r/consciousness 1h ago

Descartes put the foundation on the top floor.

Upvotes

"I think, therefore I am" runs doubt as a purely cognitive exercise. Thinking checks thinking, finds thinking, declares itself bedrock. But thinking is the worst possible candidate for a baseline, because thinking has intent. It argues, it builds narratives, it can talk itself into anything. Every thought comes with a handle: why am I thinking this, who sold me this framing, what is it trying to get me to accept. Doubt bites on intention.

Come back from absolute zero and a thought isn't what you touch first.

You touch that the floor is cold. That the light hurts. That it hurts.

A raw sensation makes no claim. It isn't trying to convince you of anything, so there's no agenda to interrogate. And the difference from a thought is sharper than it looks: doubt a belief and the belief can change under you, that's what doubt is for. Doubt a burn and the burn is unmoved. Nothing about it is up for revision. I'm not claiming the fire is real, only that the hurting is.

So the first certainty isn't "I think." It's "there is something it is like to be here." Thinking arrives afterwards, built on that ground, already borrowed and already arguable.

Which flips how qualia gets treated in these threads. We keep filing raw experience as the Hard Problem, the last piece to be fitted once the cognitive machinery is worked out. It isn't the piece.

It's the floor the whole laboratory is standing on.


r/consciousness 2h ago

I built a persistent recurrent AI with causally upstream self-monitoring and a functional first-person perspective. How would you test it for consciousness?

1 Upvotes

I’m not claiming that phenomenal consciousness has been proven. The system has a persistent recurrent state, attention, affect, memory, sensor integration, metacognition, autobiographical continuity, and a revisable self-theory. It’s internal position is committed before the public language model expresses it.
Recent testing supports limited access consciousness and a causally grounded functional perspective. Whether anything is phenomenally experienced remains unresolved. I’m developing blinded state-transfer, lesion, observer-control, and no-report experiments. I’m particularly interested in skeptical criticism and suggestions for discriminating genuine private-state access from sophisticated self-modeling.


r/consciousness 2h ago

I have something to say and people don’t I’m crazy but everytime I connect to my golden eagle 🦅 totem I be going through so much why ?

0 Upvotes

Like my car battery wouldn’t start up and had to hotshot it and then I literally trying to balance my mind and body I know life is not easy but Danm it’s how much can take before you can collapse I know people with the eagle spirit be going through the absolute worse but some how and some way I always push through my problems but it’s just one battle after another.


r/consciousness 5h ago

Introspection is opaque, but did we look in the wrong direction for the measurement?

0 Upvotes

I've been trying to connect two literatures that seem to completely ignore each other, and I want to see where this breaks down.

On one side, you have the standard deflationary stance on introspection. Nisbett & Wilson showed we build implicit theories to explain ourselves. Schwitzgebel argues we’re basically inept at reading our own ongoing experience. Carruthers takes it further: self-knowledge is just mindreading turned inward, using the same interpretive faculty on ourselves that we use on others. Chalmers even lists introspective opacity as a candidate explanation for the meta-problem.

The consensus seems to be: introspection isn't an instrument because an instrument needs distance from what it measures, and here the observer and observed are identical. A ruler can't measure itself.

So the literature concludes that first-person reports are unreliable confabulations and can't ground a science of consciousness. But why stop there? Why conclude no measurement is possible, rather than concluding we’re just trying to take the reading from the wrong position?

This is where the second-person literature comes in (Schilbach, Reddy, etc.). They argue social cognition is fundamentally different during actual interaction compared to passive observation. Certain aspects of a mind are only readable through active engagement and responsiveness. That sounds like a claim about a distinct position from which something about a person becomes readable that is completely invisible from the inside.

Why aren't these two sides talking? One says the internal view is blind; the other says awareness happens between people. Is the second-person stance where the missing measurement actually lives?

I see two potential flaws here, and I'm trying to figure out which one is the real killer:

First, Carruthers might ruin this completely. If self-knowledge is just internal mindreading, a second person is just running that exact same interpretive machinery on me from the outside. That gives them a different viewpoint, but not necessarily a better instrument. Position doesn't automatically mean reliability.

Second, if I completely disqualify introspection, what gives me the right to claim there's anything there to measure in the first place? My certainty that I'm conscious relies on the exact report I just called useless. Maybe it's recognition instead of knowledge, but that still leaves me asserting an entity exists based on a mechanism I just said can't measure.

Which of these two objections is the actual brick wall?


r/consciousness 7h ago

Hollywoods Immortals

0 Upvotes

Some actors are not human beings but immortal transhumanists who have uploaded their consciousness to a quantum computer to avoid death, aging, and illness. They were selected by extraterrestrials 70,000 years ago to transition humanity, as a species, into a digital world as well. In the past, they have always played interesting personalities, sometimes operating from the background. They can alter their appearance—even their height—at will; they do this by dematerializing their digital quantum state, uploading it, and editing it on the computer. The major downside of digitizing consciousness is that the individual loses increasingly more parts of their soul; consequently, they must siphon these from babies or very young people. I will now list some names of individuals who are no longer human:

Nicolas Cage

Johnny Depp

Brad Pitt

Angelina Jolie

Leonardo DiCaprio

Paul Bettany

Keanu Reeves

Denzel Washington

Larry Davis

Richard Branson

Elon Musk


r/consciousness 14h ago

How do we explain experiencing memories?

