On Consciousness and Reality: Connecting Phenomenology with Experienced Noumena, and Practical Implications
Please note that schehrzade.Substack.com has an updated version, although I wish for this version to be honoured most because Blogger has been my favourite tool and was how my entire journey began.
Even as I agree we may (may is not meant absolutely, it is only meant as a possibility) never know the experienced thing in itself, angles from which phenomenology interacts with this experienced noumena (the existence of which is proved logically irreducible in the “experience of waking reality” later in the essay) can be explored as a starting point towards understanding reality further. This is explored below, alongside other factors.
Another ad for my non fiction book, Components of Existence.
(A little note: since I got asked if these are my own writings, Yes, like all posts on my profile unless clearly specified otherwise and my poems that I share on these profiles, these are original ideas and my own. Lots of love, schehrzade ♥️. I English inconsistently because colonialism isn’t my thing, haha. This is not a final draft, I am sharing ideas here. The following summarizes aspects of some of my prior original writings on these subjects.)
Please be aware there may seem to be some repetition, as developing points are mentioned alongside earlier reached foundations at times to clarify the overall development. This is not yet finalized. While there is a conclusion at the end (Section 4), clarifying points and some additional details are in the first three sections, so I recommend skimming through them.
On Consciousness and Reality: Connecting Phenomenology with Noumena, and Practical Implications
Purpose/Objectives:
February 20, 2025
What the following essay primarily hopes to take forward from and add to Kants work is to show (i) how noumena is irreducibly experienced in waking reality and thus established in itself and provable via phenomenology and (ii) how aspects of that experienced noumena can be extrapolated via phenomenological tools and, at times, common, shared experience (first proved in the essay and then elaborated upon), and how that can be a starting point towards understanding reality better, as well as towards practical implications in navigating it.
A second angle it hopes to take forward is that the implications of a possible dream or simulation require exploring reality on at least two simultaneous domains instead of the usual experienced reality for the highest possible understanding, explained ahead.
A third is the overlaps in this interplay between phenomenology and what manifests as noumena.
There are also other explorations in the essay.
The purpose of this essay is, at least, three-fold. All three are elaborated upon in detail later in the essay.
The first is to empirically establish an average humans experienced consciousness or awareness in not just metaphysics but also physics, so consciousness as well as the following can then be established within what manifests as experienced reality (what manifests as the perceived and, when perceived, irreducible “reality”, explained and justified later in this essay, that is labelled by Kant as noumena, and will, at times, be referred to as noumena here.)
The second is to establish a structure of what is experienced as waking reality, and form a connection between phenomenology, in what Kant outlined as perceptions and their limits, and noumena, in taking that further by establishing how aspects of noumena can be and are also extracted towards navigating this experienced waking reality, along with outlining at least four components of this experienced external reality. Essentially, here we explore how a human, on average, does extract, learn from and adapt to some elements of the underlying structure of “things in themselves” from what is phenomenologically perceived by tools of perception and, at times, towards practical results manifesting in the paths that emerge in response or the complexity one may then “create” (we may explore what this word is meant here, you may reach out to me!) or influence through understanding these variables, and thus the dual relationship that presents itself. An example of this point would be learning laws of physics may help one build a literal, physical bridge that proves experienced utility, or explore more of what is outside immediate conscious awareness, at times to utility or more results, “influence” or “perceived responses” in shifts in what is experienced. Other examples are health, medicine, etc.
The third is to establish how, whatever the underlying structure or nature of this experienced waking reality is, this experienced waking reality is still worth examining in two ways: 1. Understanding its patterns for navigability and 2. The necessity of direct perception of one’s overlap with existence in any possible baseline reality for that consciousness to be existing to begin with.
This is to build towards the relationship between the two, and what limits then are fair or not logical to impose upon the knowability of either.
In my view, these are important to clarify as increased coherence that accounts for all relevant, possible observed variables may result in a fuller picture than hyper-focus on some at the expense or logical exclusion of others as a whole picture. Here, this isn’t meant to be exhaustive. It is also focused on one domain, but not in exclusivity, rather it is only meant as an attempt to bring light to an additional dimension that is also experienced within reality. Perhaps, base clarifications can bring coherence to pictures via more observed variables being incorporated, so chaos can be reduced into observable understandability and further remaining questions can be taken from there within more stable foundations.
Regarding referencing prior philosophical schools of thought:
~ January 25, 2025
For this essay, some ideas are entirely original and three reference prior schools of thought:
1. Duality existing is not a new concept; that previously established connection is referenced in hopes of building upon it.
2. The simulation hypothesis, or similar schools of thought regarding reality being possibly a dream or an illusion, etc-are built upon and some implications somewhat negated.
3. That rationality is limited, and not a complete tool.
What I hope entirely original contributions are includes seeing the following not just as philosophical positing but, in most cases, factors to necessarily be adopted empirically in thought, and necessary to discuss:
1. The impulse of consciousness (defined as whatever natural factor “animates”at least a human and some other species while they live) empirically needing to be added to axioms of physics for truer and more complete variables as foundations of reality, on which further connections can be made to a) better understanding of truer reality and b) better understanding towards more optimal navigability of experienced reality.
2. How the implications of the dream/simulation line of thought require two separate, irreducible explorations of reality towards the ends mentioned in point 1.
3. How aspects of duality are perceived as a unity in natural cases, and its implications.
4. The navigability of experienced reality and its implications, and limitations in deep sleep interruptions or observed death.
