Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
The world we inhabit is an error, an incompetent parody. Revulsion, disgust, is the fundamental virtue, and two routes of conduct lead us to it: abstinence or utter licentiousness, the indulgence of the flesh or its chastening.
>>597053760 You are the only one that is real in this world. You are the one that can perceive this world. You see everyone else, but you have no idea if they can see you, you only take their word for it. When you speak to them, they speak back and you hear them, you never know if they actually hear you. You can feel them, but do they feel you? You'll never know. Even as you read this, you'll never know if anyone ever typed it, or if it's just how you perceive this world.
awareness is actually the most fundamental, basic, lowest-energy, smallest component of the universe, and it exists in every single infinitesimally small measure of the universe. Living beings are machines that isolate a certain amount of this awareness and write data to it.
The feeling of concrete "self", or the feeling of having some well defined person inside you(refered to sometimes as one's homonculus, or one's soul) is an illusion. The creature observes its actions just as it observes others, forms a mental image based on that and positions it in a social hierachy.
Feeling like a person is the same mental gymnastics as knowing another creature still exists when it leaves your sight.
Human children are not born able to do this.
Basically: you're not born with a "soul", you grow one. However, it's merely an after-image.
>>597054500 >You die >Wtf am I dead? >"Yes you are" >Are you god? >"yeah..you could say so.." >So..what about now? What about my family, and stuff? >"they're gonna be fine, dont worry bro" >Is this it? Eternal peace and all that bullshit? >"Not really...you are going back to earth in a few moments" >Hmmm..so the reincarnation was right then? >"er..not really again. You are going back as a monk. September, 1302" >???? >"You see..time isn't really as linear as you think it is" >But doesn't this time thing cause problems in your reincarnation shit? What if I come back like 2 years before I was born..and married myself, or killed myself???? >"Well..since your not gonna remember anything anyway I think I call tell you this... you are everyone, indeed"
Your consciousness, your soul, your essence: all of it it's not actually in your body but it's only manifested in it with the help of our brains which are portals of physical and physiological manifestation of this immortal energy which lies somewhere in the universe.
Like a Wi-Fi router which is our soul, and computers our body: the computer fails, you get another to access the web; the soul looks for another body.
>>597056074 so much sympathetic drug rhetoric is the rhetoric of technology, technical efficiency, quantifiable utility, domination of the environment, consumerism. Don't let anyone tell you that drug use is countercultural.
Look into Therevada Buddhism. take an Eastern Philosophy class. The idea of there being no consistent self, only a mind constantly experiencing and reacting to sensation, is literally the first verse of the Dhammapada, the fundamental Buddhist teaching: Mind precedes all thought.
>>597053760 Everyone who youve ever came in contact with has effected you, and anyone who they've ever came in contact with also has effected them, so following that idea youve been indirectly effected by every human to ever exist
There have been over 100 billion humans ever alive. Everything that could ever happen to a human being has already happened within reason many times over.
So, these narcissists who always justify their bullshit with the phrase 'YOU DON'T KNOW MY STORY!!!' I would say to them, 'Yes I do know it, yours and the other billion or more people who've lost a loved one, went through a break-up, took bad drugs and got aids etc.'
>After you die, you wake up in a different life,as a completely different person, where this life was just a dream. it feels like it was a dream and you slowly forget about it and go about your day, never realizing what just happened.
>Every time you go to sleep, you die. Someone who has the exact same memories replaces you and goes about your day, so you only have one day to live
>Between every second there is an eternity, a paused frame of the universe, where nothing has happened, where everyone is dead and where a moment is paused. maybe you die every second, left into an abyss of time, and every other second some other creature replaces you with the same memories, and you don't realize that because you have the memories of 'you' that existed one second ago. each 'you' is left in each second, like a drawing is left in a frame of an animation
>>597060200 I don't think that's 100% true, but a pretty cool thought.
