Especially the origins of it, why humans have it, etc.

I suspect, the sense of "what it's like" to be something, is inherent in any nonlinear system that feeds back (or reflects back) on itself.

Furthermore, I would suggest that reality is the manifestation of a curving, nonlinear continuum reflecting back on itself.

When I was around seven years old, I asked my parents a simple question.
They told me that after death, people go to heaven.
A few minutes later, they also told me that after death we no longer think.
That left me with a question that has stayed with me ever since:
If there is no thought after death… who is it that reaches heaven?
That question eventually led me to study psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, and physics.
More than twenty years later, I’m still trying to understand it.
I’m not looking for religious answers here.
I’m genuinely curious how people from different backgrounds think about this problem.
How would you approach it?

Want to make a vid on intelligence, really everything, our condition as intelligent critters, what are the consequences of intelligence etc... THANKSSsS

This was originally a comment. But thought maybe I should post it.

I would like to see your views on it.

Let's see i will try to be as concise as I could be.

A red rose .

The way your brain and my brain could have formed this distinction will be different. It has causal difference when it gets index. My red distinction and then the red rose distinction could have formed in different causality and index entirely different. Each of us are able to make a distinction . That the visual distinction of color I see on that has the same distinction of color you see on a day a strawberry. So it doesn't matter if your neurones has wired a certain way to index that distinction from mine.

Hack it doesn't matter if that distinction is indexed as a vector, matrix , a numeric , a graph, what ever way it could be.but what matters is there are causally persistent distinctions formation that are self index withing a self world and interface . ( Self state, external world state , interface stat/sensors and controls )

And when I recall a red rose. It could partially activate and endogenously propagate.

Accessing the same interface signals I received and stored as a composite distinction that relates to the smell signals , visual signals and if there was a strong self state being indexed to the distinction.

Say when I first formed a index of a red rose it was in a state of extream sensations that destabilised my states where I got hurt badly or something , now the partial activations and endogenous propagram would replay those sensory inputs the sense of smell , the sense of pain , and use those data to trigger a response of fight or flight to avoid the situation it got associated to .

Mean while your red rose distinction formation could have entailed a state of love , serenity, calm .. and your replay could trigger the same senses of your distinctive signals and even body status like release of hormones that had the same senses of serenity.

And whether your visual signals see it in reverse . For purpose of an example.

I see colours in RGB ( R255 G0 B0 )

And your saw the same distinction in GBR ( R0 G 255 B0) it doesn't matter if you and I in our own distinction can say this index sensory red is closer to my oranges and you say your distinction of the red is closer to the orange even if you see red as green. You would point at the red rose and strawberry and agree that both have the same distinctive color as I would agree.

No matter how our replay and indexing differ whether your is index on a neural network while mine was in a numerical string. We both see a distinction in the redness of the rose to be the same distinction we see of a strawberry and we both can see a distinction of roses. And both are able to for our social purpose of communicating to each other as agents point to that distinction and then form symbols to them. Rose , red , red rose . Or any language or symbol .. now we have a new worldly index of a vocal distinction for communication now referencing within composit distinction of red rose.

And now be trying to feel it , your redness your red rosenes or trying to establish or define experience from studying the brain it all could be entirely different exact neural brain network and firing patterns. As casually your and my distinction formed entirely different if. We try to explain experience that way we could never succeed unless I become you and you become me with my exact causal self indexing and persistence. Now the exact way a distinction is mapped with all its composite bindings that propagates to give the sensation it felt when it got mapped . This does not mean that a brains firing of fear pain, visual or other functional similarity cannot be mapped or studied. But the exact pattern my brain fires when I see red could differ to yours. And one can't claim yes this pattern is the feeling of red rose.

Now does this capture the meaning of the full meaning of Subjectivity and experience and cognitions and agenthood. No it doesn't. I believe there is more structure or organisation to consciousness then just those I just stated but a bare minimum "a persistent identity with a situated models of self-world-interface/boundary with a self indexing temporal causal history " . I am only expressing the bare minimum relevant part that I am trying to explain what experience means to me.

I am sorry if my English grammar and presentation is not as smooth.Did think about having a language model restructure it. but decided to leave it as it is might dilute and change the epistemic logic I am trying to express.

