Levels of consciousness

[SpaceGandalf]

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.

I actually go even further, like Plato did among others. Rather than: “ The real truth is so complex ”, I say “there is no truth”. It’s a philosophical position called “radical skepticism”.

I have actually been working on my own philosophical system, it’s what brought me here in the first place and I intend to share it on here properly when I can (I’ve been a bit busy with 3 kids, a career in art, and a perceived need to try DMT to get some information I might need). I will give you a brief description of it’s initial principle:

I call it “super-rationalism” (meaning - above reason). The first principle is that if “truth”, the existence of which is neither determined nor determinable, then it is “unknowable”. This is described by the “Measurement Problem”: if I asked you to measure the length of a table, you could take out a tape measure and give me the answer “it’s 100cm”, but I could ask you “ is it exactly that?”, and you look more carefully and say “it’s 100cm 3mm”. Then I could give you a microscope and ask again “is it exactly that?. I could give you an incredibly powerful device that could see atoms and ask again. Even when you’ve gotten to what you think is the smallest measurement possible, you still don’t “know” that you can’t go smaller. You see, you can never “know” the “truth” of the length of the table, only ever “estimate” it. However, despite Newton’s laws being disproved by more accurate measurements they can still be used for practical purposes, and despite not having the exact calculations and measurements we still put a man on the moon.

 

[Xfce4]

...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...

Do you think it is possible to put it into words like this: Our brains are made of matter, and this matter end up to contain (or channel) a type of consciousness. Therefore all matter should contain a 'type' of consciousness.

 

[xss27]

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 call it “super-rationalism” (meaning - above reason). The first principle is that if “truth”, the existence of which is neither determined nor determinable, then it is “unknowable”. This is described by the “Measurement Problem”: if I asked you to measure the length of a table, you could take out a tape measure and give me the answer “it’s 100cm”, but I could ask you “ is it exactly that?”, and you look more carefully and say “it’s 100cm 3mm”. Then I could give you a microscope and ask again “is it exactly that?. I could give you an incredibly powerful device that could see atoms and ask again. Even when you’ve gotten to what you think is the smallest measurement possible, you still don’t “know” that you can’t go smaller. You see, you can never “know” the “truth” of the length of the table, only ever “estimate” it.

These two quotes are related.

Matter was a useful concept to help us put a man on the moon, but as we're seeing with the current stagnation in physics (despite all the CERN hoo-haa) it has come full circle and revealed the flaw in its foundation; we disproved the concept of an aether, now the Higgs Field has become a necessity.. which is an aether in all but name. The flaw in the foundation was the notion of separateness, of divisibility.

Measurement is relative. To define something, whether it be length, speed, so-called position, it must have something with which to be compared against. Everything is relative to everything else, therefore length, speed, position, time.. they are fantasies, apparitions, and do not actually exist at all.

This extends to your scale too. You're trying to divide and portion something which is indivisible - consciousness is one. The brain doesn't "channel" consciousness, there isn't a "seat" (we've already discussed plants have no nervous system).. this is all human based ego thinking of trying to compare one relative thing to another in an attempt to make the definition of something (consciousness) that by its very nature can not be defined by an opposite (it has no opposite). Moreover, it doesn't need defining in a relative sense.. all that needs to happen is for one to have the direct experience of it.. then it is defined.

Psychedelic experiences are not 'higher'. How do you know they're higher in the first place? You've presumed to know that in advance, based on an emotional interpretation of perceptions and from assimilating various cultural notions, in particular from the psychedelic community. Feelings of euphoria, bright lights, colours, sensations, revelations.. and an instinctual habit to look 'up' to the stars/heavens based upon very real genetic history.. all contribute to the notion of 'higher' consciousness.

My point is, maybe you're thinking on this the wrong way. Perhaps there is no scale, no-where to go or rise to. Maybe all that actually needs to happen is the revealing of truth by the abolition of self-ignorance - our ability to project and self-reflect is what sets us apart from other biological life, not consciousness.