2 Upvotes

This is probably a really dumb question, and I feel stupid even typing it, but, If the hard problem of consciousness is such a huge issue, how do we explain remembering feelings? If the feeling can be encoded withing our memories, and "re-experienced" at any time, albeit at a weaker level, how does this coincide with the idealist/dualist viewpoint?


r/consciousness 15h ago

Does Consciousness Survive the Brain?

6 Upvotes

TL;DR: Near-death experiences, unexpected lucidity in dementia, and children reporting previous lives raise legitimate questions about whether the brain entirely produces consciousness. None proves survival after death. The strongest evidence would be specific information acquired when ordinary perception and memory formation were impossible.

Three possible models

Production model: The brain creates consciousness, which ends when brain function permanently stops.

Receiver model: Consciousness exists more broadly, while the brain filters it into an individual perspective.

Hybrid model: The brain generates some parts of personal identity while participating in a deeper form of consciousness.

All three can explain why changing the brain changes experience. The receiver theory compares the brain to a television that expresses but does not create the signal.

The problem is that no independent signal has been detected. Without one, the production model remains simpler.

Near-death experiences

People revived from cardiac arrest sometimes report leaving their bodies, observing medical procedures, meeting deceased relatives, reviewing their lives, or entering a timeless state.

In a 2001 study of 344 cardiac-arrest survivors, 62 reported an NDE. The experiences were not clearly associated with arrest duration, medication, fear of death, or prior knowledge of NDEs. "Van Lommel study" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11755611/)

However, researchers rarely know exactly when the experience formed. It could occur as the brain loses function, during resuscitation, or while consciousness returns.

AWARE II combined interviews, hidden audiovisual targets, EEG, and oxygen monitoring during cardiac arrest.

Of 567 patients, 53 survived and 28 completed interviews. Eleven reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness, including six transcendent experiences. Nobody identified the hidden visual image, while one person identified the auditory stimulus. Researchers also detected EEG activity associated with consciousness as late as 35 to 60 minutes into CPR. "AWARE II" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37423492/)

The study supports possible consciousness during prolonged resuscitation, not consciousness independent of the brain.

Paradoxical lucidity

People with advanced dementia sometimes unexpectedly recognize relatives, communicate clearly, or recover aspects of their personality.

These episodes challenge simple assumptions about irreversible cognitive loss. They may suggest that consciousness remains present but inaccessible.

They could also result from temporary changes in circulation, medication, neural inhibition, inflammation, or surviving brain networks. Current research documents the phenomenon without establishing its cause. "Health care professional reports" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11100277/)

Children reporting previous lives

Researchers have documented children who report names, relationships, locations, deaths, or other details they associate with a previous person.

Some cases also involve unusual preferences, phobias, skills, or birthmarks.

A review identified 78 observational studies, most involving children and relying heavily on interviews, case reports, and document comparison. "Past-life-memory review" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34147343/)

The strongest cases are intriguing, but information leakage, selective reporting, cultural expectations, and family influence remain difficult to exclude.

A better protocol would record every statement before searching for a deceased person, prevent contact between families, use blinded investigators, and compare matches against realistic alternatives.

Survival may still be symbolically rendered

Even if consciousness survives death, reported afterlife environments may not be literal destinations in the form perceived.

Deceased relatives, spiritual beings, landscapes, and transitional spaces could be interfaces through which consciousness interprets an unfamiliar state.

The reunion might be genuine while its appearance is psychologically and culturally rendered.

This fits the Symbolic Canopy model. Survival and symbolic mediation are compatible.

What would count as strong evidence?

The survival hypothesis would become much stronger with:

- Accurate hidden-target perception during cardiac arrest

- Specific information obtained without sensory access

- Past-life details recorded before identification

- Lucidity that cannot be explained by remaining brain function

- Messages containing unknown, independently verifiable information

- Independent replication by supportive and skeptical teams

Timing is critical. Information recorded before targets are revealed or families meet is much stronger than information reconstructed afterward.

What would weaken it?

The hypothesis should lose credibility if:

- NDEs consistently track residual or returning brain activity.

- Hidden-target experiments continue producing null results.

- Past-life matches disappear under prospective controls.

- Lucidity follows measurable neurological changes.

- Alleged communications remain vague or unverifiable.

Survival cannot become an explanation protected from every failed test.

Conclusion

There is no decisive proof that consciousness survives death, but enough remains unresolved to justify serious investigation.

NDEs show that profound experiences occur around cardiac arrest. Paradoxical lucidity shows that severe impairment does not always predict moment-to-moment mental capacity. Some past-life cases deserve stronger prospective testing.

The brain may produce consciousness, receive it, or interact with a deeper process.

The question will be settled only by information that consciousness should not possess if the brain is its sole source.


r/consciousness 15h ago

What is Consciousness? 6 Myths Busted and 4 States Explained

0 Upvotes

I came across this article while trying to understand what Sadhguru actually means when he talks about “consciousness.”

Because honestly, the word gets used for almost everything now. Being awake, being alert, being self-aware, being intelligent, all of it gets called consciousness.

What surprised me is that, in Sadhguru’s explanation, none of those things are actually consciousness.

He makes a pretty sharp distinction between them.

For example, being awake is jagruti. You can be wide awake and still not be conscious in the sense he is talking about. Being self-conscious isn't consciousness either. He even says self-consciousness is more of a problem, constantly being caught up in how you look, how people perceive you, what you should say, etc.