5. How, in continuation of having established in Secular Theological Endeavour 1 (2020) how reason in itself contains the function of going beyond established reason, expanded rationality can disprove or validate prior rationality, and result in a) further understanding of reality towards even practical navigation or results and b) an observable process emerging of this understanding and its development, and, although this is a standalone point, I also wish to include some implications to clarify thought so more stable foundations can emerge for further navigation, such as in this point adding to (regarding the next point, a difference compared to prior schools of thoughts will be explained at the end of this point) how this makes absolute stances like atheism-as atheism considers an “absence” versus unknowing (and not just schools of negation but even those that consider this “absence” may be seen as superstitious in themselves, and a denial of observable reality (which does not prove faith or belief but does not disprove it either, as explained ahead) versus unknowing, is the differentiating factor for this essay, versus prior discussions on this subject, and is explained at the end of the point)-inaccurate, and agnosticism limited if it resolves to unknowability but if not, agnosticism a fairer stance. Here, we aren’t even considering stronger atheist stances like no God, as that’s debunked later into unknowing being a more honest stance. Here, the differing nuance is, even a lack or absence of belief, signalled by atheism in some cases, is too hard a stance, not just because of the limits of rationality but also because, observably, patterns emerging in experienced “reality” can be navigable, while rationality, expanded, can disprove fallacies of prior rationality, while a process emerges to understand more, makes even lacking belief too hard a stance, whereas not knowing whether there’s a limit or not is a more realistic stance. It’s more like denying gravity to lack belief than it is to deny an unknown due to the possible observability, on average at least, of these factors. This does not mean belief is the only other option, it only means absolutism in lacking belief is also a superstitious, arbitrary limit, and the best one can say is, I don’t yet know enough about this. One can say a theory of gravity may not be the answer but one cannot deny the effects of whatever manifests as gravity in our understanding. To ignore the following variables in order to conclude a lack of belief, versus an acceptance of at least not enough information being available, yet observable factors existing that create grey areas, may be as superstitious as blind belief as this raises questions, and a lack no longer seems logical, and seems, in my opinion, more of a logical jump: Reality’s patterns and possibly discoverable and navigable complexities, surprises that are potentially pleasant or unpleasant-yet-navigable, inferior conscious control, a lack of conscious consistent control over even the moment of sleeping or waking, and the process of expanding rationality, combine to show, in my opinion, that an absence of belief is as superstitious for a secular mind than blind belief, and unknowing is the honest stance, if the possibility to know is also given space to be. Belief that is based on experience is not disrespected here, I only speak of secular points of view, and belief in a God is another exploration.
6. Experiencing as a variable as necessary to include and irreducible as observed reality, and establishing how both are irreducible. (I consider this very important, although not elaborated upon here, and I hope you’ll read the section that is after the conclusion, as that explores this.)
7. Early explorations on deep sleep and awareness.
While not in this essay, some other philosophical works of mine include, but are not limited to, cross-cultural anthropological practical morality, ways towards balancing civilizational aspects and their implications, universal sentience reform as an idealistic prerequisite towards realistic paths towards more “ethically evolved” outcomes as well as better secured interests, and reasons why it’s necessary to do so towards practical optimization, and why practical optimization matters, secularly demystifying historical, anthropologically cross-culturally developed enlightenment processes with practical implications, and other topics. I would wish to mention I’m also writing a fictional book of absurd poems with puzzles, narrative, and fictional laws of reality and physics, although considering the creativity artificial intelligence can now display, I wonder if it’s worth sharing, haha, but I continue it as a passion project. Personally, I would also hesitate to remove human biological creativity simultaneously being recorded to show what natural thought or the mind “produces” or what it can result in, (which is also why I keep my style of writing as it is.) Regardless, this can be its own mini essay, as there are other factors to consider. Perhaps I should avoid making jokes if I’ll begin explaining their thoughts philosophical negations in paragraphs, and then realize I need a whole essay to further clarify those points.
An Informal Abstract/Overview
January 13, 2025
This essay aims to explore the following, and more:
1. How the impulse of human consciousness, (simply defined as whatever natural factor “animates” a human body during “life”, this variable being no longer observable after death) at the very least, is irreducible not just in possible biology or biochemistry but also in axioms of physics due to the ability the impulse of consciousness has to temporarily, within limits, resist a planets gravity and other factors to, in some cases, result in a biological human body standing upright, and thus it affecting, in an average example, the body’s centre of gravity, this influence being lost at death, best pictured in a body standing upright and then collapsing, whereafter other natural forces, like a planets gravity, are able to take over for good, and finally also due to the nature based or natural source, and not a consciously human input source, this impulse of consciousness has, (this is to be seen as an empirical point, not a philosophical point)
2. A humans perceived inferior status of conscious control over all elements of perceived waking reality and yet that waking reality allowing navigability and understanding in several domains that can overlap to bigger pictures, given timescales and honest interactions, to, at times, human made creations or increasing influence over reality, even if
3. with possible limits/ the implications of possibly being in a simulation (or not) and paths to take regardless regarding learning the perceived external world for navigability and
4. whether or not in a simulation but especially if that chance is there, the need for exploring core reality as a result of one’s overlap with it due to one’s existence via, eg. direct perception, as this essay aims to explore, and other variables.
