/sci/ - Science & Math

those are all fucking wrong

>>15415297
If you flip the order of the text and the images so it's inverse it's a bit more correct.

>>15415298
Then in your opinion the correct view would be..?

>>15415304
the physical isn't 'stuff', it's just the process by which 'stuff' (perceptions) change

Cartesian dualism is the only stance compatible with quantum mechanics.

>>15415297
Where's the option for
>I don't know and neither does anybody else

>>15415316
Where is the proof consciousness can directly interact with things outside the skull?

>>15415297

https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:

>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)
>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)
>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)
>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)
>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)
>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)
>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

>>15415323
Literally the last one in OP's pic

>>15415297
>you are pure creation in dream
WAKE ME UP INSIDE
I CAN"T WAKE UP

>>15415297
I chose to think that consciousness is something outside of us and related to the underlying mechanics of reality. However it really functions probably isn’t within the capacity of our brains to create abstract thoughts about in the right ways to make sense of it. Our bodies and minds in a way isolate a part of it, binding it to linear time through our self perpetuating bodies and minds.

>>15415345
A big problem with science nowdays is that people can’t realize weather or not their methodologies and initial assumption are actually flawed.

>>15415383
Where do you finde this info. I mean i know its vague on net. But after deeper research of eliminativism and physicalism it is clear thst they dont reject consciousness. They just dont agree with conception of it. Thats why Dennet say that HPC can be explained via EPC. He even says in Quining Qualia that he does not claim that subjective experiance does not exist (if i remember corectly).
No one rejects anything they debate about the nature of "thing" in question.

>>15416513
Edit:
Remember that meme where two guys stand oposite and number in the middle? One claims its 9 one thst is 6. This is what is happening. No one is saying there is no number

>>15415297
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

>>15415345
See >>15416870

>>15415297
fucking midwit thread

>>15416870
Has this been replicated?

This shit is vitalism. I am not "conscious", and neither are you. Scientifically, the notion of "life" itself is meaningless and arbitrary, the existence of consciousness would imply panpsychism which is absurd.

>>15416870
I watched it and it striked me. For it had potential to finally shift my view on the topic.
But, i went to search for papers on this particular work and found two of them remaking experiment and showing that results are insignificant. One of the papper even criticises the method used by original experimentors.

> The problem
I didnt quit get the notification part. They say they notified the person in the room when colapse happens? (Or something like that). But is not allready observing experiment? What if this observation to notify meditator allready does what they asume meditator contributes?

>navel gazing thread

>>15417323
>would imply panpsychism
non sequitur

>>15417323
*tips fedora*

>>15417400
We used to think "life" was special and distinct from "non-life". We know since the 19th century that there is no such difference. Thus, either everything is "conscious" or nothing is. The latter is more logical and parsimonious.

>>15417498
Life is clearly distinct from non-life. A dog is alive. A chair isn't. Your argument is still a non sequitur.

>Thus, either everything is "conscious" or nothing is.
non sequitur again

>>15418177
He is saying about search for "secret engredient" as they do it now in phil of mind. So did they do it with vitalism. It turned up that distinction is nothing more then complexity and not "decret engredient".

>>15418290
The secret ingredient has been identified. It's called quantum mechanics.

>>15418293
For consciousness?

>>15418310
And for free will!

>>15418311
Please satisfy my curiousity. What does QM have to do with both free will and consciousness?

>>15418312
It provides the link between the deterministic, computable, physical world on the one hand and the nondeterministic, uncomputable, mental world on the other hand.

>>15418331
How?

>>15418335
True randomness is mathematically impossible, yet widely recognized as a fundamental part of reality in QM.
In other words, it cannot compute.

>>15418648
Mathematics were not and have never been the real world. Mathematics exists in its own realm and obeys only its own rules; it just happens to be useful to model and predict the real world in some circumstances.

>>15415297
> no idealism.

>>15418648
Is it true randomness or is it variables yet undiscovered.

>>15418790
Local realism has been deboonked by Bell. No hidden variable theories for you, chud.

>>15418648
Okay.. you still didnt tell me anything.

>>15418335
"How?" is the wrong question. You cannot ask for a mechanism (a deterministic procedure) for something inherently nondeterministic. It's a categorical error.

>>15415316
you are just did a scientism. the opposite of empiricism

>>15418331
that's some handwaving cringe. jesus

>>15419281
>noooo, you're not allowed to use rationality in your epistemology
If your "empiricism" is limited to empirically observing what "the experts" are saying then I'm proud to do the opposite and think for myself.

>>15419282
It's pure logic. When someone asks for a Turing machine to compute the halting problem you explain to him why it's not possible. Asking for a mechanism behind free will is essentially the same. You cannot give computational account for something uncomputable.

>>15418312
Nothing, he's just schizophrenic

>>15419284
go ahead and rational as much as you want. but the idea that the universe somehow lets itself press in your models is laughable at best, but only too human.

>>15419290
>physics Nobel laureate Roger Penrose is schizophrenic
Huh? When was he diagnosed?

>>15419303
I am merely describing reality. Meanwhile it's soicucks like you desperately forcing nature into their determinitard dogma, lmao.

>>15419304
if you follow penrose's argument it literally turns into handwaving
>universe does a consciousness

lol

>>15419307
if you claim to describe reality why did you do the exact opposite?

>>15419304
So you think you're penrose? That's a symptom of severe schizophrenia. Probably even terminal

>>15419309
The fact that my objective description of reality doesn't agree with your faulty subjective perception of reality only shows how limited the latter happens to be.

>>15419313
well mem'd

>>15419277
I am sorry, if nature of consciousness is based on QM then how is plausable question. I am asking you how does QM bring consciousness

>>15419326
well, conveniently I cant answer your question. but it's qm for sure

>>15419330
I see and i do not agree.

>>15419313
Mmm, subjective and objective picture of reallity.
Do satisfy my curiosity, what do you take as objective and subjective picture?

>>15419237
that's false. bell tests only show that at least one bell assumption is wrong, and it doesn't say which. i hate how many times i have to say this. people just don't understand

>>15419345
I am glad you are here friend.
For people such as me who are not so much into fields of mathemathics csnt distinguish true from false.

>>15419345
>one of the assumptions "locality" or "realism" must be false
>somehow this isn't the same as saying local realism is false
What kind of tranny logic is this where De Morgan's law is being denied? Are you advocating for some socially constructed non-binary truth values?

>>15419376
you're forgetting the third assumption, statistical independence, aka the 'free will assumption'. it could be the only wrong one.

>>15419376
Wait but what does principle of locality and non-locality have to do with randomness? What does interconectedness of a system have to do with how it behaves?

>>15419379
Okay i did some research.
So you claim that free will is something like quantum siperposition?
If yes, that still proves nothing. For there still needs to be something that determins position of superposition.
Not only that, no matter randomness or determination, we are at the end determined by either of two options. There is allways something that will determin what we choose. Wether an idea, belife, physics..
To have free will would be to have space in brain which is isolated from totallity of reallity.