 

[brewster]

I actually go even further, like Plato did among others. Rather than: “ The real truth is so complex ”, I say “there is no truth”. It’s a philosophical position called “radical skepticism”.

Yeah, I think our two positions are very close together in that regard. Also, interesting point about the measurement. I'd agree that definitions and arguments are like the precise measuring - they can always only be estimations, since reality is infinite and our mind is coming up with separations. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one realizes the limitations of these categories.

Do you think it is possible to put it into words like this: Our brains are made of matter, and this matter end up to contain (or channel) a type of consciousness. Therefore all matter should contain a 'type' of consciousness.

You didn't ask me that, actually, but I like the approach. I mean, in philosophy, it's an old debate whether it's all matter or all energy. Physics of course showed that the two aren't different at the most fundamental level. (I'M no physicist, but I believe this is undisputed at this point). And if one accepts that, for me, the step of equating the energy with consciousness isn't such a radical one.

 

[SpaceGandalf]

Do you think it is possible to put it into words like this: Our brains are made of matter, and this matter end up to contain (or channel) a type of consciousness. Therefore all matter should contain a 'type' of consciousness.

You didn't ask me that, actually, but I like the approach. I mean, in philosophy, it's an old debate whether it's all matter or all energy. Physics of course showed that the two aren't different at the most fundamental level. (I'M no physicist, but I believe this is undisputed at this point). And if one accepts that, for me, the step of equating the energy with consciousness isn't such a radical one.

What I find hard to swallow is the idea that an inanimate object, like a stone, is actually conscious. Based on how consciousness has already been defined I do not see how it’s possible - it has no mechanism to be able to perceive or be aware of the world around it or even itself. It might be subject to the effects of it’s environment and the universal laws, but it does not show any indication of being aware or able to respond - a stone can become cold but it does not know it’s cold. The same is true of it’s constituent parts - it’s molecules, atoms and particles also do not indicate any ability to be aware. I entirely accept though that on an even smaller scale consciousness might exist within that object - however, just because there is an animal in a cave in a mountain it does not mean the mountain is aware. That such a category of consciousness might be placed at the bottom of the above list is still entirely reasonable - many scales start a zero.

All of this does not preclude the existence of a “universal consciousness”, as indicated in the above quotes. What I think of as a reasonable way of thinking about this is that consciousness exists as a “field”, in the same way that gravity is a universal field. I can crudely conceptualise this with the following metaphor:

Imagine a device that simultaneously records onto and plays from a vinyl disk. A first trumpet transmits sound vibrations from the surrounding environment to a stylus that etches a recording (experience) onto the vinyl disk (brain). The vinyl disk keeps going round and getting over recorded, layering up. The design of the mechanism (DNA) also has a huge determining factor on what is recorded and how. There is a second needle that picks up the recording and transmits it up an arm as a vibration to a second trumpet as a vibration. The vibrations going up the arm are thoughts, the disturbance it creates in space is individual consciousness, and the space that permeates everything is the field of consciousness (or universal consciousness). Now you can place a stone in this space, and while it occupies space and is therefore part of the field of consciousness, it does not have the mechanism to disturb this space and create individual consciousness.

It’s a crude metaphor (especially because it doesn’t account for free will) but I find it helps me in conceptualising the idea.

 

[brewster]

Hm, yeah, sure. Based on your idea, or on a general understanding, the stone is not conscious, because it is not alive or reacting. Unlike the trees, which I cited. But obviously, this is more a metaphysical / speculative matter, than one that could be proven.

 

[alpali]

What I find hard to swallow is the idea that an inanimate object, like a stone, is actually conscious. Based on how consciousness has already been defined I do not see how it’s possible - it has no mechanism to be able to perceive or be aware of the world around it or even itself. ...

You find it hard to swallow because it is impossible in our level of day to day consciousness. This knowledge is only available to those who had experienced higher level(s) of consciousness. Look what @FranLover says about this:

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...

