This is pretty bizarre if you think about it. https://en.wi

>>18921132
Energy leads to life. Life leads to consciousness. Consciousness leads to energy.

If you consider your mind a mere reflection of the universe's design by gravity, you can tap into the infinite "negative" energy all around you more freely.

Everything in this universe happens in 2's. NOTHING is singular. Not even your consciousness. There are two of you and you don't even realize it. Consciousness is the knowledge of the line between two points, albeit a nearly infinite number of points and lines. We infer meaning from this information. We feel it.

For the sake of energy.

>>18921132
i have been working on a model of consciousness for a few days now, and here goes!

originally we were the all, one big lake of water. when we are born we become a drop of water for a while, then we pass and rejoin the rest of the lake. maybe we go back out, but each drop would not contain the same molecules of h2o, so "you" aren't you, but part of you might be.

Um yeah that's why hippies say we're not the wave, we're the ocean

>>18921132
It can only be understood as an experience, you can't and won't explain it. No one will

>>18921283
That took you a few days?

>>18921283
The first time I thought this was when I was 15.

And I still think it is not a bad idea.

>>18921132
>Instead we really experience it and have to make the conscious decision to react to it.

Was with you until this point. Studies indicate the concept of "our consciousness makes a decision and our body acts on it" may be backwards. The reality might very well be our body takes an action, and our consciousness retroactively (we're talking milliseconds) comes up with our reasoning for said action. Look into the Passive Frame Theory.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/consciousness-and-the-brain/201604/passive-frame-theory-new-synthesis

>>18921283
>we were the all, one big lake of water
>we pass and rejoin the rest of the lake

As long as you realize a lake is not a singular object. It is a grouping of many many distinct and separate molecules. No molecule ever becomes another one. There is no merging.

Nor is a molecule or a drop of lake water the same as a lake. It does not have the same properties. It does not have the same impact.

Keep these principles in mind
>you are a drop, you are not the lake
>the water that enters a lake does not lose its distinction as separate molecules

>>18921483
If I understood this correctly this sounds pretty creepy.

So in fact we are controlled by our bodies/brains and the DNA/chemicals they have but our consciousness simply tricks us into thinking it was us. It's like getting a script written for you by someone else and having to play the role no matter shit it is. And then you have to suffer for the mistakes someone else did.

So people like Jeffrey Dahmer really had no choice.

>>18921568
>So people like Jeffrey Dahmer really had no choice.

Lifes a play, without people like him, it would be dull as fuck

>>18921230
Everything seems like twos because you are a brainlet and fell for the Hegelian trap. Duality is surface level

File: image.jpg (46KB, 307x342px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 307x342px

>We might as well just be like chemicals and simply react to stuff automatically and not actually experience anything

How do you know chemicals aren't conscious? Conversely, I can tell you that you can react without any consciousness of the action.

>Why is consciousness required and why does the universe want us to have it?

Imagine the most wonderful life you can dream up. You can either have that, or blackness.

But what about depression and pain? Both are physical states - we can block them with ketamine. And if you really wanted to die, and you killed yourself, you'd wind up in eternal blackness (Right?)

Haven't you found yourself in the Blackness again? Before the Big Blackness that was there before your first memory? How do you keep getting back out? If lack of oxygen ends consciousness, and you began as the Big Blackness, why did the creation of a brain cause the Big Blackness to go away?

>Why not a purely mechanical universe?

If consciousness emerges again and again, don't you have to wonder if it ever dies?

What if consciousness is innate to matter? What if the very chemicals you're made of are conscious, and you're nothing but a giant lens for this endless consciousness?

>There seems to be an occult element in all of this

Pic related. Your body picks up consciousness, and emits it back with modifications. Consciousness is the transfer of Quantum States - the movement of, say, an electron from one pixel to another.

Except, for Pixel-2 to have an electron, Pixel-1 has to have had an electron - this is called Eternalism. All moments exist at once, and your physical position in space determines which moment you see. Each of your particles traces a worldline through space from one moment to the next.

Your movement theough these moments is itself a meta-worldline. A higher dimensional being views you as static and stationary. The worldline thus forms a solid object which can be manipulated as if it were, say, a solid ring or sphere.

>>18921584
Interesting theory and interesting picture.

I had thought of something very similar to the picture. Since all living beings require the sun and are basically just living energy and what we eat contains the sun and we are exposed to the sun and originated from the sun..

What if our thoughts aren't really ours, but are the suns thoughts communicating via us and the sun was impregnating planet earth like a sperm cell would impregnate an egg? And life is the sperm and earth is the egg? So every brilliant idea every man had and maybe even your own theory and even the language we use as a tool is just all a manifestation of that huge godlike ancient being we call a star?

To be even crazier. What if every sun/star spawns unique life with their unique thoughts?

>>18921568
Well, there's lots of dualism to weed out in what you said, but you're essentially correct.

>we are controlled by our bodies/brains and the DNA/chemicals they have but our consciousness simply tricks us into thinking it was us
So what do you think "we" are if not body/brain or consciousness? WE perform the actions, but our awareness of this action is post-hoc, and our "intent" is created from what we did.

>So people like Jeffrey Dahmer really had no choice.
This assumes the actions of people are fully deterministic if they aren't controlled by awareness. Choices are still there, but how and why we make a choice (our awareness of the choice) is all after-the-fact. In terms of his awareness - what he "decided" and "thought" - you are correct; he had no choice.

>>18921132
We are chemicals that react to things. We're just a very complex system, and not something simple like mixing 2 chemicals and fizzing.

Every feeling you have is a chemical reaction and every thought is just electrical signals. We have evolved into a form that expresses everything that we are in a unique way, when compared to other animals.


Everything started with the periodic table, mixtures, reactions, changes, evolution, convolusion...
It's all lead us here.

File: image.jpg (68KB, 539x567px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 539x567px

>>18921584

It's not hard at this point to believe that all electrons could be the same electron;

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

And if all electrons, why not all particles? What if every particle in the universe was the same particle at different points in space? That is, the same electron orbits back to it's original position, forming a Closed Timelike loop that allows reverse time travel.

But if it enters into the same Pixel ('Point' in calculus, I should mention,) then you have a back-up of Quantum States. But a given Pixel has a maximum number of states it can hold, and excess states have to be ejected to a neighboring Pixel - this is because of the Pauli exclusion principle.

So now you have two electrons, connected by a meta-causality chain. This chain is a 'Quantum Entanglement' - pic related. Each particle is imperfectly Entangled in growing degrees - 100%, 99.999%, 99%, 98%, etc. Eventually, the second electron isn't acting like an electron towards the first electron at all - it turns into another elementary particle, like a proton.

So then you have an electron and a proton, which combine to form an atom of Hydrogen. Continue this cycle, and you get the universe. But it all began with that one, lone electron.

>>18921573
An oversimplification.

Dahmer's life had variables. Billions of them. And each of those variables interracted with his personality in various ways. So many factors in play that you can't make a formula for making a killer like him.

So a clone of dahmer could live his EXACT life, and not be a killer.

How? Because there's ultimately no way to account for every variable. So to totally discount choice is foolish. Because a single event could have changed a single.choice (real choice or not) and that would have cascaded and chanhed every moment after.
Even if choice itself is an illusion, it can vary greatly and is unpredictible.

And for that matter, do you think that every moment in your life so far purposfully lead to you reading this? You having zero input on that?

Seems pathetic to me.

>>18921630
Lay off the drugs there dude.

File: image.jpg (47KB, 372x413px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 372x413px

>>18921630

See >>18921679.

The Sun emits so-called 'Alpha particles' - which means bits of broken atoms. The photons themselves act as wires along which Quantum States are transferred.

As these photons and alpha particles rip through the atmosphere and slam into plants, they combine with Earth-matter to form molecules. Specifically, photosynthesis is the means by which plants harness photons to force CO2 to become cellulose and lignin.

In fact, the wavelength of the photon determines quite a bit about what molecules are synthesized. A pattern of wavelength variation could create a pattern of molecules, which would spontaneously combine to form more complex molecules - like RNA.

If you could seed the Earth with Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH's) first, you could emit photons that would induce the synthesis of very complex RNA strands - look up the PAH world hypothesis.

The script of evolution could be played, stopped or rewound by photons from the Sun.

>>18921720
The dude was dissecting animals when he was just a kid. Many people get fucked in the head, but only as old teenagers/young adults. It is VERY uncommon to be that fucked in the head at such a young age.

How many fucking variables could there have been?
>inb4 bullies are fucked in the head too
Yes but this is another category. Often they do it only in groups. Actually the vast majority. It is also very rare for a bully to act alone, but even then they just want attention.

Dahmer didn't want any damn attention, he was literally just having fun seeing animal corpses and see the inside of it.

Consciousness and free willl aren't doing so well in the sciences. Odds are that humans are really good story tellers and that these concepts are tools we use to make sense of the world.

>>18921723
Our universe is far more bizarre and marvelous than anything a drug-infested mind could imagine, by dumb, ignorant friend

>>18921725
Yeah I considered that when thinking about the way civilizations spawn around certain angles from the sun.

Specially now that the job of the RNA it's been proven to be more prominent than it was considered before.

