If you think that consciousness=strictly brain, you’re a midwit npc

[Anonymous No.14536387]

Consciousness is the signal, the brain is the TV. You break a TV, of course it won’t work. But the signal remains. You injure a brain, of course it won’t work, but consciousness remains.

[Anonymous No.14536399]

conjecture

[Anonymous No.14536404]

>>14536399
your gut controls your brain, that's where the "signal" comes from

[Anonymous No.14536410]

>>14536404
Now you went full retard. There are people with no gut, and still conscious and rational.

[Anonymous No.14536413]

>>14536410
That’s not me - OP

[Anonymous No.14536416]

>>14536387
True and based.

[Anonymous No.14536424]

>>14536387

The implication of the second and third sentences is false and inadmissable in the way that the OP would like, regardless of the sense in which the "TV signal" is to be taken (whether coming from the network to the television set, or from the individual set as information specific to it).

We are nothing else than concatenations of atoms moving about a bit, get over yourself. I actually understand the hard problem of consciousness by the way, so don't bother reiterating it.

[Anonymous No.14536430]

>>14536424
>We are nothing else than concatenations of atoms moving about a bit, get over yourself
having made that sentence you have literally just given up all human rights. you are now free to be tortured endlessly by anyone and turned into fertilizer for those of us that actually do possess a soul.

[Anonymous No.14536434]

>>14536424
>>14536430
it's not even unfair or hateful, either - all i'm doing is to take YOUR worldview and react to it with the highest possible respect by following it to its logical conclusion.
>hurrr i am nothing but matter
>treats you exactly like matter
>OMG WHAT ARE YOU DOING!? I'M HUMAN AAAAARGGGGHHH

[Anonymous No.14536444]

>>14536430
>>14536434
*teleports behind you*
heh
nothing personnel kid

[Anonymous No.14536446]

>>14536424
Holy cringe word salad

[Anonymous No.14536520]

>>14536410
a brain in a jar?

[Anonymous No.14536526]

>>14536520
>brain in a jar
There it is. The popsci shit again.

Total gastrectomy
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/stomach-cancer/treating/types-of-surgery.html

[Anonymous No.14536594]

consciousness is obviously the emergent property from a biological neural network

[Anonymous No.14536600]

>>14536387
it's stored in the balls

[Anonymous No.14536604]

>>14536594
it is quite obviously reversed: the idea of the brain only exists because consciousness tells you it does.
the world of ideas is bigger than the world of realized ideas, anon. a fucking toddler knowd this.

[Anonymous No.14536629]

a classic "I'm too affraid to die to accept reality" thread...

[Anonymous No.14536632]

>>14536594
this

[Anonymous No.14536743]

>>14536430
Even if this wasn't a fallacious appeal to consequences, it would still be idiotic since you don't have a soul whether or not you believe you do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

[Anonymous No.14536750]

>>14536387
Put a TV in a Faraday cage and it no longer receives a signal even though it's working fine. Where's the proof of a consciousness signal?

[Anonymous No.14536752]

>>14536743
i know for a fact that my consciousness exists. i only know about the concept of "brain" as an emergent pattern/idea within that same consciousness. the two are like axiom and formula - one just is, the other one is a derivative.

[Anonymous No.14536754]

>>14536387
You put the cart before the horse. In fancier terms, "begging the question". You've just assumed the conclusion, not demonstrated it. Demonstrate this "signal" analogue for brains. Go ahead and publish your demonstrating it and enjoy your fame. Go ahead, I'll wait.

[Anonymous No.14536759]

>>14536752
This doesn't respond to anything I said. You don't know that you have a soul, you just assume it with zero evidence.

As to the brain, you're ignoring your own conscious awareness of empirical evidence showing it exists. If you need glasses to see, does that mean everything you see is a derivative of the glasses?

[Anonymous No.14536761]

>>14536759
>empirical evidence
is also just a pattern/idea that you recognize within your consciousness. i wonder: when you die in a car crash, suddenly see your own body below and start ascending, will you ask the first angel for empirical evidence?

[Anonymous No.14536765]

>>14536761
Any idiot can just assume they're right therefore they're right. About anything. That's all you're doing here, and it's on the level of how toddlers argue.

Anyway this presup game is old hat. You can have knowledge without absolute certainty via induction. Your ignorance of fallibilism and solutions to the problem of criterion is a personal failing, not wisdom.

[Anonymous No.14536767]

>>14536765
>You can have knowledge without absolute certainty
you genuinely can not.

[Anonymous No.14536771]

>>14536767
Your personal ignorance is not wisdom. Fallibilism is a thing. What the fuck do you think the "justified" part of "justified true belief" means? Induction can be the justification, obviously. You're writing on a computer devised through science, which is entirely a process of induction, and it clearly works.

Feel free to stop doing so at any time.

[Anonymous No.14536775]

>>14536765
>You can have knowledge without absolute certainty via induction.
Sure, you're just too dumb to figure out what the actual knowledge is, and what it is about, so you conflate babby's kiddie-tier mental models for reality.

[Anonymous No.14536776]

>>14536775
Eh, weak troll. Giving up the main argument to flail like an infant is boring. Do better.

[Anonymous No.14536777]

>>14536771
you bore me. maybe I'll just watch a movie instead of arguing about whether the thing my consciousness is telling me is real must actually be real. what should I watch?
the matrix, fight club, abre los ojos, groundhog day? Jacob's ladder, the house that jack built, moon? the cabin in the woods, they live, the truman show?

nigger how is the idea that what you perceive as reality being an illusion foreign to you?

[Anonymous No.14536778]

>>14536387
Under that assertion, how can our state of consciousness be altered by drugs or temporarily erased altogether in the case of e.g. anesthesia? Why does our internal experience change with the brain if it's only a projection onto our brain? For that to be explainable there would need to be a distinction between the signal and observer, which eliminates the point.

[Anonymous No.14536779]

>>14536776
Don't know what you're sperging off about. I'm just a passerby noting your profound stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14536784]

>>14536778
>why would the simulation, which must have an agenda, tell me I'm not in a simulation when such knowledge would defeat its purpose?
>clearly there cannot be a meta-level to reality, otherwise the lower level it is by definition disconnected from would tell me

[Anonymous No.14536786]

>>14536777
>nigger how is the idea that what you perceive as reality being an illusion foreign to you?

Isn't. Already told you, fallibilism. If reality is an illusion that requires epistemic justification to assert. Same as every other claim. Guess what? To do so you would use... induction. Classifying everything as illusory on a deductive basis fails one of the utmost crucial steps in soundness: Differentiating imagination from reality.