5. (A little note: an element of Point 5 has already existed in philosophy, and what is expanded on here is furthering a possible resulting nuance, which is the new connection that I wish to highlight, as being important for general thought or base perspectives. We are not just considering the limits of reason, we are considering a) reasons expansion and b) evidence of this process of expansion making it logically not right to place ceilings on what is understandable. To elaborate, This is that expanded reason can, at times, verify but other times can negate, disprove or prove fallacious the limits of prior rationality or reason and that this process proves the necessity of not placing a logical ceiling upon this process, which, I hope, combined with other points mentioned here, can convey why I include this as an original idea regarding exploring reason-not that that matters either way beyond keeping consistency with the opening explanation. If this point exists, I’m happy to update this with that explanation; I haven’t had a chance to come across it, so I hope this little aspect can be forgiven, if in error. In a separate exploration, we had explained how a function of reason may be to find what can negate or disprove prior reason, so reason may expand, thus reason, at times, not getting in the way of an intuition that may negate reasons understanding, to put it overly simplistically and incompletely, but this can be disregarded for now.) Also mentioned is expanded rationality or rationality after experience disproving at times limits or fallacies prior rationality had and so the need to not put an artificial ceiling on the possible knowability of the universe, and that this exploration may thus be worth considering,
6. Some ways of exploring awareness,
7. The interplay between deep sleep and reality, and experienced deep sleeps ability to override experienced reality compared to reality’s relationship with a humans conscious control over reality, while both reality and deep sleep are “seemingly limited” by each other,
8. Analyzing the role in reality of “experiencing”,
9. The implications of the waking state being perceived as a “unity” in the context of how the classical world does not yet prove discreteness the way the deep sleep-unified waking reality switch seems to manifest in experience,
10. (Even if some may not fully agree with the logical extent of this connection, although I’m happy to further discuss it, the other points on this list may still be considered for the overall picture, and some angles of the implications of this point remain, in my opinion, important. To answer such concerns preemptively, this is not meant absolutely; what is being said here that this possibility also then becomes harder to exclude as a possibility.) (If, at all, discreteness even exists and otherwise, what is currently interpreted as such,) How reality is experienced (not just classically but also) discretely by humans alongside a classical experience, which may also possibly lead to implications or consequences in terms of “quantum biochemistry or biology” as organic chemistry doesn’t always prove consciousness via an ability to exert influence and classical reality shows, thus far, a lack of evidence of discreteness and yet “discreteness” is experienced naturally by most human consciousness on either a regular basis in alternating deep sleep-waking states or has been in all reported cases at least once naturally-in Thai Ngocs claimed case, sleep was experienced for his first twenty years, Al Herpins claim was never validated and even with these exceptions considered, it is an experience nearly 100% humans have,) even with a third level of dream states being factored in, and the source of human consciousness is from nature, or also from nature, regardless of future possible developments, an important point here also being that experienced reality and its streams are naturally experienced as being superseded, and with experience being established as an important variable later on considering possible implications of this relationship,
And other topics.
Jan 9, 2025
Section 1/4: Proving the impulse of consciousness as an irreducible factor in axioms of physics:
This section is to be considered empirically. We attempt to explore how (whatever manifests as) the impulse of consciousness (simply defined as whatever natural factor “animates” a human body during “life”, this variable being no longer observable after death) in humans on average, and at least some other species, is an irreducible axiom in physics, not just possibly biology, in its a) natural source, not a consciously human input source of energy, in it inhabiting a human body, thus it originating from nature and b) its limited ability, but ability nonetheless, to resist other forces (the word force is meant metaphorically to represent influence exerted by other variables, or the impact of other variables, force is not meant literally here) eg gravity etc, in how this impulse of consciousness can, for example, exert influence over its “inhabited” biological body’s centre of gravity, best seen in the example of a person standing upright, resisting the pull of gravity, then shot at death, after which this impulse is no longer resisting natural “forces” like the Earths gravity that then take over the body.
A third point, c) is the extension of this naturally originating force in its influence over its natural environment via the inhabited body, as seen in some species like humans on average, etc, which is where the concept of “will” comes into actual variables of axioms of observed natural reality.
This is regarding the point about duality, even as that’s not the main point of this essay, as there are several other, more important points, especially section 1/4, which has nothing to do with duality or this preface. This section is only for philosophical clarifications regarding section 2/4. The reason I wish to keep this in the beginning is for questions regarding whether or not any of this reality is even real to begin with, and section 2.2/4 builds on why it matters to explore this, regardless, but I will now continue the preface for section 2/4:
Even if this experienced duality is entirely an illusion, there are still at least two variables: 1. Your (assuming a biological human, at least), at times, aware existence while you experience it 2. That illusion or perception of an illusion and, also an important nuance, one that is absent in deep sleep. At least two variables are still in a humans personal experience of existence, on average. Further, in at least many subjective cases, you awake without conscious control of internal willing to awaking as prior to that, on average, what is remembered as perceived as being experienced is an absence of the longest running stream and its frames and concepts, whether in deep sleep or dreams. [To casually further explain a nuance in point 2: I hope most biological humans reading this have naturally experienced sleep! To elaborate on what is also meant by point 2, You may vanish in deep sleep along with reality but you awake to an awareness of a “you” and an “illusion, perception, reality etc” that you are experiencing being in and out of, and also cannot fully consciously control, rather, on average, as far as we know in common knowledge, you can adapt to it and influence it over time, and within its constraints, create what is possible to create, if so wished. I hope I’m able to be clear here? Otherwise, I can elaborate and we can discuss this; and, perhaps another angle would be to consider awareness (experienced by, for instance, you, if a biological human, at least, and what is experienced as being beyond this awareness or its conscious control.)]
Second, this may seem odd to say but experiencing and awareness of experiencing are two variables. Where I talk about experiencing, I mean to with the nuance of awareness of that experiencing.
