/lit/ - Literature

> in reality there is nothing beyond the strictly physical and mechanical
Probably true, but the post seems to contain a number of leaps that other materialists would question. Like, even materialists debate the nature of consciousness.

>>17600237
guy doesn't really grasp how we see colour, but I guess consciousness as energy is sort of plausible. Considering how brains work consciousness as electromagnetic field might sort of work too

>life is a crystal
aight nigga

>>17600478
>consciousness as energy is sort of plausible
that's not what he said
>guy doesn't really grasp how we see colour
he just posited that qualia don't exist and that colors aren't qualia but objective physical properties instead

>We can't find X therefor it doesn't exist.
Wow, how profound. You get a bunch of dead matter experts together, have them identify something as dead matter, analyze that something with tools and techniques only capable of working around dead matter, then call yourself a genius as you proclaim "We haven't found anything but dead matter!" Wow, you looked at some shit really closely through a microscope and didn't see Jesus, therefor GODNOTREAL. So impressive, I'm blown away by the intellect on display.

>>17600525
>>We can't find X therefor it doesn't exist.
that's generally how it works in the scientific method, yes.

Doesn't answer why the subjective experience of consciousness is emergent from what would otherwise be a mere automaton and work just as well (according to his theory), or why consciousness is a modality or aspect of matter yet something that can never be observed or localised. What is the difference between me and a completely inert algorithm that procedurally goes about my life, guiding my body like a robot in all the same ways, yet doesn't have the "whatever-it-is" of subjective experience THAT it is doing so?

Subjective experience is either emergent from matter, in which case it is not matter, or it is a modality or potentiality of certain special states and arrangements of matter, in which case it is unexplained by what OP pic means by "matter" (perfectly determinate mechanical relations between physical quanta), or else it is something interacting with matter (soul for instance). All of these could theoretically work. The only one that doesn't work at all is brute, crass physicalism, which says that the subjective experience we are both subjectively experiencing right now doesn't exist. Yet does. Yet doesn't. Yet does. Yet doesn't.

>>17600513
There are different systems of rods and cones in different animals(and in colourblind people), they all see the same wavelength of light but process it differently. Saying that qualia don't exist but colours are objective physical properties is just semantics, and doesn't really address the issue, does the light perceive itself as red, or can only a brain(and eyes) perceive the light as red?

And he is definitely linking consciousness to energy, he says it is a manifestation of energy and that energy is indescribable except in terms of our conscious experience of it via senses.

>>17600568
>Doesn't answer why the subjective experience of consciousness is emergent from what would otherwise be a mere automaton and work just as well (according to his theory), or why consciousness is a modality or aspect of matter yet something that can never be observed or localised.
Consciousness isn't emergent from anything. It's as described - just a set of responders to external stimuli, that are able to create their own internal stimuli and respond to them as well. These responders are interconnected and therefore all responders respond to each other collectively and simultaneously. Consciousness is an illusion, that is, a sort of noise created by all the responders communicating with each other collectively and simultaneously.

>>17600582
What sorts of(in any) objects have consciousness apart from brains?

>>17600570
>There are different systems of rods and cones in different animals(and in colourblind people), they all see the same wavelength of light but process it differently.
You're ignorant. Colorblind people by definition dont process energetic information from photons properly, and the species of animals you're talking about, similarly, can't "see" (can't process) the energy contained within 650 nm waves.

We can't process all energy either - we can't see UV or infrared light. We aren't perfect.

>>17600546
>that's generally how it works in the scientific method, yes.
No it isn't. According to the scientific method, being unable to find X just means you can't prove it's existence, not that you've proved it's non-existence.

>>17600237
>>17600568
Fuck every faggot who is concerned about the origin of "consciousness". We should rather analyze it's effects on us.

Zapffe on consciousness
>Whatever happened? A breach in the very unity of life, a biological paradox, an abomination, an absurdity, an exaggeration of disastrous nature. Life had overshot its target, blowing itself apart. A species had been armed too heavily – by spirit made almighty without, but equally a menace to its own well-being. Its weapon was like a sword without hilt or plate, a two-edged blade cleaving everything; but he who is to wield it must grasp the blade and turn the one edge toward himself.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah

>>17600582
>illusion
>definition: a conscious subject having a mistaken notion or experience
>"consciousness is an illusion"

Who is having the illusion?

