Consciousness

[pouyam9]

Does consciousness move and control the bodies, or are bodies programmed and moving by themselves and consciousness only understands it?

Does the existence of 8 billion working brains mean there are 8 billion different real players, or is there only one player, and this one player designed the human matrix to look like there are 8 billion decision makers?

Does the human face represent a real individual with free will and ability to choose, or what's happening behind the face, turning the human face into a hyper-realistic mask covered and painted by skin and hair with the ability to show emotion and feeling ?

What if Even the result of your interaction or search with AI and a computer or Internet is also programmed?this deep level of programming and attention to even small details!Nobody can believe their interaction with AI or a computer or Internet itself can be something programmed. programming inside a program to deepen the illusion of reality. If a reality becomes programmed, then every interaction in that system is programmed, no matter how complex and realistic it could function,such as the interaction of a human with AI. A programmed brain is using a programmed AI with predetermined results, but this interaction is so realistic and complex that consciousness can't understand it.

The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more you encounter Consciousness versus the programmed brain, with each person experiencing different levels of involvement. We experience the human matrix only as consciousness, either enjoying a coffee, or having a headache, or falling in love with somebody; it's all experienced only as consciousness, which means we only understand the matrix and not really the doer of any action.

The illusion in the matrix is to bring the consciousness to this conclusion, that somebody is doing it. It's like a programmed show with an illusory sense of control made for consciousness, which is nobody; consciousness is not somebody. The matrix is doing everything to make this feeling that someone is doing any action, and then any action can be claimed. That's how the universe is playing with its own consciousness, by making the illusion of choice and free will as thoughts.

The whole human ability for conversation and make words and sentences are designed in this matrix to deceive the consciousness to believe , something other than what is happening, no matter how good you talk, and how much of the truth you use in your conversation, the reality doesn't need any explanation as words to be understood, words are actually hiding the truth. No matter how close you talk about the truth.

Saying everything is consciousness does not mean anything, the world of religions and mystical paths are all play of words, and words and sentences are the main obstacles in your way to be conscious as consciousness, so no matter how they want to close you to the truth, still using words to occupy the brain, and cover the existing consciousness.

This paper presents an original theory on the nature of consciousness and free will, proposing that human life operates within a predetermined matrix where the illusion of free will is created through the interaction of consciousness with the nervous system, particularly through cerebrospinal fluid. The work explores physiological mechanisms behind this process and their implications for understanding religious practices, subjective experiences, and the fundamental nature of reality.

Thank You,
Pouya Mohebpour

 

[Jamie01]

How did you get into my head?

 

[brettsta]

I try not to over think, thinking about consciousness. I like to look at it this way ,
consciousness is a like a river, and when that river comes to a waterfall it rages over precipice ,
droplets leave the river and fall through the air , moving through time and space , untill they finally arrive back at the river . The droplets journey was your life , arriving back to the river was your death . we , all life are all the river The river is consciousness

 

[Voidmatrix]

Sounds like a metaphysical philosophy of mind steeped in physicalism.

One love

 

[universecannon]

Interesting thoughts. I guess the main thing I don't see is this precedent for applying the metaphor of a computer to not only the brain, but the entire universe itself. Why would it be analogous to a computer, of all things? It's one peice of tech created on one tiny planet of trillions. And they aren't even conscious.

Computational theories of mind are odd to me because I don't see any reason complex connections on their own should ever give rise to an experience of those connections. It's like assuming that a TV would gain consciousness if it's complex enough, just because it produces a picture. It never adequately explains why something is experiencing that picture/how it arises at all from complexity. Considering that, among other things, ephaptic coupling allows the neural field itself to modulate neural tissue (the resonance field controlling the resonator) I think there may be room for some degree of free will in this universe.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Interesting thoughts. I guess the main thing I don't see is this precedent for applying the metaphor of a computer to not only the brain, but the entire universe itself. Why would it be analogous to a computer, of all things? It's one peice of tech created on one tiny planet of trillions. And they aren't even conscious.

Computational theories of mind are odd to me because I don't see any reason complex connections on their own should ever give rise to an experience of those connections. It's like assuming that a TV would gain consciousness if it's complex enough, just because it produces a picture. It never adequately explains why something is experiencing that picture/how it arises at all from complexity. Considering that, among other things, ephaptic coupling allows the neural field itself to modulate neural tissue (the resonance field controlling the resonator) I think there may be room for some degree of free will in this universe.

It's interesting because we need metaphors and analogies to help us understand the world, but the metaphors and analogies aren't isomorphic to reality, being several magnitudes of domains beneath the greater reality. It's like saying to ocean fits in Lake Mead.

Computation and computational theories are byproducts of and part of the greater whole and thus can't encapuslate the whole on their own or in their own right.

One love

 

[universecannon]

I think people just overestimate the usefulness of computer metaphors and get very literal with it. It's far worse than comparing an ocean to a lake... It's more like comparing Andromeda to Sega

 

[Voidmatrix]

I think people just overestimate the usefulness of metaphors and get very literal with it. It's far worse than comparing an ocean to a lake... It's more like comparing Andromeda to Sega

Hey, I was trying to be nice, okay. Lmfao

Don't mistake the map for the terrain.

