We are all one!

Where, specifically, does consciousness manifest within the material realm? How can we even begin to identify its presence? Where in this so-called "nature" do we actually locate it?

Naturally, it isn't found anywhere specific... nor can it be "located"... yet WE ARE CONSCIOUS. This implies that consciousness DOES exist within nature, even if it remains invisible and beyond the reach of any scientific instrument. By mapping out physical and chemical processes in the brain—if I may address a certain skeptic—one merely proves those processes themselves. That provides zero confirmation of consciousness or insight into its essence. The only, I repeat, ONLY proof of consciousness is consciousness itself. We can only confirm it from within our own being. So, while consciousness might not be "visible," it is through consciousness that everything else becomes visible; it encompasses everything.
YOU CANNOT FIND THE TOOL WITH THE TOOL.
In this context, "man" is the totality of nature contained within himself. Consciousness is what holds "nature" within itself, which simultaneously means that ALL OF NATURE IS CONSCIOUS.
...

In the grand architecture of my intellectual and physical being, I claim virtually no credit; my only true agency lies in the continuous refinement of the self.
Now that we have arrived at the inescapable conclusion that I am not my own architect, and that I am merely a "transient creation," I find it entirely superfluous—indeed, utterly pointless—to engage in any debate regarding where I derive the audacity to make such an assertion.
The very notion of my free will and my autonomy in legislating my own existence as a human being is, in its core essence, unnatural and illogical; therefore, while one may attempt to do so, it is absolutely unproductive to waste breath discussing the logical cause behind the existence of my consciousness.
That underlying cause is, in fact, completely irrelevant to anything of substance because, firstly, it loses all justification, and secondly, from the perspective of the world around us, consciousness would lack that vital sense of beginning and ending an act (which is what necessitates responsibility); instead, there would be a perceived sense of continuity within the order and nature of the universe, which simply does not exist in reality. For when I perform an action, I do not say, "that was destined to happen," but rather, "I" did it, and all those external circumstances that supposedly "helped" or "hindered" my movement effectively vanish and cannot be factored in even slightly as a determination of my direct (and I emphasize *direct*) decision.
The true, immediate cause of any rational decision we make is neither logically nor scientifically explicable, yet it remains undeniably real; thus, the problem of "who created consciousness" ceases to exist for us and for anyone observing us.
I, as an individual consciousness possessing a sense of belonging to a broader unconscious system, explain my own atheism by denying the existence of some vast, external consciousness that drafted the template or scheme for my mental processes. The idea of an external conscious legislator is, quite frankly, an insult to the concept of man as a man, and indeed to the phenomenon of humanity itself.
Consciousness is fundamentally incapable of perceiving itself as a limitation; instead, it is capable only of viewing itself as eternity, and it is precisely here that we arrive at my central thesis, which serves as the catalyst for this entire discourse. The need for God exists by the very nature of consciousness itself due to its undeniable desire to view itself as eternal and its refusal to acknowledge its own finitude.

I shall reiterate once more to conclude—it is both impossible and unnecessary to contemplate the logical cause for the emergence of something that is, in its very essence, illogical: namely, consciousness and its freedom. Consciousness is a universe that appears limited from the standpoint of any other consciousness, yet from its own perspective, it is eternal—and there can be, and is, absolutely no compromise to be found there!

Eric Wells3, consider this.....
There is no such thing as "other" versus "own" consciousness. There is only ONE consciousness. You cannot prove the existence of multiple consciousnesses through experience or any other means—only the existence of more conscious "individuals." This implies that this single consciousness is omnipresent, even if it remains unnoticed and unknown to everyone...
Consciousness holds desires, yet possesses none. For the sake of clarity, we must distinguish between the two. You might be aware of a desire, or you might not. It is vital to separate consciousness itself from its contents. Take thought, for example; thoughts simply flow. You can observe your own thoughts and their movement. These are distinct: thoughts, perceptions, and feelings are merely the CONTENTS of consciousness—transient and fleeting—while consciousness itself is CONSTANT and unchanging. This constancy provides the continuity of a "person," though a person is inherently nothing permanent. Ultimately, consciousness CREATES the individual. In this sense, a human doesn't "have" consciousness; rather, consciousness "has" the human as its own content. One shouldn't feel "offended" by this; one should realize that by identifying with transient content, they are choosing to be limited. No one is asking you to admit to a wider consciousness outside of yourself... because there is no "outside." Such a concept doesn't exist. Likewise, you do not exist anywhere "outside" of it. Consciousness is limitless, but you, being merely the content of that consciousness, are definitively fleeting and therefore limited.
A person can "influence" the contents of consciousness—themselves—because those contents are fluid and changeable. However, there is no way to "influence" consciousness itself, as it is "empty" and immovable. It must be empty, formless, and eternal, so that all content and form may emerge "from it" into eternity. As the old Buddhists would say, emptiness is form, and form is emptiness... without compromise or limitation.

