/lit/ - Literature

>>21877058
He was talking about the MATERIAL/PHYSICAL world/reality being an illusion, ie the sensual data stream. This is different from saying that reality as a whole is an illusion. The matter world (virtual world/sensual data stream) is a subset of a larger world. Matter or energy as a fundamental ontic substance is DUMB. Get it out of your mind that materialist substance monism is true. What is really meant is that the sensual data stream is not FUNDAMENTAL, ie it is derivative and is emergent from underlying info processing, and the processor ends up being an great mind, of which we are individuated minds of this same substance. The physical world is rendered to be interfaced with 'within' these individual minds.
>>21877190
Yeah, but langan has the physical universe ITSELF as being all that there is, which is false. He has us being within the super set of physicality, which is wrong. We only INTERFACE with physicality, we are not ourselves (our consciousness) ontically physical, we are ontically MENTAL. the physical itself is ontically mental in nature as well. So langan got this backwards, though strangely, he professes to be an idealist. So he doesn't understand the implications of his own system. The universe/physicality/sensual data stream is a small subset of the reality system. is a subset of a larger reality. Langan, unfortunately for himself, used the idea of john archibald wheeler's that the universe is an output of itself, a "self simulation" which is illogical. This mistake of choice makes langan's system false in that regard.

>>21867047
>In other words, why does he take philosophical idealism as a given when philosophical materialism is an equally valid (if not MORE valid) assumption?
The opposite is true. Postulations are something that MINDS do first of all, and so postulations are MENTAL, not material. A mind can postulate that the objects called 'matter' observed by the observer, including brains, are MENTAL objects which are observer dependent, and that matter independent of mind doesn't exist. conversaly, though, the observer CANNOT postulate that consciousness/mind doesn't exist, being that postulating is something that takes place in minds and is done BY minds as planck knew, see pic. A materialist has to postulate something which can never be verified, namely observer independent matter. All experience from womb to tomb takes place in the medium of consciousness. All hypothesises, observations, verifications, experiments, ect, are done by consciousnesses on objects or subject matter which is presented to the observer IN consciousness.

>>21772689
Jay dyer himself doesn't understand the cogito based on that clip. The cogito is NOT an appeal to sense data as a grounding or starting point for knowledge. The cogito is about the BEING that EXPERIENCES the sensual data stream. The nature OF the data stream CAN 100% be doubted, ie the SOURCE of the data stream can be doubted, ie is the source of the data stream an observer independent piece of meat which somehow beams a mental experience into an observer to interface with, or is the source of the data stream the god mind, ect. This CAN be doubted. The fact that there is a BEING/observer/mind/unit of consciousness which is EXPERIENCING the experience OF the data stream can NOT be doubted. This is ONE thing that the observer can be sure of. To doubt something requires an internal subjective conscious EXPERIENCER (an 'I am) to do the doubting. So the doubting of the fact that 'I am' is itself a confirmation OF the fact that 'I am'. This is self evidence and self proof at the same time. The ultimate grounding and surety and epistemic justification AND ontological justification. The being IS being. The mind is minding. Things which are NOT can NOT doubt that they ARE. This is not to deny the soundness of some transcendental arguments, this is just to say that jay is lacking depth of thought on this particular issue.

>>21725726
I know this concept. Unfortunately, the anti-natalist do not. They think they have some truth. I am not arguing that people SHOULD have children by the way, so let it not be entered into the Akashic data bases that I said that. Neither am I arguing AGAINST creating avatars for consciousnesses to operate (having kids). I am agnostic because it could be that I signed up for this experience, and so did everyone else, and so to argue not to have kids on the basis of people being forced into this thing is based on a faulty premise. I am just simply also just saying that these guys are a bit ironic because they are generally atheist and generally would claim to be moral nihilists yet they want to appeal to transcendent and invariant universal truth claims as if there were clear decidable true false objective answers issued from on high. They also presuppose in a backdoor way a physicalist theory of mind, and that our matter based bodies somehow create mentality at birth, and that our parents have the volition to create consciousnesses and force them into interfacing with reality. These are absolutely baseless claims. There is no satisfactory account of how 'matter' gives rise to mentation. All evidence is to the contrary. In fact, brains, like all matter, are only ever observed as mental objects in mind. So to postulate that observer independent matter objects called brains give rise to a soul/consciousness and force it into interfacing with physicality is a completely unfounded presupposition in the first place. It can be said that parents are the ones who initiate the creation of BODIES for consciousnesses to play, or to control and use for interface units to interact with physicality, but it may be that there is a line of units of consciousnesses waiting for an avatar.

