Thread: The Illusion of Consciousness, Identity, Choice and Control

To address you partially, circular logic is something that can be learned, just as other useful modes of thinking are, and utilized for their most selective purposes according to it's efficiency, adaptability, and range. These "tools" can be used to manipulate machinery, people and the environment, but the base you failed to cover is the intention behind the subject or person using such methods; but as you say, the nature of these modes is subject for judgement only after their manifestation because in neutrality and open-mindedness opportunity breeds.

To be more specific though, there is a very readily available shift in attitude when one regards the watcher and thinker (or sensory reception and information processing) as orchestrating symbiotically rather than as the same thing. Perhaps initially the bundling of the two under a cohesive identity was more viable, but I believe it would now be more viable for mankind to remove the association and regard themselves more as a colony than an ego. Once they let the watcher dissociate from the thinker, they can widen their awareness of the present moment, and access a more harmonious structure of behavior.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

To be more specific though, there is a very readily available shift in attitude when one regards the watcher and thinker (or sensory reception and information processing) as orchestrating symbiotically rather than as the same thing. Perhaps initially the bundling of the two under a cohesive identity was more viable, but I believe it would now be more viable for mankind to remove the association and regard themselves more as a colony than an ego. Once they let the watcher dissociate from the thinker, they can widen their awareness of the present moment, and access a more harmonious structure of behavior.

Yea, and to add, "better living through chemistry" has always had a good ring to it, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

There is absolutely no reason to regard the watcher and the thinker as the same "me."

I wonder what makes you assume that the watcher and the thinker have different natures.

According to my experiences with meditation, the watcher is watching just as automatically as what you've described as the thinker following its own nature in thinking and perception following its own nature in perceiving. There's no "me" inside of the watching process, either.

Very beautifull

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I am not attempting to argue that human beings are unconscious, simply that the implications related to consciousness (separating self-aware human minds from sensory receptors and information processors of other mechanisms) are based on circular logic, and in reality there isn't any particular way in which we are more conscious than, for example, a tree, a forest, a corporation, a computer or a stomach.

The reason we cling to this idea that we are different from such other things is because we seek to have choice and control. Accepting that the conscious systems we identify as us are merely emergent phenomena, we must also accept that we don't actually have any control over ourselves, and that feels like a contradiction. Of course we have control over ourselves, if I decide to ride my bike, and then I ride my bike, I have evidence that I made a choice and controlled the outcome to coincide with that choice. But who or what really decided to ride the bike? Was it my perception... my soul? Or merely the neurons of my mind following conditioned courses of action?

When a predator strikes at a school of fish and they scatter as one, then regroup as one, did they individually choose to follow protocol to increase their chances at evasion? Or, since the entire school moves as one, was there some sort of emergent hivemind making these decisions? Of course not, the reality is that there are rules imbedded in their DNA which enables the illusion of a hivemind to emerge. When African termites build their massive mounds, often over generations, there's no hivemind at work actively seeking to build a fortress, they're just following basic, very simple parameters. When a termite senses another termite as been somewhere, it acts according to the conditions stipulated in its DNA, and the Mound Emerges.

The human mind is no less a hivemind than an insect colony, a school of fish or flock of birds. It is an abstract, emergent phenomenon based on neurons following basic stipulations outlined in their DNA. It is data being received by sensory receptors and processed by these neurons. The difference is, we take our thoughts and we take our perception and we bundle them together so that we can have claim over this thing called "me" and this enables us to feel the illusion of control.

The core of detachment, as I see it, is basically remembering that your thoughts are your thoughts, and they'll follow their nature. Your perception is your perception, and it's following its nature, which is simply to watch. The watcher need not strive to control the processes, actions nor results. It's job in the colony is to watch, nothing more. And if it stops trying to control everything, that doesn't mean the colony stops working.

There is absolutely no reason to regard the watcher and the thinker as the same "me." The me is abstract, we cling to it only because it is frightening to relinquish control. But you never really had it in the first place. You are an illusion, an emergent concept surviving only because once you believe you are an individual person, releasing this belief faces you with the idea that you'll disappear, or that you're not valuable, or something else threatening to the ego. But in releasing this concept, you gain the ability to watch yourself as you interact with the world. You gain freedom from yourself, and become able to enjoy the ride. This is why delusional followers of eastern philosophy often talk about ego death. The ego is an abstract and burdensome concept... and something of a parasite, a freak accident that occurred when human minds became so intelligent they we able to ascertain what they consider consciousness. And from it, "me" was born. But like I said before, "me" is imaginary. My name is Legion.