I couldn't explain it better than this: "Its a knowledge you download from hyperspace which you cant really explain or be sure of". I must admit, I did though that this may be level 0, but didn't think about it too much. Still considering to decrease all by 1.

 

[SpaceGandalf]

What I find hard to swallow is the idea that an inanimate object, like a stone, is actually conscious. Based on how consciousness has already been defined I do not see how it’s possible - it has no mechanism to be able to perceive or be aware of the world around it or even itself. ...

You find it hard to swallow because it is impossible in our level of day to day consciousness. This knowledge is only available to those who had experienced higher level(s) of consciousness. Look what @FranLover says about this:

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...

I couldn't explain it better than this: "Its a knowledge you download from hyperspace which you cant really explain or be sure of". I must admit, I did though that this may be level 0, but didn't think about it too much. Still considering to decrease all by 1.

I am not simply trying to deny what you believe you understand - what you are stating is perfunctory (superficial and simplistic). You need to ask the hard questions about how and what does it mean.

I have already put forward a hypothesis of a “universal field of consciousness”, please allow me to put forward two more suggestions; The first is related to what I have already mentioned and is about a “universal consciousness”. What if all the energy in the universe, including in the form of gross matter, is part of a universal consciousness. Such a concept is indicated deep within both the Vedic and Abrahamic traditions. If such is true then yes “all matter IS consciousness”, but that is different to “all matter HAS consciousness”. If you consider your own consciousness, it’s existence is dependent on oxygen molecules being delivered to your brain, however that does not mean those oxygen molecules have to have a consciousness for that to happen.

As a side note to this I’ll mention something briefly about “simulation theory”. As far as man’s ability to observe is concerned we can find no limits to the universe and there is nothing to suggest it is not infinite. When we point our most powerful telescopes at what we think is a blank patch of space and peer deep into the cosmos, we find that it is not empty, but instead filled with galaxies. Also as we peer down into matter we see no end, we once thought that atoms were the basic unit of the universe, then we discovered we were wrong. If the universe is indeed infinite and is also a simulation, then the only plausible thing that could create such a simulation is the infinite universe itself.

As I said, I have a second suggestion too, one that might appeal to a more rationalist perspective. When taking psychedelic substances it is not uncommon for it to seem like the world around us is coming to life. This doesn’t just happen on psychedelics, it happens ALL the time. We are perhaps mostly to numb to the experience, but we are constantly bringing to life in our minds the world around us. In this way we can say that “all matter has consciousness” - but this is not independent of us, it is from us.


I want to leave you with a question. It is not a question that I expect you to have or find an answer too, but if you can understand the question and why it is relevant to this discussion, you may find it helpful.

“Is silence a sound?”

 

[Loveall]

This may be of interest regarding the topic being discussed.

There is also a new analysis coming out, currently in pre-print.

 

[Jees]

What holds me back discussing consciousness is it's elusive set of definitions, wikipedia has some ideas to offer.
'Awareness' is often a main ingredient, yet if a robot is metrically scanning the room and potential exits to leave the room then the robot is actually building awareness of it's current situation and building options. Does that render the robot conscious?

 

[Loveall]

What holds me back discussing consciousness is it's elusive set of definitions, wikipedia has some ideas to offer.
'Awareness' is often a main ingredient, yet if a robot is metrically scanning the room and potential exits to leave the room then the robot is actually building awareness of it's current situation and building options. Does that render the robot conscious?

I don't think so.

Consciousness is a felt experience I think. In the experience you "know" and "feel" conciousness.

Science has no grasp on this kind of felt experience as far as I know. Even something more "simple" like experiencing the color blue or experiencing the taste of coffee cannot be grasped by science currently (as I understand it). It seems science cannot describe or understand these experiences based on the assumed fundamental units it currently has (time, space, energy, information, etc). I think science can describe electrochemical signals generated by photons or molecules interacting with cells in the eyes and nose, but it can't explain how these signals generate an "experience".

