What is consciousness?

[Anonymous No.21237439]

And why can't physicalist monists accept that Plato was right about everything?

[Anonymous No.21237444]

>>21237439
Why can't deluded dualists accept that material reality is all there is?

[Anonymous No.21237452]

>>21237439
>>21237444
Consciousness is a quality of matter. Case closed.

[Anonymous No.21237659]

>>21237444
>>21237452
You can be a non-dualist and non-physicalist.
Disprove neutral monism or panpsychism. You won't.

[Anonymous No.21237722]

>>21237439
Stream of an incomprehensible number of brain soup. This is fairly easy to conclude. Now, /lit/, why did "something" happen?

[Anonymous No.21237768]

>>21237439
Consciousness is the universal self-caused substance that necessarily exists everywhere at all time in full for everything in the universe. There is no “transcendent” One and there is nothing outside our knowledge. The Absolute Substance underlying reality as the absolute cause of everything is immediately present to us in its fullness, if it weren’t then it wouldn’t be a true self cause, because if something is absolutely self caused it will cause itself to exist everywhere and for everything. Your mind is in the universe and thus when you do self contemplation and apperception and you perceive what in your nature is essential, you perceive the Absolute Substance that makes up reality itself, since it also makes up you and your brain. Self-thought is thought of the universe itself. Since this is what is essential to your nature and it is self caused you will never die because the substance cannot pass away.

[Anonymous No.21237771]

>>21237452
“Matter” only exists because you’re conscious of it both as something you perceive and as an idea in your head.

[Anonymous No.21237782]

>>21237771
And why cant we say this about consciousness?

[Anonymous No.21237789]

>>21237782
You Can. Consciousness only exists because your are conscious of it is a tautology and a definition of existence. Everything in existence is due to consciousness and consciousness is due to itself.

[Anonymous No.21237792]

>>21237789
Wow, a non-retarded anon for once.

[Anonymous No.21237796]

>>21237722
If nothingness were possible it would likely be the most stable state, thus as there is something then nothingness clearly isn't possible and brahman always has been and always will be.

[Anonymous No.21237801]

>>21237439
*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.21237802]

>>21237771
And it would still exist even if there was no one conscious left to experience it. Matter existed long before anything could even possibly be aware of flying space rocks yet we somehow still dispute the notion that physicality is the only thing certain. Consciousness is a product of matter not the other way around.
The electrolytes in your brain allow you to perceive. Was there anything before you were born? Of course there was, you just weren't there to experience it. Even if every sentinent being ceased to exist at this moment the rocks would keep on spinning until they don't exist anymore while a new consciousness may or may not be there to experience it.

[Anonymous No.21237810]

prove to me you are conscious, right now

[Anonymous No.21237812]

>>21237768
>There is no “transcendent” One and there is nothing outside our knowledge
I agree apart from this bit, "the one" can be considered divinity itself or the totality of all things which sounds akin to your absolute substance, no?

[Anonymous No.21237815]

>>21237802
It wouldn’t still exist without consciousness. It literally is made of consciousness. It’s impossible to even make the judgement that “matter exists without consciousness” because in order to make that judgement you must be able to have the idea of a universe without consciousness in mind. But because it is in your mind there is consciousness. You cannot imagine a universe without consciousness, it is impossible. You can say that you have, but you haven’t, because imagination itself is through consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21237816]

>>21237789
>>21237782
Alright. So /thread?

[Anonymous No.21237817]

>>21237810
How could I force us to co-participate in the platonic form of the equilateral triangle right now unless I was conscious?

[Anonymous No.21237822]

>>21237812
In neoplatonic theology the One is transcendent and we cannot directly experience it itself. That what transcendence means. I’m not denying Oneness, just the transcendence of oneness. The self caused substance of reality is necessarily one substance but it is not transcendent since you are made of it and are identical to it.

[Anonymous No.21237838]

explain Lewy body dementia
why do protein aggregates in your brain make it impossible to see the forms

[Anonymous No.21237839]

>>21237802
>you just weren't there to experience it

Imagine not recalling your past lives. Couldn't be me.

[Anonymous No.21237840]

>>21237822
>called "the one"
>another thing exists which cant participate in it
Should be called "the two" or "the several things'

[Anonymous No.21237849]

>>21237822
Why can't it be immanent and transcendent like Brahman?

[Anonymous No.21237858]

>>21237840
? In Neoplatonism there is a form of unity which things participate in, which is not the One but is only called the One. The paradox of how the One is not many but also is prior to unity is one reason things like the idea of the One and the Being of the One being separate came up in Parmenides and why negative theology was invented.

[Anonymous No.21237870]

>>21237849
Technically it has a form of immanence in Neoplatonism too, but the reason I believe it cannot be transcendent is based on the idea of possible worlds and “possible worlds” actually being realms of experience for conscious entities. If something is self-caused then it necessarily exists in every possible world, so to say part of it is transcendent is contradictory because that means part of it is never experienced and effectively does not exist for some entity and therefore means there is a possible world in which it doesn’t exist which means it is not necessarily existent and not truly self caused. Something that is self caused must bring itself in its entirety into existence everywhere for everything or else it is not truly self caused but conditioned by the world. It means that my having a weak mind or whatever prevents it from coming into existence for me. If its existence depends on my mind and is conditioned by it such that it cannot exist for me except as transcendent and therefore in a totally different world than me, then it is not absolute or self caused but a conditioned entity.

[Anonymous No.21237884]

>>21237815
Consciousness is the awareness of existence, existence does not need to be aware of itself, it simply is. The only way that "existence is consciousness" notion works is if existence is in a constant awareness of everything, which implies a creator, or the universe as a super-conscious omnipresent force. This contradicts what we know of time dilation as there would have to be an infinite numbers of sentinent existences occuring simultaneously yet at the same time contracting each other. The only way out of this conundrum is to accept there is an unaware singe existence which simply exists on a single scale that lets gravity do the talking. I do not need to imagine a universe without consciousness because it already is there, with or without me. The mere fact that I can imagine abstract things is linked to my consciousness, but my consciousness is not linked to physicality as it is, except for allowing me to process it.

[Anonymous No.21237891]

>>21237858
They should call it the "indeterminate thingy I cant define" instead of the one

[Anonymous No.21237896]

>>21237789
>>21237815
/thread
Retards BTFO.

[Anonymous No.21237911]

>>21237884
>it simply is
The entire notion of being and “is” is derived from conscious experience, from qualia, and from things being experienced by your mind. The wall is white is only a true statement because I apprehend it as such. “Simply is” makes no sense without something to apprehend it as such. You say “matter simply is” because you have an idea of it. All propositions are utterly meaningless until some actual entity apprehends their meaning, that is why computers don’t have the same form of consciousness humans do, because they perform logical operations without being aware of their meaning. Reference frames don’t contradict each other, the entire point of relativity is to make the reference frames agree by making time and space alter shape.
>my consciousness is not linked to physicality as it is, except for allowing me to process it.
So consciousness is just some epiphenomena that isn’t linked to you in any way BUT you can still think about it and make judgements about it? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.21237936]

>>21237891
Yes the contradictions and paradoxes of negative theology are why I’m not a neoplatonist, it’s also the same reason I reject Kant’s covert anti-realism, because the same contradictions that come in from talking about an absolutely transcendent one come in when you try to talk about a noumenal “thing in itself.”

[Anonymous No.21237955]

>>21237452
>Consciousness is a quality of matter. Case closed.
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.21237957]

>>21237955
You are conscious and you matter(to me, be safe anon)

[Anonymous No.21237965]

>>21237771
If nothing existed 2+2 would still equal 4.
There are things that exist beyond the material plane. I fucking hate you materialist faggots with a burning passion.

[Anonymous No.21237970]

>>21237957
Thanks fren.
Hope you're doing well, even if you are a m*terialist.

[Anonymous No.21237976]

>>21237810
nigger

[Anonymous No.21237989]

>>21237911
>The entire notion of being and “is” is derived from conscious experience, from qualia, and from things being experienced by your mind
By "my" mind, or by "any" mind? Are you saying that there was a consciousness which ceaselessly observed the progression of the universe which lasted billions of years and is still observing it now? Things happen even if there is no one to experience them. The fact that we attached "meaning" to them is simply refering to us trying to make sense of "it", which is an ability given to us by consciousness, the awareness of the things that "are".
>The wall is white is only a true statement because I apprehend it as such
Yes, because "white" is a human word, a concept, color if you will. To someone with colorblindness, "red" is an incomprehensible form, yet it still is "red" to most of us because particles of lightning reflect it that way in our ocular system. Someone with a different set of eyes may see the white wall as pink, but it does not change the fact that it exist. We labeled it "white" in order to make sense of it, but inherently, it has no sense. It is there for no reason, but it still "is" there, regardless of color.
>So consciousness is just some epiphenomena that isn’t linked to you in any way BUT you can still think about it and make judgements about it
Perhaps I mispoke. My consciousness, as in "things I am aware of" is not special in the slightest, as there are other beings around me that process the same thing as I do, maybe with a miniscule difference, but the major picture is that everyone processes the things that "are" the same way. Imagine a person with no sight, hearing, taste, smell or touch, but with the capability of thinking living among you. He would not be able to process anything that's going around him, but would still be a part of whatever is going on, as you, and other beings capable of consciousness would be able to confirm his presence despite having no way of communicating with him.

[Anonymous No.21238000]

>>21237965
>if nothing existed
Impossible. That’s a contradiction so if you assume nothing exists ang other contradiction follows including two plus two does not equal 4

[Anonymous No.21238010]

>>21237970
I am alas something even worse, a dualist

[Anonymous No.21238011]

>>21238000
>That’s a contradiction
Only to a materialist.

[Anonymous No.21238015]

>>21238010
Jesus Christ, stop anon. Please.