And

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

To be more specific though, there is a very readily available shift in attitude when one regards the watcher and thinker (or sensory reception and information processing) as orchestrating symbiotically rather than as the same thing. Perhaps initially the bundling of the two under a cohesive identity was more viable, but I believe it would now be more viable for mankind to remove the association and regard themselves more as a colony than an ego. Once they let the watcher dissociate from the thinker, they can widen their awareness of the present moment, and access a more harmonious structure of behavior.

I was listening to ~50 minute Youtube titled:

Athene's Theory of everything

Uploaded by AtheneWins on Jan 23, 2011 and even though it is ~50 minutes it has been viewed 1,167,186 times already.

Subtitled: God is in the neurons.

The voice is attractive and sounds like Star Trek Voyager's star Garret Wang who played Ensign Harry Kim.

I need to read your words again to absorb them deeper. Your words sync with the above Youtube I just watched. Then I clicked-on my Dreamviews bookmark and your thread was on the right of the front page.

No, I lie. I checked my emails after I watched the youtube and found the mean mod nina, telling me off, on my locked thread called "Why Lock Great Old Threads " and after a good cry I went to "Forum" and found your nice deep posts.

You cheered me up.

And then I realised the youtube sync.

Dear Omnis

I was listening to ~50 minute Youtube titled:

Athene's Theory of everything

Uploaded by AtheneWins on Jan 23, 2011 and even though it is ~50 minutes it has been viewed 1,167,186 times already.

Subtitled: God is in the neurons.

The voice is attractive and sounds like Star Trek Voyager's star Garret Wang who played Ensign Harry Kim.

I need to read your words again to absorb them deeper. Your words sync with the above Youtube I just watched. Then I clicked-on my Dreamviews bookmark and your thread was on the right of the front page.

No, I lie. I checked my emails after I watched the youtube and found the mean mod nina, telling me off, on my locked thread called "Why Lock Great Old Threads " and after a good cry I went to "Forum" and found your nice deep posts.

You cheered me up.

And then I realised the youtube sync.

Here is a direct link to that 50 minute Youtube:

Athene’s theory of Everything

Athene's Theory of Everything - YouTube

Transcript (00:00 to 1:32)

(00:10) The following documentary presents new developments in neuroscience and a solution to the many current unsolved problems in physics. While it keeps clear of metaphysical correlations and is solely focused on scientifically verifiable data it also has philosophical repercussions pertaining to life, death and the origin of the universe.

Due to its many layers and density in presentation it may require multiple viewings to fully comprehend its implications even though considerable effort has been made to simplify the complex scientific concepts that are discussed.

Further more I would like to thank the author for allowing me to follow and report on his work. As he wanted to remain dedicated to his research and avoid becoming involved in its media coverage.

CHAPTER 1

GOD IS IN THE NEURONS

This work is non-commercial,
Free to share and free to remix.

(1:32) more tomorrow

Here is the Youtube link to this nearly 50 minute wonderful thingy:

Athene's Theory of Everything - YouTube

Thank you for the find. Please stop transcribing the video though, it's really not necessary.

Sad that Om

It says what you say and the title of this thread is perfect.

Why dont you want it?

Ok Omnis

Tomorrow I will open another thread for the transcription of this Youtube. But I will give you the next 2 minutes so you can begin to see why I thought of you and what you wrote in this thread called:

The Illusion of Consciousness, Identity, Choice and Control

He could have easily called that Youtube that instead of "Athene's Theory of Everything".

(1:32) to continue...

The human brain is a network of approximately one hundred neurons. Different experiences create different neural connections which bring about different emotions. And depending on which neurons get stimulated certain connections become stronger and more efficient while othets become weaker. This is called neuroplasticity.

Someone who trains to be a musician will create stronger connections that will link the two hemispheres of the brain in order to be musically creative. Virtually any sort of talent or skill can be created through training. (?) who was a self-admitted hopeless student, used to fail basic math, and went on to train his abilities and become a famous human calculater capable of performing extremely complex mathematics.

Rationality and emotional resilience work the same way. These are neural connections that can be strengthened. Whatever you are doing at any time you are phisically modifying your brain to become better at it. Since this is such a foundational mechanism of the brain being self-aware can greatly enrich your life experience.