Or I can put it to you as a question: If you've two axiomatic systems that are equally rational, how do you determine which one is the case? You use induction and test them in the reality you appear to be in. You're just a presup, none of this is new.

[Anonymous No.14536793]

>>14536786
>Differentiating imagination from reality.
Something you literally fail to do when you assume babby's kiddie-tier mental models are reality.

[Anonymous No.14536800]

>>14536793
You're just admitting you don't know how science, models, or anything works. One does not assume as you are doing, one builds a case from what works until it doesn't. One has to show that it works.

Note, you're evading the simple challenge. Again, you've two axiomatic systems with opposite conclusions. Which one is actually true? Using your method, both parties can just assume they're right. Your epistemology is utterly bankrupt.

[Anonymous No.14536802]

>>14536800
>Note, you're evading the simple challenge
Once again, I'm just a passerby noting your profound stupidity, not the fag you're arguing with.

>you've two axiomatic systems with opposite conclusions. Which one is actually true?
Almost certain that neither is actually true.

[Anonymous No.14536804]

>>14536802
The evasion applies to anyone failing to address the question. Now you're just denying the question without answering it. How is it neither is actually true, then? Show me how you've determined that without testing those ideas in the reality you're in.

By the way? Appealing to yet another axiomatic system is just deepening the problem. Not resolving it.

[Anonymous No.14536806]

>>14536804
>Now you're just denying the question without answering it
Why are you lying? I answered your question directly.

>How is it neither is actually true, then?
Why would either one be actually true?

[Anonymous No.14536809]

>>14536806
>Why are you lying? I answered your question directly.
>Almost certain that neither is actually true.

No, you did not. How did you determine neither is actually true?

[Anonymous No.14536810]

>>14536809
>you did not
Why are you lying? You asked which one is true, so I told you it's almost certain that neither one is true.

>How did you determine neither is actually true?
Where did I mention "determining" anything?

[Anonymous No.14536811]

>>14536809
you don't get to, you're not god. maybe that is the whole lesson that you have to learn before it all makes sense?
you are a tiny part of the whole. a tiny part can by definition never fully comprehend the whole. learn to let go, anon.

[Anonymous No.14536812]

>>14536810
>Almost certain that neither is actually true.
>Where did I mention "determining" anything?
I mean if you're this terrified of answering a simple question it gets rather boring, yanno? Kind of a shitty troll.

[Anonymous No.14536813]

>>14536812
Notice how you're forced to induge in the most schizphrenic and absurd litany of lies to avoid an answer that doesn't conform to whatever template you were programmed to operate by.

[Anonymous No.14536814]

>>14536811
Yeah yeah you totally know better what with the absolute utter failure to answer basic questions about epistemology.

>>14536813
As I said, boring.

[Anonymous No.14536815]

>>14536814
yes, i know better. i know logic leads absolutely nowhere.

[Anonymous No.14536822]

>>14536815
>yes, i know better. i know logic leads absolutely nowhere.
That's some neat logic you got goin on there

[Anonymous No.14536825]

>>14536814
I accept your full concession. You will never be able to show that there's anything wrong with my answer, but only lie and deflect -- the standard tactic of the nonhuman horde you belong to.

[Anonymous No.14536827]

>>14536387
If you think you have the information available (which you don't) to make a definitive claim on the issue either way, you're a midwit npc (which you are).

[Anonymous No.14536833]

>>14536825
Whatever helps your butthurt I guess.

[Anonymous No.14536836]

>>14536833
Notice how you're forced to churn out post after post of spam, because your small NPC mind is completely stumped by the possibility that two iriots expressing opposite views could both be wrong. :^)

[Anonymous No.14536839]

>>14536836
I asked how you determine which one is true. Not answering the question is... not answering the question. Not cleverness. For the purpose of the hypothetical, obviously one of them is true.

But hey, pigeons shitting on chessboards I guess.

[Anonymous No.14536841]

>>14536839
>I asked how you determine which one is true
Why do you keep assuming that one of then is true? Your small NPC mind is completely stumped by the possibility that two iriots expressing opposite views could both be wrong. :^)

[Anonymous No.14536848]

>>14536841
Well, no, that just isn't the hypothetical. It's irrelevant. A non-sequitur. You know, not answering the question.

[Anonymous No.14536856]

>>14536848
Why does your "hypothetical" assume that one of your hypothetical retards is "right", and that there is a way to tell which one it is? These are the same assumptions called into question to begin with. Why are you such a vile, intellectually dishonest subhuman? :^)

[Anonymous No.14536859]

>>14536856
Why do you wear that man suit?

[Anonymous No.14536863]

>>14536859
Why does your "hypothetical" assume that one of your hypothetical retards is "right", and that there is a way to tell which one it is? These are the same assumptions called into question to begin with. Why do you keep churning out subhuman spam instead of addressing this?

[Anonymous No.14536890]

>>14536863
>Why does your "hypothetical" assume that one of your hypothetical retards is "right", and that there is a way to tell which one it is?

You cannot assert there is "not a way to tell", as doing so itself asserts something as true. That requires you assume there is, in fact, a way to tell.

Congratulations on violating the law of noncontradiction. Want a cookie?

[Anonymous No.14536895]

>>14536890
>You cannot assert there is "not a way to tell"
I did not assert that. I asked you why you assume that there is a way to tell, and you are clearly unable to answer this question.

>doing so itself asserts something as true. That requires you assume there is, in fact, a way to tell.
Complete nonsequitur.

[Anonymous No.14536901]

>>14536895
>I did not assert that. I asked you why you assume that there is a way to tell, and you are clearly unable to answer this question.

I just did. It's called a proof by negation, or "modus tollens". By illustrating the inverse violates the law of noncontradiction, I've shown it is not valid to hold that position. Might as well say "I believe in square circle".

[Anonymous No.14536905]

>>14536430
> you are now free to be tortured endlessly by anyone and turned into fertilizer for those of us that actually do possess a soul.
That already happened and has happened so I’m not sure what your point actually is.

[Anonymous No.14536908]

>>14536901
You're illustrated no such thing. Are you actually psychotic or just severely retarded?

[Anonymous No.14536909]

Where is the signal coming from? It's just floating through the AEther and your neurons just happen to pick it up? And depending on the minute variations in brain development and neural chemistry between individuals, different persons have different consciousnesses?

