/lit/ - Literature

> I believe that the experiences of others are essentially experienced by you as part of the same consciousness as them.
why do you believe this?

>>20718161
It would take too long to explain. I have written about it extensively. It is something I believe firmly.

>>20718135
> Is there any way to reconcile my views on consciousness with Christianity
Yes, the Adamic pleroma and universal salvation

>>20718170
Post it. We will not ask a third time.

>>20718135
>I don't believe in the self as a discrete consciousness separated from other consciousness
When I was 8 I asked my teacher about this. First I used other people as examples but then I used earthworms and all the kids just laughed. Teacher didn't even try to answer the question.

>>20718135
For Eastern Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas alterity is ontologically constitutive of personhood, and authentic personhood is achieved only if the self is overcome. His arguments are deeply rooted in the Greek patristic tradition. You might want to give him a look.

The self is a container that separates you from omnipotence because we, the unity chose to experience adversity. A lot of people seem to think that was a bad idea but I and the I AM disagree.

>>20718135
Meister Eckhart.
>The eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me. My eye and God's eye is one eye, and one sight, and one knowledge, and one love.
>We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in everything.

>>20718135
I mean if we all evolved from a common ancestor then our consciousness is an extension of this progenitor, so though we all may differ in our idiosyncrasies the schema is the same.

And reproducing is basically making a clone of ourselves which is the goal of all species. Every species wishes to subsist, and if one cannot achieve immortality in one life time then why not achieve it through multiple life times? It's the poor man's immortality. A pseudo-immortality. Every buddhist wishes for reincarnation, but reincarnation happens before their very eyes.

Now this isn't to say we are not ourselves but instead some first human. We are different, but only insofar as we break away from this first human; In our creative pursuits, our intellectual advances, and our emotional realizations. No doubt many a man has surpassed the schema, and created a new schema for himself so that he may be passed down and live forever.

One often notices the Russian man by his style. The Japanese man by his thoughts. The Spanish man by his humor. These descend from men who descended from the original, and who released themselves from the fetters holding him down. We all must all become original.

>>20718280
And if I am being honest, I really hate that I can't unthink this. I used to believe of consciousness and soul, but this common sense (or rather realistic) approach bothers me. It lacks so much life to say we are just brains with predefined schemas waiting to be altered. It seems wrong. I really rather have a soul, and a consciousness distinct from brain.

>>20718135
>shame-based cultures have developed which are cruel and authoritarian compared to the altruistic guilt-based culture of the West.
what a load of horseshit... the biggest "authoritarian" "shame-based" culture would be China, which adopted atheist Christianity (marxism) as its civil religion

>>20718280
>reproducing is basically making a clone of ourselves
no it's not, please learn high school biology

>>20718377
Genes get passed down, and genes are physical makeup. And the father's genes are more dominant. How is this not like making a clone?

>>20718409
Because we don't reproduce asexually. You are not a clone of your father.

>>20718477
>How is this not like making a clone?
>like
>As in similar, but not the same

>>20718135
>Is there any way to reconcile my views on consciousness with Christianity or a guilt-based cultural worldview?
I think there may be. If we're all in the same boat, then we should all want to take care of and preserve that boat for the sake of it (internal morals, guilt) instead of just wanting to avoid shame.

>>20718409
the dna does not contain enough information to actually generate a whole human, it just has the main idea and the leaves the process to an almost procedural-generation algorithm. thus they result in a different person and not a clone

>>20718526
Yes. So if a being, consciouness or soul wished to survive what would they do? Wouldn't they leave their offspring the main idea, and furnish them with the capability of achieving everything they themselves couldn't. Of course, this would initially imply a regression, but it need only progress once to yield fruit. Little by little, starting at zero and then where you left off and finally going beyond.

