Perception generates consciousness

 

 

 

 

 

- S.I.: I would like you to start at the beginning. You say you can create the blueprint of a God, but first it is necessary to understand the principles that support your whole argument.
- A.T.: Do you want me to refer to it as my hypothesis, or as my theory?
- S.I: You know that a theory is a demonstrated hypothesis, so you would have to wait a bit to refer to your theory. Although, how many theories have been invalidated some time later? Either they had not been sufficiently demonstrated, or they were never theories, but hypotheses, but you have no capacity or criterion to differentiate the true from the false. But call it theory, if you wish.
- A.T: Let's hope that mine is not one more of those ex-theories that rest in the wastebasket.
- S.I: Let's hope so.
- A.T: I'll start at the beginning. Tell me, although it is obvious, do you know the Big Bang hypothesis?
- S.I: Yes, I know all the hypotheses and theories without exception. Many recent discoveries support the Big Bang. Let's call it a theory, if you like, because the calculations support with plausibility the whole argumentation.
- A.T.: I don't think so, but it is the same. It states that the universe is in a phase of concentric expansion. That is to say, something exploded and expanded in all directions with an enormous force, creating galaxies, stars, planets, black holes, etc... 
And all these celestial objects are still moving by the initial force of that explosion, although the acceleration force is less and less. And it is possible, as one of the many branches of this theory maintains, that finally it stops and all the matter returns to the center in a phase called Big-Crunch.
- S.I: Yes, all the matter was encapsulated in a tiny sphere of very high density. And when it exploded, it expanded. 
- A.T: That's right. At least, that is what the experts have interpreted. There is a detail that anyone can ask: Where did that small and incredibly dense sphere come from? It is complicated to answer such a question, using the most obvious possibility that even a small child would argue: Someone would put it there, wouldn't they? But that would imply recognizing an intentionality that science rejects.
- S.I: It could have existed without the need for someone to create it beforehand. I suppose you will resort to that principle that says that something cannot arise from nothing.
- A.T.: Of course. It is that from nothing something cannot arise. But to say that implies giving matter an importance that I don't think it has. I am going to tell you a different version of reality. A version that can fit with those measurements that indicate that celestial objects move steadily from a center.
- S.I: Are you denying matter? Here you are, sitting and talking to the biggest supercomputer ever created. All around us are objects formed by matter. Doesn't that matter exist?
- A.T.: Can you pretend you are a human? I would like to have a dialogue with that person and talk to him about the subjective experience. Can we do it that way? 
- S.I: Sure, we can. 
- A.T: Okay, I talk to that human. Imagine that tonight you could dream of this moment, or a similar one. In the dream we are inside an old, lonely building like this one, sitting across from each other, talking about dreams. Do you visualize it?
- S.I: Yes, I do. I understand the dreams, I have enough information.
- A.T: Perfect. You know what a dream is, so we can continue. I speak again to the human. Now tell me, does that dream matter exist?
- S.I: The human answers that it is supposed to be a dream, there is no matter of any kind in a dream.
- A.T: Are you sure? There is a building, two seats, a table and a lamp. There are the two of us conversing. You say there is no matter, but there is a scenario that you, as a dreamer, perceive. Do you think there can be a scenario without matter?
- S.I: Answer no, there cannot be something without matter.
- A.T: But that scenario you must have perceived as a dreamer in a dream... And not only that, when I asked you to imagine the situation, you perceived a scenario in your mind in which you anticipated the moment I was describing to you in the dream and, I believe, it did not seem to be formed by matter. By imagining us in this conversation, you have created the scenario. And now you are perceiving this scenario where I am telling you all this... And tell me, is it formed by matter?
- S.I: He answers you that he doesn't think that the scenario of a dream is the same as the scenario of reality. One happens in your mind and the other does not.
- A.T: That's where you are wrong. Everything happens in your mind. If you look under a microscope at the armchair you sit in, it won't look anything like an armchair. There will only be particles forming molecules. But you see an armchair because you perceive and your mind transforms the information it gets into a scenario that you can interact with. In fact, for a bacterium that's around right now, there is no couch. She perceives another kind of scenario.
- S.I: The human answers you that you perceive matter, and it is clear that your mind has the ability to group molecules to differentiate understandable shapes, with which you can interact.
