Relative reality, subjectivity, consciousness, Pauli exclusion principle

So, consciousness is subjective experience. It is a relative reality that exists for itself only. No two consciousness or conscious states can exist, just as is true of, or for, any other states. No two ‘different’ or ‘distinguishable’ states can exist, with respect to, or for, each other, just like any ‘two’ ‘different’ state[ments].

Now, let’s take a primitive approach to this topic of consciousness:

The question, or as often referred to as the ‘hard problem’, is that how can something like consciousness arise from something so ‘not conscious’ as some collection of neurons and chemicals and some patterns of electrical firing that takes place, and something to which we refer to as brain?

If we take a State[ment]verse approach, there is not much to explain, but let’s just take a simple approach to this.

Some say consciousness is fundamental, some say it is emergent, some may take other approaches. What is clear is that, it is subjective experience of anything that might or might not be common or mutual. Any consciousness cannot confirm the existence of the ‘other’ consciousness i.e. it cannot experience the ‘other’, simply because it is not or ‘Not-consciousness’ of the ‘other’.

We come to conclusions, maybe easily, like the material objects like chair or brain or anything as such are not conscious, even when we have not understood what consciousness really is, though we experience it. Now, in this phrase, ‘we experience consciousness’, there is, maybe subtle, implication that the ‘we’ that we are referring to and the ‘consciousness’ are two different things. It’s as it like the ‘we’ or ‘I’ is something that is common to all the conscious experience that we associate with the ‘I’. Some even go as far to claim that this ‘I’ is a common entity to all the conscious experience i.e. to all the consciousness – for example the philosophy like that of Advaita Vedanta in among Hindus.

But, anyway, we seem to assume that chairs or glass or anything as such do not have consciousness or conscious experience. Now, I’m not suggesting that they do, at least not in as sense that we have our or are consciousness. I’m just implying that we have no clue. Just that because we have brains and they do not, does not say anything about the experience that the information associated with what we call objects like chairs really ‘feels’ or is experienced like. Even things that we are so convinced, unless we think little hard, to be conscious, we have no idea really. At least we are not sure.

So, why do we have a almost a ‘gut feeling’ that consciousness cannot arise from something that appears to be so distant from anything like consciousness? Why is such prejudice so heavy on us? We have just begun to explore our brain and neural activities, and we almost seem to have already so much of preconceived notions and baggage. We have to get rid of this and begin a journey with pure scientific mindset that we have just begun and that we have so much to learn, and let nature teach us about ourselves in the language we best understand. But even if we don’t get rid of such baggage, it doesn’t matter, we are going to be taught a lesson one way or the other. Consciousness does not have to be special. It may be thought so, in the same sense as life once was thought to be. Just like life was at some point in the beginning of our understanding ‘special’, we maybe at that same position with consciousness.

Now the question why consciousness is a hard problem maybe due to it being subjective and not objective. Two consciousness is like the the two frames of reference in the theory of relativity. With consciousness, like is true for the two frames of reference, no two consciousness (or reference frame) can ‘really’ experience each other or be the experience that they respectively are.

What we can do is to try to understand what the threshold or the necessary part of brain or brain-activity or part of it is, for the conscious entity to exist, at least apparently. Actually, we may never conform any other consciousness as an objective reality, and we can only trust and rely or have faith on the ‘other conscious entity’ and go along with our gut feeling that there is ‘other consciousness entity’. We can only rely on and trust the information or experiences described by that other conscious entity as it is experiencing.

Also, regarding the hard question of how something like consciousness emerges out of something not-conscious, I think it is at the fundamental level a question not so different than asking “how a photon emerges from no-photon?”, as Lawrence Krauss puts it. As far as photon is concerned, it took us so long to understand how photon comes out of no photon, maybe it’ll take time to understand consciousness in that same sense.

But one thing that’s different with consciousness is that it’s subjective and we have to rely on and trust the consciousness itself, or the ‘other consciousness itself, and that subjective experience and deduce our conclusions. In some ways it’s like trusting an experience of god or ghost or hallucination by someone ‘other. Yeah we can experience it ourselves as well to confirm it, but we can never ascertain the ‘other consciousness’ or the existence of the ‘other consciousness’.

The subjective or relative experience is just the experience of any particular thing, i.e. an experience, experiencing itself or just being itself. And any particular ‘A’ can only be A, and only A can be and is A i.e. itself. B, C, D, E, cannot be A, as B, C, D, E is not-A or ‘Not’/’Not-state[ment] of A. Existence is relative.