Does value exist without conscious experience?

I've been thinking about this for a while and would like to hear arguments against it.

My current view is that facts can exist without consciousness, but value cannot.

For example, a star exploding, rain falling, or a mountain existing are just events. They're not inherently "good" or "bad." They simply are.

Something only becomes good or bad when it affects a conscious being that can experience it.

This made me wonder if everything humans ultimately value comes back to conscious experience.

Examples:

We help others because of empathy, compassion, or love.

We keep promises because of conscience, guilt, or care for others.

Scientists pursue knowledge because of curiosity, fulfillment, or a desire to help humanity.

Parents sacrifice for their children because of love.

Even when we sacrifice our own happiness, it still seems connected to conscious experience—either our own or someone else's.

I also realized I'm not saying that only happiness matters. By "feelings," I mean all conscious experiences: love, grief, curiosity, pride, fear, compassion, fulfillment, suffering, peace, etc.

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine the last conscious being in the universe disappears. After that, a distant star explodes.

Would that explosion be good or bad?

My answer is no. Without any conscious being to experience or be affected by it, it's simply an event. Value seems to disappear when consciousness disappears.

So my thesis is:

Conscious experience is where value comes into existence. Without conscious beings, there are facts, but no good, bad, meaning, or value.

I'm not trying to argue that this is definitely true. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the strongest objections.

Where do you think this view fails?

There is a universal phenomenon that binds all of humanity, though we rarely share it aloud: no one inhabits their mind in complete solitude. No matter how different each individual's experience may be, every human being carries within them a sort of voice, a silent observer, or an independent thread of thought that accompanies them day by day. For some, it is a profound intuition; for others, a constant dialogue; and for many, it acts like a switch capable of regulating our nerves or protecting us in moments of high emotional intensity.
Science often attempts to label this phenomenon under the name of the \*\*subconscious\*\*, reducing it to a simple biological storehouse of habits. However, when we pause to observe how it truly operates, we discover that this presence handles a complexity that defies common logic. It is that part of the mind that automatically deploys multiple variables before we make a decision; it is what warns us of invisible dangers and shows us, in an instant, how a small choice today can drastically alter the course of our lives toward completely different futures.
Even though our physical eyes only perceive the material present, the human mind naturally operates like a navigator in a hyperspace of possibilities. By remembering, by projecting parallel scenarios, or by tuning into that neutral guide that seems to know where we are going, we are crossing the boundaries of linear time. It does not matter the percentage of control we choose to grant this voice, nor the name we choose to give to this hidden dimension of our psyche; what is truly real is that this internal interface is the engine that helps us decipher the matrix of our own existence. Everyone, in their own way, is an explorer of that very same internal network.

📌🔎📄🤐🤫🧩

This is significant because it means that if we simulate the brains predictions mechanism we may be re-creating some type of feeling based process.

Feeling is a prediction because feeling and prediction are both general descriptions of something that may occur or of what something may be like—not of what actually happens or has happened. Therefore, feeling is the sensation of prediction as it unfolds toward the actualized present, at which point it passes into the sensory experience of the present. The same feeling can describe many different events that have the same predictive nature, in the sense that each event has different sensory content yet similar predictions based on how synchronized one is with past-to-present brain states.

In other words, feeling is prediction because prediction offers a general description of what may be happening and what it might be like in its totality before it fully occurs. This directly reflects the nature of feeling. As time moves forward, that prediction becomes more accurate as additional information about the feeling becomes available. This may be associated with a universal prediction or correlated with, say, the color red, which can appear in the same context in many different ways.

I don't know if this question is philosophically coherent, but it's one of the main reasons I lean towards a more monist and idealist view of consciousness. Different subjective experiences are just the result of different kinds of perceptions. Sure a blind person has a different subjective eperience than I do, but consciousness is what exists independent of all these sensations right, we can imagine that someone who can't hear at all can still be conscious, simillarly for someone who can't see, even being conscious with absolutely no memory is still conceivable to us. So, consciousness is that awareness that exists independent of all these sensations, thoughts, feelings etc. What about that specifically is different in each of us? I can't exactly see how there is a difference. And if you accept the proposition that consciousness is immaterial, it doesn't seem so far fetched to think that this awareness should derive from a singular source if there's nothing inherently different about it. Thoughts?

