (or prove) to some cruel, diabolical person—someone who is convinced they are doing exactly what they ought to do and is genuinely enjoying it—that they are mistaken (since you lack insight into the ultimate meaning all); the only way to deal with someone like that is what I mentioned at the start: asserting your own interests (which you believe to be more noble), rising above them, or simply believing you are better than they are. Right?

Unless, of course, you believe everyone is wonderful and beautiful and envision a perfect utopia. I have to admit, I haven't seen that, nor can I even imagine it; I always see that some people are simply better than others, and it would be nicer if those others could just "improve" themselves (even if we were all meant to be One, or whatever you want to call it).

rustymaker5,

Look, I’ve been paying attention.

The truth is there's absolute reality and then there's relative reality. Most of us just deal with the relative stuff. Touching the Absolute would require massive shifts within ourselves. Letting go of the stupidity and nonsense that causes tears (and not the happy kind) isn't easy—it takes real work from every single person.

Thanks for "paying attention."

Absolute reality can't demand anything from us, because we *are* the absolute reality—our very SELF. Relative reality is just our physical and mental actions. Those can be stupid if they hurt our Self, or smart if they help it. So, I don't get why letting go of the stupidity that hurts us would cause tears. It's actually the opposite.

Krešo2 Quote

Alright, I've been paying attention too.

I think there’s only one reality, and the reason you can't wrap your head around explaining it is because you've made this huge assumption that "the self" is some massive deal—basically deciding it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it, you're leaning on Descartes' whole "I think, therefore I am" thing, which is just plain wrong. The "self" you're obsessing over? That's just consciousness.

Thanks for "paying attention" and giving me something to do. Honestly, replying to your post was a great way to kill some time and deal with the boredom of being retired.

Alright, here’s how it goes:
You're right—there’s only one reality, and I’m out here doing my best to make sense of it. But honestly, the real question is: am I actually getting through to anyone? Do you think I'm tripping by putting the "self" at the very center of reality? Because I'm dead certain I'm not. The way I'm talking about the "self" is worlds apart from how Descartes saw it. Let me break it down for you:

Descartes just stumbled upon one way to prove the "self" exists—basically saying that because we can perform mental acts, specifically thinking, then we exist. Personally, I’m not buying into such a narrow view. I’ve used plenty of other mental processes to prove my own existence—stuff like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. Even physical stuff, like exerting effort or moving around, counts. Every single one of these mental and physical actions serves as proof of our own existence, or what I call the "self."

Look, I’ve actually moved past Descartes at this point. My takeaway is that proving a "self" exists is really just proving one specific slice of reality. The other half? That’s all physical and mental actions. But here’s the catch: those exact same actions are what we use to try and prove the "self" exists in the first place. It creates this massive loop. How can the "self" even prove that these physical and mental actions exist at all?

Physical and mental actions get proven the exact same way we prove "the self"—just in reverse. Think about it: we use our physical and mental actions to prove that the "self" exists, but now those same actions are proven by the "self" itself. After all, the "self" is the one actually doing the work and knowing it's doing it.

Look, here’s how I see it: reality is split right down the middle. You’ve got the "self" on one side, and then you've got all the physical and mental stuff we actually do on the other. The "self" is the driver—the cause. Everything else? That's just the effect. The "self" exists absolutely in relation to its actions, while those physical and mental moves only exist relatively, basically only in the moment they're actually happening.

Look, you’re obviously going to argue that reality isn't just some isolated bubble made up of our "self" and our physical or mental actions. That's a flaw in the logic. Reality includes everything sitting outside that "self"—everything our "self" observes and becomes aware of through those same physical and mental processes, just like we become aware of ourselves.

Even after you wrap your head around all this, you still have to ask: what actually makes up reality? Is it just three pieces stuck together? First, our "self." Second, everything we physically do and think. And third, that whole massive world outside our own heads that we’re just perceiving?

Let's start by tackling the big one: how does our "self" even exist in the first place?

The answer just forces itself on you.

Our "self" makes it pretty damn easy to prove its own existence just by the way we act, both physically and mentally.

So, how do our physical and mental actions even exist in the first place?

And the answer goes without saying here.

Our physical and mental actions only happen because of our "self"—that's the thing that actually makes them possible. And let's be real: the "self" wouldn't even exist if it couldn't perform those actions, just like those actions wouldn't exist without a "self" to carry them out. Our "self" and its capacity for action are totally inseparable, indestructible, and can't be manufactured. You can't use your own mind or body to build someone else's "self," and your "self" can't step in and pull off someone else's moves. It’s pretty simple: the "self" exists solely on its own terms, and nobody else's.

So how does that whole slice of reality outside our own "self" even exist? You know, the stuff our "self" decides is real just by going through its physical and mental motions.

The answer is pretty damn obvious if you think about it.

Reality outside our "self" exists just as much as we do. Every little thing and every massive object that our "self" perceives—confirming its existence through its own physical and mental actions—exists on its own terms.

Here’s the catch: no matter how big or small an object is, it can’t actually perceive anyone else's "self" besides its own through its actions. It can only witness the physical movements of others, nothing deeper. Other "selves" are totally unreachable. This entire material universe we think we see is really just a collection of physical and mental actions from countless tiny and massive "selves" hiding right at the core of those actions.

And honestly, that’s the root of the problem. Because we can’t actually see anyone else's "self"—only their outward actions—we have no clue how reality truly functions, which forces us to just believe whatever bullshit comes our way.

Basically, the biggest issue isn't understanding how reality works; it's that we don't even ask how *we* exist. Instead, we lean on our senses and ask how reality exists. But our senses can't see the true reality, because reality is composed of infinite "selves" existing outside and apart from our own. Our senses only pick up the physical actions these "selves" perform, and those actions aren't the full story. Sure, they're "real," but it's just a relative reality—they're just movements that can't exist on their own. The Absolute reality is the infinite swarm of "selves" driving those actions.

The truth about the Absolute reality is the only absolute truth there is. Everything else regarding our "selves" or how reality exists is just noise.