Has anyone refuted the relativistic consciousness theory?
Link related:

>>15419396
>Okay i did some research
Good job, now go on and do yet more research.

>no matter randomness or determination
The randomness hides free will. The Conway-Kochen definition of free will makes it indistinguishable from free will from an outside perspective. But do you feel like your decisions are completely random or do they make sense and are exactly what you are willing?

>space in brain which is isolated
Microtubules allow for quantum computation to take place in neurons.

>>15419623
Nice link, dipshit

>>15420052
>But do you feel like your decisions are completely random or do they make sense and are exactly what you are willing?

I feel as if my decisions are determined by certain pre-existing factors (belifes, knowledge, experience etc.).

>Microtubules allow for quantum computation to take place in neurons.

Yes but the system you are pointing too again is a part of the one larger system that functions in certain way. What i am trying to say with this is, if there could be such a thing as free willy there needs to be a thing that interacts with enviorment, affects it yet is not affected by it. But the fact is, there is no such thing in reallity. All there is is affected by something.
This is why i higly doubt even QM can prove free will.

On other hand, wether randomness or determination, as i said, again we have something that determins what will happen.

I cant wrap my head around this proposal of quantum superpositiom being fundament of free will. It does not give an answer to how can it create a "force" that is isolated from enviorment in which it is emerged yet in the same time it has effect on it.
It seems to me as some kind of dualism wraped in fabric of QM with loose ends

>>15420052
>Microtubules allow for quantum computation to take place in neurons.

>>15419396
so the value of planck's canstant is determined by whether I choose a coke or a pepsi?

>>15415297
you forgot the last one
I AM

>>15415297
>you have magical ghost living inside your body
Never change /sci/.

>>15420675
No i did not say that.
Stop being stupid...

>>15415297
All replies to this thread are outputs of brains that don't know what it's like to be a brains.

>>15415297

>What is your personal opinion here?

It's all just a bunch of sneks in a shell.

>>15415303
This.

>>15416369
I don't think it's too complex to ever understand. I just think right now we don't understand it and could argue non stop and never come to any conclusion. I don't think it's unfalsifiable but I also don't think it's something that can be uncovered via philosophical discussion. There's not really any math or anything supporting any of these theories yet as far as I'm aware

>>15415316

Retard. Material is your imagination. All QM is relative to the conscious observer. You are the focal point, the generator, of your world.

>>15415316
You don't seem to understand quantum mechanics, are you a physicist?

>>15421846
>implying physicists understand QM
Nobody does. Even Schrödinger and Feynman said they don't understand QM.

>>15421845
You are partially confirming the statement. What you're missing is the fact that observation has to be consistent among all observers, clearly requiring that material is more than just "imagination".

>>15417323

>y-you don't exist, trust me bros

>>15421845
>conscious observer
False

>>15419277
A nondeterministic system can be created using deterministic means, could you perhaps rephrase your statement to help me better see your point of view?

>>15421857
He didnt say that stop acting like a fool.
Cant you fuckers read?

>>15421837
Not that Anon but what are we even trying to understand? Are we looking for the hitherto invisible ghost or are we merely advancing our understanding of how a computer creates a virtual reality without finding out how a virtual reality knows what it's like to be a virtual reality?

>>15421859
>t. never heard of delayed choice experiments

>>15415297
Consciousness is the prima materia (Elemental Elementalism 1.1.).

>>15421862
>A nondeterministic system can be created using deterministic means
Nope. Maybe an illusion of nondeterminism can be created that way, hiding behind computational irreducibility. But that's not true nondeterminism.

>>15421864
>Are we looking for the hitherto invisible ghost
No need to look anymore. We found him in quantum mechanics.

>>15421851
Not my intention, if he was a physicist I was going to ask him (you?) to elaborate on his thought process. I'm a Physics instructor at a midwestern university and I can confirm that nobody understands QM.

>>15421867
I did and i still say nope.
You cleary dont understand what "observer" means in experiments.

>>15421871
>Nondeterminism is not "true" nondeterminism

Tell us, oh great arbiter of nondeterminism, the difference between nondeterminism and "true" nondeterminism.

>>15421872
>As Daniel Dennett said, "quantum effects are there in your car, your watch, and your computer. But most things — most macroscopic objects — are, as it were, oblivious to quantum effects. They don't amplify them; they don't hinge on them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind#:~:text=The%20quantum%20mind%20or%20quantum,could%20explain%20critical%20aspects%20of

>>15421882
You are projecting. What you're about to say is the usual midwitted dumbfuckery "observer is just any interaction". This is exactly what has been debunked by delayed choice experiments. Sorry kid, quantum isn't your tiny bouncy balls physics from high school.

>>15421878
Are you familiar with the works of Roger Penrose and with the von Neumann / Wigner interpretation?

>>15421886
Not your personal Wikipedia. If you are lacking the educational background, stay away from this kind of discussion.

>>15421890
>Daniel Dennett
Lmao, good job quoting the guy who doesn't understand the question in the first place.

>>15421892
I am fairly familiar with Penrose, which works do you suggest? After a quick search I am familiar with the the Von Neumann/Wigner interpretation, but honestly I had never heard the idea under that name. In your opinion, what is the nature of consciousness?

>>15421898
You have not made any rational argument. You said deterministic means could not create a nondeterministic system, but refused to provide any evidence.

materialistic superdeterminism.

>>15415297
Not science or math.

>>>/x/

>>15421914
To any person who isn't cognitively impaired it is obvious from the concept of determinism. But please let us have a laugh by showing us your faulty example of producing nondeterminism within a purely deterministic system.

>>15421891
Clearly you have the issues.
And again i say false. You have no idea what you are tallking about.

>>15421931
So your evidence is stating "it is obvious" combined with ad hominem attacks, then evading my request for evidence by asking for evidence from me. Very enlightening.

>>15421939
>You have no idea what you are tallking about.
... says the moron who believes quantum mechanics is just bouncy ball particles lol

>>15421940
Your claim, your burden of proof. Show an example or admit you were wrong, fucktard. Determinism cannot produce nondeterminism. Anyone but you agrees.

>>15421947
Ahh yes the classic:
>Ill bully others because they dont agree with me so that he starts questioning him self and accept my stance

Pathethiccccccc

>>15421949
Bohmian mechanics (deterministic) can produce quantum mechanics (non deterministic)

>>15421957
Anon, when they say QM is nondeterministic they mean that a precise knowledge at the quantum level is impossible. Not that the things they tallk about are independent, nonconected and isolated.

>>15415297
Are we doomed to aimlessly ad hominem eachother or is it possible to have a thread where we create a higher understanding that is worthy of being publiahed as a significant contribution to the field? It's 2023 after all. If we agree that everything is fake and gay then why don't we show how real thinking is done?

