1. The Confusion Between Consciousness and Personality
We often use the word consciousness as though it refers to everything that makes us who we are. Our thoughts, memories, emotions, beliefs and personality all become part of what we casually call our consciousness. But are these things consciousness itself, or are they the contents of consciousness?
Consider how much a person changes over a lifetime. A child may be impulsive, an adult disciplined and an elderly person reflective. Beliefs change, memories accumulate, emotions fluctuate and ambitions disappear. Even the person we believe ourselves to be today may be quite different from the person we were ten years ago. Yet we do not ordinarily conclude that every change in personality creates an entirely new consciousness.
This raises a fundamental question: are we confusing the experience of being someone with the basic fact of being conscious?
My proposition is that consciousness and personality are different things. Personality describes the particular characteristics of an individual—how a person thinks, feels, behaves and responds to the world. Consciousness, in its most intrinsic form, may be something more fundamental than these characteristics. To explore this possibility, we must first distinguish the contents of experience from the question of what consciousness itself is.
2. What Remains When We Remove the Self?
Imagine setting aside your name, profession, memories, beliefs and social identity. Then set aside your current thoughts and emotions. What remains when you attempt to think about being without attaching it to any particular characteristic?
The expression that comes to mind is simple: “It is just it is.”
This is the idea behind intrinsic consciousness in my framework. It is not a particular thought, emotion or memory. It is not a personality, because personality requires distinguishing characteristics. Nor does it begin with an explicit sense of “I,” the individual who claims an experience as their own. The proposition concerns awareness before these personal distinctions enter the picture.
I describe this intrinsic consciousness as timeless and spaceless. These terms do not mean that we have demonstrated the existence of awareness outside physical space and time. Rather, they express the intended scope of the concept: intrinsic being is considered without the spatial location or temporal identity through which we ordinarily describe an individual.
Such a concept is difficult to explain because explanation depends on distinctions. We describe something by identifying its properties, relating it to other things and placing it within a context. But the moment we assign intrinsic consciousness a particular quality, we risk describing something more specific than the bare idea we began with.
The claim that this consciousness is common to everyone is the next step in the argument. If intrinsic consciousness is genuinely prior to individual identity, then it would not be uniquely mine or yours in the ordinary personal sense. This is the central philosophical proposition of the model, although it remains a proposition rather than an established fact.
3. Three Levels of Consciousness
I propose three levels of consciousness to distinguish intrinsic being from the experience of an individual self and the more elaborate experience of a self situated in space and time. The framework is intended to clarify different meanings of consciousness, not to establish a scientifically verified ranking of organisms.
Level 1: Intrinsic Consciousness
The first level is awareness without thoughts, emotions or an explicit sense of personal identity. There is no particular personality to describe and no individual history through which to define it. It simply is.
I regard this form as timeless, spaceless and common to everyone. It is the proposed universal foundation of consciousness, not a collection of personal characteristics shared by different people. Just as the concept of existence is not the same as the particular properties of an object that exists, intrinsic consciousness in this model is not identified with the distinctive properties of a particular person.
Calling it intrinsic does not, by itself, establish how it originates or whether it exists independently of a functioning brain. Those questions remain open. The defining idea is that consciousness, at this level, is considered apart from the individual characteristics that ordinarily shape experience.
Level 2: Self-Awareness
The second level introduces the experience of an individual perspective. There are feelings, emotions and a sense of “I.” Experience is no longer considered only as intrinsic being; it is also the experience of being a particular individual in relation to the surrounding world.
An animal may experience fear, pleasure, attachment or discomfort. It can respond to its surroundings and distinguish, in some manner, between itself and what is outside it. These experiences suggest a form of awareness richer than the bare concept of intrinsic being.
In my framework, this level includes forms of self-awareness found among mammals and other animals. The precise capacities differ between species, and the boundaries cannot be assumed to be identical for every organism. The philosophical distinction is that self-awareness introduces individual perspective without necessarily requiring the elaborate temporal narrative characteristic of human identity.