[Anonymous No.14536914]

>>14536909
>different persons have different consciousnesses
His point is that they don't. LOL @ your utter lack of understanding.

[Anonymous No.14536915]

I'm soooooo tired of /x/ schizo's raiding this board. I wish they would all die sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous No.14536918]

>I'm soooooo tired of /x/ schizo's raiding this board. I wish they would all die sooner rather than later.
Why are these low IQ NPCs so aggressive?

[Anonymous No.14536920]

>>14536908
Ran outta ideas so soon?

[Anonymous No.14536921]

>>14536410
>implying /x/-/pol/ schizotards actually respect the scientific method or even just rationality at all

lol

lmao even

[Anonymous No.14536923]

>>14536918
I don't want to hurt you, just so that you'd remove yourself from the gene pool voluntarily.

[Anonymous No.14536924]

>>14536920
Again with the subhuman spam routine, huh? In any case, I never said that no statement can be shown to be true; I was merely asking you why you assume there's a way to tell which one of the smoothbrains in your hypothetical (both of whom are imposing their "axioms" on some kind of "external reality") is right. You still haven't answered this, and you won't do so in your next post, either. Does it hurt to be so impotent?

[Anonymous No.14536929]

>>14536526
ok, genius here it is - Central nervous system, check the spinal cord

[Anonymous No.14536931]

>>14536750
same place as the proof of gravity

[Anonymous No.14536949]

>>14536387
>You injure a brain, of course it won’t work, but consciousness remains.
Proof?

[Anonymous No.14536953]

>>14536949
>he thinks consciousness disappears from the universe the moment he dies

[Anonymous No.14536966]

>>14536953
Let's talk evidence now, shall we?

[Anonymous No.14536968]

>>14536966
Yes, do you have any evidence that everyone else dies when you die?

[Anonymous No.14536990]

>>14536968
I also do not have any evidence of your head not being inserted up your ass.

[Anonymous No.14537004]

>>14536924
> I was merely asking you why you assume there's a way to tell which one of the smoothbrains in your hypothetical (both of whom are imposing their "axioms" on some kind of "external reality") is right.

It is assumed to query how you determine who would be right. Duh.

[Anonymous No.14537009]

>>14536990
Why are you seething incoherently? Unless you seriously propose solipsism, it seems fair to assume everyone else doesn't die with you, so clearly, consciousness doesn't magically evaporate from the universe just because your brain is gone.

[Anonymous No.14537011]

>>14537004
>It is assumed
What is the justification for this assumption? Notice how you're churning out dozens of posts trying to avoid this question? Are you capable of reflection? If so, maybe you should reflect on that, cowardly little weasel.

[Anonymous No.14537014]

>>14537011
>to query how you determine who would be right.

My justification is I don't know how you aim to do that.

[Anonymous No.14537015]

>>14537011
Nta
> What is the justification for this assumption?
His assumption was that you’d be able to answer the question, his justification is probably that you’re a human of at least middle intelligence capable of understanding him

[Anonymous No.14537018]

>>14537015
Is it wrong I derive pleasure playing the twisted word salad games trolls offer me? I always find it really funny because they're giving me entertainment I want and utterly failing at, well, the trolling bit.

[Anonymous No.14537019]

>>14537014
I don't aim to do that. Why should I aim to do that? I'm still waiting for a justification for the assumption that it's possible at all.

[Anonymous No.14537022]

>>14537019
Proof by negation. It cannot "not be possible", therefore it must be possible. Since by asserting the case that it would not be possible, you violate the law of noncontradiction. Square circle. Again.

[Anonymous No.14537024]

>>14537022
>It cannot "not be possible"
Why?

[Anonymous No.14537026]

>>14537024
>Since by asserting the case that it would not be possible, you violate the law of noncontradiction. Square circle. Again

[Anonymous No.14537030]

>>14537026
>by asserting the case that it would not be possible, you violate the law of noncontradiction
I didn't actually make this assertion, but I'm still waiting for you to show how it violates the law of noncontradiction. I never said that no statement can be shown to be true; I was merely asking you why you assume there's a way to tell which one of the smoothbrains in your hypothetical (both of whom are imposing their "axioms" on some kind of "external reality") is right

[Anonymous No.14537032]

>>14537018
No because I also get entertained, moreso if they fail grasping that they’re being made fun of.

[Anonymous No.14537037]

>>14537032
>the absolute subhuman keeps replying to itself to alleveiate its sense of impotence by trying to establish a false group consensus
LOL. These things are simply not human.

[Anonymous No.14537041]

>>14537037
Uhuh

[Anonymous No.14537043]

>>14537030
>I was merely asking you why you assume there's a way to tell which one of the smoothbrains in your hypothetical

It's my hypothetical. It's "known" because I stated it to be so. It's necessary to be able to, also, because the opposite is not possible.

>>14537032
>>14536848
I'm psychic!

[Anonymous No.14537042]

>>14537041
>t.

[Anonymous No.14537046]

>>14537043
>It's necessary to be able to, also, because the opposite is not possible.
It's easily possible; to hold the oppposite view is only a matter of internal consistency, not some proclamation about the nature of some "external reality" I don't actually have any direct access to.

[Anonymous No.14537050]

>>14537046
Principle of explosion. By forgoing the laws of logic you have no basis by which to declare anything, because everything including its negation is equally true.

So while you've been trying to "make fun of me" you've argued yourself into being unable to argue. Congrats? You're a black hole of stupidity?

[Anonymous No.14537065]

>>14537050
>By forgoing the laws of logic
I wasn't forgoing any laws of logic, you literal spam bot. Are you actually mentally ill to the degree you can't keep track of a conversation?

[Anonymous No.14537066]

>>14537065
>It's easily possible; to hold the oppposite view is only a matter of internal consistency

Nope, you cannot hold the opposite view without violating the law of noncontradiction. As I showed.

But hey it's been fun. Ya lost kid.

[Anonymous No.14537070]

>>14537066
I accept your full concession. As I've shown, you are subhuman, and you are on record admitting this several times. You lose the argument, as I've shown. :^)

[Anonymous No.14537073]

>>14537070

[Anonymous No.14537074]

>>14537073
Call me back when your posts don't violate basic logical consistency. As I've shown, you're very mad, and you will respond to this post despite my hiding this trash thread now because you have the impulse control of a subhuman nigger.

