Matter generating consciousness?

[misaeld7]

I suppose it might be possible to intentionally inflict DID on someone, but I very much hope we can't.

Oh, by the way, we CAN. One way: cut the corpus callosum. Why would you hope we couldn't? (The fact that we can doesn't mean we should, and I believe I'm quoting some line from Jurassic Park lol)

One does find in the esoteric literature the idea that there are alters (higher spiritual entities) that create alters, and we are such creations. But we can't do that.

Which books are you referring to?

[Jim Cross]

he would perhaps claim we have no good reasons to assume that there are any other possible ways of creating alters directly from the cosmic mind (other than generating metabolising entities, that is).

I agree.

If we created an artificial entity with the same extrinsic form of an alter, why wouldn't it be an alter?

[misaeld7]

he would perhaps claim we have no good reasons to assume that there are any other possible ways of creating alters directly from the cosmic mind (other than generating metabolising entities, that is).

I agree.

I believe so do I xD

[misaeld7]

he would perhaps claim we have no good reasons to assume that there are any other possible ways of creating alters directly from the cosmic mind (other than generating metabolising entities, that is).

I agree.

If we created an artificial entity with the same extrinsic form of an alter, why wouldn't it be an alter?

What makes something "artificial" to begin with?

[Jim Cross]

I agree.

If we created an artificial entity with the same extrinsic form of an alter, why wouldn't it be an alter?

What makes something "artificial" to begin with?

I'm using the term to refer to something created by humans rather than arising by itself in nature. My point is that supposedly the brain and body are the "extrinsic" forms of an alter. How much like a brain and body does it need to be to actually be an alter? Would a robot that looks human be the extrinsic form of an alter? How deep does the "form" need to go to actually become an alter?

[misaeld7]

I'm using the term to refer to something created by humans rather than arising by itself in nature. My point is that supposedly the brain and body are the "extrinsic" forms of an alter. How much like a brain and body does it need to be to actually be an alter? Would a robot that looks human be the extrinsic form of an alter? How deep does the "form" need to go to actually become an alter?

Yeah... I'm pretty much sure that's very similar to my initial question...

We know states of consciousness correlate with brain activity. What BK says is that matter and physical properties do NOT cause consciousness - both matter and physical properties are in mind.
And I buy into that to some extent, but, when I play devil's advocate, that's when I realize how little did I really understand of what he's conveying and how many materialistic assumptions I'm still carrying unknowingly.

He said, and I quote, "Of course I can't create consciousness out of matter, because matter itself is something that appears in consciousness". Doesn't that imply "we can't create consciousness (PERIOD)" (since he also claims that everything is, by definition, IN consciousness)? I think so. But we "can", to some extent, "create" new conscious beings - he would say those are "induced disociations of the cosmic mind"... But how is this not just a semantic trick? I mean, you can call it "create", you can call it "induce blah blah", we are talking about the same thing here: re-arraging that mind patter/content we call "matter" so that new conscious entities arrise. We know at least ONE way: that's what life is about. So, be it by natural means, be it "artificial" (in vitro fertilization, playing with genes and stuff), we know that's ONE method to generate conscious agents. We also know that, if we cut the corpus callosum, disociation occurs. And during sleep, disociation occurs. So I'm still curious: how does analytic idealism SOLVE the hard problem? "The hard problem" perhaps becomes "How does abiogenesis occur?", but I still can't figure out why would the image of a disociation be ALIVE.

Because, okay, fair enough, perhaps life (metabolism, reproduction, self-organization, etc) is indeed the ONLY image of "that which can perceive" or "a disociation of the cosmic mind"... But WHY would that be the case? Because he also claimed that there is nothing about physical parameters in terms of which you could deduce the qualities of experience - so WHY is life special/unique if we can't even talk about properties? The hard problem remains, in my estimation.

We know everything is in consciousness, but not everything is conscious. Or do we? How do we know the sun is NOT conscious? If "there is nothing about material configurarions or physical parameters in terms of which we could deduce the qualities of experience", if we can't talk about "how it looks like from the second person perspective" to deduce the inner experience, why would we assume the sun is NOT conscious (although "in consciousness")? Or why is metabolism or life even relevant to this?
I'm convinced BK has already answered this in many of his videos (which I may have missed), but... If not everything is conscious and abiogenesis is possible, would a universe prior to containing life (aka "disociating into alters") still be conscious? WHY?

