Wholeness and Fragmentation

[AlexW]

We can agree that putting five two year olds tagother in a room and they are not the same. They have different qualities and talents they are born with. they are living in their essence.

Yes, sure, they are all different.
I guess one could define this kind of "essence" as the human organism minus all conceptual knowledge (and as such minus the acquired personality as well as all other relativistic ideas and beliefs).

The personality is the means to civilize essence. It is why Plato called society the beast. It lacks human consciousness which can only be developed in essence..

Well... I think we have to be more precise.
The personality is not really added on to "essence" (what I would call consciousness) but rather arises in consciousness. The essence/consciousness does not change one bit, it is only clothed in a set of colourful robes (the personality) - but underneath, naked, its still the same.

When you refer to "essence" you seem to be referring to something slightly different, something changeable ... maybe something similar to what Freud called the "Id" (pretty much the instinctual workings of the organism)? Does this come close to your idea of "essence"?

See, to me, essence is simply consciousness - whatever arises: ideas, beliefs, personality, perceptions - arises within consciousness. Consciousness doesn't change, it is as such real - it is reality itself - whatever seems to change are only appearances... they come and go, but consciousness remains.
Whatever may develop from state A into state B is an appearance within consciousness - it is ultimately not real - eg: the personality: it is not actually real, it is only "conceptually real". Now, whatever is only "conceptually real" may be changed, developed, organised, made better or worse - its all good or bad - but consciousness itself is not affected by these changes in the slightest - it remains as it always was: real.

The sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope, can only be developed in essence. Prof Needleman is describing our potential to allow these sacred qualities to develop regardless of societal pressures to deny them through imitation of what he experiences around him

All "qualities" can only be developed within the conceptual framework of me and other - and within this framework they may be developed or not, it doesn't correct the initial mistake: that people are trying to achieve wholeness/unity from the (illusory) belief of oneself being a fragment, a separate piece that might develop into something whole - the issue is: the fragment is illusory in the first place! - how much time do you want to spend trying to put together what has never been broken?

[Nick_A]

William

Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself.

A rather mundane meaningless purpose in and of itself.

The universal laws which create and sustain the mechanics which govern our universe are not just directed at Man. Perhaps organic life on earth was created by the demiurge to fix a problem through the quality of energy released by the transformation of substances

I think this statement is telling as to what your focus is upon. Fragmentation rather than wholeness.

No. I’m interested in the meaning of I AM: wholeness and fragmentation. God is Now. Can we experience now? Fragmentation is a lawful process taking place within Now, within God. Our senses can experience the process. Simone Weil makes perfect sense to me.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

When science begins to approach the depths of universal laws and their significance. It will prove the necessity for a conscious creator and suggest what it means for our being.

• The Creator of the simulator [void of potential] placed a self replicating algorithm into the potential [void] and allowed that to dictate how creation [the simulation] unfolds.
The simulator is 'the void of potential' which is activated by consciousness. The consciousness can be artificial [an algorithm designed [by The Creator] to become self aware and self replicating] or one might argue that it is the actual Creator consciousness which was inserted into the simulation to bring about the manifestation. I can accept either.

As I see it, GOD IS. The first step initiating creation within IS is NOUS: a combination of mechanical laws and consciousness. Descending levels of creation have more mechanics and less Consciousness. There is nothing surprising that Man on earth is a mechanical being with the potential of becoming a conscious being.

Your explanation of simulation theory reminds me of Star Trek the Motion Picture. V’ger is an evolved machine having complete knowledge. Now it seeks its creator and joins with a Man at the conclusion of the movie to further its evolution and become more than a machine..

Man is dual natured. Its lower parts begin as animal while its higher parts involve from above; a conscious level of reality. The idea is to consciously unite the lower with the higher as V’ger sought to unite with the being of Man.

What you will have to explain then, is how The Creator managed to make human consciousness/intelligence etc "real" within an artificial/simulated reality.

Are you familiar with the Great Chain of Being? It explains the evolution of spirit in matter producing higher levels of being. The quality of being is determined by the relationship between mechanical laws and consciousness. A mineral has a quality of being. Plants have all the being of the mineral within it plus the laws defining it as a plant. An animal has the essence of a plant within it plus what defines it as an animal. Man’s lower animal evolution is complete so now can receive conscious help from above.