(2:58) Specific neurons and neuron transmitters such as norepinephrine trigger a defensive state when we fear that our thoughts have to be protected from the influence of others. If we are then confronted with differences in opinion the chemicals that are released in the brain are the same ones that try to ensure our survival in dangerous situations.

In this defensive state, the more primitive part of the brain interferes with rational thinking, and the limbic system can knock-out most of our working memory, physically causing narrow-mindedness. (3:35).

I don't want it because I can watch the video. I don't need to read the video's transcription because I can watch it instead and while I don't pretend to have possession over the idea, nor do I pretend that I said it better than the video said it, I would like to keep this thread directed toward discussion on the principle idea and leave it open to anyone to add to the idea without feeling intimidated by a lengthy transcription. I recommend you following through with what you said and making your own thread to transcribe the video then simply linking this thread to that one. That way, everybody wins.

Wow

Look at that!

It was 1,167,186 when I first posted 06-16-12 at 01:27 PM

Just now it was 1,182,125

1,182,125-
1,167,186

Equals in increase of 14,939 new views. That is stagering considering it is a 50 minute Youtube.

So Yea! I will transcribe it cos it is not only me that is impressed with it.

Can you explain the Ego part more Omnis? I don't get if your saying that Ego does not exist, Or if it does exist, but just as an Illusion, and if so what do you mean by this?

For the purposes of alleviating suffering I will focus on two aspects of the human colony, the Watcher and the Judger.

The illusion of the ego happens when we take the Watcher and the Judger and combine them under one identity. Bundling these two together causes us to begin every observation with "What do I think about this?" or "How can this help me?" Or some other object-oriented attitude. The pressure is put on the Watcher to judge what it observes. It seems, from your point of view, that is wasn't the Judger within you that hated the sound of the lawn-mower, it was you. It doesn't seem like the Judger within you was really interested in that girl, it seems like you were. This consideration of you is the illusion. You, the watcher, have one job, watching. It's job is not judging. You, the judge, do not become incapable of operating simply because you, the Watcher, stops agreeing with the judgments.

Essentially, there's more than one "you." Thinking there is only one you creates the illusion of the ego. Realizing that your awareness does not have to judge reality enables your awareness to perform its job better.

So to repeat myself a little, you do not need to stop judging the world, your awareness of the world simply does not have to agree nor disagree with the judgments you make. Judgment is part of our nature, and it will happen all on its own based on the associations we are conditioned with. The awareness does not need to attach any sort of belief in the associations. We think it does because we want to feel like we're in control. Giving up this need for control and the awareness can remain free from the problems of the mind and body.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

So to repeat myself a little, you do not need to stop judging the world, your awareness of the world simply does not have to agree nor disagree with the judgments you make. Judgment is part of our nature, and it will happen all on its own based on the associations we are conditioned with. The awareness does not need to attach any sort of belief in the associations. We think it does because we want to feel like we're in control. Giving up this need for control and the awareness can remain free from the problems of the mind and body.

Where would you say addiction fits in all of this

I remember wondering what it is that governs the decisions I take and the way I process what I perceive. I had always assumed I had a free will of some sort, but later found I couldn't pinpoint what it was that allowed me to take seemingly conscious decisions that were my own and that weren't predetermined. It would have to have been something supernatural like a soul, and as I'm not a religious (or spiritual or whatever you wish to call it) person I couldn't accept that.

I know this is an ancient philosophical conundrum, but I then wondered what would happen if two identical people with the same chemical makeup were born at the same time into exactly the same conditions, an empty white room (where everything down to molecular details are identical). I figured that they would do exactly the same things, and in order for them not to do the same thing there would either have to be some form of 'free will' or an element of randomness somewhere. As I was in my deterministic phase then, I decided true randomness was not possible.

I do not believe there is some part of us that allows us to take decisions of free will that are not governed by our environment and DNA. Therefore, I agree with you.

To take it a step further however, I would raise the question of whether every action of a human being could be predicted if every aspect of their DNA and the environment they were to be in throughout their life were known. I know little about science I'm afraid, but I reckon this is where deterministic Newtonian physics (if you're okay with boiling all aspects of science down to physics) and modern science with its element of uncertainty (e.g. Quantum) diverge. As Popper put it, this is where clocks (mechanical, predictable) become clouds (uncertain, random).