Section 2.1/4: Part I
January 9, 2025
1.You exist without understanding why and that wouldn’t be enough of a point, except
2.You come into existence in an external reality that is not in your conscious control but one that is not entirely chaotic in every moment, establishing duality and, from this perspective, your perceived inferior status to it, and
3. One cannot yet consciously consistently control their exact moment of waking and sleeping, establishing, from at least this perspective, inferior status to reality, and yet that superior reality allows coherence, whether consciously or unconsciously, in ways one can have limited control over and even interact with and build through experienced reality, if it is understood and interacted with correctly. To elaborate on this, this reality has discoverable patterns of survival and navigation to the point major discoveries and creations and more versus less optimal living can result. It has surprised you pleasantly in ways your conscious mind could not have anticipated, and it has “humbled” your status in difficult windows, till acceptance, a change in conditions or understanding helped navigate past that difficult window, and yet it is not entirely incoherent, random and chaotic, as patterns of understanding various domains that external reality responds to can emerge, like optimizing health more than before using eg adequate Sun exposure, diet and exercise, while using science to understand other factors of reality and incorporate them, or even consciously create things of varying complexity, and the mind can sometimes infer patterns of reality to navigate difficult windows better, etc etc, towards more understanding than before. Other than understanding, it points to observable order on several domains, from the quantum world to the classically observed, from ants and their ways of being to, based on some current estimates, ~8 million plus other species, to planets and stars, and so on, alongside personal increased a) understanding of better compared to less helpful ways of optimizing ones lived experience and b) ability to navigate, understand, interpret etc as much as understood, c) at times to consciously create further order and more intricate systems or systems of complexity through such human creations, and even d) begin to influence elements of reality even if within rules or constraints such as through human made creations, products, discoveries, etc (as per common understanding of limits). I can’t resist mentioning how chaos can result in order as observed in reality, and Schrodingers exploration on eg natural and observable (I specify to clarify and highlight it is not fully human created and directed, but rather observed) genetic inheritance resulting in order from more order, barring exceptions like mosaics, etc, and
4.Expanded reason/rationality after experience can negate prior rationality and reasons assumed ceilings, and so it may not be intellectually honest to place a ceiling on any possible future understanding through absolute limits.
Section 2.2/4: Part II
On the possible implications of the Simulation Hypothesis, our overlap with reality and existence in reality nonetheless, and how it still shows the universe resulted in a model of coherence, whether from enough prior order or random chaos, in a way that’s sustained over experienced and observed timescales which, among other things, including some chaos, also show sustained coherence across a multitude of dimensions and scales:
(All implications mentioned here are my original contributions to the development of this line of philosophical thought upon the foundation of Nick Bostroms explorations on the overwhelming odds we exist in a simulation, and not base reality)
Preface: In existing, from this angle alone, it becomes less relevant to this exercise (although it will be explored later) whether I’m the originating factor in existence or a resulting, dependent factor in an illusion or a reality, as, either formatively or resultantly, I now exist, having appeared in “existence” or “my” “being” has emerged. Existing will be elaborated upon in this section.
Now, I love Bostroms simulation hypothesis because implications may be very significant in that our being in a “simulation” may also, for our purposes, point to a) a need to understand not just base “experienced” reality and its rules (for optimal attempted navigability-understanding science, health, etc etc), simulation or otherwise, but also that it may imply b) we can’t rely on experienced and observed “external” reality alone for the biggest picture, and instead need to keep room for exploring our direct overlap with any possible base reality due to the fact of our existence in that deeper reality that may be beyond a simulation regardless of whether we are in a simulation, as we now exist in a reality running a simulation, so we are real too, and may just be surrounded by rules that may not reflect that base reality, but our existence and overlap and thus direct contact with base reality nonetheless due to our existence may mean we can understand more about that simultaneously, and so both explorations may become important for more of the fullest real picture of existence, as explained ahead. In other words, it also points to us resultantly now existing in the primary base of reality whether as through a simulation or through direct experience, whether or not we get to fully experience that reality versus an artificially generated one, regardless of a simulation but with that factor being a possibility, so our overlap with core reality is not lost, no matter the layers in between in navigation, and, in other words, a significant implication becomes that for a more complete picture of existence, the exploration of that core reality may then also become necessary alongside understanding ones possible experienced reality or simulation-at least one way possibly being via direct perception, as we are aiming to do here, as i) that awareness and ii) (direct perception) of existing and iii) (direct perception) of reality beyond what is presented in case what is presented may be a simulation or not base reality as our most direct overlap with base reality in our existing, and that way, both possibilities are covered while the possible simulation is being navigated optimally and underlying reality is also being explored; in other words, this direct relationship of us existing in reality regardless, as well as an awareness of it can result in us concluding not only do we exist, but we exist in reality, and this overlap may be enough to explore reality alongside the rules of our experienced reality. This will be listed ahead, in attempting to establish four factors of these implications, but let us first consider whether our possible originating factor stems from possible order (furthering our point regarding order also existing enough (it doesn’t have to exist exclusively in an absence of chaos for the impact of overarching order also existing to be noticeable) in external and even base reality, or chaos and randomness, in which case we endeavour to explain how this is ultimately reiterated regardless.
Whether our probable simulation (and I call it Plato’s simulation) emerged from random chaos or order that consciously created a simulation: in the case of the latter, order existed in that external reality for it to have got to this point, and in the case of the former, chaos and randomness resulted in order across a spectrum of domains (take the prior example of ants, planets, humans and their ability, on average, to navigate to greater understanding etc) and this comes with a perceived ongoing timescale of sustained experience, and inferences towards prior and further extensions of some of what it witnessed, to patterns of order (eg the earth existing for billions of years before us, or the sun and other stars existing after us, etc) for, at least, the human, enough that while the human does not consciously generate, control or have awareness of all variables the human may go on to experience or uncover, the human can, on average, have enough of a “timescale” through it, patterns can emerge, be understood and even be used towards furthering creation on well understood and well interacted with “external” variables.
Now, with that establishing reality is, for the purposes of this exploration, not easily written off as just random or chaotic, and is possibly worth exploring towards further clarity (for a fuller, truer picture of reality and to practically optimize one’s place in it, along with other reasons,) we continue to explain four separate factors with subtle but, in my opinion, important different implications:
1.I exist now in a reality even if it’s running a simulation, so while there may be an additional layer and I have to learn the rules of my simulation, I exist now as much as someone that may be outside running it.
