what is "consciousness"?

I believe consciousness is the awareness of now, if you are aware of now then you exist, hence conscious. Emotions memories etc etc come from the subconscious and bodily chemical reactions to previous experiences.

Part of what you say I find myself thinking could be correct. You say that "physical existence is a phenomenon of consciousness", but that is not say that consciousness produced physical existence, as if nothing actually existed before consciousness did.

I think what you are saying is that consciousness is a vast web of concepts and ideas that, taken together, form a picture of reality. Reality is not an "external" reality, inasmuch as consciousness forms concepts of its experiences in order to understand its experience for practical and other reasons. However, reality is also not an "internal" reality, because in order for consciousness to produce concepts and form ideas, there must be something it experiences that is external to itself.

In which case, "reality" is neither "out there", nor "within consciousness", instead there is level at which reality is both these things, and not either at the same time.

I doubt if that makes much sense, I was trying mostly to understand these ideas for myself.

At our macrocosmic, everyday level of conceptual reality it is very sensible to speak of matter and consciousness and a thousand other division between percieved dualisms. These are concepts that have proven their value as practical solutions that work.

But an issue with our everyday view is that it doesn't explain how consciousness could come to be from unconsious matter. This is a paradox, but by and large it doesn't affect the practical living based on our beliefs, so we are able to work around it.
But in coming to terms with what consciousness truly is, we cannot accept this paradox. In such a context it indicates that consciousness has a far more central role to play in the unfolding of reality than we tend to assume based on traditional western views.

Unfortunately, our conditioning makes it very hard to accept any form of consciousness without physical bodies. Scientists and philosophers start calling it religious or new age. But science is scared of consciousness. They can't quantify it.

I instead look at it (Consciousness) precisely as "quantification" and measurement...
...the way and form by which you measure is measure of yourself...

Would you say that consciousness can exist without a physical body?

I am of the view that consciousness is dependent on physical matter for its existence, but consciousness is more than just a product of physical matter. Consciousness seems to have an influence on physical matter. Thoughts, ideas, concepts etc, they all effect how we feel, and how we feel is dependent upon physical changes in the brain. So it seems that yes, consciousness is dependent on physical matter for its existence, but consciousness itself also exerts an influence on physical matter. You could call it a reciprocal causality, based on the theory of new mentalism. Once of the difficulties of this is understanding the causal relationship between physical matter and consciousness, and consciousness in terms of its effect on physical matter.

Still we have a very vague definition of Consciousness...without a better one we are just dealing with more words...

To the best of my knowledge there exists no evidence that this is the case. You share in the general view most people have, that the earth formed, cooled, got plantlife and eventually consciousness emerged from nature as a "new" thing previously not found anywhere in the cosmos.
But since there is no scientific evidence to support this, it is merely a belief. There are no explanations of how consciousness could have evolved from "dead" matter. So mentalism, or magic as it's sometimes called, is as good an explanation as any.

I believe that reality is fundamentally one consciousness, and everything in it is expression of this.
There is a quantum physicist, John Hagelin, a co developer of the most promising unified field theory to date, who has noticed that the unified field is remarkably similar to consciousness as it is regarded in the ancient vedic texts. To his co-workers great distress he has gone public with a theory of a conscious universe, in which he explains the deepest levels of reality, the unified field, pure consciousness.
And consciousness is laced through everything. From the tiniest of sub atomic scalse, through atomic, molecular and up to our macrocosmic scale, consciousness is everywhere. But matter, on the other hand, only exists on the macrocosmic, to the molecular to the atomic level. When we go deeper there is no longer mass, just information.

This theory is very controversial, but Hagelin is a brilliant man, and from what I am capable of understanding, following his work on a philosophical level, I think he is on to something. Among those who are working on unified field and other areas of quantum physics there is by no means concensus that consciousness can relate to the unified field. But in all fairness, that may be because quantum physics cannot really measure consciousness. I think this is ultimately a philosophical issue, and bearing in mind Hawking's criticism of philosophy, that it hasn't kept pace with science, I'd say such philosophy is called for.
I am of the opinion that the unified field and consciousness can relate, because they are one and the same. This view provides a comprehensive understanding of the universe without paradoxes. And it doesn't contradicts science. The objections scientists raise is that the theory says more than science can striclty account for. But that is true of the conventional view of consciousness too.

Yeah I agree with all that, very interesting indeed, but still I did n´t saw any proper description on what he understands conscience to be about...there´s still a leap of faith in there...

There is a leap of faith. But perhaps you missed the last part of my post, which I likely edited in while you were making your reply.
The traditional view of consciousness requires a leap of faith as well. There is no scientific evidence that lets us conclude that consciousness is indeed a product of matter. The notion is paradoxical.


(And the word is "consciousness". "Conscience" is the thing that hurts when you know you have done something bad to someone. I say this not to disrespect you, but because I got the impression that you are genuinely interested in learning and improving.)

No worries..my English deserves to improve a bit...an honest contribution is always welcome !

And it's alread improved so much since you started out here. Keep up the good work.

(Another one I noticed while we are at it. You write: "it seams", when you mean "it seems". Derived from "see". "Seam" is where the cloth of your jacket is stitched together with thread.)

The unified theory of consciousness is based on a complete theory of physics that physics doesn't actually have. Physics is yet to discover the hypothetical boson particle, and so this theory has isn't more valid than any other. It may be void of any contradictions in terms of consciousness and matter, but he is still making a big leap, because for many physicists and quantum physicists, physics and quantum physics are yet to be bridged.

He may have also made a leap when he asserts that gravity has been unified with other forces.

The "spiritual" implications of the theory that Hagelin describes, that if Humanity can develop a transcendent consciousness, then we would all transcend religious and other divisions etc, and ultimately re-evaluate ourselves in light of a single unified understanding of the cosmos-

that sounds like something worth aiming for, but to my mind, I don't think that depends on a grand unified theory.

You're absolutely right about the representation of 'consciousness' as a container.

In mythology "psyche" meant butterfly. It refers to who you are 'Be'-ing (existence) and not some identity. Since the beginning of time we have been attempting to 'nail down' 'Be'-ing by defining it. 'Defining' always turns 'Be'-ing into a thing (concept).

Just about all philosophy, psychology, religion, sociology, and the other 'ologies' are about the 'reflection in the glass' and not about you, 'Be'-ing. It's time to stop trying to capture the butterfly.

BTW EP; the book is coming along and I will let you know when and where you can acquire it.

...the problem is not in acknowledging who you are Be-ing...that's very much close to say you are the function you are doing...the problem is firstly you understanding that who you are Be-ing, when you are, must above all to be possible in the first place...and from there, to take the necessary conclusions...(which you don´t)

You are be-ing always the same babbling...shape shift to another registry !

...further speaking in be-ing is no less objectification then any other word that you come up with...the sentences of your pseudo speech are full of objects, concepts, and above all pre concepts that you seem to miss...a much fun irony to look at...

Silence is the only acceptable substitute for brains. Maybe you're the one who needs to 'shape-shift'.

The only reason words are 'objects' for you is because you say so. You are a prisoner in the prison you built and you think everybody else is too. You will spend you entire life trying to prove you're right. That's the real irony.

"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump

what, what ? ...#$%&/ ?

...you are a comediant ! a deep fake and a pretentious fool !

I like the Sartrean notion that consciousness is a "negation" or a nothingness. Consciousness itself has no positive qualities, rather the only positive thing about it is that it intends to objects outside itself, but consciousness itself is not any of the things it intends to.

...yes and no...once being about thinking about the thinking...

You are NOT ENTITLED to have your own consciousness, just A consciousness.