And if the ONLY image of an alter is "that which is alive", is the cosmic mind ALIVE? Because, for example, he claims the cosmic mind is "NOT meta-conscious" because it didn't undergo the preasure of natural selection (since there's nothing outside consciousness, there's no such thing as an enviroment to be aware of for the cosmic mind). And he also claims, with proof, that the universe resembles a brain - but how would that proove anything, if he rejects that the physical parameters are irrelevant when it comes to knowing what the inner experience is like (if I understood properly, which I probably didn't)?

Too many questions, and poorly formulated, but I really feel like I need those answers.

[AshvinP]

I'm using the term to refer to something created by humans rather than arising by itself in nature. My point is that supposedly the brain and body are the "extrinsic" forms of an alter. How much like a brain and body does it need to be to actually be an alter? Would a robot that looks human be the extrinsic form of an alter? How deep does the "form" need to go to actually become an alter?

Yeah... I'm pretty much sure that's very similar to my initial question...

We know states of consciousness correlate with brain activity. What BK says is that matter and physical properties do NOT cause consciousness - both matter and physical properties are in mind.
And I buy into that to some extent, but, when I play devil's advocate, that's when I realize how little did I really understand of what he's conveying and how many materialistic assumptions I'm still carrying unknowingly.

He said, and I quote, "Of course I can't create consciousness out of matter, because matter itself is something that appears in consciousness". Doesn't that imply "we can't create consciousness (PERIOD)" (since he also claims that everything is, by definition, IN consciousness)? I think so. But we "can", to some extent, "create" new conscious beings - he would say those are "induced disociations of the cosmic mind"... But how is this not just a semantic trick? I mean, you can call it "create", you can call it "induce blah blah", we are talking about the same thing here: re-arraging that mind patter/content we call "matter" so that new conscious entities arrise. We know at least ONE way: that's what life is about. So, be it by natural means, be it "artificial" (in vitro fertilization, playing with genes and stuff), we know that's ONE method to generate conscious agents. We also know that, if we cut the corpus callosum, disociation occurs. And during sleep, disociation occurs. So I'm still curious: how does analytic idealism SOLVE the hard problem? "The hard problem" perhaps becomes "How does abiogenesis occur?", but I still can't figure out why would the image of a disociation be ALIVE.

Just forget about the concept of "alter", "dissociation", etc. I used to give it a bit of credit for being a useful "low representation" symbol, but now I am coming to realize it can't even be given that much credit, because it causes so much confusion of the sort you are expressing here. You are not the first to wonder WTF is going on there and you won't be the last. It causes way more confusion than clarity at this point.

Under idealism, we do not create "new consciousness" or " new conscious beings" - both are fundamental and eternal. That is not to be confused with "static" or "unchanging" - there is constant and ceaseless metamorphosis of conscious perspectives.

Because, okay, fair enough, perhaps life (metabolism, reproduction, self-organization, etc) is indeed the ONLY image of "that which can perceive" or "a disociation of the cosmic mind"... But WHY would that be the case? Because he also claimed that there is nothing about physical parameters in terms of which you could deduce the qualities of experience - so WHY is life special/unique if we can't even talk about properties? The hard problem remains, in my estimation.

We know everything is in consciousness, but not everything is conscious. Or do we? How do we know the sun is NOT conscious? If "there is nothing about material configurarions or physical parameters in terms of which we could deduce the qualities of experience", if we can't talk about "how it looks like from the second person perspective" to deduce the inner experience, why would we assume the sun is NOT conscious (although "in consciousness")? Or why is metabolism or life even relevant to this?
I'm convinced BK has already answered this in many of his videos (which I may have missed), but... If not everything is conscious and abiogenesis is possible, would a universe prior to containing life (aka "disociating into alters") still be conscious? WHY?

And if the ONLY image of an alter is "that which is alive", is the cosmic mind ALIVE? Because, for example, he claims the cosmic mind is "NOT meta-conscious" because it didn't undergo the preasure of natural selection (since there's nothing outside consciousness, there's no such thing as an enviroment to be aware of for the cosmic mind). And he also claims, with proof, that the universe resembles a brain - but how would that proove anything, if he rejects that the physical parameters are irrelevant when it comes to knowing what the inner experience is like (if I understood properly, which I probably didn't)?

Too many questions, and poorly formulated, but I really feel like I need those answers.

Forget about that too - it is not the "only image" of "dissociation". There are only living beings and living activity of those beings. There are no inert or lifeless "blobs of consciousness" or whatever floating around, because as you rightly intuit, that makes absolutely no sense. The rest of your questions as to how we know what sort of livings beings and activity we are specifically dealing with cannot be answered by way of intellectual concepts - they can be pointed to in various ways, but that is not actually true knowledge, only the first steps in the direction of true knowledge.