Some think that this is because conciousness (or equivalently felt experience) cannot be built by science's currently acceptable fundamental blocks. Instead a new unit or concept must be introduced (call it a conciousness quanta). Some even think that this new unit is more fundamental than space/time/energy/information (that is assume conciousness quanta and you can derive space/time/energy/information, instead of the other way around).

 

[dragonrider]

What holds me back discussing consciousness is it's elusive set of definitions, wikipedia has some ideas to offer.
'Awareness' is often a main ingredient, yet if a robot is metrically scanning the room and potential exits to leave the room then the robot is actually building awareness of it's current situation and building options. Does that render the robot conscious?

I don't think so.

Consciousness is a felt experience I think. In the experience you "know" and "feel" conciousness.

Science has no grasp on this kind of felt experience as far as I know. Even something more "simple" like experiencing the color blue or experiencing the taste of coffee cannot be grasped by science currently (as I understand it). It seems science cannot describe or understand these experiences based on the assumed fundamental units it currently has (time, space, energy, information, etc). I think science can describe electrochemical signals generated by photons or molecules interacting with cells in the eyes and nose, but it can't explain how these signals generate an "experience".

Some think that this is because conciousness (or equivalently felt experience) cannot be built by science's currently acceptable fundamental blocks. Instead a new unit or concept must be introduced (call it a conciousness quanta). Some even think that this new unit is more fundamental than space/time/energy/information (that is assume conciousness quanta and you can derive space/time/energy/information, instead of the other way around).

Yes, it is a mystery.

Yet i think it is undisputable that the brain plays a vital role in the way counsciousness is structured, and how it behaves.

I've talked about the theory of predictive coding before, on the nexus. I think one aspect of the theory is often being overlooked: that the notions of "truth" or "falsehood", or "real" and "unreal", play a vital role in human counsciousness on the most basic level. They are, according to the theory, actually the most basic notions, and more or less the building blocks even, of counsciousness as we know it (probably along with pleasure and pain).

I think that also on a phenomenological level, "realness" is an important aspect of counsciousness. Or at least for me personally, and even more so on psychedelics, being "lucid" seems to be something like the continuous realisation that "all of this is real". Even in a lucid dream there is this sense of the dream being real. "I am realy dreaming this".

Sedatives and anesthetics block signals to from and within the brain, and therefore also the possibility to detect truth or falsehood or consistency of predictions. And they also seem to, on a phenomenological level, make everything, including pain, "les real". When you are given a sedative or an anesthetic, you can very often still feel some sort of pain. You can notice that something is wrong. But there is no longer that continuous feeling that "this pain is real".

They diminish counsciousness, where psychedelics seem to amplify it. Psychedelics are known to block the "error detection module" of the brain. And people often speak of the psychedelic experience as being "hyperreal".

 

[alpali]

I am not simply trying to deny what you believe you understand - what you are stating is perfunctory (superficial and simplistic). You need to ask the hard questions about how and what does it mean.

I have already put forward a hypothesis of a “universal field of consciousness”, please allow me to put forward two more suggestions; The first is related to what I have already mentioned and is about a “universal consciousness”. What if all the energy in the universe, including in the form of gross matter, is part of a universal consciousness. Such a concept is indicated deep within both the Vedic and Abrahamic traditions. If such is true then yes “all matter IS consciousness”, but that is different to “all matter HAS consciousness”. If you consider your own consciousness, it’s existence is dependent on oxygen molecules being delivered to your brain, however that does not mean those oxygen molecules have to have a consciousness for that to happen.

As a side note to this I’ll mention something briefly about “simulation theory”. As far as man’s ability to observe is concerned we can find no limits to the universe and there is nothing to suggest it is not infinite. When we point our most powerful telescopes at what we think is a blank patch of space and peer deep into the cosmos, we find that it is not empty, but instead filled with galaxies. Also as we peer down into matter we see no end, we once thought that atoms were the basic unit of the universe, then we discovered we were wrong. If the universe is indeed infinite and is also a simulation, then the only plausible thing that could create such a simulation is the infinite universe itself.