One love

 

[universecannon]

Heh well to be fair I wasn't trying to single out this theory much, as I haven't read the full paper. It does seem to be quite different from standard models, I just don't fully understand exactly what it means when it says consciousness only exists outside the brain etc. It almost seems like a kind of weird mix between simulation/computer related theories and eastern philosophy? Not sure, this area is not my forte to say the least

 

[blig-blug]

I agree with your broader point @universecannon , but I need to point out that a computer in the general sense (a "general computer") is not any specific device, but a formalism describing a model of computation. In fact, the implementation of a true general computer is not really possible, as it requires unbounded space.

So, if one drops the version of these ideas that insists on "the matrix", a kind of device, etc. the core of the idea is that reality is a computation. This implies that reality is decidable and complete. As there are known undecidable problems and mathematics has proven itself to be incomplete, this is inherently contradictory by itself, unless one adds some workaround (e.g. reality could be much simpler than it seems, and/or the problems of decidability and completeness an illusion).

In reality, I think recourses to a "matrix", "computer", etc. are a cheap and lazy way to get out of that contradiction: this reality is implied to be inside a superior reality. I say this is lazy because it just displaces all those contradictions and questions to the superior reality, not unlike pretending that "God created the Universe" solves the mystery of creation (what created God?).

So, amongst the infinite stories one can make about the nature of reality, I've never found this one particularly compelling.

IMO anyone that feels some certainty, strong attachment to a given explanation, or like they actually know something about the nature of reality are heavily deluding themselves. This particular one could be exactly true for all we know. I just don't find it too compelling or interesting, beyond some of the questions it raises in its contradictions.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Heh well to be fair I wasn't trying to single out this theory much, as I haven't read the full paper. It does seem to be quite different from standard models, I just don't fully understand exactly what it means when it says consciousness only exists outside the brain etc. It almost seems like a kind of weird mix between simulation/computer related theories and eastern philosophy? Not sure, this area is not my forte to say the least

There are philosophical antecedents to the elements that make up this idea and ideas like it that still need to be addressed, but we often like to sidestep and bypass them.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

If we assume free will exists in humans and we are the product of it, then we must be able
to explain how 100 billion brain neurons are interacting with each other to produce a
thought (Koch, 2004).

Not at all, this is just unawaress about one's own assumptions. The above smuggles the assumption that the mind is a product of the brain. It may or it may not be so, but we can assume that free will exists in humans without needing to say a single word about neurons. The "explaining the brain" requirement comes from a different and unstated assumption about the mind.

 

[universecannon]

@blig-bug thanks for explaining that. I know computation isn't focusing on a specific device, but I am awful at articulating this sort of thing (especially with my thumbs), and admittedly slept through my philosophy courses. I guess my point was that the simulation/matrix/bio-computer ideas just seem more like a product of our culture to me rather than a viable model. But maybe staring at a lazer will change my mind, who knows

 

[blig-blug]

I guess my point was that the simulation/matrix/bio-computer ideas just seem more like a product of our culture to me rather than a viable mode

Yes, that's why I said I agree with your broader point.

The simulation idea in its more common form is not dissimilar to gnosticism, although without any kind of moral teaching or possibility of escape or salvation. So it's adapted to our times in more than one way.

I prefer the gnostic version because it doesn't try to present itself as scientific. These questions can't be scientific because they're beyond the reach of science by its own nature, as science only makes sense given a very specific set of assumptions about reality. So I think it's more honest to not wrap these questions in scientific or technological language.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Yes, that's why I said I agree with your broader point.

The simulation idea in its more common form is not dissimilar to gnosticism, although without any kind of moral teaching or possibility of escape or salvation. So it's adapted to our times in more than one way.

I prefer the gnostic version because it doesn't try to present itself as scientific. These questions can't be scientific because they're beyond the reach of science by its own nature, as science only makes sense given a very specific set of assumptions about reality. So I think it's more honest to not wrap these questions in scientific or technological language.

They're permutations of the allegory of the cave. Repackaged for modern times. Get yours now!

One love

 

[blig-blug]

Up to a point, yes. Although the allegory of the cavern can apply to narrower questions than the nature of reality in a much more convincing way.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Well, it can only be up to a point because there wasn't the same native concepts or technology for it to be absolute.

One love

 

[blig-blug]

Well, it can only be up to a point because there wasn't the same native concepts or technology for it to be absolute.

One love

I didn't mean it in the technological aspect. I meant that, as it's less specific about the subject (not necessarily the nature of reality itself), it can be applied to more issues, IMO to some productively. Whereas the simulation idea is very narrowly about the nature of reality and useless anywhere else.

 

[northape]

We've known for a while that what we see is just a mental representation of what's out there. You don't need to look for a simulation, because you're already living in one. Is it real? That depends on how we define reality. Many nondual traditions tell us that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana except for our perspective. However, that is simply another story about a bigger world told by a man inside a box. So, how true is it? Even if we are stuck, I feel the space inside and outside the box is one and the same. It holds everything, including our stories.