[Anonymous No.14537075]

>>14537074
D'awww someone's upset

[Anonymous No.14537082]

>>14536387
The relationship between ideal and material is much more subtle than this analogy of the brain being a receptor of s signal or something like that. But it's really quite beautiful when you think about it deeply and when you actually understand mathematics and graph theory and the hard problem and can start to reason about these things.

[Anonymous No.14537100]

>>14537009
>solipsism
nobody is proposing solipsism. Is it hard to imagine the spinal cord being in control of the body and the consequences of it? Your brain is great at making shit up, including its own superiority in the homo sapiens body. In reality its function is to improve food delivery.

[Anonymous No.14537186]

>>14537100
>nobody is proposing solipsism
Then you agree that consciousness doesn't go anywhere when a brain dies.

[Anonymous No.14537194]

>>14537186
yeah, as long as you keep the spinal cord alive. However your ability to brag about consciousness might be affected.

[Anonymous No.14537196]

>>14537194
You seem to be mentally retarded....

[Anonymous No.14537237]

>>14537196
is this your brain or your consciousness talking?

[Anonymous No.14537242]

>>14537237
Yep, you are definitely retarded... brains don't talk, retard, and neither does consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14537245]

>>14536387
When you split things apart like this you cause incoherence. Better to say that the brain is sort of an icon representing something consciousness is "doing"... For us, it is "being a person" which means some mixture of our 5 senses and memory etc going on... And the brain is directly exactly tied to that experience...

So not like a signal the brain is picking up on like the TV you mention. But consciousness as the actual substance of all of reality... Understood as the "substance" of reality, it has no relation to do with the human mind etc, and is itself literally nothing...

Middle grounds between materialism and idealism aren't very coherent and don't hold up. And to understand consciousness in the idealistic sense, you possibly have to find what you are and experience that. As it's instinctual to believe the content of consciousness is = to it, hence believing dementia or "unconsciousness" shows some change in a level of consciousness. Though no such level exists.

[Anonymous No.14537250]

>>14537009
The universe and everyone does die with you though, to be pedantic for no reason. Srs.

From everyone's PoV, the moment of their death, your own death is reached immediately, the death of the last star happens instantly, etc, like anaesthesia.

[Anonymous No.14537256]

>>14537250
Dead people are no point of view. You're just arguing a more idiotic version of solipsism.

[Anonymous No.14537286]

>>14537256
Yeah because you believe people have consciousness. That's where everyone misunderstands this entire proposal... Your body doesn't have consciousness any more than a rock does. Consciousness has you. You are appearing in it. Same as your thoughts and such. And your body and brain is what it looks like from third person.

And to make sense of that, then you need to know what "consciousness" is in these proposals. Which has nothing to do with how alert a human is, or whether someone has dementia, or is in a coma etc. When it is proposed as the foundation of reality, think of it more as literal nothingness. That is closer. Consciousness is a trash word because of heavily ingrained ideas about what that means.

[Anonymous No.14537290]

>>14537286
Please tell me more about what I believe, fucktard. None of it salvages your profoundly idiotic post (>>14537250), though.

[Anonymous No.14537319]

>>14537290
When you get put under for surgery, you are instantly hours later in the recovery room. The perception of space and time is gone. It's completely seamless from counting down from 10 to the recovery room (some people are a bit delirious for a while ofc). Imagine the anaesthetic never wore off... Instead of that exact instant after the "loss of consciousness" being waking up and everyone is telling you the surgery went great etc, the universe would end and everyone and everything would end with you as there would be no more experience.

To other people, time and space would continue, but for you all of that is instantaneous. That is what I mean. For everyone who dies, that is the case. They aren't experiencing this, for them the universe has already ended. So to be very pedantic the universe and everyone in it essentially dies with you as far as anyone of us has to be concerned.

[Anonymous No.14537322]

>>14537319
"You" don't "wake up" from death, retard.

[Anonymous No.14537324]

>>14537322
that already happened when you were born

[Anonymous No.14537327]

>>14537324
I don't care about your 80 IQ metaphysical wank. I was talking about the retard's analogy.

[Anonymous No.14537329]

>>14537327
>I don't care about your 80 IQ metaphysical wank
your dismissal is 50 iq lol

[Anonymous No.14537330]

>>14537322
You don't have to for that to be true. What difference does it make if you wake up from anaesthetic, a 1 year coma, or never wake up at all, to the fact that the "gap" is instantaneous. The length of the gap can be infinite, it makes no difference.

[Anonymous No.14537331]

>>14537329
My dismissal is the only intelligent response to your vapid shart. Call me back when you are able to form thoughts on your own.

[Anonymous No.14537335]

>>14537331
>My dismissal is the only intelligent response to your vapid shart
It isn't

[Anonymous No.14537338]

>>14537330
>What difference does it make if you wake up from anaesthetic, a 1 year coma, or never wake up at all, to the fact that the "gap" is instantaneous.
The fact that in the latter case, there is no "gap" to speak of, you actual cretin. I'm truly stumped by the intellectual level of the posters on nu-/sci/.

[Anonymous No.14537340]

>>14537331
>Vapid shart
Lol ffs man, is it really this aspie again? What is his obsession with these catchphrases... It's not even a good catchphrase.

[Anonymous No.14537348]

>>14537338
Feels like backtracking on technicalities about "gap" implying the existence of a moment after the gap to save face....... It's obvious what is meant.......

[Anonymous No.14537356]

>>14537348
>Feels like backtracking on technicalities about "gap"
No, it actually brings to the forefront the explicit idiocy of your point. Any attempt of yours to state it in more concrete terms will result in similar errors.

[Anonymous No.14537357]

>>14537356
implicit*

[Anonymous No.14537375]

>>14536387
>Coping anon can't accept he will dissapear once he die
Enjoy your current life anon, there isn't after it.

[Anonymous No.14537390]

>>14537375
I don't think this is what these threads are about.

[Anonymous No.14537391]

>>14537375
You're the only one coping. He doesn't seem to be talking on your kiddie level of comprehension at all.

[Anonymous No.14537392]

>>14537375
There's always fear when someone thinks they are just the person and not the backdrop.

[Anonymous No.14537396]

>>14537390
But it is, OP thinks that after his body dies he will be able to experience shit on another body or "receptor", aka his stupid tv metaphor. But he wont, after the brain dies your conciousness dissapears forever, so just enjoy life while it last.

[Anonymous No.14537398]

>>14537396
>OP thinks that after his body dies he will be able to experience shit on another body or "receptor"
It's so obvious that you're projecting your own terror and childish ideas onto him. Don't you have some "immortality is gonna happen; two more weeks" thread to post in?