Ties into the shit that kids these days are taught. "You're special" "You're unique" "You're one of a fucking kind, go do whatever the fuck you want because its easy and all you have to do is go for it"
Imagine that some people you meet over the course of your life aren't sentient. They're essentially automatons who act, speak, and behave in a way completely identical to conscious humans, but they have no thoughts or mind, and as such are unaware of the fact they aren't "real" humans. Because they appear identical to humans in every way, even conscious people can't detect the difference between themselves and automatons. Walking down the street, there could be equal part automatons and humans; you'd never know even if you studied each face rigorously or questioned all who passed as long as you like. Logically, this situation entirely possible, but if one was haunted by the possibility that they're surrounded by well-disguised automatons, most would think they were insane, which in all likelihood they would be. So, if most of us assume everyone else is sentient and feel justified in doing so even though pure logic states that it's only one of two equally likely possibilities, then why do we feel so confident that another person we're talking to is similarly conscious? It must be something outside of explicit reasoning, meaning that for our most fundamental decisions about appearances rely not on logic but on something else. Given the similarities between humans and animals and the near-universal forming of habitual behaviors, one could reasonably assume this is instinct. So, do we fundamentally rely on instinct for all our most basic decisions and perceptions? I argue yah
I have this hunch that a person who is blackout drunk and dies in a car accident will would end up in a different place than a 90 year old monk dying from old age on his month old death bed... any thoughts on this /b/?
>>597061384 kek I broke through on DMT, saw a fuckload of crazy shit and felt some of the most intense feelings I've ever felt but I wouldn't call it spiritual. Niggas who do that shit too much assume that to feel something that intense and complex there has to be some force causing it, people underestimate the capacities of the mind
>>597061652 just read trip reports on erowid if you're curious, for me I saw indescribably complex seemingly infinite fractals, shapes, felt like I was traveling through space at one point, imagine like being in the cover of a prog rock album only multiplied 100x in terms of crazy shit going on
>>597061868 Half was an arbitrary number, it could be any amount or percentage of people. But to answer the question, what explicit reason do you have to assume that everyone around you isn't an automaton, why do you and the rest of the world assume everyone around you is conscious? It's a leap of faith in a sense >>597062060 They don't think or feel; they only seem to. It'd be like watching a movie- technically the character is only an image on the screen caused by lights, but you empathize with it and because it has the image of being human you react to it like you would a human. Sure, there's an actor that causes that image, but when watching the movie itself you're not watching the actor, you're watching colored lights which you emotionally identify with as you would another human meaning that appearance is the only criteria for us to "feel" human or for something to seem human
>>597053760 it seems that for progressive intelligent life like ours the endgame is the singularity wherein the speces takes over its own evolution via technological means. naturally some people will want to use technology to circumvent mortality- assuming they are succesfull and outlive the earth the result would be a fleet of computer people constantly upgrading their bodies in space. further down the line the expansion of the universe would inevitably leave them stranded in a virtually infinite void, being left alone in space with nothing in any direction as far as they could travel (at some point the expansion of the universe will overtake lightspeed) they would essentially be the highest level of conciousness in their observable universe and to occupy themselves they would likely run simulations of reality. certain ones might even set up a set of varying rules and run many simulations of reality. and within those simulations assuming they are complex enough the beings inside them may very well progress down the same path and begin running simulations of their own, in which the beings begin running simulations ad infinum down to a level of complexity so small that they cant run any simulation of reality.
in other words, its entirely possible that there is a level of complexity in a reality above ours running a slightly simplified version of its reality in a simulation.
or maybe reality manifests itself as an infinitely larger sequence of simulations.
>>597062391 But the choice to habituate behaviors or to fall into a habit is still a choice, meaning that everything that follows from adhering to that habit stems from an initial choice. Plus, you can break habits, meaining you have free will unless the habit was literally impossible to break
>>597053760 DUDE life is a series of incontrovertible coincidences that while appearing to have meaning are entirely subjective and all moralistic preconceptions of meaning and ethics are null and void before the realities of human avarice LMAO
>>597062391 you have no free will, every decision you make is a result of chemical reaction, those chemicals were chosen when your parents genes mixed to make you. everything you do can be potentially predicted. free will is an illusion.
i believe that humans do not have free will. meaning that i believe the input determines the output with people- however that being said, i also believe that the machinations responsible for our determinism are sufficiently complex as to be indistinguishable from true free will.