The problem with the human condition is that people fail to view themselves as consciousness. Instead, they are deeply, deeply attached to themselves as the transient content of consciousness—the human form—which is nothing more and nothing less than NOTHING. At the same time, they fail to see that by "abandoning" the self as a "being," they abandon their limitations and transience, remaining what they truly are: limitless consciousness.
And this unknown, unconstrained consciousness that contains you
(rather than you containing it) which "knows" you, rather than you knowing it, could be called God, or Allah, or a supreme intelligence, or whatever else you prefer... yet the truth is that it is more accurate to say that "we" do not actually exist. Only it truly exists, and it is because of it that we exist as its fleeting "form."
In religious systems, this is termed "creation." That is why humility, gratitude, and renunciation exist—to help a person let go of their false greatness (their perceived existence) and grasp their true, eternal essence.
Because of the unknown nature of one's own essence—the true nature of creation—it may seem as though "God" is someone or something outside of us. But that cannot be true... because "OUTSIDE" does not exist. Whatever is outside is actually inside, and vice versa.
To clarify: it isn't that nothing exists outside, but rather that "outside" as a category of space and time does not exist at all.

Human destiny is tragic in its finitude, yet that very finitude is the path to infinity. Because of this, it is simultaneously magnificent and, in essence, perfectly complete.
And... what else is there to say? People shouldn't be given hope for liberation, because they are already free... it is the TRUTH that sets them free.🙂

Rachel Bishop said:.So, consciousness is what actually defines us. In this light, it isn't that a "person" possesses consciousness, but rather that consciousness holds the "person" as its own internal content. We shouldn't feel "offended" by this; instead, we need to realize that by clinging to our temporary identities, we are essentially choosing to remain limited.

The core struggle of the human condition is our inability to see ourselves as pure consciousness. Instead, we are so deeply, deeply attached to our identity as mere passing contents—this human form, which is ultimately nothing more than a shadow. At the same time, we fail to see that by letting go of this "self," we aren't losing anything; we are actually shedding our limitations and transience to become what we truly are: boundless consciousness.

😕 🤔 🙂

Rachel Bishop said:There’s no such thing as "other" consciousness vs. "my own"... there is ONLY ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. Like, you can't prove through experience or anything else that multiple consciousnesses exist—all you see are just more conscious "people." Which basically means that one single consciousness is everywhere at once, even if we don't notice it or realize it...

That’s a beautiful way to put it.
But I still can't get past the whole "individuation problem": if that's true, why do we feel so incredibly separate from everything else? What’s the point of this illusion (assuming you're right and it really is just an illusion)? Why were we tossed into this mess, stuck in this isolation? If the only goal is to eventually wake up and realize it was all fake... honestly, that feels kind of pointless.

mistyfox812 said:That’s all well and good.
But we’re still left with this "problem of individuation." How do we end up with this crushing sense of being separate? What is the point of the illusion—assuming you're right and it actually is one? Why were we tossed into this void of isolation to begin with? If the sole purpose is to eventually realize it was all a lie... it feels a bit too pointless, doesn't it?

It doesn't feel that way to me...
And maybe I'll have an answer for why by tomorrow. 🙂

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.

Sandra Wilson68 said:The existence of the Self isn't up for debate. Even Descartes pointed out how it can be proven by saying, "I think, therefore I am," and consciousness itself will always be a valid subject for philosophical deep dives.

.

Sandra...

It’s actually great that you’re bringing this back to consciousness. That’s exactly how I approach things, and focusing on awareness has helped me find answers to so many of my own questions.

However, I have to say that Descartes' famous statement is actually factually incorrect—something any of us could easily argue.