[Anonymous No.14537403]

>>14537396
I don't think that's what he's saying, he's talking about more-so consciousness itself as not being able to be emergent from material processes or something. This doesn't necessarily need to affirm or deny reincarnation or an afterlife.

[Anonymous No.14537404]

>>14537396
You're right obviously that is what it's all about. OP will vanish, but he was never OP anyway, so he shouldn't be afraid.

[Anonymous No.14537408]

>>14537396
>>14537404
>samefagging so obviously

[Anonymous No.14537465]

define brain

[Anonymous No.14537508]

>>14537375
>there isn’t after it
That’s your midwit npc faith/belief and nothing more. No more truthful than any of the plethora of human religions.
>>14537465

brain
/brān/
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic
See definitions in:
All
Anatomy
Food
Electronics · Informal
noun
1.
an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity.
"a brain tumor"
Similar:
cerebrum
cerebral matter
encephalon

[Anonymous No.14537685]

>>14536761
>is also just a pattern/idea that you recognize within your consciousness
Why are you ignoring the pattern?

>when you die in a car crash, suddenly see your own body below and start ascending, will you ask the first angel for empirical evidence?
If it's all in your head, then your observations of floating, angels, etc. don't matter. You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.14537696]

Everyone should watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE

It's almost 5 hours long but watch it its not bad.

[Anonymous No.14537716]

>>14536931
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

Nope, no consciousness signal there. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14537724]

Science is SO irrelevant to metaphysics. The second you try to mix science and metaphysics, it goes to shit...

No scientific experiment can provide a metaphysical truth. Never.

[Anonymous No.14537783]

>>14537716
How about the graviton, genius?

[Anonymous No.14537895]

>>14536387
Consciousness is the image on the screen extracted from the antennas and the VCR that records the screen
The brain is the channel/VCR
The eyes/ears/senses/brain are the antennas

If you damage the antenna, the sensory images might go away, but brain images retain
If you damage the brain, the brain images might go away but antenna images might stay
There is no way to damage a consciousness aside from damaging the antennas and the brain itself because consciousness doesn't exist on its own, and is merely a function of the brain/senses.

[Anonymous No.14537900]

>>14536921

[Anonymous No.14537921]

>>14536921
Materialism is anti-rational. It doesn't actually make any logical sense. It might even be impossible if we're being honest.

Why this is on a science board????? Perhaps someone trying to antagonize people and prove them wrong. It's inflammatory and this stuff will never be in the domain of science.

[Anonymous No.14537968]

>>14537921
How would you describe materialism, and why is it anti-rational?

[Anonymous No.14537971]

>>14537968
Nta but just watch >>14537696 he explains it in the first 10 minutes

[Anonymous No.14537975]

>>14536387
*refuses to elaborate further*

[Anonymous No.14538058]

>>14536399
fpbp

[Anonymous No.14538062]

>>14536424
>I actually understand the hard problem of consciousness
You just proved that you don't.

>so don't bother reiterating it
I won't. NPCs will never understand it.

[Anonymous No.14538067]

>>14536594
>emergent property
Vacuous statement. Doesn't explain shit. Just a fancy name for "I don't know".

[Anonymous No.14538102]

>>14537968
Because it's not possible to give any substance to a thing unless it is perceived... Think of atoms. Imagine them rn. What do you imagine? Probably tiny little spheres... The tiny little spheres you're imagining can't be what atoms are like, because the appearance of a sphere depends on visual perception... If you were blind maybe you'd imagine the feel of a tiny golf ball. Same thing, can't be what it's like because touch is made of perceptions in the person's mind.

So if we do think of a real physical sphere shape, say, what actually is it when it isn't explained in terms of something that requires a mental perception? Mathematical equations. Interactions with other things (which does not show what the thing is, only that it interacts with another apparent thing in a certain way).

I would not call math a physical substance. The way things actually look like is how blind people see things. Nothing. Not even black. That's how real things are.

[Anonymous No.14538106]

>>14536424
>We are nothing else than concatenations of atoms moving about a bit, get over yourself. I actually understand the hard problem of consciousness by the way, so don't bother reiterating it.

[Anonymous No.14538277]

>>14536387
Cool story bro. Let us know when you will have anything to back it up.

[Anonymous No.14538327]

>>14537783
They're hypothetical with no evidence, like your consciousness signal.

[Anonymous No.14538352]

>>14538277
Ironically this IS a cool story.
Your materialist story, also nothing more than a tale, on the contrary, is a dull, unimaginative, pathetic one.
>It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

[Anonymous No.14538382]

>>14536387
a signal unmeasurable by any other material mean, other than the brain matter? and if it somehow interferes with matter in the brain, its source is nothing but some unknown form of matter, solely requiring a new redefinition of the term "matter" to account for it.

[Anonymous No.14538391]

>>14538352
You don't know my story anon.

[Anonymous No.14538393]

>>14536410
there are too many people on this board that are on the right-hand side of this image.

[Anonymous No.14538396]

>>14536399
it's called philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14538410]

>>14536387
>the brain is the TV
What if it's the transmitter though?

[Anonymous No.14538514]

>>14538396
It's called bullshit

[Anonymous No.14538527]

Are ya winnin son? Having fun with the /x/ lunatic?

[Anonymous No.14538596]

>>14538514
>>14538527
Well well, you’re VERY sure of yourselves. LOL Imagine being this proud at being a lowly church of scientism worshipper. Truly it’s always the most sheepish useless drones that are the proudest. You have the disposition of any uncritical worshiper of the abrahamic death cults burning truth-seekers at the stake for millennia. At least now all you can do is shitpost and cope. Experts really are trained dogs as Einstein said.

[Anonymous No.14538598]

>>14538410
I personally think it goes both ways, assuming that consciousness is external and not a fundamental property of matter. I don't have an evidence to prove that consciousness is external other than OBEs and remote viewing testimonies of other people, but anyone who's conscious and knows what consciousness is should be able to realize that it is inconceivable that consciousness is an "emergent property" of non-conscious matter. How could non-conscious matter be conscious? If consciousness is not external, separate from matter, then it has to be a fundamental property of matter itself (in a similar way to "charge" or "mass").

TO GET TO MY POINT: Assume that consciousness is separate from matter. The fact that we experience qualia is the brain acting as a transmitter, and the fact that we can physically communicate about consciousness is an effect of consciousness on the physical body, that is, the brain acting as a receiver. It must go both ways.

