Experiencing is the meaning of experiencing.

Mass-energy has as its ground of existence consciousness. Not the other way around.

The consciousness of an individual human (or animal) can be likened to a vortex in a river. The river itself is the undivided, flowing awareness-substance making up the greater reality itself, and the whirlpool is a relatively (but not totally) autonomous swirling concentration of conscious experience.

So often, we fall into the trap of conflating our consciousness and our true self with the individual self of our evolutionary brain. The "classical" ego-self (i.e. the nervous system and its functions) gets reflected by the inherent consciousness of the brain, and we feel that we are carrying out what are really automatic functions of the organism in its environment. The hyper-relativistic, non-local "quantum" true-self, which normally is dormant in almost everybody, is where true reality (and real autonomy and intelligence) exists and is often mystically (and therefore very imprecisely) described. The classical self is a robot designed by evolution to carry out sexual reproduction through whatever means necessary. Fundamentally, our consciousness and our ego-self are not identical. Consciousness gives rise to matter and energy, which in turn give rise to chemistry, which in turn gives rise to mammalian brains. The brain and the ego do not give rise to consciousness; consciousness is actually more fundamental than either of them. This is a point of great confusion. The ego is an illusion. Reality is an illusion.

The general perception seems to be that the universe and consciousness are two different things. What if in truth there is only one thing, and to us there is normally only an apparent difference in our minds? To suggest that the two are fundamentally different things is a fragmentation. And fragmentation is not natural -- wherever one finds it on Earth, it was put there by us. The universe and consciousness constitute one basic objective reality. It would not even be correct to say that each one needs the other to exist. Once one reaches a certain point -- a threshold of clarity -- one is unable to differentiate the two.

The subconscious mind determines far more than the conscious one. The conscious mind is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

The individual self is not an objective phenomenon, but rather a mental concept like any other, and is thus, in terms of its self-representation, an illusion just as the mystics report. However, it sure feels like we are selves most of the time! And in the end, does a conscious process not involve, as a reference to what it is conscious of, some type of self? Is there a false self and a true self? Or just pure consciousness with no agency at all?

That place from which creativity springs is a process of pure intelligence. We tend to think we are special in this regard, but in fact the fabric of the cosmos itself is constituted of pure intelligence as well -- it is merely 'frozen up.' The plenum. Enlightenment, in some sense, is the realization that even empty space is full of living intelligence.

Unconsciousness is an artificial state within the broader movement of non-local consciousness. The baseline state of the universe is one of consciousness, not dead unconsciousness. We are biased into accepting the latter as an obvious reality because we spend so much of our time in an unconscious state. The practical elimination of awareness serves evolutionary functions; the baseline is not oblivion but rather a suffusing non-locality.

The misconception is that the neuroelectrical network of the brain gives rise to an emergent consciousness. In fact, consciousness is more fundamental, and not a result of the firing of neurons, which generate the structures of thought and emotion and so forth of which we are aware. The classical electrochemical network generates the constructs of our ego-selves -- our personalities, our emotional states, our overall interaction with the world -- but consciousness itself is deeper, and is a quantum phenomenon which turns out to be non-local and vast. Science is not even yet aware of our awareness.

I identify the self as awareness.

Spirit may be infinite, but the soul is individual.

Consciousness always carries intention.

Whatever is not being observed is often relegated to the category of nonexistence. That is, the notion is that nothing exists unless or until it has been observed. This is not true. Objectively, everything exists, whether it is under the observation of a human or not. We should think of this very much as we think of the subconscious mind, which is by definition not under observation, but is really running the show. Objects existing out there, unseen, should be viewed similarly -- they exist in the subconscious of the universe. Which, I might add, is also a fundamental part of the human subconscious.

To me, consciousness is the all, while awareness occurs when the all focuses or reflects on itself.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the phenomenon of paradox is the most common pattern in our existence.

Sleep is the closest thing we'll get to oblivion. And it's a gift, every night. It goes without saying that being conscious is quite a bother.

Brain activity for thought and memory has its root in the quantum level, not the chemical level. What's happening is that electro-colloidal-chemical activity has its foundation in the wave function of the brain.

I can see there is consciousness in all action. The question is: Is consciousness agency?

A major part of the experience of Enlightenment is the total dissolution of self-consciousness.

Natural human awareness is buried quite deep in the modern, sedentary subconscious.

There seems to be such a thing as consciousness without awareness. For example, subconscious processes are conscious, but we are not normally aware of them. Normally when we use the term 'consciousness,' what we really mean is 'awareness.' There is a subtle differentiation between the two, which are different by degrees. Another example would be interacting with someone socially, and you're focused on something else, and a conversation takes place even though you're not exactly fully aware of it. Happens to me all the time. It was a conscious conversation, without full awareness.

The soul underpins the self.

If you weren't conscious of pain, you would not react to it.

Godel's Theorem shows us that anything we're talking about has its root outside of itself. Just as a mathematical equation is dependent on, or defined by, the axioms at its bottom, the phenomena of being human -- thinking, talking, etc. -- must arise at a level exterior to themselves. This level would be consciousness, and it makes sense to postulate that it can be a causal factor and not merely a passive, ineffectual observing epiphenomenon.