>>18921736
Also, there's no evidence that consciousness provides and evolutionary advantage (exotherms could and probably will outlive us).

It's conceivable that there are intelligent extraterrestrials that aren't conscious and don't have a sense of self. I think it's likely there are more without consciousness than with it.

>>18921736
Well put. I kind of realized this even as a child. Almost everyone was just talking nonsense and exaggerating everything and nobody had any clue about anything and even the teachers were like robots who just repeated what they learned instead of opening the doors to our minds and adults answered to thought-provoking questions with dumb answers.
>>18921753
Creepy desu. What you are referring to is a philosophical zombie. A human which is indistinguishable from a human but doesn't have a consciousness. Well reality is far creepier than you think. I actually think there is a varying degree of being conscious. Your theoretical physicist or buddha monk is probably far more conscious than a factory worker. It is creepy to think that some people might literally have no consciousness anymore. Can you lose it? Can you still perform basic functions like eating and shitting while having lost it? Did people in mental asylums lose it?

>>18921725
>The script of evolution could be played, stopped or rewound by photons from the Sun.
But why does evolution exist what it is evolving into?
>>18921584
I guess what you mean is we aren't bodies that have consciousness. We are consciousness that has bodies. But do you think there is only one consciousness or many? Is separation just an illusion or does this sound too good to be true?

>>18921753
>I think it's likely there are more without consciousness than with it.
Interesting but I have to disagree. Scientifically (as in, not including my beliefs), I consider consciousness to be an emergent property of the brain: a sort of feedback loop but with the sensory system as a whole instead of an audible whine with a speaker system. I think any system that develops a complex enough sensory system will eventually have the sensors sense the sensors and start the "whine" of the self-awareness loop.

>>18921483
In the James-Lange theory of emotion (at least I believe it's James-Lange, could be Canon-Bard or something like that), the body first has a physiological response and the way in which we mentally interpret it will determine our emotions. For example, if we have coffee before an exam, we will be jumpy - but are we going to mentally attribute our jitters to the caffeine, or being nervous about the test? Deciding one way or another, in theory, changes our emotions about the situation (i.e. we will either genuinely feel nervous or genuinely be calm and just blame caffeine).

>>18921821
Emotions were always a big mystery to me. What the hell are they and why are they so random and chaotic? There are as many shades of emotions as there are shades of colors. Millions. And some can understand them and some don't. It's like another sense or a secret language which I will never understand.

>>18921821
There is also this study, but I think it's been poked full of holes since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Volitional_acts_and_readiness_potential
>Researchers carrying out Libet’s procedure would ask each participant to sit at a desk in front of the oscilloscope timer. They would affix the EEG electrodes to the participant’s scalp, and would then instruct the subject to carry out some small, simple motor activity, such as pressing a button, or flexing a finger or wrist, within a certain time frame. No limits were placed on the number of times the subject could perform the action within this period.
>During the experiment, the subject would be asked to note the position of the dot on the oscilloscope timer when "he/she was first aware of the wish or urge to act" (control tests with Libet's equipment demonstrated a comfortable margin of error of only -50 milliseconds). Pressing the button also recorded the position of the dot on the oscillator, this time electronically. By comparing the marked time of the button's pushing and the subject's conscious decision to act, researchers were able to calculate the total time of the trial from the subject's initial volition through to the resultant action. On average, approximately two hundred milliseconds elapsed between the first appearance of conscious will to press the button and the act of pressing it.
>...brain activity involved in the initiation of the action...occurred...as many as three hundred milliseconds before subjects reported the first awareness of conscious will to act. In other words, apparently conscious decisions to act were preceded by an unconscious buildup of electrical activity within the brain - the change in EEG signals reflecting this buildup came to be called...readiness potential.
(Heavily edited last paragraph cuz word limit.)

>>18921513
>op uses terms water drop and lake to describe spirits and souls
>an anon gets down into the semantecs of the meaning of the words lakes from the english language and comes to the conclusion that the definition of a lake is many small particles thinking this means that the firmament and water above are forced by these english words and tiny atoms on earth

oh ok so because drops joining a lake technically doesnt join the lake, that means when my soul joins all the souls, our souls will be subject to the same rules as drops joining a lake on earth.

>>18921283
I see it as electricity. We, consciousness, go exploring the multiverse and start slowly coming together like electrons circling the same atom. When we get tired we get closer to the center until its a center so attractive to so many electrons that the pressure is so great that it creates a new multiverse matrix to be explored.

The coming together is like merging the experiences, like saying "wow you can't believe what i just saw over there"

So this life of ours is just a random point on a completely free multidimensional explorership of chasing new experiences

>>18921879
Yes. There is no difference between you or me or any other soul, but we are not the same soul. We never were. We never will be. The "One" of the lake is eternally a Unity of Many.

>>18921837
btw ur alien hybrid ur mission is to study and incorporate the emotional body and bring this data back to 5d to help the ascension to 6th

>>18921132

I believe, that all of existence, every single person, animal, object, mass, energy, this entire multiverse is one being/intelligence.

We are the result of an undertaking, a supposition, a curiosity on the part of a being who decided to experience existence. What we call existence, is not where the being is and it does not limit the being. We are it, everything is it and it existed through us, it's decision and the results might've been in relative terms instantaneous to it since this cannot be an intelligence limited by time but rather the contrary, but existence to us resides within this decision.

And while it pondered what would be, it all was, and not just that, this being also simultaneously sought all that could be and all that was now born from the possibilities. All these possible existences are sought and followed through to develop new ones and so fourth and a quest to be, to be all, all ways.

File: image.jpg (624KB, 1120x1024px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 1120x1024px

>>18921743

>Specially now that the job of the RNA it's been proven to be more prominent than it was considered before

Exactly. RNA is far more robust than DNA as well, and can become either DNA or a protein. A microbot with sufficient RNA synthesis capacity could produce an entire planet's worth of biological diversity.

>>18921816

>But why does evolution exist

Imagine you have three ingredients - Paint, Primer and Varnish.

The primer binds to the surface, and provides a ready surface for the paint to bind to. The paint, when dry, can be varnished to protect the entire object.

In the womb, an organism is primed, painted and varnished. To change your body, you first have to strip off the varnish, paint and primer - but this leaves you vulnerable to random materials that fall onto your skin. Your adult body constantly 'sweats' primer, paint and varnish, and won't let these materials be removed for long.

Evolution is a collection of technologies with the purpose of allowing Individuals to design their own bodies.

>what it is evolving into?

What do you want to be? You keep all your future bodies inside your genitals, and they unfold like the stages of a rocket. Your child is what it looks like when your Set of Quantum States transfer into the Future. The information of the states is being copied, and it exists eternally during all past moments at the same time.

You never die, and biology is a toy. You clawed and killed for the body you have now. Your bloodline is a script that's unfolding over the course of billions of years, in the form of meat puppets.

Mythology is derived from genetic memory, which is a form of nanotechnology where the script and the material worked upon are One. We remember how we came to be;

>https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/04/17/cosmicserp.pdf
>Then, a few pages away, another shaman is quoted as saying: "At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth "

>>18921132
I think qualia is a product of becoming the apex predator of an entire planet.

>>18921568
Are you guys idiots? This is common sense. How did you not know this

I wasn't ready for this today

File: image.jpg (27KB, 539x351px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 539x351px

>>18923390

>I guess what you mean is we aren't bodies that have consciousness. We are consciousness that has bodies

Yes.

>But do you think there is only one consciousness or many?

One particle only requires one consciousness. When the particle goes back in time, it literally looks at itself as if in a mirror. If Particle-2 acquires the exact Quantum States as Particle-1, it becomes Particle-1, and this state is Frame-1/Pixel-2.

It's as if you stood at the foot of a mountain at 9:00AM, and later, at 5:00PM, at the top of the mountain, looking down and seeing yourself at 9:00AM. You can even walk back down the mountain and meet yourself, and there'll be two different bodies.

I think this is how different people are literally made. I sincerely think I can define when a being is created, and sexual reproduction is the means we do this - the division of bodies creates the new consciousness of the child.

We're gods, and we need to start acting like it.

>Is separation just an illusion or does this sound too good to be true?

Well, I've done drugs and 'merged' with other people. During these experiences, it's as if me and the other person had telepathy.

The fact that these experiences occured with people I'm related to isn't a damnation of this hypothesis, but an affirmation - genetics and physical contact create cause-and-effect Quantum State transfer relationships. It's as if a cord erupts from my father's penis, goes into my mother, and erupts from her womb and seems to orbit her for a time before shooting off in it's own direction - but for some strange reason, I keep returning to her.

I am both my father and my mother, merged and thrown into the same loop along with them. Even when they die, I'll still be in the same giant loop into and out of the Supermassive blackhole at the center of the galaxy.

>>18921568
>So in fact we are controlled by our bodies/brains and the DNA/chemicals they
We're not controlled by those thing, we ARE those things.

File: 230px-GABA_3D_ball.png (22KB, 230x117px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 230x117px

>>18921132
we can't answer this because we don't have the tools yet. we need neural prosthetics or atleast something small enough to go in and image the brain in detail before we learn these secrets.

https://www.google.com/#q=neural+prosthetics

http://neuralmimetics.com

>>18923504
Makes sense.