All this stuff about believing in gods, organized religions, temples, and praying for eternal life or salvation from death and suffering? It's a total joke. It’s just a reflection of how clueless we are about what reality actually is.

Faith is just faith. Period. We use it to trick ourselves into feeling comforted, but it doesn't work. Real comfort comes from actually knowing how reality and ourselves exist within it. That knowledge is the only guarantee you need. It proves we don't need to rely on any gods or faiths, because we ourselves are incredible, indestructible gods. Only our physical and mental actions are created and destructible, and we are the ones who create them. Whether we act, and how we act, is entirely up to our own will. It's also up to our own knowledge whether those actions do us good or harm. So, stop praying to anyone or putting your trust in someone else. Trust yourself, your own intellect, your experience, and your knowledge. Forget the faith.

Krešo2 Quote

For consciousness to actually notice anything, it first needs something external to react to. It’s gotta be something outside itself—could be reality, a rock, a flash of light, or even just a killer headache. Without that trigger, there's nothing to perceive.

Just a heads-up: what you’re calling "consciousness," I’m calling "the self." You can call it whatever you want, but let's make sure we're actually talking about the same thing when we use those terms.

I'm with you on this: for "consciousness" to actually notice anything, there has to be an object sitting outside of it. Perceiving objects is just step one in the development of consciousness. It takes a massive amount of time before that consciousness—after perceiving things, remembering them, thinking about them, and hunting for the truth behind them—finally realizes, through those very objects, that it actually exists. Only then does it start asking questions about its own existence. Human consciousness is still stuck in a phase where, in very rare cases, it even notices itself or asks why it exists. Most of the time, we’re just preoccupied with external objects and trying to figure out if they're "real." Look at empirical science: we treat it as the only way to uncover truth, yet it’s completely useless when it comes to answering what consciousness actually is. Why? Because you can't perceive consciousness through your senses. You can't observe someone else's consciousness with a microscope or a telescope. You can only experience your own, and that isn't perception—it's self-perception.

You can't claim reality is just some byproduct of consciousness. It doesn't work like that. Reality exists whether we're awake to see it or not. Period.

Reality exists independently of OUR "consciousness," sure, but it doesn't exist without its OWN. Every single thing that makes up reality—big or small—has its own "consciousness." Everything out there is just some kind of physical or mental action. And those actions can't just hang in mid-air; they need an actor to perform them. That actor has to be something capable of carrying out those actions, which always and only leads back to one thing: "consciousness."

Look, if consciousness wants to recognize itself, there’s gotta be something out there—some kind of reality—to actually look at. You can't have consciousness without a reality to anchor it to. Period.

You're spot on. Even Descartes hit on this. Proving "consciousness" isn't some abstract magic trick—it happens through physical and mental actions. Descartes proved his own consciousness existed simply through the act of thinking. Everything consciousness perceives outside itself consists of the physical actions of "other" consciousnesses. You observe those external movements through your own internal processes and physical presence. It’s that same loop of action that allows you to perceive yourself, too. Without these actions, consciousness wouldn't just fail to prove its existence; it wouldn't exist at all. And it couldn't survive without the physical actions of others surrounding it—basically, without the world of physical objects we bump into every day that we need just to stay alive. What I'm getting at is that "consciousness" can't just exist as a single isolated point in space. Even if that point had the capacity for thought and movement, it wouldn't matter. Consciousness only exists as a collection of these conscious points (subjects acting as objects) interacting, feeling, moving, and remembering. We essentially enable each other's awareness. That’s why "consciousness" is never a single, solitary thing—it’s a plurality. And that's why reality, no matter how massive and diverse it seems, remains an indivisible, singular whole.

Your logic is full of holes. You're claiming consciousness exists outside of reality, then trying to invent some "alternative reality" just to make your theory work. That’s a dead end for actually explaining anything.

Look, you just didn't grasp my take on how consciousness works, so let me lay it out clearer. There aren't any contradictions here. I never said consciousness exists independently from reality. Not once. If anything, I've always argued that consciousness and reality are inseparable. Reality is just the sum of physical and mental actions performed by consciousness. You can't separate an action from the one doing the acting. It doesn't work that way.

Reality is simply everything that exists.

Spot on. But here’s the thing: to actually wrap our heads around reality, we have to split it into two parts—relative and absolute. Think of it as the action and the actor. Relative reality is everything we perceive through our senses, including our own psyche, which is invisible to us because the psyche itself is just another mental action. Then there's "consciousness" (the "self") as absolute reality. This is the driver behind every single physical or mental act. You can't see it, but it's obviously there at the core of everything, because without it, nothing happens.

Maybe I just can't explain something, but that's on me, not because some other reality exists. If we start using "another reality" as a band-aid for what we don't know, we'll end up with a thousand different realities and still be nowhere near an answer.

That only happens if you assume this "other reality" is a matter of faith used to patch holes in our understanding of this one. If you go down that road, you just end up with endless cults and beliefs.

But when I talk about a "second" reality to explain this one, I'm not asking for anyone's faith. I'm talking about "consciousness." We don't need to "believe" in consciousness; we know it's there. Our very ability to act, physically or mentally, proves it. We *are* consciousness. That makes consciousness the FIRST reality, and our actions the SECOND reality. You can't have the second without the first, and you can't have the first without the second, because those actions are the very means through which the first reality exists.

Later.

person,

Look, please just have some patience and actually take the time to read through my two posts above. They’re long, I get it. I had to go into detail to make sure my points were crystal clear, and I'm hoping you finally see where I'm coming from if you just give them a proper read. Otherwise, we’re just going to end up in this loop where you claim you don't get me, hit me with more irrelevant nitpicks, and I'll be stuck writing novels just to defend myself. It's a waste of time. This is philosophy we're talking about—it's built on complex, tangled systems of thought. You can't boil this stuff down to a couple of snappy sentences like you could when you're talking about football, music, or grabbing a burger.