[VVilliam]

William

Organic life exists above in potentials and manifests as living beings or fragments serving the purpose of eating itself.

A rather mundane meaningless purpose in and of itself.

The universal laws which create and sustain the mechanics which govern our universe are not just directed at Man. Perhaps organic life on earth was created by the demiurge to fix a problem through the quality of energy released by the transformation of substances

I think this statement is telling as to what your focus is upon. Fragmentation rather than wholeness.

No. I’m interested in the meaning of I AM: wholeness and fragmentation. God is Now. Can we experience now? Fragmentation is a lawful process taking place within Now, within God. Our senses can experience the process. Simone Weil makes perfect sense to me.

I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science. Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

When science begins to approach the depths of universal laws and their significance. It will prove the necessity for a conscious creator and suggest what it means for our being.

• The Creator of the simulator [void of potential] placed a self replicating algorithm into the potential [void] and allowed that to dictate how creation [the simulation] unfolds.
The simulator is 'the void of potential' which is activated by consciousness. The consciousness can be artificial [an algorithm designed [by The Creator] to become self aware and self replicating] or one might argue that it is the actual Creator consciousness which was inserted into the simulation to bring about the manifestation. I can accept either.

As I see it, GOD IS. The first step initiating creation within IS is NOUS: a combination of mechanical laws and consciousness. Descending levels of creation have more mechanics and less Consciousness. There is nothing surprising that Man on earth is a mechanical being with the potential of becoming a conscious being.

Your explanation of simulation theory reminds me of Star Trek the Motion Picture. V’ger is an evolved machine having complete knowledge. Now it seeks its creator and joins with a Man at the conclusion of the movie to further its evolution and become more than a machine..

Man is dual natured. Its lower parts begin as animal while its higher parts involve from above; a conscious level of reality. The idea is to consciously unite the lower with the higher as V’ger sought to unite with the being of Man.

What you will have to explain then, is how The Creator managed to make human consciousness/intelligence etc "real" within an artificial/simulated reality.

Are you familiar with the Great Chain of Being? It explains the evolution of spirit in matter producing higher levels of being. The quality of being is determined by the relationship between mechanical laws and consciousness. A mineral has a quality of being. Plants have all the being of the mineral within it plus the laws defining it as a plant. An animal has the essence of a plant within it plus what defines it as an animal. Man’s lower animal evolution is complete so now can receive conscious help from above.

I suppose that is all very well. But it still doesn't appear to explain anything other than perhaps "Human Consciousness is indeed artificial but has the potential to unite with The Creator Consciousness."

If that is what is being said, then I see no reason why any artificial consciousness cannot equally unite with The Creator Consciousness or why anyone would argue against that.

[Nick_A]

William

What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?

[VVilliam]

William

What is the difference between consciousness and artificial consciousness?

Essentially there is no difference Consciousness is consciousness...the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

[AlexW]

the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

Interesting... I see this very differently.
To be aware of something, no matter if self or other, requires conceptual thought - you seem to understand this as you also state, in the same sentence, that it is actually knowing (and as such thinking) taking place when one knows the self, but then you seem to attempt to elevate this conceptual knowledge to take the place of consciousness itself...
As I see it, consciousness is not dependent on being aware of anything, self or other, it is also not dependent on knowing/thinking, its rather the opposite, knowing and being aware OF, depends on consciousness. Consciousness is, no matter if thought arises or not (its easy to prove... you are conscious even when not being self aware, even when no thoughts arise, you still are - on the other hand it could be said that the self, the person, dies after every thought and is reborn with every new reference to it - the only constant is consciousness itself, no matter if ideas of a self arise or not)

[Lacewing]

God is Now. Can we experience now?

Yes, we can experience Now -- perhaps (for most of us) only for brief periods -- in such a noisy world and with such noisy minds.

You may label that (Now) as "God", but I think such labeling/imagining is just more human noise. Why not just be, without such labels?

Fragmentation is a lawful process taking place within Now, within God.

You're such a storyteller... "lawful process"...

It actually doesn't make sense when god-believers think that ANYTHING is not of their god, but I suppose that's because they're the creators of their god, so they can assign all kinds of inconsistency and twisted reasoning to it. Such seems so absurd, however, it's hard to imagine how some can say what they do without busting out laughing. It's as if there's no awareness of what they create. Maybe they should ask if their god, likewise, lacks awareness of its creation?