>>18921132
>Reply
cuz existence and exp is better than nothing at all, faggot

File: 16464599_613978705460490_7133354789282250752_n.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>18921283

>>18921132
Consciousness and experience are not objective terms in this context. What you call consciousness of sentience is a byproduct of chemical and electrical signals in the brain and partially the nervous system. The universe does not "require" nor care if we "experience" anything.

>We might as well just be like chemicals and simply react to stuff automatically
That is essentially what we are doing, it is just that you label that response as "experience". Evolution formed the brain, which most animals have, as it allows for more intricate reactions to situations and ultimately makes the species better adapted to survival.

The Universe does not "want" anything. This is just you personifying the Universe.

>>18921283
You didn't come up with that. You basically just described the belief of reincarnation. Although this has always been my thought on what happens after death also. I think as soon as sentient thought ends in the brain, perhaps POV switches to that of a newly produced baby (not necessarily born).

Another theory of mine is that the "soul" (basically what I am calling perspective of experience) shifts to any other being, like animals or humans, but unlike reincarnation, I believe it could shift to an already fully grown sentient being at any stage of life and seamlessly merge onto their experience.

Either that or all sentience just ceases. Both of those are my primary theories of after death.

>>18924786
>You didn't come up with that. You basically just described the belief of reincarnation. Although this has always been my thought on what happens after death also. I think as soon as sentient thought ends in the brain, perhaps POV switches to that of a newly produced baby (not necessarily born).


It is true, you can also experience it when you sleep, your consciousness is never in a state of sleep or where you experience nothing, most people don't remember their dreams or only remember partial parts.

That's because if you get to the point in where you remember them all, you know that you never stop experiencing. I have experienced more in my dreams, than this place we share.

>Inb4 i need to leave the basement. I am an oldfag family man

>>18924852
Indeed, we don't remember everything we experience, and with dreams, when we forget them it is as if no time has passed between them. If you were frozen just after death and then revived 1000 years in the future, it would probably seem instantaneous as you are not experiencing anything, and so it is impossible to grasp any sense of time or memory in those years.

>>18924786

>The universe does not "require" nor care if we "experience" anything.

And yet here I am a physical manifestation of the universe and I care. Makes you think huh?

>>18921132
because nothing is interpreted. If existence isnt acknowledged then it isnt fucking there. Which voids it completely. I think therefore I am

>>18924904
Yeh exactly, I agree.

I didn't word this properly or I forget to add a crucial part.

>your consciousness is never in a state of sleep or where you experience nothing, most people don't remember their dreams or only remember partial parts.

If you did remember everything, you wouldn't be able to distinguish one experience from another, so I think that's where there is the duality illusion. Duality of here and there, life and death, up and down, dreaming and awake.

If you didn't have these duality's you wouldn't be able to distinguish your waking life (this experience) from all others.

I'm being completely honest when I say this, I have dreams as real as this. You cannot tell the difference, you can only know the difference. Unless you go lucid.

Now for some reasons going lucid in reality, here and now, can this be done?

>>18924904
Furthermore.

With dream recollection, I think you can slowly adapt your mind or consciousness here to except that its active everywhere at once.

My dream recollection just keeps getting better, when I remember one dream it will trigger the remembrance of another and another, just like flashes in my mind but I can see the whole thing at once. Kind of like "oh that happened"

Say if you were to remember a nice day at the beach in waking life, I can remember just instance after instance of dream states that are full experiences which I had, but I can only experience one thing at a time. Like anyone. And I think anyone is capable of these things, Im not claiming any supernatural ability, to me its quite normal

>>18924930
No, not really. Molecules formed amino acids which formed living mechanisms which eventually through evolution formed the brain and lead you to question yourself. This doesn't mean the Universe "requires" you to be sentient.

>>18924980
Experience is the feedback of stimuli, real or virtual, that is constantly processed by the brain. Memory is what strings these experiences together into a continuous state of being. Dreams can indeed be as realistic as waking life. Since dreams are processed in a different way to real life live stimuli, the experience seems very disconnected from real life, which leads to an illusion of duality, but it is indeed an illusion.

>>18924997
>Since dreams are processed in a different way to real life live stimuli, the experience seems very disconnected from real life, which leads to an illusion of duality, but it is indeed an illusion.

Perhaps we have to be tethered to one experience at a time, in order to have others, I think this continuous reality, which seems to be consistent and "here" is just a belief you maintain that it is consistent in order to have others.

Like you interact with people in the world, perhaps they're tethered someplace else, you can talk to them sure, they are there, obviously you can see them?

But all the characters and entities in dreams could in fact be tethered to that experience.

Like we're dreaming them and they're dreaming us!! Does this make sense.

>>18924997
>>18924904

By brainstorming with you I think I just figured out something else about Duality and dream states, which is Original, but do you ever feel as though you should keep somethings to yourself?

>>18925028
If you so want to claim the idea why not post it under a trip and screencap it?

>>18925035
>With dream recollection, I think you can slowly adapt your mind or consciousness here to except that its active everywhere at once.
>My dream recollection just keeps getting better, when I remember one dream it will trigger the remembrance of another and another, just like flashes in my mind but I can see the whole thing at once. Kind of like "oh that happened"
>Say if you were to remember a nice day at the beach in waking life, I can remember just instance after instance of dream states that are full experiences which I had, but I can only experience one thing at a time. Like anyone. And I think anyone is capable of these things, Im not claiming any supernatural ability, to me its quite normal


I'm posting it on my minds blog. I went from a journal to online, so when my daughter grows up she has it to read, or if something happened to me I could still speak to her

>>18925035
I posted it in my minds.com page, if you would like to read it you can. Its an original theory. And would explain why one can't experience death.


I am not looking for subs, and I am not asking people to sub to my page.

>>18925019
>Perhaps we have to be tethered to one experience at a time, in order to have others
Well yes. Unless you have some kind of alien mind we can only process one experience at a time, what is happening at the present moment.
>I think this continuous reality, which seems to be consistent and "here" is just a belief you maintain that it is consistent in order to have others.
Indeed, it is all relative. You need prior experiences to draw from to use to process current situations. This is how people mature. This is why reality seems more real as an adult compared to the nature of life as a child which seems to flash by. Babies are barely aware of anything, it is just a compilation of sounds and colours to them.
>Like you interact with people in the world, perhaps they're tethered someplace else, you can talk to them sure, they are there, obviously you can see them?
I advise you look up solipsism. You are kind of on those lines. Look up NPC theory also. I would not say that we are dreaming then and vice versa, but it is true that your experience of talking to someone else happens entirely in your own head. You only really "see" a virtual representation of other beings conjured up by your own brain chemistry. But are they there irl also? Yes, unless you are schizo, that is.

>>18925062
Um you should link your account if you wish me to view it.

But yes, we cannot "experience" death as brain chemistry is what creates experience and when this ceases so does the byproduct of sentience. Whether we shift to a new being or just cease to experience is a mystery to me.

>>18925071
>I advise you look up solipsism.

I literally addressed that in my post which isn't here, I think it solves that view, or at least sheds light on what it exactly is

>>18922035
does this mean that you are not you, but are actually a group of atoms and molecules commonly referred to as a human being, and which other human beings refer to as you?

what's the effective difference?

>>18925077
Sure

https://www.minds.com/DreamEater

Its in my most recent blog named, "Dream states, Duality and the people you interact with in dreams.

The paragraph at the end is the one I didn't want to post here, the ones before that was the lead up to the realization I had

>>18925077
>But yes, we cannot "experience" death as brain chemistry is what creates experience and when this ceases so does the byproduct of sentience. Whether we shift to a new being or just cease to experience is a mystery to me.


I also addressed that

>>18925077
I want to make videos on my Dmt trips and theories like this, but I feel when it is shared as a video people start to identify what you're talking about with the person talking about it. Like the ego.

I see SO many youtube videos on Dmt and altered states that are complete garbage, and the people doing them have NO EXPERIENCE, the ones that really do are always the most least viewed. Its strange.

So I prefer to share things this way, so people can read it

>>18925077
Tell me what you think of the theory.

>>18921132
Read The Holy Bible, KJV pls.

>>18925117
>I think there is a big possibility that the people you interact with here and now in this life, could in fact be dreaming
Well, that's some inception shit right there, that we could be characters in a dream and people dreaming actually are viewing an alternate world. I can't deny the theory but in the end it is an entirely subjective area we are discussing here.

Personally, I think we are biological machines interacting with other biological machines and no more. So I think I am as real as the next guy, I don't really subscribe into NPC theory and some of solipsism I think is wrong. (Although there are a few different types and some of them are more sensible)

I don't know if I would put it that way personally. I am a materialist and this would require some metaphysical type shit.

>>18921132
You're thinking that consciousness is required but it's not. Just happens to be here

>>18925150
>we could be characters in a dream and people dreaming actually are viewing an alternate world.


No maybe I didn't explain it well enough on minds.com but I am going to amend the errors and polish it a little. However what I'm saying is, the people you see in life, did have this experience, just as you're having your experience here. But they don't perceive the timeline the same way as you.