>Children do not learn that books exist, that armchairs exist, etc.,etc. - they learn to fetch books, sit in armchairs, etc.,etc. Later, questions about the existence of things do of course arise, "Is there such a thing as a unicorn?" and so on. But such a question is possible only because as a rule no corresponding question presents itself. For how does one know how to set about satisfying oneself of the existence of unicorns? How did one learn the method for determining whether something exists or not? "So one must know that the objects whose names one teaches a child by an ostensive definition exist." - Why must one know they do? Isn't it enough that experience doesn't later show the opposite? For why should the language-game rest on some kind of knowledge? Does a child believe that milk exists? Or does it know that milk exists? Does a cat know that a mouse exists? Are we to say that the knowledge that there are physical objects comes very early or very late?” -Wittgenstein Just highlighting that concepts aren't the same as the fundamental sensory experience we attribute them to
>>597063486 just because you either studied buddhist philosophy or had an intense trip doesn't justify you buying into that bullshit >>597063497 habituation is definitely advantage >>597063546 i think the whole discussion of free will is just a circlejerk that dances around the problem that saying someone has free will or not is a framing mechanism based on an abstraction so removed from reality that it can't be applied, so it's empty of meaning. it's what comes out of abstracting choice, taking it from the everyday sense and trying to seperate it from the humans who make choices, and in doing so distorts its meaning to the point that this new abstract "choice" without context doesn't exist in reality as we know it
>>597063772 no i mean. by definition you're right. what i said is by no means a philosophy
i had a DMT-triggered OBE / astral projection and it's improved my scope on life and what it means, oneness and all that jazz. i guess i cant quite form a word for word "philosophy" though., i do subscribe to Nietzsche ideologies and Existentialism
>>597064399 i disagree, the whole concept of choice in itself is separate from the people who make it and if you take those people and subject them to the same experience over and over without changing their experience up to that point you would most likely get the same output from them. take people whove had major concussions for example, they will be in a state where they are dropping in and out of consciousness and have no memory of the time in between. they will, in fact, say the same thing every time the come to conciousness before blacking back out because the input will be the same and unchanged by repetition due to the lack of memory.
How? Without mentioning the spiritual aspect of it, we all are connected through a sense of humanity, emotion and communication.
Our consciousnesses are all programmed to perceive what pain and sorrow is like, even though the experience is obviously ambiguous, we have the ability to relate, and communicate solely because of our emotional distress. We have linguistic capabilities because of our relation, our want to explore our consciousness with other beings, to better the understanding of our overall one.
To underestimate the godly power that we hold is to ultimately underestimate a human in this objective reality.
>>597063531 But is every reaction strictly repeatable? We're more complicated than a single chemical reaction. Consider the butterfly effect or the induction fallacy. Different effects can arise from the same cause. This is what causes choice, as being sentient provides with the ability to decide (to our knowledge) what happens.
>>597061656 >people underestimate the capacities of the mind You're right. DMT is more or less used to connect with the universe, of course you don't have to. You clearly didn't. The mind decides what it wants and how it wants it.
>>597065145 I don't think any concepts are separable from their specific contexts or instances. Sorry for incoming block of text: >In describing an object as green, we are not wrong in observing and identifying the object’s greenness, but to assume that the green of one object and the green of another are the same (even if they appear to be identical shades) in the sense that they are part of some greater, separate “green” that can exist outside of the particular object in which it is embodied is a misstep because there is no such conceptual "green. So, green and other descriptive terms are just convenient linguistic grouping devices that have no “real” presence outside of their application as concepts (or as psychological or sociological devices we apply to the environment), and so concepts as inferior to tangible objects or traits in that their definitions could be redrawn, made broader or more specific, and a new grouping category could be unproblematically introduced in its place. We could redefine green as a particular shade of blue, or reject the word green and use more specific terms such as olive or lime; in effect they would all serve the same function regardless of where we drew the line. As such, the comparative process inherent to the construction of concepts is arbitrary, so they deserve no credence outside of their functionality. >Now, apply the handy little trick to “good,” “right,” “just,” etc. Particularly with the good, the concept is empty and essentially meaningless in that it always seemed to implicitly express another word, such as kind, beautiful, or proficient, all qualities that are pleasing to the individual, so “good” just means pleasurable in whatever sense. This means all ethics based on a discussion of abstracts is falsely based, which is all ethics, so there is no real "ethics" or right or wrong because every action is contextual an inseperable from that context
>>597065690 it depends on how much you let it effect you.
you can take all of the positives from it and even do it to the point of dissolving your ego completely and your day to day life would largely remain unchanged (in the long run though, probably not) as long as you remember afterwords that you where on a drug.
however the things you experience are powerful and people have been known to be driven to religion because of it. you experience intelligent hallucinations on it and some people experience these hallucinations as a god or godlike, others experience them as lesser or greater beings in varying numbers. some people cant handle that and continue life in the same way
in the end it affects you as much as you want to let it affect you.