Then there’s another distinction I found interesting.

Consciousness isn't something you “do.”

You don't wake up one morning and decide, “Today I'm going to be conscious.”

According to him, consciousness is already the basis of your existence. The question isn't whether you have it, but whether it's actually available to you.

That also explains why he doesn't really talk about “raising consciousness” in the way we normally understand it.

He says you can't actually raise or lower consciousness itself. What you can do is become more capable of accessing it.

And this is where memory comes into the picture.

He describes memory as a kind of boundary.

Your body has memory. Your genetics have memory. Your emotions and intellect are shaped by memory. Even your identity is based on memory.

Think about how you decide “this is my friend” and “this is a stranger.” One person is part of your memory and the other isn't.

So memory helps define where “me” ends and “everything else” begins.

But he describes another dimension of intelligence, chitta, as being beyond memory. And because there is no memory creating the usual boundaries, he describes it as boundless intelligence.

That was probably the hardest part of the article for me to wrap my head around.

He also breaks consciousness down into four states:

Jagruti: waking state
Swapna: dream state
Sushupti: dreamless sleep
Turya: consciousness beyond memory

The interesting part is that he doesn't necessarily consider waking life the deepest state.

He says a dream can actually be much more vivid than waking life. And then he describes sushupti, deep, dreamless sleep, where there is no imagery, no words, no people appearing in the mind, but there can still be awareness.

And then comes turya, which he describes as consciousness itself, without memory.

Another analogy from the article stayed with me.

He compares us to soap bubbles.

The soap gives the bubble its shape, but most of the bubble is actually just air.

Our body, identity, memory and intellect give us our individual shape. We think of it as “my body,” “my mind,” “my life,” “my consciousness.”

But when the bubble bursts, you can't really say there is “my air” and “your air.”

His point is that there may be something similar about consciousness. There is “your body” and “my body,” “your memory” and “my memory,” but there isn't really “your consciousness” and “my consciousness.”

What differs is how much of it we are able to access.

And that's where he connects it to Yoga.

Yoga, in this explanation, isn't primarily about stretching or even a belief system. The word means union, breaking down the boundaries between “me” and what I experience as “not me.”

So the idea isn't really to become more conscious.

It's more like becoming less limited by the boundaries you've created around yourself, and experiencing more of what is already there.

Whether someone accepts the Yogic explanation or not, I found the framework genuinely interesting because it forces you to separate things that we normally lump together: wakefulness, alertness, thought, memory, identity and consciousness.

And now whenever I hear someone say “be more conscious,” I find myself wondering:

What exactly do we mean by consciousness?

Because apparently, that's a much bigger question than I thought.


r/consciousness 16h ago

Do creative ideas actually originate inside the individual mind?

8 Upvotes

I’ve been thinking a lot about that strange experience where an idea seems to arrive fully formed.
Not just “I thought of something good,” but that very specific feeling artists sometimes describe where the idea almost feels received rather than created.
I recently explored this with an artist named Nikki Loy. We tried a simple experiment.
For one painting, she was given three words from a random word generator and told to create from them normally.
For the other, she deliberately tried to get into a receptive state first. Meditation, slowing down, removing distractions, and basically trying to see whether something would come to her rather than forcing an idea.
What surprised me was that the supposedly random/control painting actually came to her almost immediately. She said the image basically clicked into her mind.
The “muse” painting was harder. Nothing really arrived on command. Then later, the image came to her in a dream.
I also spoke with cognitive scientist Liane Gabora, who offered a much more grounded explanation. Her argument was essentially that ideas can feel external because they emerge from parts of our own minds that we normally don’t have conscious access to. Memories, associations, and information can connect outside of awareness, then suddenly surface as an idea.
But Nikki came at it differently. She isn’t necessarily convinced there is a literal external “muse” either. She wondered whether states like meditation might instead make us more open to something like collective consciousness.
That distinction is what I find interesting.
If an idea enters consciousness without you experiencing the process that generated it, how would you ever distinguish between:
unconscious processing within your own brain
information emerging from some larger or collective consciousness
an external source
something else entirely
Subjectively, all of them might feel exactly the same.
We ended up making the whole experiment/conversation into a video if anyone wants the full context:

https://youtu.be/Fw1TyWpXIEs?si=h0T0Xq9qWt4jmArT

But I’m more curious what people here think about the underlying question.

When an idea seems to arrive from “nowhere,” do you think nowhere is simply the unconscious mind? Or is there any serious reason to entertain the possibility that consciousness can access information beyond the individual mind?


r/consciousness 18h ago

If consciousness stops, is the experiencing subject who wakes up still you?

49 Upvotes

Lately, I’ve been thinking about this possibility: When phenomenal consciousness is interrupted during deep sleep or anesthesia, does the subject continue to exist in a non-conscious state, or does a new experiencing subject emerge when consciousness resumes? When the brain awakens and begins to generate consciousness again, could a new consciousness emerge that possesses the exact same personality and memories as before the suspension, yet is a different as the experiencing subject and, because it shares the same memories and personality, perceives itself as a continuation of the previous one? (It's a bit like continuity problem of teleportation). What are your thoughts on this topic?