As I said, I have a second suggestion too, one that might appeal to a more rationalist perspective. When taking psychedelic substances it is not uncommon for it to seem like the world around us is coming to life. This doesn’t just happen on psychedelics, it happens ALL the time. We are perhaps mostly to numb to the experience, but we are constantly bringing to life in our minds the world around us. In this way we can say that “all matter has consciousness” - but this is not independent of us, it is from us.


I want to leave you with a question. It is not a question that I expect you to have or find an answer too, but if you can understand the question and why it is relevant to this discussion, you may find it helpful.

“Is silence a sound?”

“Universal consciousness” is something I've already experienced and believe. But it is far more complicated to comprehend for individuals since it suggests everything is one. This is also a higher level of consciousness, that's why I put last levels as "secret". I really don't have enough knowledge about it and even if I had, I don't have good enough English to explain, express or write it.

As for simulation theory, that is yet another level of consciousness, which I believe it too but it is below the level of “Universal consciousness”.

If I try to explain every level of consciousness(especially the last ones), then some of them will be contradicting with others, because 1. I don't know appropriate words for them to write 2. Our current level of consciousness is not enough to comprehend them. And that's why I can't explain last levels.

I believe you have educated yourself far more than I have experienced in my journeys. Do you think "all matter IS consciousness" and "all matter HAS consciousness" are two different thing? Or they are complementing each other?

 

[twitchy]

I thought the same way until I had several really profound revelations, one of which was when I saw a video of elephants painting portraits (for example), that changed something for me profoundly. I have come to the conclusion that consciousness is more akin to a frequency that ALL living things are tuned into. Science got hung up on brain size and higher or lower intelligence which was the wrong direction IMO.

 

[brewster]

Agreed. Intelligence is intelligence, a sense faculty. Just like seeing extremely well doesn't make you super highly conscious per se.

 

[xss27]

Science has no grasp on this kind of felt experience as far as I know. Even something more "simple" like experiencing the color blue or experiencing the taste of coffee cannot be grasped by science currently (as I understand it). It seems science cannot describe or understand these experiences based on the assumed fundamental units it currently has (time, space, energy, information, etc). I think science can describe electrochemical signals generated by photons or molecules interacting with cells in the eyes and nose, but it can't explain how these signals generate an "experience".

This is overlooked by everyone, not just scientists. We pay lip service to the notion but I really do not believe many people have actually stopped to think about it properly. We understand scientifically that everything 'we' perceive is actually just a recreation of what our senses take in.. our brains are recreating a world 'out there' for us to witness.

If our brains are recreating this world for 'us' to witness, then where is this recreation taking place that we are witnessing? There is no light inside the skull, no observer in the neurons or their signals. Where is the recreation taking place, what is the canvas it is projected upon, and who or what is witnessing it?

We identify the body as 'us' and then subsequently believe it is all 'out there', outside of 'us'. Is it? Are we certain that is the case, or have we all collectively fooled ourselves perhaps? Is our entire conception of reality built on a false premise of mistaken identity?

Some think that this is because conciousness (or equivalently felt experience) cannot be built by science's currently acceptable fundamental blocks. Instead a new unit or concept must be introduced (call it a conciousness quanta). Some even think that this new unit is more fundamental than space/time/energy/information (that is assume conciousness quanta and you can derive space/time/energy/information, instead of the other way around).

If consciousness is a unity then it can't be divisible in to units - can a ruler measure itself?

When consciousness really comes into the equation I don't think materialistic science can or should be involved, it is not its domain or best placed to investigate. The instrument of investigation is our own body-mind and subjective experience, which can not be broken down on the alter of science for examination.

Psychology and Philosophy are the sciences best placed for investigating it. Materialistic science can aid by suggesting how we can optimize the subjective investigation, such as what foods to eat or avoid, healthy or unhealthy activities that hinder investigation.. but you'll find that much of that has already been documented in religious manuals.