>>597065690 umm, unless you smoke it every day, none. and i don't recommend smoking it every day. in fact tolerance builds up quickly so its a waste to it more than once a month. once is all you need. otherwise expect a lessened fear of death, a heightened understanding of life, and an elevated awareness of the problems you need to deal with. like a wider scope of your mental illness, or addiction.
>>597065910 You don't connect with the universe, you just get a bunch of really intense emotional and perceptual sensations that are foreign so you assume they have to come from somewhere else, when it's really only foreign because it's chemically induced. I thought I'd died multiple times and was reborn as a bunch of objects on a really intense DMT trip and when I woke up I thought it was cool but I didn't start spewing out hippy hocus-pocus because I know that while the sensations feel real, they're not, it's just drugs
>>597065690 Idk I'm really skeptical of all the spiritual shit but it was incredibly novel and you see some absurd shit. It's all what you take out of it and how you react to really foreign and intense emotions/sensations. For me I passed out, saw indescribably crazy shit, woke up and felt bretty gud but I wouldn't call it life-changing. It might get you into a more philosophical state of mind, break certain mental habits, or make you more open-minded to some things directly afterwards but that's about it
i flew through space at intense speeds and saw, or, hallucinated, the source. a big eye in space on a big space horizon with gridlines and more eyes zooming past me and from the eye expanded a lotus which extended into the entire universe, fractaling in and out, breathing life and death
>>597066299 >you can take all of the positives from it and even do it to the point of dissolving your ego completely and your day to day life would largely remain unchanged (in the long run though, probably not) as long as you remember afterwords that you where on a drug. >remember
I've never tried dmt, but I am conscious enough to remember each day, would trying it be beneficial?
>>597066723 The babby-tier Cartesian go-to arguments that we need to be skeptical of everything only work if you believe that absolute logic is the source of all decisions and you're anal enough to think that being "reasonably sure" that an absurd theory isn't true isn't good enough. This is coming from a guy who used to make and smoke a fuckload of DMT and do a ton of other drugs and felt the same sensations people say are "spiritual," but who knew not to take drug-induced feelings too seriously and knew that just because something was intense doesn't make it true
>>597064220 I don't mean to say that people somehow automatically hold beliefs they haven't thought about. But I don't think it's a sophistry to say that disavowal of a particular belief can be an affirmation of belief itself. Calling yourself an athiest is defining yourself in terms of theism. That's the way to break apart the word "a-theism". Much of the time, at least in American culture, so steeped in Christianity, someone says atheism when they reject a god who's omnipotent/prescient, the ultimate judge and punisher... In the end, that's a statement about what god is like.
I mean, I suppose it's fine to say "I don't think God is a meaningful idea"... then that's agnosticism.
if anything, "a-theism" should indicate that they're defining themselves in terms of the theist position... and "theism" isn't just "belief system"
>>597066444 I see what you're saying. But if everything was to come from that beginning radiation of the universe. Then in turn drugs are part of that universe. Chemical reaction is a correct answer, though it doesn't really matter at all. You can still experience a complete feeling of one if you wish it.
>>597066083 the concept of choice in the sense i was using it was not separate from the original context it was used in (a person making a choice) so im assuming you mean that you believe that any discussion about choice is arbitrary because the concept of choice is meaningless outside of discussing it in the context of specific people under a specific set of circumstances. if that is what you're saying then the second half of what i said where i was talking about people who've sustained concussions meets your criteria for meaningful discussion.
in response to the green text, i disagree with the first paragraph because there is a greater. seperate, 'green' that can exist outside of the object because the greenness is not a property of the object but rather light reacting to the surface of the object. and i agree with the second paragraph because obviously there is no such thing as absolute morality.
