What y’all are calling “Consciousness” is 3 things.

#1
Listening right now to to ep.436 w Dr. Donald Hoffman, and I’m increasingly frustrated at the simultaneous super-genius navigation, while consistently swerving around the mark. Same with Kastrup (also genius).

“Consciousness” is being used to describe 3 different things and this needs to stop.
They are:

1. Awareness (the act of engaging with reality)

2. Intereconnection of all that exists in the universe (which causes the observer effect and probably morphic resonance).

3. Higher self (which does not exist physically)


I can be aware (1) that there is a tree next to my car without observing it (2).

I can expect rats in Australia to learn a maze faster after rats in US have already learned it (2), but I will never fill a jar with the infinite love or the brightness which is experienced by the NDE’ers (3).

I think it’s a disservice to use the same word to describe these 3 things. And I’d love to have someone school me on why its actually me who’s missing the mark.
 
#2
Listening now to Ep. 431 with John Fischer, and I figure it out... (this is HUGE)

Item #1 and #2 do not survive death. Only Item #3

Per Dr. Fischer, dreams are recorded within 20 seconds of waking up, so this is probably similar to the timing when the NDE is recorded into the brain (or who knows, maybe its just after awareness is recovered).

Therefore, the critics are CORRECT in saying that consciousness doesn't survive death BECAUSE they are referring to #1 & #2.

So, when referring to the testing and the data, the question should NOT be:
Does consciousness survive death?

The question should be:
Is it
(A) the Higher Self (#3) who is transferring/uploading the Experience to the recovering brain??
or
(B) a combination of DMT(for the life review) and Morphic Resonance/Akashic record (for the birds eye view of events that transpired while dead)??
 
#3
THEREFORE:

THE ONLY way to prove any sort of consciousness (it's the higher self if you ask me) survives death, is if a person can report something that happened with all of the below:
-On Earth
-While they were dead
-To which NOBODY on Earth would have access to know
 
#4
I like your method of reasoning, Robbedigital. However, it brings me back to something I read many, many years ago from the works of Nietzsche, whom I disagree with in many aspects, yet still respect as a thinker. This isn't an exact quote, but he said something along the lines of all people who develop systems of thought/philosophy lack integrity.

When I first read that, I thought, what the fuck does he mean by that? I think that was the proper, knee jerk reaction for one raised as many were raised, including myself: going to school, believing in artificial thought systems as natural, and chasing the dollar. At one point, I was all in....a prime example of the narrative.

One cannot find meaning until it is accepted that there is absolutely no reason why we should exist in the first place. I take it a step further than these "simulated universe" assholes. If there is absolutely no reason why we should exist in the first place, then there is absolutely no reason that we must continue to exist, forever. Was it Albert Camus that said suicide was the only real philosophical question? I think that he was quite shortsighted with that comment. The only real philosophical question, to me: is it possible to entirely cease to exist?

Getting back to those who create systems, and want a convenient 1,2,3 answer to all problems in a rather chaotic existence, I would say that these are only mantras to ground oneself in reality. Are the necessary? Probably for most. However, they are still ceremonies and mantras.
 
#5
I like your method of reasoning, Robbedigital. However, it brings me back to something I read many, many years ago from the works of Nietzsche, whom I disagree with in many aspects, yet still respect as a thinker. This isn't an exact quote, but he said something along the lines of all people who develop systems of thought/philosophy lack integrity.

When I first read that, I thought, what the fuck does he mean by that? I think that was the proper, knee jerk reaction for one raised as many were raised, including myself: going to school, believing in artificial thought systems as natural, and chasing the dollar. At one point, I was all in....a prime example of the narrative.

One cannot find meaning until it is accepted that there is absolutely no reason why we should exist in the first place. I take it a step further than these "simulated universe" assholes. If there is absolutely no reason why we should exist in the first place, then there is absolutely no reason that we must continue to exist, forever. Was it Albert Camus that said suicide was the only real philosophical question? I think that he was quite shortsighted with that comment. The only real philosophical question, to me: is it possible to entirely cease to exist?

Getting back to those who create systems, and want a convenient 1,2,3 answer to all problems in a rather chaotic existence, I would say that these are only mantras to ground oneself in reality. Are the necessary? Probably for most. However, they are still ceremonies and mantras.
Alan Watts said (paraphrasing) the people who are the most Zen are the normies, cuz they don't even concern themselves with Zen, and they just live life.