The right way to put it would be: I EXIST, THEREFORE I THINK.👍

In other words, consciousness comes first, then thought follows.

Or, to put it another way:

...I can observe my hand, which means I am not my hand.

I can observe my thoughts, which means I am not my thoughts.

And since I can reach a state of pure consciousness without any active thought at all, I realize we should say: I EXIST, THEREFORE I can think. Essentially: I exist, and thus, I think.

Beyond that, I’ve discovered—with a surprising amount of certainty—that my own existence, my Self, is

THE ONLY THING IN THIS ENTIRE UNIVERSE THAT I CANNOT DOUBT.😲

Because doubt itself requires awareness. I can't doubt my own existence because the very act of "doubting" confirms that I am conscious.

I've realized that there isn't a single mental maneuver I can pull to deny this consciousness or even doubt its presence. That realization is the greatest "intellectual capital" both mine and yours.

To me, the simple fact that I am aware is the most incredible miracle in the world.👋

Sandra Wilson68 said:The existence of the Self is beyond dispute. Even Descartes recalled how one proves such a thing, famously stating, "I think, therefore I am," and consciousness, in its purest essence, will forever remain a fertile ground for philosophical debate.

I have always found it deeply intriguing to wonder how two distinct consciousnesses can possibly exist simultaneously.

I am the subject, and within my consciousness, you serve as the object. Yet, the inverse holds true just as firmly; within your own consciousness, you are the subject, while I am relegated to being the object.

Which of us, then, truly exists at the end of the day?🤔

And ultimately, does this not point toward the inherent limitations and the ultimate futility of using the word "I," when both of us are claiming that very same identity?

Eric Wells3 said:I've always found it pretty strange... how can two separate consciousnesses actually exist at the exact same time?
I am the subject, and to my Self, you are the object. But it works both ways. To your own Self, you are the subject, and I’m just the object...
So, who actually comes out on top between us two...🤔
And in the end, doesn't that just prove how limited the concept of "I" actually is... especially when we're both claiming the exact same "I"?

Self becoming an object of awareness... that's self-awareness.
That’s why every single person carries their own Self and self-awareness...
The naturalist’s circular reasoning stems from a fundamental failure to interpret reality correctly. They don't actually perceive anything through the Self; instead, they just conflate consciousness and self-awareness with the objects they perceive. Since they claim both the mind and the external world are just "nature," this circularity becomes an inevitable—yet completely broken—logical loop. On top of that, the naturalist ignores the law of non-contradiction. You can't say A is the same as non-A. But by merging the identity of the Self with the identity of nature into one single entity, they create nothing but a total aporia...

The core issue is that we’re stuck in a loop... these two concepts just end up defining themselves through each other. It's circular logic at its worst...
Look at neurophysiology research. Since explaining brain activity is just an expression of thought—which is inherently part of the Self—these scientists are basically trying to explain consciousness using consciousness. And because these brain processes are just natural phenomena, they’re trapped in circular reasoning... they're trying to explain nature through nature. Both issues are fundamentally unexplainable. At least for now...
S.

hiddenpuma75

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.

Eric Wells3

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.

Nathan Hayes31 said:Furthermore, the naturalist here is essentially trampling all over the law of non-contradiction, given that A cannot be identical to non-A; yet, he attempts to equate them by merging a single identity of consciousness with a single identity of nature into one solitary entity, which inevitably results in this logical aporia.

Brilliant.
So now we have arrived at the grand conclusion that you possess no awareness whatsoever.
Because if you are merely an object (to my Self), and since A cannot simultaneously be non-A, and I am both aware and, moreover, the subject, then it follows logically that you cannot possibly be conscious.

Do try to apply some actual thought here... I am speaking from a third-person perspective...

Sandra Wilson68 said:There exists only ONE single entity, and in order to establish the necessary conditions to observe and acquire knowledge, it must inherently divide itself internally into smaller components—essentially splitting into subjects and objects that interact and gather experience, which is to say, knowledge, all while maintaining its own existence as a cohesive Self.

That is quite well put.

However, I must insist that there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as a subject existing without an object; one cannot possess consciousness without there being something specific to be conscious of... much like how phenomenologists argue that consciousness is always consciousness of something... you simply cannot claim to be conscious while simultaneously lacking an object of awareness. Consciousness and its object are truly ONE, inseparable, and impossible to contemplate in isolation from one another.