[Anonymous No.14538603]

>>14538596
>dude from time when brain scans werent even a thing says materialism is false
lmao

[Anonymous No.14538608]

>>14538603
You really should stop embarrassing yourself, even if anonymously.

[Anonymous No.14538625]

>>14538067
"Emergent property" means something that exists as the sum of something, it cannot be reduced to its constituent components and have the same functionality. I.e. it isn't a part of something, it is the whole thing.

For example:
>tissue is the emergent property from many different types of cells working in unity;
>an organ is the emergent property from many different tissues working in unity;
>an organ system is the emergent property of many different organs working in unity;
>a multicellular organism is the emergent property of many different organ system working in unity
>a tribe is the emergent property of many different organisms working in unity;
>and so on, and so on
At no level is man reducable to a clump of molecules, or better yet quantum foam if you go all the way down, yet that is what he is in a purely reductionist sense, yet that doesn't explain what we see as a whole.

Understanding this, we can say, "consciousness" does not exist on a cellular level within the brain, yet it does when all the regions of the brain are acting in unity. Therefore we can say, consciousness emerges from a neural network. Yet at the same time, a concensus of consciousness emerges from many different organisms working in unity, so it can also be said consciousness is multidimensional. It exists at the individual level, but it also exists at the group level. Herd mentality, the laws of the land, the zeitgeist you are apart of, the culture you are steeped in, the ideology you and others identify with, for example.

[Anonymous No.14538662]

>>14538608
you should be the one embarrassed here for using such a shitty instance of false authority appeal

[Anonymous No.14538669]

>>14538662
>no u
Why do you spergs come in threads to contribute nothing. No one cares what you think.

[Anonymous No.14538679]

>>14538669
>posts retard kurt godel meme to refute materialism
>wonders why can't get fruitful discussion

[Anonymous No.14538684]

>>14538679
You are cringe personified mr true believer

[Anonymous No.14538699]

>>14538596
Aren't we living in the age of "fact checkers" and "disinformation experts" who exist to set the orthodox, often sometimes legally-acceptable view, and now people are put in prison for disagreeing with those narratives?

Surgical masks objectively do little if anything to stop the transmission of Covid because the gaps between the fibres in the mask are several thousand times larger than the width of the virion, yet you're cancelled for pointing it out. mRNA Covid vaccines undeniably killed more people than those who died from Covid yet you're cancelled for pointing it out.

We don't live in the age of Catholics killing heretics for disagreeing with the bible, we live in the age of radical atheist statists killing people for disagreeing with the cherry-picked Scientism view.

[Anonymous No.14538715]

>>14538684
believer? me? oh no, I suspend my judgement until convincing evidence is provided, unlike you mr hocus pocus

[Anonymous No.14538716]

>>14536387
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.14538731]

>>14538716
>>>/nicetrysamefag/you’renotfoolinganyone/you’restillamidwit/andyou’reundcientific

[Anonymous No.14538803]

>>14538603
Brain scans are irrelevant. It makes literally no difference to anyone with understanding of what nonduality entails, no contradiction. Telepathy is bullshit, magick is bullshit, law of attraction is bullshit. NO contradiction.

Panpsychism is when a materialist has a shocking altered state of understanding and tries to fit what was apparent to them into a materialist metaphysics. Which is the default view for 90% of people. And then they understand more and will become idealistic. Panpsychism is bullshit, antennas and signals are bullshit. It's people not making the full inversion necessary.

Idealism is a total inversion. Nothing actually changes except how you view things. No practical difference.

[Anonymous No.14538808]

>>14538716
dumber populace = return to mysticism

ain't no big surprise

[Anonymous No.14538813]

>>14537696
Holy shit. I knew when brainlets discovered Kastrup this would happen.

[Anonymous No.14538822]

>>14538808
It will go full circle. What happened is, human knowledge advanced and we began to find atoms, made brain scanners etc. There will be a time where we can literally map every single state of a brain scan to an experienced phenomena, and produce them in people at will. And then we will say "see! The brain makes this!"

This is because of misunderstanding.

People still don't understand what consciousness even is. That's why people think animals and insects "have less consciousness" or that rocks "have no consciousness". And also why people think comas or death remove consciousness or dementia reduces consciousness. Because they don't understand what it is... Death and comas removes the person from consciousness. No person or animal or rock has consciousness. The lack of understanding is why it's all jumbled with things like "the hard problem" and magical beliefs.

[Anonymous No.14538828]

>>14538822
>People still don't understand what consciousness even is.
A culmination of mammalian attention schema and feedback loops that give the illusion of what its like to be something. Coupled with language you get an identity.

[Anonymous No.14538838]

>>14538828
That isn't it, and also mammals aren't the only living creatures lol. I actually think it's mad that some people believe seagulls or w.e. shit have no so-called inner experience. Not that inner experience even exists, because inner implies the existence of an outer and there isn't one... An outer only exists from the perspective of a character inside it. At that point when a person identifies with the character, they definitely don't get what it is.

Those are the people who say things like "my conciousness"... They get put under for surgery and come out exclaiming "my consciousness stopped!". Not understanding that what stopped is their character which is entirely an appearance within it....... And then for some people this removes the comfort of "idealism" (misunderstood idealism) because they want their character to float off to heaven and meet their dead relatives. All because people identify as their character which includes their thoughts, memories, desires, present sensory image, and so on. None of that is it.

[Anonymous No.14538842]

>>14536424
Lol this is just sad at this point.

[Anonymous No.14538847]

Matter is an emergent property of geometry, sight, tactile experience, and spatial awareness in consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14538891]

>>14538813
Why do you think the interviewer is a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.14538896]

>>14538625

In each of your examples, there is a way to explain the "emergent" property from the lower levels.

There is no way to explain experience from neural activity. There is an unbridgeable gap, because consciousness and matter are to categories that can't connected.

So with regards to emergence from neural activity, you're really saying nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.14538976]

>>14538625
None of your examples is emergent. They're all reducible. Try again.

[Anonymous No.14539048]

>>14536404
The whole body does the mind and body are one

[Anonymous No.14539051]

>>14536778
>How can putting a magnet on a TV change what colors things are?

[Anonymous No.14539071]

>>14536778
>I can't browse the internet when my router is damaged
>therefore the internet is an emergent property of my router

[Anonymous No.14539074]

>>14539071
except you can PHYSICALLY trace the electrical signal interacting with the rooter back to other computers communicating with it, you unbelievably beyond hope retard

[Anonymous No.14539103]

>>14536387
Now explain psychedelics.