>>15421962
What does this incoherent post have to do with what I said?

>>15421950
>oh no, someone points out that I'm wrong
>instead of accepting the criticism I'll cry about bullying
Soi mindset

>>15421957
In Bohmian mechanics QM isn't nondeterministic anymore. It is entirely deterministic. Nondeterminism becomes an illusion created by the impossibility of precise measurement. Thanks for confirming what I already said.

>>15421962
You're just as retarded as the poster you're replying to. Why do you repeat his already debunked bullshit?

>>15421975
>In Bohmian mechanics QM isn't nondeterministic anymore.
Ok that's what I said

>>15421962
no one uses the word 'nondeterminism' like that. nondeterminism means the future doesn't follow strictly from the past. and as it happens, testing determinism/nondeterminism is impossible. so all we can do is assume one or the other when building a theory.

>>15418312

All physics is a description of our perceptual reality. Our perceptual reality is a constructed mental experience. QM is the lowest level of rendering of our virtual world. QM proves that we each inhabit our own constructed world that is relative to each conscious observer.

>>15415297
Physicality is just consciousness given a concrete and stable form. You plebs will never understand until you give up on your reddit-tier scientism and learn occult and esoteric wisdom that has been passed down for millennia. Soften your ego and give in, realize that this wisdom is ancient and has existed far before you. It's sorta sad you guys are trying to explain this using QM because from my perspective that is utter nonsense. QM is a model created to explain how particles behave. It has as much to do with consciousness as Newtonian mechanics, or explaining the engineering of bridges.

What we call physical is simply the element of Earth, and all four elements are simply modes of consciousness. The physical world is consciousness that is slow, durable, immovable, unchanging, reliable, consistent, etc. I'm sorry guys, I know the esotericpill is a tough pill to swallow for you types, but it's the truth.

>>15421991
That's just a word salad

>>15418686

Math is the language of our understanding of our perceptually-created world.

>>15421995
>>15421994
Honestly this, and until you guys take the esotericpill all you will spout is word salad informed by engineering terms.

>>15419313

rekt

>>15421994
Consciousness is just physicality given an experiential form. You plebs will never understand until you give up on your chopra-tier wooism and learn reductionistic materialism that has been passed down for millennia. Soften your ego and give in, realize that this wisdom is ancient and has existed far before you.

>>15421855

Fundamental reality is the mind of God.

>>15421863

That's exactly what he said. You ARE consciousness. That's all you are.

>>15422002
>Consciousness is just physicality given an experiential form
So we intimately know what consciousness is. It's us. We interface with everything through this window of consciousness. Physicality is only seen through this window. You have never (and I truly mean never, ever) known or understood or conceptualized "physical" without consciousness. You rely on consciousness for the very definition, interaction, experimentation, etc of physical. The same goes for emotions and such. So no, by consciousness I don't mean psychology. I don't mean neurology. Consciousness is conscious of our neuro-psychology just the same as it's conscious of physical matter.

And anyway and I am extremely confident about my understanding of consciousness and physical reality while the buffoons in this thread are stumbling around trying to get a clue. Maybe consciousness is some inane meaningless billiard-ball particle bumping around in space for no reason whatsoever? Haha, yeah keep on that line of thinking and everyone in this thread will get exactly nowhere.

>>15421967

We already figured out what reality is. Now it's just arguing with the dogmatic materialists for fun.

The idiocracy is here

>>15422010

This guy gets it

>>15422010
I am extremely confident about my understanding of consciousness and physical reality while the buffoons in this thread are stumbling around trying to get a clue. Maybe consciousness is some inane meaningless magical woo woo? Haha, yeah keep on that line of thinking and everyone in this thread will get exactly nowhere.

>>15421995

No it's not. It's only word salad to you because you don't understand.

>>15422010
Ahhh David Chalmers is here..
Great..

>>15422020
What's your iq?

>>15421994
So much claims yet so little evidance.
There are 100 views like yours. All with same weight. Get in line

If you aren't using your consciousness to look at the sky while you lucid dream, and tuning what spectrum of energy you are looking at until you see the diffraction limited view of stars and galaxies through dust clouds while observing infrared, microwave, and radio, you don't know shit about consciousness or its capabilities.

>>15422010
based and mysticism pilled

>>15422018
It's not inane and meaningless it's actually extremely intelligent and sane. Here I'll give some wisdom: Capricorn is the sign that is cardinal earth and ruled by Saturn and the winter solstice. It being cardinal earth means it is the manifestation of the earth element, it's inception. Caps build infrastructure, institutions, governments, buildings, etc. It is the farthest from the sun and moon signs and thus ruled by Saturn. The Sun and Moon are where the soul and mind sit in opposition to the external world, the Saturn signs, looking out at it from afar. Study the fundamentals of astrology and you'll see clear rational patterns. Hell you can even study it as a science. In fact I'd love to see more scientists open their minds and learn astrology. It could be really fun you never know! Give me your birth chart I'll be able to tell a thing or two about you.

>>15422033

About 130

this thread is expectedly teeming with langanite drone woospiracists. kek

>>15422035
Here's how views typically fall in relation to my view.
>Reductive materialism - refuted by me
>Secular philosophy - clearly struggling to find the truth, but sometimes is right. Glimmers of truth shine through.
>Mainstream religons - much agreement, the fundamentals are all true but some disagreements arise due to culture, time, interpretation, etc. In the plurality and chaos of life the religions loose sight of what is really important.
>Estoteric traditions - Almost entirely agree, same problem as above but not as severe.
>Metaphysical intuition - Self-knowledge, true as true can be.
So out of the 100 views they all align like this.

>>15422053
What actually is Langan's take on consciousness? He seems to be yet another midwit rejecting dualism in a baseless soi kneejerk reaction without any proper arguments.

>>15422056
Okay anon, i belive you have a good theory.
May i ask you to write down for me pre-asumptions on which you build your theory?

>>15422065

The only required premise is that you exist. Everything follows from that premise..but you must understand what is meant by "you." You are not your body or brain. You are pure experience/awareness of a brain (more precisely, the idea of a brain).

>>15422134
Yes and experience is processes in the brain.. meaning you are the brain.

>>15422134
>you exist
>therefore consciousness is fundamental

non-sequitur.

>>15422065
It's not my theory. It's been passed down for millenia. Everything I know I get from sources such as the Vedas, Puranas, Sutras, etc, astrology, NDEs, and the well-documented lives of many people called "Religious" and "New Age" and so on.

As for the pre-assumptions of this theory, the central idea is the Self. Not a human individual, but the objective perspective of existence. The Self goes within and creates the cosmos, creates infinite various perspectives. During the night of Brahma everything is silent and unconscious for billions upon billions of years (and look at the dawn of our universe), and during the day of Brahma conscious sentient entities emerge and act out life like a play or a dream. Mathematics is not created by us but merely described and given symbols by us. Mathematics is the way consciousness progresses. All astrologers regard math this way, since ancient times. Even your heroes like Kepler were astrologers.