For you its constant day to day thing, for them instant. And your dreams that you have when you sleep are you playing the role of filling someone else experience with other "people"

>I don't know if I would put it that way personally. I am a materialist and this would require some metaphysical type shit.

Really, ok, as you can see in my bio, I think its very very "mystical" I don't know the word. I don't see the world as physical, I see it no different to any dream I have. But that's just what I have come to know and believe from personal experience.

>>18925174
>And your dreams that you have when you sleep are you playing the role of filling someone else experience with other "people"
Ok, so we are characters in each other's dreams, but only when we sleep. and when we are awake, other people are characters in our dreams? Huh, fair enough, quite interesting.

But that sounds like what I understood the first time, the only difference is that it is not constant, but when we are sleeping and then when we are awake the people we meet are dreaming. Fair enough.

But where are those people who are dreaming? Are they in another world? How else does it work?

>>18925197
>But where are those people who are dreaming?

No where, that's like asking where is God, or where matter is, it only exists as a illusion EVERYTHING it all only exists as a contrast.

If you want to go into that perhaps read my post in the ego death and psychedelics thread up atm. Which would explain my theory as to what it is that is dreaming, but it has no form, it can't.

>Are they in another world?

There is no worlds, where are my dreams now? No where they are contents of mind, everything is contents of mind, you may disagreeing here because you hold a materialistic viewpoint, which WE NEED to contrast the people who aren't having that viewpoint lol.

>How else does it work?

These days anon, its like my mind is... What's the word I can't find it. I'm coming to understand the Nature of reality more and more each day I wake up.

Each time I think I know it all, bang something else comes along. But they're original ideas. Like I am so happy right now, no word of a lie, because I just solved mine and everyone solipsism issues, to an extent.


Yes you are the only one who experienced your reality, however, the ones that are in your reality did also have that experience, just not when you did.

This would ALSO explain how your life was determined prior to you having it because someone else dream pt you up, you then had that experience who knows when, but the frame of you is there, for consciousness to jump in and out of.

I hope no one steals this, but I don't hold importance on money anyhow. Oh well. Forgive the way I talk, when I brainstorm I type and when i type I brainstorm

>>18925197
>Ok, so we are characters in each other's dreams, but only when we sleep. and when we are awake, other people are characters in our dreams?

Could you reword this, I might be able to get something out of this.

>>18925263
What I mean is that if other people we talk to are dreaming, as you say, does that also mean that when we fall asleep we become the people in other people's waking lives?

>>18925089
My post was referring to only consciousness, specifically the concept that consciousness is eternal, not an emergent property of atoms and molecules. You know the scene in Apocalypse Now where all the recruits are marching around with their rifles and chanting "This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine."

My Unity of Many is like that - there is no difference between the rifles, they are all exactly the same. But this doesn't mean MY rifle is YOUR rifle.
Oneness is saying there is only one rifle.

>>18925268
>What I mean is that if other people we talk to are dreaming, as you say, does that also mean that when we fall asleep we become the people in other people's waking lives?


When you fall asleep you are entering someones dream, which is no different to this, so basically you're entering someones "Universe", which is being sustained by someone being tethered to it, thinking its real and solid like this one. Hence making it "their true" reality, but its only an illusion.

They are experiencing the perception of time much slower, like someone would experience a life from birth to death.

When you enter that dream you really where there for the ENTIRE process, but you don't remember. If you did it would snuff this one out.

Does that make sense.

>>18925295
Yeah it does. It's what I thought you meant, I guess I didn't show my understanding. But whilst you view this from a metaphysical perspective, for me, the only way this theory works is through some kind of multiverse or many worlds theory. That's just me being a materialist.

>>18925317
>Yeah it does. It's what I thought you meant, I guess I didn't show my understanding. But whilst you view this from a metaphysical perspective, for me, the only way this theory works is through some kind of multiverse or many worlds theory. That's just me being a materialist.


I have nothing to say about this, because I see the "Universe" different or at least have a different perception on it as you do. Which is fine. I love having people who have contrasting theories.


And I must say anon, you're the most patient and non judgmental materialist I have EVER spoken to in this place. I see that you're ready to take on other ideas. I respect that, I respect you

>>18921132
I actually had a relevation like this through an acid trip in my late teens. It began with me knowing that the reality i was currently living was pinpointed to just my campus, following the main life i was living, and i was experiencing everything for the first time through many life times. I had watched people pass through my hall as some of the many people they wouldve been on different life paths (like my friend passed through twice once as a farmer and another as a car technician)
each minute was a new life for me, as a new aspect of the one i was currently living.
All of life was condensed into the peak of the acid trip, and it allowed me to experience fully as much as I could. It's just so intense and im still taking time to process all of it.
it was both an incredible and frightening experience.

wew lads

>>18921132
it is purely mechanical, you are under the delusion of self because of careful social conditioning and historical lies. your experience of the world is actually less complete than your primitive ancestors because you are not in tune with your body and your mind lacks the proper development during adolescence to deal with pain, loss, change. you are never truly happy in a fully realised sense, nor are you truly sad, because those are physicalities which are ingrained in you from experiences involving near death states of heightened awareness and a deep sense of wonder at the night's sky rotating above you. it cannot be understated what being close to starvation and observing an unpolluted view of the sky at night does for a developing human brain. you reach a point of disconnect from ego (within reason) and begin to appreciate simple things, true joy can be felt when observing natural things, a deep sense of loss and connection can be felt with all living things, and you no longer desire to create, invent or build, rather you enter into a period of wanderlust, where you simply maintain yourself on the land and continue traditions and stories for thousands of years.

civilisation was a freak mutation which lead to cascading effects such as the complete destruction of this simpler beast man, and naturally to replace animal man the animal had to be elevated to the ether, the mind's eye turned inward and all sorts of complex conditions never intended to occur in nature began to develop. the interplay leads us to modern day and me typing this out to you, but should agriculture never occurred anywhere, we would be sitting around a fire sharing meat and i would be telling you of the story of the coyote who burned the world to see what would happen, and burned his own feet off in the process running away from the fire he could no longer control.

>>18927730
without the pressures of natural selection, the mechanism for creating stable development in the brain became turned towards optimisation and creating unstable developments in the natural order, this leads to the refinement of metals and animal husbandry, agriculture with irrigation and various inventions and discoveries. we see this primarily in war, which serves no real purpose other than the inability to let go of the urge to amass resources for the winter months where everything is dead and survival is precarious.

this is why people from colder and mountainous climates have dominated the world, they fear the coming scarcity on a biological level and will do anything to prepare and survive the cold. this of course never occurred to them, despite hints inside all of their traditions and religions about the justification of violence and conquest. otherwise intelligent and rational people never asked themselves why egypt (the greatest visible kingdom of pre-antiquity) never invaded anyone, but the mountain people of greece and italy built expansive empires spreading vast areas of land and enslaving many persons. we see the exact same story play out in indochina, where both the chinese and indian civilisations are happy to remain within their borders, but the much more primitive japanese and mongols aggressive expand and conquer their neighbors.

in almost all cases human activity is predicated by climate. even up to present day, pay any attention to the conversation of people and it will turn towards: climate change and fears about the future, ongoing wars for amassing resources. but if you go to warmer climates where people face milder winters they are more likely to be concerned with prosperity and growth, stability and happiness.

the sharpest contrast you will find in the world is between the living conditions of the nordic people (easily some of the best) and their outlook and attitudes on life (incredibly dark, bleak, morose, black humour).

>>18927730
>it is purely mechanical,

That's just someones philosophical idea, just like everyone else's. No one knows for certain what it is

>>18922035
The difference is that a lake is not a singular object or even a definitive collective. What we call a "lake" has no real objective boundaries between itself and all the other atoms around it besides space. It's an artificial concept we created to make understanding the world around us easier.

However I don't totally disagree with your idea. I think that if consciousness arises naturally out of physical processes like I believe we could have, then it must have some basis in the fundamental components of the universe like everything else does. Whether this means that we're all part of a fundamental "one-ness" or that the idea of anything being a singular thing is incorrect, I'm not sure.

>>18928365
everything is a philosophical idea then.

you either accept the best evidence provided to you and move forward from there, or you spend 50000 years following grazing herd animals around a prairie, hunting them with sharpened rocks on the end of sticks.

>>18927730
>civilisation was a freak mutation which lead to cascading effects such as the complete destruction of this simpler beast man

civilization was a long, slow change brought on by selection for speech and social cooperation as well as general cranial volume. "a mutation" doesn't really work.

>>18924997
>This doesn't mean the Universe "requires" you to be sentient.

It absolutely does, it just doesn't mean that the Universe is something handing that idea down to you. Because you are the universe, what the universe is doing at that exact moment. If you weren't sentient, then the Universe would not exist.

>>18930086
No, you accept what works for what it works for.

Science is a tool, a mechanical tool; it produces mechanical results. Good, as you said, to build things, but not necessarily the truth of how the universe works.

>>18930209
religion hasn't progressed in 150,000 years. it's goal is to suppress how things work, create stability and control.

>>18930256
>religion hasn't progressed in 150,000 years
But that's patently false. Religion, if we're talking about beliefs surrounding the metaphysical, progresses on an individual level every day.