Later.

nimbleharbor21 said:It’s undeniably easier to live as a believer because you actually have a sense of purpose regarding life, death, and suffering...
Just last week, I had the chance to sit with someone very dear to me who was facing death in intense agony. This person was an atheist through and through, having spent their entire life pushing back against faith and organized religion...
And honestly, watching them die was just miserable...it was horrific. It was a life reduced to nothing more than fulfilling basic survival needs, and now what? Now there's just death, where nothing follows and nobody is waiting—just the physical body fading away...
It was terrifying. I don't even have the words to describe the haunting sight of an atheist confronting death when everything looks so utterly meaningless...

wtf. I mean, what else is there? How is someone supposed to die? Like, "Hip hip hooray, heaven awaits! Now someone get me five hits of morphine!" Come on.

Sandra Wilson68 said:rustymaker5,

Look, I’ve been paying attention.

The truth is there's absolute reality and then there's relative reality. Most of us just deal with the relative stuff. Touching the Absolute would require massive shifts within ourselves. Letting go of the stupidity and nonsense that causes tears (and not the happy kind) isn't easy—it takes real work from every single person.

Thanks for "paying attention."

Absolute reality can't demand anything from us, because we *are* the absolute reality—our very SELF. Relative reality is just our physical and mental actions. Those can be stupid if they hurt our Self, or smart if they help it. So, I don't get why letting go of the stupidity that hurts us would cause tears. It's actually the opposite.

What I originally meant was that breaking free from this need for nonsense and idiocy—the kind that brings on tears (those were your words, right?)—referring to things like war, fear, heaven, and hell... it isn't some easy feat, and honestly, it requires a massive amount of effort from every single individual out there.
I have no idea how you managed to twist that into whatever your second sentence was implying... 🤷
Is it any clearer now? 🙂

Gerald Perez5 said:@fadedbison17

It seems we aren't quite on the same wavelength—you’re taking me a bit too literally, I think. You’re latching onto my specific examples as if they were the core argument, when really, they’re just incidental.
Because of that, there’s honestly no point in me going through your replies line by line, even if some of them are—well, let's just say they're a bit of an eyesore.

To put it simply,
I’m not talking about using the supernatural to explain away every little thing that happens—at least, that isn't how I approach it. (Now, many religious people might certainly do that, and hey, there's nothing inherently wrong with it; the world is just built that way, populated by ordinary folks who are, frankly, pretty average in every sense of the word, and most people aren't exactly speculative philosophers.)

Regardless, no matter how much I learn or understand, I am always acutely aware of one thing: I know that I know nothing. Anyone who refuses to accept that is either being foolish or is simply lying to themselves.
But here is the catch—you can't actually live your life based solely on that realization. So, even when you know your convictions aren't absolute certainties, you have to move forward, building some kind of fortress of belief and acting as if you truly know something—constructing a morality, a set of principles, and so on.

So,
I could master everything there is to know about the world—the causes behind this and that—but there is always a persistent caveat attached: the fundamental nature of the universe is incomprehensible. The great mystery of existence remains unsolvable; that Kantov "x" will remain an "x" for all eternity.

And that is precisely why that "x" exists—because there will always be room for God, for faith, and so on. That is what the author of this thread was questioning in the opening post—how is it that we always find these patterns throughout history?

And now, looking at what’s actually bothering you,
it isn't that "x" (or God) providing an explanation for a specific occurrence—like lightning strikes, or a girl, or a movie you wanted to see. You can always find a more grounded, earthly explanation for those things. But when it comes to explaining generally, the "big picture," the ultimate meaning of anything at all—there is no final answer. And that is where God enters the frame.

For instance, whatever you might know about the nebulas of Andromeda, planetary motion, or the composition of the sun—that’s all trivial stuff. It doesn't really matter to you whether the sun is made of helium or aluminum. But does a meal taste good? Will you enjoy a great movie? Will your brother be okay? Those things matter deeply. If those "ordinary" life events go wrong—if life just starts falling apart—that is when you begin to question the meaning of it all, and you won't find an answer in mathematics or the natural sciences. For many, the answer will be faith, or the support of a community (a nation, a church, a local group, etc.). A rare few will navigate it alone—though even they rely on sheer willpower or faith.

And I won't ramble on,
but you claim you haven't seen any "benefit" from faith. My response? I don't expect a "benefit" in that sense—in fact, if that's how you look at it, the title of this thread is misguided. I simply believe (it was my choice), and life treats me kindly (there's your benefit right there). That is the version of God I hold onto, much like what Kuzanski said: He follows me like a shadow.

And as I mentioned, it seems I made the right choice...

I dig that pragmatic outlook.

fadedbison17 said:Finally paying attention to this too... 🙂

I think reality is just one thing—and you can't quite wrap your head around explaining it because you've decided that the "self" is this huge deal, like it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it... you're leaning too hard on Descartes' axiom—you know, "I think, therefore I am"—but that's just flawed. The "self" you're talking about is really just consciousness...

For consciousness to actually notice anything, it needs an external trigger first—anything at all... reality, a rock, some light, even just a sudden headache...
Trying to claim reality is just some byproduct of consciousness? Yeah, no way that works—reality's gonna exist whether we're looking at it or not...
For consciousness to actually recognize itself, there’s gotta be something—some kind of reality—there first... So, basically—without something to actually perceive, there’s no such thing as consciousness... just goes without saying.

Your explanation is kind of a contradiction—you’re saying consciousness exists outside of reality, then trying to invent some alternative reality just to make your theory work... that's not really a great way to explain anything...

Reality is just... everything that exists.
There’s definitely a chance I can't explain something—but that's just because I don't get it, not because there's some other reality out there. If we just use "it's another reality" as an excuse whenever we're stumped, we'll end up with thousands of different realities and still be no closer to actually figuring anything out...

Hold on—are we all agreeing that people just create their own "reality" by interpreting what’s around them?
So, it isn't that thoughts actually influence the physical environment, but rather that they shape one's internal interpretation of that environment.

Sandra Wilson68 said:Krešo2 Quote

Alright, I've been paying attention too.

I think there’s only one reality, and the reason you can't wrap your head around explaining it is because you've made this huge assumption that "the self" is some massive deal—basically deciding it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it, you're leaning on Descartes' whole "I think, therefore I am" thing, which is just plain wrong. The "self" you're obsessing over? That's just consciousness.

