as somebody who meditates, i've noticed there are connections between brain and heart in terms of memories. i believe the heart has a big role to play in terms of memories but i can't back it up with anything verifiable.
How so? Somewhere between conception and birth consciousness arises. Gametes are clearly not conscious as far as we can tell, and yet a baby is. So somewhere in the physical development that happens in between, consciousness arises as a result. The exact point is a topic of much debate.
Somewhere between mortal injury and decomposition, consciousness vanishes. Live humans, yet to succumb to a mortal wound, are clearly still conscious, yet a decomposed corpse is clearly not. So somewhere in between, consciousness ceases to be. We don't know yet exactly when, but I'd while say we've got it pretty narrowed down, the exact point currently a topic of debate in relation to organ donation.
This is all to say nothing of the how of consciousness, or what happens in between, but it's pretty clear there is a beginning and an end to it.
These are pretty basic observations that anyone can make. As for any presence of "consciousness" before or after these points, well, what evidence is there? None I've ever seen, just conjecture and speculation presented as fact.
if consciousness was created by physical processes, what created the first consciousness? consciousness has always been and will always be, the physical realm is just a play of form, temporary and changing and your identity on this earth is also a temporary form that ostensibly begins at conception but is actually is process that goes back to the origins of the universe and beyond the physical realm, to a supreme intelligence and consciousness that is behind everything.
> if consciousness was created by physical processes, what created the first consciousness?
Perhaps a different physical process, since we can see that a physical process is capable of creating consciousness. It seems very plausible that consciousness is simply an emergent property of complex, multi-cellular life. If so, then a better question isn't what created the first consciousness, but what created life? But that's a whole different can of worms. I'm afraid we may not be very special at all, just clusters of animated molecules that last a short while before entropy catches up to us and we revert to dust. But I understand why this scares some and they seek comfort in other explanations.
> supreme intelligence and consciousness that is behind everything
i've experienced it, and so can you. don't take my word for it. invest serious time in meditation and if you want a shortcut, drink ayahuasca or consume 5meo-dmt.
it is just as scary to realise that your ultimate identity is God (with all the responsibility that entails - full responsibility for your own life and your environment etc), that you are fundamentally alone (we are all the same consciousness experiencing itself from different perspectives) and eternal with no respite of death. you are kidding yourself if you think your life is an accident. you are alive because you desired to be. it is your deepest desires that drive your incarnation into each life.
you were conscious before your life and you will be after it. it may be a different type of consciousness and not attached to your ego or current identity, but you will always have consciousness.
if you are a materialist, you will never be able to explain the origin of anything as there will always be a level before. consciousness needs no beginning, it has always been and will always be, your true identity is God and you (not your current identity/ego) are immortal.
You're not describing consciousness - you're trying to hide spirituality and religion in scientific terms, and making utterly unverifiable claims from nothing. This is what you'd like, but not what you have any evidence for. If you're going to make that sort of claim, call it spirit, or soul, but consciousness is a clearly defined concept that you have to actually break the definition of in order to make these claims - how can we have consciousness that we aren't aware of, when that is literally what consciousness is, awareness?
you can become aware of it, just meditate or consume 5meo-dmt. preferably do both. personally i drank copious amounts of ayahuasca and meditated. i also trained at a buddhist campus and meditated 16 hours a day for a year. you can become aware of these things but don't take my word for it, do the self inquiry yourself, all of the answers are within.
The very fact that a physical substance can affect your consciousness tells us it isn't eternal or fundamental - you can literally change how your perceive it with drugs.
psychedelics are a shortcut for those who don't want to spend time meditating, you can achieve the same result without drugs. it's difficult to convince somebody who hasn't had the experience and of course if you'd had the experience you wouldn't need convincing but i'd suggest you stay open minded and at least try to explore these things when the time is right. and if you won't, it's alright, you'll remember everything once you die
> and if you won't, it's alright, you'll remember everything once you die
Just like we remember everything from before we're born? Or will we get all that back once we die as well? Why do we lose it all in the middle? What a series of empty, meaningless, unverifiable claims.
This is all just drug-fueled pseudo-spiritualism brought on by hallucinations.
Also anesthesia. The few times I've been under it I can definitively say I wasn't conscious - it was a light switch being flipped. I existed, I ceased, I resumed. No passage of time, no half-remembered dreams, nothing in the middle at all. An entirely chemically induced unconscious state.
what you are able to do in your body is affected by your brain, even what you are able to calculate. consciousness has a far greater scope than human abilities.
consciousness disembodied is still intelligent and aware but becomes infinite, undifferentiated, whole.
psychedelics and meditation will get you there, just put in the effort to do the self inquiry. with some persistence and courage, you'll experience it first hand.
Even though your brain thought it wasn't, you were still embodied, unless you are telling us you were in fact medically dead and still self aware.
Unless you can actually tell someone what's in the next room without ever physically being there or observing it, you're just imagining things. It would be incredibly easy to test in a double blind manner, so if it was a power that someone could actually manifest it'd be reliably demonstrated by now.
Indeed. To go even farther, I suspect that there is nothing other than consciousness. There are no particles and forces, only awareness and will. The stuff of physics is emergent from statistical properties of consciousness over a large scale.
after drinking ayahuasca a couple of times in large quantities and meditating full time (16 hours a day on average) for a year i also see things.
it's not a hallucination though, i'm certain this energy is really there.
it doesn't bother me and i hold down a job as a software engineer despite the funky visuals.
i also find myself playing with this energy at times. for anybody else with this issue, hopefully you'll just get used to it like i have
One thing that stuck with me is how when you do mushrooms or LSD, everyone experiences their own personal trip so to say.
Ayahuasca on the other hand, although I don't have any personal experience with, I have heard accounts of groups of people experiencing the same visualizations/hallucinations which to me seems pretty trippy!
i'd say an ayahuasca trip is also deeply personal and personal issues will come to the surface like any unresolved issues from the past.
there are commonalities experienced too though, like experiencing death (ego death), meeting with/becoming god if you're lucky and a deep feeling of love. it can also be terrifying at times but overall my first ayahuasca experience was the most profound experience of my life and an amazing exploration of consciousness.
> It's not strange that North America doesn't care much about Iraqi plight, as we have next to no relationship with them or their people.
> I am Canadian.
> I am a polish immigrant living in Canada.
you're North American, Canadian then you're Polish. just pick one.
in the first example, you were speaking as if you're an American and others are right to point out that America does have some responsibilities regarding Iraq given the recent history. Canada was involved too.
For that matter, many in Central and South America take exception to the term "American" being applied to USA citizens. So the term "American" can in some contexts be ambiguous. However "North American" is unambiguously referring to residents of any country in North America. It's wholly reasonable for somebody living in Canada to speak of living in North America. Arguably Canadians and Alaskans have more of a right to the term than anybody else!