Forgive me if I'm digressing from your topic, but in a nutshell I agree. I just wonder whether the steps that our "sensory receptors and information processors" take to reach decisions that govern our behaviour are predictable and mechanical or whether there truly is an element of randomness that lends the human brain to unfathomable complexity. I'm just a kid so I don't know if this question seems stupid or has already been answered. Thanks for the read though!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

For the purposes of alleviating suffering I will focus on two aspects of the human colony, the Watcher and the Judger.

The illusion of the ego happens when we take the Watcher and the Judger and combine them under one identity. Bundling these two together causes us to begin every observation with "What do I think about this?" or "How can this help me?" Or some other object-oriented attitude. The pressure is put on the Watcher to judge what it observes. It seems, from your point of view, that is wasn't the Judger within you that hated the sound of the lawn-mower, it was you. It doesn't seem like the Judger within you was really interested in that girl, it seems like you were. This consideration of you is the illusion. You, the watcher, have one job, watching. It's job is not judging. You, the judge, do not become incapable of operating simply because you, the Watcher, stops agreeing with the judgments.

Essentially, there's more than one "you." Thinking there is only one you creates the illusion of the ego. Realizing that your awareness does not have to judge reality enables your awareness to perform its job better.

So to repeat myself a little, you do not need to stop judging the world, your awareness of the world simply does not have to agree nor disagree with the judgments you make. Judgment is part of our nature, and it will happen all on its own based on the associations we are conditioned with. The awareness does not need to attach any sort of belief in the associations. We think it does because we want to feel like we're in control. Giving up this need for control and the awareness can remain free from the problems of the mind and body.

Interesting, so you would say there is more benefits from separating the Watcher from the Judger, but would this destroy the ego completely, because the ego is caused by these two, and others?? combining together?

What would be the different benefits of letting these combine as the 'one' you or by separating them?

Originally Posted by Oceanboy

Where would you say addiction fits in all of this

Addiction is an act of evasion from pure-awareness of the present. A compulsion strikes, leading the observer to believe they must either fight it or give into it, either way they are running from it. Much of the time, by fighting it we'll slowly backwards rationalize ourselves into giving in to it, anyways. Surrendering control is the key here, but that doesn't mean giving into the action the compulsion desires. It means giving into the feeling of the compulsion itself and becoming aware of this compulsion without judgment, enabling one to investigate the root of the compulsion and watch it subside on its own without performing action.

Originally Posted by Nivv

I remember wondering what it is that governs the decisions I take and the way I process what I perceive. I had always assumed I had a free will of some sort, but later found I couldn't pinpoint what it was that allowed me to take seemingly conscious decisions that were my own and that weren't predetermined. It would have to have been something supernatural like a soul, and as I'm not a religious (or spiritual or whatever you wish to call it) person I couldn't accept that.

I know this is an ancient philosophical conundrum, but I then wondered what would happen if two identical people with the same chemical makeup were born at the same time into exactly the same conditions, an empty white room (where everything down to molecular details are identical). I figured that they would do exactly the same things, and in order for them not to do the same thing there would either have to be some form of 'free will' or an element of randomness somewhere. As I was in my deterministic phase then, I decided true randomness was not possible.

I do not believe there is some part of us that allows us to take decisions of free will that are not governed by our environment and DNA. Therefore, I agree with you.

To take it a step further however, I would raise the question of whether every action of a human being could be predicted if every aspect of their DNA and the environment they were to be in throughout their life were known. I know little about science I'm afraid, but I reckon this is where deterministic Newtonian physics (if you're okay with boiling all aspects of science down to physics) and modern science with its element of uncertainty (e.g. Quantum) diverge. As Popper put it, this where clocks (mechanical, predictable) become clouds (uncertain, random).

Forgive me if I'm digressing from your topic, but in a nutshell I agree. I just wonder whether the steps that our "sensory receptors and information processors" take to reach decisions that govern our behaviour are predictable and mechanical or whether there truly is an element of randomness that lends the human brain to unfathomable complexity. I'm just a kid so I don't know if this question seems stupid or has already been answered. Thanks for the read though!

I'm with Popper. I believe that the number of variables capable of influencing us is truly infinite. While I do not believe two people would act the same if we attempted to duplicate every single possible detail, I wouldn't call that diversity an act of free will, I'd call it the consequence of infinite potential.

