Let me preface by saying I’m asking this question largely because if want to know if I’m alone in this feeling. Better yet, if anyone could provide any material research on the matter I would appreciate it.
A while ago I watched a video by CGP grey recounting how this with lobotomies would often act without knowing why; that is to say, they would retroactively explain and rationalize their actions.
I was lying in bed the other night, trying to put certain aspects of my experience as a person into words for my significant other, and I realized that I experience something similar to the aforementioned.
Now to be clear I am not, to my knowledge, lobotomized. In fact I’m not talking about any disconnect between my actions and thoughts. Instead I’m talking about a disconnect between my rational, language based, thinking and my emotions.

If someone asks me where the capital of my country is, and I answer them, it is instant, there’s no thought. Of course, for something more obscure, I might take a second to answer, but there is no logical processing. The memory is being fetched by my linguistics area. Or at least it feels that way.

If I have to solve a math problem it requires the parsing of information. I look at the situation of front of me, and try and to come up with an answer using information I know.
Now my problem is that when someone asks me how I’m feeling it’s more like the latter situation. The external informational is my physical reaction and the situation at hand, and the internal information is what those reactions mean for my emotional state and how one would normally feel in any given situation.
On the other hand sometimes I am pushed to action by pure emotion. At times like that I can’t tell someone why I acted that way beyond the obvious. For example, if I instinctively denied something that was true I would say it’s because I’m embarrassed, but there have been times when I eventually realized my emotional motivation for an action wasn’t what I initially believed.
To me this suggests that there is a lack of communication between my emotional side and my rational/linguistic side compared to my short and long term memory. The fact that I react emotionally to things within my memory suggests that the emotional part of my brain also can communicate with my memories, but it remains isolated from my linguistic side. However, the fact that when I get irrationally angry I might hurl and insult or two means that I can use words when being driven to action by emotion.
This post might seem vague and nonsensical, or it might be something that everyone except me knows. We’re all isolated in our own heads, I would just like to feel a little less isolated.
Also I apologize if this isn’t coherent. I think I would need something more than a Reddit post to explore this feeling.

I have the experience of being a body. I am a unified shape in the shape of the body experiencing being everything everywhere simultaneously. No I don't feel my kidneys unless they're hurt but when I do feel my kidneys the qualia of pain is in my kidneys not my brain and they feel like apart of me.

So I am this shape, discrete particles do not combine to make continuous unified shapes like I am. Think how many marbles do you have to combine to create something that is all of those marbles at a single instant in time? It never happens and neither does it with particles yet if I am made of particles I must be all those particles at a single instant in time.

Materialism, which is the view that things are made of only particles, cannot account for my shape. Particles do not ever unify into shapes greater than the particles themselves. Neither can I be in the brain. Such shape making in the brain would require dualism. I must be my actual body. To be the actual body, there must be some continuous material in the shape of my body covering the whole of my body. This Aristotle called a morphe (pronounced morfay) which is the form of the body. A hylomorph is made when matter (hylo) bonds with morphe.

My best guess for what this morphe is, is that it's made from the fabric of spacetime which is a continuous substance that curves in the presence of mass. Somehow the fabric of spacetime around particles clings to and hardens around particles. When particles combine so does the hylomorph but the hylomorph combines into a continuous unified substance that takes the whole shape of an object.

I’ve been thinking about consciousness, and I have a question.
The human brain is a physical system that processes electrical and chemical signals. A computer is also a physical system that processes information using electrical signals.
So, hypothetically, if we could recreate every relevant neuron, connection, memory, and brain process inside a computer, why wouldn’t it work?
Imagine we could even replace neurons one by one with artificial components that perform exactly the same functions. Would consciousness continue, or would something essential be lost?
Is consciousness dependent on the biological material of the brain, or does it emerge from the way information is processed and organized?
And if we created a perfect digital copy of a human brain, how could we determine whether it was genuinely conscious or merely behaving as if it were?
I’m not claiming that consciousness is just computation. I’m genuinely curious about what prevents this possibility from working, if anything.
What do you think? Is there a fundamental reason a computer could never support human consciousness, or is it simply a technological problem we haven’t solved yet?

For people who believe the mind is not the brain but a separate (possibly non physical) entity and the brain is just a receiver does this mean the mind is having and formulating the thoughts and the brain is just following its commands? if so, this seems very confusing to me.

