Science
In reply to the discussion: What is so mysterious about human consciousness? [View all]GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I don't know if it's a direct perception of consciousness. It feels like it is.
I don't know if it can exist by itself or not. It feels like it can.
I don't know if it's independent of my thoughts. It feels like it is.
I don't know if it exists outside of (i.e. contains) space and time. It feels like it does.
I don't know if my perceptions are illusions or not.
I don't know if my feelings are projections or not.
This is one area where I get to practice my Pyrrhonian skepticism. I do not believe these things to be true, nor do I believe them to be false. They are simply my perceptions. In some circumstances I can adopt a belief in them, in other circumstances I can adopt disbelief. Neither the belief nor the disbelief is "true", nor is either permanent. For me the objective truth of the perceptions are immaterial, and believing or disbelieving is not the point. Their personal meaning in the moment is what's important.
There are clues that suggest there's a possibility my perceptions might be "real" (in quotes because it's a hard concept to define). They include:
- The similarity of its description across individuals, cultures and times.
- It never feels, and never thinks. Thoughts and feelings happen inside it, but it never changes no matter what "I" think or feel.
- It never judges, or applies any value to the thoughts or feelings it contains. There are no good or bad thoughts, just thoughts. No pleasant or unpleasant emotions, just emotions.
- As my values, memories and the "story of me" has changed over the last five years, there has been no change in it. It is clear, still, dispassionate, it simply observes. That's why the other name for it in some traditions is the Witness or Observer.
In the end nothing but questions remain. And in the end it comes down to the most common question asked by the explorers of pure consciousness through the last 3,000 years: "Who is asking?" And after that there is only stillness.
Can this gulf be bridged by science? In the current form of science, I doubt it. But then I doubt everything these days.
Perhaps a scientist who does not start with an a priori assumption that it is "not real" can accomplish something. Some well-meaning but controversial theoretical physicists like David Bohm, Bernard d'Espagnat and Jack Sarfatti have tried, but I haven't seen any helpful outcomes from their work. On the other hand I haven't been looking very hard, because for me its value doesn't lie in that direction. It lies inside, not outside.
Your edit suggests that when you think of consciousness you're thinking of thinking, in contrast to unconsciousness which is not-thinking. Is that correct? If so, that's not what I mean. For me consciousness is orthogonal to thought (as well as to feeling and sensation). Again, consciousness is the container for thought, or better, consciousness is the Self that is the container for the self. Calming your thoughts during meditation simply reduces the mental noise so that your consciousness can be perceived directly.
The only reason I came up with a hypothesis about it is so I could talk about it to others. Otherwise, there is no need for an explanation, or even a description. Consciousness doesn't explain, it simply observes.
By the way, I really appreciated the way you asked your questions.
Does this help or hinder your understanding?