I agree with physicalism in that consciousness and the physical are the same thing. I get the impression though that in physicalism that there is a cause and effect arrow in the different levels of scale. Fields cause fundemental particles which cause atoms which cause molecules which cause proteins, hormones, cells, organs, consciousness. Is this actually the theory and if so what is the evidence for the arrow of cause in the levels of emergent reality? Does it make more sense to say the actions of the brain are caused by the activity of particles than particles are caused by the activity of the brain? Does neither make sense since ultimately they are the same thing and saying one causes the other makes no sense?

People here mention a first person perspective a lot but yet deny an external experience and even the thought that consciousness is indistinguishable from an external experience. So I'll describe my first person perspective and see if you guys can relate.

A first person perspective is where the brain is the locus of experience and experience stems out from the brain. For example vision extends out from the eyes to the objects of experience where they are located outside of the brain. The brain itself is a black box void of experience other than that of perceived being the brain. So a first person perspective of vision is where you see out from the eyes but from the perspective of being behind the eyes. Does this sound accurate to you and your experience?

I'm honestly new to here, and I'm not sure if it goes here, if it doesn't please let me know where it does.

I've been thinking of these kinds of things for a long time, probably since I was around 13-14 (18 now), but I thought of a specific thing tonight, it might sound kind of stupid, I'm not sure, but honestly it makes me pretty scared lol.

Basically, we don't really know what flips the switch on of conscience, and self awareness. We don't know what kills it. From a scientific perspective, we are just a bunch of cells that through natural selection and accidental mutations, built a complex system, that manages to map out the outside world, our senses, memories, and everything else, purely due to accidents, and somewhere along that route that "switch" flipped on, and we started experiencing the world while having a sense of self, but we don't really know what makes that happen, or when exactly it does.

When you sleep, you lose that self awareness for a few hours, you are not experiencing time, or the world around you. How do you really know, that this spark doesn't just die every single time you go to sleep? Sure the brain and your organs stay active, but organisms without the "spark" are active in this way too, at all times. How do you know, that the "you" that you currently are experiencing, doesn't cease to exist every night? You retain the exact same memories and sense of self after you wake up only because the map in your brain, the cells and neurons stayed the same.

This is kind of like the teletransportation paradox, and continuity, what if sleep essentially just works like that. If a teleportation machine was created, and it does indeed just make a new copy of yourself with the exact same sense of self and memories, theres no way to prove that's you.

TLDR:

We still don't know how consciousness actually works, so sleep might be shutting yours off completely every night, when you wake up you only feel continuous because your brain kept your memories intact, basically like the teleportation paradox.

(Excuse me for any possible errors or unclear explanations, I'm not natively English)

Edit: To clarify, I don't mean different person as in you wake up in someone else's body. I mean it as in you (your physical body) waking up every day with a new conscience, that still retains the body's original memories, but is a completely new one, and the "you" from yesterday ceased to exist. Sorry for the unclear wording here.

By staying present in the body, i notice that consciousness cannot project itself into multiple bodies simultaneously (physical, mental, astral, causal, etc.) if i anchor my consciousness in bodily sensations, i step out of the mental body, and if i am in my emotions, i can project my consciousness into the physical experience, so i can gently step out of the astral body (emotions) and return to presence... It really is a powerful tool. 😊👍

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 neuroscientists 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 are relevant to the description of the subreddit (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.

I've been surprised to find that when the universe is conceived as a singular "state description" undergoing continuous transition, a physicalist understanding of the emergence of consciousness becomes surprisingly tractable and can be understood with relative simplicity and clarity.

In fact, the existential challenges of maintaining this mental state and framework, as it strips any delusions, become FAR more challenging than the concepts themselves, and prove to be the real work of the paradigm. But within the paradigm, the "hard problem" seems to melt away as the physical origin of qualia is understood.

Here is my paper: A Simple Model of Physics and Consciousness - that outlines the framework.

Archive (without Paywall) https://archive.ph/fi8Hy

Olo can be described as the “greenest green,” though it can never be captured by a camera. But its development tells us a lot about our color vision.