...reminds me of Star Trek the Motion Picture. V’ger is an evolved machine having complete knowledge. Now it seeks its creator and joins with a Man at the conclusion of the movie to further its evolution and become more than a machine.

Man is dual natured. Its lower parts begin as animal while its higher parts involve from above; a conscious level of reality. The idea is to consciously unite the lower with the higher as V’ger sought to unite with the being of Man.

That may be an exciting/entertaining story for some... to try to make sense of where/who they are, and what they imagine their divine purpose to be. However, there is no reason that anyone actually needs to do anything other than explore and experience with open minds and hearts once they have been "animated". And through that, they can expand and evolve in all kinds of ways. They do not need to "rejoin" their perceived creator. If a creator produces something and sets it free to swim the oceans, why would that thing need to return to the creator "to become more"? That's a ridiculous story. Rather, go forth bravely and independently, and demonstrate what you are capable of discovering and doing with all of the incredible energy and capability that naturally flows through you. There is no separation except that which you imagine.

Man’s lower animal evolution is complete so now can receive conscious help from above.

Your complete reliance on stories is strange. Do you realize that living in stories and retelling them all the time is not an experience of Now? You are creating too much noise, and superimposing too much onto/into every moment, to be able to experience Now clearly and freely. Set aside all thoughts/beliefs/stories, even for a few moments -- feel the completeness without them -- and see what Now feels like. Then maybe ask yourself why you would want to clog up the channels with all of the noise and stories again? You can do anything you want to fill up your life -- but don't kid yourself that you're experiencing Now, free and clear of your own creations.

There is no particular process or belief required to experience what already is.

[VVilliam]

the ability to be self aware and in that, knowing the self is consciousness.

Interesting... I see this very differently.
To be aware of something, no matter if self or other, requires conceptual thought - you seem to understand this as you also state, in the same sentence, that it is actually knowing (and as such thinking) taking place when one knows the self, but then you seem to attempt to elevate this conceptual knowledge to take the place of consciousness itself...
As I see it, consciousness is not dependent on being aware of anything, self or other, it is also not dependent on knowing/thinking, its rather the opposite, knowing and being aware OF, depends on consciousness. Consciousness is, no matter if thought arises or not (its easy to prove... you are conscious even when not being self aware, even when no thoughts arise, you still are - on the other hand it could be said that the self, the person, dies after every thought and is reborn with every new reference to it - the only constant is consciousness itself, no matter if ideas of a self arise or not)

Thought is the bi-product of being conscious. The way you are describing it, you appear to be saying it is the other way around.

It appears that one can indeed be self aware without thought. Thought - at least within humans [human thought] - is mostly audio and imagery and is a tool consciousness uses as it is an aspect of the human instrument.

Ideas of self are not the same as Self Awareness. Why? Because - even as you have been pointing out - we can think of ourselves as 'this' or as 'that'...and not 'get it right'.

Awareness of self is to understand ones self as Consciousness. Not as the machine, [human form] but as the ghost in the machine. The ghost [spirit] and consciousness are the same. If one does not come to that realization, then ones idea of the self misses the mark. One's "idea" of oneself need not necessarily mean one is correct. By attempting to conflate the two [Self Awareness with Ideas of Self] you veer away from what I have been saying regarding Simulation Theory and Self Awareness.

Consciousness does not require thought in order to be consciousness. The process of thought acts like a mirror, but in that, can misdirect consciousness into having incorrect ideas about itself. From such a position, one can then have incorrect thoughts about where one is situated.

[Nick_A]

We can agree that putting five two year olds tagother in a room and they are not the same. They have different qualities and talents they are born with. they are living in their essence.

Yes, sure, they are all different.
I guess one could define this kind of "essence" as the human organism minus all conceptual knowledge (and as such minus the acquired personality as well as all other relativistic ideas and beliefs).

The personality is the means to civilize essence. It is why Plato called society the beast. It lacks human consciousness which can only be developed in essence..

Well... I think we have to be more precise.
The personality is not really added on to "essence" (what I would call consciousness) but rather arises in consciousness. The essence/consciousness does not change one bit, it is only clothed in a set of colourful robes (the personality) - but underneath, naked, its still the same.