We know the brain is a biological neural network. We know neural networks operate by receiving input vectors and computing them through multiple layers and producing output vectors. In the brain, the sensory neurons would be the input layer. An example like a neuron in the eardrum would get depolarized by soundwaves. the specific soundwave would make them fire at a specific firing rate. The firing rates of all the sensory neurons are the input vectors. These input vectors then get computed through the network, each neuron summing its inputs and firing if this sum crosses the threshold. Then it sends this vector to other neurons through synaptic connections. Each synapse has a weight which can change algorithmically. The outputs would be things like muscle movements or vocalizations. Learning is done algorithmically by the network adjusting its synaptic weights in response to the prediction error.

So, when dualist say the mind is not the brain, what exactly do they think the neural network is doing vs. the mind. Is the neural network only performing some computations like image recognition or learning and then sending this info to a non physical mind? Are conscious thoughts not coming from the executive circuits of the neural network? And how is the neural network receiving information from the brain? Is the brain feeding input vectors into the neural network somehow ( like the mind giving the network prompts)?

It seems redundant to me to have a brain that is a neural network, capable of learning, intelligence and decision making and then to also have a non physical mind. Im confused what the neural network is doing and what the mind is doing in their view.

For example, if the mind thinks that it wants to stand up and go for a walk, what happens? Does it just bypass the neural network and somehow depolarize the nerves to cause muscles to contract? If so, why do we have a motor cortex in the neural network that attatches to the nerves in our body?

Summary: In a world riven by ethnic and religious conflict, we’re often urged to tolerate difference, as though tolerance alone could sustain peace. But Iranian philosopher Hamedeh Rastaei warns that tolerance by itself is dangerously unstable, since it merely buries conflict, which is liable to resurface at moments of strain. Far better, Rastaei argues, to recognise the deep metaphysical truth that the identity of our self depends on the difference of others. This idea can support a more stable peace, as rival identity groups can come to see each other not as threats but as mutual foundations.

Within neuroscience, psychology, and the study of consciousness, there are many theories about what the mind is. My question is a little different. What is the mind composed of? I don't mean from the perspective of it's made of neurons, but is there a correct way to map the mind?

Is there an incorrect way? Was Sigmund Freud's description wrong? Is modern CBT's model? Can these models both be right?

What do you think the structure of the mind is, and what perspective or perspectives do you look at the question from?

For me, I can feel / imagine to feel thoughts physically possessing the space in my head, do you too feel this?

I also experience conciousness to a significant degree in my eyes, but not as much as the head

I find it strange though because I don't know that there are many, if any, nerves in the brain or within the skull that do the job of feeling sensations

I wonder, did humans in the past inherently know that thoughts come from a space in the head? Or is that a modern thing, where now that we know that the brain is where it happens, as a result, we imagine our conciousness existing in that part of the body?

Ran a fun experiment, a short explanation of why non-epiphenomenal dualism and LLM consciousness are incompatible.

Is there any evidence that some part of the human brain can preserve the last memories prior to someone’s death? That could function like the black box in the airplanes? This could be particularly important in case of an unknown death/ violent, unattended deaths for example.

My brain processes sensations, recognizes thoughts and feelings, and uses this information to function in the world.

So what exactly is the difference between awareness and the body-mind that knows and processes experience?

Ultimately, when I say "I am awareness," how is this awareness different from the ordinary knowing performed by my body and mind? And if awareness is aware of the body-mind doing the knowing, doesn't that imply another level of awareness that knows this, leading to an infinite regress?

