Levels of consciousness

[alpali]

Hi there.

This is not from books or experts, this is just me trying to define levels of consciousness. I think this will help me to explain myself better. So, I believe there are 11 levels of consciousness, here they are:

LEVELS of CONSCIOUSNESS

1. To exist: This is the most premature level consciousness. You may ask if a rock has consciousness just because it exist, the answer is YES, it has. Don't think too much about this, just move on, you will get this in time.

2. Being a living organism: This is obvious, living organisms also have a consciousness. You may revisit your definition of consciousness for this and again, I'm trying to draw a picture that encompasses every step of consciousness here.

3. Having a brain: You will agree with this without thinking too much.

4. Recognizing yourself in the mirror: Most animals don't recognize themselves in the mirror. Dolphins do! And their brains is bigger than us. In fact, they have the biggest brain/body ratio on earth. Ravens, elephants and some other animals also will know that it is a mirror they are looking and it reflects their appearance.

5. Being able to plan your future: This is debatable since there are lots of animals planing their future(beavers building dams, ants gathering food for winter[Ant and the Grasshopper story]). We are talking about dreaming a future here, having a unique plan for the future like graduating, moving to better place, buying a house etc(although almost all humans dream about being rich, you get what I want to tell).

6. Believing that there is a greater being on top of us(like a god or something like that): Yes, this means you are one level ahead from atheists(no pun intended).

7. Having experienced an out of body experience: to be defined

8. Believing that the world we live in is merely an illusion: to be defined

9. Secret

10. Secret

11. Secret

The last 3 of them, I can't put in words, also I believe they are not meant to be shared but to be experienced individually.

 

[brewster]

Interesting. How did you come up with the scale? Is there a resource you drew upon?

It's not how I would see it, because I'm trying to move away from an anthropocentric point of view. To me, I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness.
But from a certain point of view, of course, it is very valid to look at it from a hierarchical point of view.

 

[KannaRas]

I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness.

i have to agree and strenghen that tought
realizing there are other collective consiousnessess like your example of a forest was awesome
tough then moving back to human consiousness vs forest consiousness than you go and see some pig with scars on hes face and then walk around in the street and see the same scars on a human
then what??
you know
what the hell
dont mind the *scar example just lacking some words mind it just as it was an example tough be sure i saw more than just similar *scars
and then if you can belive that then again what??

is it not only beyond physical the consiousnesses that sourrond
then also how would knowing something like that reintegrate into life ?
would you bewary of stepping on ants when you climb up a tall mountain or suddenly would it mean alot more to cut down a tree if you could find a human on the street that would be cut if you cut it on a forest miles away ?
tough those questions might be out of reach
then what would it mean more personal level ?
that you being some place can save others the hassle of taking human form ?

kikker i would appreciate if you can be taking the human words on dumbed down level disscussion trough the appropriate translations considering the consiousness and dumb down rays of current area
that im sure your aware of

 

[PleasureAndBliss]

It's not how I would see it, because I'm trying to move away from an anthropocentric point of view. To me, I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness. .

Isn't viewing a forest as able to be collectively conscious an anthropocentric reflexion ?

 

[FranLover]

It's not how I would see it, because I'm trying to move away from an anthropocentric point of view. To me, I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness. .

Isn't viewing a forest as able to be collectively conscious an anthropocentric reflexion ?

What Brewster said is very reflective and its a tough matter to speculate on. For example in budhist doctrine there is a definite hierarchy, as in, to kill a cow is worse than a bug, to kill a good person is worse than to kill a killer or a rapist. This hierarchy based on levels of consciousness, in my opinion, is a correct view. Yet despite these distinctions, the idea is you shouldnt kill anyone, obvsiously of course.

Yet what Brewster brings up is very valid, particularly when we think of plants and how people live besides them and think nothing of them, yet many of us probably speculate that these plants probably have a higher level of consciousness than us, and have a better time than us. And for example, who wouldnt want to be a seagull and sore the sky, you have all the time in the world, you are free. Compare that to a human who goes to protests to shout, who lives in conditioned thoughts, who suffers. We never will know what that seagull feels, but at plain sight they seem enlightened.

As for the described first level Alpali, its an interesting one. As the first plants or such must probably be moss or choral reefs, so: rocks with life...Aint that a beauty ! All matter is consciousness apparently. Its a knowledge you download from hyperspace which you cant really explain or be sure of. The last levels are also very interesting...I agree they or it can not be explained without much thought, verbosity, wisdom...

 

[alpali]

Interesting. How did you come up with the scale? Is there a resource you drew upon?

This is purely based on my perspective and experiences. I spend good amount of time (years) to come up with this. Everybody is welcome to add more info or even criticize it.

It's not how I would see it, because I'm trying to move away from an anthropocentric point of view. To me, I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness.
But from a certain point of view, of course, it is very valid to look at it from a hierarchical point of view.

I believe people will go down at least one level of consciousness when they sleep. Being awake is having a higher level of consciousness, we all agree with that. As such, being under affect of some psychedelics also makes you gain more consciousness. That is what I wanted to draw.