>>17600605
>Colorblind people by definition dont process energetic information from photons properly,
This is a very silly thing to say. There is no proper way to process energetic information from photons, there are a variety of ways that have evolved in different animals.

You did not answer the question about whether red light perceives itself as red, nor my point about his linking energy to consciousness.

>>17600636
You as a subject.

>>17600237
>Materialists when they attempt metaphysics

>>17600649
a conscious subject?

>>17600636
500 tiny rocks dropped into a pond can create a wave equivalent to one that can only otherwise be created by 1 giant stone. A person on the other side of the pond, so far away from the place where the rocks were dropped that he can't see em, might say that the wave was created by 1 giant stone thrown into the pond. That's what I mean by "consciousness is an illusion" here. I, the enlightened individual, am telling you that it is not 1 giant stone but 500 tiny rocks cast into the water of the pond.

>>17600679
That just means there are 500 of you and you're communicating telepathically

>>17600608
>No it isn't. According to the scientific method, being unable to find X just means you can't prove it's existence, not that you've proved it's non-existence.
According to the scientific method, unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts are worthless.
>>17600609
Based Zapffe, I had similar thoughts when I was 18. I'm still 18.
>>17600648
>This is a very silly thing to say. There is no proper way to process energetic information from photons
It's not a silly thing to say. Rods and cones are receptors like any other - and the way they work is by, among other things, temporarily storing the energy received. And like all things, they have their limits. They can't store infinite energy. They have limited capacities.

Some receptors are more limited than other receptors

>>17600649
That's what I'm driving at too.

>>17600679
For your analogy to work, the waves would have to have ontological status as a state of the base "matter" (in this case the pond-water), with their own causal efficacy that is irreducible to their material constituents (water), and you would therefore fall into the group of people who say that consciousness is a state or aspect of matter, with its own causal efficacy.

There's also the problem that you have no more privileged access than the one-big-stone guy to what really causes the wave-form. You are both distant observers taking your best guess.

>>17600237
>non-existent
>pushed against something
wrong in the first sentence

>>17600703
But the wavelength peak and number of cones is arbitrary.

And you didn't reply again to my question of whether red light perceives itself as red

>>17600691
You're approaching the point.
>>17600705
>For your analogy to work, the waves would have to have ontological status as a state of the base "matter" (in this case the pond-water), with their own causal efficacy that is irreducible to their material constituents (water), and you would therefore fall into the group of people who say that consciousness is a state or aspect of matter, with its own causal efficacy.
Indeed. I dont see anything contradictory in this.
>There's also the problem that you have no more privileged access than the one-big-stone guy to what really causes the wave-form. You are both distant observers taking your best guess.
Yes, but as my explanation doesn't leave the realm of physics, unlike metaphysicians' explanations, it requires far fewer assumptions and no leap of faith, and is therefore superior and more realistic.

>>17600664
>>Materialists when they attempt metaphysics
How so?

>>17600736
>You're approaching the point.
no im negating your point, you have divided not eliminated the self

>>17600703
>According to the scientific method, unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts are worthless.
Something being worthless to the pursuit of science and something being proven non-existent are completely fucking different. Just because scientists can't find a god shaped hole in their experiments doesn't mean we can safely build the future of all human knowledge on god not existing.

You can't prove that you won't win $100m in the lottery tomorrow. Therefor, according to what you've said, it makes perfect sense to make financial decisions today as if you were going to have $100m tomorrow. Tomorrow comes, and you didn't win the lottery, but you can't prove that you won't win it the next day, so you might as well keep doing what you're doing, racking up debt.

>>17600237
Show me a squishy crystal.

>>17600870
That's what I do when a bitch says she's into crystals

>>17600880
Lol based

>>17600886
*Kek

>>17600897
I meant what I wrote. No need to try to fit in like that anon.

>>17600796
>you have divided not eliminated the self
We can subdivide even further, down to the atoms. Would you claim that the atoms are the self?

Of course some retards would claim that but i'm not them.

>>17600933
Are the atoms conscious? All the little bits of mental processing you just divided the self into are conscious right? The question is what consciousness is, and what sorts of physical objects have it/create it/interact with it/etc.

>>17600959
I think you're a brainlet. You're trying to bend facts to fit your assumptions instead of the other way round. Drop the word consciousness from your vocabulary and try to approach the brain from this new perspective.