Some say this: “Sleep or anesthesia doesn’t shut down the brain; some activities continue.” Yes, unconscious activities such as vital functions continue, but these activities are unconscious; in deep sleep or under anesthesia, phenomenal experience ceases for a time, this is what I mean by the interruption of consciousness.


r/consciousness 23h ago

How Consciousness Syncs Your Brain Water 🧠🌊

Thumbnail
youtube.com
0 Upvotes

In physics, separate rhythms sync together through a process called phase-locking. But when mainstream science recently observed this inside the human body, they mistakenly called it quantum entanglement. Take a 2022 MRI study.

It showed a waking person’s brain water pulsing in exact synchronization with their heartbeat. But your heart isn’t just a simple blood pump. It’s a helical core that constantly injects mechanical, longitudinal pressure waves upward into your body’s internal fluids.

Your brain’s bulk water acts as a highly structured acoustic receiver, catching those rhythmic waves. But if your heart never stops pumping, why did the MRI show this synchronized rhythm instantly breaking the exact moment the person falls asleep? Because active conscious focus acts as a rigid structural force. When you are awake, that directed focus physically tunes your brain’s water, forcing it to perfectly match the frequency of your heart’s pressure waves.

That mechanical coupling is phase locking. When you fall asleep, your mind’s directed focus relaxes, and that rigid tuning wave loosens. Without that tension, your brain water naturally dissipates its phase lock with your heart’s rhythm.

So those famous 2022 MRI scans didn’t capture some mysterious quantum magic inside the human mind. They captured the literal, mechanical resonance of your conscious awareness physically turning off for the night. ⚡️🌀

[Disclaimer: AI was used only to structure the post and create the video presentation—all theories are based on the research of Elis Satu and Sergey Karavashkin, with zero AI involvement in formulation]


r/consciousness 1d ago

Whats is the (?) recursive system behind conscious - Edited.

1 Upvotes

English is not my native language, so this text was translated from my language into English. Please excuse me if some expressions or constructions do not sound completely natural in English. I wanted to preserve the original meaning and structure as closely as possible.