>>597067572 shit sorry man, i'm just too used to tripped out hippies at my work claiming psychedelics are the mainline to truth in the universe. don't mean to try and shit all over your experience, i'm just too used to people saying this stuff is the "only true experience" and other bullshit. >>597067690 i don't argue with that, i'm just saying that assuming what we imagine applies to the external world is wrong. if that's not what you were saying sorry, i'm too used to people arguing that way
>>597068336 in any case, i am entirely aware that what happened to me was a chemical reaction that as far as society should be concerned puts me down a few pegs if anything. i am definitely not the type to go endorsing psychedelics, though that's not saying i don't purvey spiritual contentedness
>>597068624 nah it doesn't put you down any pegs or anything, that's just societal bias against drugs and it's unfounded. and it was all my bad, i'm just too paranoid of the word "spiritual" when people use it in arguments because i assume specific connotations attached to it, but you and others use it in a different sense
>>597068092 Even if green is light reacting to the surface of an object, when we see "green" it's an individual instance of light reflecting off one surface, and in calling another object green and observing the same phenomenon we group the two instances together to form a linguistically-based concept that we assume also exists in reality, which I think it doesn't. And the concussions example does, but I think anytime we talk about multiple instances as one we still use grouping devices that can be accurate or not, and the only way you can determine accuracy is to go back to the situations you grouped together. Same with choices, the choice to do one thing has a different context it's inseparable from than another choice that has a different context it's inseparable from, and to group them together ignores the context without which the individual "choice" wouldn't exist in reality and as such give the term choice meaning.
All that has ever existed are the atoms that are around us. Everything that we ever see, feel, touch, taste, smell, and perceive is made of the same atoms that existed after the creation of the universe. The Atoms have been through literally everything. They have seen worlds rise up and be torn apart, over and over again. They have made up countless planets, stars, comets, and most of all, people. The Atoms have existed for all of history, and they will still be the same Atoms for all time until the universe ends. When people pray to God, they simply visualize the wrong image. Instead of a man in the sky, God is the Atoms, and the Atoms are God.
>>597069633 lol, i just ordered everything online for like 200 bucks and made it in a carlo rossi jug. pretty easy as long as you're careful, probably 3rd easiest drug to make next to opium and shrooms, just meant i essentially had unlimited DMT for a while which was bretty sweet, except that sometimes I got dumb about where I smoked it. like when i found out they allowed e-cigs in my 200 person lectures i smoked dmt in a vape during class and broke through for about 10 mins, everyone just thought i was napping which was legit
>>597070401 the one other kid i knew who was a shithead knew what i was doing and started laughing his ass off, the other kids shushed him which was the best part. the grill sitting next to me looked at me kinda funny tho all in all, would recommend doing yourself, it's cheap and ez as long as you do your research and are safe about it
>>597069760 with light in particular i believe that the two instances of the phenomenon are actually one in the same in the sense that other than time and maybe location the two events would be indistinguishable. if you look at the same object twice, would that be the same green?
>>597070917 ya dude, most drugs (except acid and E) and way easier to make than you'd think. you can actually order spore syringes for shrooms online legally in most states without credentials or anything, or mescaline containing cacti, or DMT containing bark for extraction, or wildly potent opium seeds. amphetamines are apparently easy too with chem knowledge
>>597071380 If two events are indistinguishable, then I think it's OK to group them together. But determining "indistinguishable" relies on limited perceptual faculties, and there may be errors in perception or judgement that limit your ability to differentiate between two instances. And I think it's the same green as far as you can tell
>>597071068 I bet you can't even tell where I quoted this from you shit.
>>597071407 >padding race detected I guess it means continually meeting people you vaguely know over stupid distances. not being a friend, or even an acquaintance. but meeting that person you shared a cigarette with in a city 200 miles away from the place you last met. then again on your holiday to spain. except with multiple people who in turn have the same chance meetings with each other
>>597071717 then lets assume for no other reason than to continue the original discussion on free will that there is a common element to all choices that is indistinguishable between them on the level of the interaction that the individual has with the world.