>>17600969
Why can't you answer my question, you have a subjective awareness, what other types of physical objects have it?

>>17601007
You're using semantics against his factual arguments.

>>17601021
Why is this so hard for you to answer. Does a rock have any sort of awareness or not? If it doesn't at what stage does awareness arise in the brain, related to which physical processes?

this nigga really screenshot his own post because he thinks its that smart ahaha faggot

>>17601030
Awareness doesn't exist. It's just a collection of responses to external stimuli. Your brain is a structure of RESPONDERS. Do crystals recoiling against a metal rod covered in a hydrophobic material have awareness by recoiling against that rod? No they don't. They're just responding to external stimuli.
>>17601069
It's indeed smart. You've got any problem with my confidence?

>>17600237
>>>/his/

>>17601095
>Do crystals recoiling against a metal rod covered in a hydrophobic material have awareness by recoiling against that rod? No they don't.
why not?

>>17601069
Let the based materialist btfo filthy metaphysicians in peace

>>17601106
>why not?
Because they recoil based on their physico-chemical composition being such that it necessarily reacts with the composition of that metal rod. It's all guided by physical laws (which actually dont "exist" and are in fact but human conceptualisations of physical phenomena - https://youtu.be/_WHRWLnVm_M )
You're a brainlet.

>>17601095
>Awareness doesn't exist
I didn't realize I was talking to a zombie, my mistake

>>17601142
The fact that you can't prove that you're something more than a zombie is telling enough.

>>17601165
Awareness is literally the only self-evident thing in existence.

>>17601171
So are illusions. Yet they are obviously not real. So is awareness. An illusion.

>>17600752
How the fuck is saying "Life is crystals" anything besides a metaphysical position?

>>17601190
Illusions require awareness, illusions are awareness that is mistaken about something

>>17601132
then the crystals don't actually recoil from a metal rod, you were just aware of being able to form an analogy between their movement and actual recoiling. It's like saying that bashing someone's head in with a bat made him recoil. If I would type something spooky on here, did the force in my fingers push you back if you flinch across half the globe or is it your awareness of the words that form a concept in your mind that you then compare to a past incident?

>>17601190
The existence of an illusion implies the existence of an objective reality.

>>17601216
>Illusions require awareness
Not really. How about we drop anthropocentric vocabulary like consciousness, awareness (1), illusion (2), and approach it from a more holistic angle:

reflex (1) and distortion (2)

Think about the distortion of, say, radio waves. Are reflexes of crystals on Earth required for the radio waves from a distant star to come to us distorted?
>>17601221
the crystals do recoil from that metal rod. insertion of the metal rod made them recoil. without it, they wouldn't have recoiled.
>If I would type something spooky on here, did the force in my fingers push you back if you flinch across half the globe or is it your awareness of the words that form a concept in your mind that you then compare to a past incident?
it means that the crystals making up my brain would detect a familiar pattern and react likewise
>how would they "detect" it? how do they have memory at all?
because they are alike to the crystals that first responded to this stimulus and thus carried on reproducing

Why do people also make energy this pseudo-spiritual concept ? Why do these people never study what energy is ?

>>17601274
>How about we drop anthropocentric vocabulary
How about we don't, since every single other concept you have is only even intelligible through the medium of consciousness.

>>17601288
Where do I make energy pseudo-spiritual at all? I just said that perhaps color (as the purest sensation of "red" etc.) is an intrinsic physical property of it, and isn't metaphysically created by the brain.
>>17601289
This is the metaphysical equivalent of
>you're atheist? so why do you still celebrate christmas? ha! gotcha!

>>17601306
No it's the metaphysical ground for literally anything else you want to say. You are trying to deny the existence of literally the only thing you can't deny

>>17601306
Does red light perceive itself as red?

>>17600237
Prove it right first, the first point is asserted with no argument or evidence, all I need to do is reject this proposition as I have been given no reason to accept it.

>>17601195
It's a scientific description of material reality. Life is a just a self-perpetuating material system.

>>17601306
https://youtu.be/ys1xMMfPmgM

>>17600648
>This is a very silly thing to say. There is no proper way to process energetic information from photons,
There is by definition, as processing suggests the discernment of the information contained within that being processed. In this case the discernment of different wavelengths of electromagnetic information within space, this information being delineated as colors. The issue with color blindness is the loss of discernment of electromagnetic information, not the loss of qualia itself.

