Is every consciousness different?

That comment has nothing at all to do with what was asked, which was "define consciousness"

Experiential isn't even on the radar with something where a definition hasn't been agreed on yet.

Even if a definition was agreed on, whether or not someone experiementing or testing the concept or physical reality of it was involved is certainly not necessary, and could be detrimental to the results.

Everything is interconnected/all encompassing ..EVEN consciousness and YOU ...you are embroiled/entangled within it whether you like it or not or accept it or not.You cannot explain consciousness...you become aware of it/ experience it.Trying to explain it is like trying to explain the “ i am”...you can’t.

You’re trying to stray from the question.

There are various definitions of the word. It needs to be decided by everyone as pertaining to this thread which one(s) are to discussed.

I am not trying to stray from the question. I am merely pointing out that we are all totally embroiled in consciousness every second of the day. It's part of everyone's experience/make up. No one can get away from consciousness. One can't separate oneself from it and analyze it like a lab monkey. Scientist don't like this concept for some reason maybe because they will discover something that they are scared to face up to …..who knows. We are not consciousness we can become more increasing aware of how we relate to consciousness states however .i.e. we can become aware that we are more in the moment or not. We can alter our consciousness state any time we want by bringing ourselves in to the moment if we wish but we wont be able to remain there,not initially anyway........because we get pulled back into the "not in the moment" or autopilot state automatically all the time, a bit like a computer defaulting to idle if not in use.The secret is to notice this.Most people don't notice/are aware of this and therefore remain in autopilot most of their lives. It takes effort to bring oneself into the moment...no effort is involved as one drifts back into autopilot automatically.

Which was not in any way what was asked in the originally referenced post. Which was asking for a defination.

Which, is the ultimate in straying.

So which of the commonly accepted definitions are you talking about?

Well the definitions I have read are totally wrong...consciousness is not an awareness.....no...rather one is aware of a consciousness state one RESIDES IN

Awareness and consciousness are different things.

I have given you a practical experiential example that proves this.

We can operate in idle mode and as I have said most people do all the time....but manual mode (in the moment) is better if one can learn to do this more and more.

When you truly embrace these concepts and learn to stay in manual more and more then many more intriguing questions arise.

Again. Not the question.

People like you are funny. But, fortunately (or unfortunately) I've had decades of experience in keeping things on track.

I don't know why your type think you are so clever. Like "oh! I'm not realizing you're not even trying to pretend to stay on topic/answer a direct question, etc.

You're fun to play with.

I am just telling you how it is ...what has being clever got anything to do with it?
You don’t understand then is what you mean...why don’t you just say that.

The person who is trying to be clever is you...I don’t need to be clever because what I have told you is not academic clap trap it’s experiential which clearly you know nothing about..Maybe if you stop being so aggressive for effect...swallow your pride and listen more...then you may learn something that may be of real benefit to you.I have answered your question ....the definition of consciousness is wrong....period.Is it my fault that whoever came up with these definitions have got it wrong? There are two consciousness states that are different yes..the in synch mode and the out of synch mode or idle mode.Trying to bring oneself into the in synch mode takes a lot of effort.If you bother trying then you may learn something about thoughts and many other things...but if you are not interested in learning then stay trapped.

Consciousness is one, not two or more. What is different is the MIND, which operationally is unique to each Soul to which a MIND is attached. Peace

The process of consciousness is the same. The ancient Egyptians thought the center of consciousness was the heart and that squishy stuff in the skull was just a filler like a Twinkie.

Modern humans thought the center of consciousness was in the neocortex and humans were unique.

Now, some believe the center of consciousness is in the ancient midbrain that we have in common with animals, and even insects have an analogue.

The “I am” experiences 2 consciousness states in the “waking” state.

In the moment and not in the moment.

As the “I am” can actively control which of the 2 “waking” consciousness states it resides within in any given moment i.e. “in the moment” or “not in the moment” then it establishes itself as separate from awareness;consciousness:thoughts and emotions.

Holy ****. This just came up on my feed, and I read page one of it. It was like a journey into the past. Thomas, Leadfoot, ci, DaleH, Set, Fresco all suddenly back here commenting on an interesting subject. It was like they had all never left…or seldom post.

It was pleasantly nostalgic.

So if the “I am” can CONTROL which of the 2 “waking” consciousness states of “in the moment” and “not in the moment” it resides within,how can the “I am” be either of these 2 consciousness states?

The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states, rather, it experiences them as it “toggles” backwards and forwards between them.

Consciousness doesn’t control Consciousness.The “ I am” does.If it has sufficient AWARENESS that is.

As Buddhism, for example, doesn’t recognise the “I am” ,those who believe that they are nothing more than consciousness remain trapped “Prisoners of consciousness” toggling between the 2 waking consciousness states in total UNAWARENESS and with no CONTROL believing that they are nothing more than consciousness.

As there is a controlling element to consciousness as in the “ I am” can control which of the 2 consciousness states it resides within i.e. “in the moment” or “not in the moment”,then clearly the “I am” is not consciousness.The “ I am” is separate from consciousness.

In addition to this,the consciousness state that the “I am” experiences is dependent upon whether it engages or doesn’t engage with “inward” thoughts created by the autopilot part of our make up.

In summary,the “I am” is neither consciousness or thought.

One things for sure.

We need a science that fully explains the “toggling” effect of consciousness.Secular science totally fails to provide that explanation and at the same time it’s flag ship single Big Bang theory is in serious trouble.Nobody can relate to secular science at the integrated psychological level because there is no relationship whatsoever.

Natures science is the way forward not secular science because natures science encompasses/explains the psychological interactions within a united science.

Corporate experiments cease when it comes to consciousness because we are all embroiled within consciousness.The only way to understand and be convinced about consciousness is if the individual experiences it for themselves.One cannot remain an observer.One has to get involved.

Secular scientists have been putting this off for far too long.

Secular science needs to explain fully how all its theories relate/are interconnected to the mind, in particular consciousness.I would suggest that it will totally fail on that score.

What is the point of a wayward science that makes no connection whatsoever to the human experience?

Is it any wonder that secular sciences and it’s flag ship theories are failing and are now becoming a laughing stock.

How can secular science say we are nothing more than consciousness when it knows absolutely nothing about consciousness?

Its leaving itself completely open to ridicule.

I would suggest and maintain that secular science theories are in error and in no way explain the psychological make up.This can only be explained by electromagnetic processes.There is a common link between the workings of the cosmos and the individual’s psychological makeup.

There is a “toggling” nature to consciousness.The individual experiences it as in the moment and not in the moment.This “toggling” effect is related to the vibrational effect observed within the universe and is created by electromagnetic processes which result in push/pull magnetic forces.

I would suggest that the “I am” is not considered by secularism which includes secular science.