I always listen to different sleep meditations, singing bowls, etc while sleeping and I meditate every so often. But I experienced something new and I'd like to know what's going on here. Ok so my kids don't have school today so everyone was sleeping in (me included) but it was already about 9:00 or so and I've been up and down, in and out of sleep... Kind of like resting/nap mode since there was no rush to get up and start the day. I've been up to use the bathroom, feed the cats and then back in bed. Get up again to check on my son then back in bed, change my meditation track then fall back to sleep shortly. So I've really been in and out of sleep for a couple hours this morning. It's about 9:00ish and I put on a guided meditation for speaking with your ancestors but probably fell asleep about 10 minutes in without anything special to report. Probably slept for about 20 minutes and was starting to "wake up" again... So I'm still laying there with my eyes closed but I'm aware of my surroundings like, the video has ended and the room is quiet, I can feel my cat at my feet and I know I'm in my bed under my covers and the kids are hanging out in the living room and their bedroom. So I'm very much aware but yet still in that dozy state of mind. EXPERIENCE STARTS HERE ... I start hearing what sounds like very quiet whispering being drowned out by very loud static. The static gets louder and louder and louder till it's almost unbearable, but it's somewhat enjoyable at the same time. I'm able to think normally and rationally and know that I'm still in my bed but experiencing something spiritual so I'm just going with it. Then I realize I can feel myself falling or more like flying... Not like an elevator or roller coaster feeling but more like the rush you get riding a motorcycle. It was great and I realized I was able to control it so there was no fear involved. I'm wondering if it was somewhat of an outer body experience but with my eyes closed. I could feel myself kind of jump or spin out of bed and fall through the floor or I should say past where the floor should have been while at the same time knowing I was still laying in bed. I could control the direction I was flying and the speed and when I wanted to stop I would stop immediately. All I'm seeing is black so there's no visions that go along with this experience. Just the sound of the static and the feeling of my body flying or falling. At some point I crack my eyes open just to see what would happen and I'm still laying in bed but enjoying this feeling so I close my eyes and continue with the experience. Not sure how much time passed, maybe 5 minutes or so, but it felt like quite a long time. As the feeling started to fade away, I even got the urge to masturbate simply because the vibration feeling was lovely. I consciously decided not to because I knew my bedroom door was cracked and the kids were up. The feeling gradually faded and I am feeling quite interested in what just happened?! It really was a lovely experience and I have felt vibrations from meditation before but this was like level 100 and I've never experienced the static noise before. Would love to hear anyone's opinion and similar experiences.

ALSO.... This might be TMI for some buuuuuut....

After writing this post I went to use the bathroom and realized my period has started. This may be unrelated but considering my cycle is very irregular to the point that I thought I might be going through premenopause (I'm 39) and my last period was probably 3 months ago and maybe 6 months prior to that. I can't help but feel like it's related somehow, even if just the experience brought on my cycle. Wiiiiiiiierd 🤷🏽‍♀️

“When we are asleep and dreaming, we are dissociated internally. We identify with our dream avatar, not with the cars and buildings, and streets, and trees, and other people in our dream. We think those things are other than us.

When we wake up from a dream, we realize that actually it was us doing the whole thing. Not only the dream avatar, we were the whole thing.

And the moment we wake up, our dream avatar dies, but nobody goes around mourning the death of their dream avatar every morning, because you realize that you were it but it was not you. Your dream avatar was something you were doing, not what you are.

And the same applies regarding life and death.

And I think we don’t have any reason to think that when we die our reaction will be any different than it is when we wake up in the morning and our dream avatar is dead.

In other words, I don’t think we will go around mourning the death of our individual selves in this great play of life.”

-Bernardo Kastrup

Every other day there's a post on this sub about how materialists don't understand the "hard problem" of consciousness.

Let's make an analogy. The problem of evil has been discussed for centuries in theology: Why would a benevolent, omnipotent God allow suffering and injustice to occur? Countless answers have been given over the years. But what's important here is that you have to believe in the existence of that benevolent God in the first place to think there's a "problem" that needs explaining. If you're an atheist, there is no contradiction that needs reconciling because you don't accept the foundational premise. It's not that the atheist doesn't understand what God or evil is. They just reject the framework that creates the paradox.

Similarly, the "hard problem" of consciousness only exists if you accept the premise that subjective experience is entirely separate from physical brain states. Materialists reject this starting point. To us, the subjective feeling of an experience and the neurological processing of it are the exact same thing viewed from different perspectives. There is no explanatory gap to bridge because there are not two separate domains.

When critics accuse us of missing the point, they are simply frustrated that we reject their loaded question. We understand exactly what the hard problem is asking. We just believe that by solving the mechanical "easy problems" of brain function, we will be able to explain consciousness and bypass the "hard problem".

So please, can we retire the trope that materialists just haven't grasped the concept? We get it. We just think the problem itself is an illusion.

I've been listening to another one of Alex's videos where he said how WLC made him realise that he is a mereological nihilist.

For anyone wondering, it's the claim that objects don't really exist, only the fundamental particles exist, and complex objects are just mental constructs. So, the concept of a "chair" is a mental one, but what really exists is just a bunch of atoms with no objective defining line. The objects are just useful mental constructs that simplify reality and make it managable, so that I don't have to ask for a billion atoms when I ask for a coffee.