>>597072297 I think that's applying an interpretation to various instances of choice though; by focusing on and defining choice by a single aspect or by similarities you ignore the aspects inseparable from individual instances which are integral to what they are, and force them into an interpretation that isn't indicative of how they are in the phenomenal world. By generalizing, I think that means in most cases we ignore certain features of instances and accept others, which is useful but ultimately inaccurate, so it can't be a basis for truth claims
>>597071871 in my opinion there is a definite distinction between belief and knowledge, because belief implies a lack of data.
for example i believe that i will die of old age, however i dont actually know if i will or not.
i cant think of any real world example of an agnostic theist but the idea doesn't seem completely incomprehensible to me. for example someone submitting to the (shitty) logic of Occams razor, or perhaps in a hypothetical situation where someone was steadily discovering clues that a god may exist.
>Like I don't understand how an "agnostic theist" could be. Most people are. They say they believe but if you ask them for proof they'll tell you that they don't claim to know and that they believe on faith. Gnostic theists would tell you that your existence (or whatever else) is proof of God. They KNOW there is a God.
>in casual usage, isn't "atheism" used for a definite rejection of god's existence? In casual usage some people do think of it like that. However the distinction between agnostic atheists and gnostic theists would be similar to what I wrote above. Agnostic atheist claims that he doesn't know if there's a God out there or not but doesn't believe in it because he doesn't have faith and doesn't find the evidence compelling. Gnostic atheist doesn't believe in God and claims to know (through application of Occam's razor for example) that there's really no God.
>>597071080 why does life even need a purpose? Why does anything need a purpose? it's seems to me that the whole idea of "purpose" is entirely a human construct, or at least some form of higher-mammalian brain construct. Bacteria don't need a purpose, rather, they just are. Chemicals don't need a purpose, rather they just are, energy doesn't need a purpose, rather, it just is. The whole concept of purpose is a survival mechanism for humans and other similar organisms (why bother with something that has no purpose?) So purpose-finding is a function of ours, but nothing inherently has to have purpose. It seems to me that finding the purpose of life, or the purpose of one's own life is just kind of a misunderstanding of the origin of the word "purpose" crossed with an egocentric take that anything good needs purpose, and hence, "I" the individual am good, therefore I need purpose.
Not that purpose can't exist for an individual - having a sense of purpose seems to be fulfilling for many people an that's OK, but the idea that everything in nature inherently has purpose, or that life itself has an absolute purpose, I think is too restrictive
>>597073533 >Bacteria don't need a purpose, rather, they just are. Chemicals don't need a purpose, rather they just are, energy doesn't need a purpose, rather, it just is that you are aware of. why do you think you are here after how many million years?
There is no point to life. You can put your life on a timeline (e.g. 1987, Bob 9was born.1994, Bob pooped in a bucket. etc.) Even if you don't but a life or the world on a timeline, space and time are moving constant in a straight line, In order for a line to exist you must have 2 or more points, Therefor if space and time are moving constant, there is no specific point to life.
>>597076224 i get that youre trying to be funny here, but by your definition there would actually be an infinite amount of specific points in a life. also space and time are definitely not moving in a constant straight line.
>>597076503 not true, time is a measurable event. in fact it flows differently in different parts of the universe. gps satellites have clocks that are programmed to run slower to keep in synch with our clocks because of time dilation.
>>597053760 What if, last thursday or yesterday or just 3 seconds ago, the universe came into existence with all us people, fake memorys we actually didn't experience and everything made up so that it seems that we have existed for thousands of years? Try to prove me wrong!
>>597073450 >>597073343 >>597073255 well, ok. I don't want to fight over terminology, but I think one can listen to npr or whatever mainstream media and hear "atheism" used for "confident rejection of existence". I don't think this really changes what I've said about those types.
I don't think that "belief" and "knowledge" (as we're using them) are just two independent categories that can be put together in any combination. If you have belief, then you're not interested in talking about a god that can be "proven" with "data".
>>597071897 There's something to that, but The Observable Universe isn't going to step in and do shit.
Shrooms taught me that life is trippy. I think most things are just distractions to keep us busy. Things can have as much meaning as you want it to. It's weird. I had a dream I was 40 talking to my father. We were both old, and that'll happen in a matter of time. There's nothing we can do about time
>>597077284 Is it you Nagato? >>597077486 Yeah that's true. Almost would make it feel like our life had somewhat of a framerate.