[Anonymous No.14539105]

>>14536387
If you think you have the answer, you don't, sorry.

[Anonymous No.14539110]

>>14536387
Brain is the TV station, not receiver.

[Anonymous No.14539112]

>>14536387
pls no one tell OP about the split brain experiment

[Anonymous No.14539120]

>>14538669
You and your /x/ garbage is the one we are all laughing at.

[Anonymous No.14539123]

>>14539112
Split brain has nothing to do with the problem of consciousness, you heckin midwit NPC.

[Anonymous No.14539127]

>>14539123
if you cant see the implications you are just incredibly stupid

[Anonymous No.14539128]

>>14539127
If you think there are implications, then you haven't even understood the problem to begin with. Retard.

[Anonymous No.14539133]

>>14536387
>proof through analogy
Into the trash it goes. Dualists are so incredibly stupid it's not even funny anymore

[Anonymous No.14539167]

>>14536387
This is the old question whether the soul is the music or the instrument. Regardless they are very tied together, they aren't separated things.

[Anonymous No.14539189]

>>14539120
Except all the great scientists and thinkers of humanity are mystics or “x tards” as you call them. “Magic's just science that we don't understand yet. Einstein, Newton, Grothendieck, founders of quantum mechanics, Cantor, Darwin, Tesla, etc etc. /xtards all! It’s because they’re truly curious about everything with burning wonderment…rather than just trying to appear to be smartass. The mysteries are the motive for real scientific breakthroughs while yours (and most /sci posters’) cheap scientism is just the thing that stagnates entire fields.

[Anonymous No.14539194]

>great scientists and thinkers are LE MYSTIC
kek trust the experts

[Anonymous No.14539195]

>>14539189
>appeal to authority
into the trash

[Anonymous No.14539196]

>>14539189
no no no. /x/tards believes in occult magic rituals and satanic cabals. that’s not what any real scientist ever believed in

there are different ways to “think outside the box”. believing in what /x/ spams is not at all any of the “right” ways for “thinking outside the box” if you want to do science

[Anonymous No.14539236]

>>14539196
>>14539195
>>14539194
Totally over your head. You might as well be spam bots.

[Anonymous No.14539250]

>>14539236
>gang stalking delusion
Seek help

[Anonymous No.14539259]

>>14539250
Ok dogmatist. Fuck off. Cntrl f: ‘gang stalking’ and see you’re the only post. So instead of me seeking help, you seek the your way the fuck out since you haven’t contributed anything except small brain and dick energy to this thread.

[Anonymous No.14539265]

>>14536387
Nice hypothesis. Now prove it by blocking the signal.

[Anonymous No.14539288]

>>14536387
christopher poole

[Anonymous No.14539477]

>>14538596
>Has no evidence
>Dismisses people using evidence
Pigeons shitting on chessboards. Never changes.

[Anonymous No.14539486]

>>14539477
Where has any evidence been provided by anyone?

[Anonymous No.14539495]

>>14539486
ummmm sweaty science is all the evidence i need and science says consciousness isn't real

[Anonymous No.14539519]

>>14538625
>Understanding this, we can say, "consciousness" does not exist on a cellular level within the brain, yet it does when all the regions of the brain are acting in unity.
except we don't know that at all. Stop making shit up.

[Anonymous No.14539562]

OP is volunteering for a lobotomy.

[bodhi No.14539832]

>>14536743
if you dont stop posting stupid shit in this thread I am gonna beat your monkey ass senseless

[Anonymous No.14540083]

>>14539133
Dualism is literally the only coherent position on this. OPs analogy is retarded but thats irrelevant

[Anonymous No.14540096]

>>14539495
Where does science say consciousness isn't real?

[Anonymous No.14540102]

>>14540096
>Where does science say consciousness isn't real?
it's literally in the science book chud.

[Anonymous No.14540115]

>>14540083
This, except dualism is by far the least likely explanation given the facts.

[Anonymous No.14540170]

>>14540102
You should go and actually learn mathematics and science, it's fun, and you'll stop making stupid posts.
>>14540115
I responded to this in the other thread, we should discuss it there

[Anonymous No.14540581]

Anybody willing to discuss the importance of the spinal cord in this consciousness debate? Are we to pretend spinal cord doesn't have any higher functions? How about controlling the brain?

[Anonymous No.14540693]

>>14540083
No it isn't. Duality = person has not attained full understanding.

[Anonymous No.14540699]

>>14540581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraplegia

[Anonymous No.14540751]

>>14540693
How so?

[Anonymous No.14540777]

>>14540751
It's the awkward growing pains stage of understanding. You grow up your entire life with a belief system, the belief system gets blown to smithereens in front of your eyes, and you start trying to understand wtf happened... At first, this involves sort of mish-mashing existing belief systems into what was revealed to you, because you don't know wtf to make of what happened.

There is one existence, one "is"ness to things. Everything which "is", is it.

[Anonymous No.14540802]

The great unsolved problem. There is a kind of story we have to tell you and there is a hole in this story. Your task is to fill this hole but you can only fill it utilizing the tools in the narrative we have given you. You cannot come up with your own new ideas. This hole represents your heart.

[Anonymous No.14541544]

>>14540699
off-topic

[Anonymous No.14541582]

>>14539288

[Anonymous No.14541835]

>>14536387
Consciousness is yet another synonym for existence, although it tends to be uniquely applied to humans (and thus given an elevated status above other things that exist).

It’s fucking embarrassing, your poetic metaphors don’t even try to model anything.

[Anonymous No.14541839]

>>14541544
>off-topic
lmao Too dumb to understand that the link partly refutes the "importance of spinal cord on consciousness" by providing a counter-example.

[Anonymous No.14541942]

>>14541839
>partly
whatever

[Anonymous No.14541949]

>>14538842

t. bag of atoms from which qualia emerge and are not separate

[Anonymous No.14541982]

>>14541942
>here is a counter-example
>whatever
>"discard data that does not align"
Another popsoientist that won't get far. >>14536410

[Anonymous No.14541987]

>>14541835
Model this dick you fucking soulless faggot

[Anonymous No.14542004]

>>14536404
this
if you sever the vagus nerve, you fucking die
sever any other cranial nerve and you're fine

[Anonymous No.14542295]

>>14538102
Atoms exist when not perceived, so they have substance.