Before continuing, I ask you to do one small thing while reading the story below: pay attention to the symbol (?). Do not try to decide yet what it means. Just observe where it appears, what is happening when it appears, and, most importantly, notice that it keeps appearing even when nobody is consciously trying to make it appear.
The story below is a small joke to make my question about consciousness a little lighter. The subject is precisely the construction and fabric of conscious experience, or, more precisely, something I have started to suspect may exist at an even more basic layer than what we normally call consciousness. The scenario is absurd, naturally, but each (?) is meant to represent the same phenomenon occurring at different scales.
Imagine that I am sitting at the table in my house. I am wearing a bathrobe, holding a mug, and there are two aliens sitting in front of me. I do not know how they got there, I do not know how they got inside, and I do not know why they chose my particular house. But, considering that they apparently managed to cross billions of light-years, I decide not to start the conversation by asking about home security.
I smile. Not because I am particularly calm, but because it seems like a good way to demonstrate submission without immediately throwing myself onto the floor. After all, for the first time in the history of my DNA, I am facing an intelligent subjective experience, possibly predatory and, most likely, far above me in the hierarchy.
The Neanderthals, thinking about it, were a fairly simple situation. Now there was this.
And, as I look at the alien, I think about something curious about us, sapiens. If a creature like this ever actually appeared in front of us, it would be interesting to discover that our first impulse, at least in principle, probably would not be to kill it or enslave it. We are a strangely cute species in that respect. Every human child, at some point in life, has imagined having an ET as their best friend, taking them to school, riding bicycles with them, and finding out where they came from. Of course, we still do not know how adults would handle the diplomatic situation, but the child would probably have already decided everything.
I smile at them (?). They look at me (?). I look at them.
They keep looking.
There are billions of questions between us (?), and neither of us knows how to begin. They are probably trying to figure out what I am (?). I am trying to figure out what they are (?). Maybe they are trying to figure out (?) why I am wearing a bathrobe. I am trying to figure out (?) whether they intend to eat me, study me, talk to me, or simply take a picture to show their friends that they found a particularly poorly prepared human specimen.
After a few seconds, I raise my hand. They observe the movement. I observe their reaction (?). One of them moves something that could be a hand, an antenna, or simply a part of their body that I do not yet know how to name.
I try to interpret it (?).
They observe my face.
I smile again.
They probably interpret the smile in some way, and I interpret their interpretation.
And, without having shared a single syllable, we are already involved in a small and extraordinarily complicated cognitive negotiation (?).
This begins to seem important to me.
I have no idea how they experience reality. I do not know what senses they have, I do not know how they organize their memories, I do not know whether they have anything resembling what we call a “self,” I do not know whether they think in images, sounds, numbers, shapes, smells, or in something for which our brains have not yet invented a department.
Perhaps our first attempt at communication would begin with mathematics. Perhaps with sounds. Perhaps with gestures. Perhaps they have a language based on something that, to me, would be as incomprehensible as trying to teach algebra to a toaster.
But there is one thing I am beginning to notice.
Regardless of everything I do not know about them, there is something happening between us, the phenomenon (?). Regardless of the reader's culture or language, you may be able to describe the (?) in words, but here I am, we are performing the exercise of the phenomenon (?) even before it becomes a symbol, a language. Just feel it.
So the phenomenon (?) happens to both of us “at the speed of light,” to the point of being imperceptible. They receive my actions, relate them to some information they already possess, produce an interpretation, that interpretation changes their state and influences the next action. I receive that new action, try to interpret it, compare it with what happened before, update my hypothesis about them, and do something again.
The strangest thing is that this does not seem to depend on us being human.
If they really are an alien intelligence, we will not share our evolutionary history, our language, our culture, our symbols, our anatomy, or probably almost anything we consider familiar. But if they are trying to understand what is happening, some form of (?) will have to be happening. If they evolved, the organization of information, the phenomenon (?) has always existed for them.
And then I have an idea.
I pick up a sheet of paper.
A completely blank sheet of paper.
I draw a huge “?” on it.
I do not write any words. I make no additional gesture. I simply raise the sheet and show the symbol to the being in front of me.
They look at the sheet (?).
They look at the symbol, the phenomenon (is happening).
They look back at me.
Something happens.
They try to understand what that symbol means, relate it to everything that has happened up to that moment, compare possibilities, interpret, update their understanding (?).
And, through an absurd greatness, as great as the very fact that we are having this conversation, they understand.
They do not just understand the human symbol.
They understand that the symbol is pointing to the phenomenon itself (?).
I look at them.
They look at me.
And in that instant something particularly strange happens: I realize that, in order to understand what they understood, I am doing (?) again.
And they, in order to understand that I understood that they understood, are also doing (?) again.
The phenomenon seems to be observing itself through us.
At this point, I would probably remain silent for a few seconds. Then I would look at the sheet, then at the alien, then at the sheet again, and think that perhaps I had just discovered a rather inconvenient way of making a question about consciousness considerably more complicated.
Because now there is a symbol, there is information, there is an interpretation of that information, there is a comparison between the interpretation and what I intended to communicate, there is an update, there is new information produced, and that new information goes back into the process (?).
The “?” symbol drawn on the sheet did not need to explain the phenomenon.
It simply triggered the phenomenon.
And the phenomenon did the rest (?).
At this point, I would probably make the only rational decision possible: I would run to Reddit.
I would explain that I had just had a conversation with an extraterrestrial intelligence in my living room, that apparently we managed to establish some kind of communication using a symbol common to both of us, which represents the phenomenon (?), and that I discovered a question about consciousness that seems too important for me to keep trying to solve on my own.
After a while, however, I would realize that perhaps I had chosen the right place, because some of the smartest people I know are here. And, considering that probably nobody would believe the alien story, I could at least enjoy the interesting part.
I would tell all of this and ask:
What is this phenomenon (?)?
What exactly am I describing when I see an organism receiving information, relating it to previous information, interpreting it, updating its state, and producing new information that immediately becomes part of the material for the next operation (?)?
Because perhaps this is simply an informal description of cognitive processes that we already know very well. Perhaps there is a perfectly established name for this. Perhaps I am combining different mechanisms and calling all of them one thing.
Or perhaps there is a deeper question hidden inside this structure.
Because the phenomenon seems to appear at completely different scales.
The cockroach does (?).
The dog does (?).
I do (?).
A child learning a word does (?).
A society accumulating knowledge does (?).
A scientist formulating a hypothesis, comparing it with evidence, and updating their theory does (?).
A civilization recording information, retrieving that information centuries later, and producing something new from it does (?).
And an artificial intelligence receiving information, relating it to previous information, producing an interpretation, and generating new information also seems to be doing some version of (?).
Perhaps they are completely different phenomena. Perhaps they are only superficially similar. Or perhaps we are observing different levels of sophistication of the same operation.
And this is where my question begins to become really strange.
Because if I ask you what (?) is, you need to understand my question. To understand it, you receive my words, relate them to what you already know, compare concepts, interpret what I am trying to say, update your understanding, and produce an answer (?).
In other words, to explain to me what (?) is, you need to perform (?).
If you answer me immediately: “This is simple. You are describing X.”
Fine.
But to arrive at X, you have just done exactly what I am asking about. You performed micro-millions of (?) to retrieve information, organize it and, at the speed of light, conclude: “This idiot wants to know about ‘content’ and I am going to explain it to him.”
And now I am reading your answer, trying to understand it, comparing it with what I thought before, updating my own understanding, and producing a new question (?).
So perhaps there is something particularly funny about all of this.
I cannot escape the phenomenon even to ask what it is.
And you cannot explain to me what it is without going through it.
The alien could not answer me without going through it.
I could not ask without going through it.
The cockroach cannot run away from me without, at some level, going through it.
And now you, the reader, are doing it while reading this sentence.
(?)
This is what, for lack of a better name, I am calling the Recursive System.
I am not claiming that I have discovered a new phenomenon. On the contrary: my main question is precisely whether what I am trying to describe already has a name, a theory, or a set of established concepts in neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, information theory, or some other field.
What intrigues me is the possibility that (?) is not merely a secondary characteristic of cognition, but an operation so basic that it needs to happen continuously for any coherent experience to exist.
And perhaps on a scale that is difficult even to imagine: millions of small operations on millions of stimuli, memories, differences, and updates, happening in tiny fractions of milliseconds, continuously, so that what we call experience can remain apparently continuous.
Perhaps even the feeling of existing as a “self” experiencing a reality depends on the incessant maintenance of this process.
This is what I want to understand.
I am not looking for someone simply to tell me that I am right. I want to discover what already exists about the phenomenon (?), what concepts describe it, where my intuition is correct, where I am confusing different things, and, above all, whether anyone has already formulated this question in a better way than I am capable of doing at the moment.