Conversely, I on the other hand am here to pick this shit apart.

On your version of the only philosophical question,
Yours is the second-to-last question, Camus' question would be The last.
Yours is the What, and Caums' is the What-to-do-about-it.
 
#6
Listening right now to to ep.436 w Dr. Donald Hoffman, and I’m increasingly frustrated at the simultaneous super-genius navigation, while consistently swerving around the mark. Same with Kastrup (also genius).

“Consciousness” is being used to describe 3 different things and this needs to stop.
They are:

1. Awareness (the act of engaging with reality)

2. Intereconnection of all that exists in the universe (which causes the observer effect and probably morphic resonance).

3. Higher self (which does not exist physically)


I can be aware (1) that there is a tree next to my car without observing it (2).

I can expect rats in Australia to learn a maze faster after rats in US have already learned it (2), but I will never fill a jar with the infinite love or the brightness which is experienced by the NDE’ers (3).

I think it’s a disservice to use the same word to describe these 3 things. And I’d love to have someone school me on why its actually me who’s missing the mark.
I agree Rob I have had this issue. Awareness and consciousness are mixed depending on context. Often awareness refers to the contents of awareness, much like you describe. In this way it is not consciousness. In other uses it is synonymous with consciousness.

The best way to know is to check these things out within our own experience. Investigate the question of who the "I" actually is. If you go deeply into this, its clear that any concepts, thoughts, emotions etc... are merely objects in the dimensionless field of consciousness.

We can never be the object of awareness because then "I" becomes a object that is perceived, so who is perceiving? Like eyes trying to see themselves, it can't be done. Just as Planck said...."We cannot get behind consciousness."

The language is messy, but the experience isn't. All one has to do is look inwards and recognize the witness apart from the witnessed.

All concepts, all sensation, all objects, all thought, all things are but contents of awareness or the activity of awareness (mind) but not awareness/consciousness itself.

So no "thing" can ever be consciousness or synonymous with it.
 
Last edited:
#7
Listening right now to to ep.436 w Dr. Donald Hoffman, and I’m increasingly frustrated at the simultaneous super-genius navigation, while consistently swerving around the mark. Same with Kastrup (also genius).

“Consciousness” is being used to describe 3 different things and this needs to stop.
They are:

1. Awareness (the act of engaging with reality)

2. Intereconnection of all that exists in the universe (which causes the observer effect and probably morphic resonance).

3. Higher self (which does not exist physically)


I can be aware (1) that there is a tree next to my car without observing it (2).

I can expect rats in Australia to learn a maze faster after rats in US have already learned it (2), but I will never fill a jar with the infinite love or the brightness which is experienced by the NDE’ers (3).

I think it’s a disservice to use the same word to describe these 3 things. And I’d love to have someone school me on why its actually me who’s missing the mark.
What I sense you are pointing out, if indeed I am on the right track, is exactly what I have been recently ranting about.

We do not have a precise vocabulary with regards to so much that we are striving to explore.

At least Bernardo has featured the term - "metacognitive" and "metacognitive state" which is the word he uses to point to what we often hear folks call "the waking state," "the ordinary consciousness" (as Alex often calls it).

Bernardo (in describing how he perceives Jung's grander world view to encompass) the speaks about "the individual unconscious."

And then he expresses the term, "the collective unconscious."

Finally, in Bernardo's view, this is all occurring with "consciousness."

So when I hear him talk (as an example), I am able to see each of those as different terms pointing to different things yet all featuring "consciousness." It has taken me years to be able to learn to listen this way.
 
#8
Listening now to Ep. 431 with John Fischer, and I figure it out... (this is HUGE)

Item #1 and #2 do not survive death. Only Item #3

Per Dr. Fischer, dreams are recorded within 20 seconds of waking up, so this is probably similar to the timing when the NDE is recorded into the brain (or who knows, maybe its just after awareness is recovered).

Therefore, the critics are CORRECT in saying that consciousness doesn't survive death BECAUSE they are referring to #1 & #2.

So, when referring to the testing and the data, the question should NOT be:
Does consciousness survive death?