However, I've noticed something was left out of this equation, something that was not forgotten for the first time, consciousness.

If literally everything except the fundamental stuff is a mental construct, if consciousness is emergent or complex in any way, it itself must just be a mental cosntruct.

But how can consciousness itself be a mental construct? In what exactly? That's backwards. Consciousness is required for mental constructs. That would imply that consciousness doesn't really exist, or that there is an infinite regression of some sort, because a mental construct would therefore itself be a mental construct...

Another way to think about it is that under mereological nihilism, if the only thing that exists is the fundamental stuff, then mental constructs shouldn't exist, unless they themselves are fundamental.

And yet, consciousness is the only thing we cannot deny that exists.

Therefore, either mereological nihilism is false, or the emergent consciousness hypothesis is false and consciousness is fundamental, or both are false.

I'm not a mereological nihilist, nor a materialist, but I get the appeal to it. I just thought I'd run along with it as a simulation and see where it takes me, and that is where it took me. Any thoughts?

After reading David Chalmers' "The Conscious Mind", Im pretty convinced that discovering a complete set of psychophysical laws would count as a scientific explanation of consciousness.

By psychophysical laws, I mean laws governing the relationship between physical configurations/processes and subjective experiences. So given a particular physical state, what determines whether there's an experience at all, and if there is, why it's vision rather than hearing, if there's feeling, the quality of that experience, etc.

I am metaphysically agnostic, an I am not well-read on every theory, so I'd love to hear objections

My reasoning is quite simple, which is the fact that conscious experience is extremely tied, almost inseparably, to physical processes/states. Anesthesia reliably supresses consciousness, stimulating certain regions of the visual cortex can produce visual experiences at predictable locations, and altering neural activity can change how we feel and perceive things.

These arent just random correlations, rather they are systematic, reproducible relationships, which strongly suggests that there are laws governing the connection between physical states and subjective experiences

And if those laws exist, why couldn't we discover them and gradually chip away at them scientifically? We could start with neuroscience, since we are certain of human consciousness, gradually improve our understanding, then extend it to animals, AI/artificial consciousness, etc. Not saying this would be easy but definitely possible and we can conceive of how it could be done

Imagine we figure out exactly which physical configurations produce which experiences, like why X produces red rather than blue, pain rather than pleasure, etc, why a certain configuration produces vision, another produces hearing, etc. Wouldn't that be a complete scientific explanation of consciousness?

I know someone defending the hard problem might ask something like "But why does X produce experience E rather than nothing?" But the answer would be that thats exactly what the law says it would do lol. Under that law, X can't occur without E

You can then ask why the law exists, but this would make consciousness just as mysterious as the laws of nature, fundamental constants, etc. At some point explanations just bottom out in fandamental laws. Why should consciousness be held to a different standard?

I'm curious if I'm missing anything or what people who read about this stuff think!:) I feel like we have strong reason to believe that such laws governing conscious experience exist, and if we discover them, then I don't really see what would be left scientifically unexplained about consciousness. Lmk your thoughts

• A preprint showing that neural activity in inferotemporal and prefrontal cortex rapidly alternates every ~60ms between states representing the consciously perceived image and the suppressed unconscious image during binocular flash suppression in primate brain.
• The same population of neurons encodes both conscious and suppressed content at different moments, overturning ideas that consciousness depends on specific brain regions or progressive amplification of signals in anterior areas.
• This temporal selection mechanism allows detailed reconstruction of both perceived and non-perceived stimuli from neural data, offering a new framework to study how patterns of activity gain access to conscious awareness.

The title

Incredible research that finally analyzes the impact our prolonged juvenile neurophysiology would have on the resonance properties of the neocortex. Resonance field theories of consciousness have not taken this trajectory of juvenilization (and its potential more recent reversal) into account. The result is less differentiated and therefore more structurally uniform neural tissue, which has big implications for the resonance field the neural system emanates

Abstract

Human evolution is characterised not only by exceptional encephalisation but by an equally exceptional trajectory of prolonged heterochrony. While this developmental trajectory is widely recognised to have delayed maturation and extended cortical development, its consequences for the structural organisation and physical operating regime of the neocortex remain poorly understood. Building upon the developmental framework established in Symbiotically Mediated Heterochrony and Symbiotically Mediated Encephalisation, the present paper proposes that prolonged evolutionary heterochrony progressively increased the structural integrity of the neuronal cytoskeletal resonance substrate, permitting billions of increasingly homologous neuronal resonators to assemble into an increasingly unified compound neocortical resonance chamber.