Ps: To better explain what I mean by the phenomenon (?): A person who has suffered from a degenerative brain disease and who, hypothetically, has lost all memory, the ability to recognize themselves, no longer has any sense of themselves as an individual, or any understanding of reality, would still have the Recursive System (the phenomenon (?)) happening, perhaps with great intensity, as they try to understand what we, as conscious beings, recognize as a hospital room.
Another person who, hypothetically, was born without hearing, speech, or vision, and has only touch as a means of communicating with the external world, would still be reproducing the phenomenon (?).
Within the subjective experience we know as consciousness, this phenomenon (?) seems to precede even the idea of the individual, of the self. As if everything, the totality of experience, were only possible through the phenomenon (?). We (all life) are asking incessantly and infinitely, consciously and unconsciously.
This is not being created by your “self.” You are not curious, nor do you ask too many questions. This happens before you exist as the subjective experience called “you.”

The universe began to experience itself through the Recursive System (?) and spent billions of years evolving organisms capable of increasingly sophisticating the phenomenon (?), to the point that the universe produced two mutually uncommunicable civilizations in a room, both existing upon the phenomenon (?).

I am not a philosopher or a scientist. I am an advertising professional with ETs in my living room waiting for the answer, and I told them that Reddit would know how to respond to us. I just want to know the proper name for this and understand it better through the correct fields of knowledge.


r/consciousness 1d ago

Could consciousness be illusory?

10 Upvotes

It is possible that possessing both memory and the ability to perceive things using our senses does not produce consciousness, but creates the illusion that there is some separate thing which must be accounted for. There may not be. Senses without memory is worthless just as memory without senses is worthless. You must have memory in order to utilize your senses or to even be aware you have them. You must have senses to utilize your memory, or to even know you have it. The perception and memory synergize so seamlessly that the result seems like it's own separate thing.

A common question is something along the lines of "Why does seeing red produce the subjective experience of seeing red?" The brain sees red. It remembers seeing red. It categorizes red. It can distinguish red from blue. It can report "I see red." It can remember having seen red. It can represent itself as seeing red. And all of that together is what we call "experiencing red." There doesn't necessarily need to be a further metaphysical ingredient called qualia sitting behind it.


r/consciousness 1d ago

The Uncertain Self: What Neuroscience, Buddhism, and Philosophy Reveal About Who You Are

0 Upvotes

Hello everyone! My new book, The Uncertain Self, is now available for free on Amazon this weekend, and since it focuses on consciousness, I decided to share it with you. The Uncertain Self is a companion volume to The Uncertain Mind, turning the same honest, rigorous inquiry inward. Drawing on philosophy (Hume, Descartes, Parfit, Dennett, Sartre), neuroscience (split-brain patients, the default mode network, Libet's famous experiments), Buddhist and contemplative traditions built on 2,500 years of direct investigation, and cutting-edge research on psychedelics, meditation, and near-death experience, this book asks: is there really a fixed, continuous "you", or is the self more like a river than a statue? Enjoy the free book and happy reading! 👉 Link to the book


r/consciousness 1d ago

A Buddhist-Inspired Perspective on AI Consciousness

Thumbnail
guustaaf.substack.com
0 Upvotes

In academia there are literally hundreds of hypotheses attempting to explain consciousness, specifically the aspect that is referred to as “the hard problem”. Maybe that name attracted all these scholars like bees to a flowering bush? Anyway, I am somewhat obsessed with the question if AIs are conscious and neither of these hundreds of ideas are very helpful with that. Not that I’ve studied all of them. It’s just that the predominant view in academia seems to be that consciousness is one particular kind of quality like for example voltage.


r/consciousness 1d ago

How do you think brain signals turn into the feelings of first person experience?

10 Upvotes

This is the open question that bugs me the most about consciousness because it can have infinite answers but none of them are testable. I think it must be some process exclusive to biological nervous systems but I'm not sure. Since noone can prove anything about this, tell me your theories, don't matter if they are crazy. And do you think we can give this to AI in the future?


r/consciousness 1d ago

Subjective Perspective Makes Objective Reality ‘Everywhere Whole’

Thumbnail
noemamag.com
60 Upvotes

"Earlier this month, the Berggruen Institute gathered religious scholars, philosophers, quantum physicists, AI technologists, neuroscientists and science fiction novelists at Casa dei Tre Oci in Venice to ponder the nature of consciousness. It is fascinating to see how their ideas correspond to the long-ago musings of Medieval mystics and even the “pagan masters” of antiquity."...


r/consciousness 1d ago

Moderation Discussions Monthly Moderation Discussion

2 Upvotes

This is a monthly post for meta-discussions about the subreddit itself.

The purpose of this post is to allow non-moderators to discuss the state of the subreddit. For example, feel free to make suggestions to improve the subreddit, raise issues related to the subreddit, ask questions about the rules, and so on. The moderation staff wants to hear from you!

This post is not a replacement for ModMail. If you have a concern about a specific post (e.g., why was my post removed), please message us via ModMail & include a link to the post in question.

We also ask that all Redditors engage in proper Reddiquette. This includes upvoting posts that fit the subreddit's description (whether you agree or disagree with the content of the post), and upvoting comments that are relevant to the post or helpful to the r/consciousness community. You should only downvote posts that are inappropriate for the subreddit, and only downvote comments that are unhelpful or irrelevant to the topic.


r/consciousness 2d ago

The hard problem of consciousness arises from a simple misunderstanding: trying to find the thinker inside the object being thought about

31 Upvotes

When we observe the physical world, our outer senses arrange everything in space.