Also I don't know if you're referring to an error I made or to the fact that 'Last Thursdayism' is unfalsifiable. If there is an error then forgive me! It may be due to my lack of english skills at 8:30 am.
Chances are I'll probably see someone in this thread ar least once in my life. Mayne a glance on the bus, maybe you'll be my future coworker. Who knows. Go watch Mr. Nobody and Boyhood. >inb4 fedora movie
>>597077665 actually energy can be wasted, its wasted all the time. go look up the efficiency for any motor, or google entropy.
the universe is destined to die from running out of energy. google 'heat death'
i think the phrase youre thinking of is 'energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed' which is a philosophical bastardization of the law of conservation of energy and only applies in isolated systems, not the universe as a whole.
that also has literally nothing to do with what i asked you, im sure it felt like a smart thing to say, but its not going to cut it. are you going to give me a real answer or wallow in the spiritual feeling you get from saying things you dont really understand?
>>597077724 >If you have belief, then you're not interested in talking about a god that can be "proven" with "data" Well, then you know for sure that the person is theist but not if she's gnostic or agnostic regarding God's existence. Plenty of people (in fact the majority of people) I've talked to that believe in God claim they have no proof and it's a matter of belief with them (they're agnostic even if the usage of the word to mean a "nicer atheist" would prevent them from ever accepting that). I find it odd that every person you talk to that believes in God is completely resistant to clarifying if they think there's proof or not. Do you live somewhere with a lot of fundamentalists?
>>597077724 Or maybe to come at it differently... another thing that seems to fuel fedora atheism is a reliance on materialistic (provable, empirical, locatable) notions of god (not much different than extreme fundamentalists). If you forget about "data" and "proof" when considering god, you get a whole different discussion, one that's much more ecumenical, and you force people to actually grapple with the questions.
>>597062837 >why do you and the rest of the world assume everyone around you is conscious? It's a leap of faith in a sense
i get the point youre trying to make but i think 'half the people on eart are automatons' is kind of a hard one to sell, i coulds say that i know that there arent any non conscious automatons because there would be no reason for them to evolve that way, or because the level of technology it would take to fabricate one would be much more useful to anyone if applied in virtually any other way. or a million other reasons.
>>597078555 I don't know that nothing would exist without a purpose in the same way that I don't know anything would exist without a purpose. I lost where you were going with that question. I just think there is more to life than what we know, because it's more justifiable than thinking we are here by mistake
>>597077918 the difference between what? between time not existing in reality and only as a concept and time actually existing as a feature of the universe?
the difference is that in one scenario time doesnt fucking exist and in the other scenario it does.
we can EXPLOIT time because of its properties.
if you travel close to a black hole you could travel incredibly far into the future because from your perspective time would run much slower than in the rest of the universe. for example.
or if youre close to death but have a machine that can go nearly the speed of light you could use it to travel to the end of the universe before you die.
there are particles we measure that exist on such short timescales they shouldn't be able to make it to the surface of the earth from where they're created in the atmosphere, but they do because from their perspective time runs more slowly.
Your brain is multidimensional. You will never die, you will simply wake up in a less restrictive universe than this one. You may soon be able to alternatively confine yourself to a more restrictive universe than this one as computers become able to more completely simulate a universe.
Things exist because consciousness is inevitable. Passing time in the universe is preferable to simply existing with nothing to do, at least for every consciousness here. When you die you'll likely be back, but you don't need to be.
While you will always exist, your memory will always be stored in your current universe. You will take many memories from your time in this universe into the one outside it. You will likely leave some behind. Thus, you never die, you are never born, but you always change into something new.
The purpose of life is to change into something you'd like to be. The only restrictions you truly have are the ones applied by yourself.
Time is relative. It has been proven to speed up and slow down. It is impossible for you to "not exist someday" because you simply exist between two points. Your existence has boundaries in a relative dimension the same way your corporeal existence has spacial limitations defined by your skin.
TL;DR: We exist to define ourselves. Our life is whatever we want it to be.
