The self is all and nothing. Three questions that suggest so.

It is my belief that our inner most self, our ground, is that which is observing. It is the seer. It is called, "consciousness", or, "awareness".

But what is consciousness? It can't be observed because it is what is doing the observing. It is the single point in the brain where all that you experience gets experienced. But I don't believe it exists as any one thing. The information that it receives are things. But the receiver of information is a collaboration of the information, the processor (the brain), and time.

1) If the processor of information had no information to process, could it be aware? Could it process?

2) If information could not be processed, and therefore, had nothing to inform, could it still be information?

3) And finally, if time didn't exist and information couldn't move into the past, would there still be information?

Consciousness isn't a thing. It is the seer of things. It is a collaboration of things. But, it doesn't exist as anything that you can objectively point to and say, "there it is". It is information moving through time and space. The information doesn't go anywhere except into the past, through time and space. And you feel alive by that happening.

The self is all, but it also is not anything. It is just information flowing through different paths to the past, where it disappears as new information comes in.

Hello fellow traveler on the path. But, there is no path is there? The past really doesn't exist, but yet it constantly bears on our present and future, and not in just how we react to our past but also how others see us based on our past actions. So, it's there but it isn't.

You are right for sure, everything is nothing and nothing is everything. As above so below.

What we see is 99.999% empty space, yet it still seems to have substance. How can virtually nothing end up being everything in the world we see around us? It's the ultimate contradiction yet it is true.

originally posted by: smithjustinb

1) If the processor of information had no information to process,
could it be aware?

You're position is that the processing of information is awareness. So, assuming that to be true, no, because without information processing as it's requirement it wouldn't exist by your definition.

Could it process?

What would it process??

2) If information could not be processed, and therefore, had nothing to inform, could it still be information?

Depends upon the reason that it could not be processed. If it's because there is nothing there to process that is one thing but if there is something there but it is unable to be processed then there very well may be information there, it would just be unaccessable to the processor. From the processors perspective both cases are the same, but from another perspective they may not be the same.

3) And finally, if time didn't exist and information couldn't move into the past, would there still be information?

I think there could still be information although there couldn't be processing of that information. The processing is what requires the time while the information itself doesn't. It would just be information in a permanent state.

I've thought and read about theories similar to this. The idea that you can equate reality to information processing is interesting. There is also no reason to assume that a Processor must have a specific container either. We kinda assume that Consciousness processing is for humans and some animals however anything which can take in some kind of information for processing through some "sensory receptor" could be considered conscious couldn't it??? If not then you would have to expand upon the theory that Information Processing alone is Consciousness.

a reply to: smithjustinb

It is my belief that our inner most self, our ground, is that which is observing. It is the seer. It is called, "consciousness", or, "awareness".

This is true.

But what is consciousness? It can't be observed because it is what is doing the observing. It is the single point in the brain where all that you experience gets experienced. But I don't believe it exists as any one thing. The information that it receives are things. But the receiver of information is a collaboration of the information, the processor (the brain), and time.

Consciousness is God. God is formless intelligent nothingness. He has no form therefore no limitation, He has no beginning, no end, therefore He exists beyond the perceivable idea of existence. He can be comprehended but cannot be understood. This is where Faith finds its foundation.

1) If the processor of information had no information to process, could it be aware? Could it process?

Yes. The processor is only relative to the processes. When a process/cause is created then it is necessary to absorb the information/effect otherwise the Creation would hold no meaning, it would have no fundamental basis. That which has form yet is formless would require a tool to determine that which it is not, in order to relay its self to its self.

2) If information could not be processed, and therefore, had nothing to inform, could it still be information?

Information can be understood as a relativity, it is only as valuable as the seekers desire to comprehend it. Information independently has no substance, has no form, it’s the observers understanding of that information that allows that information to be made manifest by means of cause and effect. It would be better suited to ask; If the observer saw no use for information, would information still exist?

3) And finally, if time didn't exist and information couldn't move into the past, would there still be information?

Time does not exist. Time is a relativity. Think upon videos, they consist of millions of individual frames or pictures played in sequence to allow the visual senses to perceive motion. Motion is the idea that “This object was here, now it is there; therefore it moved”. Time is the idea that “That object took this many frames/seconds to perform the motion of moving from here to there; therefore it took this amount of time”. If one were to lose all sensual function one would perceive no time, no motion. All would be nothingness, yet intelligent nothingness.

