Degrees of Consciousness

[hollowed]

I’ve been entertaining the possibility that what we call consciousness is not a uniform experience. Not that some people lack consciousness, but that some seem to inhabit it far less reflectively.

I find myself perpetually analyzing, anticipating, deconstructing, and observing my own thought. Yet others appear to move through existence almost entirely by habit, responding rather than examining, experiencing rather than interpreting.

Perhaps the distinction is not between those who think and those who do not, but between those who remain aware of the machinery of their own thought and those who simply inhabit its conclusions.

And if that is true, then what we casually call “being conscious” may conceal an enormous spectrum of inner experience that we have no reliable way of perceiving in one another.

 

[Stalker]

nigga has his third eye opened and shiet

 

[DrRodger]

Dnr

 

[taylorhillshusband]

dnr

 

[avena]

 

[rollthefuckingdice]

I’ve been entertaining the possibility that what we call consciousness is not a uniform experience. Not that some people lack consciousness, but that some seem to inhabit it far less reflectively.

I find myself perpetually analyzing, anticipating, deconstructing, and observing my own thought. Yet others appear to move through existence almost entirely by habit, responding rather than examining, experiencing rather than interpreting.

Perhaps the distinction is not between those who think and those who do not, but between those who remain aware of the machinery of their own thought and those who simply inhabit its conclusions.

And if that is true, then what we casually call “being conscious” may conceal an enormous spectrum of inner experience that we have no reliable way of perceiving in one another.

i get what you mean in my opinion i do not believe that those who as you put it move through existence by habit have a fully functional frontal lobe therefore fail to fully control there consciousness there simply following the stream and are rarely moved by few events in there lives witch they do not comprehend nor do they know how to deal with and also there is no way to fully perceive another beings consciousness as some may lack critical thinking or many things that flaw there consciousness i think conscience differs from one to another

 

[Jgns]

so therefore can u really blame them if they commit heinous acts of self masturbation

 

[Sigma]

I’ve been entertaining the possibility that what we call consciousness is not a uniform experience. Not that some people lack consciousness, but that some seem to inhabit it far less reflectively.

I find myself perpetually analyzing, anticipating, deconstructing, and observing my own thought. Yet others appear to move through existence almost entirely by habit, responding rather than examining, experiencing rather than interpreting.

Perhaps the distinction is not between those who think and those who do not, but between those who remain aware of the machinery of their own thought and those who simply inhabit its conclusions.

And if that is true, then what we casually call “being conscious” may conceal an enormous spectrum of inner experience that we have no reliable way of perceiving in one another.

this is flawed,
1.1 'responding rather examining' is not necessarily going to be the case in all possible worlds, in accords to subjective conditions via subjective definitions

1.2 'experiencing rather then interpreting' interpretation relies on experience to actualize the preexisting potentiality (experience), say 2 rational-agents experience a thing and define it, they both are served experience although not necessarily the same definition--under this principle, we'd inherently resort towards epistemic regress

1.25also, you're presupposing that in all cases where movement aligned with existence is to occur, it's to be done with habit; this is not going to necessarily be the case.

1.3 one who remains aware of the machinery in their own thought would differentiate with those who inhabit its conclusions, this is a mixed predication, being 'aware' and 'inhabit' do not match in line to the same subject, unless thought would be equal to conclusion. but then thought must not be aware, we must first be aware that truth under the criteria for conclusion exists independent of thought, or whats necessary for thought.

1.4 what you seem to be emphasizing here is epistemic skepticism/external epistemic existence, for there lay no accords to this--there must lay also no truth in that what we assume? but in hand, principles do not form truth, but formalize the already existing truth that exists independently. conciousness is defined scientifically & naturalistically, we do not enlist plausibility via non-naturalistic outcomes in accords to their inputs such as means via reasoning outside of abduction.

 

[ghoulmania]

we need philosophy subforum ngl

 

[Outlander]

Some people absolutely have higher levels of consciousness than others. I see people with no depth of thought all the time

 

[Banned User]

Nigga sounds like he meditates

 

[Sigma]

Some people absolutely have higher levels of consciousness than others. I see people with no depth of thought all the time

consciousness is not defined by extent, it follows the law of excluded middle; its either there, or it isn't.