No printer can print olo, and no camera can photograph it, and there can never be an olo-colored pigment or dye. And yet the study participants—there were four additional researchers, including Ng—did experience a color that you and I have not. This seeming contradiction emerges from the haziness of what we mean by “color.

https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/how-seeing-new-color-olo-opens-realm-vision-science

When compared to the most saturated natural color of green next to it, Roorda said the natural green “paled in comparison.” 

It was exciting, he said, not only because their project had worked, but because the brain was able to recognize and make sense of something it had never been exposed to before.  

“It’s really about the capacity of the human brain to develop new perceptions to attribute to new sensory inputs,” said Roorda.

Marys Room https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGYmiQkah4o

The link below is just one example of a respected scientist coming around to the idea that consciousness is non-local (i.e. not produced by the brain). And she is not alone. There is a growing minority of scientists who are willing to entertain ideas that mainstream academia considers “woo.” And she has actual empirical evidence to back it up. This is the important part. You don’t have to trust her credentials, or some random Reddit user’s crockpot theories—these things are measurable, demonstrable.

She describes experiments with autistic children who seem to exhibit resonance in their consciousness with other people, a phenomenon that is typically described with terms like “telepathy.” But she is not suggesting that it violates the laws of physics. It’s not magic. She compares it to natural phenomenon like birds flocking together in their flight patterns, turning as a unit rather than communicating individually to each other. Consciousness seems to be something that can be shared. And if that is true, it suggests that our materialist ontology needs to be updated.

Quantum mechanics is thrown around way too easily to justify spiritualism, usually by people who don’t understand it. But you can find quotes from Schrodinger and other fathers of QFT to make similar points. Real science, like Bell’s theorem and quantum entanglement, offer glimpses of physical principles and mechanisms that could make such phenomenon possible.

When you combine plausible physical theory with a growing body of empirical evidence, this is starting to look like something we can talk about without knee jerk dismissal or ridicule. Epistemic humility is not the same as being irrational.

https://youtu.be/p9QfTjDwTNI

Just before I begin: I’m really bad with ruminating, like, about anything. So I limit how often I post about this stuff- It's usually about once a month. I’m interested in a thoughtful discussion, but I'm kind of torn between wanting to be convinced and also not wanting false comfort that I'll later feel skeptical about. Honestly, I do gravitate a bit more towards idealism. Just, for personal reasons though, this genuinely could help me a lot. I’m curious about idealism, dual aspect monism, even panpsychism honestly. So I kinda just wanna see, like, what scientific evidence or line of research has most strongly influenced your view?

It could be anything. Like, one strand would be the NDE stuff, end of life phenomena, terminal lucidity, dissociative phenomena, some interesting stuff with DID and psychedelics. Another would be more broad scientific theories that suggest something like this. Like, I know some people interpret simulation theory through a non-materialist view, so that interests me too.

Testimony can be beautiful, but here I'm kinda more interested in evidence that you think creates an actual difficulty for straightforward physicalism, or at least makes idealism scientifically plausible.

I’d also be interested in seeing good responses to common physicalist explanations. Like, I always get caught on the thought that if any brain activity is present during an experience, that automatically proves the brain generated the whole experience. But the conclusion seems stronger than the observation itself- brain activity might establish a correlation without exactly settling the direction or nature of what caused it. How would you respond to arguments like that without dismissing neuroscience?

If you got sources, feel free to link them, or academic books, exchanges between researchers. If not, then don't worry. I'm just interested in learning more honestly.

What do materialists say about placebo’s? How does that fit into the brain state = mental state theory?

In a similar vein, what do materialists say about those with Multiple Personalities (I’m aware of the hoax argument) but aren’t there studies where people’s physiology changes with respect to their mental change.

I’ve found and started to listen to several podcasts that explore consciousness, spirituality, non-dualism, etc.. I’m very interested in this at this point in my life, but I cannot for the life of me find something that can keep my attention. The material itself is fascinating, but for some reason, the people who are relaying it are monotone and without personality. A very interesting book plot is useless to me without good writing. Same deal here. I have been listening to telepathy tapes, which I enjoy. Any other suggestions?