Thanks for "paying attention" and giving me something to do. Honestly, replying to your post was a great way to kill some time and deal with the boredom of being retired.

Alright, here’s how it goes:
You're right—there’s only one reality, and I’m out here doing my best to make sense of it. But honestly, the real question is: am I actually getting through to anyone? Do you think I'm tripping by putting the "self" at the very center of reality? Because I'm dead certain I'm not. The way I'm talking about the "self" is worlds apart from how Descartes saw it. Let me break it down for you:

Descartes just stumbled upon one way to prove the "self" exists—basically saying that because we can perform mental acts, specifically thinking, then we exist. Personally, I’m not buying into such a narrow view. I’ve used plenty of other mental processes to prove my own existence—stuff like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. Even physical stuff, like exerting effort or moving around, counts. Every single one of these mental and physical actions serves as proof of our own existence, or what I call the "self."

Look, I’ve actually moved past Descartes at this point. My takeaway is that proving a "self" exists is really just proving one specific slice of reality. The other half? That’s all physical and mental actions. But here’s the catch: those exact same actions are what we use to try and prove the "self" exists in the first place. It creates this massive loop. How can the "self" even prove that these physical and mental actions exist at all?

Physical and mental actions get proven the exact same way we prove "the self"—just in reverse. Think about it: we use our physical and mental actions to prove that the "self" exists, but now those same actions are proven by the "self" itself. After all, the "self" is the one actually doing the work and knowing it's doing it.

Look, here’s how I see it: reality is split right down the middle. You’ve got the "self" on one side, and then you've got all the physical and mental stuff we actually do on the other. The "self" is the driver—the cause. Everything else? That's just the effect. The "self" exists absolutely in relation to its actions, while those physical and mental moves only exist relatively, basically only in the moment they're actually happening.

Look, you’re obviously going to argue that reality isn't just some isolated bubble made up of our "self" and our physical or mental actions. That's a flaw in the logic. Reality includes everything sitting outside that "self"—everything our "self" observes and becomes aware of through those same physical and mental processes, just like we become aware of ourselves.

Even after you wrap your head around all this, you still have to ask: what actually makes up reality? Is it just three pieces stuck together? First, our "self." Second, everything we physically do and think. And third, that whole massive world outside our own heads that we’re just perceiving?

Let's start by tackling the big one: how does our "self" even exist in the first place?

The answer just forces itself on you.

Our "self" makes it pretty damn easy to prove its own existence just by the way we act, both physically and mentally.

So, how do our physical and mental actions even exist in the first place?

And the answer goes without saying here.

Our physical and mental actions only happen because of our "self"—that's the thing that actually makes them possible. And let's be real: the "self" wouldn't even exist if it couldn't perform those actions, just like those actions wouldn't exist without a "self" to carry them out. Our "self" and its capacity for action are totally inseparable, indestructible, and can't be manufactured. You can't use your own mind or body to build someone else's "self," and your "self" can't step in and pull off someone else's moves. It’s pretty simple: the "self" exists solely on its own terms, and nobody else's.

So how does that whole slice of reality outside our own "self" even exist? You know, the stuff our "self" decides is real just by going through its physical and mental motions.

The answer is pretty damn obvious if you think about it.

Reality outside our "self" exists just as much as we do. Every little thing and every massive object that our "self" perceives—confirming its existence through its own physical and mental actions—exists on its own terms.

Here’s the catch: no matter how big or small an object is, it can’t actually perceive anyone else's "self" besides its own through its actions. It can only witness the physical movements of others, nothing deeper. Other "selves" are totally unreachable. This entire material universe we think we see is really just a collection of physical and mental actions from countless tiny and massive "selves" hiding right at the core of those actions.

And honestly, that’s the root of the problem. Because we can’t actually see anyone else's "self"—only their outward actions—we have no clue how reality truly functions, which forces us to just believe whatever bullshit comes our way.

Basically, the biggest issue isn't understanding how reality works; it's that we don't even ask how *we* exist. Instead, we lean on our senses and ask how reality exists. But our senses can't see the true reality, because reality is composed of infinite "selves" existing outside and apart from our own. Our senses only pick up the physical actions these "selves" perform, and those actions aren't the full story. Sure, they're "real," but it's just a relative reality—they're just movements that can't exist on their own. The Absolute reality is the infinite swarm of "selves" driving those actions.

The truth about the Absolute reality is the only absolute truth there is. Everything else regarding our "selves" or how reality exists is just noise.

All this stuff about believing in gods, organized religions, temples, and praying for eternal life or salvation from death and suffering? It's a total joke. It’s just a reflection of how clueless we are about what reality actually is.

Faith is just faith. Period. We use it to trick ourselves into feeling comforted, but it doesn't work. Real comfort comes from actually knowing how reality and ourselves exist within it. That knowledge is the only guarantee you need. It proves we don't need to rely on any gods or faiths, because we ourselves are incredible, indestructible gods. Only our physical and mental actions are created and destructible, and we are the ones who create them. Whether we act, and how we act, is entirely up to our own will. It's also up to our own knowledge whether those actions do us good or harm. So, stop praying to anyone or putting your trust in someone else. Trust yourself, your own intellect, your experience, and your knowledge. Forget the faith.

If you’re saying that consciousness needs reality just to have something to actually be conscious of—or, if we're using your terminology, for the self to be aware of anything at all...
So basically, consciousness—the "self"—is totally dependent on reality. I mean, without reality existing, there wouldn't even be a self to begin with, since nothing could ever be conscious of anything else... It’s just a hierarchical setup: reality comes first, then consciousness follows.
Based on that conclusion—reality isn't dependent on consciousness at all. Not now, wasn't then, and never will be...
You're just going in circles and creating contradictions—if you say consciousness depends on reality, then reality depends on consciousness... I don't buy that for a second.
Consciousness just observes reality—it can't actually change things or mess with what's happening in the moment... I mean, I'm talking about right this second, not some long-term life planning stuff...
People can totally mess up—like thinking they can actually bend reality to their will. I'm not talking about just making a plan here, but that whole idea of trying to shift reality through pure thought in the moment... that kind of thing. Sure, you might misuse your consciousness like that, but it’s just a glitch in your own head. It doesn't actually change the world around you...