The geometry of the circle is the most fundamental to consciousness, and so the zodiac functions as 12 basic perspectives on a circle. The perspectives interact with each other based on the geometry of the circle (see aspects) and the planets are the main characters (which also emanate from the geometry of the circle, since the planets all rule the zodiacs, see planet rulership) and they are act upon the circle. So math is the basis of astrology as it is the basis of our lives.

This guy I very much respect as he's realized astrology and science have a connection that must be explored, but is always overlooked. A real pioneer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuvwTHZJTAA

If you accept material consciousness as the answer then you must also consider the sun a deity because the sun is doing a lot more in the domain of mutation of energy and value than your squishy pink bullshit with quantization errors is doing.

>>15422162
Okay you have a mithological account of it. You cannot debate against scientific account with mithological.
Those are two different perspectives.

>>15422168
incoherent post

>>15422174
cheers

>>15422151
NTA, but experience is mediated by processes in the brain. The brain is a radio and your consciousness is a frequency, and experience is the result. NDEs are real and we're in an exciting time in history where they can finally be analyzed at scale.
>>15422161
I'll tell you why consciousness is fundamental. The concept of "fundamental" is a concept. There is no such thing, outside of our minds, as even so much as a reference point. If you want to conceive of existence without consciousness you must do so without a reference point, without concepts (those exist in the mind) and without experience or sense data. Good luck with that.

Another thing, can you even describe consciousness? You can describe everything in life by talking about qualities that the thing can be related to. When it comes to consciousness we can only use synonyms like "perspective" or "being" or "presence" or "suchness". Can you describe the color red without saying associations like blood or apples? Not really. New-age people describe red as simply being a low-vibrational color while purple is a high-vibrational color, or red is closer to inertia while purple is closer to activity and potential. Beyond that we don't even know where to begin.

And yet we can describe the external physical world many times over. That's because the physical is circumscribed by consciousness and not the other way around.

>>15422181
>you have to be conscious in order to experience anything
>therefore consciousness is fundamental

also a non-sequitur.

>>15422010
>We interface with everything through this window of consciousness.
Oh come on, can we be a little bit more precise with our language here? Yes clearly there is experience, but when you make distinctions between ''we'' and ''window'' as if there is an invisible leprechain sitting in the dark room of the skull looking at a television screen and pushing buttons like a gundam pilot you've completely lost it.

>>15422181
>NTA, but experience is mediated by processes in the brain. The brain is a radio and your consciousness is a frequency, and experience is the result. NDEs are real and we're in an exciting time in history where they can finally be analyzed at scale.

Okay my problem with this account is simple, you are claiming that it is possible to have experience without a body (by this i mean brain included).
And that is clearly counterfactual.
I would rather accept that we are the body producing experience.

What you are proposing is dualism and if you have knowledge in philosophy, you know that dualism creates more problems then it solves.

>>15422171
First of all work on your English. Secondly I can debate just fine. All science has an interpreted side. Most science is simply a description of the physical world with an interpretation on top. Not too hard to work with. If you want to debate epistemology, that's a little deeper than science, and it's probably what you really are concerned with here.

>>15422168
Yes I do, well not really a deity but it is the soul of our solar system and in the natal chart it's the soul of the individual.

>>15422187
If we regard consciousness as "is-ness" then yes, it is by definition fundamental. There is nothing more fundamental than the fact that something "is". Like I said, I'm not referring to psychopathology or neurology. Consciousness is conscious of those things, and not the other way around, just like physics. Consciousness is conscious of everything at once, it is only our psychology that feels individual and alone. This isn't going from A to B but rather positing A and further defining A. Consciousness is presence/existence/suchness and is by definition fundamental as you can't go beyond that, only into "nonexistence" which by definition isn't a thing. That definition of consciousness is the basis for all spiritual systems whether they know it or not.

>>15422208
>First of all work on your English. Secondly I can debate just fine. All science has an interpreted side. Most science is simply a description of the physical world with an interpretation on top. Not too hard to work with. If you want to debate epistemology, that's a little deeper than science, and it's probably what you really are concerned with here.

And thisnis what im telling you. You cannot mix interpretation (Mythos) with description (Logos). You just simply cant. They are two different meta-cognitive frameworks.

>>15422208
>you must also consider the sun a deity
>Yes I do
Respectable

>>15422213
>Noo!! You can't mix a priori and a posteriori to come to a conclusion on metaphysics
Then it should be easy for you to prove that using only a priori.

>>15422203
Ok you added all the bullshit, not me. Instead of window lets use "frame of reference". My point is you only can think about physicality as a thought or experience. We can never leave behind thought and experience and still understand the physical. We invented the idea that there is a separate reality called "physical" when it was always what we saw within ourselves, our experience.
>>15422204
I am not a dualist however I don't blame you for assuming dualism. The brain IS a part of our consciousness. Actually the brain is within consciousness. The activity observed in the brain is important for our experience but that is only because (sorry this explanation is about to get extremely technical and specific) the Self wants to individuate into infinite forms and re-learn itself so it divides itself like a river divides (The element of water is the ancient analogy of this process) and it attaches (earth) to things in order to gain reference points and thus a fresh and subjective perspective and it does so by becoming bodies and finally forms attachments to the brain. Your individuated stream of consciousness (what the Buddhists call the mind-stream or alaya vijnana) attaches itself and identifies with a brain. Tl;dr consciousness is originally a continuum but it becomes self-identified with a brain.
>>15422213
What I'm saying is that all science does that. If you have science without interpretation you can't learn anything. I see that you want a mechanistic, perhaps deterministic description of what I mean. I would just look to the occult and spiritual people for that, particularly the Hindus and Buddhists but many westerners are good at this too. Rene Guenon is good at explaining this to moderns (but even he is a little dated now).

>>15422231
Nothing can be proven a priori.

>>15422241
>particularly the Hindus and Buddhists
This is called Abhidharma btw.

>>15422242
Ok so the law of thought is a suggestion then

>>15415297
Why do 19 year old undergrads with mediocre grades in Mechanics and Calc love to opine on the nature of consciousness?

>>15422241
> am not a dualist however I don't blame you for assuming dualism. The brain IS a part of our consciousness. Actually the brain is within consciousness. The activity observed in the brain is important for our experience but that is only because (sorry this explanation is about to get extremely technical and specific) the Self wants to individuate into infinite forms and re-learn itself so it divides itself like a river divides (The element of water is the ancient analogy of this process) and it attaches (earth) to things in order to gain reference points and thus a fresh and subjective perspective and it does so by becoming bodies and finally forms attachments to the brain. Your individuated stream of consciousness (what the Buddhists call the mind-stream or alaya vijnana) attaches itself and identifies with a brain. Tl;dr consciousness is originally a continuum but it becomes self-identified with a brain.