2.Now existing, I overlap with core existence as much as any other in another layer would as long as we both exist, so I have a direct relationship with core existence/core reality and direct access to core existence/core reality as a result of this overlap of my existing within real existence/real reality for me to even be a simulation, or just a base reality variable. I also have awareness of my overlap with reality, in my existing.
3.My simulated world or real world operates in a “reality”. I am therefore, still in reality, and I exist in that reality, so I also exist in reality.
4.I must then attempt to understand now two variables, my experienced reality for optimal navigation, as well as a possible core reality, for a true understanding of reality and the biggest picture.
Section 3/4: (If, at all, discreteness even exists and otherwise, what is currently interpreted as such,) This is just an exploration- I hope it can be excused. On experiencing reality discretely, not just classically, and how the seemingly superior external can be seen as a unified experience, due to its stream being lost in deep sleep to an absence of time and reality, and it then regenerating as a returned stream, and being experienced as such as “self and outside”, even in layers of experience, and the implications in terms of it “disappearing and reappearing” as a “unity” in the contrast of deep sleep and the waking state, with a preliminary consideration of how awareness may begin to tie in:
(If, at all, discreteness even exists and otherwise, what is currently interpreted as such,) Discrete experienced reality is witnessed on a nearly daily on average or at least frequent basis, or at least once, naturally, in all known cases including that of Thai Ngocs claim, as he experienced sleep for twenty years as per his claim, barring one for which we have claims but not evidence (Al Herpin), and even with that considered, in nearly 100% of the human experience, in deep sleep, the stream of reality shuts off, and is awakened to upon waking. We establish later how experiencing is an irreducible component as much as experienced reality for a window of human life, and two points to note here are this interruption by deep sleep is a natural feature in most cases and that the stream of reality is then experienced as being superseded by an absence in that window. Automatically, you are the second of at least two variables-a greater reality with patterns and your experienced self with its lesser conscious control over experienced elements, as explained again ahead for convenience in the paragraph prefaced with and followed by an asterisk symbol*, three paragraphs down, but also in a section above that can be revisited (titled Preliminaries before establishing discreteness - Part I). Of course, a third established factor in this duality is your relation to reality/vice versa.
Before we revisit this explanation, let us further explore duality. More than duality (barring this third relation) may not be provable or disprovable yet in our exploration (-I hope to convey ahead how potential disprovability may not negate the point being made about unity justifying our explanation of duality); one small example is you experience your reality as a stream of varying impact on your tools-hearing, feeling, sensing etc- and another alternative view can be you experience a lot of variations, but yet, either way, this stream shuts off in one go in deep sleep (excluding dreams, explained ahead, so we are considering the window of dreamless deep sleep where no stimuli or awareness of time reach the average individuals experience) and this stream returns discretely(holistically) as one upon awakening, as a “unity” of the longest running experienced narrative of reality out of three states -dreams, deep sleep and experienced reality, three levels of perceived reality, one difference between dreams and reality being the loss of coherent time, and the contrast of the stream of reality and deep sleep being magnified most in dreamless sleep, where unity vanishes and then later returns as, initially, a complete unity in one go, and your tools can then, on average, open to it fully in one go, or not- in its return, explained ahead, even if one’s personal senses or tools to experience it fully are not always fully available or activated or tuned to it right away in some cases, which also possibly leads to implications or consequences in terms of “quantum biochemistry or biology” as organic chemistry doesn’t always prove consciousness in an ability to exert influence and classical reality shows, thus far, a lack of evidence of discreteness and yet it is experienced by human consciousness on a near daily basis and the source of human consciousness is from nature, or also from nature, regardless of future possible developments.
Unity can be established via the above, I shall reiterate it here with additional analogies in case a reminder or clarity is required, or you may skip now to the next paragraph. To further elaborate on unity, it may help to revisit the idea of ones discrete experience of reality, such as its absolute perceived absence in deep sleep as mentioned earlier, in that it is perceived as being shut off entirely in deep sleep, where time and other factors are not experienced, and in the human experience, one, on average, awakes to the whole of reality returned as a unity, (side note: whether or not one’s tools adequately receive all of it, the stream of reality is fully present upon waking and the tools to perceive it are then are the varying factor,) no matter how many components you can break reality into in analysis, (like you, a combination of cells and bacteria alongside other things, result in your self perception as a functioning unity.) In other words, that perceived reality, at that point, is “on” or “off” in experience depending on whether one is in the deep sleep state or not, and is so in a unified way, so that no variables or streams consciously reach the individual during the overall absence in deep sleep, thus establishing its “unity” from this perspective, regarding the duality between yourself and this reality, from this perspective. In other words, perceived reality shows, from this perspective, overarching unity in its stream and the interruption of this stream in deep sleep into an experience of absence. It is a separate point but one I wished to add, that “you” experience reality on three seemingly discrete levels- deep sleep, the absence of experienced time and reality, the dream state, and the waking reality state which continues longer term in experience.
A remaining question becomes whether it is, from this angle, unified and a higher awareness is present.
A question (for this exploration) is not whether the entirety of the unity has awareness, or it is, at least, not our question for now. The question is also not whether awareness exists, as Your existing with awareness is evidence of some awareness existing in reality, as well as there being some potential of exploring perceived awareness outside of that in variables that can be interacted with, or perceived as being interacted with, that then respond in ways one is unable to consciously control or completely predict, such as other perceived humans, for example. Our question is different. Our question then becomes whether there is an awareness present that is higher than your own. This is a subject that may require further precision and study to get to logically, if possible, and so will be dealt with in time, but the following notes are some, possibly indirect, and possibly relevant/irrelevant preliminaries, but I wished to include them nonetheless.