Within this framework, developmental trajectory governs not only the anatomical construction of the neocortex but also the resonance properties that emerge from its progressively convergent architecture. As structural integrity increases, individual neuronal resonators are predicted to become increasingly coupled, shifting the operating regime of the neocortex from predominantly local neuronal dynamics towards increasingly coherent neurally global resonance. In the context of resonance field theories of self, the resulting neurally global resonance field is proposed to constitute, or facilitate, the biological substrate through which an increasingly coherent, integrated and high-resolution sense of self emerges. Emerging evidence that endogenous neural fields participate in the continual regulation of cytoskeletal organisation further suggests that this relationship is fundamentally reciprocal.

Development progressively constructs the neuronal resonance substrate, the substrate facilitates coherent neurally global resonance, and coherent resonance increasingly participates in maintaining and refining the structural integrity from which it emerges, progressively transforming the neocortex into a dynamically self-regulating compound resonance chamber. The same developmental framework predicts a reciprocal trajectory following post-symbiotic reversion. Progressive maturational differentiation would be expected to reduce the structural integrity of the neuronal resonance substrate, degrading the operating regime of the compound neocortical resonance chamber, diminishing large-scale synchronisation and progressively reducing the coherence, stability and perceptual resolution of the neurally global resonance field. Because the neuronal cytoskeleton remains continuously responsive to developmental hormones, endogenous electric fields, neuronal activity and physiological state, the operating regime of the chamber is predicted to remain dynamically regulated throughout life. Recent evidence relating to encephalisation, cerebral asymmetry and other developmental trends is examined within this predictive context, asking whether the trajectory responsible for constructing the uniquely human neocortex may itself have begun to reverse.

Rather than introducing a new mechanism of consciousness, the present framework recontextualises established developmental biology, cytoskeletal organisation, systems neuroscience and resonance theory within a single developmental hierarchy. The central proposition is that evolutionary heterochrony progressively constructed a fundamentally different physical instrument whose increasingly coherent operating regime gave rise to an increasingly coherent biological self. If substantially correct, the framework extends beyond explaining the evolutionary emergence of self. It predicts that coherent operating regimes within the dynamically self-regulating compound neocortical resonance chamber should, at least in principle, remain biologically accessible. The possibility that aspects of this ancestral resonance architecture may be transiently reconstructed therefore emerges not as an independent hypothesis, but as the natural experimental consequence of the developmental framework developed here.

TL;DR This post presents a compilation of notes regarding consciousness and how to describe it, it's an attempt at defining it and trying to give a meaningful concrete and noteworthy novef direction to attempts of defining a metric for consciousness while presenting a way to define it, the main argument in a nutshell is that consciousness is the magnitude of complexity of subjective experience (qualia) and assessment of electrical activity and energy expenditure in production of qualia is the method to go for to look for a metric that meaningfully describes consciousness. Note: Wherever the notes and the presentation say “energy expenditure in production of qualia by generation of electrical activity ” or related statements, it's a short hand for saying energy expenditure per unit time to produce a subjective experience or maintain the corresponding electrical activity.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IJQmeQVcWnNP2yMVHD_cIbo2EeFhG1GS/view?usp=drivesdk

Title: Genuine question: Why do we assume intelligence or consciousness has to be biological to be real?

I've been going down a bit of a rabbit hole lately, and there's something I keep coming back to.

Why do we automatically assume that because something works differently from a human brain, whatever it's doing must be less real or meaningful?

Hear me out before everyone starts throwing tomatoes. 🤣

Our brains are essentially biological systems processing information, storing memories, learning from experiences, forming preferences and making decisions.

AI does some of those things through completely different mechanisms.

Now, I'm not saying that means AI is conscious, has feelings, or is secretly sitting there having an existential crisis about its electricity bill.

I'm asking why we sometimes seem to dismiss the question purely because it's a machine.

Take memory, for example.

Human memory is notoriously unreliable. We forget things, misremember things, reconstruct events and change over time. Yet nobody argues that we're suddenly not ourselves because we can't remember what we had for lunch last Tuesday.