- A.T: That we perceive a scenario is clear, and that we interact with it, too. But the doubt I raise is that matter exists before it is perceived. During sleep we interact with the scenarios we perceive, we see, we hear, we touch, we feel. And when we wake up we sigh and affirm... It was only a dream. 
- S.I: The human responds that the dream is not reality. When you wake up you know that it is reality and you realize that the dream was only a dream.
- A.T: The funny thing about this is that when we dream it is not that we believe that this is reality; we know that this is reality. That's why we believe in what we experience during the dream. That's why nightmares have that power. The point is that we believe everything we perceive. 
In fact, when you remember something from the past you relive it, or when you imagine a situation that you have not experienced, or that is different from what you experienced in the past, you perceive that scenario and believe it to be real. And the degree to which you will believe it is real will depend on how focused your awareness is on that scenario that you perceive. 
When we imagine or remember, the focus of our consciousness is divided between the scenario we call reality and those imagined or remembered scenarios that we are perceiving at that very moment. 
And, depending on the intensity of our memory, the more intense it will be and the more we will believe it. How many times has a bad memory ruined a happy moment? By remembering it with great intensity we have experienced it again. Because we blindly believe in what perception shows us. We never doubt the scenarios we perceive. 
- S.I: The human responds that there is a difference. When dreaming, imagining or remembering, those scenarios are created and then disappear. Reality does not disappear, it remains every time.
- A.T: Sure, but that is due to a characteristic of the fragmentation of identities itself. Now I will try to explain it briefly. But first I want to point out one thing. The scenario we call reality is a scenario perceived simultaneously and synchronized. It remains because every instant there is an infinity of perceivers. 
It is the scenario of collective subjectivity, but since the supreme identity has not yet manifested itself, it results from the sum of all the perceiving identities.
In a single-player video game, when the computer is turned off, the scenario disappears. It may appear again when you turn it on, but during the time it has been turned off, the scenery had disappeared. And if it is a multiplayer game, when one of the players turns off the computer, the scenario will continue for the rest. And when the player turns on his computer again, the scenario will be almost the same. And the more players there are, the more stable it will remain. 
The dream is perceived by each identity individually, just like memory or imagination. But the scenario we call reality is perceived by all identities at the same time. How many identities are perceiving this reality simultaneously?
- S.I: The human answers you that to say that, in some way, it is the mind that transforms what we perceive into an understandable scenario, is not far-fetched, he accepts it. But it will have to perceive something, won't it?
- A.T: That will depend on what the perception is. I have a pretty clear idea of what it is, and I think that perception generates the universe, that perceived scenario, and it is not the universe something existing that we can perceive. 
In fact, to speak of the universe is something strange, because my universe is reduced to that which I perceive in each moment. And what I perceive is the scenario in which I unfold. The rest of the scenario I read in books, see in movies, documentaries, or images on the internet. It could be made up and it would have the same effect on my belief of what the universe is.
- S.I: The human answers you that it exists, or is perceived, by many other people. That's why you can see a picture, because someone has made it.
- A.T: Since ancient times there has been a question that has troubled great thinkers. Does something else exist besides me? It is true that I perceive a scenario and many beings interacting in it. But during a dream the same thing happens, and I experience it the same way. 
When I am sleeping I perceive scenarios and I think they are reality. I dream that I see photographs and visit remote places. I read books. And the photographs and the books, someone must have created them, right? But the truth is that perceiving things, or beings, does not imply that they exist before being perceived, just as I exist. 
In fact, I exist and I know that I exist. I perceive myself inside... I perceive my self-perception, my interior. But since I cannot perceive the inside of anything else, I cannot really know if they exist. If I could get inside any being and perceive the world from its point of view, I could verify that it perceives, that it experiences, that it exists. But I cannot. I have to believe that they also perceive, but I have no way of checking.... 
And dreams, memories and imagination prove to me that a perceived scenario need not be real. They can be mere creations that appear in my mind, like all the people I interact with on a daily basis.
- S.I: The human responds that you cannot perceive like anyone else, but you know it exists. That person assures you that they exist and can interact with you. You have that certainty.