Level 3: Self-Awareness Within Space and Time
The third level introduces an explicit sense of the self existing within both space and time. We know where we are, remember where we have been and anticipate where we might go. We connect present experience with a personal past and an imagined future.
A student preparing for an examination, for example, remembers earlier mistakes, evaluates present progress and anticipates the consequences of future performance. The student is not merely experiencing the current moment; the experience is organised around a continuing identity that extends across time.
In this model, this is the highest level of consciousness, particularly characteristic of human experience. The distinction is not that other animals lack memory or any ability to anticipate the future. It is that the human experience of self can involve an elaborate narrative connecting past, present and future.
The three levels therefore represent three different conceptual arrangements: intrinsic being, the experience of an individual self, and the experience of that self as existing within space and time. The model asks us to distinguish these forms rather than treating consciousness as a single concept that automatically includes personality, identity and every mental activity.
4. The Torch and the Light
The central idea can be expressed through a simple analogy: the mind is like a torch, and consciousness is like the light it produces. The two cannot be separated.
A torch has a particular structure. It can have a particular shape, colour, material and design. Different torches can look entirely different while serving the same basic function. The light they produce is not identical to the physical characteristics of the torch.
The mind, similarly, has particular characteristics. It contains memories, emotions, beliefs, habits, abilities and a personality. These characteristics help make one individual different from another. Consciousness, in the analogy, is the light through which experience becomes possible. The torch represents the particular mind; the light represents consciousness.
The point is not that the mind is unimportant. Without the torch, the light would not be produced in the ordinary example. The point is that the characteristics of the torch and the light it produces are conceptually distinguishable. We can describe the structure of the torch without describing the light as though it were simply another part of its casing.
Likewise, we can describe a person’s personality without assuming that personality is a complete definition of consciousness. Two people may have different temperaments, interests and memories. These differences tell us about their individual minds, but they do not by themselves resolve the deeper question of what consciousness is.
The analogy has limits. Physical light can travel beyond the torch that produced it, and a torch can be switched off. Those facts do not establish that consciousness can exist independently of the brain or survive the death of an individual. The analogy illustrates a conceptual distinction; it does not prove a theory about the physical origin of consciousness.
Its intended message is simpler: the mind is the particular instrument, while consciousness is the light in the analogy. We should not confuse the characteristics of the instrument with the meaning of the light.
5. Is Consciousness a Fundamental Principle of Nature?
I propose that intrinsic consciousness may be comparable to a basic force of nature. The comparison concerns the possibility of fundamentality, not a claim that consciousness is a recognised physical force like gravity or electromagnetism.
Our understanding of nature often progresses by asking whether a phenomenon can be explained through something more fundamental. We investigate the underlying processes responsible for observable behaviour, rather than treating every visible property as an independent principle. The philosophical question is whether consciousness should be approached in the same way—or whether it might itself belong among the most fundamental features that an explanation must account for.
If consciousness is entirely produced by particular physical processes, we must eventually explain how those processes give rise to subjective experience. If consciousness is fundamental in a deeper sense, the question changes: how do individual minds relate to this proposed foundation, and why do experiences appear to belong to particular individuals?
My framework explores the second possibility. Intrinsic consciousness is proposed as something more basic than the personal characteristics through which an individual is identified. The personality, memories and thoughts of a person belong to the particular mind; intrinsic consciousness, if it is universal, would not be confined to those personal characteristics.
This is a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific discovery. Comparing consciousness to a fundamental force does not establish that it behaves like a physical force, nor does it explain how it interacts with matter. The proposal instead invites us to reconsider whether consciousness is merely another property of an individual mind or whether the individual mind is part of a more fundamental question about the nature of experience.
6. The Individual and the Universal
One of the most provocative formulations in my original idea is this: “You are your body. Your soul is general and not you.”
The statement separates the particular individual from the proposed universal dimension of intrinsic consciousness. We identify ourselves through our bodies, memories, relationships, achievements and personal histories. These features distinguish one person from another. They belong to the individual life through which identity is formed and recognised.