Sandra Wilson68 said:Krešo2 Quote

Alright, I've been paying attention too.

I think there’s only one reality, and the reason you can't wrap your head around explaining it is because you've made this huge assumption that "the self" is some massive deal—basically deciding it's the beginning and the end of everything. Honestly, maybe without even realizing it, you're leaning on Descartes' whole "I think, therefore I am" thing, which is just plain wrong. The "self" you're obsessing over? That's just consciousness.

Thanks for "paying attention" and giving me something to do. Honestly, replying to your post was a great way to kill some time and deal with the boredom of being retired.

Alright, here’s how it goes:
You're right—there’s only one reality, and I’m out here doing my best to make sense of it. But honestly, the real question is: am I actually getting through to anyone? Do you think I'm tripping by putting the "self" at the very center of reality? Because I'm dead certain I'm not. The way I'm talking about the "self" is worlds apart from how Descartes saw it. Let me break it down for you:

Descartes just stumbled upon one way to prove the "self" exists—basically saying that because we can perform mental acts, specifically thinking, then we exist. Personally, I’m not buying into such a narrow view. I’ve used plenty of other mental processes to prove my own existence—stuff like perceiving, feeling, remembering, and understanding. Even physical stuff, like exerting effort or moving around, counts. Every single one of these mental and physical actions serves as proof of our own existence, or what I call the "self."

Look, I’ve actually moved past Descartes at this point. My takeaway is that proving a "self" exists is really just proving one specific slice of reality. The other half? That’s all physical and mental actions. But here’s the catch: those exact same actions are what we use to try and prove the "self" exists in the first place. It creates this massive loop. How can the "self" even prove that these physical and mental actions exist at all?

Physical and mental actions get proven the exact same way we prove "the self"—just in reverse. Think about it: we use our physical and mental actions to prove that the "self" exists, but now those same actions are proven by the "self" itself. After all, the "self" is the one actually doing the work and knowing it's doing it.

Look, here’s how I see it: reality is split right down the middle. You’ve got the "self" on one side, and then you've got all the physical and mental stuff we actually do on the other. The "self" is the driver—the cause. Everything else? That's just the effect. The "self" exists absolutely in relation to its actions, while those physical and mental moves only exist relatively, basically only in the moment they're actually happening.

Look, you’re obviously going to argue that reality isn't just some isolated bubble made up of our "self" and our physical or mental actions. That's a flaw in the logic. Reality includes everything sitting outside that "self"—everything our "self" observes and becomes aware of through those same physical and mental processes, just like we become aware of ourselves.

Even after you wrap your head around all this, you still have to ask: what actually makes up reality? Is it just three pieces stuck together? First, our "self." Second, everything we physically do and think. And third, that whole massive world outside our own heads that we’re just perceiving?

Let's start by tackling the big one: how does our "self" even exist in the first place?

The answer just forces itself on you.

Our "self" makes it pretty damn easy to prove its own existence just by the way we act, both physically and mentally.

So, how do our physical and mental actions even exist in the first place?

And the answer goes without saying here.

Our physical and mental actions only happen because of our "self"—that's the thing that actually makes them possible. And let's be real: the "self" wouldn't even exist if it couldn't perform those actions, just like those actions wouldn't exist without a "self" to carry them out. Our "self" and its capacity for action are totally inseparable, indestructible, and can't be manufactured. You can't use your own mind or body to build someone else's "self," and your "self" can't step in and pull off someone else's moves. It’s pretty simple: the "self" exists solely on its own terms, and nobody else's.

So how does that whole slice of reality outside our own "self" even exist? You know, the stuff our "self" decides is real just by going through its physical and mental motions.

The answer is pretty damn obvious if you think about it.

Reality outside our "self" exists just as much as we do. Every little thing and every massive object that our "self" perceives—confirming its existence through its own physical and mental actions—exists on its own terms.

Here’s the catch: no matter how big or small an object is, it can’t actually perceive anyone else's "self" besides its own through its actions. It can only witness the physical movements of others, nothing deeper. Other "selves" are totally unreachable. This entire material universe we think we see is really just a collection of physical and mental actions from countless tiny and massive "selves" hiding right at the core of those actions.

And honestly, that’s the root of the problem. Because we can’t actually see anyone else's "self"—only their outward actions—we have no clue how reality truly functions, which forces us to just believe whatever bullshit comes our way.

Basically, the biggest issue isn't understanding how reality works; it's that we don't even ask how *we* exist. Instead, we lean on our senses and ask how reality exists. But our senses can't see the true reality, because reality is composed of infinite "selves" existing outside and apart from our own. Our senses only pick up the physical actions these "selves" perform, and those actions aren't the full story. Sure, they're "real," but it's just a relative reality—they're just movements that can't exist on their own. The Absolute reality is the infinite swarm of "selves" driving those actions.

The truth about the Absolute reality is the only absolute truth there is. Everything else regarding our "selves" or how reality exists is just noise.

All this stuff about believing in gods, organized religions, temples, and praying for eternal life or salvation from death and suffering? It's a total joke. It’s just a reflection of how clueless we are about what reality actually is.

Faith is just faith. Period. We use it to trick ourselves into feeling comforted, but it doesn't work. Real comfort comes from actually knowing how reality and ourselves exist within it. That knowledge is the only guarantee you need. It proves we don't need to rely on any gods or faiths, because we ourselves are incredible, indestructible gods. Only our physical and mental actions are created and destructible, and we are the ones who create them. Whether we act, and how we act, is entirely up to our own will. It's also up to our own knowledge whether those actions do us good or harm. So, stop praying to anyone or putting your trust in someone else. Trust yourself, your own intellect, your experience, and your knowledge. Forget the faith.

This part's tripping me up a bit—could you break it down?
Do you reckon only humans and higher animals actually have consciousness (selfhood)? I’m assuming you agree that a rock or a glass of water doesn't possess selfhood... if not, please walk me through your reasoning.
One more thing—if everything (since you're trying to explain all of reality through mental/physical actions) consists of these actions, then what specific mental or physical actions is a rock actually performing?