 

[brewster]

Isn't viewing a forest as able to be collectively conscious an anthropocentric reflexion ?

Hehe.. fair point. We don't know a lot about it for sure. If it is so, it would certainly be a very different type of consciousness than what we have.

Also, alpali, thanks for your responses. I didn't mean it as a criticism, just wanted to say that ranking this isn't so crucial for me. But it's very original and has interesting ideas.

I'd agree that, from a human-consciousness point of view, we definitely loose something when going to sleep. But then, if we think about things like lucid dreaming or trance states, the boundaries become fuzzy again.

What would you say how psychedelics raise our consciousness? Do you mean during the experience, or in the long term?

 

[dragonrider]

What about agnosticism? Seems like a "higher level of counsciousness" to me, to know and be willing and able to accept, that there are things you can never realy be sure of.

 

[alpali]

What about agnosticism? Seems like a "higher level of counsciousness" to me, to know and be willing and able to accept, that there are things you can never realy be sure of.

I must admit, this is a really good question. Agnostic people can also believe a god, like myself. The point is, there is no point to have an argument about existence of a creator. Because while believer cannot prove its existence, a non-believer also cannot prove the opposite(absence of proof does not prove absence).

Anyway, when we are in sleep, we get in a lower level of consciousness. Why? Because while we are awake, we have are much more aware about our existence and environment and when we are in sleep, we lose this sense for a degree. But agnostic people does not have greater awareness about their existence. That's why I didn't put that in the list.

 

[xss27]

I believe people will go down at least one level of consciousness when they sleep. Being awake is having a higher level of consciousness, we all agree with that. As such, being under affect of some psychedelics also makes you gain more consciousness. That is what I wanted to draw.

Disagree with this, I think you have it backwards - fundamentally disagree with your scale too lol.

Deep sleep is actually placing you closer to reality than the waking state in my opinion. The mind goes into abeyance along with the ego, the world disappears, and what is left is basically awareness. The average person does not remember going in and out of that state because they're fully identified with the mind/body/ego, they have no capacity to remember experiencing it and can't identify it with waking state memories or experiences.

I think the idea of a 'scale' is very human orientated thinking predicated on a mathematical model of reality (3 spatial dimensions, time etc..), which in itself stems from our linear/polar thinking.

I believe everything (in manifest reality) is consciousness. What differentiates organisms on your 'scale' is the degree of self-reflection possible through their biological apparatus, but at the same time that doesn't preclude lesser organisms being able to experience things directly and eminently - all life is consciousness, there is no separation, and what contributes to our own ignorance of this eminent truth is the mind/thoughts which clouds our experience.

 

[brewster]

I don't sooo much have an issue with scales per se. In the end, they're a scientific (or proto-scientific) instrument to put things into perspective. The question is: what is the central criterion things are being rated against?
For example, one could say the amount of information being processed. Computers will be better than this. One could say, awareness, which needs to be defined. Or there is, as a classic, Piaget's stages of cognitive development. And so on...

So this would be my central question. If one rates stages of consciousness, what's the criterion?

 

[alpali]

I believe everything (in manifest reality) is consciousness.

I discovered that in an Ayahuasca session. My own words are "Matter is consciousness itself". So I agree with you in this part.

I believe people will go down at least one level of consciousness when they sleep. Being awake is having a higher level of consciousness, we all agree with that. As such, being under affect of some psychedelics also makes you gain more consciousness. That is what I wanted to draw.

Disagree with this, I think you have it backwards - fundamentally disagree with your scale too lol.

Deep sleep is actually placing you closer to reality than the waking state in my opinion.

I am talking about regular sleep. For me, the state when we ascend under the effect of DMT or something like that is different than sleeping. The dreams we have when we are sleeping is not real, we face the reality when we wake up. That's why I think this way. And when we ascend, we see the reality different, is a way that the real life seems like a dream. I had this when I had Bufo Alvarius several times. I don't know if you ever had Bufo or not, but from outside, people think that you are sleeping but actually you are awake and you see/feel/sense extra things.

For the scale, I'm open to suggestions if you think my scale is wrong.

 

[alpali]

The question is: what is the central criterion things are being rated against?
...
So this would be my central question. If one rates stages of consciousness, what's the criterion?

Let's define consciousness first. According to wikipedia: "Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined variously in terms of sentience, awareness, qualia, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood or soul, the fact that there is something "that it is like" to "have" or "be" it, and the executive control system of the mind".

I think wikipedia definition is pretty accurate. So the scale is the rate of quality of awareness. I'm open to suggestions in my scale.

 

[brewster]

Yeah, that's a nice start. I hope you understand my intention right: I don't mean to criticize what you write, but to contribute some of my thoughts to the matter.

So we have a working definition of awareness. The hard part is done. Now all that remains is - how does one measure awareness? 8)

 

[alpali]

Yeah, that's a nice start. I hope you understand my intention right: I don't mean to criticize what you write, but to contribute some of my thoughts to the matter.

So we have a working definition of awareness. The hard part is done. Now all that remains is - how does one measure awareness? 8)

I am well aware of your good intentions. I am good even if you criticize me.