The word soul, however, has many meanings. Some traditions use it to describe the unique and enduring essence of a person; others associate it with a universal principle or a reality beyond individual identity. My formulation uses the term in the latter sense. If there is a universal dimension of intrinsic consciousness, it would not be identical to the personal biography or personality of any one individual.
This does not establish the existence of a soul, nor does it settle whether consciousness continues after death. It clarifies the distinction the model proposes between individual identity and universal being. Your memories are yours. Your personality is yours. Your experiences belong to your particular life. But if intrinsic consciousness is common to everyone, it would not be your personal possession in the same way.
The distinction also raises a difficult question. If the foundation is universal, why does experience appear individual? Why do I experience this life from my perspective and you experience yours from yours? A universal foundation would still need to be reconciled with the apparent separateness of individual experience.
The model opens this question rather than pretending to resolve it. Its central claim is that the particular person and the proposed universal dimension of consciousness should not be treated as identical concepts.
7. What Makes Human Consciousness Distinctive?
Human beings construct continuing stories about themselves. We remember childhood, interpret present circumstances through past experience and imagine futures that influence our decisions. We can ask not only what is happening now but also what it means for the person we were, the person we are and the person we hope to become.
This temporal dimension is central to personal identity. A student may remember a past failure and use it to change a method of preparation. A teacher may reinterpret an experience from decades earlier in the light of new understanding. A person may abandon a lifelong ambition and begin to imagine an entirely different future. In each case, the sense of self is shaped by the relationship between past, present and anticipated future.
Personality develops within this stream of experience. Memories influence preferences; preferences shape decisions; decisions alter circumstances; and those circumstances become part of the memories through which we understand ourselves. Our sense of who we are is therefore closely connected to the narrative we construct across time.
This helps explain why consciousness and personality are easily confused. In ordinary human experience, being conscious is almost always accompanied by thoughts, feelings, memories or a sense of identity. We rarely consider awareness without considering the particular person who appears to be experiencing it.
But close association does not automatically mean identity. The fact that personal consciousness is experienced through a particular mind does not, by itself, establish that consciousness is identical to the personality expressed through that mind.
My three-level model asks us to consider whether the experience of being a person is a more elaborate form of awareness rather than the complete definition of consciousness itself. The distinction allows us to investigate personality as one aspect of individual experience without assuming that it exhausts the meaning of consciousness.
8. The Question Beneath the Question
Consciousness is difficult to discuss because it concerns both the world we attempt to understand and the experience through which that world becomes known to us. We can study the brain, investigate behaviour, examine memory and develop theories about perception. These approaches illuminate many aspects of conscious experience, but the philosophical question of what subjective experience is remains contested.
My proposal is to distinguish three levels: intrinsic consciousness, self-awareness and self-awareness within space and time. At the first level, consciousness is conceived as intrinsic being, without the explicit characteristics of an individual self. At the second, the sense of “I” introduces feelings and an individual perspective. At the third, the self is situated within a continuing world of space and time.
The torch-and-light analogy expresses the relationship between the particular mind and consciousness in this framework. The mind is the torch; consciousness is the light. The analogy helps us distinguish the individual characteristics of a mind from the concept of consciousness, while leaving open the question of what their actual relationship is.
The deeper proposition is that intrinsic consciousness may be universal and more fundamental than individual personality. If so, the characteristics through which we recognise ourselves would describe the particular individual rather than exhaust the meaning of consciousness. This remains a philosophical possibility, not an established conclusion about the structure of reality.
Perhaps consciousness is entirely dependent on individual minds. Perhaps it has a more fundamental role in nature. Perhaps our present concepts do not yet allow us to resolve the question. The purpose of this framework is not to claim certainty where none exists, but to separate questions that are too often treated as though they were the same.
A personality is a particular way of being a person. Consciousness is the deeper question of what it means to experience at all.
Before asking who we are, perhaps we should first ask what we mean when we say that we are conscious.
Related reading
For a related exploration of the distinction between personal consciousness and a possible universal mind, read Is Consciousness Individual—or Part of a Universal Mind?