I think you've got a pretty solid handle on consciousness, but I don't think I'm quite on the same page with the rest—specifically how consciousness relates to reality and vice versa. It feels like you're trying to boil everything down to the smallest possible noun, and honestly, I think you're losing a lot of the nuance along the way...

placidranger said:Hold on—are we all agreeing that people just create their own "reality" by interpreting what’s around them?
So, it isn't that thoughts actually influence the physical environment, but rather that they shape one's internal interpretation of that environment.

Look, people have a set way of processing reality—you've got specific cognitive abilities, and that's the only lens you've got to work with.

Reality is singular, but every single person perceives it differently.
Think about it—say you and someone who's blind are in the same room.
They’re going to be aware of the room and what's going on in a totally different way than you are, but you're both experiencing the exact same room (the same reality)...

Everyone builds their own version of reality—yeah, if you mean that humans have consciousness and can only understand things through that.

That second part of yours—'...that it affects their interpretation of the environment'—is a bit fuzzy for me. A person can't really choose their cognitive faculties.
You can shift your focus—like leaning more into sight than hearing, for example—but you can't just invent a new sense out of thin air, any more than you could invent a new aspect of reality itself...

We on the same page?

fadedbison17,

You’re getting warm, but you haven't quite wrapped your head around what I'm saying yet. Let me try breaking this down one more time so we can actually get on the same page.

Look, you’ve gotta realize that for me, "consciousness" and "awareness" aren't even playing the same game. They aren't synonyms. To me, consciousness is what actually EXISTS. It’s the substance—the core essence—regardless of what it's made of or how it works. Awareness, on the other hand, is just a state of being conscious. It’s a mode of operation. You have awareness, and then you have the opposite: unconsciousness. Awareness is what happens when consciousness is actively working the gears—using its physical and mental tools to strain, move, perceive, feel, remember, think, and process. Unconsciousness is just what happens when it stops. It’s that state where consciousness goes totally still, basically just sleeping and recharging.

Quincy:

If you’re arguing that consciousness needs reality to actually *be* conscious—or if we're using your terminology, that the self needs reality to be aware of anything—then we need to talk.

You’re spot on. Here’s the thing: if consciousness is the fundamental fabric that everything is built from, then it can only ever be aware of itself—because, honestly, there’s nothing else. When it's just chilling and idling—meaning it isn't actually using any physical or mental faculties—it stays immaterial and basically invisible. So, for it to actually become perceptible and achieve self-awareness, it *has* to exert itself. It has to kick into gear and transform into an energetic, material phenomenon so it can finally observe, feel, remember, think, and make sense of its own existence.

Quincy:

So, basically, consciousness—the "self"—is entirely dependent on reality. If there’s no objective reality, there’s no self, because there wouldn't be anything out there for anything to actually perceive. It’s a straight hierarchy: reality comes first, then consciousness follows.

Not exactly. It would be more accurate if you’d written "consciousness – reality" instead of "reality – consciousness." Charged up, active consciousness equals reality. It’s all just awareness. Look, reality is basically just a feedback loop. It’s a series of physical and mental moves made by consciousness—where consciousness uses those actions to carve out its own materiality, and then uses that materiality to actually experience being conscious. Simple as that.

Quincy:

Based on that conclusion, reality isn't dependent on consciousness—not now, not then, and not ever.

If that were true, we’d be living in two separate worlds: one dead, material reality and one living, conscious one. That’s the standard line pushed by mainstream science, philosophy, and religion today, and you’ve swallowed it whole without even questioning it. But here’s the thing—that view is wrong. It’s exactly why modern science and philosophy are still clueless about both matter and consciousness. The truth is much simpler: consciousness and matter are one and the same. They aren't separate. What we call "material reality" is just consciousness in a high-tension, active state of energy and matter. Materiality is just the external, physical, objective side of consciousness—the stuff we can actually see and touch. The psyche is just the internal, subjective side of that exact same thing. These physical and mental manifestations are just different ways consciousness acts upon itself to gain experience and understand its own movement.

Quincy:

You're just running in circles here and creating a paradox; you claim if consciousness depends on reality, then reality must depend on consciousness—I'm pretty sure that's total nonsense.

.

You don't need an "opinion" to figure out the truth; you just need to verify it. Test it on yourself. You are the consciousness (the self) that exists through this process, and that's how you become aware of yourself. You’re the one capable of both physical and mental actions, and those actions are what allow your consciousness to function. These physical and mental moves happen in a loop—they're cyclical. Your mental state enables your physical actions, and those physical actions, in turn, enable your mental states. They are locked in a constant cause-and-effect loop. Since you (your self) are the one performing both, it means you, as a conscious entity, are the cause. You are effectively your own cause because you use these actions to manifest yourself as both a material force and a conscious phenomenon. Everything in nature that falls under the umbrella of "reality" operates exactly like this.

Consciousness only perceives reality; it can't change it or influence it in any way (I'm talking about a single, specific moment, not long-term planning).

Look, when your stomach is empty, that is an objective, physical reality at that specific moment. That physical reality called "hunger" is capable of changing your mental reality by triggering the conscious sensation of being hungry. Then, that mental state of hunger is what changes the objective reality of your "empty stomach" by forcing you to go eat. Once you eat, the physical act of filling your stomach changes your mental state from hunger to fullness. Finally, that feeling of being full forces you to stop eating, which changes the physical state of your stomach again, causing it to digest and eventually empty out. It’s a continuous, infinite cycle where physical processes trigger mental ones, and mental ones trigger physical ones. Everything you do to stay alive works this way. It’s how you breathe, how your heart beats, how you hit the sack at night and get up in the morning, or how you tie your sneakers in the morning and untie them at night. Everything in existence that we call "reality" functions through this cyclic repetition of mutually causal physical and mental actions. This is the only way anything can exist—by existing through this constant, looping feedback loop of cause and effect. This is what I call the law of existence . The entire universe exists because the matter it's made of is constantly repeating these same physical and mental cycles.

fadedbison17

(continued)

Look, people can mess up. You might fall into the trap of thinking you can actually bend reality to your will—and I’m not talking about making a plan here, I mean some weird idea that you can shift existence just by thinking it. Sure, you can misuse your consciousness like that, but that error stays stuck inside your own head. It doesn't work like that; your thoughts aren't going to physically warp the world around you.