>>18930264
you are intellectually dishonest and prefer self-delusion over growth. this makes perfect sense since you are a robot with predictable behavior, part of that is rejecting being a robot.

>>18930279
Robot is just a word we use to describe machines we developed.

I think that my actions may be determined, but I think that calling myself or you a robot would be itself intellectually dishonest because it would assume that we're designed for a particular service or purpose.

>>18930283
Don't have to prove anything to him anon, let him have his view on the way it "works"

>>18930283
we create art for the sake of creating it.

there is no reason to assume anything that is designed also is designed for a purpose.

>>18930289
keep believing fairy tales while using the technology we build and develop for you. don't show any gratitude or common decency to listen to us, just keep fighting over your imaginations, we'll just sit here quietly and build whatever you force us to.

I'm a cartesian dualist.

I believe there is a distinction between matter and mind. The mind is composed of a sort of mental matter.

Imagine a photon as a particle (yes I know they are also waves but just for understanding), it is a substantial unity which has the abstract nature of movement we understand as energy. It constantly moves at a steady speed.

The soul is also a substantial unity, but instead of it having an abstract nature of movement, it has the nature of self-knowing.

This knowing is self-referential. It knows that it knows.

Imagine a sphere with an infinite amount of facets of knowing, each containing and being contained by each of the facets. Shining radiantly and harmoniously inwardly.

The harmony of this knowing is what is known as Love.

>>18930292
>keep believing fairy tales while using the technology we build and develop for you. don't show any gratitude or common decency to listen to us, just keep fighting over your imaginations, we'll just sit here quietly and build whatever you force us to.

But this is the core of your argument, anon. I never disputed that science is not an incredibly useful tool. But you're projecting a victim complex and assuming that because something is useful, it is necessarily true.

I think a broader understanding of science would help the world incredibly, but that doesn't mean that the terminology that has been attached to science is the best way of understanding the world at large. Think of yourself as a computer or robot and you bring in meanings that are attached to those words that simply do not describe the human condition, because language is inherently clumsy.

You've clearly got something of a chip on your shoulder here, considering I never said that people should be fighting over their beliefs; in fact, I find that horrific. But you have to understand that the scientific model of the universe is as much 'imagination' as the Abrahamic model or the Hindu model. Simply a more useful one.

Or, in other words, the map is not the territory.

>>18930292
>keep believing fairy tales while using the technology we build and develop for you. don't show any gratitude or common decency to listen to us, just keep fighting over your imaginations, we'll just sit here quietly and build whatever you force us to.


Ok, well don't forget to thank that thing that lets all this stuff happen, I mean if I should have to thank you, then perhaps you should thank, I don't know the big bang or whatever it is believed got you here.

Hey maybe start with your mum, thank her for being born perhaps? Call her now and tell her thanks mum for birthing me

>>18930293
>The harmony of this knowing is what is known as Love.

Agreed.

I think its funny how everything implies everything else. Its pretty much the most obvious thing of all, yet people don't see it.


Which again is all good, I think people are entitled to look at their reality, however they want.

From what I have come to know, I don't need to force anything down anyone throat nor do I need to even talk about it, I just like to sometimes. Because these aren't things you bring up around the dinner table

>>18930292
Come on anon, openly thank the big bang for letting you have all this cool shit.

>>18930292
Like every time you pick a piece of fruit or cup of water, anything to sustain your physical embodiment, do you say thanks?

Or do you take credit for Nature as well?

>>18921283
>existence=consciousness

You're a massive retard. You just said a bunch of slightly relative nothing.

>>18930302
i believe in god. i don't think a human being has ever come close to explaining god and it's a pointless exercise until at least we have FTL travel and can make black holes.

>>18930298
science is necessarily a quest for truth and this is what makes it useful. you have it backwards, which is typical because you arrived at your conclusions from misinformation rather than self-discovery.

boring platitudes,

> the scientific model of the universe

is based on experiment and observation, and has nothing to do with religious dogma, theory or practice. this is why those religions adapt to scientific discovery and not the other way around, because religion is a manmade myth which has to periodically fight or bend to new discoveries, whereas science is an objective quest for god through knowledge and truth, and as such is noble enough to correct itself without outside pressure.


the wars of science are in debate, discussion and proof. the wars of spirituality, religion, and the various cultural and historic worldviews of the peoples of the world are always rooted in domination, greed and self-righteousness.

naturally a religious person see science as another religion and cannot understand how to fight it, because he lacks the tools with which to defend himself. wrap yourself up in faith and go on believing that is how the rest of the modern world functions. while your cars begin to drive themselves, your doctors are machines which help regulate your health and mood, and your children becoming more and more distant and difficult to understand, as they leave the garbage you cling on to and forge a path towards a future free from man made slavery of the mind.

christianity understood this over 1000 years ago, that's where the apologetics come from.

>chip on your shoulder here
comes from having to explain to uneducated morons why they only have the "freedom to believe whatever you want man" because people invented antibiotics and fertilizer.

>>18930327
Are you >>18930292 this guy?

>>18930321
>>18930317
do you openly thank your boyfriends deep dickings? or is a submissive blowjob to completion more your style.

>haha look someone is passionate, better make fun of them because we are empty and dead inside!

>>18930328
>i believe in god. i don't think a human being has ever come close to explaining god and it's a pointless exercise until at least we have FTL travel and can make black holes.


Well ok you think that, I think differently, and guess what, I don't care what you think. How do you like them apples?

And not in a "MUH IM MAD" like I really do not care what you believe, in the most literal sense, there is people who believe in flat earth on here, shit I don't give a fuck.

>>18930338
retreat back into your apathy like a good little cuck unable to defend himself when faced with reality.

I.. I.. I don't care, I do what I *sniff* want!

I do care what you believe in. because we need less morons in this world, because we have a rule by democratic vote, and if everyone believes in nonsense then society collapses. dumb fuck.

>>18930336
>do you openly thank your boyfriends deep dickings? or is a submissive blowjob to completion more your style.


Well anon, I'm actually married with children, so not only are you making outlandish assumptions, you just went full retard, don't come in here asking us to thank "MUH SCIENTISTS" if you can't even answer any of this

>Ok, well don't forget to thank that thing that lets all this stuff happen, I mean if I should have to thank you, then perhaps you should thank, I don't know the big bang or whatever it is believed got you here.

Hey maybe start with your mum, thank her for being born perhaps? Call her now and tell her thanks mum for birthing me

>Like every time you pick a piece of fruit or cup of water, anything to sustain your physical embodiment, do you say thanks?

Or do you take credit for Nature as well?


You kind of look silly now. Right?

>>18930345
>retreat back into your apathy like a good little cuck unable to defend himself when faced with reality.


I'm not going anywhere, I will tell you what I believe and why I believe it, I'm not scared of you and your reaction to my belief.


>I do care what you believe in.

Literally the cause of all the problems in the world.

>because we need less morons in this world, because we have a rule by democratic vote, and if everyone believes in nonsense then society collapses. dumb fuck.

You worry to much, one day you will die, you think any of this will matter then? Hmm?

>>18930349
chances are the piece of fruit i eat was grown with fertilizer and pesticides and without those things i would have had to grow it myself or pay a high premium. chances are the water im a drinking is treated and filtered for safe consumption and the cup i am drinking it out of was mass manufactured by large scale industrial automation designed by human engineers who valued quality and efficiency and whose contributions allowed me to purchase it rather than having to make my own cup or pay a local artisan to forge blow or shape and bake one for me.

you're a moron, a stupid useless mouth breather who only exists because of the generosity of a group of people dedicated to make life easier on this planet for all living things. if i was to weigh your overconsumption and that of your families, i am thankful that probably 2 of you will die of cancer and take great pleasure in the fact you will be helpless to stop it. until of course we fix that for you also.

>>18930345
I will literally link every post I made in this thread so you can attempt to shred it, would you like me to link my posts to give you something to do?

>>18930366
>oh no you will die and nothing matters.

maybe i care about my children and their children? i don't want humans to go back to being illiterate uneducated serfs to a ruling class of tyrants? maybe im interested in the species thriving and exploring the galaxy rather than regressing back into a barbaric dark age of senseless violence and destruction over primitive outdated beliefs. maybe i worry about these things because i am seeing a downward slide and have enough knowledge of recorded human history to know what comes next. hundreds of years to build, decades to collapse, the story of every human civilization that has preceded this current global one.

>>18930371
sounds like you're figuratively incapable of unemotive and rational thought. i presume low testosterone is the culprit here.

>>18930328
A weaponized quest for truth. For repeatability, really.

What I'm trying to say is that it's still a model of reality. Like I said, I'm thankful for it (I don't even know where you're getting the idea that I'm religious from), it's immensely useful as I keep saying.

But I think that calling human beings robots is terribly inaccurate because of the various connotations that pulls together. Science can't tell us if something is self-aware or not because it is a state that one can only truly know for oneself. You can't experience being me, I can't experience being you. Why is that?

I'm saying that science has limits, essentially, and that a materialist-reductionist view of the universe is necessarily dismissive of human experience as an event.

>>18930368
>chances are the piece of fruit i eat was grown with fertilizer and pesticides and without those things i would have had to grow it myself or pay a high premium.

