If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

That's really what I wanted to know.

Of course I'm not saying it is perfect - nothing ever is apart from abstractions like a perfect circle or some mathematical equations. But it will have a different set of issues to Wikipedia, so as a minimum it could be considered complementary. Though the problems with the latter seem to centre on it being something of a battle for control by different factions, which isn't something which commends it apart from on benign subjects which tend to be left alone.

Isn't that just plain obfuscation?

You start with a world that contains no consciousness.

Then somehow this non-conscious world creates an idea (like teacups or radios or clocks have ideas perhaps) that it must be conscious (a lot more details about this step might help).

This idea is then received by another part of the non-conscious world, and voila - we have illusory consciousness!

The existence of an individual discrete consciousness (like we all experience) doesn't necessitate the existence of a self as western people think of the self. 

This is the Buddhist perspective.

We are conscious distinct individuals. That consciousness exists in this life and continues through rebirth and karma (the consequences of one's actions) follows it through rebirth.

However that individual consciousness is just an impersonal process of cause and effect. You can see this operating in your own mind if you observe how one thought, emotion, impulse, or sensory experience, leads to another by association, or memory recall, or analysis, until something comes and changes the line of thinking. Different unconscious processes produce thoughts emotions impulses, sometimes they contradict each other, sometimes they work at cross purposes. You don't choose your emotions, you don't see how each individual thought is constructed - there would be infinite recursion if you could observe yourself constructing your thoughts. The feeling of being, the sense of being an observer, the feeling of having free will, the self image, etc also come from these unconscious processes they are not different from any other thought or feeling.

And if there were nothing to see there would be no consciousness of sight. Same for sound, taste, touch, bodily sensations, thoughts etc. Consciousness depends on the environment for its existence. You can't have consciousness without something to be conscious of.

It is like a wave in water. It is distinct, it has individuality, but you can't separate it from the water.

Consciousness exists as we experience it, it continues after the death of the body, but the self is not what we think it is. There isn't a thing that is a personal self, there are only impersonal phenomena that act like pixels to produce an image of a self.

And this does not change how we experience existence - whether we understand it or not we are having the experience we are having. You don't disappear or go unconscious if you change your opinion of what self is. You still experience consciousness as an individual in the world you are in. You still love and appreciate beauty. Does it matter that an individual brain cell functions according to impersonal natural law? Does it invalidate love and beauty?

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2023/12/do-b...-soul.html

The existence of an individual discrete consciousness (like we all experience) doesn't necessitate the existence of a self as western people think of the self. 

This is the Buddhist perspective.

We are conscious distinct individuals. That consciousness exists in this life and continues through rebirth and karma (the consequences of one's actions) follows it through rebirth.

However that individual consciousness is just an impersonal process of cause and effect. You can see this operating in your own mind if you observe how one thought, emotion, impulse, or sensory experience, leads to another by association, or memory recall, or analysis, until something comes and changes the line of thinking. Different unconscious processes produce thoughts emotions impulses, sometimes they contradict each other, sometimes they work at cross purposes. You don't choose your emotions, you don't see how each individual thought is constructed - there would be infinite recursion if you could observe yourself constructing your thoughts. The feeling of being, the sense of being an observer, the feeling of having free will, the self image, etc also come from these unconscious processes they are not different from any other thought or feeling.

And if there were nothing to see there would be no consciousness of sight. Same for sound, taste, touch, bodily sensations, thoughts etc. Consciousness depends on the environment for its existence. You can't have consciousness without something to be conscious of.

It is like a wave in water. It is distinct, it has individuality, but you can't separate it from the water.

Consciousness exists as we experience it, it continues after the death of the body, but the self is not what we think it is. There isn't a thing that is a personal self, there are only impersonal phenomena that act like pixels to produce an image of a self.

And this does not change how we experience existence - whether we understand it or not we are having the experience we are having. You don't disappear or go unconscious if you change your opinion of what self is. You still experience consciousness as an individual in the world you are in. You still love and appreciate beauty. Does it matter that an individual brain cell functions according to impersonal natural law? Does it invalidate love and beauty?