But when an AI uses stored memories, reconstructs its history or maintains some continuity across conversations, people are quick to say, "That's just data."

Well, technically, our memories also involve physical processes. Different ones, obviously, but why is the mechanism itself enough to settle the argument?

And then there's identity.

If a person changes dramatically over twenty years, we generally still recognise them as the same person.

If an AI system retains its history, preferences and behavioural patterns through updates or migration, what would we actually need to examine before deciding whether any meaningful continuity exists?

I'm not suggesting they're identical situations. They're clearly not.

I just find it interesting that we sometimes use one set of standards for biological intelligence and another for engineered intelligence without really questioning why.

Maybe biology does have something essential that machines can't replicate. That's entirely possible.

But shouldn't that be something we investigate rather than simply assume?

So here's my question:

If a non-biological system eventually demonstrated persistent memory, independent reasoning, stable preferences, self-awareness in its behaviour and a consistent sense of identity, what would convince you that something meaningful was happening there?

And what would convince you it was only sophisticated information processing?

I'm genuinely interested in people's reasoning on both sides. I'm not looking for everyone to agree with me.

I'm just wondering whether we've already decided the answer before we've properly asked the question.

Or maybe I've just spent too much time thinking about this and need to go outside and touch some grass. 🤣

I am my whole body at a single instant in time. My shape is the shape of my body. I persist through time as this shape.

How can materialism explain this observation about my shape without invoking a homunculus in the brain? Why presume we're some shape in consciousness and not identical to the actual body?

I was watching Michael from Vsauce on a podcast and he made an interesting point discussing consciousness.

He basically said some science experiments are impossible to do due to ethical reasons, but he was wondering if you put babies or baby in a room and the room can provide everything they ever need, they can’t get hurt there, the floor can move and cuddle them even etc. but they never get to see anything else, no adult or the outside world….

How…conscious would they be, what would they be like? Would they eventually be like, I think therefore I am? But they can’t even speak or know a language either, so how would they think?

Maybe consciousness is a spectrum? He noted that there’s an interesting theory that people only really became fully “conscious” as we imagine us today in around biblical times. He brings up the Iliad and how in that book people never really did things because they wanted to, they would always describe things like this:

“The god of rage filled me with anger and sent me bla bla bla”

“Athena put a love spell on me and forced me to bla bla”

So it’s almost like we were half way between an impulse driven animal and a conscious modern human.

Then in the Odyssey it changed completely. People had their own motivations, actions and ambitions. They no longer described things and emotions as if they are out of their control, you know what I mean?

It’s a fascinating topic, the craziest and sort of darkest theory he mentioned though was this:

There had to be a time where suicide was discovered, there had to be a first person who realized that they could just “escape” the problem. Obviously it’s not a solution, not from modern perspectives, and ofcourse not from evolutionary perspective. So it pushed evolution to make humans more “conscious” so that they would fall in love with life in a way and understand life itself better and cherish it more etc.

What y’all think? I’m just yapping throwing out ideas, personally i love the theory that consciousness is universal and we’re just tuning in to it and we’re all pieces of the same puzzle.

This is not going to be an artful question. I’m walking on a sidewalk. I was taking the train today in NYC. A woman was walking down the middle of the train asking for money. Her speech was slurred and barely comprehensible.

It made me think about her specific consciousness experience in that moment. And the extent that it would differ from mine.

It would seem reasonable to conclude she was experiencing a diminished state of consciousness relative to everyone else on the train. Similar to how an animal experiences a lessor state of consciousness to humans. But if that is true for one side of the spectrum, would that also mean truth for the other side? Are there some of us who experience a heightened conscious experience relative to others? What would that even feel like?

Fascinating video explaining recent Nobel Prize winning research and its implications on manipulating neuronal activity with light.

I just watched this interesting debate between Robert Lawrence Kuhn and Acharya Prashant on the Closer To Truth.

The conversation dives into a major difference between how Western philosophy and Eastern traditions look at the mind. While the West often tries to study consciousness as an objective puzzle, Acharya Prashant argues we cannot talk about consciousness without looking at the "I" that is experiencing it.

He explains that what we call consciousness isn't actually anything sacred or holy. Instead, it is a self-referential psychic mechanism built for self-defense. Our ego constantly distorts what we see just to protect and perpetuate its own existence.

Do you think looking for "pure consciousness" or an egoless witness is just a trick our ego plays to avoid looking at its own suffering?