Not everyone pays for food anon.

>chances are the water im a drinking is treated and filtered for safe consumption

LUL, among other things,(cough)

>you're a moron, a stupid useless mouth breather who only exists because of the generosity of a group of people dedicated to make life easier

I don't even know what to say there, I mean, you must be really pleasant to be around.


>on this planet for all living things. if i was to weigh your overconsumption and that of your families, i am thankful that probably 2 of you will die of cancer and take great pleasure in the fact you will be helpless to stop it. until of course we fix that for you also.


Look mate, you're just being outright nasty now. Seriously, are you ok in the head?

>>18930391
>Look mate, you're just being outright nasty now. Seriously, are you ok in the head?

Like I said, anon, the guy has a chip on his shoulder where he thinks he's better than other people because he has decided that everything is a programmed robot.

In which case if he was being truly rational he'd realise that everyone in the world is simply doing the absolute best they can, given their conditions, and that wishing cancer on someone is just ego lashing out because it feels it's owed something.

>>18930387
>Why is that?
because experiencing being me and experiencing being you are not a real thing. they are a fictious invention of your imagination as a way for you to cope with the world, the same way you don't catch a ball by calculating it's trajectory and anticipating it's motion through the air, you have a seemingly natural and practiced tendency to outstretch your arms, grasp it with your fingers, let it hit your palms before closing in on it to secure it. learned behavior following an instinctual pattern of reaction to stimuli.

oh it's not a robot because i'm me! no, you're not you, you doesn't exist in the way you self-identify yourself. you exists in the sense that you are a living human being. i am a different living human being, why would two different things be the same? your logic is circular and should reveal to you the quicksand you are stepping in. experience can be falsified, your senses can be tricked, the simulation fags are beyond the event horizon of reason and slowly noodling their way to full cult mode at the center of all human belief and intuitive understanding.

in fact the natural world is not intuitive. it is rather mystifying and that's what you would expect if we were just a small part in some grand creation, the inability for a piece to understand the whole.

>>18930391
>>18930407
im sorry were your feelings hurt and now you're reacting in a perfectly predictable and boring way?

>>18930383
>maybe i care about my children and their children?


Well perhaps you begin with all the science stuff, you should teach them some decency because if they act anything like you in the real world, not many people are going to like them. But I'm not telling you how to raise your kids.

>maybe i worry about these things because i am seeing a downward slide and have enough knowledge of recorded human history to know what comes next. hundreds of years to build, decades to collapse, the story of every human civilization that has preceded this current global one.


Maybe its a cycle anon, you know, the earth goes through cycles and change, you can't stop change, its the only constant, bad or good, it will always change.

>sounds like you're figuratively incapable of unemotive and rational thought. i presume low testosterone is the culprit here.


You make many assumptions about me.


Wait a minute...... Is this bait, are you a troll, because I can see you being a troll? You're trolling right?

>>18930413
Your ball catching analogy is wrong. You do watch the trajectory. You do not react to the ball hitting your hand. This is scientifically proven by retina tracking studies with athletes + you would drop everything if you weren't pre catching with your whole body.

I think it's really funny when people act like they know the nature of reality, but don't even know the human body...

>>18930407
To be honest I don't see how he can be serious, do you think he is serious?

I am stumped, he only makes himself look more silly.

>>18930413
>they are a fictitious invention of your imagination as a way for you to cope with the world

But you just said that me being me is fictitious.

Who's doing the coping here, then? Who is the 'you' you talk to?

I agree about the illusive nature of existence, but you're suggesting like there isn't something experiencing this. Like I said, subjective personal experience is about the one place that science can't step because it can be falsified, it can be deceived. Experience cannot prove it is true, but it is the fundament of reality as perceived, the place from which knowledge begins.

I'm also saying that the semantics behind the word 'robot' are muddled here to the point where I think using it to describe human beings, though it might technically be true in a sense, doesn't get the picture across.

By the way, if you don't want people to react in a 'predictable and boring' way, I'd advise not insulting and condescending them. If you really want to make the world a better place, you're gonna have to nut up and swallow your ego for a little while.

>>18930415
>teach them some decency
is this a figure of speech or do you believe decency can be partitioned, should their decency discriminate by individual or groups?
>anything like you
>not many people like them
are you saying in the real world you don't like me? nobody likes me?
>but i'm not telling
why aren't you? if you feel you have important information regarding the rearing of children why wouldn't you share it openly? is it a secret? do you wan't people to hate my kids? that's a little fucked up, telling me everyone hates me, will hate my kids, then leaving me dangling with no help.

>cycles cycles can't stop, change, cycles
well it seems like you solved it, guess we should stop all research and development of industries, and burn coal until we all die.

>assumptions, trolling
are you trying to dismiss someone openly attacking you as some kind of prank or ruse? it's just words, im not physically harming you, walk away from the thread? what's the deeper problem here, could it be nobody has ever told you how to think, and it's damaging your frail psyche?

I am telling you how to think by the way. I want you to think exactly like I do so you can come to your own independent conclusions and not resort to a simplification so that you can fit within a consensus of your peers, which are often misguided and wrong in their beliefs.

>>18930328
>i believe in god. i don't think a human being has ever come close to explaining god and it's a pointless exercise until at least we have FTL travel and can make black holes.

So, I'm interested, tell us about your concept of God what it is and means you anon, we're here to talk after all?

>>18930434
I get his essential idea, even agree to a point. That science has more utility to the human species and therefore should be promoted above religion.

My issue is that he assumes an entirely material-universe, which is a baseline assumption of science, but doesn't realise that it writes off consciousness as pure illusion because it doesn't incorporate it necessarily as part of its methodology; science works so quickly by disregarding the subjective experience. Incredibly useful for exploring definitions of the material universe, but that doesn't mean on a personal level that it provides workable explanations for the big questions of our conscious state of mind. It can provide a how, of course, but only within a certain bracket of knowledge.

Tl;dr I think science is great for questions within the bounds of knowledge but not necessarily as useful for answering more absolute questions as to the nature of existence.

>>18930452
>I want you to think exactly like I do so you can come to your own independent conclusions
>think exactly like I do
>independent

anon, I...

>>18930429
yes that was my whole point retard, your body is doing those things, a little 5 year old catching a ball isn't aware he is doing complex maths automatically. jesus fucking christ, are you double digit IQ here? you just made the argument from experience as if that is who you are in a complete sense, and I used the analogy to explode it. everyone fucking knows the ball catching stuff because it went viral so even a soccer mom can tell you how it works...

>>18930443
im not trying to make the world a better place, fuck do i care about the world? i want people to think for themselves and make informed decisions about the world. if they decided to blow it up or turn it into a theme park it wouldnt phase me personally, my goal here is to explain to you why you're wrong not make you feel good about yourself.

and you're wrong because what you call subjective personal experience is a gross abstraction of what is going on, mostly unsubjective (OBJECTIVE) processing and calculation going on automatically in your brain as we speak.

>>18930454
it's the demiurge

>>18930464
i want you to walk so i need to teach you how to walk, once you can walk go in whatever direction you want. don't tell me you're already walking as your crawling by, don't crawl up onto a cart and drag yourself along by your hands and wave at me as you roll on by. learn to fucking walk.

>>18930452
>are you saying in the real world you don't like me? nobody likes me?

Honestly I don't care, like I said told you, I don't know you, I don't want to know you. You're very unpleasant.

>why aren't you? if you feel you have important information regarding the rearing of children why wouldn't you share it openly? is it a secret? do you wan't people to hate my kids? that's a little fucked up, telling me everyone hates me, will hate my kids, then leaving me dangling with no help.


Dude you wished cancer upon me, did you even remember.


>well it seems like you solved it, guess we should stop all research and development of industries, and burn coal until we all die.

How about you go on doing whatever it is you're doing and I'll do the same. I'm not asking you to stop anything, I'm not asking for you to subscribe to my belief systems. Nor would I. You're not me and you don't know my experience.

>I am telling you how to think by the way.

Its impossible for me to think like you now, but I'm just one human being, what impact could I have on the world. *wink*

>I want you to think exactly like I do so you can come to your own independent conclusions and not resort to a simplification so that you can fit within a consensus of your peers, which are often misguided and wrong in their beliefs.

No one I know will ever think like you.

>>18930464
>>I want you to think exactly like I do so you can come to your own independent conclusions


OH BAHAHAHHAHAH, MATE, I am, that is fucking Gold, I don't laugh often but thanks. That's good. That is good

>>18930466
>THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT YOU RETARD: LET ME JUST COMPLETELY SAY SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT NOW AND CHARACTERIZE IT AS IF IM REITERATING MY EARLIER STATEMENT

I know you're very mad at the phone right now, but I was simply calling you out for saying something stupid and wrong. To try to defend yourself with insults and lies in the same sentence is just hilarious.

>>18930464
Is it a bot, only a bot would make a mistake like that?

There is bots on here

>>18930466
But the processing is what is meant by the 'subjective'. You saying it's objective doesn't make it so.

Those processes are going on in the brain, too, and my conscious attention doesn't make those processes stop. I never said this was about control.