[Anonymous No.21238029]

>>21237965
>>21238011
>>21238000
If nothing existed there would be no 2 or 4, there would only be 0
Nothing+Nothing=Nothing

[Anonymous No.21238035]

If the causal closure principle is correct, how can we explain the creation of the universe? The Big Bang - a physical event - had to either not be caused or be caused by an non-physical thing. Does this mean that the Big Crunch theory is the only one compatible with causal closure?

[Anonymous No.21238036]

>>21238029
Very well, you autistic, semantics obsessed nigger. If matter didn't exist, 2+2 would still equal 4.
To claim otherwise is illogical.

[Anonymous No.21238053]

>>21238036
If matter didn't exist, what would? There is no life without matter, thus no consciousness to solve math equations while he's chilling in nothingness.

[Anonymous No.21238111]

>>21238053
Doesn't matter.
Mathematics exists independently of matter and consciousness.
If matter didn't exist you wouldn't really be able to apply the math, but it would still exist, and 2+2 would equal 4.

[Anonymous No.21238238]

>>21237439
Why can't deluded dualists accept that material reality is all there is?

[Anonymous No.21238305]

>>21237884
>There is no such thing as consciousness
So this is the true power of materialism

[Anonymous No.21238331]

>>21237965
>Some may also find Platonism appealing thanks to its parsimony: logical truths may necessarily exist, and the mental and physical are mere consequences of this necessary existence

Being emanates from truths that can't not be. Which is why Pythagoras was right about everything.

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

[Anonymous No.21238392]

>>21237989
>Things happen even if there is no one to experience them
A happening is an interaction between two things or something that occurs within one thing. That means something is either conscious of something else or conscious of itself.
>Yes, because "white" is a human word, a concept, color if you will.
So is matter
>It is there for no reason,
Then this would also apply to matter and nothing would have any reason and there would be no universe or order within the universe.

[Anonymous No.21238417]

>>21237439
There is no problem fo conciousness. Philosophy of the mind is a scam

[Anonymous No.21238441]

>>21238392
Have some dignity and stop arguing with that fool. Even if you explain it to him with the most profuse precision, he's not going to get it and it's not because he's dumb but because he loves being a degenerate. It's a trend I've observed time on time again. Unfortunately, the implications of consciousness being the source of all existence are too much to bear for most people so they'd rather scoff it than use that knowledge to elevate themselves.

[Anonymous No.21238526]

Reductive materialists empirically disproven with this one simple trick. Scientists hate him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB_2Qd5xNvE

[Anonymous No.21239279]

>>21238441
Surely the immaterial nature of subjective experience is self-evident to any sentient human?

[Anonymous No.21239388]

>>21239279
It should be but it isn't. Every sentient human being should tend towards goodness because it is evidently the right thing but most don't. It's a beautiful paradox of life that the most obvious, simple, clear truths are hidden from the majority of people who prefer chaotic, obscure sophism instead for the reason that they're too attached to the material world. What are the ramifications of the acceptance that all of reality is at its core spirit? That the highest and most worthy attainment is to unify yourseIf with the divine? It reveals the futility of chasing after fleeting sensual pleasures, it confronts you with the duty to love the truth and to conform yourself to the highest moral standards.

[Anonymous No.21239495]

>>21238526
Wouldn't it make more sense if the system was cyclical and lacking a foundation entirely as opposed to physics and awareness fighting over who daddy loves more?

[Anonymous No.21239601]

>>21237810
oh damn he strapped.

[Anonymous No.21239608]

>>21237810
1. you are conscious
2. I am you
qed

[Anonymous No.21239677]

>>21237444
>Why can't deluded dualists accept that material reality is all there is
You don't have to reject matter to be an idealist. You don't need dualism either. Material reality is something only ever experienced as mental objects rendered in minds. All matter ever experienced is experienced in the medium of mind

[Anonymous No.21239707]

>>21237452
No, it isn't. Zero evidence of that. There is no explanation of how a piece of meat can beam a mental experience into an experiencer. There is no quality in matter, only quantity. The quality is experiential and the experiencer is mind. This piece of meat that you claim is the seat of consciousness is only ever observed as a mental object in minds by the way, just as all matter is only ever observed as a mental object.

[Anonymous No.21239767]

>>21237801
Yes, this is a brain scan, something, like all matter, that that is only ever seen as a mental object in minds. And brains are only ever rendered in minds. What you are probably trying to assert is that asserted neural CORRELATES of consciousness explain consciousness or that damage to the brain resulting in altered gameplay imply the causitory explanation of mind. This is false. Hence why they are called correlates only. Also, team of neuro surgeons standing around looking at an exposed brain are all looking at subjective experiential data streams of a brain appearing as a mental object called a brain in their respective minds and in none of those consciousness based virtual renderings of a brain is there the consciousness to which that brain belongs. And so you would just be asserting that an objectively observable mental object called a brain causes the subjective conscious experience of the consciousness associated with the owner of that brain. This would be also false. No one is arguing that damage to brains can result in corespondent alterations of experiential data streams being rendered in the mind of the observer associated with that brain. This is a feature of sensory immersion of the consciousness in the physical world. This is a constraint which can last the duration of the interface with the reality associated with a particular physical avatar. This damage does nothing to the substance of the individuated unit of consciousness and these constraints can be lifted at the ending of an interface/experience packet associated with a particular avatar body (death of the avatar).

[Anonymous No.21239771]

>>21237815
True.

[Anonymous No.21239803]

>>21237838
See here
>>21239767
Nobody is arguing against the idea that damage to the brain can result in constraint on the conscious experience. These are called correlates of consciousness. And they are called correlates and not causitors for a reason. And the brain is only ever observed as a mental object rendered in minds anyways, just as all matter is. So at the most you would be asserting that a mental object (brain) causes mentation, which would avoid substance dualism, but you would still be wrong. There is no such thing as observer independent matter. There are no defined values, no classical type position and momentum prior to measurement. This includes brains. The brain never even has to be rendered in spacetime unless observed, at which point it will be rendered according to what would be probable to be there.

[Anonymous No.21239829]

>>21238392
>>21238441
>if i stop looking at something it stops existing
>i am the only real person
Literal schizo shit

[Anonymous No.21239849]

>>21239767
You are going to die one day and it all goes to black when your brain stops working.

[Anonymous No.21239858]

>>21239803
>nothing is real, maaan *rips bong*

[Anonymous No.21239862]

>>21239849
>You are going to die one day and it all goes to black when your brain stops working
Evidence? I think you are making a claim you can't back up. All of the anecdotal evidence is to the contrary in terms of NDE testimony.

[Anonymous No.21239885]

>>21239862
The nde testimony sounds like they're on drugs or having some kind of hyper-manic experience

[Anonymous No.21239922]

I think thefore I am of thought

[Anonymous No.21240001]

>>21239858
True, local realism has been falsified through bell test experiments. No theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce the predictions of QM. Pic related. Consciousness is real though. It's fundamental and non-derivative as planck stated in picrel here
>>21239677
And the consciousness based virtual data streams of physicality observed/experienced in minds in the waking state are persistent and fully immersive. And so physicality is real enough. Just not observer independent, ie values don't have to be calculated and defined unless a consciousness/player demands the datastream. It's render on demand to reduce computational complexity. See picrel. And this includes brains. Nothing in spacetime, including brains can be the seat of consciousness. They are rendered only upon measurement/observation and they are rendered according to what would be probable to be there, given your genetics, age, environmental effectedness etc. If the brain icon gets damaged though, then the correspondant effects will be rendered to the consciousness all the same.The experience is real and fully immersive including pain/pleasure etc. Observer independent matter is not a thing though. When not observed, matter is undefined. It has no classical quantities such as position and momentum and if you try to assign these hidden variables you violate the bell inequality. The resent nobel prizes given to zeilinger, aspect, and clauser were for experimental verification of this.

[Anonymous No.21240009]

>>21239858
whoops, planck quote here in this kek blessed post
>>21239677

[Anonymous No.21240096]

>>21239862
Right i forgot about the rush of DMT that some people get.

[Anonymous No.21240109]

>>21240009
see
>>21239829

[Anonymous No.21240148]

https://blavatskytheosophy.com/the-sevenfold-nature-of-man/

[Anonymous No.21240158]

>>21239885
You have no evidence for your claim of certitude about what happens after death. Some facts
>consciousness is not a physical object, being that it is by definition SUBJECTIVE, and not objectively observable in the spacetime universe
>consciousness has no definable position, momentum, spin, velocity, or any other objectively verifiable quantity
>consciousness is not in spacetime
>the observer is only given the vantage point in his mind of a first person shooter type situation 'in' APPARENT 3d space through the VR technique of immersion
>The actual consciousness controlling the physical (virtual) body is not in a piece of meat called a brain or in spacetime at all, in fact there is no observer independent spacetime, only the totality of consciousness based subjective data streams of the observers immersed in physicality
>since the consciousness is not 'in' the physical universe, in fact the physical universe is a data stream rendered 'in' the mind of a given observer, then there is no reason to believe that the consciousness can simply log on to a new experiential data stream when a particular avatar dies

[Anonymous No.21240174]

>>21240109

[Anonymous No.21240222]

>>21238305
They have to eventually get to this point of denying their own mind. That is the fate of the materialist, declaring their own mindlessness. Declaring NPC status. They deny the one thing they have direct access to, which is consciousness, in order to claim something that they never experience, which observer independent matter with stand alone existence. It's a strange position. All matter ever experienced is experienced as mental objects in consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21240231]

>>21240158
Consciousness is the same thing as matter, it's just locally partitioned.

[Anonymous No.21240238]

>>21240158
Is a dance a physical object?

[Anonymous No.21240254]

>>21240222
base solipsism

[Anonymous No.21240256]

>>21240238
Dance is a radical object

[Anonymous No.21240264]

>>21240238
Yes? Not so much an object, but an instance of movement of physical matter through space. There would be no dance without matter.