The exploration of awareness is a more delicate subject. As a side note, I feel the following may be less controversial than initially perceived to be, and I hope perceived liberties will be forgiven till this is further developed: that this, then, also becomes, for some directions for exploration, not yet and no longer also just establishing whether or not a “God” (without going as far as to imply consciousness and awareness in this case) also may exist, as depending on a definition of Higher, groundwork is present, but perhaps a more clarifying angle is to see, for the secular minded, if higher awareness is present within this duality, as a relationship of experienced inferiority in their reality as a perceived self with limited complete conscious control over externals, to an experienced “external” reality (whether it is or isn’t conscious) that can also be seen as having some form of unity has been established, as evidenced by deep sleep interruptions and the return of that unity upon waking alongside one’s inferior status of conscious complete control and yet its, in conditions, understandability and navigability towards a persons growth etc, but, establishing whether or not there is awareness in this higher factor experienced also as a greater yet not entirely chaotic unity, even if also containing chaos and other things, everyday via the streams unified interruption of deep sleep, is a more delicate subject. Initial points towards this exploration that do not negate or confirm this, but may serve as observations of reality, include that it is a responsive reality (although we can not yet resultantly discern if it is conscious or aware) within limits-interacting with certain limits can bring responses and there is at times a “velcroing” coherence to those too, while some factors do not yield a response we are, on average, aware of thus far into collective knowledge. This interaction resulting in a response alongside it “interacting”-with or without awareness- with you at times, whether consciously or not, also establishes some, at least, two-way relation into a reality that, again I reiterate, has more coherence than before if a window is available and within that, it is understood, observed and/or interacted with sincerely, not just to at times create “meanings” but often also to “understand” what is presenting itself. Whether conscious or not, there are inputs by you and there are also nudges or inputs by the reality-I reiterate this is not proof of conscious awareness and is just an observable phenomenon-, and this is a point of weightage alongside the point of at least some navigability (again, this does not prove conscious awareness, it has only been a factor I considered worth mentioning in establishing base “variables”,) which can increase in domain and learning curves, even if we currently face walls in more complete understanding. A second intuition is that awareness as a general variable absolutely does also exist in this model, as evidenced by your own and from a source not consciously human designed and generated, as far as current knowledge goes, rather it appears in, eg. the human biological womb, following natural processes,, and it is fascinating to me that this awareness can be drawn to certain aspects external reality can present, or have intuitions towards certain aspects later found in external reality, and that certain processes can allow for some fulfillment towards these ends at times, to a more satisfying lived experience at times, but I hesitate to touch upon this too much at the moment, beyond mentioning that this also happens to be the case despite one’s lesser status of complete conscious control from this perspective. It is also interesting to note a human, on average, can experience in awareness that if the external world can be learned from enough, the average human can have at least a perceived experience of awareness then influencing at least some elements of “perceived external reality” (to some extent, at least), but this does seem to show itself regardless. Let’s see how this develops, and till then, let us continue with the rest of our exploration.
*On revisiting the explanation mentioned three paragraphs above, for any wishing to revisit this point, otherwise one may continue to the next paragraph: One factor to elaborate upon the earlier point of one’s lesser conscious control over experienced elements, for any reader not wishing to revisit the section mentioned above, is your lack of complete conscious control over everything manifested in your experience of reality, so that you can learn to adapt to it or even exert influence over it, but are, to an extent, bound to its “rules” too within which one may operate. Yet, as mentioned before but developed further here, an implication that matters here is of its patterns being navigable on average if sincerely observed, understood and interacted with, to not just chaos but also enough order at times one can build upon variables and create things of varying complexity, so there is a “relative Higher” and you within this duality of the unified stream of reality that, on average, shuts off in your experience in deep sleep, and for which you can’t even consciously control or will your moment of waking and sleeping, at least consistently, and yet, as mentioned earlier, it also has paths to understanding more of this higher and navigability and increased understandability within and through it.*
Let us continue to a conclusion that factors in limited rationality and expanded rationality and their roles in understanding reality, in their relation to what we have explored above.
Section 4/4: Conclusion: Establishing base reality and the navigability of experienced reality towards more versus less understanding and optimal interactions, despite your inferior conscious abilities unless it is understood and adapted to:
Preface: Even if this experienced duality is entirely an illusion, there are still at least two variables: 1. Your existence while you experience it 2. That illusion or perception of an illusion and, also an important nuance, one that is absent in deep sleep. At least two variables are still in a humans personal experience of existence, on average. Further, in at least many subjective cases, you awake without conscious control of internal willing to awaking as prior to that, on average, what is remembered as perceived as being experienced is an absence of the longest running stream and its frames and concepts, whether in deep sleep or dreams.
Second, this may seem odd to say but experiencing and awareness of experiencing are two variables. Where I talk about experiencing, I mean to with the nuance of awareness of that experiencing.
1/3 The increasing understandability of reality across multiple domains, the duality of reality in being experienced discretely and the “unity” of experienced external reality as a result, and the significance of experienced consciousness in axioms of physics due to its impact upon other natural variables acting upon a, eg, humans biological body, alongside two possible versions of reality (in case of a simulation) requiring two modes of understanding, and direct perception as a means to understand core reality, irrespective:
1. This order of the possibility of coherence across a spectrum of domains, in understandable paths emerging through genuine exploration and effort, despite your inferior status to reality to the point you can’t consistently control your moment of waking and sleeping points to a relationship of a) possibly navigable and understandable coherence also being present in this perceived external reality and b) at least duality (established via the discreteness of the deep sleep-waking reality contrast of an absence and presence of reality and observable as a unity from at least one perspective, in that
3. with at least human and some other species observed consciousness not being reducible in, from our experience, axioms of physics due to its “naturally arising source” as a variable external to a humans conscious creation, and its ability to exert influence over, eg, its inhabited biological body’s centre of gravity in being able to resist other variables of influence like a planets gravity, towards eg standing upright etc or, as Schrödinger put it, “negative entropy”, lost then at death, best seen in the example of a person standing upright and shot, to losing the ability of consciousness to inhabit that body in resisting other natural “forces” acting upon the body.