>>17600237
>physical
>mechanical
>life
>energy
explaining concepts with concepts is pointless
at some point you just gotta get on with it, doesn't matter how many turtles you wanna jump down
so long as a concept can get you from point a to b wherever you want those to be, it's good enough because there is no right

>>17600649
You’re a complete retard, Jesus Christ...

>>17600649

>ITS A, A, A,... AN ILLUSION!
get a grip kiddo

>>17600237

he confused the fact that the structure of certain inorganic molecules and the brain are similar, took the idea that consciousness is an emergent process from material interactions, and just assumed that consciousness is just looking at itself. consciousness is not the final step, it is just the interface between the material world and the soul, mind, will, god, whatever you want to call it

>>17600237
1. What I believe is true
2. Therefore I am right

This isn't simpleminded at all.

>>17601625
>took the idea that consciousness is an emergent process from material interactions
it clearly says "anti-emergentism" mang..

For all the pedantic talk in this thread you've done nothing but use fancy words to say that consciousness is the way we react to the world.
You say that the crystals recoil form the metal rod,but what makes them recoil?Because the mind processes it so,but the mind is the crystal so why does it process it recoiling?because the mind is being recoiled by a metal rod you say,but why is it so?and so on forever.
I think the only conclusion we can draw from this is that the mind and the world imply each other,one unable to exist without the other.

>>17601769
I explained everything ITT, you're just unwilling to find answers even if they lay bare.

>>17601756

everything he wrote is contrary to that

>>17601781
Why won't you answer whether red light perceives itself as red

>>17601735
This but unironically

>>17601800
That's an incredibly retarded sentence. It's like saying
>does the crystal recoil because it perceives a threat?
it's wrong at the most initial assumption

>>17601781
ok then just a simple question:
why does the crystal recoil the way it does?

>>17601838
You see the color red right? Does the red wavelength itself have anything at all resembling this experience of sight you have?

>>17601849
does the the red wavelength itself have anything at all resembling the code a computer uses to describe it

>>17601849
Not him
But colorblind people don't see red as red. So our experience is gay.

>>17601883
I don't know, can you answer my question about the experience of sight vs the wavelength? You keep trying to say that we don't have experiences or awareness at all, which is of course fucking ridiculous, how else would you even be able to talk about 'seeing the colour red'?

>>17601849
Point 4 of the wall of text screenshotted in the Original Post.
>>17601841
here:
>>17601132

>>17601887
That's not what I'm trying to talk to him about, I'm trying to get him to even admit that we have a conscious experience of red, because he says that it's just a 'manifestation of the wavelength' or something, but he won't reply as to whether the wavelength itself also has this 'manifestation' that would appear as an experience(or in his terms 'illusion') of sight.

>>17600513
>he just posited that qualia don't exist and that colors aren't qualia but objective physical properties instead
so he's wrong.

>>17601914
you really, really don't want to answer the question about whether the wavelength itself has anything like what happens with us when we see the colour red.

>>17600237
Point 1 is litteraly an article of faith and a statement about metaphysics.
Done.

>>17600492
Terribly explained. I think of individuality as a crystal made by the observed, fractalising in to new and previously unobserved realities. It's not actually that, but it is the tool I use to think about it. That's just my prerogative tho

>>17601756
so he's completely self contradictory on two accounts instead of just one lol.

>>17601914
I should have said"inb4because thats how the universe works"because thats just circular logic and I'm not saying that it isn't right I'm just trying to make you admit it.

>>17601926
proof?
>>17601936
>you really, really don't want to answer the question about whether the wavelength itself has anything like what happens with us when we see the colour red.
I literally said that above. Colors as sensations are actually not sensations but intrinsic properties of energy

Read a book about Physics to learn that "intrinsic property of X" isn't a random combination of words but a proper term.

>>17602018
So does the wavelength also have an illusory sensation that is not a real sensation? Does the wavelength have something that corresponds to what you have when you see red?

>>17600703
Well, maybe your method that is completely arbitrairly made is wrong.

>>17602036
>So does the wavelength also have an illusory sensation that is not a real sensation?
You're such a brainlet that it hurts
in addition to this also:
>Does the wavelength have something that corresponds to what you have when you see red?
such a brainlet

You should start with the basics. Start pondering upon more strictly physical topics - "what *are* physical laws?" "what *is* a physical property?" etc.