[Anonymous No.21240265]

>>21240256
this gif lined right up with the music im listening to

[Anonymous No.21240271]

>>21240264
Its a set of instructions, not physical

[Anonymous No.21240299]

>>21240271
Instructions based on a physical law.

[Anonymous No.21240301]

>>21240222
All matter ever experienced is experienced as mental objects in consciousness.
This circular reasoning isnt it? It doesn't say that matter cannot exist without a conscious observer

[Anonymous No.21240324]

>>21237444
>He thinks, then types, then fills a captcha. The next thing that happens is the server delivered it to the screen of another person who reads then thinks. His thought that's have become someone else's but they are recognized as other. Yet he still believes that the immaterial simply does. Not. Exist. Will he ever wake up? Or will the dream continue. He turns to his right and looks at the stack of unread books on his desk, he's really been meaning to get around to Dorian grey he just doesn't have the time. He opens up Zarathustra and reads about the rope bridging between animal and ubermensch. Yes. There really does seem to be no such thing as the idea. It's simply electrical pulses and behaviorisms. He's suddenly hungry so he goes to the kitchen and makes himself a pizza bagel. He uses the microwave. The timer slowly ticks down.

[Anonymous No.21240331]

>>21240324
pizza bagel does sound good

[Anonymous No.21240396]

>>21240324
Even if you argue that the immaterial exists, such as a non-physical idea or a concept, it still stems from physicality and would be incomprehensible without it having the ability to be applied to the material. Mathematics suddenly become futile when you don't have a something and another something to add it up into two of somethings, immaterial is the product not the cause. Ideas stem from observable things, if there was nothing physical that a concept would draw upon, its existence would quite literally be illogical. Even if suddenly everything ceised to exist and only your consciousness remained, you would still be able to form thoughts due to your previous experiences with the material.

[Anonymous No.21240420]

>>21240396
What is cos(4) + isin(4) in terms of apples?
>Immaterial is the product, not the cause
Okay then it exists ontologically as the result of a material cause, yet it remains immaterial, as you state.
>Ideas stem from
So they exist.
>If all material ceased you would still be able to form thoughts
So they exist, in an immaterial way.
So you are not a material realist, by your own words.

[Anonymous No.21240662]

>>21237439
Did Europeans even have a model of consciousness before the 18th century or so?

[Anonymous No.21240674]

>>21237768
These posts are hilarious because I can imagine ants saying the same thing to themselves as though they are the pinnacle of existence, simply because they've never comprehended anything beyond their own meagre existence.

[Anonymous No.21240684]

>>21237891
He does which you'd know if you read the Enneads. He states pretty clearly that "The One" is a flawed name and is not the same as unity.

[Anonymous No.21240694]

>>21240662
Bump.

Literally curious, has consciousness ever entered into the mainstream discussion in European philosophy before the 18th century?

[Anonymous No.21241438]

>>21239677
You could also be a neutral monist or a panpsychist and things would make perfect sense

[Anonymous No.21241451]

>>21239849
Consciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Co5sXVA-E

[Anonymous No.21241453]

>>21240001
that's cute, however scientists still can't explain how matter is subject to non-material rules they invented, in other words, hwy matter follows maths rules made up by a few humans.

[Anonymous No.21241468]

>Here's your consciousness bro

[Anonymous No.21241469]

>>21240694
No but Tesla was talking about it

[Anonymous No.21241476]

>>21240222
Modernity teaches mammon worship as the base of all things

[Anonymous No.21241477]

>>21237815
profound misundersttanding of schopenhauers critique of kant right here
there *would* be a material universe without consciousness but you *would not* be able to imagine it
you are arguing for solipsism without realizing (being conscious hehe) of it, which is plain lunacy

[Anonymous No.21241484]

>>21240222
just because all experienced matter has been experienced doesn't mean all matter has been experienced

[Anonymous No.21241490]

>>21240396
>Mathematics suddenly become futile when you don't have a something and another something to add it up into two of somethings

This is why matter was emanated in the first place hylic.
Logical eternal immaterial truths, like maths, necessarily exist and necessitate existence, hence why there is something and not just nothing.
The form of the truth is God IMO.

[Anonymous No.21241496]

>>21240396
When you imagine an apple in your mind is there literally a material apple in your head?
No there isn't, materialists BTFO.

[Anonymous No.21241497]

>>21241496
this proves materialism right tho

[Anonymous No.21241508]

>>21240662
>>21240662
Mind and soul are obviously ancient concepts, Plotinus wrote probably the most advanced analysis of consciousness extant still to this day.

[Anonymous No.21241521]

>>21241497
When you dream, you fully believe the immaterial dream world is a material reality. It isn't.

This is a brute fact. If you appeal to the notion of "material forms" or something to try and pilpul "erm, acktually it is material acktually" then you are simply inverting the more logical, rational and true idea of platonic forms.

[Anonymous No.21241619]

>>21241521
Explain more.

[Anonymous No.21241785]

>>21239829
no one argued that because everything is conscious, not a solipsist.

[Anonymous No.21241792]

>>21241484
is this matter that has never been experienced in the room with us now?

[Anonymous No.21241799]

>>21241521
>brute fact
idealists addressed this centuries ago. There is no reason an idea cannot be a brute fact.

[Anonymous No.21241838]

>>21240674
everything that exists is the pinnacle of existence

[Anonymous No.21242706]

>>21237810
prove to yourself that you're conscious, and not just doing whatever you were preordained to do from the very beginning

[Anonymous No.21242721]

>>21237439
Consciousness isn't.

[Anonymous No.21242729]

>>21240324
>Yes. There really does seem to be no such thing as the idea. It's simply electrical pulses and behaviorisms.

What is it about this that you find so hard to understand

[Anonymous No.21242779]

>>21241477
Why when I say “consciousness” you think I am only talking about my localized brain? Everything is conscious, consciousness is global, the locality of your self is due to how the brain’s memory and perception work. Nothing exists without consciousness because everything that happens incorporates it.

[Anonymous No.21242833]

>>21237439
Consciousness troons have been shaking their dicks from eternity yet they haven't done jack shit other than debooking same shit and being stuck into same age old loops.

Anyone who thinks that we're a going to "solve" or have solved consciousness is a hopeless troon and a subhuman.

[Anonymous No.21242867]

"It's "immaterial", but... it is caused and affected by material things"

help me out here

[Anonymous No.21242883]

>>21242867
I am not a consciousness troon but crack open a skull then dissect the brain and show us where does that person exists? You can't because subjectivity by definition is something like a cloud and not material. Similarity idealist troons can't prove that existence of person without a brain.

[Anonymous No.21242891]

>>21242833
>>21242883
>troon used every other sentence
Dude you need to get off this website.

[Anonymous No.21242902]

>>21242883
>How is an apple real if another apple cant occupy the same space as it

[Anonymous No.21242905]

Substance dualism is debunked by the conceivability of pZombie-souls
pZombie souls are immaterially identical to regular souls, except they do not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. There is no way to tell them apart.
Otherwise they behave the same. They can attach to material brains, float over operating tables during NDEs, become poltergeists and be the object of hauntings.

[Anonymous No.21242913]

>>21242883
The brain IS the consciousness, retardo
you found it

[Anonymous No.21242917]

>by definition
lmao
retards think their word in the English language are speaking things into reality like if they were God

[Anonymous No.21242920]

>>21242883
>subjectivity by definition is something like a cloud and not material
Would a materialist agree with this definition?

[Anonymous No.21242924]

>>21242883
>a cloud
clouds are material, retard

[Anonymous No.21242965]

>>21242891
You're probably a consciousness troon

>>21242902
Bruh the experience of inner world isn't comparable with a fucking apple

>>21242913
Fuck no the inner world is spooky. Dissect a brain show me the inner world of a "person"

>>21242920
Both type of troons are dogmatic and start with certain presumptions and both get nowhere

>>21242924
A fucking conceptual cloud. Cloud as a metaphor.

[Anonymous No.21242971]

>>21242965
Yes it is. The reason you cant feel what the apple feels is because you sont occupy the same space as it, you are not connected to it. We are just much more structurally complex than the apple on higher levels, though on a cellular level we are both immensely complex.

[Anonymous No.21242996]

>>21242971
Me and you both can look at apple, touch it, dream about it and we can even eat it but consciousness is different beast we can't even conceive it let alone touch it or taste it. I mean we can taste it but not in the sense of apple

[Anonymous No.21243002]

>>21242965
>Cloud as a metaphor.
For what? Something that it's fundamentally incomparable to?
What's your theory of consciousness?

[Anonymous No.21243004]

>>21242996
You are not looking at the apple really though. You are creating a model in your head which correlates with certain aspects of the apple brought to you by your senses.

[Anonymous No.21243028]

>>21243004
“Your senses” are already in your head. Photoreceptors in your eye transduce the light into an electrical impulse before it ever reaches your brain. The vision of an apple is already a model.

[Anonymous No.21243031]

>>21237439
consciousness doesn't exist. because they are materialistic (ultimate reality is physical), Plato is the opposite (ultimate reality is transcendental)

[Anonymous No.21243040]

>>21243002
For my inner world
>What's your theory of consciousness?
I am not a consciousness troon. We have many, many mystical testimonies of something higher but then personally I haven't experienced anything supernatural. IRL in believe in many testimonies like the existence of atom, anyone when they feel pain etc. it's hard for me to deny those mystical experience and it's hard for me to deny my own experience so I don't bet on anything.

>>21243004
Metzinger is a troon and a subhuman.

[Anonymous No.21243049]

>>21243028
That's my point. Your vision of the apple is just bits of your brain. Your brain is not connected to the apple so it cant experience what the apple does. If you cut the corpus callosum peoples consciousness becomes non integrated and they will do things without knowing why.