[misaeld7]

Just forget about the concept of "alter", "dissociation", etc. I used to give it a bit of credit for being a useful "low representation" symbol, but now I am coming to realize it can't even be given that much credit, because it causes so much confusion of the sort you are expressing here. You are not the first to wonder WTF is going on there and you won't be the last. It causes way more confusion than clarity at this point.

Under idealism, we do not create "new consciousness" or " new conscious beings" - both are fundamental and eternal. That is not to be confused with "static" or "unchanging" - there is constant and ceaseless metamorphosis of conscious perspectives.

Forget about that too - it is not the "only image" of "dissociation". There are only living beings and living activity of those beings. There are no inert or lifeless "blobs of consciousness" or whatever floating around, because as you rightly intuit, that makes absolutely no sense. The rest of your questions as to how we know what sort of livings beings and activity we are specifically dealing with cannot be answered by way of intellectual concepts - they can be pointed to in various ways, but that is not actually true knowledge, only the first steps in the direction of true knowledge.

Thank you for your reply.

I must admit from my ignorance that, even though analytic idealism seems closer to truth, materialism seems like a more useful fiction/myth to me.
"Forget about this" and "forget about that", even though I think I sort of understand where you are coming from, looks like a way of killing curiosity. Or a false sense of understanding reality that would prevent us from exploring everything related to the so called "hard problem of consciousness".

It's like "Hey, I'm a conscious being. And I know I can give birth to many conscious beings. I wonder whether I can artificially create one, or if what the best biological methods are", and then someone says "No, you can't. And there's no such thing as an "I" that experiences. And forget about things like "a conscious being" and so on". That looks like something Daniel Dennett would say, paradoxically.

Perhaps off topic and I'm just repeating myself, but I've heard BK claim, with proof, that the universe looks like a brain... and how is that even relevant, if not under materialistic assumptions?

[AshvinP]

Just forget about the concept of "alter", "dissociation", etc. I used to give it a bit of credit for being a useful "low representation" symbol, but now I am coming to realize it can't even be given that much credit, because it causes so much confusion of the sort you are expressing here. You are not the first to wonder WTF is going on there and you won't be the last. It causes way more confusion than clarity at this point.

Under idealism, we do not create "new consciousness" or " new conscious beings" - both are fundamental and eternal. That is not to be confused with "static" or "unchanging" - there is constant and ceaseless metamorphosis of conscious perspectives.

Forget about that too - it is not the "only image" of "dissociation". There are only living beings and living activity of those beings. There are no inert or lifeless "blobs of consciousness" or whatever floating around, because as you rightly intuit, that makes absolutely no sense. The rest of your questions as to how we know what sort of livings beings and activity we are specifically dealing with cannot be answered by way of intellectual concepts - they can be pointed to in various ways, but that is not actually true knowledge, only the first steps in the direction of true knowledge.

Thank you for your reply.

I must admit from my ignorance that, even though analytic idealism seems closer to truth, materialism seems like a more useful fiction/myth to me.
"Forget about this" and "forget about that", even though I think I sort of understand where you are coming from, looks like a way of killing curiosity. Or a false sense of understanding reality that would prevent us from exploring everything related to the so called "hard problem of consciousness".

It's like "Hey, I'm a conscious being. And I know I can give birth to many conscious beings. I wonder whether I can artificially create one, or if what the best biological methods are", and then someone says "No, you can't. And there's no such thing as an "I" that experiences. And forget about things like "a conscious being" and so on". That looks like something Daniel Dennett would say, paradoxically.

Perhaps off topic and I'm just repeating myself, but I've heard BK claim, with proof, that the universe looks like a brain... and how is that even relevant, if not under materialistic assumptions?

I'm not saying to "forget about it" and stop asking questions and seeking detailed knowledge, actually I am saying exactly the opposite - you need to forget about those abstract concepts so that you can free up your Thinking and orient it in the proper direction. In my opinion, BK is simply wrong to use those concepts in the way that he does. The reason for that is pretty clear to me - it stems from Schopenhauer's idealism which, IMO, is also wrong at a deep level. Those concepts are used because it is assumed we cannot get more detailed knowledge of the ideal dynamics you are asking about. I disagree - we can get that knowledge, but we must abandon a lot of modern prejudices before we can even get started. Those prejudices have seeped into materialism, dualism, and idealism, so we cannot take refuge in this or that "useful fiction". They are all fundamentally flawed in a manner that will kill curiosity, as you say. I completely agree with your intuition here - that is precisely what the modern prejudices do: kill curiosity. And that only leads to nihilism of one sort or another.

