You

Same

File: 1474275612346.jpg (130KB, 900x582px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 900x582px

>>18154721
I know bro

I agree with you. I don't mind being reminded though. Preach to this choir all you want. The positivity is refreshing.

Why does consciousness only exist on this one planet, why did it take so long to emerge/evolve, why is the majority of the observable universe empty space, and if death is the parabolic opposite of life, how to describe the opposite of consciosness? Is death just the state of unawareness? How could unawareness happen, seeing as it needs a relative subjective dualism to be aware it isn't aware? What of living things with no consciousness, such as bacteria?

Nah, this theory is just newwave gobbledygook.

>>18154766
Want me to come up with an equally long list of problems with the current scientific narrative?

You don't beat your own heart or grow your own hair. If you do then prove it and consciously stop growing your hair. You can't, just like you can't affect anything else outside the laws of physics or human society.

Even if you're theory is true - and it isn't - but even if it is what does it change? We're all still going to go around killing and raping and hating. We're all still completely dependent on society and money to live. Even if you don't need money you still need food. We're all still going to die and we're terrified of it.

>>18154791

Did I mention specific problems? I think I just asked questions. You should be able to question and explore your beliefs, not blindly defend them against percieved assaults.

At least with scientists if they don't know an answer they say "we don't know, but we're trying to figure it out." They don't say "well your idea is flawed and incomplete too".

>>18154792
Before asking for proof of my ability to shine the sun or grow my hair, please consider who you think you are.

If you identify as a seat of consciousness encapsulated in a bag of skin, then this question will seem a valid one to ask. After all, if one is not conscious of an action or event can one be described as being able to perform that action?

Yet your body controls and regulates its internal environment without you being conscious of these processes. In the same way, your sensory interface with the external environment is what creates light, sound, and so on. You shine the sun.

If you recognise that the limits of your body are only arbitrarily defined by your skin and see that the processes that occur within your body are joined with the processes of the external environment, then your body is the universe itself.

From this universal perspective, the question of proof is absurd. Your processes are immediately and perpetually affecting every other process. In fact they are but one process, one pattern. And this is what I see as God.

File: David+Lynch+Russell+Brand+Meditation+Session+8eY1RGiTJpil[1].jpg (66KB, 594x419px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 594x419px

>>18154721
Lemme guess. You started meditating.

>>18154792
This may sound absurd, even inhuman, but the truth is that the evil that we do is as necessary to the expression of the universe as all the beneficence, love and charity.

What we call cause and effect is a blurry myopia. When we rub our eyes and see clearly, there is one process that is at once all other processes, good and evil.

>>18154862
Nope. Being is enough.

>>18154853

But the processes in my body aren't affecting the ones outside of it. If I never existed, and neither did anyone else, the sun would still be shining. I know that because it was shining a really really long time before humans were around. And so were a bunch of other stars and suns that humans didn't even know about until telescopes were invented.

>>18154869

I agree with you that a universal process governs and is infact the entirety of everything, and I think humans can consciously align with that, but it doesn't expand your physical reach as a human being in anyway, and is just a way of coping with the inescapable reality of that physical limitation.

>>18154766
We don't know that what we call consciousness is limited to beings from this planet. We also don't know if consciousness evolved or emerged or was always here. Nor do we know that it took any time at all.

For at least two thousand years humans have conceived of the world in two main ways, idealistically and materialistically. The distinguishing characteristic is the relative primacy of mind or matter.

If you're an idealist, you conceive of the world as being formed from mind, consciousness, while a materialist conceives of the world as being formed from matter. A materialist is confronted with the 'hard problem' of consciousness while an idealist is confronted with the origin of matter.

Much of what we know about consciousness springs from the biases of these two ways of conceiving the world. For all we know, what we call consciousness may be nothing of which we have conceived.

I'm afraid I cannot answer as to why much of the observable universe is empty, but modern physics tells us that everything is, to a very close approximation, empty space, nothing. It is our sensory interface with world outside our bodies that creates all the significance and meaning that we call life.

Death is a part of life. You ask if death is unawareness. Yes, but so is life. We are unaware of almost all of the processes that occur. The fact that we are aware of some of them, and find that other beings are also aware of some of them, is what creates our world. That world ends when process awareness ceases but a new world forms when once again process awareness resumes.

If you are a body, then death is the end. If you are the universe, then death is merely a change of clothes.

>>18154766
>Why does consciousness only exist on this one planet
How many planets have you been to?

>>18154924
>>18154935

Well we don't know consciousness is limited to this planet but we do know it's on this planet and we also know we don't know of it being anywhere else. We also have a lot of evidence to suggest that it emerged through a process of evolving animal brains, and that physical matter has been around much longer than humans. That's enough for me to believe in a physical world existing outside my own mind.

But it's true that none of it would exist to me if I didn't have the conscious ability to perceive it. I can't be sure my perceptions aren't creating the universe since I'd need to doubt the thing that allowed me to doubt in the first place.

But even if I am creating the universe I can't do anything about it, other than be myself. If it's all a process then trying to figure out the end result is impossible. The infinite repetition of the process is what matters, not the unknowable conclusion.

File: beloved by ray ceasar.jpg (44KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x600px

tru

bumpu for those who might like this

:)

File: 52345226.jpg (77KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x640px

>>18154721
Aw that's cute. Thanks, OP.

This thread has potential.

Why the need to use the Fight Club quote and make it sparkly?

>>18154897
The processes located in your body and those outside your body are but one process. We find it convenient to break down this process into constituent processes because it's how we are able to distinguish between them in language.

We use language to break down the world into units of thought which we call things or thinks. But language is a system of symbols or references. What they point to is reality itself and this is ineffable. So in order to communicate (with ourselves and others) we must divide it into things and events, patterns and processes.

This division is what creates the illusion that your body is separate from the world. In reality, it is reality.

Forgive me if my words are clumsy, I'm new at trying to communicate what I think I know!

File: tumblr_n6v18rVTgK1r1g6poo1_500.jpg (27KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x497px

needed to hear this today, op. thanks

babby's first Alan Watts video

>>18154721
thank you. i knew it already, but your kindness is palpable. have fun in life, op.