4. Further, If there’s a chance we happen to exist in a simulation as Bostroms hypothesis shows overwhelming odds of, two modes of understanding reality become important: one is the experienced reality in order to optimally navigate it, and the second is to note an important implication in existing, which is that, to exist, one is now overlapping with core reality regardless, in one’s existing in a reality, be it in the core or in a simulation run within it.
5. This means that, for a fuller picture, one may have the chance to benefit from this direct overlap by using, for instance, one’s direct perspective (or other possible methods, but at least this as a possible starting point, as this exploration has attempted to do) as an existence with awareness in reality, to try to understand core reality simultaneously,
6. making reality now, for the most complete picture, necessary to be understood on two levels: observed reality (for navigation and possible understanding) and core reality (via, eg direct perception). We have also attempted to, as establishing variables, touch upon
7. preliminaries towards exploration of the variable of awareness and its possible implications and
8. understanding how, even if we exist in a simulation (I call Plato’s simulation),
a) if our simulation emerges from a reality of order, order continues to exist in core reality and even
b) if it emerges from chaos or randomness, randomness or chaos resulted in manifestations of also order or coherence across a spectrum of domains over
bi) experienced, observed reality and
bii) over timescales,
some examples being the quantum to the classical, from ants to ~8 million or more other species, from biological beings to planets and stars, communication, genes, even civilizations and their aspects, mathematics and so on.
Another variable that may deserve its own space is the collective or common shared experience within this complexity outside of conscious control or full conscious awareness, towards further extrapolating what can be experienced of what presents itself as noumena from another angle.
2/3 Rationality/reason sometimes expanding on the ceilings of prior rationality: A second factor of weightage is expanded reason and rationality can and has in the past, if honestly navigated, disproved or expanded upon or corrected for fallacious limits of prior reason and prior rationality to greater practical responses, such as in individual health, ways of thinking, or science, let alone other domains. An artificial ceiling on a search may not therefore be helpful, as truths may be discoverable.
3/3 Increased coherence upon genuine understanding, if a window is provided: This can lead back to the point of increased coherence upon genuine search and observation, such as health being optimized via external pre-existing factors being understood (like the Sun or natural foods or inspiration drawn from the knowledge of observing these external matters) while social matters and civilizational matters can be understood more than before, while even laws of nature can be understood, like physics or biology, towards further human-made creations, as well as understandings of greater pictures, while models of morality, (this is a digression but one I wished to keep in: even if seen by some as imperfect but most deeply and influentially anthropologically seen as being reached by many as those we deem Prophets, or kinds of philosophers, philosophies etc, can, if respected at their highest levels and not reduced to politics or fallacies, provide navigation towards higher human evolution via eg. values of non stealing, hard work, honesty and harmony with healthy self boundaries, as opposed to selfish motives etc yet forgiving and handling matters in more versus less noble ways, even as other functions may also be mentioned) even if one may find some points to disagree with (as one can with science or the law misused or misinterpreted, or taken past its function,) alongside understanding science and its usage in further optimized living, health and its interactions with natural elements, and other variables better all can “Velcro” towards more a optimized lived experience and more optimized understanding negating or disproving prior rationality that believed in certain limits or fallacies before this exploration resulted in an expansion, also resulting in a process of increasing “understandability” emerging, which then would be hard to put a logical ceiling on preemptively.
These are some points I wished to establish as pre axioms for writings to follow.
January 18, 2025
Experiencing as a natural, irreducible variable in reality:
As real as experienced reality is the experiencer or “experiencing” of it, particularly with awareness. The phenomenon of “experiencing” through which a complex “reality” is experienced or observed cannot be negated except to a portion of the picture being excluded, which is that this experiencing also emerged from natural sources. My “living” and experiencing with awareness without in our common understanding us having a source fully created by another human-based conscious source (even if considering a God tbh, as we’re not going that far yet- note: I had clarified via the meta AI app what I mean here and I’m saving that in the next part of this sentence: regardless of where these two variables come from, while I experience them, they are real- I am ending this note here-) makes my experiencing a variable like experienced reality is a variable. Humans may play a part but the arising awareness isn’t entirely “curated” or “invented” by humans, at least in biological offspring, and that makes it and its source a component more of “nature” than a human consciously “plugging in” some energy source, etc. Even if uncovered later or artificially replicated, it has been a “natural”, observed phenomenon that inspired it.
(Below is a simplified version of the above paragraph, done via meta AI. I disagree with the end here, as that’s not framed correctly, but the first half is very accurate, except the nuance of “aware experiencing”- perhaps my prompt could be better :) )
The experience of reality is just as real as the reality itself. The fact that we experience things can't be denied. This experiencing is a natural part of life, and it's a variable that exists alongside the reality we experience.
In other words, my existence and experience are real, regardless of where they come from. This makes my experience a fundamental aspect of reality, just like the world around me.)
We’ve already spoken of how the experiencer in the direct lived human experience, for its window, is an irreducible natural variable alongside or in reality. Evidence is in your existence, a bonus is your awareness of it. A third point is the animation of the biological human body to resisting eg natural “forces” within limits and for some time, observed as lost at death in natural biological cases, and with a “natural” source, as mentioned in section 1/4.