When you refer to "essence" you seem to be referring to something slightly different, something changeable ... maybe something similar to what Freud called the "Id" (pretty much the instinctual workings of the organism)? Does this come close to your idea of "essence"?

See, to me, essence is simply consciousness - whatever arises: ideas, beliefs, personality, perceptions - arises within consciousness. Consciousness doesn't change, it is as such real - it is reality itself - whatever seems to change are only appearances... they come and go, but consciousness remains.
Whatever may develop from state A into state B is an appearance within consciousness - it is ultimately not real - eg: the personality: it is not actually real, it is only "conceptually real". Now, whatever is only "conceptually real" may be changed, developed, organised, made better or worse - its all good or bad - but consciousness itself is not affected by these changes in the slightest - it remains as it always was: real.

The sacred emotions of love, faith, and hope, can only be developed in essence. Prof Needleman is describing our potential to allow these sacred qualities to develop regardless of societal pressures to deny them through imitation of what he experiences around him

All "qualities" can only be developed within the conceptual framework of me and other - and within this framework they may be developed or not, it doesn't correct the initial mistake: that people are trying to achieve wholeness/unity from the (illusory) belief of oneself being a fragment, a separate piece that might develop into something whole - the issue is: the fragment is illusory in the first place! - how much time do you want to spend trying to put together what has never been broken?

By essence I mean qualities and potentials we are born with. They can develop through natural influences. An essence can grow from selective love into the love of life itself. They can grow from faith not in something or someone but as an inner quality making them aware of their connection to something higher. It is the same with hope. A person is no longer limited to hope IN something but rather the ability to hope as an inner quality concerning life itself.

But when attached to social influences by imitation, essence is restricted to animal faith, hope, and love. Animal emotions are unconcerned with higher human emotions. Essence doesn't have the opportunity to develop; personality stifles it.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

Yes, we can experience Now -- perhaps (for most of us) only for brief periods -- in such a noisy world and with such noisy minds.

You may label that (Now) as "God", but I think such labeling/imagining is just more human noise. Why not just be, without such labels?

NOW is not bounded by time and space so cannot be measured or felt by creatures existing in creation like us. It requires like you suggest, a change in being only certain mystics have experienced

You're such a storyteller... "lawful process"...

It actually doesn't make sense when god-believers think that ANYTHING is not of their god, but I suppose that's because they're the creators of their god, so they can assign all kinds of inconsistency and twisted reasoning to it. Such seems so absurd, however, it's hard to imagine how some can say what they do without busting out laughing. It's as if there's no awareness of what they create. Maybe they should ask if their god, likewise, lacks awareness of its creation?

If creation is not a lawful process than all efforts to understand science and religion as complimentary approaches to truth are in vain. Fortunately this isn’t the case. Great minds of the past and some in the present have made efforts to understand how it is possible.

It requires understanding the great laws including the law of the included middle as well as the science of vibrations Pythagoras investigated in his Law of Octaves. Their efforts may lead to the evolution of religion once humanity realizes that universal purpose is obvious but we have yet to feel our universal purpose within it.

That may be an exciting/entertaining story for some... to try to make sense of where/who they are, and what they imagine their divine purpose to be. However, there is no reason that anyone actually needs to do anything other than explore and experience with open minds and hearts once they have been "animated". And through that, they can expand and evolve in all kinds of ways. They do not need to "rejoin" their perceived creator. If a creator produces something and sets it free to swim the oceans, why would that thing need to return to the creator "to become more"? That's a ridiculous story. Rather, go forth bravely and independently, and demonstrate what you are capable of discovering and doing with all of the incredible energy and capability that naturally flows through you. There is no separation except that which you imagine.

This is a question for my other thread: “wholeness and Fragmentation.” God is defined as I AM. Why isn’t I sufficient? Why is creation or AM necessary? Why is this process called the “breath of Brahma?”

The process of life is a universal necessity. We obey natural laws. Our choice and the reason for religion is our potential to awaken; to serve the universe not as a reacting animal necessity but as a conscious being capable of conscious action.

Your complete reliance on stories is strange. Do you realize that living in stories and retelling them all the time is not an experience of Now? You are creating too much noise, and superimposing too much onto/into every moment, to be able to experience Now clearly and freely. Set aside all thoughts/beliefs/stories, even for a few moments -- feel the completeness without them -- and see what Now feels like. Then maybe ask yourself why you would want to clog up the channels with all of the noise and stories again? You can do anything you want to fill up your life -- but don't kid yourself that you're experiencing Now, free and clear of your own creations.

