This seems stupid.

I think there is a counter argument that many hope there is no meaning at all. The very idea of meaning scares the shit out of them, because if they have wasted their lives, they will not just enter a dreamless sleep when their biological life is over, but instead wake up face to face with the choices they have made.

>Why is that so-called "epiphany" presumed to be the canonical, authoritative experience, somehow informative of some deep truth as opposed to merely a momentary illusion?

These experiences can literally change your entire persona and course of life. And you think they don't deserve some form of respect?...

>Why is it assumed to be any more "valid" than the ordinary kind of conscious experience?

This epiphany you are talking about are called direct experiences in spirituality. That means, you are observing something without the added distortions of the mind. For example, a picture of a mixed race couple can invoke different reactions based on who you show the picture to. So what do you think is the difference between a racist bigot who froths at his mouth in anger looking at the picture, and let's say someone who merely wishes the couple well in life?... The difference is that the mind of the bigot is conditioned to react with hatred and bile. This added judgement by the mind is not what you would call a direct experience.

Although the example of bigotry is an extreme one, this is the reality of all our ordinary experiences. They are colored by our learned judgements, misconceptions, and identity. This is exactly what the astronaut lost in that moment. A complete dissolution of his judgements and identities. In that moment he saw how all our differences are made up, how our existence is interconnected, and how we are all children of Earth. You'll shed tears if you ever end up having such an experience. Perhaps you should then ask yourself this very question you pose in this thread.

>Sure, the former is rarer, and it's often accompanied by a sense of awe and profundity, but none of that gives any credence to it, really.

None of your experiences are real, but whatever changes they bring about in you are very much real. You can either learn to appreciate such experiences as being glimpses of unfiltered truth, or continue to wonder why such experiences are spoken with reverence.

What if you don’t want to resist? I only resist eating unhealthy things, but am otherwise down for funtimes. Essentially if it doesn’t hurt anyone I will enjoy myself.

The purity of heart is to will one thing.

It wasn’t that profound at all, and it doesn’t introduce anything new or significant.

>I wouldn’t call it a strange twist. I think our history of religious teachings is the reason the idea has so much of a foothold in the first place.

You can't simply ascribe it to "history of religious teachings" without answering why people from Abrahamic faiths usually end up buying into these esoteric philosophies, primarily from the East, when Abrahamic faiths and Dharmic faiths are at such logger heads regarding their core tenets.

I'm from an Abhrahamic faith as well, and I practice Advaita Vedanta now. I can tell you first hand that non-duality was anything but familiar to me. In fact, I found it completely strange, requiring effort to get out of my past conditioning. Of course I later learned that non-dual philosophy isn't limited to Dharmic faiths, that even Abrahamic faiths have profound non-dual philosophies, albeit considered heretical by mainstream.

>Just because we can imagine consciousness existing outside the brain does not give the theory any credence.

I don't know what consciousness centered philosophy you are talking about, but in Advaita, consciousness doesn't exist as an abstract entity in the universe. It requires a biological body to manifest.

I'm sure your take is perhaps based on the claim that universe is conscious, so you assume that this means the entirety of the universe is a conscious entity. That's completely incorrect. If we can use same language, we could also describe the universe as being electrified or magnetized. It simply means that electricity and magnetism are properties of the universe that can manifest under right conditions. Similarly, consciousness is a property of the universe that can manifest under the right conditions (a living biological pod).

The reason this is central model in non-dual philosophies is because, to subside the ego, it is necessary for you to adopt a different identity than that of being the ego. Consciousness is a good neutral ground for you to be able to observe the mind. But unwittingly, this also turns your subjective experience into an enigma. This is what the astronaut experienced.

My friend is a Buddhist monk and practices a lot of meditation. He said to me, there is a reason that demons are often portrayed as having many heads, and gods are often portrayed as having many hands.

Our consciousness changes when our brain enters different physical states, even states that it hasn’t evolved to be in(such as those created through the use of psychoactive drugs). You can even remove chunks of the brain and, so long as it doesn’t kill the person, they can remain conscious, though their consciousness is altered. Even someone who is sleeping is conscious, though differently from being awake.

This is why I think consciousness is a property of all physical phenomena and not just of the brain - we know altered brains are still conscious.

Most physical phenomena don’t have the ability to collect sensory data or form memories or learn, which is what the brain has evolved to do, but, while there’s no evidence and no way to collect evidence of this, given the information we have about consciousness, it seems more intuitive that physical phenomena would generate some form of experiences than the alternative simply by way of being physical phenomena.

Maybe when you open a dresser the dresser ‘experiences’ itself being opened, in some sense. Maybe by changing the channel on the tv the TV senses the signal of the remote and has an instinctive response of changing its internal data, which it experiences.

>and raised by a different family then maybe it would be the equivalent of a completely different person and consciousness (basically the same as if a different baby was born).

