Comments by "SkyRiver" (@SkyRiver1) on "Is consciousness an illusion? 5 experts explain" video.

  1.  @sinkec  So then you comment to me is your own way of reinforcing your own illusion? Did you type it without fingers that moved through space? Your comment reminds me of a friend of mine back in the sixties who dropped acid and spent the whole night pointing at a chair and laughing and repeating, "There is no chair." Until finally some smart ass said, "Dude you saying that there is no chair is proof positivist that there is, or else you would have nothing to say." Which everyone but one person found kind of funny. Delight in the minds two dimensional apprehension trying to deal with a nonlinear reality takes all kinds of novel starts and turns. Some of them useful or at least revealing, some of them . . . not much more than an illustration of a thoughts inadequacy in such regions. When the automatic thought-centric associative mind is turned upon concepts that have no primary reality, that is, that disappear when no one is thinking about them, the only thing that can result is endless confusion and paradoxical conclusions that also have no primary reality.
    8
  2.  @karlmiller5009  There is a monumental difference between being consciously aware and consciousness. They are not synonymous or interchangeable.
    5
  3.  @sinkec  The "now" is merely the bodies analogue of the cache of a computer. Very fast memory right on the CPU. For the human quite automatic thought-centric associative mind there is no present or now. All perceptions of "now" take place in the past, even one's immediate apperceptive experience.
    5
  4. Just another instance of Chat GPT getting it wrong. And such instances are plentiful. The reification of conscious awareness into a noun is an illusion.
    1
  5.  @SiddhArtha96  The "real question" is not "Who am I?" it is "What is "I"?"
    1
  6. For the sake of the one in a hundred thousand persons who can properly understand this, because they may come upon this, and are dear to me, here is the seed: Total objectivity, in the moment, of one's own subjective process IS cosmic "consciousness". No DMT or exogenous poisonous approximation molecules necessary (only a distortion anyway). For that one in a hundred thousand, you can do this, if you really want to, and you really want to, if your were born that way, and somehow stayed vital despite the automatic thought-centric associative function you call your mind. It doesn't get any more direct in words than this: though all words regarding this are incorrect and misleading. Including these. But they are the most accurate you will ever find. This is not a concept it is an action, woefully described in terms of it's own antithesis. The proof is in the doing.
    1
  7. Consciousness is not a problem where I come from. In fact it's not even a thing: unless you are using the original archaic Frisian meaning of the word. And even then "conscious awareness" would be far more accurate, since there is about as much consciousness as there is runningness (in a runner who is standing still). Or as Carlos Dwa said in The Unwritten Book: Xellex . . . "The inherent deception in all conceptions of consciousness can be traced to the suffix "ness". This is sometimes referred to as the "ness" lock monster." . . . . . .
    1
  8.  @WelfareChrist  😄
    1
  9. Many years ago I offered to sell a vector diagram of the mechanism of "consciousness" to google. No response.
    1
  10. I finally listened to this on a drive a day after making several comments. It was more or less what one expected, well less to be honest. It would be an easy and useless matter to find fault with every comment it contained. Despite this I will offer one "amendment" to a few of the initial statements. In particular about the supposed benefit or sentimental inner psychodrama in asking oneself what is often taken for a profound question: "Who am I?" If you are one of the few who are actually attempting to transform the dimension of your apperceptive awareness the question "Who am I?" will get you nowhere real only further into the high security area of the associative prison you are already in. For the few with such an aim this is a wrong question. It is the equivalent of asking the color of the elephant in your dresser drawer and having to determine this without looking in the drawer but perhaps by asking Chat GTP. In other words not only is it useless but it is meaningless as regards your aim. A certain modification of this question, if taken to "heart" can provide a benefit with regard to the direction you are drawn to. That modification can be approximated by the words "What is "I" ?" and the unnatural arousal of the prowess to observe you subjective process, including this self-reflective observation as objectively as you are able. When referring to human capabilities of being aware above the level of the automatic thought-centric associative mind, all word are misleading and in a very basic manner erroneous. This is not a concept it is an action described in concepts, the proof is in the doing: in the activity. Total objectivity IN THE MOMENT, of ones subjective process (appercreption) IS "cosmic consciousness". More accurately: is to be consciously aware on a cosmic level. Simple as that, and almost any one in a hundred thousand people drawn to such conscious evolution can do it. And most of the rest really don't want to, no matter what their lips (inner or outer) confess.
    1
  11. Consciousness is not a problem where I come from. In fact it's not even a thing: unless you are using the original archaic Frisian meaning of the word. And even then "conscious awareness" would be far more accurate, and "apperceptively aware" even more so, since there is about as much consciousness as there is runningness (in a runner who is standing still). Or as Carlos Dwa said in The Unwritten Book: Xellex . . . "The inherent deception in all conceptions of consciousness can be traced to the suffix "ness". This is sometimes referred to as the "ness" lock monster." . . . . . .
    1