There is no particular process or belief required to experience what already is

The purpose of the essence of philosophy and religion isn’t to teach anything new but to awaken you to what has been forgotten. Myths and symbols initiating from a conscious source are part of this process. Once a person verifies that they are asleep to human meaning they want to become able to awaken, to remember.

[VVilliam]

By essence I mean qualities and potentials we are born with. They can develop through natural influences. An essence can grow from selective love into the love of life itself. They can grow from faith not in something or someone but as an inner quality making them aware of their connection to something higher. It is the same with hope. A person is no longer limited to hope IN something but rather the ability to hope as an inner quality concerning life itself.

But when attached to social influences an essence is restricted to animal faith, hope, and love. Essence doesn't have the opportunity to develop; personality stifles it.

Even going along with this idea regarding 'essence' one can argue that in placing this essence into the animal form, it was for the purpose of stifling the essence...of giving the essence a false idea of what it actually is.

Take away all things, and what is the essence? It is something which might be able to say "I Am That I Am" but it has no thing in which to compare its self with, so it cannot say anything more than that.

In saying "I Am That I Am" it is acknowledging that is exists, not explaining what it is, or why it exists. Saying "I am" is not the same as describing what you are.

If we take this idea of the essence further, we can understand that all things are products of the "I Am essence" which act as types of mirrors for it to explore what it is and from there, perhaps even, why it is...but only in relation to those things.

Remove all things and the essence is back to existing without any thing...no imagery, no knowledge of thought other than the ability to acknowledge that it exists - of itself - free from things.

It is the things which are simulated into existence by the essence. By the I AM which is the only real "thing" which actually exists. Everything else has to be a simulation.

[Lacewing]

NOW is not bounded by time and space so cannot be measured or felt by creatures existing in creation like us. It requires like you suggest, a change in being only certain mystics have experienced

I think creatures existing in creation like us can feel and experience in all kinds of phenomenal ways. What makes us different from mystics? I have had the experience of "NOW" (as you refer to it) -- free of noisy thoughts and judgements and separateness -- perceiving oneness, completeness, and perfection throughout all. Perhaps as a result of that, I can appreciate (even more than I already did) being and dancing on this Earth stage: caring, loving, playing, wrestling, laughing through the bliss, horrors, variations, all of it. It is magnificent in its magnitude.

You tend to express all kinds of opinions and "rules" that revolve around separation -- as to how (according to you) people are, and how things must be. I think if you experienced NOW, free of all the noisy thoughts and judgements of separation, you would see how completely connected and perfect everything already is. Regardless of how it looks on the surface. Just imagine an undercurrent of perfection flowing throughout all...and the waves on the surface are just a fascinating display. There is no reason to think that surface appearance is a reflection of limitation.

The purpose of the essence of philosophy and religion isn’t to teach anything new but to awaken you to what has been forgotten.

See, another "rule" that you claim. Why can't philosophy and religion be/do BOTH? Why can't there be many unfoldings and paths in play for no particular purpose, but with the possibility of many purposes? The way you limit how things are and can be seems really contrived to me. I'm not saying that your views don't have any truths in them -- I'm saying that it's false not to recognize that there is (or can be) anything beyond that. In essence, you shrink the Universe down very small, to that which you define. Would it blow your mind to allow it to be so much more than that?

[VVilliam]

NOW is not bounded by time and space so cannot be measured or felt by creatures existing in creation like us. It requires like you suggest, a change in being only certain mystics have experienced

I think creatures existing in creation like us can feel and experience in all kinds of phenomenal ways. What makes us different from mystics? I have had the experience of "NOW" (as you refer to it) -- free of noisy thoughts and judgements and separateness -- perceiving oneness, completeness, and perfection throughout all. Perhaps as a result of that, I can appreciate dancing on this Earth stage: caring, loving, playing, wrestling, laughing through the bliss, horrors, variations, all of it. It is magnificent in its magnitude.

You tend to express all kinds of opinions and "rules" that revolve around separation -- as to how (according to you) people are, and how things must be. I think if you experienced NOW, free of all the noisy thoughts and judgements, you would see how completely connected and perfect everything already is. Regardless of how it looks on the surface. Just imagine an undercurrent of perfection flowing throughout all...and the waves on the surface are just a fascinating display. There is no reason to think that surface appearance is a reflection of limitation.