[Anonymous No.21243055]

>>21243040
I dont care about metzinger. He doesn't explain the relation between matter and consciousness

[Anonymous No.21243079]

>>21243040
>mystical experience
What are you talking about? Are these experiences incompatible with materialism?

You are saying that consciousness is definitively not material. Cuz is we crack a skull there's just a bunch of gore inside, no visible consciousness.
Just like if I smash open my computer there's just a bunch of wires and dust, where's the Minecraft? Conclusion: computer games are spooky, like souls.

But where do you think it is, the consciousness?
Is it like a soul, is the brain a soul-radio?

[Anonymous No.21243093]

>>21243079
Consciousness is the act of seeing, not what you see. Asking why you can’t “see consciousness” is retarded. You can only feel consciousness in yourself.

[Anonymous No.21243149]

>>21243079
Mystical experiences like merging of your awareness with something transcendent after which you feel immensely peaceful.


Nobody knows where is our inner world. And I think we're not capable of figuring out if consciousness is material or not.

>>21243093
>You can only feel consciousness in yourself.
That's the problem. If consciousness or subjectivity was like a computer you would also be able to taste it.

[Anonymous No.21243191]

>>21241508
>Plotinus wrote probably the most advanced analysis of consciousness extant still to this day
I think that Adi Shankara's analysis goes further than that of Plotinus. Plotinus says that the intellect is self-conscious while Shankara on the other hand points out that we can tell that our intellect is actually unconscious because its various instantiations as thought, contemplation etc and all other particular conditioned knowledge are all objects of our awareness that flash before it in succession not unlike how distant objects appear to an observer when he looks in any direction. The intellect would not be able to observe or have awareness of itself changing unless it had a portion of itself that was the persisting knower (because one act of the intellect cannot stick around to observe itself vanish and be replaced later on) and not the changing known content but at this point if you considering all the functions of the intellect that we know as 'objects' and then admitting a portion dissimilar to these, to be the 'subjective' portion which is really what is actually 'conscious', then by recognizing them to have different characteristics that actually supports concluding that they are two different things (intellect vs consciousness) instead of regarding them as being identical. Consciousness is the non-objectifiable non-dual space of immediate self-disclosing partless awareness that is always present and shining effortlessly like a spotless, pristine unconditioned light. In relation to this space of self-luminous consciousness that is always peaceful, free and unaffected, the intellect is like an object floating in space while being bathed in the radiance emanating everywhere from luminous space. Plotinus does not seem to realize or clearly express that there is a deeper and more fundamental 'Self' or consciousness still behind and separate from the 'buddhi' or intellect, and there also seems to be some disagreement and uncertainty on the part of scholars on basic questions of interpreting the Plotinian conception of consciousness like is the higher soul an intellect, and on which facets of higher soul vs lower soul account for various levels of self-knowledge and how.

[Anonymous No.21243204]

>>21241508
>Plotinus
Good. Seems his the Indian/Buddhist connection is stronger than I thought. Given his teacher may have been a Saka from Gandharan or have adopted Sakas from India (Buddha's clan).

>>21243191
I think the guy (>>21241508) is saying Plotonius may have the strongest notion of mind/consciousness within western tradition, that was the original question.

Its unfair to compare Sankara/Buddhist notions of minds to Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.21243241]

>>21242729
Understanding doesn't exist according to you.

[Anonymous No.21243314]

>>21237452
Matter is a quality of consciousness. checkmate.

[Anonymous No.21243539]

>>21243149
>merging of your awareness with something transcendent after which you feel immensely peaceful.
Transcendent?
I don't know what that is.
Are you saying that this is what's actually happening, or what it feels like is happening?
I don't get what's mystical about drugs or meditation giving people weird mental states.

[Anonymous No.21243604]

>shankara niggers showed up
Thread ruined

[Anonymous No.21243864]

>>21243604
t. hylic

[Anonymous No.21244097]

>>21243204
I think he was just a platonist, I think he tried to travel to india but didn't make it

[Anonymous No.21244216]

I just think this is pathetic
All explained by insecure people who are scared of dying, and needs to feel *rational* about their belief in some kind of afterlife/immorality

[Anonymous No.21244219]

>>21244216
Metaphysics doesnt imply an afterlife mr Sneedson

[Anonymous No.21244251]

>>21244219
What do you think I'm saying?

[Anonymous No.21244421]

>>21244216
I'm not afraid of dying. and my belief in eternal metempsychosis doesn't alleviate any fear because it means I can never escape suffering and will have to suffer being an organism for all time. but I'm not afraid of that either. I think you're trying to project your own fear of death on to me, I for myself do not even know what that might feel like.

[Anonymous No.21244462]

>>21237810
i am actually inside this body

[Anonymous No.21244496]

>>21244421
>my belief in eternal metempsychosis
So, like, you hold this belief for evidential reasons?

[Anonymous No.21244535]

>>21244421
>doesn't alleviate any fear because it means I can never escape suffering
what is moksha

[Anonymous No.21244555]

>>21244496
>So, like, you hold this belief for evidential reasons?
it's impossible to develop any coherent epistemology or metaphysics to explain what "evidence" even is that doesn't a priori lead to a belief in metempsychosis.
>>21244535
dependent on your local brain and goes away after your death. you cannot escape the cycle of rebirth. Your consciousness is everyone else's consciousness so there will always be suffering as long as anything in the universe suffers.

[Anonymous No.21244558]

>>21237810
Why?

[Anonymous No.21244642]

>>21237439
>What is consciousness?
This.

[Anonymous No.21244663]

>>21240324
>>21243241
Unfathomably based.

[Anonymous No.21244792]

>>21244555
If we are trying to figure out if we find ourself in a reality where metempsychosis is true, or where if metempsychosis is false. How could we go about it?

[Anonymous No.21244803]

>>21244792
the way to falsify metempsychosis is by observing that consciousness doesn't exist. but that is impossible , it's a complete contradiction. it means observing the lack of observation. the idea that you can't warrant belief in metempsychosis because it is not falsifiable is like saying that you can't warrant the belief in non-contradiction. non-contradiction is also unfalsifiable because it is impossible to imagine a world where non contradiction doesn't hold.

[Anonymous No.21244907]

>>21244803
Please tell me the contradiction entailed in consciousness existing and metempsychosis not existing

[Anonymous No.21244927]

>>21244907
by metempsychosis i mean that your consciousness will continue to be embodied in the universe after you die. but when you realize that "consciousness" and "your consciousness" are identical terms, you realize saying that "your consciousness" will stop existing is the same as saying "consciousness" will stop existing. consciousness cannot stop existing because you cannot imagine a world where it doesn't exist - it exists in every possible world therefore it is a necessary existent.

of course i don't believe that this means you will be able to remember past lives since memory and all the bodily and material self obviously completely dissolves

the way to understand why metempsychosis is necessary is to ask the questions "why am I conscious as me and not someone else" and "why did I become conscious at this point in time instead of another"? this will force you to re-evaluate your idea of "self" and realize that consciousness cannot be connected to the material self, which is just one way to realize that "consciousness" and "your consciousness" are the same, though that also is shown by reducing philosophy and logic to phenomenology.

[bodhi No.21244937]

>>21237452
>>21237444
prove the material reality exists outside of your imagination and you arent dreaming

I'll wait

[Anonymous No.21244959]

>>21244927
>your consciousness will continue to be embodied in the universe after you die
Yeah, that's why I told you it's a cope for insecure retards who are scared of dying, and needs to feel *rational* about their belief in some kind of afterlife/immorality

[Anonymous No.21244962]

>>21244959
stupid nigger, i've believed in everything, atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, nihilism, solipsism, everything, and I have never been afraid of death, not when I believed there would be nothingness and not now. you're projecting

[bodhi No.21244963]

/ thread

[Anonymous No.21244967]

>>21244962
doth protest too much

[bodhi No.21244973]

>>21244967
you wont respond this >>21244963
because you cant. You may not be smart enough to realize you cant however because you seem pretty stupid based on previous posts

[Anonymous No.21244980]

>>21244967
>accuse someone you don't know of something
>"that's not true"
>it must be true because they denied it!
lol whatever, you created an imaginary persona of me in your head based on your preconceived notions about the will to believe, and there's no evidence that can possibly prove you wrong - you've created your own little unfalsifiable theory while accusing me of doing so.

[Anonymous No.21244987]

>>21244963
Don't really understand why this is a problem for materialists in particular or any position
unless it postulates knowledge with absolute certainty

[Anonymous No.21244998]

>>21244962
>i've believed in everything
Clearly you are very impressionable and/or gullible
I don't understand why you think "metempsychosis" is true, rather than one of your previous fads

[bodhi No.21244999]

>>21244987
drooler tier response

[Anonymous No.21245003]

>>21244998
i've been able to deny everything else but not this, not for some time.

[Anonymous No.21245008]

>>21244973
>you cant
No. It's very very easy to respond
I still think materialism is true
never claimed to be able to know this with 100% certainty

[Anonymous No.21245016]

>>21244999
Explain why it is a problem for my position. (that yours somehow escapes?)

Prove that you are not dreaming right now. As a brain in a vat, in a world where materialism is true.

[bodhi No.21245018]

>>21245008
I can prove it isnt however, that is the difference. It isnt hard to prove, the Greeks were able to do it with simple geometry (and it was done much farther back than that as well)

[bodhi No.21245022]

>>21245016
I cant tell if you are retarded not. You are mimicking my argument

[bodhi No.21245033]

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

[Anonymous No.21245043]

>>21245003
>i've been able to deny everything else but not this
Right...
How would you even in principle deny "metempsychosis" ? It's unfalsifiable according to yourself.

As long as you got reasons motivating the belief. (rationalizing your belief in some kind of immortality) What's to prevent you from sticking with it? Can't prove it wrong.