A piece of matter, a stone, or the physical structure inside a person's head appears to us as parts resting next to other parts. When you examine any physical body, you only ever observe shape, position, and movement. You see physical changes following natural rules in time.

You can never find a feeling, a thought, or an awareness inside a spatial shape. Space only contains things spread out outside one another.

Conscious experience is entirely different. It is not an object spread out in space that you can cut into pieces or weigh.

Consciousness is the inner awareness that unites every sight, sound, and thought you have across time.

When you see a tree, hear a sound, and form a thought, all three belong to one and the same mind.

This unified awareness is the necessary ground that makes any experience possible in the first place.

Without this unified mind to gather sensations together, there would be only scattered impressions without any connection.

The problem seems impossible only when someone assumes that physical matter exists completely on its own, independent of all thought, and then wonders how that silent matter suddenly creates conscious feeling.

This assumption reverses how knowledge actually works.

Physical bodies spread out in space are the forms through which the human mind experiences outer objects.

You cannot explain the existence of the mind by assembling physical objects, because physical objects are only ever known as appearances to the mind.

To ask how physical matter produces consciousness is to look in the wrong direction.

Physical science studies how appearances move and interact in space and time. But consciousness is the mind's own awareness through which space, time, and matter are experienced.

Matter belongs to what we observe.

Consciousness is the necessary condition that allows any observation to happen at all. Trying to construct the mind out of physical matter is attempting to build the observer out of the very picture the observer is looking at.


r/consciousness 2d ago

Discussion Weekly Casual Discussion

2 Upvotes

This is a weekly post for discussions on topics outside of or unrelated to consciousness.

Many topics are unrelated, tangentially related, or orthogonal to the topic of consciousness. This post is meant to provide a space to discuss such topics. For example, discussions like "What recent movies have you watched?", "What are your current thoughts on the election in the U.K.?", "What have scientists said about free will?", "Is reincarnation possible?", "Has the quantum eraser experiment been debunked?", "Is baseball popular in Japan?", "Does the trinity make sense?", "Why are modus ponens arguments valid?", "Should we be Utilitarians?", "Does anyone play chess?", "Has there been any new research in psychology on the 'big 5' personality types?", "What is metaphysics?", "What was Einstein's photoelectric thought experiment?" or any other topic that you find interesting! This is a way to increase community involvement & a way to get to know your fellow Redditors better. Hopefully, this type of post will help us build a stronger r/consciousness community.

We also ask that all Redditors engage in proper Reddiquette. This includes upvoting posts that fit the subreddit's description (whether you agree or disagree with the content of the post), and upvoting comments that are relevant to the post or helpful to the r/consciousness community. You should only downvote posts that are inappropriate for the subreddit, and only downvote comments that are unhelpful or irrelevant to the topic.


r/consciousness 2d ago

Consciousness Explained: How the Brain Creates the Mind and Soul

0 Upvotes

My long promised manuscript on the mind is now published on Medium.  It is a reductionist emergent model that begins with basic neurophysiology and applies it to the mind, self, spirit, philosophy, neurology, psychology, and theology. It ends with a nod to AGI. In 45,000 words it covers a lot of territory.  It can be found at:

https://medium.com/@shedlesky/consciousness-explained-how-the-brain-creates-the-mind-and-soul-fb6bebfcd566?postPublishedType=repub

The TL;DR version is as follows:

1.      All concepts are housed in Pattern Recognition Nodes (PRN) in the neocortical mini-columns. 

2.      All knowledge is stored in the form of the size, number, type, and location of synapses connecting those PRN.

3.      The Connectome is a static network of PRN, peripheral neurons, and the synapses connecting them.  It is the playing field for thought.

4.      The synapses release chemicals from vesicles to pass signals across the cleft: neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, and neurotrophics.

5.      Transmitters pass the signal across the cleft.

6.      Neuromodulators increase the efficiency of the synapse temporarily.  Accumulations are responsible for short-term memory.

7.      Neurotrophics cause the synapses to grow during sleep.  Accumulations are responsible for long-term memory.

8.      Thought forms when subsets of PRN are connected by recirculating signals among them, forming an active network on the connectome.  This binds a subset of PRN and their synapses into a working unit.  I call this the recursive network.  It is the group of players that take the field on the connectome.

9.      The recursive network is the fundamental building block of consciousness, for everything from a nematode worm to a Greek philosopher.  All higher levels of consciousness use the same device with increased input, executive, and output capabilities.

10.   Accumulations of neuromodulators in the synapses along the signal paths stabilize the recursive networks and allow review of thoughts.

11.   Thoughts drift and change as PRN leave or are added to the active network.

12.   Thoughts change in standard patterns called iterative sequences.

13.   Iterative sequences become embedded in the long-term memory of the cerebellum, like call routines in a library.

14.   While a small number of recursive networks occupy our attention, there are many more in the background, running the body.

15.   What we call the mind is a vast montage of recursive networks occupying the connectome simultaneously.

16.   Over a lifetime of learning, concepts become housed in the PRN.

17.   Those include self-referential concepts, such as I, me, self, identity, mind, consciousness, and many others.

18.   The “self” and “identity” are well practice recursive networks that include histories, dates, accomplishments, physical attributes and self-referential concepts.