People change reality through their actions—physical stuff driven by what's going on in their heads. But it’s not just humans doing that. It’s the whole damn universe. Everything that exists, through its own physical presence and mental energy, hits everything else. It’s one massive chain reaction where everything forces everything else to keep moving, shifting, and evolving.

Look, everyone’s got their own specific way of processing reality. You have these set cognitive abilities—this fixed mental framework—and that is the only lens through which you can actually perceive the world. That's just how it works.

Human cognition isn't just some abstract mental thing; it’s physical and psychological combined. You can't have one without the other, and honestly, that combo is all you need for anything you want to understand about the world. There aren't any "extra" hidden abilities floating around out there. Everything that exists—from us to a literal rock—operates strictly within these physical and mental bounds. Even a stone uses its inherent properties to stay exactly what it is: a stone. Humans use our set of tools to do the same, just to maintain being human. We're talking movement, effort, perception, feeling, memory, thought, and reasoning. That’s the whole deck. There is nothing else.

Reality is one thing, but everyone perceives it through their own lens. Think about it: you and a blind person are stuck in the same room. They’re going to experience that space and everything happening inside it completely differently than you do, but you're both still standing in the exact same reality.

So what? Big deal. You and a rock can be in the same room, both "conscious" in our own ways, but that doesn't change anything. Our different perspectives aren't some proof that reality is relative or shifting depending on who's looking. That’s just perception. It doesn't touch the FIRST and MAIN TRUTH: the fact that reality actually exists. For anything to even be part of this reality, it has to exist on its own terms—through its own physical properties and its own actions. Period.

Everyone creates their own reality—yeah, sure. But only if you’re saying that every single person actually possesses consciousness and can only truly perceive things through that lens.

Nobody "owns" consciousness—not even us. You can't own something that just *is*. Consciousness isn't a possession; it’s the fundamental reality that does the possessing. It owns our physical and mental faculties, and that's it. Everything else is just tools. With those tools, it can reshape itself into anything imaginable—an atom, a stone, a star, a plant, an animal, or a human being.

Your second sentence—'...that it affects one's interpretation of their surroundings'—doesn't click for me. You can't just pick and choose which cognitive abilities you have. Sure, you can shift your focus from sight to sound, but you can't just invent a new sense out of thin air, any more than you can invent a new aspect of reality itself.

Spot on. Cognitive abilities—which are basically our survival tools—aren't optional. They're locked in by our physical and mental capacities for effort, movement, perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding. These traits are universal, indestructible, and foundational; they’re all we need to exist, and everything that exists relies on them. We have no clue how these abilities even came to be—nobody does. All we can grasp is the mechanism (the law), or the way these abilities *must* function for reality to actually happen. We know they can't be created or destroyed; you either have them or you don't, just like the person using them. Beyond these abilities and the being that possesses them, there isn't some other "alternative" way to exist. Things exist through these physical and mental faculties, period.

If I wasn't clear enough or if you think I'm tripping, just call me out on it and I'll try to break it down even further. I can get much more granular with this. My explanation of how reality exists is really just an analogy—I'm projecting the way a human uses self-preservation instincts onto the entire nature of existence. It starts with the fact that both humans and nature are made of the same fundamental stuff. Then, there's the fact that a person can't just use those mental or physical skills to create themselves; rather, the raw matter we're built from uses those skills to transform into a human shape. Basically, the "conscious self" isn't the person itself, but the matter that makes up the person. Because of that, the rules governing human existence and the rules governing nature are identical. The only difference between the material forms in nature is the information (the knowledge/experience) that tells that matter how to take a specific shape. This is necessary so different things can perform different functions within nature acting as one unified living system. It's exactly like how different parts of the human body are only different because of the information directing their shape and function within the whole system, even though the underlying matter is exactly the same everywhere.

Later.

Sandra Wilson68,

You're saying: active and engaged consciousness = reality = awareness.

Looking at your whole post, I feel like you're mixing up terms—kind of swapping their meanings... you're jumping from one perspective (reality depends on consciousness) to another (consciousness depends on reality), which makes sense since you've basically merged them together.

Let me lay out my take and why I think you've got it wrong:
Consciousness has to be active and engaged. Simple proof—try to prove it isn't, and just notice what happens... you end up thinking about the process and using your own consciousness (meaning, you're conscious).

I really think it's vital to separate consciousness from reality.
Not everything (reality) relies on consciousness; consciousness just serves to perceive reality (and that's pretty much its whole job).

So how does consciousness actually work?
*Consciousness handles extraspection (that outward-facing perception of things existing in the external world) and introspection (the inward-facing process of understanding your own psychological moves relative to what's happening in the outside world; things like thinking, feeling, remembering, etc. Consciousness perceives reality—that’s all it does.

Just to reiterate since this seems fuzzy to you—how can consciousness *do that? Because reality exists (which is something distinct from consciousness).

I want to be as clear as possible so we're on the same page, so here are a few examples to help distinguish reality from consciousness:
- imagine a guy sitting in a field in Montana, watching a river flow in the distance. That river is part of reality (outside of consciousness) and it keeps flowing whether he's thinking about it or not. So, reality doesn't depend on consciousness. For anything to be perceived—for there to even be awareness—that river has to exist first (reality, something independent of consciousness).
- if a guy comes home exhausted from a shift at Ford and his wife starts yelling at him, he feels this mix of helplessness and anger (caused by the wife—the trigger isn't his consciousness, it's reality, something existing outside of himself).
- if a guy is dwelling on something that happened, he's using consciousness to replay an event that took place in reality, outside of his mind.