But I'm talking to these metaphysical questions. For example, how can I be certain that you're aware in the same way that I am? That the same illusion is being experienced as you as I am experiencing?

What quality of subjective experience makes it fictitious, anon? That it cannot be repeated? That it can't be recorded? That it can't be quantified?

Also
>im not trying to make the world a better place, fuck do i care about the world?
Apparently you did when you were saying this
>maybe i care about my children and their children? i don't want humans to go back to being illiterate uneducated serfs to a ruling class of tyrants? maybe im interested in the species thriving and exploring the galaxy rather than regressing back into a barbaric dark age of senseless violence and destruction over primitive outdated beliefs
That sounds like caring to me. Angry caring, but caring nonetheless.

Apathy isn't a virtue anon, there's no need to pretend like you're apathetic when you're quite clearly not.

>>18930473
well it's a good thing that 1.8 billion chinese people will think like i do, so your shitty nation can sink into the sea and we can continue expanding our understanding under a different banner.

>you're unpleasant
>you don't know me
>impossible to think

and you're a pathetic person, at your core a slave embracing ignorance as strength and good will as good action. but then what should i expect from the people that wiped out an entire indigenous population that had lived in balance for 15,000 years on their continent, in less than 200 years. shameful, cowardly, unimpressive. gifted the world at the middle of the 20th century, squandered it 50 years later for base consumption and material desire.

10/10

>>18930488
it's good you can laugh at your own stupidity, mind you don't slip and hurt your sides.

>>18930495
>Only a bot would make an utterly human mistake of short-sighted narcicissm

Uhh no I think not

>>18930497
>well it's a good thing that 1.8 billion chinese people will think like i do, so your shitty nation can sink into the sea and we can continue expanding our understanding under a different banner.


Well then just nuke us already, I'm not afraid of death you ignorant twat, fucking drop that shit. Lets go out with a bang, then you and the rest of the assholes can inherit your precious little rock.
Dude this guys is a troll seriously, I can't believe someone is this silly. Really

>>18930464
He's bumping the thread but it could be distractions from what was being said earlier in the thread.

Anyway......

>>18930492
>a fictious invention of your imagination as a way for you to cope with the world, the same way you don't catch a ball by calculating it's trajectory and anticipating it's motion through the air,

your sense of reality is a false overlay for you to be able to live without going insane.
your sense of catching a ball is a false overlay for you to be able to rationalize catching it, without having to do the manual calculation involved (consciously, in your reality) because that would require too much top level complexity.

we build software and databases the exact same way, we have a top level interpreter which simplifies what is going on below the surface.

>>18930496
processing is objective, subjectivity doesn't come into you. stop breathing, you die. stop blinking. stop your heart beating.

stop being you. wait this happens all the time because "you" are constantly changing and re-evaluating yourself and thinking different things. you doesn't exist, it is simply an abstraction of the entire body, and it mostly deals with mundane things regarding planning and securing resources for the future.


different people process differently, you might have something wrong with your body that someone else doesn't have. this doesn't make it subjective, your will or intention is simply a complex manifestation of biological processes taking place, you rationalize why they happen and attempt to convince yourself you are the agent involved in their manifestation, you are in fact a manifestation of their interaction. we shut you off all the time, it's called going to sleep. the moment we shut your body off it dies. "You" dies every night when you sleep. "You" doesn't exist, not in the sense of subjective experience.

>>18930505
paid any attention to the news lately? north korea is on it.

What's funny is this, what's being said in here, about consciousness, is going to become common knowledge in the next 10 years.

Old system out, in with the new, sorry but you have been cucked. You can't stop this, this is the way it has always happens.

>Its like a circle it goes around.

>>18930516
Oh well, I'll be sitting here chilling out until then I guess.


Easy come easy go.

File: hypocrite that you are.jpg (109KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 480x608px

>>18930515
>this doesn't make it subjective, your will or intention is simply a complex manifestation of biological processes taking place, you rationalize why they happen and attempt to convince yourself you are the agent involved in their manifestation, you are in fact a manifestation of their interaction. we shut you off all the time, it's called going to sleep. the moment we shut your body off it dies. "You" dies every night when you sleep. "You" doesn't exist, not in the sense of subjective experience.
>you rationalize why they happen and attempt to convince yourself you are the agent involved in their manifestation
I know this, I don't dispute this

But what I'm saying is that all of this knowledge about the universe comes through a subjective lens. This is what I mean by you. I agree that the personality and belief that I'm a person is just an illusion.

What I take issue with is the idea that there is no subjective observation at all. The object reality, as we know it, cannot be objectively perceived. It is defined through (hopefully learned and informed consensus).

Pic related. Everything you experience is dependent on your subject lens, including everything you learn about the nature of reality and everything that you call 'objective'. I'm not saying that object reality doesn't exist, but that there's always going to be uncertainty.

>>18930522
>What's funny is this, what's being said in here, about consciousness, is going to become common knowledge in the next 10 years.

What, that it's illusive and the true nature of the world is nothing?

Because that's been common knowledge in a lot of the Eastern World for the past few thousand years.

>>18930529
Yeh but not widely believed by everyone, you can see it coming around as common knowledge now.

This guys is in here raving about Nukes.

>Facepalm

If you only knew, bomb this one, ill move to another.

This anon is trying to project his negative reality onto people. Don't buy into it.

>>18930528
but everything is connected, you are made of the same stuff as everything else just organised in a different way. uncertainty exists in objectivity, you're conflating objective with absolute.

objective just means if i create a drug it works the same for all people within some uncertainty.

subjective is, some things work as cures because i believe they work.

everything you experience is based on your ability to directly experience it, it happened, how you interpret it is just faulty wiring in your brain. with advancements in the study of neurobiology the hope is to make the brain better at reaching parity in experience (and discovery and creativity) with what is actually occuring.

by and large when you see red it's red, when you feel happy you're happy and so on. there is to me a pseudoscientific nonsense at play here around the concepts of relativity and subjectivity. you were educated mostly the same as millions of other children, you all think approximately the same way. it's not like everyone is constantly doing crazy shit and it's impossible to run society, most people obey the law, work a job, raise a family. these things are happening because most people are very similar. the oddballs that go on to become artists or inventors or dictators tend to be weird and vastly different from a regular person.

the knowledge about the universe mostly comes from verification, multiple people experience the same thing, and think of things in the same way and through collaboration a censensus is bridged, around experience.

>>18930534
okay im going to cleanse the thread, i didn't mean anything i said guys, i am sending anti-cancer vibes now, wifeanon pls forgive me, i hope you live to be 120.

>>18930534
To be fair, it's not that his view of reality is necessarily negative. As I said, I share most of it.

The issue is that he clearly has a very negative view of other people and, by the very processes that he mentions stopping other people seeing their flaws, he doesn't see the irrationality that he predicates his beliefs on.

Which is my issue with his use of the term 'robot'. It's chosen specifically because it gets a negative reaction in people. Robot means slave, essentially, cold, mechanical, unfeeling slave to most, which most people aren't. Feelings exist. From his point of view, scouring away the subjective, human beings don't exist at all; they're not humans, they're the universe. That's all any of it is from an objective viewpoint. Not even something describable with language because language is inherently subjective. When it speaks, it is silent. When it is silent, it speaks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_PDOOxQJ_A

I'm just going to leave this here....

>>18930542
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHnEWmS1BNc

bashar is evil hisssssssss, i invoke the great kali! obey slavesssssssss

File: aw.jpg (61KB, 483x667px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 483x667px

>>18930541
>Robot means slave, essentially, cold, mechanical, unfeeling slave to most, which most people aren't. Feelings exist.

There is only feels, eternal feels.

>scouring away the subjective, human beings don't exist at all;

My belief, pic related, just my belief.

>>18930537
>everything you experience is based on your ability to directly experience it
True
> how you interpret it is just faulty wiring in your brain
And this is where I fall off.

Any definition of 'faulty' here is inherently subjective because it requires you make a value judgement. That's what I'm talking about with objective and subjective here. It's all through your personal lens. You can test things of course, but they are tested within your experience.

Of course, it is all the same thing.

Part of me feels like we're just on different pages here because we're using objective/subjective to mean slightly different things.

To me, objective means 'as if there were no observer'. Subjective means 'experienced by observer', or perhaps 'as observer'. As I said, language is messy.

>>18930550
This is what I mean. Is a robot aware of itself? I would say that a robot that is self-aware is not a robot, but a man of metal.

>>18930560
>This is what I mean. Is a robot aware of itself? I would say that a robot that is self-aware is not a robot, but a man of metal.


Take what you want out of it, I know what it means to me.

And I can see why this kind of thing we're talking about gets shit on, think about it. If kids know this shit you think they're going to listen to anything a teacher says, even a physicist.

You know what this whole world is, I'm right, you're wrong "RESPECT MUH AUTHORITY"

Once you realize the world LITERALLY changes to what you believe, shit blows your mind, its true.