Very perceptive my friend. S&F

a reply to: smithjustinb

Man oh man. Thoughts like these keep me up at night. That's why sometimes you have to decide to not sweat this stuff and enjoy the firmament while you're in it. Have a nice soak in a hot tub and think "I wonder how much longer I can stay in here before I turn into a prune" instead.

a reply to: smithjustinb

thats what is called Emptiness in Buddhism.

Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
There is no cause in anything as everything has a cause in something else. So in a sense: YES.

We seem to be in a timeframe that has nothing to do with the construction of the universe. We are like in SLOW motion and thinking that cause and effect EXIST.. But this is only our perception.


There is no time in reality. Everything exists at the same time. All times.. ..ANd the whole structure needs the whole structure to be what it is..

a reply to: smithjustinb

You know that you can take a test?

www.philosophersnet.com...

Personal Identity is what you need to study en.wikipedia.org...

I want to ask you one thing... what does it mean that the self is all and nothing?

To me consciousness and awareness are two seperate things.

Awareness is aware of consciousness. To me it is the I am.

Consciousness is the all information and what you can refine as personality etc.

Awareness is the presence which pervades emptiness.

a reply to: Sump3

yes i would say the same.

Thats why there is a gap in deep sleep. THat means: even when there is no experience at all there is something that is aware of that....(otherwise we would bridge deep sleep and have no "sense of the timing" at all) ...But we say stuff like : i had a gooood deeep sleep. No dreams at all

a reply to: kauskau

Exactly, that's quite a good analogy.

For example, what Christ said on the cross: "My god, My god, why have you forsaken me?" Is in it's original arameic, "Eil, Eil..." Which is quite literally translated as "I am, Iam...."

What did Moses ask the burning bush to tell his nation what his name was? ..."I am"

Doesn't matter who we are, what religion we are aware of or follow. Once we realize this, we cannot deny it.

He was first, he was last, he is first, he is last, he will be first, he will be last, and beyond.

That's my god.

Bacteria knows the difference between something that is food and something that is not.

That is awareness.

Consciousness probably comes into play in relation to animals not eating their healthy siblings.

Implying Empathy.

Any thoughts?

Alright the first 2 questions hard to answer. But for the third question without time the information would still be there. It just wouldn't change. The information would always be the same I would feel like, or you could control it back and forth between time that isn't there. All of this can be hard to understand. I don't think any human will fully understand all of these questions

I will put this simply.

The Truth aways is.

Consciousness needs Awareness but Awareness does not need consciousnes. Consciousness is always of something.

Consciousness has a lifespan of 100 billion trillion years.

Awareness is Immortal and Eternal, all pervading.

Do I have to prove to you intellectually that you are Self Aware?

You are everything and nothing at the same time.

You are God.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: smithjustinb

I want to ask you one thing... what does it mean that the self is all and nothing?

The seer and the seen are one. What the seer sees defines it. The seer isn't real. It doesn't exist in objective reality. It is subjectively interpreted by its interpretation of what it sees. The seer is never seen. It can't be seen except by seeing itself in what it sees.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Your choices are consistent with the theory known as psychological reductionism. On this view, all that is required for the continued existence of the self is psychological continuity. Your three choices show that this is what you see as central to your sense of self, not any attachment to a particular substance, be it your body, brain or soul. However, some would say that you have not survived at all, but fallen foul of a terrible error. In the teletransporter case, for example, was it really you that travelled to Mars or is it more correct to say that a clone or copy of you was made on Mars, while you were destroyed?

How did you do compared to other people?

54395 out of 285846 people chose the same path through the scenarios as you. To date, 197683 people have followed a path through these scenarios which is consistent with at least one of the three theories of personal identity specified above, compared to 88163 people who have not.

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: smithjustinb

Man oh man. Thoughts like these keep me up at night. That's why sometimes you have to decide to not sweat this stuff and enjoy the firmament while you're in it. Have a nice soak in a hot tub and think "I wonder how much longer I can stay in here before I turn into a prune" instead.

I tried that soaking in the tub once and was wisked away to a past life and I did turn into a prune only because the information processed within my neuron cells formed into a conscious reality to my soul.