In the real world, we notice that certain entities (things that exist in reality) possess consciousness.
We reached that conclusion just by observing these entities. Basically, we noticed some entities (humans and certain animals) have the ability to perceive. We called that ability "awareness," and the entity that makes it possible is what we call "consciousness."
Some entities (like a rock, water, etc.) don't have consciousness. We came up with the word "consciousness" to differentiate the traits of entities that have it from those that don't—if everything was consciousness, there'd be no way to tell one thing from another, and we wouldn't even have a name for it.

What is consciousness? It's a characteristic of an entity (a human or certain animals). Without those entities, there is no consciousness. All entities are part of reality.

People don't use the word "consciousness" to explain every single thing in existence; they used it to name the specific ability that allows them to make sense of reality.
That ability (awareness), much like everything else that exists (reality), has its own specific traits and functions (it can be directed outward, inward, etc.).

Does that make sense?

Krešo, you aren't even remotely correct. The only reality you need to concern yourself with is your own illiteracy. 😬 😱

Kobe Bryant

Throughout your whole post, you’re clearly mixing up your terms; you're constantly flipping between two perspectives—one where reality depends on consciousness and another where consciousness depends on reality. It’s obvious you've just lumped consciousness and reality into one single bucket.

Let me lay out my take and why yours doesn't hold water:
Consciousness can't be anything other than active and driven. Simple proof? Try to prove it isn't. Notice what you're doing right now; you're thinking about the process and using your consciousness (meaning, you're aware).

I think it's vital to distinguish consciousness from reality.
Not everything (reality) relies on consciousness; consciousness exists to perceive reality (and that's its entire job).

If you actually want to follow me, stop using your own definitions and start using mine. The issue is you're treating "consciousness" and "awareness" as the same thing. I already told you: for me, those aren't synonyms. I view consciousness as the fundamental substance everything is made of. That's how I can say consciousness and reality are one and the same. Since reality is built from consciousness, they are essentially identical.

What *isn't* the same is consciousness and awareness. And since consciousness is reality, then reality and the awareness of reality aren't the same either. Reality—and therefore consciousness—exists independently of human awareness. Human consciousness, and by extension reality, can exist even if a person isn't consciously aware of themselves or their surroundings. This happens when the consciousness isn't utilizing its physical or mental faculties—like when someone is resting or sleeping.

Get this: the psychological process is what enables awareness. Consciousness is the entity capable of generating that psychological process and being aware of whatever that process achieves. Take perception, for example. Perception itself isn't consciousness, nor is it awareness; it's just a psychological process. Consciousness is the thing that has the capacity to be aware of what is perceived. And consciousness is also the thing capable of perceiving. If the psychological process of perception stops, the awareness of what was perceived stops too. But the Consciousness that has the power to perceive and be aware remains. It never stops. It's still there. That's why it is absolute reality, while its perception and the resulting awareness are just relative reality because they can start and end.

From what I can see, you've been playing around with the word "consciousness" as if it only means "awareness." Moving forward, try to grasp that awareness is just a psychological process—a mental action that can't exist without consciousness acting as the driver, which also possesses the ability to be aware of the results. Look at the relationship between a thinker and a thought; they aren't the same thing. The thinker is reality, while the thought is just the mental action the thinker uses to reach a state of awareness. The thinker is consciousness because he is the one capable of being aware of his thoughts, making him reality. His thought, however, is neither reality nor is it capable of being aware of itself, because the thought is merely the thinker's mental action. It’s just like running; running is a runner's physical action. The runner is reality, but running isn't reality—running is just the state of motion of the reality, the runner, who actually exists.

In actual practice, we observe that certain entities (things that exist in reality) possess consciousness.
We reached this conclusion by looking directly at what’s actually out there. Specifically, we noticed that certain entities—people and some animals—have the ability to perceive things. We call that capacity "consciousness," and the entity that makes it possible is "the conscious." Some things, like a rock or water, don't have consciousness. I coined the term just to draw a line between things that possess it and things that don't; if everything had it, the word wouldn't even exist because there'd be nothing to distinguish it from anything else.

Look, you're trying to explain consciousness to me by saying only humans and certain animals have it. I get what you're saying, but you're just regurgitating the standard textbook definition that mainstream science, philosophy, and religion all agree on. Here's the problem: that global consensus isn't right. I'm trying to offer a different explanation—one that's actually intuitive and verifiable.

In my view, for there to be awareness (not just "consciousness" as a concept, but actual awareness), the entity wanting to be aware must possess the physical and mental capacities to exert effort, move, perceive, feel, remember, think, and understand. Awareness only exists once these capabilities are translated into physical and mental actions. If those actions aren't happening, there is no awareness.

Now, check out this paradox. If we claim only humans and certain animals have consciousness—given that awareness requires the ability to act, move, perceive, feel, etc.—then we hit a wall. How could humans or animals ever come to exist if consciousness didn't exist before them? You can't have the ability to exert effort, move, or think unless there was already something capable of doing those things to facilitate the evolution into a human or an animal. In other words, it's absurd to say only humans and animals are conscious while ignoring the fact that they couldn't have emerged without a prior state of consciousness. Basically, there had to be a substance beforehand that possessed the capacity to act, move, and perceive, allowing itself to transform into a human or an animal. Therefore, the consciousness we see in humans today isn't "human" consciousness; it's the consciousness of the underlying matter that makes up a human. Or rather, it *is* human consciousness, because the true conscious "I" isn't the human body, but the matter that builds it. Our conscious "I" is always aware of itself and its capacities, regardless of whether it's in a human shape or not. It's like how you aren't the same person you were as a baby versus now as an adult. Your form and your level of awareness changed drastically, but your conscious "I" remained the same. This adult version of you that knows a lot is the exact same "I" you had as a helpless infant. No matter how much the form changes—even if you crushed a person into dust—their "I" would still be alive and conscious, because consciousness doesn't depend on the shape, but on the matter forming that shape. Without consciousness—without those physical and mental capacities—matter wouldn't just fail to take a shape; it wouldn't even exist.

Get this straight: humans and animals don't cause or create consciousness. That's impossible. Consciousness is what creates everything else, including animals, humans, and the rest of the universe.

Later.