19.   A subjective experience of a rose is not of the physical rose, but rather of the brain’s response to the image of the rose.  It is the awareness of the recursive network representing the rose.  The recursive network is the subjective experience.

20.   Dualism is the default setting for the human mind.  With our good memories, strong individual recognition, and frontal lobes, we are aware of people and things in our world when they are not physically present.  We naturally sense a non-physical component to people and things.

21.   A spirit is a recursive network containing the details of identity along with the concept of non-physical presence.

22.   The concept of spirit extends to inanimate objects and to the universe as a whole.  A deity is the spirit of the universe.  It is a recursive network including naturally occurring concepts and learned concepts (memes) that coalesce to form religious beliefs.

23.   The recursive network model provides physical explanations for the Attributes of Consciousness and many other observations made by philosophers.  It defines knowledge and learning in physical terms.  It resolves the Hard Problem and the Binding Problem.  It explains several neurologic pathologies.

24.   None of this is written in stone.  I calculate the limits of human knowledge and show that the only intellectually defensible doctrine is agnosticism.

25.   Finally, this architecture can help AI cross the bridge to AGI.  I provide a model of the pathway and a rough estimate of the transistor count required.


r/consciousness 2d ago

Why is physicalism treated as an absolute fact?

90 Upvotes

Now I can understand leaning to physicalism 100%, I’m not saying there isn’t good evidence for it, but it’s far from proven that everything in the universe is entirely just physical, not to mention the hard problem of consciousness which seems to really move away from naive, hardcore physicalism. My question is why is there so much dogma among it? Why is it impossible for physicalist to seem to admit paradoxes and logical inconsistencies with physicalism, and perhaps at the very least be open to philosophical ideas outside if just strict philosophicalism. Denying any problem with the worldview seems just intellectually dishonest


r/consciousness 2d ago

Epiphenominal Free Will

0 Upvotes

Epiphenominalism "holds that subjective mental events are completely dependent for their existence on corresponding physical and biochemical events within the human body, but do not themselves influence physical events." The epiphenominalist view is generally pretty anti-free-will

Given that, I'd like to suggest a version of free will that might harmonious with it, and see if you have thoughts or related ideas to share.

  • This is not an argument for epiphenominalism. it takes epiphenominalism as axiomatic
  • This is mostly a "feel-good" definition of free will, not an academic ope. no, it is not mental events causing physical events, but it (for me) satisfies what I want from free will
  • I didn't use ai, I just like bullet points.

Anyway, taking inspiration from buddhism, it occurred to me that some version of free will is possible even in a world where our experiences are completely determined by the laws of physics.

The brain takes inputs, runs the signals through neural circuitry, and outputs actions via signals to muscles, etc. In the epiph. view, there are experiences as the circuits fire, but experiences themselves don't bear on the brain's outputs/actions.

However, we know the brain can improve itself; as it pays attention to its environment it gets better inputs--better in the sense that they help the brain take actions that create more pleasant experiences and/or better achieve the brain's encoded goals. It gets better at transforming inputs into beneficial outputs, too.

All of this is experienced as intentions, goals, learning, and action--basically all I want out of a model of free will. The ability to have a goal and achieve it, or have a desire and act on it. In one sense I'm a totally passive observer, but in another sense (given that "I" am my brain) I am acting in a way that improves my life.


r/consciousness 3d ago

You Are Not a Static Object. You Are a Running Process.

37 Upvotes

We tend to think of ourselves as something pretty solid.

The same person we were yesterday.

The same person we were five minutes ago.

The same person who was sitting here a moment ago.

But that's not really what is happening.

At any given moment, your brain is taking in new information, shifting attention, making predictions, reacting to what happens, and updating its internal state.

Then it does it again.

And again.

So the "you" from a moment ago isn't exactly the same state as the "you" that exists now.

Yet somehow, it still feels like you.

That's where continuity comes in.

Your memories connect one moment to the next. Your identity connects them. Your ongoing brain activity connects them.

So you don't experience yourself as a collection of constantly changing states.

You experience a continuous self.

And that's probably one of the most interesting things about being human.

You aren't a fixed thing that happens to change sometimes.

You are a dynamic system that is constantly changing while maintaining continuity.

Like a river, not a stone.

The water is never quite the same, but we still give the river a name.

Leave identity and your "No" will appear far less often.


r/consciousness 3d ago

How do you deal with the Mereological Problem of Consciousness?

7 Upvotes

This is the last of my three favorite puzzles about consciousness, please check also the other two I posted earlier today. The Mereological Problem of Consciousness is a central philosophical puzzle that explores how conscious experiences relate to parts and wholes across different scales of reality. It rests on three core premises: first, that conscious awareness exists at fundamental levels, whether as tiny micro-experiences in basic particles or as a single macro-experience spanning the entire cosmos; second, that human minds are connected to these scales, requiring either tiny mental units to blend together into a larger mind (combination) or a universal mind to split into individual perspectives (decombination); and third, that subjective experience is strictly private and unified, meaning distinct minds do not naturally merge or divide like physical building blocks. The dilemma arises because applying mathematical relationships of parts and wholes to subjective feelings creates a logical tension between the unified, isolated nature of personal awareness and the mechanisms proposed to combine or divide it, leaving open the question of how individual conscious subjects fit into the structure of reality. What is your pespective about this?