You're coming from a background of spooks and heuristics. Enlighten yourself and go beyond that. It's funny how, despite being a metaphysician, you're actually more of a reductionist than I am.

>>17602064
I want you to start with the fact that you can see the colour red. This happens in reality right, you see that colour, this is a phenomenon that exists? Does this type of phenomenon only happen in brains, or does it happen in the wavelength too

>>17602018
gratuitously asserted and therefore gratuitously refuted.
I don't need proof of you're a retard.

>>17600703
>According to the scientific method, unprovable, unfalsifiable concepts are worthless.
you have no idea wtf you're talking about, science cultist.
goodbye.

>>17602064
you seem to have presented no proof of any of you assertions then, this settles it.

>>17602064
I don't even disagree with you,but you're just pretentious and pedantic and need to get of your high horse.
also
>le fugging spoook

>>17601095
>Awareness doesn't exist.
> Awareness is just a collection of responses to external stimuli.

Pick one.

>>17602126
Of course. It's a hypothesis. But like I said here:
>>17600736
it's the most superior explanation yet because it's based in physics and doesn't go beyond it to unchartered, unfalsifiable territories. And therefore, it relies on far fewer assumptions
>>17602148
I'm just tired of metaphysicians trying to pull a "gotcha!"
see?:
>>17602150

>>17602171
>it's the most superior explanation yet because it's based in physics and doesn't go beyond it to unchartered, unfalsifiable territories. And therefore, it relies on far fewer assumptions
It literally can't even deal with the most basic questions about conscious experience, you react like a complete retard every time I get you to even try to talk about them.

>>17600237
if you find this drivel convincing (or if you even think it makes sense) then I don't know what to tell you

>>17602171
People are pulling a "gotcha" because the arguments in the OP are a self-contradictory mess and you've evaded all the meaningful questions that people in this thread have asked. Why should anyone bother to respond seriously?

>>17602171
Your arguments are just circular logic saying the world is so because our mind tells us its so and our mind tells us its so because thats how the world is

>>17602257
how are they self contradictory?

I'm surprised people don't intuitively know this is how vision works.

>>17600237
> experience is the manifestation of pure energy.

This is like the political horseshoe theory but with scientism and new age beliefs lol.

Also wtf are other sensations like smell and touch then?

>>17603104
>Also wtf are other sensations like smell and touch then?
Touch could also be explained the same way color was explained. Smell is more difficult.

>>17603210
MS Paint sucks but I fixed it

>>17600237
Actually, let’s go one step further. Let’s deny the materialistic reality whatsoever, using pure skepticism.

A purely material object cannot be observed. Light is not a thing that can be seen outside of our own “conscious” observation, either. Hence I deny all purely material phenomena, and I deny the distinct existence of the physical property of light too.

Since my consciousness is the only thing that can witness my consciousness, I conclude that consciousness is fundamental. Maybe my own consciousness isn’t fundamental, but some other consciousness is, and hence is giving life to my consciousness as well.

Hence I derive to idealistic theism.

>>17603104

>Also wtf are other sensations like smell and touch then?
its pretty much all light
>seeing: light in visual form
>touch & smell & taste: light in tactile form
>hearing: light in auditory form

>>17603210
>>17603222
Are you using essentially the ideas of Aristotle (his proof against infinite time/matter) to make fun of materialists?

>>17602613
They completely reject the arbitrary system in which I find it fun to argue.

>>17602870
It's funny how contemporary '''''scientists''''' believe only in the idea of intromission exclusively. Almost as stupid as Euclid's sole extromission theory.

The greatest writers and philosophers throughout the ages have described the idea of vision as being both something that helps our sense perception interpret the outside world, and a way for our sense perception to affect the outside world.

>>17603256
No, rather the Mahayanist Buddhists with their ideas of emptiness and "the Ground", dzogchen, and other things. They say that the true nature of mind is Vairocana, the Primordial Buddha of emptiness. Your mind is a magical and illusory display which adorns a void of limitless potential.