I have written many posts and essays on this topic, so it would be easier for me to reference and quote those to you if I get a better sense of where you are coming from. Maybe you can elaborate more on your previous worldview and what are the biggest questions you have. Not that I will have all the answers, but I may have a sense of where to start looking.

[ScottRoberts]

He said, and I quote, "Of course I can't create consciousness out of matter, because matter itself is something that appears in consciousness". Doesn't that imply "we can't create consciousness (PERIOD)" (since he also claims that everything is, by definition, IN consciousness)? I think so.

Nothing creates consciousness.

But we "can", to some extent, "create" new conscious beings - he would say those are "induced disociations of the cosmic mind"... But how is this not just a semantic trick? I mean, you can call it "create", you can call it "induce blah blah", we are talking about the same thing here: re-arraging that mind patter/content we call "matter" so that new conscious entities arrise. We know at least ONE way: that's what life is about. So, be it by natural means, be it "artificial" (in vitro fertilization, playing with genes and stuff), we know that's ONE method to generate conscious agents.

We do not create new conscious beings. Biology does not create new conscious beings. The biological process creates new bodies, but that process and those bodies are extrinsic representations of thoughts of MAL (Mind-At-Large, BK's term for cosmic mind, also abbreviated M@L). As the bodies develop and exercise their senses, they become the extrinsic appearance of alters, through unknown processes. Note that in reincarnation scenarios, the alter can in some sense pre-exist the body. Of course, analytic idealism does not assume reincarnation, but it doesn't deny it either. My only point is that answers to the how and why of the formation of alters will not come from philosophy (or natural science). Religious and esoteric sources have their answers, and are, in my opinion, worth exploring, if only to get one out of the materialist mindset.

[ We also know that, if we cut the corpus callosum, disociation occurs.

No it doesn't. You get the same single person who experiences some things differently. Dissociation (in the case of DID) results in different persons within one body.

And during sleep, disociation occurs.

Does it? Some would say in deep sleep there is re-association.

So I'm still curious: how does analytic idealism SOLVE the hard problem?

By removing the assumption that there is anything external to consciousness.

"The hard problem" perhaps becomes "How does abiogenesis occur?",

No it doesn't. Under idealism one need not assume abiogenesis. Everything is alive, or thoughts of living beings.

but I still can't figure out why would the image of a disociation be ALIVE.

Because, okay, fair enough, perhaps life (metabolism, reproduction, self-organization, etc) is indeed the ONLY image of "that which can perceive" or "a disociation of the cosmic mind"... But WHY would that be the case? Because he also claimed that there is nothing about physical parameters in terms of which you could deduce the qualities of experience - so WHY is life special/unique if we can't even talk about properties? The hard problem remains, in my estimation.

Lost you here.

We know everything is in consciousness, but not everything is conscious. Or do we?

Yes. My thought that 2+2=4 is not a conscious being, but is in consciousness.

How do we know the sun is NOT conscious?

We don't.

If "there is nothing about material configurarions or physical parameters in terms of which we could deduce the qualities of experience", if we can't talk about "how it looks like from the second person perspective" to deduce the inner experience, why would we assume the sun is NOT conscious (although "in consciousness")? Or why is metabolism or life even relevant to this?
I'm convinced BK has already answered this in many of his videos (which I may have missed), but... If not everything is conscious and abiogenesis is possible, would a universe prior to containing life (aka "disociating into alters") still be conscious? WHY?

There are various ways to think about physical but non-biological objects. One is to view them all collectively as the external appearance of a single subjectivity called MAL. Another is to think of them as the external appearance of multiple subjectivities, so there might be one that shows up to us as the sun, another as the earth, and so on.

And if the ONLY image of an alter is "that which is alive", is the cosmic mind ALIVE?

Sure is, if one defines "alive" as having experiences.

Because, for example, he claims the cosmic mind is "NOT meta-conscious" because it didn't undergo the preasure of natural selection (since there's nothing outside consciousness, there's no such thing as an enviroment to be aware of for the cosmic mind).

Some here, including me, disagree with BK on this point.

And he also claims, with proof, that the universe resembles a brain - but how would that proove anything,

He doesn't say it does prove anything. He just finds it suggestive.

In another post you asked about esoteric literature on non-physical alters. Here's some (also about a lot of other stuff). Please note that I'm not claiming that such books provide us with The Truth (though they might). But they do provide us with ways to think about reality in non-materialist terms.

Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul
Geraldine Cummins, The Road to Immortality
Rudolf Steiner, An Outline of Occult Science available on-line at https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/English/AP1972/GA013_index.html