One thing I see everywhere I look in nature, from the microcosm to the macrocosm and everywhere in between, is some form of intelligence. Not design, but subtle order.

Essentially, the nervous systems and brains of the organisms of Earth are conduits of universal consciousness (and could not function without it). The reductionistic, materialistic approach of neuroscience grossly misses the mark, which will be common knowledge in fifty years.

It's about as realistic to assume that matter generates consciousness as it is to assume a radio generates music.

When one gets to that place, one sees that consciousness pervades existence, so that, in essence, every point in space is like a little eye. Like the jeweled net of Indra.

Our brains need consciousness in order to function, and our particular type of consciousness requires the brain to define it.

It appears that consciousness might not be as special or rare as we think.

Enlightenment is said to entail the dissolution of self-consciousness. To me, this does not mean the dissolution of self itself. There is considerable ambiguity here. To say that the self doesn't exist at all, objectively, is a very popular thought. I'm not so sure this isn't a confusion. If one attains to the loftiest spiritual heights, and feels that their self has disappeared, well, who is there watching, and feeling?

Just because not-self exists doesn't mean self isn't real too.

Neuroscience is attempting to give a full explanation of the functioning of the brain and consciousness using classical theory alone. While it is true that the majority of the brain's functions can be described adequately in a classical way, it is not true that consciousness is a classical phenomenon. The institution across the board is assuming that consciousness is an emergent, epiphenomenal effect or result of a deterministic brain. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consciousness is actually fundamental; ultimately, the brain and its entire function arise from an underlying reality which could be said to be essentially made up of a conscious process. Consciousness requires quantum theory, not classical mechanics, for any sort of meaningful elucidation. These cognitive scientists are going to have to completely revise, indeed turn upside-down, their picture if they expect to find anything that makes sense. One may ask, is there any evidence for your assertions? I would give two answers: 1. "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." and 2: Wait. For many, truly compelling evidence is already out there, and from some vantages can be said to have been out there for a long time. It's a matter of understanding, not quibbles over evidence.

The materialist-atheist Cartesian dualist perspective was a necessary step in the development of technology. Without that framework, we'd still be in the 1600s technologically. However, there is significant evidence coming in that it is obsolete, and insufficient to properly approach the problem of consciousness. Scientifically, consciousness is still essentially untreated, but there is evidence from less scientific but no less credible sources (for those who have replicated their findings privately) that the Cartesian approach is woefully deficient, and that consciousness plays a more fundamental role than we think. Even some scientists themselves, in their interpretations of quantum theory, have suggested that this is the case, despite a lot of inertia and habit from the institutional materialists. Momentum is slowly shifting, and it is really this shift itself that will illustrate the utilitarian and provisional nature of Cartesian dualism and the materialist, determinist worldview.

I think that a lot of the time we don't give our past selves enough credit.

Consciousness can be a causal agent over some of our actions, some of the time, and in the right circumstances, in ways that are limited by our natures.

Your thoughts, memories and personality, among other things, would never have existed without your brain and nervous system. Also, the particular expression of consciousness that could be called the real "you" has its expression in both local and nonlocal components of your brain, which is necessary to support the quantum state of your mind. This is the particular expression of human consciousness. The soul may be completely independent of the brain, but much of who you are, including the behavior that dictates your karma, depends on the brain. Something to consider, unless you feel all of the contents of consciousness throughout your life are unimportant.

Consciousness and soul are not epiphenomenal. This does not change the fact that the brain structures everything that we are.

Assuming consciousness is a physical process (and everything that exists is a physical process) I see no reason why an advanced computer cannot also participate in that process. Further assuming that consciousness may be a fundamental physical process, I see no reason why such a thing wouldn't be inevitable.

If I could, I would bet heavily that consciousness is a quantum phenomenon.

The thing about the East, and Eastern philosophy and mysticism, is that there is a tradition there composed of knowledge that is in some ways far in advance of our own. They have inferior scientific and technological knowledge, but it is a fact that certain Hindu and Buddhist teachings represent a vast superiority of knowledge about consciousness, and internal states of mind -- psychology -- principally pertaining to the subconscious mind. All of this is still quite primitive in the West, and the problem with importing this knowledge from the East is that the subtleties and the actual understanding are lost in the process. But there is knowledge over there that vastly surpasses our own in several respects.

I believe that the subconscious mind is actually conscious, but that our normal waking consciousness simply does not have access to it.

The universe is like an ocean of consciousness, and a perceiving mind is a sort of structured concentration of this essential substratum.

The truth about Buddhism is that it's involved with fabulously advanced knowledge of human psychology, and certain atypical realms. As a religion and a set of doctrines, it is not appealing. But Westerners are not generally aware of the unappealing parts. Which of course is good for the Buddhists.

It seems to me that consciousness is not an emergent property of complex brains but rather fundamental to the universal fabric, and that nervous systems don't constantly generate it so much as they utilize its existence in living structures. Consciousness appears to be bottom-up, not top-down.

