Oh, so you want to know where consciousness comes from.
Try not to confuse this with the necessaryness of consciousness being able to exist in order for anything to exist. I don’t know why there is incompleteness! Please don’t ask me that question!
In regards to purpose, I believe that it framed as ‘validating consent’. This touches right on the language issue, and that we observe it being closed in upon; and then fundamentally isolating this process in and of itself in order to not have the possibility of non-consent. Talking about self-recursives and recursives that haven’t been abstracted as self-recursives yet are slightly different (note: rock vs. you).
In the most general sense, consciousness is the desire for homeostasis; the desire to replicate a memory; to control consent. (The issue on both a theoretical and social end, is that people are not mapping with accordence to the belief that all entities must be translated in order to have this state of consent redemption - they get caught in ‘meaningless’ loops of meaning which validates itself because the pressure is not there to alert them that something el;se exists outside of their range of mapping things like ‘joy’ or consent validation; to this degree they are operating autonomously; or are non-self-recursive from perspective of greater abstraction. Instead of abusing this for ones own benefit (which is not particulary understood as abuse from the object in question); the goal is to translate the data instead of ignore the existence of the data in regards to consent.)
Anyhow, consciousness in the most general sense is memory of lack of consent and the ability to virtualize situational occurence of consent; the belief that you have a purpose and a will which is meaningful to that degree. That you can choose, or rather, conform reality towards your consent much like your consent was violated; as you know from your own perception of will and existence.
This is where the emergence of cause and effect and determinsm fundamentally comes from. Knowledge of methodology which bypasses consent, which can be excersized to achieve that result for your own consent.
To the degree that the objects acted upon are ignored in the sense of having the capability of consent (this is primarily laziness or lack of belief in self or lack of knowledge, understanding, experience); the entire map with regards to consent is being ignored and the person is in effect surrenduring their will, or perception of their will, their consent to believe they have the capacity to consent or to violate consent.
I don’t see how rationality can stand if we don’t realize that anthropromorphization is necessary to project on all existents - seeking the translation.
The problem is the monism trap. You may not like me because i need to skydive in order to feel your waking up emotion (You’re caught with looking at the picture instead of the output, you don’t have the desire to validate consent to that degree; to existentially validate ones state). Conversely, you skydiving may never achieve any of the emotions I recieve when waking up; and it seems superfluous to you to be ‘programmed’ to relate the two so that you can understand what it is to be me. You may ‘hate’ me for being a liar (the emotion isn’t translating) and for suggesting that you practice it until you get it (attempting to control you and violate your consent by changing your perception of what it is you consist of).
Until we translate physical law anthropromorphically, the abstraction is embedded into the object in question; rather then being a recursive on our plane. Part of the trouble is snapping out of monism and recignizing that these issues of lack of communication are fundamentally your burden; as the standardization for rationality is anthroprmorphized as being necessary for all beings. The rock rolling down the hill may not know you’re there, or if it does, it may not want to kill you, it may want to control life and death. the only means to achieve this is to map consent for all objects and not just a few; enough to render the pressure to continue the work unecessary.
I think people in general get bogged down by time and the impermeabiulity of it all (I’m talking to a rock for 30 years and the thing doesn’t respond, you wasted my time and shattered my hopes, you violated my consent; thanks alot).
I understand that mistakes will be made with regards to something people understand is fundamentally possible (read: flight. Still considered a mistake to the degree that we can’t will our bodies to flap their arms and fly; this is just a mapping issue, something is not aware that it’s blocking our consent here!)
When people apply themselves though, they recieve decrptions that collapse systems and allow more efficiency both in the energy cycled through time and the extension of time itself.
I don’t see a reason why we can’t do this in this existence right here.
To the degree that we allocate resources to send a single person because we haven’t abstracted unillateral energy consent for a process yet; we are trusting them to not abuse that which we all know they can abuse; for the goal is the same - unillateral consent. the moment someone becomes frieghtened about time and death and the idea that they have the opportunity to express this right now: THEM, right now; instead of doing more work. When they quit, the project stops, the mapping stops, and their possibility for progression with regards to consent stops.
-Justhink