You gave me 1 falsification condition. If consciousness didn't exist. That would prove metempsychosis false.
Do you understand what kind of cope that sounds like?

[Anonymous No.21245050]

>>21245022
>You are mimicking my argument
Obviously.
Do you understand why I'm doing that?
It is to try and make you understand there is a problem with your "argument"

[Anonymous No.21245054]

>>21245043
>How would you even in principle deny "metempsychosis" ? It's unfalsifiable according to yourself.
and so is non-contradiction, that is because it is a pre-logical, pre-scientific truth that is immediately experienced in full before it is ever formulated.
>As long as you got reasons motivating the belief. (rationalizing your belief in some kind of immortality) What's to prevent you from sticking with it? Can't prove it wrong.
except I didn't believe in immortality when I originally realized metempsychosis
>You gave me 1 falsification condition. If consciousness didn't exist. That would prove metempsychosis false.
>Do you understand what kind of cope that sounds like?
how is that cope? it is objectively the condition under which immortality of consciousness is not real - you have to observe consciousness not existing, which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.21245062]

>>21245018
>It isnt hard to prove,
Prove what?
Please tell me how the Greeks falsified materialism if that is what you are gesturing towards

[Anonymous No.21245090]

>>21245054
>immediately experienced in full before it is ever formulated.
while also
>i've believed in everything, atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, nihilism, solipsism, everything

I just think this is great evidence it's a belief you got yourself into, not something that is basically known. You seemed to be in the business of doing that.
Like, did you take mushrooms and feel funny? How is that evidence of anything beyond the brains capacity to make you feel funny.
Stuff like that, would be an extremely poor epistemology for claims about the fundamental nature of reality.

>how is that cope?
It's a cope in the same sense a Catholic saying: Ddying and NOT being sent to the pearly gates and meeting St. Peter, would falsify their belief.
When people are asking for falsification condition, they are asking for methods that are possible in this life.

It's also just halfassed.
Consciousness can exist, yet metempsychosis be false. Seems very possible to me.
You were saying it was impossible? I didn't really understand you
If it's impossible, it should entail some sort of contradiction. Which you could tell me plainly.

[Anonymous No.21245100]

>>21245090
>>Consciousness can exist, yet metempsychosis be false. Seems very possible to me.
no it can't, i explained why in my other post.

it's not the same as your st peter thing because it is possible to imagine a world where you don't meet st peter. but it is not even possible to imagine a world where consciousness stops existing.
>If it's impossible, it should entail some sort of contradiction. Which you could tell me plainly.
i literally did

[Anonymous No.21245147]

>>21245100
>no it can't

"A world where consciousness exist. But when you die, it does not continue to exist."
Where's the contradiction in this?


Do you see another problem with your claim? You are essentially saying that everyone that don't believe the same thing you do, are committed to a contradiction.
But they are too stupid to figure it out.
That should set off some warning bells ringing if you were a sane person.
Why are no one else but you (and a select group?) realizing this...

Maybe there is a mistake in your reasoning. (and not everyone else's)

[Anonymous No.21245159]

>>21245147
>it does not continue to exist
impossible to imagine, a contradictory statement. any world you try to think of will have consciousness since thought is impossible without consciousness.
>Why are no one else but you (and a select group?) realizing this...
people who believe in reincarnation include various native american religions, various afriacn religions, greek mystery cults, pythagoreans, platonists, hinduism followers, buddhists, germanic pagans, celtic pagans, kabbalists, etc etc. it;s a belief that arose independently in every culture in the world springing from the most ancient belief systems. it is clearly the natural belief for humans, you don't see the contradiction because you have been told your whole life that your consciousness is confined to your body, an absolutely unprecedented belief in all the history of humanity until the last few hundred years.

[Anonymous No.21245166]

>>21237439
>What is consciousness?
The transmission of phenomena, as received by a body, to a soul

[Anonymous No.21245169]

>>21245159
I'm a different anon (calling myself "anonymous" in the context of this threat takes on a much more eerie, deep meaning lol) but I want to know something, help me understand: Are you basically saying that you and me at this very moment are one consciousness split up into two brains to experience reality separately? More or less?

[Anonymous No.21245174]

>>21245169
*context of this thread

[Anonymous No.21245178]

>>21245169
it depends on how you think time works but yes, except that the consciousness is split at all is an illusion created by physical memory and thought.

[Anonymous No.21245184]

>>21245159
>any world you try to think of will have consciousness since thought is impossible without consciousness
Okay...
But - I'm saying in this world there is consciousness - but, but. but, there is NO metempsychosis, that was a false belief (turns out you were wrong about this)

Where is the contradiction?


Why are you telling me about everyone that believed in "metempsychosis"? (I don't think everyone on your list is compatible with your belief)
I am asking about the people who do not. How do you make sense of them?
You can't say it's impossible for your belief to be wrong, without having some sort of excuse for why other people don't agree with you.

[Anonymous No.21245187]

>>21245184
>>Where is the contradiction?
see>>21244927

[Anonymous No.21245189]

>>21245178
>how you think time works
Can you say more on this? How do you view time?

[bodhi No.21245197]

>>21245050
you think "kicking the can down the road" is an argument? As I said you are legit retarded.

>>21245062
I already did >>21245033

[Anonymous No.21245203]

>>21245197
>you think "kicking the can down the road" is an argument?
DO YOU?
Why is this a "problem" for the materialist position. But not your own?

[Anonymous No.21245205]

>>21245178
Are you an adherent to the whole "block universe" theory, that all time, from the very "beginning" till the very "end", is just a set of frozen moments superimposed on top of one point? Meaning that we as human beings are just moving through a set of power point slides? Are you familiar with this idea? I think it's plausible myself, though I find it very unsettling myself because it confirms the idea that humans are just puppets in a shadowplay at the mercy of a set of strings

[Anonymous No.21245207]

>>21245187
Do you even know what a contradiction is?
Please just tell me the contradiction.

[Anonymous No.21245210]

>>21245197
You're a consciousness arguing with itself over the gay ass internet, my guy, can't we all just be one?

[bodhi No.21245218]

>>21245210

[Anonymous No.21245226]

>>21245189
first there are A theories and B theories of time. if A theory of time is true, then you have to decide whether consciousness can only be in one place at a "time" or many, but if b theory is true, then you have to say not only that we are the same but that we are also the same as everyone who ever lived and will live in the same moment and experiencing each moment of their lives all simultaneously.

i think that time is probably some kind of aspect of consciousness itself so the people in the past don't exist anymore but everything the present is modulations of the same substance that is itself growing in time and could be time itself.
>>21245205
I might also say that consciousness is the atemporal essential nature of a substance that is itself growing in time (though it wouldn't be "in" time but would have time as part of its essence) in which case I still don't think the past exists except insofar as it is causally embedded in the present nature of the substance and directing its growth

[Anonymous No.21245228]

>>21245207
the contradiction is due to the fact that "consciousness" and "your consciousness" are the same. you realize that by making sense of how consciousness is related to the self.

[Anonymous No.21245240]

>>21245226
Damn...dude this is some heady shit. I don't know. I can't think too much about this right now cause I am not ready to let go of my own preconceived notions anyway. The other thing is could you ever have any empirical evidence for any of these claims? Or is this just one of those kind of kind of irrational/intuitive psycho-spiritual "Truths"? And I don't mean that to look sneering or patronizing, I just don't know a better way to put it.

[Anonymous No.21245245]

>>21245218
My brother, I look forward to the day when we are united again in the same "vessel", if ever such a day will come.

[Anonymous No.21245249]

>>21245240
the idea of the "empirical" is posterior to consciousness. experience itself is consciousness so you cannot gain an understanding of consciousness by examining objects within experience but only be examining consciousness itself. as for whether it is scientifically falsifiable is what i have been debating with this other guy and the answer is that it isn't anymore scientific than the principle of non-contradiction is. it is not "irrational" but the basis of all rationality is rationality is, again, posteriori to consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21245252]

>>21245228
Would this be the case if you were wrong?

[Anonymous No.21245254]

>>21245252
>would this be the case if x did not equal x
what are you even asking? i already said it cannot be falsified because it is a necessary truth. the only way for me to be wrong is if it is possible to imagine a world without consciousness, which is not possible because imagination itself is consciousness.

[bodhi No.21245258]

>>21245245
hare krishna my friend, higher lokas await us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqk_blhpHRI

[Anonymous No.21245261]

>>21245249
Not entirely clear on how you examined your own consciousness and figured out it wasn't a dream by a brain in a vat, in a world where materialism is true.

[Anonymous No.21245262]

>>21245261
it isn't dependent on my world being real or not being a simulation or not being made of matter, it is only dependent on consciousness existing, which it does, which means if materialism is true then matter must be conscious.

[Anonymous No.21245266]

>>21245254
>the only way for me to be wrong is if it is possible to imagine a world without consciousness
OBVIOUSLY I'm not granting this. I think this is wrong.
I think it's possible to have consciousness yet have your theory be false. You say it's not.

Which means you should be able to point out why every other theory is impossible. IE: Entails a contradiction. (what I take impossibility to be)

[Anonymous No.21245268]

>>21245266
bruh you're just repeating yourself and not addressing anything

[Anonymous No.21245271]

>>21245262
What's the content of your theory?
I mean besides, the Cogito/ "Consciousness exist"
We both agree on that.

[Anonymous No.21245281]

>>21245268
What do you want me to address?
Your stuff hinges on: Consciousness exist -> therefor whatever the heck else I say is also true
I'm trying to draw out how this is false

[Anonymous No.21245284]

>>21245258
Ahhhh, I hope beyond hope that there will be less suffering and less confusion in those places. I want my wings back.

[Anonymous No.21245285]

>>21245271
i've expounded it this whole thread
>>21237768
>>21237789
>>21237771
>>21237815
>>21237911
>>21238392
>>21241838
>>21244927
>>21244803

[Anonymous No.21245308]

>>21245285
OK
So there's more to it than "Consciousness exist" ?