>>597079016 >not much different than extreme fundamentalists This is why it's important to use the right terminology. Why are the two so close, the fedora atheists and the religious fundamentalists? Because they both claim to KNOW, they're gnostic (atheists or theists). The agnostic folk get along much better, whether they believe (atheist) or not (theist).
>>597079143 what do you mean mistake? mistake implies that someone did something they didnt mean to. are you implying someone was trying to create a different reality and made this one by mistake? or that reality was intended to be something different than it is now? the word doesnt really apply
we aren't an accident of reality anymore than a mountain is an accident of earth.
of course there is more to life than what we know were only humans afterall and we only have what we can observe as data, but that doesnt mean that life has a purpose. why cant it just exist?
>>597061652 >>597061384 Went away from this thread for a while and got back and its still up so ill go ahead and green text my experience.
>Be 4 years ago >Been doing dmt for a while now, havent broke through though >Extract my own for the first time >smoke some next to green lakes (in ny) with my good friend >smoke as much as i can until i feel that im REALLY going to trip >hand friend the pipe and instantly i was transferred to a new world >Weird feeling of presence, authoritative, like going to the principles office when you were in school >Its a very industrial-like world and theres a huge - overwhelming - machine in the centre of the area >Getting closer to it, not me moving, but feels like the world is moving under my feet >See tons of "Deoxys-like" creatures working on machines (Yes the pokemon, but not ACTUAL pokemon, best way to describe them) >Seems as though im being summoned, called upon by the machine although its the most unhuman object in the area >My consciousness was being channelled it seemed >Like they wanted me there but not to study I wish i could explain it more, but the experiences ive had with this drug have changed my life, every time you do it, it seems to purge your ego, id say research it and try it, but thats all up to you
In the end the nihilists are completely correct. Not even eternity is truly infinite, it might take trillions beyond trillions of big bangs, a length of time that is so huge we don't even have a word for it, just the vague ability to describe something that no human brain could ever comprehend. One day all the resources will be truly and utterly exhausted, there won't even be the void of nothing because even nothing has precursors that maintain the conditions required for nothing to exist in the first place to be nothing. It's an idea beyond reality and time. Time won't exist, there will be no reality, at least not any form of it that we can begin to comprehend. If god ends up being real after all not even he will be here forever, whatever godlike font of power he gets his strength from will inevitably be exhausted one day and he will die from old age and whatever essence was left would be burned as fuel for whatever scrap of reality still clung to existence.
>>597078839 >>597080042 No, I was raised progressive Christian; I wasn't meaning to refer to my own conversations so much.
I don't like the empirical knowledge response, but I don't much like an agnostic response either: I don't want to force anyone to practice, but I think agnosticism can fail to understand what religion is about. Speaking concretely (and to give away the punchline), religion isn't something you do to harness ultimate metaphysical powers, it's a practice whereby you force yourself to think and act differently (like philosophy). So getting hung up on the question of existence, making that question the defining aspect of your position on religion by calling yourself an agnostic seems somewhat like playing "too cool for school".
Of course, if somebody forces me to, I'll answer I can't (or no-one can) provide material proof of god's existence. But doesn't it seem coy to describe most people of active faith as agnostic? Even as a technically?
It's hardly even worth thinking about, it is a fascinating idea but also the sort of thing a person could waste their entire life obsessing over and never get any closer to the answer. Even if our wildest dreams came true and humans survived long enough to conquer and rule the entire fucking universe not even the guys sitting there in the final moments of heat death would be any closer to knowing than some chucklefuck on 4chan was eons ago.
>>597082226 >youre entitled to think that I know but thanks for reassuring me. It was very nice.
>i fully believe that theres a higher meaning to all this, not god, but something else and dmt is the closest thing to helping me explain that You're just a druggie hiding behind his hallucinations because he can't find the meaning to life and thought it'd be easier to search for it in mind-altering substances and take his drug-induced trip as a some sort of sign from above.
>>597083416 i did read the whole post, you didnt really say anything you just described a sequence of events that im sure you thought where very depressing about how eventually everything will end. the fact that you're getting so upset and refusing to answer any of the questions im asking you about what youve said makes me think that you dont even know what you're talking about.
and if the nihilism thing was a joke it was a really bad one.
Thread replies: 312 Thread images: 57
Thread DB ID: 37332
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.