You see this is why i dont want to do philosophy anymore. Its story telling. It is theorys of asumptions of asumptions. I am sorry anon, i respect your view, but this means nothing to me. I created alot of such "storys" trough my education in philosophy. And every time, every single time i asked my self "But why?" And thst was enough for the story to be destroyed.

>What I'm saying is that all science does that. If you have science without interpretation you can't learn anything. I see that you want a mechanistic, perhaps deterministic description of what I mean. I would just look to the occult and spiritual people for that, particularly the Hindus and Buddhists but many westerners are good at this too. Rene Guenon is good at explaining this to moderns (but even he is a little dated now).

It does yes and i finde it hypocritical because the same people undermine philosophy for it.

>>15422248
No it is produced a posteriori. To claim such a law you need thoughts about something. To have thoughts about something you need experience. To have experience of something you need sensory organs (and not to mentio, something that acts upon them).
Just please dont tell me you can think of such a law without ever experiencing anything. Please have some common sense anon.

>>15422259
If you want something testable, learn all about astrology, read some charts and there ya go. It works to the very degree of the planet, you just have to understand how it really works. Like I said if i saw your chart I could probably tell something about you. But you don't need astrology to understand the philosophy that the Self/consciousness is fundamental. Again I'm not saying the human brain is fundamental, I'm saying "is-ness" is fundamental, and we can access this "is-ness" by not overthinking it and just experiencing. It's why meditation is taught as a path to enlightenment. You can think about this stuff all day long but in the end Nagarjuna comes and refutes everything you've philosophized. This isn't even so much of a philosophy (although a philosophy stems from it) but rather an intuitive, instantaneous recognition that you exist, and by existing there is something utterly immutable there which is the observant omnipresent objective perspective of the Self.

>>15422266

>>15422241
Idealism doesn't solve anything and is unfalsifiable. It just reverses the problem. This has been argued a million times in the past few months.

>>15422151

No. The brain (the idea of the brain) has its own experiential state of being. You are the meta-awareness of the brain.

>>15422350
You cannot have ideas if you dont have brain... you cannot experience without sensory organs.. ltrly you are upside downing everything.
All that because you put idea of self as something that is basis of the things that enables it. What sense does this make.

>>15422293
Like i said, i do finde all this charming, i even claim you do speak about something that is (so not imagination) but i wont belive in interpretations.

This is (banal) example of how it looks to me after all this years:
1. I throw stone in water
2. Water creates waves
3. I interpretate it as: Oh the waves are produced because the spirits of the stone are pushing spirits of water away. The stone spirits are different substance then water spirits and when they meat they push one another.
(As i said this is not ment to make fun of your views, juat a banal example)
What science on other hand.provides me with is a blueprint of what is happening rather then why it is happening. I dont need why, i dont even belive why exists. All i need is how. And how is what brought our civilisation here, not why..

Mental Illness, the thread.

[math] \textbf{OH MY FUCKING GOD I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDEALISM} [/math]

>>15422385
kek, keep it up

>>15422366
>You cannot have ideas if you dont have brain
Source? Evidence for this claim?
>you cannot experience without sensory organs
Hmm how do you know? What led you to this conclusion?

Let me see if a bigger font works
[math] {\Huge \textbf{OH MY FUCKING GOD I FUCKING LOVE CONSCIOUSNESS AND IDEALISM}} [/math]

>>15422410
Apparently not

[math] \begin{bmatrix} \textbf{I} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \textbf{FUCKING} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \textbf{LOVE} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \textbf{CONSCIOUSNESS}\end{bmatrix} [/math]

>>15422400
I cant belive you are so radical.
But okay.. ill take the bait

>Hmm how do you know? What led you to this conclusion?
If it was possible i would be aware of things that i know i dont know. If i have never siped coup of coffee, i would nevwr know hownit tastes. Its that simple.
You are the one that should provide evidance that it is possible to have experiance without sensory data. For you are the one that is doubting this.

I am only aware of things which i gain trough sensory organs and that is a fact.

Now the brain thing.. ill give you my adress, you come to me, we will open your head and ill take your brain out. After thst ill ask you if you have ideas. If you do ill admit i am wrong. If not, you admit you are wrong.

>>15422385
The eternally cucked materialist refuses to accept that this world is merely a configuration and could be different. It horrifies him more than Jesus himself as it implies that he chose his shitty ethics, hopeless and dreary attitude, and general suicidal tendencies. Before now, he could tolerate all of them because they were an infliction of the big mean labyrinth of shit and molecules. The most problematic part is the heart of his infantile delusion is an unmerited belief in causation, babby's first reasoning. Not that he is to blame for this blunder, as the materialist indoctrination centers completely avoid all forms of reason and begrudgingly accept mathematics on the terms that they get to teach primitive counting for five fucking years and then algebra for another seven. Still, the problem remains, a blemish on his intellect, ab ovo. His whole identity rests on a flimsy, laughable, and self-refuting chain.

>>15422366
>self as something that is basis of the things that enables it
No, as I said here >>15422208 the Self I refer to is the Self of Eastern spirituality. It's not in the brain or the body because these finite things cannot contain "is-ness"

Contemplate "is-ness", "suchness", "being" what the Buddhists call "tathagatagarbha" and in Dzogchen it is "rigpa". Search for it, and until then you are stuck thinking that I'm talking about something psychological or neurological but I'm not. It would be utter nonsense for what is called rigpa to arise, to arise at all but especially to arise from organs. If you understood it well you'd see it wouldn't even make sense for rigpa to be created. Everything is within the Self and the Self on its own is without qualities, without conditions. "Neti Neti" All these intelligent and genuine people were not devoting their lives to this for nothing. To describe the Self is to give it a form and thus render it mortal and mutable. It is the contents of the Self that are mutable, but the Self is the basis for all. You cannot create an objective perspective, rather only the objective perspective can move within and divide itself into subjectivity.

>>15422382
Waves, stones, water, are all by definition material things and thus are subject to material laws. It's not as strange as you make it out to be. You don't even have to believe in any supernatural phenomena whatsoever, I mean none at all 100%, in order to understand the Self. You cannot even have logic, reasoning, or math without it.

>>15422307
It's not exactly Idealism, not that mental stuff creates reality. Consciousness is conscious of the mental and precedes it.

>>15422430
The eternally cucked idealist refuses to accept that this world is a deterministic configuration and could not be different

>>15422430
My current masterpiece, just for you

[math] \begin{bmatrix} \textbf{OH} & & & & & & \\ & \textbf{MY} & & & & & \\ & & \textbf{FUCKING} & & & & \\ & & & \textbf{GOD} & & & \\ & & & & \textbf{I} & & & \\ & & & & & \textbf{FUCKING} & & \\ & & & & & & \textbf{LOVE} & \\ & & & & & & & \textbf{CONSCIOUSNESS}\end{bmatrix} [/math]

>>15422249
Self report, the post.
Consciousness is inherently interesting because no one has an answer, only straws to grab onto. Why not enjoy the ride?
>waaah material world is the only thing that there is
>reee muh inner feelies oscillating in quantum mechanics
Shit's fascinating, because there is a kernel of truth in both perspectives.