>>17603333
this post has more buzwords than digits

>>17600237
>Muh crystals
While I agree there is no clear demarcation between life and non-life, crystals are typically defined by lattice periodicity. They are highly ordered static atomic configurations. The whole point is that they don't change. Life is all about change. So there's your flaw. Crystals are low entropy equilibrium states, they are NOT the correct model for life. The regularity of their structure makes them a terrible means for encoding information

On the level of chemical composition crystals are not the right materials. Life consists of three ingredients: DNA, proteins, and water. DNA is by all accounts aperiodic, the fact that it is able to encode information and recombine to produce the endless varieties of life is *precisely* what you couldn't do with a crystal.

>energy
Life is better explained as an information system than in terms of energetics. Saying that color is "just seeing the energy bro" basically means the same as "seeing heat." As this assumes what he is trying to explain: "what does energy "look like" brah?" This does not explain how said energy forms a sensible impression

>>17603342
They're technical terms, but sure call them buzzwords.

>>17603333
Hm, what would you say to something like this though
>>17603292


The reason I mention Aristotle is because very often he would use a proof against infinite details in regards to the material ramifications of motion, or even time. That, using definitions, time must have had a definite beginning and a definite end, yet time and space must have been from the start, essentially eternal.

>>17600237
oh yeah? tick tock... tick tock.... you hear that? I mean, do YOU hear that? In the other room, a clock. In the back of YOUR head. Time continues. All solves into one in the end - which there is no end to. At the speck level one moves into another.

>>17603347
I don't see how it refutes intromission. Our perception helps us interpret the outside world, yes, but it does this through a casual chain and does not reach out and grasp something truly external.

As for Aristotle and time, I am not familiar with his arguments here.

The Mahayanists reject time and say that only the present moment exists and has always been eternal. Things are able to move because they are empty (have nothing in them that is a solid, fixed, self-natured essence or thing. It is composite upon composite without a core) so since they are empty appearances they can change without the timeless Ground being effected.

>>17603345
>This does not explain how said energy forms a sensible impression
what I mean is that energy IS the sensible impression

>>17603392
I'm not trying to refute intromission, however you have to understand that by the virtue of our eyes' position, we may be able to see phenomena (like rainbows etc.) that aren't visible to others. We affect the outside world by viewing it as well, this is self evident from quantum mechanics.

>>17602870
Brainlet here what difference is there other than pure semantics between a 'chemical' which is attached to a moral idea, and a 'spirit' or some mysterious essence that interacts with us, which is also attached to a moral idea?

>>17600546
No it isn't you midwit

>>17602282
You do the same, except you take illusion at face value and end with an unnecessarily complex hypothesis about consciousness.

>>17602870
>>17603222
Brainlet here, what is the point you are trying to make?

>>17603636
>take illusion at face value
you are too dumb to even realize that the concept of illusion contradicts your thesis

>>17600237
>Retroactively btfo by Parmenides: The Post

>>17603583
A chemical is stuff like oxygen, h20, its made of protons and stuff. A spirit is a psychological phenomena where humans project aspects their own psyche onto the external world and develop false beliefs about it. Also, what moral idea are you talking about? Yes, morality is also a projection of a deluded human mind.

>>17603737
The brain is the mind. The structure of the brain is the structure of the mind and its aggregates. The mind has "subjective experience" because it is real and reality is self-luminous. There is therefor no need for anything outside a physical model of the brain to explain consciousness.

The thing about light and color is just for brainlets who confuse photons with neuron activity in the visual cortex.

>>17604037
You say things are made of chemicals. If this statement is to be of any significance over things being 'mysterious spirit' it becomes a statement with the implication of morality. Both adequately describe what is there. If you acknowledge that humans can even hold false beliefs, and that a mind can be deluded - which is a moral statement - what difference in essence is there between describing the world through one system (materialism) or another (non-materialism), except the method and justification by which morality can be upheld? Apologies if this is incoherent. I also wanted to add that one can never really escape the bounds of 'consciousness' and thus morality. consciousness not being real or being purely 'physical' has no value on 1. the subjects that believe it is real and 2. the system that still acts as if it were real because it being real is just the 'feeling' that arises from its machination. So, even if you ignored completely what I just wrote, or if I were 'wrong' isn't this debate nothing more than semantics, essentially?

>>17603247
You are not very bright

>>17602064
>Start pondering upon more strictly physical topics - "what *are* physical laws?" "what *is* a physical property?" etc.
these aren't a physical topics but epistemology and ontology.