Originally Posted by ZeraCook

Interesting, so you would say there is more benefits from separating the Watcher from the Judger, but would this destroy the ego completely, because the ego is caused by these two, and others?? combining together?

What would be the different benefits of letting these combine as the 'one' you or by separating them?

It does not destroy the ego, but even if it did the ego never actually existed to begin with. All it would destroy is the agreement you made when you were young that your watcher and judger are the same person. All it would do is free your awareness to be aware without forcing itself to answer questions like "Do I like or dislike this?" and "Is this true or false?" These questions do not need to be answered by your awareness. Your thought processes can answer them without requiring your awareness to agree.

The first thing that happens when you swallow the idea that your awareness doesn't need to judge its observations is you realize that believing you have an ego is unnecessary. You realize that containing your observations into your judgments limits your ability to see the world as it is. While your judger continues to label what it wants and doesn't want, your awareness watches this unfold from a step back. This doesn't make you enlightened instantly, but it gives your awareness a momentary break and a glimpse of the peace it is capable of dwelling in. We are habituated to combine awareness and judgment, and it takes time to override this habit. Nothing real is lost, and there is no benefit to clinging to the illusion.

Originally Posted by debrajane

Wow
Look at that!
It was 1,167,186 when I first posted 06-16-12 at 01:27 PM
Just now it was 1,182,125
1,182,125-
1,167,186
Equals in increase of 14,939 new views. That is stagering considering it is a 50 minute Youtube.
So Yea! I will transcribe it cos it is not only me that is impressed with it.

That's irrelevant seeing as the thread's original posted asked you not to. As mentioned by Nina, I believed what you need is a blog rather than a forum to post on.

Originally Posted by debrajane

Wow

Look at that!

It was 1,167,186 when I first posted 06-16-12 at 01:27 PM

Just now it was 1,182,125

1,182,125-
1,167,186

Equals in increase of 14,939 new views. That is stagering considering it is a 50 minute Youtube.

So Yea! I will transcribe it cos it is not only me that is impressed with it.

You are pretty annoying. You want people to listen but that way no one is gonna listen.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I don't want it because I can watch the video. I don't need to read the video's transcription because I can watch it instead and while I don't pretend to have possession over the idea, nor do I pretend that I said it better than the video said it, I would like to keep this thread directed toward discussion on the principle idea and leave it open to anyone to add to the idea without feeling intimidated by a lengthy transcription. I recommend you following through with what you said and making your own thread to transcribe the video then simply linking this thread to that one. That way, everybody wins.

Dear Omnis Dei

I did part one and have linked that thread to this.

Originally Posted by Ilumirath

You are pretty annoying. You want people to listen but that way no one is gonna listen.

Dear Ilumirath

I was just facinated by the synchronicity of watching that Youtube then going to sleep for the night. Then I woke and checked my phone for email and found nina's telling me off.

I got sad and cried then saw Omnis appear to the right in "New Posts".

When I clicked on his new post it brought me here. He cheered me up with his deep thoughts. Then I remembered last nights Youtube and saw the sync to what this thread was about.

I got excited because I love powerful syncs.

Link to "Athene's Theory of Everything"

http://www.dreamviews.com/f19/athene...2/#post1903419

The video has actually mean extremely helpful to me, rather than outright claim we have no will, I would now argue that will is the process of reducing dissonance.

But even so, the video is helpful enough and a transcription is unnecessary.

I think you are putting to much emphasis on there being different parts of you. Also, even if there was multiple parts of you that doesn't mean ego is an illusion. Calling it an illusion implies that it doesn't really exist, but the cooperation between the different parts of you most assuredly do exist. In fact, they can't really be separated from one another. Prolong exposure to sensory deprivation can cause severe problems to people, and a body without a thinking mind is basically just a useless husk.

Personally I like to think of a person like a business or something. The ego is the boss, he is the leader of the body and is in control of everything. The boss can not run everything himself so he delegates all the responsibility to his team of specialist, and he oversees the project. You are the boss of your body. You need your specialists to get the jobs done, but you are the one running the business. You decide where to go, when, and for what reasons. Your workers need stuff to do their job and they put in their requests, but you decide on what to do. Maybe you say screw you liver you are working over time and drink another keg of beer.

A thread and subsequent conversation between Dub and I on this topic. So far any response I have for this thread is already contained in this other one so I'll just link it : http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/false-...natural-91900/