/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2658939
And because everyone is god, from an objective point of view there is no such thing as god.
The entire universe is one entity including humans.
We're just the part that thinks abstractly instead of reacting instinctively.

Have some music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8PP8bzuY9A

Yep.

Don't expect people who haven't experienced ego death/dissolution to understand this though.

You never truly experience childbirth, so childbirth doesn't exist.

That's just like.. your opinion man...

objective/subjective confused

>>2658967
Ehhh... nope.
I'm pretty sure I got it right.

>>2658981
We can't exist because we can't experience ourselves?

Could you elaborate on that?

>>2658981
Consciousness is an experience and a phenomena that I doubt anyone, be it scientists or philosophers, will ever understand. We'd need to discover a new part of the brain or new activity within the brain to explain it.

Just because we do not know does not mean we need to attribute a metaphysical meaning behind it. That's as bad as religion.

>>2658992
Q: If we lose consciousness, are we "dead"? Although we may be physically alive, would it be like we were "dead"?

>>2658939
> Existence is objective.
> You experience other people therefore they exist to you but you also truly experience "you" so you also exist.
> You know you do because you've experienced a personality for yourself based on experiences you've had with other people.
> It's not "I think therefore I am" it's "I am".

> So everyone knows they exist because they experience their existence in some way.
> We're all part of the world we experience, which contains ourselves and everyone else.
> Everyone is themselves.
> Nobody is god.

>>2658939
What about feral children

They don't experience you, they experience dogs or wolves.

>Existence is subjective

To you or to the universe? Even though the universe can not experience existance it exists. Unless we throw out objective existance altogether and then you may end up saying that the universe doesn't exist until observed. This is fairly absurd or just completely useless, I could expect that behind me right now the back side of my house doesn't exist unless someone is looking at it.

>>2658998

You're ego would be dead. You'reunique genetic code that objectively makes you worth labeling with a name as to be a unique thing would be alive.

I think the OP is talking about egos, but even then I think he is making assumptions.

>>2659029
>I think he is making assumptions

No way brah

Existence is subjective.
>yep.
You experience other people therefore they exist to you but technically speaking you can never truly experience "you" so you don't exist.
>I can't experience me? What if I look in a mirror? What if I look at a video recording of myself? Even if I couldn't experience 'me' why would that mean I don't exist?
You only think you do because you've formed a personality for yourself based on experiences you've had with other people.
>No, not just with other people.
It's not "I think therefore I am" it's "I think therefore you are".
>The thinking doesn't create a physical being, it doesn't create a person. What are you trying to say?

So everyone only exist because everyone else experience their existence in some way.
>wat
We're all part of the world of someone who doesn't exist in their own world.
>wat!
Everyone is everyone.
>so I'm my own father? shit.
Everyone is god.
>what....

>>2659047

I agree with most you said, but I still think OP is wrong that existence is subjective. Existence is objective, it's an axiom of science and the way we live our lives that things objectively exist.

>>2658988
Nnnnnnnnnnnno!

>>2658939

SAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGE
SAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGE
SAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGESAGE

Sure is meaningless babble in this thread. It's almost like I'm really on /x/.

>>2659131
I ain't gotta explain shit.

A subjective universe is dependent on what you think of it.
Think it's objective, ever, once, even accidentally with incomplete confidence.
Boom, you're right, and now you can't change back because it's objective.
Does that sound like bullshit? Well that's what would have to happen in a subjective universe. So we're not in one.
Does it not sound like bullshit? Well now you believe it's objective, so it is now and retroactively always was regardless of how it might have been.

>>2658939
If there were a /phi/ board on 4chan, this thread would belong there

and everyone would sage it because it's meaningless, pretentious drivel.

>you can't experience yourself

Are you dense?

Are you retarded or something?

You experience yourself every second you're conscious, isn't that obvious?

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiit, nigga...
y u guys mad tho?

>>2659249
>iwasjustpretendingtoberetarded.exe

oh boy here we go

>>2659255
Haha.. I wasn't pretending to be anything.
I was just asking why there was so much madness in this thread.

>StillScience
just like stillborn, only with science

>>2659300
Science is subjective.

OP, I understand where you are going with this. I hope you do not mind, but I will drop a few notes I have taken in the subject on this thread in order to encourage proper discussion rather than have it devolve into a troll party. These are all saved from a discussion had a while back in /jp/, so there will be heavy referencing to Gensokyo, the setting in a series of Bullet Curtain fire video games.

- - - --

My only source of information about the outside world are the news on TV/in newspapers, or the internet. Other than that, the entire world is pretty much drifting by as I sit in my room.
So from this perspective, what exactly makes the "real world" any more "real" than Gensokyo?
My point is more that if I are not "out there" in it, and if my only exposure to it is through exactly the same medium as your exposure to Gensokyo - that is, the internet - then I can't think of very much that actually makes "our" world more "real" than Gensokyo.

