*An analysis from the perspective of natural consciousness*
---
## Introduction
This document examines what major scientific disciplines fundamentally miss in their study of consciousness. The core insight: all current research happens **from a conditioned state**, while consciousness can only truly be understood from a **natural, unconditioned state**.
---
## The Individual Disciplines
### 1. Neuroscience
**What they do:**
- Map brain correlates of consciousness using neuroimaging
- Study brain activity during conscious states
- Build computational models
**What they miss:**
**The observer themselves**
They study what's observed (brain activity) but not the quality of the researcher's own observing consciousness. The instrument remains uncalibrated.
**Conditioned vs. natural**
Neuroimaging can't detect whether a subject responds from conditioning or natural consciousness. Both produce brain activity, but the quality differs fundamentally.
**Pre-reflective awareness**
All measurements capture already-conceptualized experiences. The "raw" moment before labeling remains inaccessible.
**Deactivation as clarity**
They seek consciousness in brain activity but miss that clarity might be **less activation** - a quieter, deactivated system. Observing without labeling might show as reduced default mode network activity, but this isn't studied as consciousness itself.
---
### 2. Philosophy of Mind
**What they do:**
- Study the "hard problem" of consciousness
- Explore phenomenal experience and qualia
- Debate the mind-body problem
**What they miss:**
**Practical accessibility**
It stays theoretical (thought experiments like Mary's Room, philosophical zombies) without methods for direct verification.
**Mental activity vs. natural consciousness**
"Mind" is treated as one thing. The crucial distinction between conditioned thoughts and clear presence is completely absent.
**The transformation itself**
They theorize about consciousness but no philosophical system describes a reproducible path to direct, unconditioned experience of it.
**The explanatory gap**
The gap between physical and phenomenal may exist because we seek intellectual understanding of something only accessible **through deconditioning**, not through thinking about it.
---
### 3. Cognitive Psychology
**What they do:**
- Study attention, perception, memory
- Measure information processing
- Document conscious states
**What they miss:**
**Undivided vs. divided attention as qualitative difference**
Multitasking is measured, but not the fundamentally different quality of complete, undivided presence. The difference is seen as gradual, not essential.
**Observation as transformative**
They record conscious states but don't study how *observing without reacting* itself fundamentally transforms consciousness.
**Intuition as synergistic ability**
Cognitive models have no place for a "sixth sense" that emerges from five clear, unconditioned senses working together.
**Research within conditioning**
The crucial point: they study consciousness **within** conditioning, not the state that emerges **after** systematic deconditioning.
---
### 4. Phenomenology
**What they do:**
- Study subjective experience and intentionality
- Explore time-consciousness and lifeworld
- Map structures of consciousness
**What they miss:**
**Practical epoché**
They describe "bracketing" theoretically but give no concrete method to actually deactivate conditioning.
**Description vs. realization**
Husserl brilliantly describes pre-reflective experience but doesn't systematically cultivate that state. Phenomenology stays descriptive rather than transformative.
**Natural state as baseline**
They describe the phenomenology **of conditioning** (how conditioned consciousness works), not of unconditioned consciousness. The baseline is missing.
---
### 5. Interdisciplinary Consciousness Studies
**What they do:**
- Integrate neuroscience, philosophy, physics
- Host conferences and cross-pollination
- Develop diverse theories (IIT, Global Workspace Theory, etc.)
**What they miss:**
**Common ontological ground**
The field splits into "neurocomputational" (consciousness from matter) vs. "fundamental" views (consciousness intrinsic to universe), but misses the third option: consciousness as **deactivation** of automatic matter-processes.
**Verification methodology**
Many competing theories without consensus on empirically testable consequences. The field remains pre-paradigmatic.
**The reproduction problem**
They study consciousness in its current, conditioned form, not how to systematically transform it to a natural state. There's no protocol.
---
### 6. Brain-Computer Interfaces
**What they do:**
- Create direct interaction between brain and external systems
- Combine first-person and third-person data
**What they miss:**
**Quality of input consciousness**
They measure neural signals but not whether these arise from clarity or conditioning. The "purity" of the signal isn't distinguished.
**Intentionality vs. automatism**
BCIs can detect intention but can't tell if that intention is authentic or a conditioned reflex.
---
## The Fundamental Problem
### All disciplines share one critical gap:
**They study consciousness from a conditioned state**
- The scientist is conditioned
- The instruments are designed within conditioned thinking
- The subjects are conditioned
- The language and concepts are conditioned
- The research questions arise from conditioning
**Metaphor:** It's like trying to understand polluted water without ever having seen pure water. You can analyze the composition of pollution but don't understand what water *actually* is.
---
## The Paradox
**Consciousness cannot objectively study itself while it's conditioned.**
This explains why:
- Neurological correlates are found but no explanation
- Philosophical debates remain circular
- Theories proliferate without consensus
- The "hard problem" stays hard
The key lies in **first deconditioning, then investigating**.
---
## What's Needed: A New Methodology
### Phenomenological-Empirical Synthesis
**Phase 1: Transform the researcher**
Scientists themselves undergo the transformation process to natural consciousness (~12 months). This isn't a "spiritual detour" but essential calibration of the measuring instrument.
**Phase 2: Research from clarity**
From natural consciousness, researchers can now truly observe how conditioned consciousness functions. The contrast becomes visible.
**Phase 3: Identify markers**
Find measurable differences between conditioned and natural states. What changes in brain activity, coherence, connectivity?
**Phase 4: Reproducible protocols**
Develop verifiable methods others can follow. Not as belief, but as empirical process with testable results.
**Phase 5: Reintegration**
Translate new insights back to individual disciplines, which can then reorganize around natural state as baseline.
---
## Implications
### For Individual Researchers
- Recognize that objectivity requires subjective purification
- Develop contemplative scientific practice
- Accept that transformation of the researcher is part of the method
### For Research Institutions
- Integrate deconditioning programs into consciousness labs
- Conduct longitudinal studies of researchers undergoing the process
- Create new peer-review criteria that consider state of consciousness
### For the Field
- Shift from theory to practice
- From description to transformation
- From external measurement to internal realization
---
## Conclusion
The gap in all disciplines is **not technical but fundamental**: they try to understand consciousness from the state that needs to be understood.
The solution isn't better equipment, sharper philosophy, or more integration - but **first establishing natural consciousness** as a prerequisite for real research.
Only then can science transform what's now called "the hard problem" into a directly accessible, reproducible experience.
---
*"You cannot understand water by analyzing pollution.
First purify the water, then you see what water is."*
Beyond Belief 
Leave a comment