>>15422438
>muh infinite recursion into causality
Ah, there goes one now. Throw off your chains monkey, they do not mean anything.

>>15422422
>If it was possible i would be aware of things that i know i dont know.
Actual non-sequitur.

Anyway the reason for this is that your mind stream, alaja-vijnana, attaches to and identifies with a mortal soul-mind-body complex in order to move from objective to subjective and experience life as a being. We are originally omniscient but we choose ignorance because it is subjective. When you taste coffee for the first time, that flavor, that quality of experience, it already existed in the total objective perspective but has only been introduced to you. It wasn't created but already existed in the total reality.
>I am only aware of things which i gain trough sensory organs and that is a fact.
That is not a fact.

>ill take your brain out
You will kill my mortal body and my consciousness will reincarnate. Doesn't really solve much. Might have an NDE or OBE though.

>>15422443
Here's the text in case anyone wants to copy paste it. Don't forget to use the \math tags!

\begin{bmatrix} \textbf{OH} & & & & & & \\ & \textbf{MY} & & & & & \\ & & \textbf{FUCKING} & & & & \\ & & & \textbf{GOD} & & & \\ & & & & \textbf{I} & & & \\ & & & & & \textbf{FUCKING} & & \\ & & & & & & \textbf{LOVE} & \\ & & & & & & & \textbf{CONSCIOUSNESS}\end{bmatrix}

>>15422431
Well clearly you are nor talking about something psychological or neurological. And thats why i disagree with you.
You belive there is more then body i do not. You claim this self does not arise, i claim it does, that it is an idea and nothing more just as a unicorn is.
As i said, we both tallk about same thing. Just in different context.
The irony is, budhism made me quit philosophy

>>15422447
>> https://www.deepakchopra.com/

>>15422431
>Consciousness is conscious of the mental and precedes it.
“There was a young man who said though, it seems that I know that I know, but what I would like to see is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know.”

>>15422452
If you think the self is an idea then you don't know what an idea is. Technically even things like chairs and mountains are closer to ideas than the self.

Maybe this will be a useful analogy. Imagine space, or spacetime, or something similar. You cant possibly have material 3d objects without space. 3d objects are, in a way, partially made of space. They are 3d after all so space is fundamental to it's construction. The self is the same as this. Your brain is the object and the self is the space. I feel no need to produce evidence for this self as it would be like asking for evidence of space. Even if space were actually something deeper that we don't understand, it would still appear to us like space and we'd use the same word for it. Same with the self.

>>15422470
That sentence is funny but it doesn't relate to what I'm saying. There is a real self and a mental self which is the "I". The "I" is the ego and is not the self. Like I said the true self is not an individual, not a mind or a body or a person. When people say "I" they often refer to their mind-body complex. They aren't speaking about reality as a whole, but it's conceivable for a yogi to say "I" and mean everything, since the yogi considers his mortal self like an object. Take a chair for instance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE)), is there truly such a thing as a chair outside what we call them? Not really. Same with humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ4hmavIyDk

>>15422471
>You cant possibly have material 3d objects without space.
Not that Anon but imagine looking at a flat screen and experiencing a 3d universe. Farfetched analogy I know.

>>15421353
>There is allways something that will determin what we choose. Wether an idea, belife, physics..
>physics
by correlating physics with my decisions, you are necessarily saying stuff like planck's constant are associated with my decisions.
eg, me picking a coke changes the value of planck's constant

>>15422479
NTA
When everything is said and done do we all collapse into one "all" or fuck off into our own personal domains where we are all? Is there a decision at the top or does it boil down to a roll of the dice and we run it back all over again with new conditions in some sort of rng forever existence? That sounds like hell to me. Nothing to grip, no control, just a fucking trash bad twirling in the wind.

>>15415297
I have a question bros. You know those babies that are born without a brain? Or a full brain? Do you think they still have a consciousness? Is the consciousness external to the mind or are we actually just a brain? Does it even matter? Also, if people get dementia or Alzheimer's, people often say they are no longer the same person, medically speaking. This world is so fucked bros.

>>15420229
you missed this:
the way a quantum superposition collapses into a definite state is by the free will choice. eg, when both choices correspond to the same wavefunction, the act of choosing forces both of those equal-measure possiblities into a single output.
in other words, the physical system on its own cannot decide one way or the other, but when you decide, you tell the physican system how to behave.

>>15422510

>>15422515
>if people get dementia or Alzheimer's, people often say they are no longer the same person, medically speaking.
is identity/consciousness externally verifiable?

>>15422524
>the bibl
Can't wait to strike out on my own. Fuck this rock, I've got isekai harems to build.

>>15422546
my kingdom is going to invade and reck your kingdom
cope and seethe, basedlet

>>15422556
>Not KJV
Weakling

>>15422510
Originally we are god-like beings with free will. However that layer of reality is outside of time and space and has a omniscient perspective, so we are not really individuals or beings like we think. Then we choose to create smaller and smaller versions of ourselves in order to experience something new. In order to experience something new we need some level of ignorance and separation from the universal. There are actually realms that are lighter than this one that are like intermediate states between the universal and the material, where thoughts control reality and things manifest instantly for us. Even the material world is like this, except the manifestation is much, much, much slower. We are in a "dense" state of consciousness. The higher realms are much lighter than this one.

The purpose of our lives is self-awareness, and that's what you get when you have all these tiny individual perspectives communicating and experiencing each other for vast amounts of time. For spiritual practitioners that self-awareness comes quicker, and in extreme cases they reach "nirvana" and no longer need to experience individuality as they've come to understand the universal perspective. When we die we live our next life with a plan to experience things that our present life left unexplored. For example if someone is very unempathetic and cold, in the next life they may need to take care of a needy child in order to learn empathy and care. What we really desire is the objective perspective, and this requires our opposing halves to come into alignment and become whole.

>>15422471
I want to thank you for your patience.
Altho i must admit i have no clue what you are tallking about (i say this i neutral maner not agresive).
I do agree with you that mountains and chairs are ideas, but the thing those ideas refere to are real.

Maybe try with another analogy?
Or perhaps ill tell you how i see reality and try to show me trough it. That often helps when i try to convei idea to others.

I see humans as product of reallity, and this "you" "i" as an concept. An idea that referes to my behavior (how i act and am acted upon by other things).
When i see humans, i see structural processes that are nothing more but a body and chemical processes.
I finde your perspective as classical "soul" idea. As some "force" that ocupyes the body and acts trough it. Similar to what Plato or Aristotles thought. If i get it righty you base this "soul' (Self) on qualitative experience. Or how would i say (totallity of sensations).