The question should be:
Is it
(A) the Higher Self (#3) who is transferring/uploading the Experience to the recovering brain??
or
(B) a combination of DMT(for the life review) and Morphic Resonance/Akashic record (for the birds eye view of events that transpired while dead)??
I like your metaphors but I hold them as just that... metaphors.

For me, the physical brain functions as a transducer.
 
#9
I agree Rob I have had this issue. Awareness and consciousness are mixed depending on context. Often awareness refers to the contents of awareness, much like you describe. In this way it is not consciousness. In other uses it is synonymous with consciousness.

The best way to know is to check these things out within our own experience. Investigate the question of who the "I" actually is. If you go deeply into this, its clear that any concepts, thoughts, emotions etc... are merely objects in the dimensionless field of consciousness.

We can never be the object of awareness because then "I" becomes a object that is perceived, so who is perceiving? Like eyes trying to see themselves, it can't be done. Just as Planck said...."We cannot get behind consciousness."

The language is messy, but the experience isn't. All one has to do is look inwards and recognize the witness apart from the witnessed.

All concepts, all sensation, all objects, all thought, all things are but contents of awareness or the activity of awareness (mind) but not awareness/consciousness itself.

So no "thing" can ever be consciousness or synonymous with it.
I appreciate the clarification. It helps.

Currently what's bothering me is the idea that at some point (probably upon awakening) the out-of-body-experience data is recorded onto the revived brain. That's a data transfer. And it's either being drawn from the physical realm, (or) a non-physical realm.
And I'm not hearing the experts making the distinction, and i can't imagine that's a trivial component.
Thanks again
 
#10
What I sense you are pointing out, if indeed I am on the right track, is exactly what I have been recently ranting about.

We do not have a precise vocabulary with regards to so much that we are striving to explore.

At least Bernardo has featured the term - "metacognitive" and "metacognitive state" which is the word he uses to point to what we often hear folks call "the waking state," "the ordinary consciousness" (as Alex often calls it).

Bernardo (in describing how he perceives Jung's grander world view to encompass) the speaks about "the individual unconscious."

And then he expresses the term, "the collective unconscious."

Finally, in Bernardo's view, this is all occurring with "consciousness."

So when I hear him talk (as an example), I am able to see each of those as different terms pointing to different things yet all featuring "consciousness." It has taken me years to be able to learn to listen this way.
On the recent podcast from Curt Jaimungal with Bernardo Kastrup and John Vervaeke, I had to rewind many Kastrup parts like 20x and then I ended up listening again to the 2nd half of the episode.

I'm in awe at Kastrups beautiful portrayal of the large body of water being all consciousness and the individual ripple being a distinct yet no-less The-Whole. Perhaps that's an accurate analogy to the consciousness we are studying and searching for scientifically.
That said, I believe we each have in addition to that consciousness, a higher self who is separate from it. AKA non physical. In computer jargon Consciousness would be the program, The Higher-self would be the player, and The Programmer would be God (whatever God is).
I don't pretend to have evidence for this, but that's just how the NDE reports ring to me.
Thank you for your beautiful explanation.
 
#11
I appreciate the clarification. It helps.

Currently what's bothering me is the idea that at some point (probably upon awakening) the out-of-body-experience data is recorded onto the revived brain. That's a data transfer. And it's either being drawn from the physical realm, (or) a non-physical realm.
And I'm not hearing the experts making the distinction, and i can't imagine that's a trivial component.
Thanks again
I'm not sure what you mean but if you are exploring these ideas, (Kastrup, Hoffman et al) then you should consider that what we call physical is only appearance in consciousness, including the brain and regardless of distinction both are experience. I know I am missing something in what you are getting at, but I feel the problem may be something stemming from that distinction?

These views express a ancient view of non duality, they are simply dressed in different linguistic forms. It entails that each of us at our very essence of being are part of the same godhead. That silent witness I was inferring previously. That the one consciousness precipitates and condenses into what we call individuals. Consider also the existence of a subtle body that contain the deeper aspects of the psyche that is carried beyond physical death but is still a localization of the one consciousness. This might give you a different take on the relation ship of individual, higher self and God. All are collapsed into a expression of a finite, localized experience. Just as when you dream you forget yourself (the dreamer) in order to have a experience with a perspective inside a world that appears as separate. Yet that world and the dream avatar are actually one and the same.
 