OK, lets start to discuss how we measure the awareness.

My method is this:

1. I got in a new state and I am aware of this.
2. I know the previous state I was in. Additionally, I am seeing/feeling/sensing more "things" compared to my previous state.

If those two conditions are met, then I am in a higher level of consciousness. This may not be enough, of course because I just though it and put my thoughts in words. But these are the first thing that I can write. What do you think?

 

[SpaceGandalf]

This is a really interesting subject and very pertinent IMO to the psychedelic experience, thank you for raising it as a topic. Most philosophic traditions have approached it in a similar manner and I think by delineating your own ideas you can learn a lot about your own perception of consciousness.

First of all there is something I think you need to think about which might make you want to reconsider the structure you have already outlined: cellular and molecular consciousness. Single cell organisms and single cells within a multi-cellular organism perhaps have a level of consciousness that is distinct from the consciousness of multi-cellular organism - they have awareness of their surroundings, awareness of their own internal state and can react to these things.

While we do not have the technology to actually see what is going on at the molecular level, it is possible to infer from what we know that there are molecular “organisms” that have some form of awareness. Examples of this would be the molecular components that carry proteins in a cell or the molecular “machinery” that unravels dna and copies it. These molecular organisms must have some form of awareness in order to carry out their tasks. Here are some videos of simulations of what this might look like:

 

[brewster]

Hmm.. yeah, why not? It's a good place to start.
In the end, that is similar to what Piaget does - he shows how we, when we grow up, are able to do more and more complex cognitive tasks, for example, understanding how other people see the world.

I mean, I guess at the heart of our diverging attitudes is also a somewhat religious/philosophical point. I'm more influenced by Buddhist world views, meaning I don't see the rational thinking as the ultimate way to perceiving reality, but just a sense faculty. This of course also means that for me the fact of realizing God doesn't sound too strongly.

(Even though if one were to say, realizing a transcendent dimension, our difference would be reduced to a matter of interpretation - a reading I'm highly sympathetic of)

From a monotheistically influenced perspective, your list is more logical I guess. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just there's different ways of interpretation. Basically the classic deconstructivist perspective - no Buddhism needed here.

So, what would be most interesting to me: Would you be willing to share some info on how psychedelics influenced your creating of this perspective, and how your approach is? That intrigues me way more than the details of interpretation

Best regards!

 

[SpaceGandalf]

I mean, I guess at the heart of our diverging attitudes is also a somewhat religious/philosophical point. I'm more influenced by Buddhist world views, meaning I don't see the rational thinking as the ultimate way to perceiving reality, but just a sense faculty. This of course also means that for me the fact of realizing God doesn't sound too strongly.

While Buddha rejected the concept of Brahman, the universal soul (as well as Atman, the personal soul), he did believe in Alaya-vijnana, universal mind. While a Deistic or Theistic concept of “God” is distinctly different from this, I think it would be reasonable to replace one with the other to conform to a Buddhist philosophy within the above system.

 

[brewster]

Interesting way to put it, Gandalf.

In the end, how I truly see it, is much more simple and unproblematic, it's the mystical perspective: The real truth is so complex and difficult that our human minds can't comprehend it truly. So, some part of us can connect to the truth indeed, but once we try and rationalize and explain it, lots is lost.

So, all the religions' answers are mere simplifications, arguing about which one is truer doesn't really help us very much, due to the extremely limited nature of any explanation humans could come up with.

Which is no problem, because the part of us that needs to know, already knows. Zen, M. Eckhart, Sufis, Kabbalists, and countless others have spelled this out in their own metaphors.

 

[SpaceGandalf]

It's not how I would see it, because I'm trying to move away from an anthropocentric point of view. To me, I no longer see a human rational consciousness as being inherently superior to, for example, a forests collective consciousness. .

Isn't viewing a forest as able to be collectively conscious an anthropocentric reflexion ?

While IMO there is a great benefit to not anthropomorphising, and being aware of our anthropocentric nature, I think there is a very fundamental difficulty with being un-anthropocentric that is possibly insurmountable. As humans we do not function like a computer, our brains are not calculators. We perceive and understand the world based on comparison not calculation - is this thing like that thing is the primary function of our thoughts. The base principle for this comparison is ourselves - is it me or is it other, if it is other is it like me, if it’s not me is it mine, etc - which is exactly why we anthropomorphise things.

As for plant consciousness, it is entirely correct IMO to approach this with an anthropocentric perspective. Once we understand that we are conscious, we can ask why and by understanding that we can understand what consciousness is. The fundamental basis for this is the ability to receive, process and respond to information. The exact same process, by different mechanisms, exists for plants. The BIG difference between plants and animals in terms of consciousness, is that animals have an organ dedicated to processing the information - the brain.

To widen the debate further I’d like to introduce the fungal kingdom as well. There has been some really interesting research into how mycelium communicates with plants, especially trees. This raises a really interesting concept of “multi organism collective consciousness” - where multiple multi-cellular organisms share information about the world around them. However such structures of organisms do not have a controlling organism, like the brain.