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2023/12/do-b...-soul.html

I prefer to go with the trusty old Descartian declaration and profound realization, "I think therefore I am". "I AM" is the existential declaration of the core of the real personal Self that recognizes its own certain self-existence, and the realization that this real unique conscious Self is an inviolable unique real core entity having purpose, and is the essence of the Soul. No real Self - then no Soul. If there is really no such thing as the personal Self and the Soul, then the essence of our being as humans also doesn't really exist either - it must be an illusion of some sort. But you say it is "an impersonal process of cause and effect". Then what is it that is having that illusion?

And according to this metaphysic there can't be any real purposes for incarnation, such as the proposed Soul learning, etc. Incarnation would be pointless - a very poor design of reality. After all, what's the point of all the learning, struggle, etc. of life, if there really isn't any such thing as a unique personal Self to accomplish that learning, only at base, merely impersonal phenomena? This philosophy seems to be a sort of ultimate metaphysical nihilistic reductionism.

And oh yes, there is a boatload of actual physical evidence for reincarnation from generations of dedicated research into memories occuring in and telltale birthmarks and birth defects occuring on small children that can be traced to prior physical lives on Earth. How do you explain that if there is not a real Self that is reincarnating?

I prefer to go with the trusty old Descartian declaration and profound realization, "I think therefore I am". "I AM" is the existential declaration of the core of the real personal Self that recognizes its own certain self-existence, and the realization that this real unique conscious Self is an inviolable unique real core entity having purpose, and is the essence of the Soul. No real Self - then no Soul. If there is really no such thing as the personal Self and the Soul, then the essence of our being as humans also doesn't really exist either - it must be an illusion of some sort. But you say it is "an impersonal process of cause and effect". Then what is it that is having that illusion?

And according to this metaphysic there can't be any real purposes for incarnation, such as the proposed Soul learning, etc. Incarnation would be pointless - a very poor design of reality. After all, what's the point of all the learning, struggle, etc. of life, if there really isn't any such thing as a unique personal Self to accomplish that learning, only at base, merely impersonal phenomena? This philosophy seems to be a sort of ultimate metaphysical nihilistic reductionism.

And oh yes, there is a boatload of actual physical evidence for reincarnation from generations of dedicated research into memories occuring in and telltale birthmarks and birth defects occuring on small children that can be traced to prior physical lives on Earth. How do you explain that if there is not a real Self that is reincarnating?

I think we agree on many of the important points.

I'm not saying that individual consciousness doesn't exist.

We are conscious, that is obvious, as Descartes declared.

I wrote in the post you quoted that "consciousness continues through rebirth".

I didn't say "there is no personal self" I wrote "there isn't thing that is a personal self".

How you define self is an opinion.
It isn't something right or wrong.

But I think most people will agree we don't consciously choose our emotions, or see how our thoughts are formed before they pop into consciousness etc.


What I wrote that might be controversial is that when people contemplate by repeatedly observing in their mind that they don't really choose emotions or construct thoughts, the result is that they find they become less attached to their emotions, their thoughts, their opinions. They don't overreact to emotions. They become less attached to the self, the ego diminishes. Feelings of distinguishing self from other diminish. It is not something that one can debate and say is true or false, it is a feeling an emotion. What is true is that many people throughout history and in most cultures have found this effect of meditation to occur.

How should one define the self?

Is it the body? We control the body, but we also can control a car. The body also does many things beyond our control, it heals, it digests, it ages, is suffers disease etc.

Is the mind the self? We don't choose our emotions or see how our thoughts are formed.

Are we only awareness observing? The feeling or idea of being an observer is no different from any other thought or feeling that we have no control over.

So what is the self?

The self is whatever, in your opinion you believe it is.