The brain is to consciousness as the light-bulb is to an electric circuit.

Consciousness seems to be the process of pure awareness, while soul is more like one's conscious identity.

It appears that plants have spirit indeed -- but not soul.

Everybody talks about cosmic consciousness and enlightenment as if they'd like to spend all of their time there -- as if that were desirable. There is plenty of time in eternity to do all manner of that; be yourself and live your life as much as you can. This is it.

The self still exists even when it has been stripped of one's normal identity.

We can only attain to our true selves when we engage in advanced meditation, or take strong psychedelics -- the rare spiritual awakening. How did we become so stunted and lost?

One primary conclusion to which I have come is that consciousness is the fundament of our reality, and underlies everything. David Bohm spoke of all existence being "one undivided, flowing movement," so there are no true divisions in Nature, but if you want to posit one for convenience's sake, matter and energy are a kind of extension out of this field of consciousness, and can be thought about as relatively autonomous in their own right. The laws of physics for this universe can be thought of similarly. This comes out of a sort of a confluence between entheogenic use, the study of physics, and various readings over a long period of time. There is no logical basis for my position, other than observation and personal experience. It all just "fits together" for me (and others). The notion that this originates simply in a "well, I think..." proposition is not precisely on the money, because thinking is a biological phenomenon -- a neuroelectric one -- and requires the classical machinery of mass-energy. How the brain ties into consciousness in a fundamental way is one of the great questions. But I feel that the brain and consciousness are not the same; the brain is a form of matter and energy and chemistry, which are extensions from the ground but not the ground itself. When someone denies this view, it is usually along the lines of deterministic epiphenomenalism, which I reject easily. I think Nature is much more subtle that all that, and that the structures of matter and energy which make up the brain and its processes are not fundamental, but are explicate projections from the deeper implicate order. The classical view of neuroscience has it backwards; structure and function arise out of consciousness, not the other way around.

It is important, for having integrity in perceiving the nature of things, to separate in one's being consciousness, and the contents of consciousness.

Our normal waking "consensus" awareness is not the reality. It is a reality.

To ask how the body and brain relate to consciousness is not the right question. It is all consciousness. It would be better to ask how consciousness relates to itself.

The conscious self may not be in control, and the controlling self may not be conscious.

Other minds are like other universes -- we can't get there yet. And so we are alone.

The universe is far from cold and dead; it is teeming with intelligence. And I do not necessarily mean that of alien races. The very fabric of the cosmos is intelligent.

One remembers different experiences with differing levels of efficacy, accuracy, and intensity because the evocation of memories depends entirely on one's mental state right now.

Reality is a frame of mind. One's frame of mind determines one's entire universe.

It occurs to me that if particles can tunnel through space, they must also be able to tunnel through time. It further occurs to me that consciousness may, at least in part, be the result of such quantum tunneling through time.

The behavior that the human species has honed most skillfully and assiduously over the eons is the tendency toward marked self-delusion. It is the one thing we do the very best. Most thoughts and behaviors most humans exhibit, most of the time, are tied directly or indirectly to this phenomenon.

Kesey and the Merry Pranksters were conducting an experiment in consciousness. I don't know that it failed, but it did certainly become irrelevant.

Entanglement of brain states allows for one top-level, macroscopic wave function to govern the interface of the brain and consciousness.

The subconscious is where everything really happens -- the body of the iceberg. If one can make one's subconscious conscious, well, there you are.

There is an awful lot of weird shit going on out there, and almost none of it gets reported in the media -- for obvious reasons. Legitimately strange things. But I think the topic has less to do with aliens than it does with the human subconscious.

The mind is in some sense chaotic. One can only hope it remains reliable.

Awareness is about process and flow. Notions of control are not consequent a priori.

It is not a little ironic that the work of the academic neuroscientists, the biochemists, and indeed, all of the materialists and epiphenomenalists throughout all of time, is the product of consciousness.

Reason is quite worthless when it begins, or ends, in error.

The brain is responsible for most of our behavior, but not all of it.

The multiverse not only exists as a collection of universes, but also as a collection of minds. Each individual is the seat of the universe; each individual is a universe. Does one become conscious of the reality of both aspects (physical and existential) of the multiverse at the same ontological level? What is the correspondence?

You are not your body, you are not even really your mind. What are you?

It has been suggested, not that the self doesn't exist, but that it does not exist in the way we think it does.

I have no idea how I create what I create. It just happens. I squeeze, and out it comes. It's a total mystery.

Awareness carries intention.

It's awfully difficult to say how a conscious experience can arise from a purely deterministic process that is already self-consistent. Nature tends not to provide extraneous features. Perhaps consciousness is not what most people think it is?

Why would there be such a thing as desire if one's consciousness were the result of a deterministic process? It seems to me that if you were not aware of such impulses, you could not react to them. Why would we experience desire at all if consciousness is, as is so popularly believed, an epiphenomenon of matter and energy?

Could it be that consciousness is the quantum mechanical process of tunneling through time?