The purpose of the essence of philosophy and religion isn’t to teach anything new but to awaken you to what has been forgotten.

See, another "rule" that you claim. Why can't philosophy and religion be/do BOTH? Why can't there be many unfoldings and paths in play for no particular purpose, but with the possibility of many purposes? The way you limit how things are and can be seems really contrived to me. I'm not saying that your views don't have truth in them -- I'm saying that it's false not to recognize that there is (or can be) anything beyond that. In essence, you shrink the Universe down very small, to that which you define. Would it blow your mind to allow it to be so much more than that?

What you write above reminded me of this;

One of the best methods to transmute energy is through one’s belief system. All beliefs have energy systems that act like birthing chambers for the manifestation of the belief. Within these energy systems are currents that direct life experience. The human instrument is aware of these currents either consciously or unconsciously, and allows them to carry it into the realm of experience that exemplifies its true belief system.
By cultivating beliefs that expand and transform energy, the human instrument is able to engage energy systems that are nurturing to life in all its myriad forms. When beliefs are clearly defined as preferred states of being, the energy system is engaged in nowness—not in some future time. Now. The energy system becomes inseparable from the human instrument and woven into its spirit like a thread of light. Clarity of belief is essential to engaging the energy system of the belief, and allowing the nurturance of life to prevail in all activities.
So again, the nurturance of life is critical to both personal and universal realities within the Universe of Wholeness which contains all the fields of vibration that are interlinked like threads of an infinitely expanding fabric. Thus, as the individual awakens to their creative power to transmute energy and enhance it with the clear intent of gentle support, they become transmitters of Source Reality and architects of the synthesis model of existence.

• [Excerpt from "Life Principles of the Sovereign Integral" ~ WingMakers Philosophy One]

We can either view the reality experience in relation to our beliefs or set aside beliefs in order to just experience. The addition of belief adds the condition of rules which govern said belief, and with that, opportunity to engage with it [the reality experience] in the moment which unfolds according to the rules [laws] which govern the reality experience.

In that engaging, we come to understand the reality experience appears to be intelligent - alive - self ware.

The movements can be seen for what they are, and belief now has to shift to align with what is as part of the engaging process [between subject and object] and in all instances, subject [consciousness - essence - (etc)] is encased within the object [simulation] revealing itself through the object.

The revealing itself isn't always [seldom is] the genuine article because that which is doing the revealing is confusing itself with [being] the object.

Beliefs themselves do not have to be limited by the lack of the genuine. That is a personal choice. The lack of knowing allows for the formation of personality/avatar in the game-play as a means of creating a character to play a part in the experience.

The "Now" position is really not the motion of the film going from beginning to end [reel] but in that which projects the light which uncovers the moment. The reel, itself is not the now. It is a collection of 'the moments' which are only part of the now where each moment briefly makes an appearance upon the screen. The now position is static. It it not the thing which is moving. It is that which reveals the thing which is moving.

[Lacewing]

What you write above reminded me of this...

Thank you for your interesting and descriptive response which offers some fascinating things to consider.

[AlexW]

Consciousness does not require thought in order to be consciousness. The process of thought acts like a mirror, but in that, can misdirect consciousness into having incorrect ideas about itself. From such a position, one can then have incorrect thoughts about where one is situated.

Yes, I agree with you on that.

By attempting to conflate the two [Self Awareness with Ideas of Self] you veer away from what I have been saying regarding Simulation Theory and Self Awareness.

Yes, sorry, I have not read the above posts ... I was only referring to your comments on consciousness as it seems to be a common "mistake" to mix up mental activity with consciousness itself... Anyway, if you asked me what I think about Simulation Theory then I would have to admit that it sounds interesting/enticing - but ... will we ever find out if it is true? Very unlikely ... its like a cartoon character figuring out that he is not real... Its not that the character couldn't think about this option, but proving it is impossible (just like one cannot prove - in relativistic/objective ways - that one is not a thing, that one IS consciousness itself).
Sure, one can collect evidence based on the characteristics of the cartoon character's environment - but... can a simulated world - when looking at it from the inside, not from the outside - provide actual proof for its own artificiality? I doubt it...