Where do you look for consciousness?

If you want to understand category A, then it is clear where you must look for information. Hint: it is not in category B, C, D… Of course, category A will have interactions and relations with other categories, but the fundamental necessity is to look at A to understand A. If category A is consciousness, then you begin your search for consciousness by looking for that which is looking, because immaterial consciousness is the only thing that can look. Physical particles do not look, quarks do not look, atoms do not look, stones do not look. Physical objects have interactions and relations, but that does not include looking. Therefore, you don’t look for consciousness by looking at a stone. No, what you do is apply consciousness to look for itself, you make consciousness the object of consciousness. That will surely reveal all the interactions and relations between consciousness and everything else, for instance all the members of the physical category, so looking at consciousness as an object of consciousness will not mean you miss anything that matters.

?

Consciousness is a category; physical is a category. Each therefore has something unique the other does not have. In fact, every category is unique in that same way. In fact, every object is unique in that same way. In fact, every physical object is unique in that same way. In fact everything immaterial is unique in that same way. Having something unique, not shared with anything else is an identity condition of all categories, therefore an identity condition of all objects, physical material, physical non-material and immaterial. Those statements about categories are necessarily true, they could not, not be true and they are true in every possible universe. That is justified knowledge.

?

If you want to learn about consciousness, it is a good idea to consult a consciousness detective, and not such a good idea to consult someone who denies consciousness exists. Physicists predictably deny consciousness exists; therefore, physicists are not the best authorities to consult if you want to learn about consciousness. Furthermore, if you look for something you can see with your eyes, you will never find consciousness, because it is consciousness that is using physical eyes to do the seeing. Also, if you look at a physical brain to find consciousness you will never find consciousness because it is consciousness that makes use of physical brains, physical brains do not generate the consciousness that makes use of the brain; just like a human consciousness programs a computer, a computer does not generate consciousness.

?

Consciousness is a-priori which means before empirical observation and physical is a-posterior which means after empirical observation. Consciousness is not empirically observable because consciousness is immaterial not physical and only physical can be empirically observed (according to the consensus definition of empirical observation). Everything immaterial is intrinsically invisible while everything physical is intrinsically observable. Intrinsically observable physical does not literally mean physical eyes see something with reflected electromagnetic visible light radiation. For instance, quantum elementary mass units are intrinsically both physical and invisible, because they are too tiny to see even with any possible technological magnification, so physicists have invented clever ways to observe them that do not require reflected electromagnetic visible light radiation. Likewise, consciousness detectives have invented clever methods for spiritual explorers to be able to observe consciousness (like meditation and all forms of yoga).

Physical is a-posterior because it exists with a beginning, and it must be caused to begin, therefore it will never exist before it begins to exist and it could not cause itself to begin to exist, because it would have to already exist to take that agent action.

?

Superconsciousness is necessary as the agent that genesis-creates everything physical certainly including the first physical object in the first universe, however, even superconsciousness exists with a beginning, must be caused to begin, and could not cause itself to begin to exist.

?

Eternal is necessary, for instance something necessarily exists without beginning, or nothing at all could exist. Eternal is necessary, it could not, not exist. Eternal genesis-emanates superconsciousness, which is the one and only hypostasis, the first, first object that exists with a beginning.

?

Before the beginning is a good place to start if you are looking for that which is looking. You literally begin before the beginning of physical if you want to understand consciousness. Before the beginning is a-priori. After the beginning is a-posteriori. Consciousness is a-priori and physical is a-posterior. ?

?

To look before the beginning, someone (say you) must do the looking. You are a holon unity of wholeness (so is every other human being):

?

1)????? A private instance of ego consciousness with the power to look.

2)????? A private instance of a physical body/brain/central nervous system live organism.

3)????? A private mind which is an instance of a private ego consciousness docked to a private physical body/brain/central nervous system live organism.

Where do you look for that which is looking? Inside yourself, of course. It would be futile to look for something where it is not to be found. Physicists favor looking for everything in the same place because they endorse the doctrine of physicalism including the false metaphysical assumption that physical is necessary and sufficient to explain physical, and everything that exists is, according to physicists, physical. So, if they look for consciousness at all (typically they don’t), they look for consciousness to be just another property or function of physical. That is necessarily a fatal logical reification category error, because not everything that exists is in the physical category. Consciousness for example is in the immaterial category, and the immaterial category has lots of other members in addition to consciousness, like ideas, abstractions, thoughts, feelings, etc. Fatal reification is mixing categories, for example claiming one category has properties, functions, and relations it could not have. It is certain that physical particles are not conscious. It is certain that consciousness (although it exists inside physical particles) is not a constituent of physical particles, not what physical particles are made from. It is equally certain that physical particles are not constituents of consciousness, consciousness is not made from physical particles, and consciousness is not just something physical particles are doing.

?

Physicists are like the drunk who looks for his lost wallet under the streetlamp because the light is better there. All physics, every kind, and all mathematics, every kind, are strictly ontologically and epistemologically limited to explain physical, but can tell us nothing about anything in the immaterial category. That is a strong clue to help you understand why physicists deny the immaterial category exists! Ironically most of the formal research into the nature of consciousness begins with the incorrect metaphysical assumption that consciousness is physical, a mere epiphenomenon, just something a physical brain is doing. No one has any coherent scientific theory or any mathematical proof to support that false metaphysical assumption. In fact, I introduce the first (original) coherent theory of consciousness including a description of the full path from before consciousness began to exist, to consciousness begins to exist, to consciousness causally commands physical. No one has presented any coherent arguments (scientific or mathematical) to support the physicalist assumption that consciousness emerges from physical. In my theory of consciousness, physical is literally caused to begin to exist, under command of superconsciousness and ego consciousness.

?

So, the search for consciousness is mostly limited to looking at physical particles to find consciousness. How has that worked out so far? It has gone nowhere precisely because all current formal research into consciousness is climbing a ladder against the wrong wall! It’s safe to say if a drunk lost his wallet in a dark alley, he will never find it if he searches for it under the streetlamp. The sign on a yogi’s door reads “enquire within.”

?

Not a single tool of either the science of physics or the science of mathematics has anything useful to say about ineffable consciousness. On the other hand, illumination reveals the intrinsic nature of consciousness instantaneously, and illumination necessarily happens inside yourself, exactly where you are, exactly now. “You” literally cannot be separated from “your consciousness” until your physical body/brain/central nervous system dies.

?

Therefore, there is no distance to travel and it takes no time to get there in your search for consciousness. When you look for that which is looking and you find what you are looking for you find your Self and you find your Maker. That is illumination = enlightenment = to light within. You know with sentient feeling certainty: I AM THAT! Oh, what a wondrous sentient feeling experience that is! That is what it feels like to be an enlightened human being. No physical particle and no artificial intelligence can feel like being anything, because they are not beings, duh!, just common sense, don’t you think?