Try it. Lets drop the egos and watch the fireworks

>>18930553
>I fall off
signals (information) theory, is the foundation of how modern communication technology operates. we are trying to amplify the receiver (person) since there is substantial noise being transmitted along with the signal and we have no way to boost the source or reach it (god). it's faulty in that it's imperfect, there is not a nice 1 to 1 between what is being transmitted and what is being received, the case i argued in this thread is noise reduction by becoming a more discerning thinker, optimizing how your brain sees patterns and makes connections.

the brain is basically jerry rigged together, which plasticity and redundancy being key components but mostly with different regions taking up computation (thinking) based on current requirements. this compartmentalization is problematic, it's highly efficient in creating fast response and reaction to stimuli, but what if we don't want the first solution, what if we want the best solution, which might be counter intuitive or inefficient computationally.

you can directly compare it to how a modern neural network identifies images. it has no idea what it's looking at really, it just sees lines and patterns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMHA3yX_QI&t=44m22s

skip to 44:22 and watch to the end to see my point being made. NN are a serious computational breakthrough in understanding how our minds work, but it just leads to more questions.

>>18930576
Nah, that's very interesting but not what I meant.

What I meant is that 'faulty' is an indicator of a subjective value judgment. It assumes there is a state that the brain 'should' be at. That kind of judgement is subjective in basis.

>>18930576
>skip to 44:22 and watch to the end to see my point being made. NN are a serious computational breakthrough in understanding how our minds work, but it just leads to more questions.

Yeh, I realized, I stop looking for answers because of this, but I used psychedelics as a tool, Humans, will NEVER EVER, understand it.

You can't. As it has been said many times before, the Universe complicated itself upon inspection, its because, you're looking at yourself, and yourself doesn't exist in the way you think it does, nor does anything you perceive.

We're all looking at the one thing

>>18930329
No I'm not, but he seems like a cool dude.

>>18921283
JUST B URSELF BRO

I keep trying to think of something to say now, but perhaps nothing more needs to be said.

Does anyone have anything else to say?

We can deny that things exist and make them disappear.

>>18930582
faulty or defective is just a measure of function. the function of mankind is to reason and ask why during the brief golden ages like the one we are experiencing now, before plunging back into endless misery and suffering. with the objective reason being to find out the source. it's just a mechanism for expansion. life wants to persist because it is alive, there is no other requirement there, intelligent life wants a more intelligent explanation for why it persists so things like god are invented and people choose to believe in something that they think will help them continue.

its possible to completely lose subjectivity during tantric sex btw, you both become pleasure for 5-10 minutes and all thoughts disappear. we understand almost without having to say it that we don't exist.

you've never been angry and snapped at someone? then later you look back and say to yourself, man why did i do that, it was so dumb. that lack of self control and regret you displayed is just conditioning and faulty wiring. with a different set of experiences and genetics you might have reacted to that situation without resistance or anger, it's a question of how children are raised, what society values, what the education imparts, all very plastic.

give me 5000 babies and i can turn them into cannibal primitives, enlightened mystics or edgy atheists who worship science and rationality or any mixture in between. they wont all be equal, but they will be essentially the same, with difference being primarily biological and my imprinting on them depending on how efficient i am at brainwashing on a large scale.

this is what i mean by robot. human beings are ditto. a faggy soft pink goo pokemon, completely useless but which you cant help but love, they become a copy of what is near, with a few minor alterations.

>>18930598
i do this with my money all the time. does it work the other way? willing to pay you if it does.

>>18921132
Alot of intuitive points here in this discussion. I've been studying psychology of years now and I can say that we are dual beings that consist of consciousness and unconsciousness. Unconsciousness has been around for millions of years. It contains the experience of our ancestors and them some, probably all the way back to prehominids. Consciousness is the new kid on the block and really is how we experience life. Someone was mentioning that our experience is subjective.This is true to the extent that consciousness acts as a filter on all the data coming from the unconscious and lets us see life through a finite lens. So are consciousness is like a spot light in a room. It can only focus on a small portion of all thats in the universe while the unconscious contains all the data. Consciousness also allows us to experience time which is absolutely crucial to experience itself. The unconscious transcends or doesnt understand time. Thats why in a dream a long time can pass but it may be only an hour in the conscious world. Consciousness is synonymous with ego, ego is how we see our world and how we think other see us (so our concept of self also known as the persona). So really were talking about ego-consciousness which consists of our world view or psychology (which is the proper use of the word, psychology has become a study unto itself with too many other things associated with it) used to filter the data coming from the unconscious which is connected to our sensory functions in the body.

So animals got along just fine with just unconsciousness or no brain at all. But for some reason god or nature decided to make humans different. So we have consciousness for better or for worse. But what is gives us is an ability in part to understand morals and perceive the good. Animals are indifferent while humans understand right and wrong. That allows us to create civilization. I'll continue with anyone who wants to discuss or debate.

>>18930619
I agree with most of what you said.

I have been participating in the thread since it started. I am the one talking about the dream states and duality.

>I'll continue with anyone who wants to discuss or debate.

Do you feel its necessary, I have nothing to prove to anyone. But I do like sharing what I think. But I already did that in the thread. And I don't want to repeat myself

>>18930619
I think there is a big possibility that the people you interact with here and now in this life, could in fact be dreaming, it would resolve some of the "solipsism "issues, as to thinking you're the only one that exists in your reality. Perhaps you are alone in the fact, that you're the only one who remembers your experience your life in one continual progression from birth to death, where others you interact with aren't.

the people you see in life, did have this experience, just as you're having your experience here. But they don't perceive the timeline the same way as you see and have it now. For them its not a day to day experience.

For you its constant day to day thing, for them its instant. And your dreams that you have when you sleep are you playing the role of duality and filling someone else experience with other "people"

This would also explain how death is not possible, because when you die here, the people you interact with had already had this dream and experienced you as their father, mother, brother and so on.


Yes you are the only one who experiencing your reality, however, the ones that are in your reality did also have that experience, just not when you did.

>>18930619
>Consciousness is the new kid on the block and really is how we experience life.

Its always been there, its just that its becoming more obvious. Remember as well consciousness is a label for a thing we can't describe nor investigate.

When I and have breakthroughs on Dmt in the past, I don't get told I am consciousness, its a substance, a feeling an emotion, some sort of fabric that makes everything up.

But here as Humans you can only ponder on it, it won't allow full disclosure. So we have to dance around the subject.

>>18930619
aren't you using ego-consciousness to define ego-consciousness?

if it was proven that animals make moral decisions would this mean morality is unconscious or that animals are semi-conscious?


psychology always felt like satanic bullshit desu. worship of the self, the idea that everything is inside your mind. your mind can't even process optical illusions or tongue twisters, but it has some self contained invisible agent inside which steers the ship. nah, that's exactly what someone who wants to control you would say.

>be yourself!
>don't you want to be the best you that you can be? here let me show you how.

that's the goal of this social science right? to tell people how they should act in certain situations, how to think, what to think. seems more like a cult or religion than a science. weren't all the early psychiatrists and psychologists really weird people anyway?

people believe in Scientology and we can all agree it's bullshit. this is like the other side of the same coin, but it doesn't have aliens or tax evasion so we just let it go on and call it a respectable profession.

>>18930663
>people believe in Scientology and we can all agree it's bullshit. this is like the other side of the same coin, but it doesn't have aliens or tax evasion so we just let it go on and call it a respectable profession.

Amen, honestly I have gone to psychiatrists for fun, I'm not lying here.

I always chuck the ball back in their court, and as a professional they have to act rationally, and tell me that they in fact, don't understand what I feel and experience, and they can't help me at all.

I had one guy sweating, it was like he had never thought about something beyond his fucking college degree.


They're book smart. That's all.

>>18930619
You going to respond or do I go elsewhere for some entertainment

>>18930619
Did anon get stumped or drop dead

You're assuming that isn't what happens anyway.
Consciousness isn't the ability to chose which path we take, that's automatic, consciousness is just having the ability to see other paths.
Every decision we make is a reaction to a situation.
Out environment and experiences determines our "choices".

>>18930733
Are you responding to Op

>>18930681

>Amen, honestly I have gone to psychiatrists for fun, I'm not lying here.

No. You didn't make an appointment with a psychiatrist and pay either the deductible on your insurance or the fee up front "for fun."

You're most likely trying to tell a cool story about the time you saw a psychologist.

Both try to help but can't do anything unless someone is ready for help and is open/honest.

>>18930733
The issue is that we think of ourselves as separate from our environment. We aren't.

So we say that the environment determines our choices when really it is us. Just not the body that we call the bounds of our selves.

>>18930751
I don't live in the U.S we have something called Medicare.

I don't pay for jack shit. The government does.

>>18930778
Way to waste your time, government resources ( which you probably have paid into or will pay into at some point ) and the time of the therapist you met with.

Inb4 >I don't pay taxes
Someone in your family pays taxes. Make your mum an ¡appreciate ya! card

Stay insane to the memetrain lil buddy

>>18930778
you pay taxes don't you?
or do you not have a job?

>>18931359
you could argue that taxes would have taken that money anyway, so it's almost like it wasn't his to begin with and he's technically not actually paying for things with it

>>18921132

simulation theory solves any questions you have about anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqULEE7eY8M

>>18921132
I like your question, I believe a lot of people ask themselves this but can't start to describe what is what.

I personally think that inquiring too much into it is a waste of time. There is a lot of material out there, accounts from different religions, medicine, etc, at this point you're truly choosing your own reality.