Consciousness remains the same in whatever body you observe it. What does differ is the conditioned individual, AKA the ego. And you're absolutely right, the conditioned individual is completely unreal. And your example is apt for demonstrating this. If Hitler was an orphan raised by an adoptive Jewish family, he might have turned out to be a completely different person in history. It's not as if there's an archetype of Hitler as an anti-semite existing somewhere outside of existence.

Most of us who fantasize about winning a million dollars, or going back in time to relive life, do so with the assumption that you would end up being the exact same person we are. But in reality, even a small event can completely change the course of history, so how can the individual hope to also remain the same.

Yes? How’re you gonna gather evidence for something as impossible to measure as consciousness

Your comment is one way to interpret this writing. It is highly pessimistic and reads like you lack comprehension skills... I say this as an English major.

It is not that the writer is invalidating the average human experience, it is actually highlighting just HOW connected the average and rare consciousness are. Each experience you have is "valid" even when you take a shit on the toilet that no one knows about, but it's up to the conscious mind (i.e., the reader) to interpret each of these experiences to give them validity... If you read this article and only took away your above comments/questions. I suggest you reread it or dive deeper into Alan Watts or Carl Sagan, both of which are mentioned in the writing. They each have wonderful outlooks on life and the human experience.

I wondered, how many links to understand we are missing in readings like this. We know that the writers had to have recognized so many connections in their minds in order to have these "new" epiphanies and we just get to read what they were able to put into words... If only we could see into their minds.

I am beginning to think that human consciousness can be reconcilable if there is no attempt made for transcending human-ness; but, a serious attempt made instead for obtaining a good and informed human existence. I think this also means accepting that human consciousness is not fundamental and primary to all else; there is nothing exemplary about humanity and its particular kind of consciousness despite what our history suggests.

I’ve had this thought related to race. If I was born a different race, I’m sure (or am I sure?) my life would be different.

What you're suggesting is magic btw.

I really struggle to understand what consciousness is supposed to be. Panpsychism has the same ring to me as "consciousness is an illusion". And both mean nothing to me. Except of course I think I am conscious 🤔? if 2 people swap concuisnesses what would change about them? I'd say nothing. It seems to be just a brain function that allows for us to self-relate (which makes sense if your survival is based on building models that explain the past and predict the future in relation to yourself).

>Why is that distinction so hard to understand?

There are layers/hierarchies of abstraction built into our everyday life that we take for granted. The most dangerous of these abstractions is the belief that you are somehow different from the universe.

>It's like saying cars move, and cars are part of the city, so the city is moving.

As I said, there are hierarchies of abstraction we use in day to day life. So the next time you hear someone say "the traffic is easing", know that there's no single block called "traffic" that is easing, but rather the individual cars.

>No, despite the poetic value of that claim, it's simply absurd.

It's not absurd at all. If anything, it's the most rational thing you can say.

The identity you hold of being a conscious individual is just an illusion. In reality, there's just laws of the universe that drive all the biological entities that inhabit earth. And the agent that enables any individual activity at all is consciousness. This consciousness emerges in matter in specific configuration. So, consciousness is something that happens to matter.

My question to you is, if the universe is what we call the observable field of matter around us, is it incorrect to say that consciousness is universe observing itself?... Of course, you'll have objections to the freedom I've used in equating matter with the universe, but it is the exact perspective shift that is required for spiritual liberation.

Tat tvam asi! You're it.

Growth and acceptance to reduce fragmentation while being aware to avoid temptations seemed to be the theme, yeah

Oh! a growth mindset?

Pulling from the video; he says the most people feel as if their current self-image is how they will be forever, despite the multitude of changes that they went through up to that point. The reality is that we will continue to change based on new experiences and input, and accepting that fact vs. holding steadfast to your current beliefs helps to reduce fragmentation in the mind.

I think your proposition is interesting to ponder. What would it mean if the universe were conscious? It's alluring, and I like thinking about the boundless possibilities, especially for raising our ability as a species to thrive via broadly realized equanimity.

Its just not robust enough to be convincing. Humans can accept and integrate concepts even if it's simply that they like the idea, one of our quirks I guess. It has a problem that it jumps to a conclusion with no argument.

We are part of the universe, and (we are) conscious. (Missing argument) Therefore the universe is conscious.

Cars are part of the city, and (they are) moving. (Missing argument) Therefore the city is moving.

Obviously the city is not moving, but it contains movement. Typically we would use different grammar to indicate the more accurate statement, the city contains moving cars.

The farthest logic can take us without filling in the missing argument is that the universe contains conscious entities.

If you have an argument as to why consciousness is different than other attributes of things in the universe it might fill in the argument. But if the component parts of a system assign their characteristic qualities of consciousness, movement, color, temperature, and many more complex characteristics to the higher systems of which they are a part, then we are even less able to describe something on the scale of the universe.

Not be as finite? But, still finite? What do you mean exactly by saying this.

Amazing, if this is the only universe that ever was, mundane if this is one out of an unfathomable number of universes.

Valid point, and well said

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.