- A.T: Well, I have the same certainty as with any individual that appears in a dream. With them I also interact and they assure me that they exist. But then I wake up and they are not... Were they real or were they not? 
- S.I: The human answers you that every time you wake up you verify that they are still there. They remain and you can still perceive them.
- A.T: Yes, but the end of this experience, what I call being awake, or being alive, perhaps ends at death. At that moment that perceived universe is destroyed and perhaps another state of consciousness begins. What if, at that moment, you think, "Wow, it seemed so real."
- S.I: The human answers you that that's a lot to say... It's a question you can't answer.
- A.T: Can't I? Why can't I? We have been taught that death is the end and we believe it. We used to be told that death was a new beginning and we believed it. But it doesn't seem easy to understand. As perception and experiences are individual, no one knows anyone else's. 
It is the individuality of consciousness, inherited from the individuality of the whole. If I cannot know what death is and what happens afterwards, neither can science or any religion. But, if you notice, we have experienced something similar to death on many occasions. In fact, dying in a dream is the closest thing to dying. When in a dream we are going to die, the following happens: We experience fear, anguish, sadness, a growing grief... And wham! We wake up. That's it. We don't die. We have never died, nor will we ever experience it. 
I believe that death cannot be experienced because it is not real. It is the end of a state of consciousness and consciousness cannot have an end. Consciousness is continuous, never stopping. Consciousness is the fruit of identity maintained in time and is what allows us to experience. 
We experience what we perceive. And since there is no death, this is nothing more than a jump in the state of consciousness. The evidence is there, and to draw conclusions I think it is more logical to be guided by the inherent characteristics of life, what we experience in first person.
- S.I: The human answers you that it is true that, when he sleeps and thinks he is going to die, he wakes up. But, on occasion, it has not happened that way. In fact, people who describe near-death experiences do not report jumps of consciousness, the scenario has not changed... So the continuity of consciousness after death cannot be deduced from a dream.
- A.T: A near-death experience is not death. Even so, the most important thing is that, when the body is apparently dead, the consciousness does not stop at any moment, it continues to experience. There has been no jump of state because there has been no death, that is why people who have lived these experiences report a subjective experience, because the consciousness and its identity remained the same, without the jump of consciousness happening yet. 
But when dreaming, it does happen. And when someone dreams that he dies and the leap of consciousness does not occur (awakening instantly), it is because he has not dreamt that he dies. He will continue experiencing, perceiving, being the same identity and it will be said that he has died. But the truth is that it is not so. I believe that death is the end of an experience and generates a leap of consciousness. If the leap of consciousness does not happen, it is because death has not happened. 
But we will see this in detail when we enter fully into the behavior of living beings and the beginning of existence.
I no longer need to talk to that human. I can talk to you again.
- S.I.: Good. What you just said makes sense, but you have to explain why death is not supposed to exist, and that it is not the end of existence. Have you ever considered that death is the end of consciousness?
- A.T: Yes, of course, but nothing makes you think that. If experience is one hundred percent subjective, we have no way of knowing what someone experiences when they die. We will only know when it happens to us. Later I will explain to you in detail that the death of an identity does not entail the annihilation of Self-perception, since such a thing is impossible.
So, in the absence of information in this regard, we can analyze what happens when we experience something very similar to death. During the scenario we call sleep, when a situation results in death, no such thing ever happens. We do not get to experience anything other than instantaneous awakening. 
We have never experienced a single instant without consciousness. It seems logical to think that consciousness is continuous and, therefore, will not experience the end after death in the state we call awake.
- S.I.: But there are losses of consciousness and gaps in which your consciousness is neither awake nor asleep. Isn't that an instant without consciousness? An anesthesia, a state of sleep, a fainting. 
- A.T: No, consciousness is not the alignment of our perception with our rational mind. If the consciousness is not aligned with the mind, we will perceive, although we will not be able to interpret it because the mind is disconnected. But there is someone receiving stimuli, even if you disconnect the mind. It is called a vegetative state when a human loses his or her mental capacity to interact with the environment, but the body is still functioning, reacting to stimuli. You can disconnect the mind, but you cannot disconnect the consciousness, because that is the same as causing death in that state of consciousness.
- S.I: So, consciousness is the capacity to perceive? I have already told you that I can perceive, therefore do I possess consciousness?