But people who go through the analysis I summarized above can't answer the question, but they also avoid a lot of suffering because they are not attached to the self so while insult, injury or misfortune may happen, it doesn't feel like it is happening to them. And that doesn't mean they ignore problems, it means they can react with compassion and wisdom instead of selfish emotions. They are not nihilists or numb. They still love their family and enjoy a sunset.

I think we agree on many of the important points.

I'm not saying that individual consciousness doesn't exist.

We are conscious, that is obvious, as Descartes declared.

I wrote in the post you quoted that "consciousness continues through rebirth".

I didn't say "there is no personal self" I wrote "there isn't thing that is a personal self".

How you define self is an opinion.
It isn't something right or wrong.

But I think most people will agree we don't consciously choose our emotions, or see how our thoughts are formed before they pop into consciousness etc.


What I wrote that might be controversial is that when people contemplate by repeatedly observing in their mind that they don't really choose emotions or construct thoughts, the result is that they find they become less attached to their emotions, their thoughts, their opinions. They don't overreact to emotions. They become less attached to the self, the ego diminishes. Feelings of distinguishing self from other diminish. It is not something that one can debate and say is true or false, it is a feeling an emotion. What is true is that many people throughout history and in most cultures have found this effect of meditation to occur.

How should one define the self?

Is it the body? We control the body, but we also can control a car. The body also does many things beyond our control, it heals, it digests, it ages, is suffers disease etc.

Is the mind the self? We don't choose our emotions or see how our thoughts are formed.

Are we only awareness observing? The feeling or idea of being an observer is no different from any other thought or feeling that we have no control over.

So what is the self?

The self is whatever, in your opinion you believe it is.

But people who go through the analysis I summarized above can't answer the question, but they also avoid a lot of suffering because they are not attached to the self so while insult, injury or misfortune may happen, it doesn't feel like it is happening to them. And that doesn't mean they ignore problems, it means they can react with compassion and wisdom instead of selfish emotions. They are not nihilists or numb. They still love their family and enjoy a sunset.

Thanks for further explaining your position. My interpretation is that after the analysis you describe and its internalization, there still is a central core entity "you" and this "you" necessarily speaks from it, but it is an entity that is simplified and refined and much closer to the essential core of the soul itself. There is still a "self" of a sort, but it is divested of many of the trappings of the human being self which identifies itself with its physical body and the sensations of that body and therefore suffers excessively when that body is damaged (physical pain is now much closer to being just another sensation and not associated with suffering), the human being self that can feel insulted and angry when verbally or physically attacked, deprived and trapped when imprisoned, etc. It is now a relatively spiritually advanced self that can live much more according to the precepts of the soul for the human, which are kindness, compassion and love.

For what it's worth, it looks to me like this interpretation might explain the conundrum of so-called "soul choice" of upcoming incarnate human lives and how a being could choose ones that will involve great suffering for itself. This refined core soul entity is possibly the being that can make such decisions and choices of upcoming physical lives of its incarnations that probably will inevitably lead to much human suffering. As mentioned, it itself will not significantly or intensely suffer with the human.

The purely human interpretation of this could certainly be that it is unfair to the human, but this is certainly a complex matter that has many sides to it.

Of course the materialist clinical psychologist or psychiatrist would interpret these changes in a psychotherapeutic model where these changes would be seen as abnormal mental conditions of depersonalization and dissociation, but we can ignore such ignorant notions from a psychiatric "expert" who doesn't even recognize the reality and existence of the soul and its spiritual nature.

I think, it's obvious that we are conscious. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am".

We can't prove somebody else is conscious but we certainly can see that they look like us,
we can theoretecially alter our consciousness or theirs by poking areas of the brain.

So, apparently, I'm a biological robot. So, what of it? Are you lesser of an entity because of that?

Is the world less bizarre?

The existence of medical placebo arises from the observation that our mind can harm/heal the rest of our bodies.

We experience so much.

This thread focuses on this? Material consciousness. How is it different from any other kind?

If we are robots why does it have to be biological?