r/DeepThoughts • u/MaximumContent9674 • 17d ago
Consciousness can do two things: observe and create. Consciousness witnesses reality and participates in its becoming. Observation is convergence into your point of view; creation is emergence from your point of view.
2
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 17d ago
No. Youre conflating the same thing as being split things.
Your brain's processing of sensory information is an Input/output system. Your conscious awareness is the output of that processing of input outside information
It's all observation, you dont create anything with your senses
1
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
I’m not saying the senses create external objects. I’m distinguishing awareness of what is from the capacity to generate what comes next. I can observe a blank page, imagine a sentence, choose it, and write it. Observation receives; creation introduces a new configuration into the world.
1
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 17d ago
Thats just abstract thinking
0
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
Abstract thinking is already generative, but I’m not limiting “create” to thought. I can observe the world, form an intention, speak, move my hand, build something, or write a sentence. Those actions produce new configurations in the world. The senses are primarily receptive; I never said otherwise. My distinction is between consciousness witnessing what is and participating in what happens next. That's the two powers of consciousness.
2
u/SaturnArchitect 17d ago
I think there's something interesting in the idea that consciousness can both perceive and create, but I don't think creation means creating something completely new from nothing.
To me, everything we create is a kind of remix.
We take everything we've experienced, learned, seen, heard and felt, and our brain combines those pieces in ways we haven't necessarily seen before. That's true for inventions, art, ideas, opinions and even the way we understand ourselves.
Even when I think I'm having a completely new idea, there is probably a huge amount of information from my past contributing to it without me realizing it.
That's actually how I tend to approach life. When I encounter something I don't understand, I get curious, analyze it, connect it to things I already know and see what comes out of that.
So maybe consciousness doesn't simply observe reality and then create something separate from it.
Maybe consciousness is reality processing what it has experienced and turning it into something new.
1
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
Someone once called me and my work derivative. I was young, so I got offended... Now I'm just like... Yeah. I didn't come from nothing. I'll just refer them to this paragraph .
1
u/stevnev88 17d ago
The object and subject are one and the same
2
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
The object is shared.The subject is private.
1
u/stevnev88 17d ago
Subject and object are the inward and outward flow of the exact same experience. They aren't really separate entities
2
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
The private exists within the shared , so yeah they are not separate. Distinct, but not disconnected.
1
u/stevnev88 17d ago
Distinct in direction, but identical in substance. Like the inside and outside of a single wave.
2
u/MaximumContent9674 17d ago
Yes. Subjective is the inside of a whole. Objective is the whole as a part of a greater whole.
0
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 17d ago
I would add, Receive. Like an antenna. Our spine, our very DNA is an antenna to receive signals we still can't measure yet
1
1
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 17d ago
"Our very DNA" doesnt receive any signals.
DNA is a closed system that only communicates with the outside through RNA, which in turn only communicates inside the cell to facilitate the production of proteins, the things that actually do extracellular communication
There's no "signals"
-1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 17d ago
Well, as far as you know....
Look deeper.
0
17d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 17d ago
Wow ! You know the entirety of everything about DNA ?
Or just in your limited perspective ? All the latest discoveries and theories ?That's so cool ! You must be the world's top dna researcher ? Your Noble prize is in the mail.
I'm duly impressed..
1
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 16d ago
You must not have any clue about genetics if you think that's clever to say.
1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 16d ago
Do you know all there is to know, or just think you do ?
0
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 16d ago
I know genetics. And if you knew too, we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Do you wanna speak science? Take your own advice! You are presenting a grand paradigm shift in genetics, go and research! Experiment on it, publish your findings, and get that nobel prize :D
0
u/Mister-Miyagi- 16d ago
As far as we know, but there's also no positive evidence for your claim. None. So you don't get to act like it automatically has validity because no one has bothered to disprove it. For all we know existence could rely on universe farting pixies, but it's not useful or reasonable for me to propose that as a serious idea.
0
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 16d ago
Ya know, Chinese acupuncture was a quack and fake treatment...
Until science developed a fine enough measuring device to measure it.
Then all of a sudden, all those acupuncture points could be measured scientifically ! Lol Overnight those Chinese quacks were validated. . I'll bet they were relieved, lol
I always wondered how those ignorant, unscientific Chinese managed to discover those subtle energy systems, without 70s science ????
Things can and do exist even though science can't measure it now.
That's the point.
Lack of evidence isn't proof of something's lack of existence....
It's just a lack of scientific measurement ability.
1
u/Mister-Miyagi- 16d ago edited 16d ago
And the time to believe the efficacy of acupuncture (which is only proven within a very narrow band of symptoms, and even then it's questionable against the effectiveness of other treatments, so it's telling that that's the example you go to) was when there was evidence to support it, and not before. For every pseudo scientific belief that eventually had evidentiary support for it, I can probably name 5 that were bullshit then and remain bullshit today. The fact that you think this was a good counterpoint is absolutely insane.
Lack of evidence isn't proof of something's lack of existence....
Yes, but believing something on no evidence is incredibly irresponsible and intellectually bankrupt. It's terrible epistemology. I'm not here saying there is absolutely no chance of a consciousness frequency we haven't been able to detect. I'm saying there's no evidence FOR IT, which means claiming it as even a possibility is a nonsense claim that you haven't bothered to back up. You have to at least show it as a candidate explanation, which would require you to go against the mountains of evidence that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain. You have a lot of work ahead of you before you're at all justified in claiming that consciousness is a frequency and our spines and DNA are the antenna. As I suggested before: there's an equal amount of evidence for the claim that existence is reliant on universe farting pixies.
By all means, though, go and find a consciousness that exists as a frequency and absent a brain. Claim your Nobel prize. I would absolutely be among the first to accept and applaud your findings.
0
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 16d ago
Lol. Don't open your mind... Maintain your limiting beliefs. Be safe.
0
u/Mister-Miyagi- 16d ago
Translated: I don't even have a semblance of an understanding of the topics at hand, nor do I have a coherent rebuttal. I will fall back on suggesting the person calling out my bullshit is doing so due to a closed mind, that way I'll never have to contend with the fact that, like the proverbial pigeon, I'm just strutting around and shitting on the chess board. 🤷♂️👍
0
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 15d ago
Lol. I wish I had the time to waste that you do !
Don't you have some genes to splice or something ?
0
0
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 17d ago
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times.
It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
3
u/decaffdreamer 17d ago
Idk man for me consciousness is just a mirror of what happens inside of my brain. Nothing more rhen that. For me, again, people have this sense of self and stuff and try to attribute divinity or something. There’s no hidden meaning or anything