>>2659362
Even further than the "exposure" thing: the world as it is perceived is not really the world itself, right? It's the brain processing the world and showing it to you. It comes from within you, in a way. That is; if there were no brain (in your head), there would be no world.
But you perceive Gensokyo in the same way you do the real world. In fact, in two ways you perceive it exactly the same -- sound and sight. Perception of reality is as important as reality itself. You control perception; you control reality.

You can control reality in the sense that you can control how you personally construe reality -- that is, you don't have to accept the common interpretation of certain events, I guess. In that way, you can "control" your own perception of reality. But you can't really control what you see or hear or smell -- it's just kind of there. Even listening to music isn't "controlling" sound; you're still only going to hear what the musician played, you can't change that. Unless you enter the field of insanity, of course.

I'm of the mindset that perception shapes reality. It's kind of the only thing that has kept me going in life. Life can suck, and that is real enough. but only I can determine how bad it sucks, i.e. how negatively I perceive it thereby creating the gravity of a situation, at least on a personal level, and defining a crucial element of reality.

>>2659375
I don't consider it lying to myself. I'm just not a pessimist. I do consider myself a realist, but due to the interpretation of subjective criteria described above my realism is individual and personal. Likewise, the way other people define it is individual and personal to them. Gensokyo is real. It is a place you can visit. Imagination occurs therefore it is real. However intangible, my interactions with Gensokyo are real by the criteria only I set for reality. The only drawback comes in the interaction with different aspects of life. Aspects that are shared with other people or intrinsically derive from objective criteria are somewhat immutable. Take for example, say, my family couldn't meet my waifu because their perceptions are different than mine therefore she is not real to them. A set of variables which do not influence my perception of her, but I must accept as valid because I am open-minded and can accept other people's attitudes, even if they drastically differ from my own.

>>2659388
To put it another way, If I happened to go outside and meet an old hag there's nothing stopping me, in my mind, from perceiving her as Yukarin if I've chosen to. I could attribute all my wildest fantasies onto this unsuspecting woman, and I guess if I did it long enough the illusion would get stronger. So in that sense you can "control" reality through perception -- by selectively choosing how to interpret what you perceive, and forcing your own reality onto it. But I cannot "control" reality to such an extent that Marisa - in full 2D form - will walk into my room right now and sit on my bed. That would go past perception and into mental illness I'm afraid.

----

Though if you think about it, what you'd call mental illness or "off your rocker" may just be that your own perception is so shifted from what society considers right that you and others consider it a flaw. I don't really mind being kind of unwell in the head, though. Not if it means I can have meaningful relationships with fictional characters. This trip isn't just for fun, after all.

>>2659389
I have the urge to say "define normal", but thats just going back along with "its what the majority deems as right/wrong, or is made to believe is right or wrong. and it is indeed possible to not be able to function as a biological and mortal being. You know, if we could achieve some state where we were relieved of things like requisites that go along with being a carbon-based lifeform, what sorts of feats could we accomplish with perception alteration or similar, to some extreme. Though rereading this over, I'm practically saying killing yourself is the way to go, not quite what I intend.

Things can happen in the real world that can hurt you and make you die. How can you have a subjective experience of anything, without an underlying reality? I accept "reality" is real, but everything I know about it is subjective and deeply flawed so I don't take my opinions or perceptions too seriously. We use words to describe and form opinions of things, and we use words to let us know what the words mean. Its pretty silly.

lol touhoufags, you are the shit on the shoes of shmups.

>>2658939
>implying an object only exists if one experiences it.

I think it's conversely I can't be sure about other people's existence

Sounds like some psychedelic bullshit to me. Misses the point entirely.

Depends on what you mean by experience. Humans are stimulated in five distinct manners; aside from our ability to interact with the outside world, we have no other way of "experiencing" anything. If we aren't stimulated we are simply unaware.

If you can see, smell, hear, see or feel yourself, you can know yourself just as truly as anyone else.

If you want to go down this road I'll tell you where it ends: nothing exists outside of your conscience. If you weren't here everything you know wouldn't exist; "knowing" things would be meaningless because you are not here to "know" them. "Existence" is a human concept, whether or not it can be considered "subjective" is irrelevant if you "don't exist".

>>2658939

So OP, what would you say about this.
A nuclear holocaust wipes humanity, there is only 1 person left on Earth.
According to your statement, when there are not relations in any form with another human, one ceases to exist.
Would that mean the last man on Earth does not exist?

>>2659000

trips says it all