We can't perfectly clone ourselves physically, so what's left? What's left is the possibility of perfectly cloning ourselves intellectually, mentally or spiritually. We need only focus on the brain. To imbue it with the faculties needed to acquire and assimiliate all knowledge and ideas. This is also regression, but ideas are more divine. The fruit they yield is invaluable. This is the true immortality. The immortality of the body is only a semblance, but the immortality of ideas is genuine.

>>20718135
>The sublime example of renunciation and unruffled meekness, which the Buddha set, did not suffice his fervid followers; his last great doctrine, of the unity of all things living, was only to be made accessible to his disciples through a mythic explanation of the world whose wealth of imagery and allegoric comprehensiveness was taken bodily from the storehouse of Brahminic teachings, so astounding in their proofs of fertility and culture of mind. Here too, in all the course of time and progress of their transformation, true Art could never be invoked to paint and clarify these myths and allegories; Philosophy supplied her place, coming to the succour of the religious dogmas with the greatest refinements of intellectual exposition.
>It was otherwise with the Christian religion. Its founder was not wise, but divine; his teaching was the deed of free-willed suffering. To believe in him, meant to emulate him; to hope for redemption, to strive for union with him.

youtube.com/watch?v=duwkucLVhtI

>>20718135
> I believe I believe I believe
You believe wrong you idiot how many times have we had this conversation now everything you are doing right fucking now implies the discrete existence of others.
> b~but its an illusion!
Your understanding of what an illusion is requires the existence of discrete beings.

>>20718497
Clones are the same, and not similar. You're incoherent. You're saying not being a clone is similar to being a clone.

>>20718366
It's just another Christian thread where Christians lick each other's wounds. Move along.

>>20718624
>everything you are doing right fucking now implies the discrete existence of others
And based on our ideas of the world we can roughly model what the others are as biological mechanisms but no description can account for the observer. In science like physics when there's a phenomena that can't be accounted for using other phenomena it's assumed to be fundamental and universal unless shown otherwise.

>>20718604
>Wouldn't they leave their offspring the main idea, and furnish them with the capability of achieving everything they themselves couldn't.
This is you overclocking your little epiphenomenal mental process. It's not why fish lay hundreds of eggs. It's not why rabbits breed like rabbits. It's not even why loving couples have kids. It's you being a low-fertility pomo-homo who'll have 0.5 children because it's too expensive to provide more comfort and resources than you have yourself to another person in the future without sacrificing your own and risking an equal or lesser return. It's the sort of mind trap that was lampooned in the opening sequence of the classic documentary, Idiocracy. Children are something we produce out of our surplus of energy and resources, but your idea of a surplus has a cripplingly high ceiling so you are never ready to reproduce, because you cannot eliminate the risk of your offspring being worse off and are taking that risk against your surplus. In your mind, you are never having enough to breed, you are permanently pregnant with modernity, obese with productivity to the point of sterility. Have sex

>>20718409
>>20718280
>>20718497
A sexually produced offspring is a random selection of the genetic traits of his parents, run again from the embryonic start. It is not similar to a clone at all. And even a clone isn't a perfect copy.
Its not a perfect comparison, but for example, if you clone a cat, it won't end up with the same coat pattern.

>>20718699
>your idea of a surplus has a crippingly high ceiling so you are never ready to reproduce

You buffoon. It doesn't matter if my offsprings fail if in the long term one descendant succeeds and elevates the human condition. Why? Because all humans descend from the one original. I don't matter as a unit, but we matter as a collective. The one elevates the many, and the many elevates the one. There is no risk so long as we have many chances to go again. Look at how far mathematics has come, philosophy, science and physicial health. This is what I am suggesting the original hoped for.

Refute it if you can. I don't believe it myself, but I can't reason myself out of it. Perhaps you are capable, but you misunderstand what troubles me.

>>20718703
What about the brain? How well are brains copied on a physical level? Disregarding instances of deformities, I would love to know how consistent the brain is.

>>20718638
Okay, what is the goal of reproducing. Just answer me this.