I hope i provided you with needed info for better understanding of my perspective.
The key is to finde bridge between them.

>>15422510
Also you can experience paradises if you wish. It is difficult to get there because you need to learn to live well here in the lower realms first. There are higher dimensional extraterrestrials who live extremely long lives in thought-created domains, but their worlds started out like ours did too, and it took millions of years of civilization and rebirths to perfect their worlds. Some people astral travel to these places but they come back because their soul knows their more to do here. After billions of years of those aliens relaxing in paradise the universe itself will die, and the night of Brahma will render reality inert and unconscious for billions more years, then a new universe will awake with life and everything will look fresh again. This goes on eternally.

In the objective perspective you are already the alien living in space-paradise. But if you deny this life then you're not helping yourself, just using escapism. A bold heart can help us to accept our roles as mortals. After all this subjective experience is akin to an illusion, it's not fully real or fully separate in the objective view. We are meant to take up our responsibilities and make the Earth a better place.

>>15422582
The soul/our perspective is not like a singularity. It's more like a stream of water that can diverge and converge. Multiple people can merge into one mind in one body and then split in the next life. Psychics can look inside your mind and see from your perspective. So it's much more fluid than a simple speck of light. We can also think of our own minds: we have two eyes yet we see from both at once, we can feel and hear all at once while these are separate instances of our "sense-consciousness". The whole of humanity is one kind of perspective in consciousness. Your body is made of tiny animals yet forms it's own perspective. God can be thought of as the totality of all possible perspectives in one. Most people think of themselves as "I" and yet people with multiple personality disorder think of themselves as "we". Some people cut their arms off because they feel like it shouldn't be a part of them. So "I" is a fluid idea and is more like a concept or an illusion.

>>15422601
I feel as if you are saying something that is very common sense yet you polute it with unecesery arbitrary words. As if you are complicating something simple.
Could you please use words that are not ambigous?

>>15422630
not that guy but
>Could you please use words that are not ambigous?
in my opinion generally no, the common thing to which they're referring to is ineffable and for it to be made effable is to poison it with your own identity.
I'd hazard to say that the definition of something's identity cannot be contained within itself, but I haven't really thought that out enough to know that.

>>15422556
Bring it on, biblet.
>>15422568
>>15422587
I appreciate the perspective and insight, anon. I have a couple of questions I hope you don't mind fielding.
> need to learn to live well here in the lower realms first
Could you expand on this? I've gotten as far as getting passed my own trauma, accepting reality as is and simply being along for the ride, being empathetic towards people and being able to see charkas through couple of years of meditation. The reason I am skeptical is that none of the astral shit is happening for me. I can't control dreams or astral project regardless how I try to do it. I have noticed an increase of blurry dreams, but it's like looking through vaseline covered glass and I don't have any control over what happens unless I wake up first, but then it's just larping in my head and not dreaming.
I hope I am awakening at my own epic billions of years journey and are not awakening into the night.
> god-like beings with free will
Is there a way to step outside of the game of universes restarting and simply exist as god being in my own bubble without doing the reset shit unless I will it or are we simply bound to this mechanism even in our god state we're merely along for the ride?

>>15422630
What did I say that was ambiguous?
To explain perspectives maybe I'll try this analogy: Suppose we have a very large and empty room. Then we put in a bunch of folding screens, y'know those walls with the fancy asian prints on them, and these folding screens we can either leave still or we can move them into any configuration we want. So we can divide this space into several smaller spaces, these smaller spaces are the human individuals. It's still one large room, though. The limitations of life, our mortal bodies and ignorant minds, are the folding screens. The folding screens create smaller individual spaces that wouldn't be possible in the giant empty room.

Actually for living beings it's a little more complex. We have attachments and identifications, for example maybe in a past life we had a friend who we never wanted to part from. So in a present life we might meet that friend again (they too in a new body). In the analogy, the attachments are like the people who come into the empty room and bring in the folding screens and arrange them, choosing which spaces to create. The people might want the smaller rooms to each serve a specific purpose, like some are for storage and others are recreational and such. In our life that's like different organisms and humans all doing different actions that serve different purposes, like some are plumbers, some are kings, some are historians.

I hope that illustrates how I view things a little better.

>>15422646
You see the problem is, when they use such words they fall in trap. I suppose they are thinking abstractly. And they rather then describe what they see, connect ideas based on they understanding of ambigious word. This is why rationalism is destined to colaps on it self. The moment you stop describing reallity and start to think about thoughts, you enter dangerous world.. where there are no rules.

>>15415297
Epiphenominalism is the only correct answer

>>15422671
As i said, i understand what you point to but i do not understand why you mistify it so much.
You could have just said that perspective is individual form of existance by structural process.

>>15422662
If you are able to see chakras and such then you are already doing great. 99.9% of people can't do that, hell I can't do that. I'm not psychic, I just have an obsession with the intellectual side of things, researching and stuff. Everyone has their own pace for self-transformation. I'm not really sure why you'd struggle with astral projection and I myself have only gotten to the level of consistent lucid dreaming.

Examine, why would you want to step outside of the game of universes? The alternative is to dissolve the mind-stream and enter nirvana and rebirths will stop forever. If that doesn't appeal to you, and eternal life doesn't appeal either, then what does? What do you actually want? Simply pleasure? Wouldn't it be strong internally and be unswayed be either pleasure or pain? And even if you did become a god-like being you might realize you actually like this place and choose to come back anyway! However I'm sure there must be many beings who have reached a high heaven and just dwell blissfully for eons, but what happens when year 99999999999 trillion rolls around and their life unexpectedly ends? When they are reborn in a slightly lower realm they won't be used to the sensation of pain or impermanence and it would be like us falling to hell.

>>15422717
>Wouldn't it be better to be strong internally*

>>15422662
Once again, not the guy, but here's my opinion;

>I can't control dreams or astral project regardless how I try to do it
Next time you're trying to go to sleep, focus on trying to breathe soft enough that you LEGITIMATELY CANNOT hear your own breathing, then increase it until you do. From then on basically treat it as a game of how hard you can breathe without hearing it.
The purpose of this is twofold:
1. To remove one more oscillation anchoring you to the scale of time in which we exist (the other is the heart, but it goes without saying that's harder to ignore)
2. To force your mind to be awake and focusing on something that's not that interesting while your body goes to sleep
and strange things tend to precipitate in those states - none of which are actually meaningful to the human experience, but that's kind of the point.

>Is there a way to step outside of the game of universes restarting and simply exist as god being in my own bubble without doing the reset shit unless I will it
I'd prefer to not talk much about this one as it's simply something I can't explain in language;
Mostly 'yes' but it takes a couple of 'lives' to get over certain things about its absence - insomuch that as soon as you enter a state in which you can do anything you're immediately going to fling yourself back into this reality because it's familiar in comparison.

