The illusion if "I/me"

Originally Posted by lemex

Is consciousness nonlocal?

Again a matter of what consciousness is defined as.
I use it now as the totality of all there is. Or "life" , "reality".
This is of course nonlocal as a location would already be content.
It is not surrounded by anything, it has no size, no direction, no location.

The "illusion of I" seems to be located in the body though.
It is connected to the idea of a "ME" that is sitting inside the body.
So if we say "Human consciousness" as in the human feeling and thinking of "I am a person, I am here in the body" then it is apparently local. But this is not really relevant because it is already part of the story of real things, real people etc.

Originally Posted by lemex

If there is only one I and I say something, is I trying to relate to other I's.

But if there is only one "I" (only one reality) then who else is there to relate to?
There is only One. It can't relate to anything other than itself.

What you are describing is again part of the story of multiple individuals that somehow are separate but "share" the same consciousness or something like that.
There is nothing that is shared. There is absolutely no individual "I".
Still there appear to be multiple "localizations" of experience , multiple "images" so to speak but this is also just what happens.
It doesn't happen FOR anybody or FOR consciousness.
It is not experienced BY anything other than itself.

[lemex]

Again a matter of what consciousness is defined as.
I use it now as the totality of all there is. Or "life" , "reality".
This is of course nonlocal as a location would already be content.
It is not surrounded by anything, it has no size, no direction, no location.

The "illusion of I" seems to be located in the body though.
It is connected to the idea of a "ME" that is sitting inside the body.
So if we say "Human consciousness" as in the human feeling and thinking of "I am a person, I am here in the body" then it is apparently local. But this is not really relevant because it is already part of the story of real things, real people etc.

Yes, I hope everyone is thinking in terms of this totality because one has to know it is both local and non, it may even be dimensional. I did want to point to this. This I itself creates the mechanics of illusion. The question is does I see itself this way.

I'd ask from your philosophical view if I has power or responsibility. As far as human consciousness I'd also include alien consciousness which might be millions and millions of light years away. Though there isn't proof I use the word consciousness as all consciousness. If consciousness comes from conscious I is still in the body. I should be able to do what I wants. The I creates it's own reality. When we die the I Me may cease in which case the Me ends.

It becomes relevant because I made it. I use to think we return to the source. The problem I have with the I concept is then the I cannot judge what is created. Religion holds to I to so you haven't won me over yet.

But if there is only one "I" (only one reality) then who else is there to relate to?
There is only One. It can't relate to anything other than itself.

What you are describing is again part of the story of multiple individuals that somehow are separate but "share" the same consciousness or something like that.
There is nothing that is shared. There is absolutely no individual "I".
Still there appear to be multiple "localizations" of experience , multiple "images" so to speak but this is also just what happens.
It doesn't happen FOR anybody or FOR consciousness.
It is not experienced BY anything other than itself.

It seems to be psychotic. I is eternal (probably) and shares itself. I'm wondering is I shared itself. In every scenario, I is a template of itself in every consciousness. I might be as lonely as hell. There may be a creator so you can't say there isn't one, not even I go that far. Of course the ancient thought there were multiple Gods probably picked up by seeing multiple people, then a war ensured. In religion there seems to be as much drama as here, again another template. Based on your thought I am taking it to mean a supreme being isn't part of your belief. I am saying the supreme being is the I and I is part of everything, what we call the spark of God. Do you see a supreme being.