Last edited:
#12
I'm not sure what you mean but
I mean to emphasize that the temporarily-dead brain isn't recording the out of body experience while it's dead.... Therefore the recording either happens before the brain is fully dead or after it's brought back to life.

I just don't hear enough emphasis on this part. I feel like this is where the illusive elements of consciousness would be hiding. Just a feeling.
 
#13
I mean to emphasize that the temporarily-dead brain isn't recording the out of body experience while it's dead.... Therefore the recording either happens before the brain is fully dead or after it's brought back to life.

I just don't hear enough emphasis on this part. I feel like this is where the illusive elements of consciousness would be hiding. Just a feeling.
Right, I see what you are saying. It is an interesting question, where are memories stored? I know they have found some correlates to the process but just how a intangible thing such as experience can be recorded in what we perceive as matter is on par with the hard problem for materialism. If it is physically stored then as far as the brain is concerned there is a pathway to be accessed, and a memory of that pathway, and a memory of that memory of that pathway, on and on to infinite regress. In materialistic terms.

There are also the cases of transplant recipients that inherent certain traits of the donor, so similarly these are forms of memory as well.

The distinction is that in this primary consciousness view the brain (or heart) is the image of a process occurring in consciousness, in Kastrup's terms or a icon on the desktop in Hoffman's. This Includes memory. So it is expected to have correlation with those images.

The way I see it is that these things are held non locally in a field that is the contents of awareness. In that whirlpool so to speak, or the subtle body if you like, as there is only a perceived distinction between images of processes occurring in consciousness and not in different distinct realities.

Even the remnants of whirlpools (ripples) or images can converge as in personality traits passed through transplants. Or experiences that become reflected as the image of the body. I hope this makes sense.
Interesting questions!
 
Last edited:
#14
I mean to emphasize that the temporarily-dead brain isn't recording the out of body experience while it's dead.... Therefore the recording either happens before the brain is fully dead or after it's brought back to life.

I just don't hear enough emphasis on this part. I feel like this is where the illusive elements of consciousness would be hiding. Just a feeling.
IMO the brain is a transducer... nothing more, nothing else... between "you" and "the body/world." I have heard cases where serious brain damage occurred to the areas of the brain that are "deemed to be where memories are stored" and yet the individual still had access to seemingly all their memories.
 
#15
IMO the brain is a transducer... nothing more, nothing else... between "you" and "the body/world." I have heard cases where serious brain damage occurred to the areas of the brain that are "deemed to be where memories are stored" and yet the individual still had access to seemingly all their memories.
Ah Hah! Now I get it. I saw you previously mentioned transducer but I guess I needed to hear it twice to get it.
I'm going to have to process that concept for a while.
 
#16
Alan Watts said (paraphrasing) the people who are the most Zen are the normies, cuz they don't even concern themselves with Zen, and they just live life.

Conversely, I on the other hand am here to pick this shit apart.

On your version of the only philosophical question,
Yours is the second-to-last question, Camus' question would be The last.
Yours is the What, and Caums' is the What-to-do-about-it.
Not bad, dog, not bad at all!
 
#17
Right, I see what you are saying. It is an interesting question, where are memories stored? I know they have found some correlates to the process but just how a intangible thing such as experience can be recorded in what we perceive as matter is on par with the hard problem for materialism. If it is physically stored then as far as the brain is concerned there is a pathway to be accessed, and a memory of that pathway, and a memory of that memory of that pathway, on and on to infinite regress. In materialistic terms.

There are also the cases of transplant recipients that inherent certain traits of the donor, so similarly these are forms of memory as well.

The distinction is that in this primary consciousness view the brain (or heart) is the image of a process occurring in consciousness, in Kastrup's terms or a icon on the desktop in Hoffman's. This Includes memory. So it is expected to have correlation with those images.

The way I see it is that these things are held non locally in a field that is the contents of awareness. In that whirlpool so to speak, or the subtle body if you like, as there is only a perceived distinction between images of processes occurring in consciousness and not in different distinct realities.

Even the remnants of whirlpools (ripples) or images can converge as in personality traits passed through transplants. Or experiences that become reflected as the image of the body. I hope this makes sense.
Interesting questions!
Interestingly enough I just stumbled upon this video from Rupert Spira saying almost exactly the same. Although more elegantly than I can.

 
Top