What if consciousness exist BUT there rest of your stuff is false

[Anonymous No.21245318]

>>21245308
consciousness exists implies consciousness necessarily exists due to the nature of consciousness which is what all my other stuff hinges on, so as soon as you grant that consciousness exists you grant everything else.

[bodhi No.21245320]

>>21245284
soon, dont forget to accomplish the reason why you came here brother. obviously it was important or we wouldnt have done it

[Anonymous No.21245333]

>>21245318
Then you should be able to provide arguments for why what you say follows from simply consciousness existing.
And why everyone who believe something else is demonstrably wrong. That they are committed to an impossible belief.

I don't understand why you are this resistant to even the possibility of being wrong.
Should be a HUGE red flag, that somewhere you went wrong. You are claiming it's not rationally permissible to disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.21245394]

>>21245333
idk what else to say to you, i feel like i've given arguments to everything you are saying and you're ignoring them. now you're just attacking me for not being a fallibilist. but fallibilism is just subject to the old joke of is "there is no absolute knowledge" itself absolute.

if I am seeing the color red and then state "I am seeing the color red" it's impossible for me to have made a mistake.

[Anonymous No.21245420]

>>21245394
Not really following how you think we need certainty for knowledge. Makes it so you cannot be wrong.

"It's impossible to know things with 100% certainty."
ARE YOU 100% CERNATIN OF THAT?
"Uh... No. I'm not certain of that..."

What even is the problem with this?

[Anonymous No.21246657]

I bookmarked this thread but never read it, maybe I will someday. Anyway, I was thinking about consciousness in the bathroom earlier and thought, maybe consciousness is like a cutout viewer of what's already there. If that makes sense. Think of a cartoon, McDonald's elementary grade school project.

[Anonymous No.21246897]

>>21243191
Thats true if you flatten Plotinus' Nous, but I wouldn't say so. This is why Being is said to be emptied out while Nous, he acknowledges that the One above "includes" that primal inchoate Intellect. Plotty is aware his One is a double entendre, hence how he's a magician.

[Anonymous No.21247314]

>>21245226
hey man I know this is late so I hope you're still following the thread, but you have any reading recs for any or all of the concepts you've addressed here? Hindu stuff? Platonist stuff? Buddhist stuff? i really want to read more. I want to fatten up my agnosticism with real knowledge of the One

[Anonymous No.21247334]

oh and also bump
this is a fascinating thread

[Anonymous No.21247348]

>>21245003
druidpilled

[Anonymous No.21247354]

Consciousness is conscious of something. Thats all it ever is. There's no consciousness that which is conscious of something, there's just consciousness of something. So while there's no primacy of consciousness over something, they're a packaged deal. The problem lies with other sets of assumptions about "consciousness" being a thing by itself (that which endures death/time/existence/etc), things being a thing by themselves, someone/some entity owning the consciousness or is that consciousness (whatever that means), etc

[Anonymous No.21247546]

>>21245166
Good definition

[Anonymous No.21247763]

>>21237439
Plato was delusional, his brain broke when he collided with the Eleatics and realised that his entire worldview was gibberish.

You have to read the real greeks (the pre-socratics).

[Anonymous No.21247918]

>>21241453
mathematical logic is derived from material conditions. we wouldn't have any concept of quantity if the universe didn't exhibit it.

[Anonymous No.21247993]

>>21247918
Most elite mathematicians are mathematical realists like Kurt Godel so you are probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.21248079]

>>21247354
Sorry NPC pseud, but qualia can't supervene on the physical.

[Anonymous No.21248094]

>>21248079
There's no primacy of physical nor qualia nonsense

[Anonymous No.21248567]

Dualists can't accept physical closure and the interaction problem.

Every physical effect has a physical cause. If you disagree, show me an example of a nonphysical cause with a physical effect, and how the nonphysical can interact with the physical.

[Anonymous No.21248606]

>>21248567
>nonphysical cause with a physical effect
Qualia.

>nonphysical can interact with the physical
The physical and mental do not supervene. Go look up p-zombies.

[Anonymous No.21248641]

>The phenomena of human consciousness must be regarded as activities of some other form of Real Being than the moving molecules of the brain. They require a subject or ground which is in its nature unlike the phosphorized fats of the central masses, the aggregated nerve-fibers of nerve-cells of the cerebral cortex. This Real Being thus manifested immediately to itself in the phenomena of consciousness, and indirectly to others through the bodily changes, is the Mind [manas]. To it the mental phenomena are to be attributed as showing what it is by what it does. The so-called mental ‘faculties’ are only the modes of the behavior in consciousness of this real being. We actually find, by the only method available, that this real being called Mind believes in certain perpetually recurring modes: therefore, we attribute to it certain faculties. … Mental faculties are not entities that have an existence of themselves. … They are the modes of the behavior in consciousness of the mind. And the very nature of the classifying acts which lead to their being distinguished, is explicable only upon the assumption that a Real being called Mind exists, and is to be distinguished from the real being known as the physical molecules of the brain’s nervous mass. …

>We conclude, then, from the previous considerations: the subject of all the states of consciousness is a real unit-being, called Mind; which is of non-material nature, and acts and develops according to laws of its own, but is specially correlated with certain material molecules and masses forming the substance of the Brain.”

— Prof. George T. Ladd, Elements of Physiological Psychology

[Anonymous No.21248672]

>>21248641
>We conclude, then, from the previous considerations: the subject of all the states of consciousness is a real unit-being, called Mind; which is of non-material nature, and acts and develops according to laws of its own, but is specially correlated with certain material molecules and masses forming the substance of the Brain.”

While it's obviously not conscious how does this differ from a computer's memory either on disk or solid? The information, the processing is all done on material but the information is electron/energy correct?

[Anonymous No.21248678]

>>21248606
>Qualia
Are not a nonphysical cause with a physical effect lmao, did you even read what I said?
>p-zombies
Irrelevant thought experiment with no possible physical existence

[Anonymous No.21248696]

>>21245033
>>21245022
>>21245018
>>21244999
>>21244973
Fuck right back off to /sci/ you fucking bugman.

[Anonymous No.21248703]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhShI0_S1g

[Anonymous No.21248740]

>>21248678
The point of p-zombies isn't to demonstrate the existence of anything, it's to rule out the possibility of denying the non-existence of something.
>"Possessing qualia" is the definition of consciousness
>Qualia cannot be detected by any means, internally or externally
>Suppose a being exists with no qualia, but a fully functioning brain
>You cannot prove that this being has no qualia, because qualia cannot be detected by any means, internally or externally
Therefore, you can't prove that qualia DON'T exist, even though one also cannot prove that they do.

This sort of logic pilpul is why Daniel Dennett throws autistic temper tantrums about qualia btw.

[Anonymous No.21248830]

>>21248606
>p-zombies
inconceivable

[Anonymous No.21248866]

>>21237722
>why did "something" happen?
This implies that "nothing" once happened, which doesn't make sense. So, the question, and perhaps the very dichotomy between "something" and "nothing," seems like an error.

[Anonymous No.21248870]

>>21248740
>"Possessing qualia" is the definition of consciousness
It literally is not.

Qualia is a theory laden term that a materialist can just reject.
I don't have to grant that experiences are private. I can just say that is false.
You have provided no justification for why I should accept it.
I can grant that consciousness exist, yet reject that qualia does.

>Suppose a being exists with no qualia, but a fully functioning brain
Okay...
Suppose that that human thoughts and experiences necessarily follows from the arrangement of physical matter.
Then it would be impossible to not have "qualia" if physical matter is arranged in a way that necessarily will produce "qualia".

Besides. Having no way to confirm/disconfirm this. Doesn't prevent it from being the fact of the matter.
(Which I do not accept. Consciousness CAN be public as far I'm concerned. I don't care if some guy invents the word "qualia" and postulates that it's private, he's wrong)

This stuff is so stupid.

[Anonymous No.21248875]

>>21241838
That's fine, but you're making the prima facie idiotic statement that consciousness is the universal substance, just because humans are conscious. That's a very clear, perhaps even self-admitted, fallacy of perspective. If "everything that exists is the pinnacle of existence", then you have to take into account that which is not conscious as also the pinnacle of existence. If that which is not conscious is the pinnacle of existence, then consciousness cannot be the "prime substance", because there is something more universally substantial than consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21248880]

>>21248866
I'm not that anon, but what do you think "was" before the Bing Bong? Or is the birth and death of everything in existence a constant cycle?

[Anonymous No.21248882]

>materialists think they can infer experience of an item through knowing its components

Oof.

[Anonymous No.21248891]

>"spirituals" doing deepities and playing word association

Oof.

[Anonymous No.21248893]

>>21239829
Object permanence is a lie created by the demiurge to trick us.

[Anonymous No.21248898]

>>21239862
>All of the anecdotal evidence is to the contrary in terms of NDE testimony.
There is a reason it's called "near-death" you know.

[Anonymous No.21248912]

>>21248893
If you were wrong about this.
How would you figure it out?

[Anonymous No.21248917]

>>21248898
yeah b-but stop! Stop being mean! Stop it!

[Anonymous No.21248921]

>>21248870
>I don't have to grant that experiences are private.
If you're silly enough to claim experiences aren't private then you're going to have to explain how two people can call a color by the same name, yet be seeing two different actual colors (eg, in the case of a color blind person and non-color blind person). And then you have to explain why this same problem doesn't apply to people without colorblindness to an even more challenging extent, in that you cannot verify that what they are seeing is actually the same, because they call everything by the same names.

[Anonymous No.21248930]

>>21248898
Yeah, it's a materialist linguistic cope because they don't want to admit there are after-death experiences. When the heart has stopped beating and the brain is no longer functioning, that is an after-death experience.