[bodhi No.14542311]

>>14538803
you are a clueless spastic retard, one of the best I have seen though so congrats on that

[Anonymous No.14542341]

>>14542295
It doesn't mean that.

As humans we experience a finite component of reality. We don't even experience UV except the effects that it leaves us with. Usually when people hear ideas like this, they think things like "I leave a room and water still boils, explain that"? It's not about whether the water boils, it's about what the water is "like" when you leave the room, and it is "like" nothing. Being "like" something is necessarily experiential, so the way reality actually looks so to speak, is like nothing at all. And I personally don't call that substance. For the purposes of running experiments it might be a useful term. But I think of it as having as much substance as a number.

Existence is not comprised of your human mind. Your human mind is an appearance happening within it. Your thoughts and sensory experiences are appearances happening in it. Does sad feel you, or do you feel sad? All things which are things are observed by you. All "things" are not the source of existence, but its manifestations so to speak.

You can find that you too, are substantially nothingness, with enough introspection. All there is to you is a changing appearance of "things", which ultimately always vanishes back into nothingness. Which is what is the very thing observing those "things" is... Thought comes, thought goes. When it goes, it is nothing. Nothing is what you are... All things are nothing ultimately. And unlike things and substance, nothing is without limit, beginning, end, or quality. ALL things have a limit somewhere. If all limit is removed there is nothing.

Consciousness is a poisoned term. It's inherently nothing. The serious heavy meditations can allow you to find this first hand if you were curious to find that you are inherently nothingness.

[Anonymous No.14542346]

>>14542311
High ego
Namefag due to high ego
Calls self "Bodhi" due to high ego
Did drugs once and became a "Buddha"
Perpetually hate-filled and angry
Makes us look bad
Low-ish level of understanding

Smh

[Anonymous No.14542366]

>>14536404
The navel is the location of the original first cell that the rest of the body forms from. The rest of the body forms to serve the needs and desires of that first cell

[bodhi No.14542368]

>>14542346
>autistic midwit screeching

[Anonymous No.14542403]

>>14542341
>It's not about whether the water boils, it's about what the water is "like" when you leave the room
Water is the same when you are in room and when you aren't. You can record video of boiling water when you are in room and when you aren't. The two videos will be essentially the same. This means boiling of water in independent of human presence.
>Being "like" something is necessarily experiential
It's necessary only for human experience, but human altogether isn't necessary for water's existence, so whatever human needs is irrelevant for water.

[Anonymous No.14542444]

>>14536856
And this ladies and gentleman is Dunning-Kruger manifest.

[Anonymous No.14542460]

>>14542444
Notice how you are unable to address it, despite overflowing with rage. Why is that? :^)

[Anonymous No.14542482]

>>14542403
Both the real boiling water, and the image on your recording of it, are created by the presence of the same perception! A blind person seeing your recording would not see the water right?

It is not only human experience, but experience altogether. Can a bat experience seeing water? Probably. But with sonar. Their image of it is likely entirely alien to what ours is. But their sonar perception gives the water a "thingness" which is what I am addressing. When anyone imagines what the world is like outside of them, very few people imagine endless literal nothingness (not even black).

When things aren't perceived they are "like" nothing. Which you did then point out yourself. This is the important part.

This is something different from the existence of said "things". There could be nobody watching OR recording the water, and it still boils. But I think substantially speaking, the water, atoms, entire cosmos, you, me = nothingness. I don't believe material ANYWHERE in any direction, or universe, is any more real and solid than material in a dream. That is what I am trying to say.

Awareness itself = nothingness (can be shown if you want, or discovered). The phenomenal images of experience = substantially nothing. Things not experienced = substantially nothing.

No substance ever... Whether it's useful to use the term is a different matter to the reality of it.

[Anonymous No.14542487]

>>14542482
You remember all those stories about anthropologists contacting isolated tribesmen, trying to teach them some modern concepts like numbers, and discovering that the tribesmen just can't fathom stuff accessible to the average 5 years old, no matter what? It's the same here. The people you're talking to have absolutely no concept of what you're saying. They can't fathom the difference between their upright monkey mental models and reality. They can't fathom that there can be a difference. They will never get what you're saying. Why do you bother?

[Anonymous No.14542524]

Our brain and consciousness are tightly integrated with each other. The consciousness doesn't just send signals to the brain, it also receives them, and relies on such input for its basic functions.
If you destroy the brain, the consciousness may survive, but it will lose the ability to function properly. Furthermore, since the brain serves as the main memory storage, you would also lose all your knowledge.
And once you reach the state where you know nothing and can't function properly, claiming that you've survived is like claiming that our body keeps living after our death just because its atoms don't disintegrate.

[Anonymous No.14542529]

>>14542524
Kind of a low-IQ take.

[Anonymous No.14542590]

>>14536387
> If you don't agree with my delusions that help me to cope with the meaninglessness of my life and the universe even though I have no valid reason or argument to support it, you're dumb.

[Anonymous No.14542595]

>>14542590
Don't you have some medical immortality cope thread to participate in? It's really funny to watch drones like you project their subhuman nihilism and sheer terror.

[Anonymous No.14543858]

>>14542595
And pretending that your consciousness must magically grow stronger after losing an important organ isn't cope?

[Anonymous No.14543866]

>>14543858
Again, why are you projecting your subhuman nihilism and sheer terror on this imaginary strawman in your head?

[Anonymous No.14543916]

>>14543866
Negative feelings about nihilism, and sheer terror of death, only exist for the character. The character is almost like a parasite that clings on to pure awareness. When it is exorcised, watch it scream and roll around begging the facilitator to make it stop...

Nihilism is accurate and non depressing. We make our own meaning.

[Anonymous No.14543928]

>>14543916
Thank you for your input, bugman.

[Anonymous No.14543929]

>>14539832
You're delusional, schizo.

[Anonymous No.14543941]

>>14538699
>Surgical masks objectively do little if anything to stop the transmission of Covid because the gaps between the fibres in the mask are several thousand times larger than the width of the virion
Non sequitur. The droplet size is what matters.

>mRNA Covid vaccines undeniably killed more people than those who died from Covid
Proof?

Dumb schizo.

[Anonymous No.14543944]

>>14543941
jew

[Anonymous No.14544329]

>>14541982
what counter example are you talking about? Your post is an example of a brainless person participating in an internet forum and somehow this doesn't shake your belief in the superiority of the brain

[Anonymous No.14545542]

Have a bump

[Anonymous No.14547109]

>>14545542
thanks