This is established.
Put another way,
Existence is a part of reality, it doesn’t have to be universal - if observed and naturally arising for you to read this and have been created naturally in the case of biological beings (although I don’t exclude extensions, as whenever or whoever reads this, this write up is evidence a biological being also naturally experienced elements and reported on them,) it exists as a component; in some cases, it is also experienced as influencing other aspects of eg physics in doing so via or in humans, as explained in section 1/4..
Now to understanding this variable of existing. We will consider factors experienced not individually but in nearly 100% of all known cases.
- Birth and death perceived in this influence over other forces gained and lost like a biological body’s centre of gravity versus a planets gravity.
- Its interplay with experienced “reality” across a) deep sleep and “waking reality” b) lesser conscious control in waking c) ability to, given time, observation and ability, influence elements of or navigate or create complexity in “waking reality”.
- Its experience beyond reality in dreams or induced experiences via, for example, substances etc.
So, this component or variable that is experience-as for instance humans experience it-is a domain to be explored and not reduced or neglected in the study of important elements of reality (also because there were cases of it naturally arising, whatever happens in the future.) Experience can be a limited tool to trust in objectivity in the case of individual or induced experiences etc but the experiencing itself is irreducible and naturally arising, and factors naturally “universally” experienced by near 100% humans at least once, naturally, like sleep “overriding” the stream of “waking reality” and vice versa, make up another variable we can safely add to components of experience without worrying about the individuality of experience in some cases.
This naturally arising Experience transcending, at times, perceived collectively experienced waking reality is another interesting variable about the nature of this natural variable, experience.
Musings:
It’s not important or observable in a way that matters because it’s experienced as that would not be enough, it’s important because it’s a collective experience, experienced naturally by most human consciousness on either a regular basis in alternating deep sleep-waking states or has been in all reported cases at least once naturally-in Thai Ngocs claimed case, sleep was experienced for his first twenty years, Al Herpins claim was never validated and even with these exceptions considered, it is an experience nearly 100% humans have.
As real as experienced reality is the experiencer or “experiencing” of it. The phenomenon of “experiencing” through which a complex “reality” is experienced or observed cannot be negated except to a portion of the picture being excluded, which is that this experiencing also emerged from natural sources. My “living” and experiencing with awareness without in our common understanding us having a source created by another source (even if considering a God tbh, as we’re not going that far yet) makes my experiencing a variable like experienced reality is a variable. Both, in my non voluntary conscious experience, are irreducible except in deep sleep, another naturally occurring break from reality, however I rationalize it upon waking. Weightage matters here: 1. No natural known, proven case yet of an individual human never experiencing this absence of reality and if so, the experience still being nearly 100% naturally,, 2. reality superseding complete sustained conscious control and 3. experience being a variable also naturally present, and 4. reality becoming limited in the experience of deep sleep or what becomes an absence of experience and yet a return to reality has, on average, been experienced to be able to read this, if a biological human in the current day.
Another way of exploring this,
I can explain experience as natural phenomenon as everything pre-existing is to an extent natural but that explanation cannot reduce the weightage of my “experiencing” in the process - my experiencing remains a variable in reality too, whatever natural biology or biochemistry creates it, the experience now at times can extend itself to further than reality or experience an absence of reality in dream states too that transcends the limits and frames of reality.
Experience thus becomes its own domain for the time it has existence and, let’s say, ability (take the case of drugs etc or dreams,) But where experience overlaps with the waking state and can be verified to near 100% accuracy - in that all known cases barring one claim, Al herpin have experienced naturally at least once or enough times, (the claimed case of Thai Ngoc also stating regular sleep till 20 years of age, thus it was not a case a child was born never needing sleep and even then, the experience would remain experienced by nearly 100% of humans naturally,) the interplay of reality and deep sleep, makes that element of experience irreducible in 1. observed collectively naturally experienced reality, 2. near-universally experienced by the species 3. naturally for our species, whatever changes we artificially make later. This criterion(?) is some groundwork on which observed experienced reality may possibly begin to be gauged.
January 11, 2025
Mr Dalliard! I’ve gone peculiar now!
On the oddity of deep sleep (which is natural and not human made in a humans average experience) superseding the stream of experienced waking reality and also the interplay of the two being “limited” by one another (or deep sleeps interruption of experienced reality)-very rough notes, and the rest of the essay is to be read first for this to be seen correctly as only an additional musing:
The reason I keep, for instance, even my essays as they are, with very helpful AI tools to interpret their message and remove personality (which I love and absolutely encourage, but while preserving a record of the base source), is that I think what emerges biologically (from a human mind), (again, one of my favourite points these days) emerges from a yet unknown, or incompletely understood, natural source. While the same can be said beyond a certain level for even AI, more of the inputs are in our hands. I would hesitate to reduce biological evolution, thought and creations, even as grey areas of sourcing and honesty may become more vague in commercial etc endeavours. It’s why I’ll keep my essay, On Consciousness and Reality, as it is, with the nuances of a biological brain working through thoughts in also uncovering the mysteries of reality. Both, imo, serve different purposes.
Note:
I hope it can be understood that I will be building upon this, InshaAllah (if God wills/ life allows, depending how you wish to interpret that being added, although God is not discussed here, as I haven’t yet logically fully put that together, although it may be close, inshaAllah.) to be very honest, this is also the lore behind my fictional book of poems and the story as it unfolds. There’s more but that hasn’t been shared. I hope that, through the essay, I was able to convey why it matters to explore these connections, and that some variables that may be overlooked or compartmentalized may have merit in also, in some instances, being considered for their overlaps, not just for increased understanding but also towards practical implications of “navigability”.
Comments
Post a Comment