[Anonymous No.21248931]

>but, but, but NDEs
Doesn't this get embarrassing?

How does the soul see without eyes?
Why is the NDE "tethered" to a physical location in material reality?
Why don't the people having NDEs learn new information that the dead person couldn't know?

[Anonymous No.21248936]

>>21248921
>experiences aren't private
What's the justification for this?

Material reality is public
Experiences are material
Mental states are brain states

[Anonymous No.21248938]

>>21248931
because--shut up niggerfaggot! Stop it! Fuck you!

[Anonymous No.21248941]

>>21248921
Right. And that bullshit non-argument
is explained by people not having the same exact brain

[Anonymous No.21248949]

>>21248936
>What's the justification for this?
The justification I just gave you in my post. Read it again.

>Material reality is public
No, only linguistic and scientific-mathematical (which is a formalized extension of linguistic-) reality. Material reality is distorted by perceptual illusions and can appear different to different people.
>Experiences are material
This is begging the question because this is the question we are asking to begin with.
>Mental states are brain states
Correct, in which case experiences must be private because every mental state is unique to a particular person, and therefore private.

Now respond to my post above.

[Anonymous No.21248951]

>>21248921
People not experiencing "green" the same way is perfectly compatible with materialism
People experiencing "green" the same way is also perfectly compatible with materialism

[Anonymous No.21248956]

>>21248941
>is explained by people not having the same exact brain
That's the argument I'm making though. If we don't have the same brain, then experiences must be private. You don't understand that you're actually confirming the reality of private experience by confirming the inevitability of perceptual illusion. Perceptual illusion and material uniqueness means that all experience is private and can't be shared between states of matter, because if it were shared it would be a new state and no longer the old one which was unique.

[Anonymous No.21248970]

Whoever makes the next post is gay and also a big faggot

[Anonymous No.21248971]

>>21248949
>The justification I just gave you in my post
I didn't bother responding to it.
It's a shit justification.
What's the argument?

People with different brains (maybe?) see different greens. And you can't prove they don't <--- BEGGING THE QUESTION, btw. I reject that
Therefor
Experiences are public
?????

It's a hot mess

[Anonymous No.21248974]

>>21248951
>People not experiencing "green" the same way is perfectly compatible with materialism
No, it's not, because it means that qualia becomes ontologically irreducible.

[Anonymous No.21248990]

>>21248956
>If we don't have the same brain, then experiences must be private
This literally doesn't follow.
It's just nonsense.
Words strung together.

If 4channel, then experiences must be private
gibberish

>bla, bla, bla
This is just restating your position. Not an argument.
For public experiences to be impossible, that would mean that there was some kind of contradiction entailed.

[Anonymous No.21248993]

>>21248971
>What's the argument?
You're admitting that you're too stupid to understand it.
>People with different brains (maybe?) see different greens.
People with different brains verifiably (scientifically) see different greens, not "maybe", and consequently the mere possibility of every person (and the reality of even a single person) seeing unique qualia refutes the mere possibility of public experience and materialism. Without public experience, qualia are irreducible to material entities because we cannot ascertain what they are except WITHIN a given experience. Therefore, experiences are private. Your entire argument falls apart right here.

[Anonymous No.21248998]

>>21248974
If materialism is true
And you have 2 identical brains
Them experiencing the same green necessarily follows

as far I can understand

[Anonymous No.21248999]

>>21248990
>This is just restating your position. Not an argument.
I've already given you an argument that you still have refused to engage with by admitting your own ignorance. I'm restating it because you don't seem to understand anything.

[Anonymous No.21249005]

The problem people have is they're arguing about the same thing.

On one hand you have one side of crazies arguing consciousness is all there is, on the other hand you have people arguing physical stuff is all there is, then the faggots in the middle arguing there's both.

All of you are retarded faggots.

There is no such thing as physical or conscious only.
There is no such thing as physical and consciousness.

There is only a psycho-physico phenomena, that which is neither one stuff or the another, its neither both stuff.

[Anonymous No.21249009]

>>21249005
Uh oh we got a new challenger! and he's completely insane too!

[Anonymous No.21249012]

>>21248993
>the mere possibility of every person (and the reality of even a single person) seeing unique qualia refutes the mere possibility of public experience and materialism.
What's the justification for this. This is silly.

If every person has unique fingerprints.
That doesn't make fingerprints some sort of magical private special existence.

I find it extremely plausible that every person has an unique brain, and therefore has unique experiences.
It would be an actual miracle if two people happened to have the same exact physical brain state.

[Anonymous No.21249020]

>>21249005
>people arguing physical stuff is all there
Right. But I'm not rejecting that there's such a thing as consciousness.

[Anonymous No.21249026]

>>21237444
>>21237452
cope, seethe, and go to hell

[Anonymous No.21249033]

>>21248993
>People with different brains verifiably (scientifically) see different greens, not "maybe"
Don't you feel like a clown saying stuff like this?
Having this be a knowable thing, is incompatible with your position
If experiences are private, then how can you possibly know people experience different greens ???

Isn't your whole point that this, even in principle, cannot be known?

[Anonymous No.21249048]

>>21248999
>I've already given you an argument
That stuff about different greens that undermines your own position? You can't be serious
Please clearly state your argument. Premises -> conclusion

[Anonymous No.21249057]

>>21249005

[Anonymous No.21249089]

>Know the answer
>won't tell anyone because you'll steal my PhD thesis
Maybe next time, boys.

[Anonymous No.21249095]

>>21249089
LOL I also know The Answer but I won't reveal it in this thread because every one of you would actually irrevocably lose your minds

beat that, faggot >:)

[Anonymous No.21249100]

>>21249012
>What's the justification for this. This is silly.
Colorblindness is the justification for one person seeing a different thing when the names are agreed upon (so "reality is public" linguistically, but "private" materially, because one person is seeing a different qualia to another person, thereby refuting your position once). Then the theoretical impossibility of two human beings knowing the qualia experienced by the other is for the reason above but extended to a further scenario; in this case we do not have a verifiable mismatch of the ratio of names : qualia, because in the case of colorblindness, one qualia is eliminated whilst two names remain, so that we can scientifically detect the difference in qualia experienced by asking them questions. In the case of general human experience, there is (so we think) no mismatch between names : qualia, so we cannot verifiably match one qualia to two or more names (which would conclusively demonstrate an infungibility as in colorblindness), instead it is done by simple linguistic agreement, without anyone ever being able to know if the other person is actually seeing the same thing. All you know is that they name things the same way, it is only in the case of colorblindness that we can actually prove that two human beings are seeing different things under the same name because there is a ratio mismatch. So the conclusion is that in principle public experience is impossible given the reality of human individuality, the exact nature of qualia however is yet to be determined, all we know is that it cannot be the same as a "public matter" which is common to all in the same way, because we have demonstrated that qualia is not common to all in the same way.

[Anonymous No.21249102]

Forms are real, trust me bro

[Anonymous No.21249107]

>>21249048
>That stuff about different greens that undermines your own position?
Explain how it undermines my position and not yours, then I will maybe give you a simplistic answer for simplistic minds (if I think you are arguing in good faith).

[Anonymous No.21249112]

>>21249095
Consciousness is obviously a simulation generated via the genetic code of the organism within which the consciousness inheres as a material property.

Just ignore me, though. Please go back to arguing over where the windows OS comes from and what happens to it after the computer gets tossed in the garbage.

[Anonymous No.21249135]

>>21249112
>Consciousness is obviously a simulation generated via the genetic code of the organism within which the consciousness inheres as a material property.
lol THAT'S your PhD? What does PhD stand for? Please help Daddy?

nah sorry man I'm just kidding, what exactly is this consciousness simulating though? Is it a 1:1 simulation of all the other materials around it? A 3:1 simulation?

[Anonymous No.21249148]

>>21249100
Damn dude why are you using such big words and shit? Can you just spell it out for me instead of alienating me?

[Anonymous No.21249157]

>>21249100
>one person is seeing a different qualia to another person, thereby refuting your position once)
I really don't understand why you think 2 different people looking at the same object and seeing it differently refutes my position.
This is perfectly compatible with my position. You just keep telling me it isn't.

I don't think a colorblind person is seeing the 'same' thing as someone with perfect color vision. They can't they don't got the equipment.
>But, but, but, they use the same word: Green!
Yeah. No shit.
They've been trained into the use of the same language: English
When mommy point at the grass, they have been trained to make the same noise: Green!
How is this unexpected?
Why is this incompatible with materialism?

Always try this litmus test.
Very smart people have thought a lot about this topic.
But then you think your story about the color green just debunk 1 side forever. It's so silly.
Ask yourself this: If your argument worked, why are there still people holding to the position it "refutes"?

Just to be very clear about what I'm trying to do in this conversation.
I'm not trying to say that your position is impossible.
I'm trying to stop you from saying mine is. That's what I'm resisting.

It just should be fucking obvious. Bunch of people hold to this position. It's not impossible. Give people some credit.
It's not this easily proven impossible/debunked, by you telling a story about colours.
There is something fundamentally wrong with how you compare your position to others.

[Anonymous No.21249179]

>>21249107
You said it was scenically known that people have different greens

How can this be known, if people's qualia are private...
It should be unknowable in principle.

People could see the same green, or they could see different greens.
Being able to scientifically investigate people's "qualia to determine they are seeing different greens, that means it's public.

Colorblindness is a red herring.
Of course people are experiencing different greens, when they literally are seeing different greens
What's more interesting is if they are experiencing different greens, if they are seeing the same green --- Which would be a question outside the domain of science, if experiences are private...