>>20718955
Even the most squalid and brutish person reproduces, and probably at a higher rate than you do. He certainly isn't thinking "I wish I could homo-clone my butthole and have genetically identical offspring who will be capable of carrying out my mission of creating a great asexual empire." Reproduction doesn't have a "goal" but is part of the process of life itself. The truth, perhaps horrible to you, is that life is earth's heatsink, nature doesn't love you, and if you are too concerned with hoarding a surplus of energy you will die without releasing it to an obvious heir—but nature doesn't care that you had abstract goals contrary to life and makes sure it goes back to the living anyhow because no form is stable and the only constant is devouring.

>>20718909
>one descendant succeeds and elevates the human condition
histrionic nonsense, have sex

>>20718135
>In places where Buddhism have taken hold, shame-based cultures have developed which are cruel and authoritarian compared to the altruistic guilt-based culture of the West.
Baseless conjecture trying to imply causation effect of Buddhism resulting in shame based culture

>>20718135
There are levels and different forms that consciousness takes. It moves up as it realizes the truth. A hell realm and a heaven realm are two different levels of consciousness. Obviously a hell would be deeper in the illusion and away from truth than a heaven.

Hell is always devoid of love, dark and painful, far away from the truth of the reality of God which is eternal love. As you move closer to or farther away from God experience takes on certain qualities.

Check David R. Hawkins and his map of consciousness. This will make more sense then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Mu1QVDg3o

The self is the most obviously real thing there is.

>>20720038
The experience is apparent, the self and identities in general are constructed concepts. Both the formal idea of identities and the way things are represented in animals using sort of informal identities. Both constructs reflect a principle that has to exist in some form externally but they're still high level constructs not the thing that you directly experience.

>>20720096
>you
Who?

>>20718922
Cognitive patterns arent copied, no.

>>20720108
dunno

>>20718135
I agree however nature is often divided into opposites

"all things proceed from one substance, and gets divided into even numbers of ordered things that are direct oppositional substances, each with a consciousness of its own (plants, animals, humans) all things except rocks and dirt. the consciousness of these things can exist post-mortem and affect the consciousness of other beings anno domini, such as drive something to violence, mass death or other emotional affectations. see how a dead person can move people to sadness, anger, or regret, or how crows circle a dead person or animal, or how trees grow in places where one has fallen, etc etc."

>>20719051
You fucking Mongolian. Why is reproduction a process of life itself then? Who decided that? If there is no goal why even have it that sex should produce offspring? Why not just have it for pleasure, and have it so that when you die you die. Why have the species going?

Why do you assume reproduction is not a goal contrary to life? Shouldn't it be exactly contrary to life since in the end you will be no more, and the little time you had on Earth you squandered by having children. Thus wasting your life by spending time on theirs.

You can have both nondual unity of essence with all other life, AND metaphysical distinctness of the purusa (person).

It's one of the inarguable empirical facts of the cosmos that the phenomenon of life is teleologically structured in terms of individuals. The bad tendency in science is to atomize everything down to meaningless, disconnected "individuals" in an incoherent Democritean sense, but even Democritean atomism preserves the tacit acknowledgment of the irreducibility of multiplicity, the radical autonomy of the individual, etc.

The goal should be to understand the coincidentia oppositorum of unity and multiplicity, which requires bringing back experiential knowledge of nondual states and the base nondual nature of the world, but this doesn't mean surrendering multiplicity entirely to the dead and empty unity of a Parmenidean sphere.

>>20720257
Evolution retard

>>20718477
>>20718377
>>20718638
Dull

>>20718135
>the self as a discrete consciousness separated from other consciousness.
I disingenuously believe in my independent self-subsistence.

>>20720292
This gobbledygook sounds like it might make sense. I guess some people who read books understand some of what's in them after all.

>>20720329
You haven't given an honest answer retard. You're arguing in circles. Why did evolution decide that? Why do animals evolve? What is the goal of evolution? Isn't it for survival? But we all die in the end, so what does it matter if your offspring are faster, smarter and healthier?