The thing you need to recognize ultimately, is that none of this is as interesting as you think it might be, it's only interesting because it's being blurred by the massive occlusion of identity.
I can make a coffee table with a hammer and that's about as interesting as creating a universe, it's about 7 characters of an expression, it's genuinely harder to create a rock than it is to create the universe in which it exists.

>>15422587
>>15422601

>>15422587
>>15422601
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1683144488068993.webm

>>15422717
>99.9% of people can't do that,
I hope I am not overstating here. What I meant to say is when I meditate I can see the colors of chakra depending on which part I am focusing on. Recently I've begun to see purple, but I merely see colors take over the mind's eye when I meditate.
>Examine, why would you want to step outside of the game of universes?
I want control, eternal control. The way you were describing things here
> the universe itself will die, and the night of Brahma will render reality inert and unconscious for billions more years
made it sound like the admin shuts down the servers and we all return to the night.
>>15422730
> focus on trying to breathe soft enough that you LEGITIMATELY CANNOT hear your own breathing
I am going to give this a shot. Appreciate the advice, anon.
> you're immediately going to fling yourself back into this reality because it's familiar in comparison.
I understand. It's better to go for the boiling crab approach to get acclimated. Sounds like a good time, I just hope to come across something that confirms this as something I can practically do something about rather than larp about the theory which is where I currently am.
>The thing you need to recognize ultimately, is that none of this is as interesting as you think it might be
Perhaps from where you're sitting. Where I currently am it sounds endlessly fascinating. Grass is always greener and all that. I guess this is why experienced ones settle for the rng simulator instead to keep things fresh.

>>15421991
>QM proves that we each inhabit our own constructed world
So how exactly do you explain this single-player-multiplayer dictomy?
If this is a single-player reality are you a dependent NPC mentally constructed by me or are you a real independent person?

>>15422760
The Golden Lotus book touted by Jung says more on the meditation method I'm talking about - it goes on to say you should try your best to 'listen without hearing' and 'look without seeing'. The interpretations of which are as ambiguous as anything else we say. In my opinion these take the meaning of 'listen and see what you will without interpreting it, because to interpret it is to be conscious'.

>>15422761
Take a torch up to a complex object and you can make an infinite amount of unique shadows of it, all taking the form of the real but all equally degraded in meaning and definition. They're all 'there', they all 'exist', but not to the same threshold as the origin.

>>15422781
...for example

>>15422781
*The Secret of the Golden Flower
is the name of the book, my apologies.

>>15422783
>>15421991

So basicaly, you are claiming transcedental idealism. That there is objective reallity which we percieve subjectively depending on form of existance.
How does QM prove that?

>>15422791
I'll check this book out. Thanks, anon.

>>15422794
Sorry I'm not the dude you were originally responding to in >>15421991 and I straight up failed to even read the green text of it in your reply so I was kind of just addressing your point without the context, my apologies.

>>15422805
however I will say that the concept of a 'Nyquist frequency' seems oddly close to what quantum mechanics is dealing with.

>>15415297
consciousness is a by product of advanced cognitive ability.

>>15422848
How advanced? Most IQ 130 midwits are NPCs. Does ChatGPT have consciousness?

>>15422851
Having delusion of grandiosity does not make you special.

>>15422856
Merely stating the fact that you're a conscious human being constitutes "delusion of grandiosity" now? Lmao, NPCs gone absolutely full retard.

>>15422848
Is the color red a result of cognitive ability?

The correct answer is no btw.

>>15422906
>Colors aren't the result of the observer's interpretation
my nigga, explain yourself

>>15422868
They got backed so far into the corner their cult now has to deny their own existence to sustain itself. These people are fucking nuts and dangerous

>>15422783
If people and their actions are dependent on my perspective then why can't I mind control others?
If properties of physical objects are dependent on my perspective then why can't I change them using my mind?
If consciousness and imagination is the First Cause, as you would suggest, then why is it subject to mathematics?

>>15422908
Sir, you can be raised by wolves and have an IQ of 5 and still perceive colors.

Remember the dress that was either blue and black or gold and white? The people who saw gold and white weren't color bind they were just interpreting that the light outside was stronger than the light inside and thus made the unconscious assumption that the dress must be lighter but is in shadow. That requires the color values to actually be perceived but misinterpreted. If they didn't perceive the colors correctly they couldn't have assumed it was light outside and that the dress was in shadow, and couldn't have adjusted the colors in their interpretation to match. Therefor color is perceived even before it is interpreted by the intellect.

>>15423020
I think you're arguing over semantics my dude. Colors do not exist outside of interpretation of some observer, and the word 'interpretation' is a lot more loose of a definition than you assume. The color magenta literally does not exist outside of the interpretation of trichromats, there is no wavelength that corresponds to its existence, and likewise this exists on the dimensions of chromaticity and luminance (impossible colors and chimeral colors) as well as hue (the aforementioned magenta).

>>15423050
and additionally, the red you see when you first look at something red, and the red you see after staring at it for maybe 5 seconds are technically completely different reds if you take fatigue into consideration, your interpretation of it is just amplified in response to the fatigue so you don't notice because fatigue isn't something worth noticing to stay alive.

>>15423050
>Colors do not exist outside of interpretation of some observer
Not that anon but: word salad.
>Type 1 blindsight is the term given to this ability to guess—at levels significantly above chance—aspects of a visual stimulus (such as location or type of movement) without any conscious awareness of any stimuli.
>As originally defined, blindsight challenged the common belief that perceptions must enter consciousness to affect our behavior, by showing that our behavior can be guided by sensory information of which we have no conscious awareness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

This clearly shows that what-it's-like is a seperate function that materialists can't explain thus opening the door for all types of schizo's to take over the asylum.

>>15423050
>X do not exist outside of interpretation of some observer
Same could be said for anything. I don't really know what your point here is, I actually think your argument just makes my argument (consciousness is primary) a tinsy bit better.

>>15423090
I'll be honest I interpreted this anon's post here >>15422848 as talking about having an advanced set of 'cognitive abilities' as opposed to the faculty of those abilities.

>>15423254
*as opposed to the magnitude of those faculties

>>15422204

>you are claiming that it is possible to have experience without a body

You don't have a material body. Your representation is the mental image of a body, which you have.

>>15422366

You have a brain. It's the idea of a brain. It is not a material brain. Nothing is material.

>>15422422

You have a brain. An idea of a brain for the idea of you. Your brain is not material. Nothing is material. But yes your brain exists.

>>15423450
How can my brain be real if the vat containing it isn't real?

>>15415345
>a piece of the puzzle perfectly fits into thouthands of years of religious philisophies
>noooooo, you can't say that, muh.materialism can still work

>>15424638

huh? the universe (including you) exist as ideas in God's mind.

why is /sci/ full of so many pseuds?

>>15425950
You're smart aren't you? You should be able to answer it yourself

>>15425957
the answer is that nobody knows because consciousness is an ill-defined, subjective experience