I'm starting to suspect your confusion is, what is meant by experiences being private/public

[Anonymous No.21249188]

>>21249157
>You just keep telling me it isn't.
I've explained to you in detail why it isn't. I'm not going to bother any more. Save my last post somewhere important and study it when you have the time, you'll probably learn more from it than you will from most of the contemporary debates on this subject. The "problem of qualia" and public experience, if you haven't noticed it yet, is a confusion of the linguistic-conceptual with the perceptual. The only thing that is actually (or at least possibly) common to all is the conceptual-linguistic faculty of our own minds. Qualia represent their own conceptual reality and are irreducible as such, matter represents its own conceptual reality and is irreducible as such. Both of these concepts can be reduced to the "universal", ie a generalization created conceptually, which is why there is a tendency to confuse them with each other in the universal, which will then lead to one person claiming that qualia is just a configuration of matter, or that matter is just a configuration of qualia.
>Very smart people have thought a lot about this topic.
There are a lot of very smart people who are very egotistical, and paradoxically stupid.

[Anonymous No.21249216]

>>21249188
You seriously don't think you are doing some sort of mistake?

Are you the only person with this special knowledge, running this unbeatable argument
Or has it made its way into the public?
It feels like you are committed to some sort of conspiracy. Where everyone is Satanic, denying the truth that they know deep down.

How do you explain away your arguments failure to persuade people?

[Anonymous No.21249231]

>>21249179
>You said it was scenically known that people have different greens
>How can this be known, if people's qualia are private...
Scientifically known, not known as a public experience of matter (of hypothetical qualia). In this case, as I've already said, it is by comparing the answers of human respondents to a common sense object, nothing more and nothing less. Qualia can be private, but the edge case of color blindness is the perfect case study of how we can know that there is a mismatch between linguistic ("public reality") and material or perceptual reality ("private reality"). So while we do not have access to the qualia of the colorblind person, we do have scientific knowledge that there is not a common qualia in at least one respect, and therefore that reality is not "public" between at least this person and one other person.
>What's more interesting is if they are experiencing different greens, if they are seeing the same green --- Which would be a question outside the domain of science, if experiences are private...
This is implied by everything I've said. I've already demonstrated that this cannot be answered because qualia are private, unless there is a ratio mismatch, ie a mismatch in quantity between names and qualia (scientific knowledge naturally only has access to quantitative determinations, not qualitative, "qualia", determinations). My answer is not a misunderstanding of terms, you are confused because I am starting at the very foundation necessary to correct your misunderstanding. There is plenty that follows from what I've said, but the basic reasoning and understanding of facts is more important.

[bodhi No.21249244]

>>21237722

[Anonymous No.21249322]

>>21249231
I really don't understand what you are trying to draw out from colorblindness
Their eyes are not functioning normally, they are literally not seeing the same thing as someone with colour vision.

Feels the same as saying someone wearing sunglasses are reporting a thing to be darker
than someone else who is not wearing sunglasses and looking at the same object
...okay
What's that supposed to make us think?

[Anonymous No.21249324]

>>21248930
>the brain is no longer functioning,
Are there any real cases of someone whose brain has fully ceased coming back?
Also even if a person actually did why would we have any reason to believe their purported experiences were truly after-death, v.s the last moments before brain totally ceased functioning?
Impossible to know.

[Anonymous No.21249339]

>>21248912
I'm neither wrong nor right about this.
Object permanence is not real. The demiurge is manipulating the neural fibers. This has been proven repeatedly by many verifiable sources.

[Anonymous No.21249345]

>>21249322
>What's that supposed to make us think?
Neither the sunglasses wearer or the non-wearer can be trusted to report seeing the material object "as it is". I am also not the anon you're responding to, my man

[Anonymous No.21249346]

>>21249244
Why dont you fuck right back off over there you retard.

[Anonymous No.21249353]

>>21249324
>Are there any real cases of someone whose brain has fully ceased coming back?
This is brain death, my guy. As far as I know there is no way back from brain death. Brain death="real" death. It's non-refundable. After brain death you've gone beyond retarded, your brain is now completely inert, it might as well be a rock on a barren hillside.

[Anonymous No.21249382]

>>21249324
>Are there any real cases of someone whose brain has fully ceased coming back
No, because by that point your body is going into full self-destruction mode. Death is ot a purely degenerative process, it is active, and when enough brain cells die, it triggers a cascade which kills off all remaining brain cells.

[Anonymous No.21249392]

>>21249353
Oh I would also like to add something to this post. I think it's interesting that "your" body can still "live" after your brain has died if you're hooked up to life support, but "you" are gone from the body. It's just weird because it raises more questions like where do "I" begin and where does my body begin? They can't be one and the same because like I just said, you can be completely brain dead (skull is full of lifeless flesh transmitting no signals) but your heart can still beat and lungs still draw breath. This might just be an issue because of modern medicine giving people the ability to continue to hold onto lifeless clay that they insist on calling their loved one, but nonetheless it says something about the difference between mind/brain/body. Spooky shit.

[Anonymous No.21249398]

Consciousness is a survival strategy, a useful tool for survival and reproduction. It is a complex system of communication between instinct, senses and memory, resulting in an advanced ability to not just react to, but also analyze, predict, plan, and make use of the resources in surrounding biotopes in a competitive way which benefits the species.

[bodhi No.21249402]

>>21249346
how about you wrap my ass cheeks around your face and suck out a wet fart lover boy?

[Anonymous No.21249414]

>>21249398
Is an intelligent predator like a leopard "conscious" by this metric? I mean, those motherfuckers can calculate

[Anonymous No.21249416]

>>21249414
Hare hare krishna rama rama hare krishna hare hare hare

[Anonymous No.21249421]

>>21249398
People could literally be doing the exact same thing they are doing, without being conscious
that's what animals are doing

[Anonymous No.21249422]

shit I meant to say >>21249416 to >>21249402

[Anonymous No.21249424]

>>21249414
Something could be capable of calculation and planning, without there being a reflective *I*
Consciousness is superfluous

[bodhi No.21249427]

>>21249422
https://ugetube.com/watch/little-krishna-speaks-with-lord-brahma-extract_uHm2dZ2JqVOujyz.html

[Anonymous No.21249437]

>>21249414
Absolutely. There is no one type of consciousness, it's evolved in different ways in many different species, depending on what mutations have arisen, and whether or not other factors in that species biology allows it to make good use of those mutations.

[Anonymous No.21249472]

>>21249353
Right that was my point. I was asking it more as a hypothetical question. I'm aware that brain death is final.
My point was even if someone did come back & said they had certain experiences we'd have no way to verify whether or not those experiences were actually "after", & not in the last seconds of the brain dying being weird

[Anonymous No.21249503]

>>21249244
You are way too advanced to be trying to talk to the knuckle draggers here. You may as well be showing them schematics to a nuclear bomb or a drawing of the anatomy of some alien species on Venus

[Anonymous No.21249504]

>>21249472
Ah yeah, yeah I see what you mean. I don't even know dawg, but if it were possible to somehow set back brain death AND come back as the "same" person, I think that would raise so many more interesting questions about consciousness/the soul.

[Anonymous No.21249510]

>>21249503
>>21249244
I love you bodhi but it appears you are samefagging here

[bodhi No.21249533]

>>21249510
I am not the only person here who isnt brain damaged. There are others that know. I dont make these threads

[bodhi No.21249538]

>>21249510
this is fun
https://ugetube.com/watch/sita-sings-the-blues-the-ramayana_XnwlgHmimKKYU9k.html

[Anonymous No.21249542]

>>21249533
OK but can you at least say "I love you" back please? Please say it

[Anonymous No.21249552]

>>21249542
I love you anon

[bodhi No.21249557]

>>21249542
kek that isnt me. I love you bro

[Anonymous No.21249562]

>>21249552
Bless you. I love you too. No matter what you may or may not have done. I love you too, and you deserve joy.

[Anonymous No.21249567]

>>21249557
Thank you sir! I love you, bodhi! May you live forever

[bodhi No.21249572]

>>21249567
that would be boring, I prefer a new face and a new life *wink*

[Anonymous No.21249581]

>>21249572
What's the difference between that and living forever? I mean shit, given that you and I are the same person and all, and the other guy who responded that he loved me, he is me and you too, and the other guys having an argument about colorblindness, they are us, and we are them, yes?

[bodhi No.21249604]

>>21249581
yes but we must evolve, we experience what we were sent hereto experience, then we graduate this grade (loka) and we move on to experience the lesson on our journey to become a monad. Hoefully one day we will sit at the table with Lord Krishna and hopefully he will have some new mysteries for us

[Anonymous No.21249878]

>>21237439
It's the universe experiencing itself.

[Anonymous No.21249950]

>>21249878
It's me cumming inside my own ass.

[Anonymous No.21250350]

>>21248870
Dumbest poster ITT

[Anonymous No.21250363]

>>21248931
>How does the soul see without eyes?
Eyes aren't the subject experience of sight you brainlet, does a camera "see things"?
Do you "see things" with your eyes when you dream?

[Anonymous No.21250381]

>>21249005
Patrician neutral monist enters the chat

[Anonymous No.21250403]

>>21249112
You haven't explained the phenomena though lmao?
Materialists all seem to be utter retards incapable of actual thought.

[Anonymous No.21250405]

>>21249102
2 + 2 = 4
Refute this. You won't.

[Anonymous No.21250423]

>>21249157
The simple fact is subjective first person experience isn't material. It may derive from material (it doesn't) but its not concrete and physical, it's something else mental and immaterial. This is proved by the unfalsifiability of idealism i.e. prove the physical world around you isn't illusory. You can't. Thus material is contingent upon the mind. You can however logically prove your mental existence "cogito ergo sum".

The fact you can't even understand this simple fact means everything else that spews from your MIND is polluted hylic garbage.

[Anonymous No.21250456]

>>21249353
Wrong
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-bring-cells-in-dead-pigs-back-to-life-180980557/

[Anonymous No.21250465]

>>21249398
You haven't explained anything retard, you've just just said why consciousness is useful.

It is uniquely different and mysterious and inexplicable especially to midwits.