Eric Wells3 said:Great.
So now we've decided you aren't conscious.
If you're an object (to my Self), and A can't be both A and non-A, and I am a conscious subject, then you simply can't be conscious.

Think about it for a second... I'm talking about using third-person speech...

Writing about consciousness from a third-person perspective is impossible. It's not just because we don't actually know what consciousness is, but because it's inherently subjective.

At any given moment, anyone can only ever experience themselves, never anyone else. I don't have access to your Self, and you don't have access to mine; we each own our own consciousness.
As usual, you're leaning on just one thing: logic.
S. 😁

Nathan Hayes31 said:It is fundamentally impossible to write about consciousness from a third-person perspective, not merely because we lack a definitive definition of what consciousness actually is, but because that consciousness remains perpetually subjective.

Well, now... I cannot simply crawl inside your skull and see what you see... though one could arguably observe someone from a third-person vantage point in an indirect fashion... you watch another individual fail to be aware of something, while you remain perfectly aware that they *ought* to be conscious of it. But that proves absolutely nothing until you experience those very same sensations within your own Self—or at least, that is how they claim to feel, and we have no choice but to take their word for it—so I fail to see how we are meant to draw any meaningful conclusions.

For instance, imagine I am watching someone strike you over the head with a wooden plank. I observe your body lying motionless on the floor, and I am acutely aware of your physical presence there. However, if you wake up a few minutes later and declare, "I don't remember anything," then it follows that you were experiencing a total void of consciousness during the period I was observing your unconscious state.

If I were to follow your theory to its logical conclusion, we would have absolutely nothing to debate regarding consciousness... given the fact that we possess no access to anyone else's internal reality whatsoever.

"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.

Pandora said:If you ever found yourself totally deluded—just living in some massive fantasy—and then suddenly snapped out of it and realized how wrong you were... well, at that exact moment, it has to become clear *why* you were lost in that dream and why you were clinging to it so hard. The reasons and the logic behind the illusion reveal themselves right when the illusion breaks. It really just comes down to us believing in what we WANT and DESIRE, rather than what’s actually real. Why we want what we want? That's a question everyone’s gotta answer for themselves. One thing is for sure... choosing an illusion (that sense of separation) is our own call. We throw ourselves into it. And since... I mean, come on... it's an illusion after all, it has to end eventually... so death is a pretty fair price to pay for it. Finality in this whole mess acts like a balm for the wound; it's a decent way out of an uncomfortable situation built on lies...
But hey, you gotta remember that no woman gives birth just because she feels like it; she does it when she absolutely has to...😉
For me personally... the point isn't just realizing the illusion was fake. It's about realizing love and wholeness are the only truths that are truly complete and perfect (pure joy)... and isn't that what we're all searching for anyway?
The message from the author and kvaka22 is basically this... illusions are born and kept alive by a lack of love. In other words, that void where love should be creates this warped, broken version of reality, which inevitably leads to nothing but pain and suffering.
So, loving... that's the only way to see the truth that brings bliss... yippeeeeeee....🙂

Yeah, totally...
But I was thinking more about the very beginning of it all, that whole 'fall from paradise' vibe. It kind of feels like if consciousness starts off as one single thing, and there's nothing else around, it's not really clear what would even trigger it to move or do anything in the first place.

Mickey Mouse said:Based on your theory, there’s basically nothing left to discuss regarding consciousness... since we can't access anyone else's... [/B]

Consciousness isn't even a defined scientific term, which makes it impossible to make any credible scientific claims about it from a third-person perspective.

If you're observing someone who's unconscious, you still have zero insight into their actual consciousness, and that's the deciding factor.

Whatever you personally imagine their consciousness feels like is completely irrelevant.
From a third-person standpoint, all we can do is observe the manifestations—the qualities of consciousness. Every individual experiences consciousness and self-awareness for themselves. There's no other way it works.

Do you actually understand anything about philosophy?
Nathan Hayes31.😕

Nathan Hayes31 said:From a third-person perspective, we are strictly limited to observing the qualities of consciousness—that is, its various manifestations. Every individual possesses their own unique sense of consciousness and self-awareness; there simply isn't any other way for it to function.

Well, that is more or less what I was getting at.

I am just somewhat perplexed as to how you managed to weave science into this entire narrative in the first place.😕