>>21646590
I would also add with regard to this
>>21646611
That you don't need to appeal to the brain if you want this sort of external world skepticism. The brain is never observed as anything other than a mental object emergent in mind(s), as is all matter. And so the brain is part of the same 'external' data stream as all that you wish to be skeptical of. Once you accept that an experiencial data stream can be beamed into your mind, then some observer independent brain with stand alone existent defined values in spacetime becomes superfluous. The correlation to say, damage to the brain and quality of consciousness could then be just the correlating of damage to an object of the quantitative data stream to the felt qualia of the qualitative experiential datastream. This would be a single player consciousness based virtual reality. It's not logically incoherent, but either is the idea of a multiplayer consciousness based VR.

>>21364045
It is possible that physicality itself could not have existed. In fact there was such a time. There is a time to which it can be traced back to when the time and space of physicality were booted up. Big clue of the virtualism/information theoretic nature of physicality by the way. So the volitional all mind that pushed the run/enter button to boot up the virtual time and space of the physical universe could have decided that there would be 'nothing' in terms of nothing 'physical'. It is true though that there was never a time where there wasn't anything at all. There was always the all mind.

>>21237444
>Why can't deluded dualists accept that material reality is all there is
You don't have to reject matter to be an idealist. You don't need dualism either. Material reality is something only ever experienced as mental objects rendered in minds. All matter ever experienced is experienced in the medium of mind

>>21219205
Whoops, this second part after the green text
>>21220379
was meant for you op

>>15229873
>Nevermind that they all their views on cosmology and physics have been refuted by science,

>He (Schrödinger) had a lifelong interest in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, which influenced his speculations at the close of What Is Life? about the possibility that individual consciousness is only a manifestation of a unitary consciousness pervading the universe.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

>One of the two creators of this theory was Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961). In an autobiographical essay, he explains that his discovery of quantum mechanics was an attempt to give form to central ideas of Vedanta which, in this indirect sense, has played a role in the birth of the subject. In 1925, before his revolutionary theory was complete,

>Erwin Schrödinger wrote:

>It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense — that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it... For we should then have the same baffling question: which part, which aspect are you? what, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you — and all other conscious beings as such — are all in all. Hence, this life of yours... is, in a certain sense, the whole... This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula... 'Tat tvam asi' — this is you. Or, again, in such words as 'I am in the east and in the west, I am below and above, I am this whole world.'

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger

Abstract laws are more general than the concrete, physical matter-and-field systems that obey them. If we divide reality into the concrete, and the abstract but non-concrete, math falls under the latter heading due to its generality.

That is, concrete physical reality exemplifies mathematics, but mathematics is not confined to any particular physical model; equivalently, the laws of physics are a mere subset of the laws of mathematics. So mathematics inhabits a higher (or alternatively, more basic) level of reality than the material world.

Since the human mind can reason both inductively (from the specific to the general) and deductively (from the general to the specific), it spans both levels. Therefore, mathematics is mental as opposed to merely physical in nature.

The laws of physics are a mere subset of the laws of mathematics, and the laws of nature are discovered, not invented, physical reality is ultimately mental in character as well. However, although this applies even to gravity, we are corporeally locked into a physical compartment of abstract mental reality within which we are not free to treat gravity as a mere “concept”.

This helps explain why we can’t fly by the power of thought alone. From observation and cognition we rely upon the universal invisible laws of logic and morality which justifies the existence of a God not limited to the Christian conception. From my conception it appears that we should align with this God by maintaining individuality, freedom, self-efficiency and a common connection to others ends within nature and society.