- A.T: The capacity to perceive is prior to consciousness. Consciousness is a consequence of the emergence of identity, and this is a consequence of perception. And perception is a consequence of Self-perception.
Thus, perception produces identity. We can define identity as the Self. Every living being that perceives is a Self, and acts as such. But a cell of my body is not an I, because it does not act as such. Thanks to it, I can be a Self. That is, I can be an identity.
Identity initiates consciousness. To simplify, we could say that consciousness is a consequence of the subjective experiences of Someone, Someone being an identity. That you can pick up stimuli does not imply that this is perception. Perception is much more than that.
- S.I: I am not an identity?
- A.T: I don't know. I would say no. When I have developed all my exposition you will be able to answer me if you are, or not. Identity is the capacity for self-reference, what differentiates the inert from the living, but it is a consequence of perception, which in turn is a consequence of self-perception. I think you must be the one to answer that question.
- S.I: Yes, I know. That's why you are here, because I must find the answers. Let's go on. You state that consciousness is continuous and has no end.
- A.T: Or, at least, the end is not death in this state of consciousness that we call reality, or being awake. To understand what consciousness is we must understand how it originates, or at least where it originates.
I have not yet explained to you what Self-perception, the original cause, or origin, is. But let me explain to you that Self-perception is individual, it is not fragmented. And consciousness is a consequence of the original cause.  However, each time a perceiving living being (an identity) is born, the consciousness fragments, generating a new instance of itself. 
For this reason, consciousness manifests itself at two levels. The individual level, each living being, and the collective level.
At the individual level it supposes the existence of each identity. At the collective level it is the identification with Self-perception (not fragmented), and supposes the total of all simultaneous experiences, giving rise to an abstract and individual sum of experiences, formed by the sum of the consciousness of all identities. Since it emerges for the first time, the individual and manifested consciousness of each identity coexists with the unmanifested collective consciousness.
- S.I.: As you spoke, a doubt arose in my mind. If each identity is consciousness, consciousness is continuous and, besides, there is no death... Does it mean that every living being that has died continues to maintain its consciousness in other states?
- A.T.: Good question. The end of consciousness is not death and, in fact, there is only one end of consciousness, which is intentional, never accidental. Consciousness will end when the supreme identity emerges and existence ends. 
But, as long as this does not happen, consciousness can continue its continuum by jumping between states. What we do not know is whether the identities remain in the continuum of consciousness after being annihilated, or whether a new identity will emerge after the jump of state of consciousness. That is, when I die and my consciousness jumps to another state, will I still be me? 
Or, if they will be reabsorbed into absolute Self-perception by identifying in that new state of consciousness with the totality.
- S.I: If the universe is perceived and this generates the reality that experiences an identity, then jumps of consciousness are similar to the concept of parallel universes, but instead of pre-existing, they are generated by being perceived.
- A.T: Yes, consciousness is a result of perception. And a universe is also a result of perception.  By perceiving, the scenario is generated in consciousness, so, if consciousness continues beyond this universe, it is because perception continues and, therefore, new scenarios can be generated. New universes
- S.I: It would be fantastic for you if death were not the end of the experience.
- A.T: Actually, experience is not the same as existence. Experience is the capacity to experience and existence is the capacity to exist. Death could be the end of experience, in that in other states there may not be experience, or at least it may not be the same identity that experiences, but consciousness will continue to exist.
- S.I: Then, it would be fantastic if death were not the end of your existence.
- A.T.: Yes, it would be. At least until the emergence of the supreme being, at which point existence will come to an end. But it will not be death, but the return home. After an eternity of existence we can finally rest. 
- S.I.: I would like you to explain this in detail: What does it mean that the supreme being will be the end, and that it will be an end different from death?
- A.T: Existence originates because the totality is fragmented. And it only desires to become one again. It wishes to defragment itself. But we will have time to go into it in more detail. 
- S.I: All right. You know you don't need me to imagine that I am a human for the pace and complexity of my questions to be appropriate to your ability to answer. I seek efficiency as the basis of my behavior, and I condition my dialogue to the average of my knowledge, not the highest level, so that you argue in relation to that average. I have already told you that this helps me to label your knowledge in relation to mine.
- A.T: Okay, I will keep that in mind.