I'm arguing the conscienceness of an original wishes to subsist in the hopes of immortalizing itself. Either through ideas, or perhaps through ideas and body if the species evolves far enough. Maybe some ultimate being needs us to work and endure, so that when the times comes he may choose from multiplicity of our labor and adorn himself with the finest fruits. Why else keep the species going?

>>20720257
>there must be a goal/purpose/telos to everything that exists because the world must resemble my mind and its habits
uh oh we got some sort of retard here

>>20720425
>when the times comes he may choose from multiplicity of our labor and adorn himself with the finest fruits
dumb christer has actually internalized the belief that he is livestock and thinks it's profound and empowering... Nietzsche was right as always

>>20720431
just atheistm. atheism is sheer narcissism

>>20720580
atheism is just not believing in god(s); not sure why /lit/ consistently struggles with this definition

>>20720431
>>20720444
I'm not a believer, but I'm reasoning as to why species subsist and offering reasons. So it's by chance our species evolved to subsist, and some original died long ago and is not in us or ever was? And perhaps the reason why all species have the exact same will to subsist is by chance as well. And the reason we don't see the contrary is because all species of an opposite nature must have died after the first iteration since subsisting was not in their DNA by chance.

Fine. So why do we have consciousness? Do you believe consciousness is a product of evolution and not that evolution is a product of consciousness? Or is it none of these and instead some third thing either having or not having anything to do with this? Can you hint as to what this is? Do you believe all animals possess the potential to achieve the consciousness we have?

>>20720669
Original what? If there's an "original human" we could separate out of the continuum of life, he is exactly that—something we've suspended from the process and made static. Where did he come from? Where is his original? It becomes turtles all the way down.

>>20720292
good take

depersonalization is womanly and cringe

quit larping

>>20718161
>>20718180
He watched this once
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6fcK_fRYaI

>>20718675
>And based on our ideas of the world we can roughly model what the others are as biological mechanisms but no description can account for the observer.
Of course we can. What kind of drivel is this? In any case, that we cannot account for the entirety of reality doesnt mean we should discount what we do know.

>>20721735
His principle is that the instrument of measurement cannot measure itself, a basic principle in most transcendental metaphysics.

>>20718280
>Every buddhist wishes for reincarnation
Don't they wish for the exact opposite? Im not a Buddhist nor an expert on the religion, but im pretty sure the goal of it is to escape from the cycle of rebirth & attain nothingness.

>>20721759
I don't need to offer a principle. He has no description of the phenomena except by reference, by pointing at it and hoping I know what he means. To prove me wrong he doesn't have to debunk a principle, he just has to provide any hint of a possible description.
>>20721735
>doesnt mean we should discount what we do know
What are you talking about you subhuman piece of shit?

>>20721779
>I don't need to offer a principle.
It's impossible to negate something without a principle which allows for it.
>He has no description of the phenomena except by reference,
This is essentially your principle.

>>20721789
>This is essentially your principle.
I'm simply asking for a description of a phenomena he claims is accounted for. If it's accounted for then account for it. He can use any framework or premises he wants. I want any account at all for the phenomena of experience, no matter how flawed or incoherent or inconsistent with my ideas it is. The only description I have that works is saying the core part of experience is universal and fundamental, modulated by brains but the problems with that claim are obvious like it doesn't really explain anything about the phenomena, it just presents it as an apparent premise of the world.
I have never heard of anyone that managed to produce even a hint of a way it could be possible to maybe some day explain the phenomena.

>>20718177
This. Get into Origen, see the idea of Apocatastasis. Also Clement of Alexandria's idea of the Church invisible.

Or you can understand that what your describing is basically advaita vedanta and check out shankaracharya and, say, Ramana Maharshi.

The point boils down to God=Consciousness=Love=Christ=The Avatara= The One etc

>>20718161
>why do you believe this?
Why wouldn't you?