'>>37759221
For me it's the complete opposite. I thought, and wanted to believe, that there is nothing behind this corporeal world but now I cannot deny that there exists something after death.
And there are far more horrible things than death';

'>>37759261
What worse than death? It's literally the end of your consciousness, it's non existence for an eternity. Some people are unfortunate to die in undignified ways too, which makes their deaths even more disgusting. I hate a lot of people in this world, I wouldn't even wish death on my worst enemy.';

'>>37759293
The brain only inhibits consciousness.
And I would rather not talk about it';

'>>37759310
P.S and even if I would, you wouldn't understand';

'>>37759320
Why bring it up then? Hell is worse than death if true, because eternal torment is by no means a just system.';

'>>37759221
Anyone who is a materialist and isn't a vegan is no better than a child molester.';

'>>37759343
I eat eggs and fish, I'm not guilty about eating to survive. I don't eat other land mammals.';

'>>37759358
Here's your eggs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CcTxgggTzE
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22374193/eggs-chickens-animal-welfare-culling';

'>>37759338
Well you are the one who started this discussion. I just gave you my point of view. Or did you want someone to jerk your ideas?
Words confuse and distort meaning.
Some things that are understood cannot be explained.';

'>>37759338
Life sows it fields with souls, some flourish some don't.
Who am I to go against it?';

'>>37759293
samsara and hell
hell isnt even immortality, just you experiencing your annihilation in slow motion';

'>>37759320
I would like to try if anyone bothered explaining, but people just go "Nah you wouldn't get it"
Which only leaves me to think there isnt really any evidence';

'Materialists are the NPCs. That's why the demons want the world to be communist, then all people would be force-indoctrinated to be atheist materialists. A world of NPCs.';

'>>37759221
Go back nigger jew shill.';

'>>37759710
>its not confirmation bias
>1 billion people cant be wrong';

'Metaphysical materialism would just entail that reality can be explained in physical laws. Things like ghosts for example could exist but they have to ultimately explained in those terms.';

'>>37759221
>>we're driven by biochemistry and complex neurological impulses. There is no soul.
Sounds like you already have your mind made up';

'>>37761227
I'm willing to be proven wrong, so far in this thread no one has really contributed anything.';

'>>37759221
>all humans for the most part act the same, there is little to no uniqueness in the quality of people you meet
people are definitely more alike than they are different, though this doesn't disprove the existence of souls or life after death
>we're driven by biochemistry and complex neurological impulses. There is no soul.
this would seem to be the case.
> I'm currently working on a materialist explanation for near death experiences and out of body experiences, have yet to publish my works, have been researching for 3 years.
the explanation is extremely straightforward. everything you will ever experience exists in your mind. any near death/out of body experiences are simply hallucinations.
>evolution speaks for itself, I can simply put that here.
I don't see this as being super relevant other than to explain why humans are the way they are but yeah anyone who doesn't believe in natural selection + random mutation giving rise to new species is just foolish
> I don't believe in transhumanism, not because it's right or wrong, there is no such thing as mind uploading and saving continuity of consciousness in a medium other than the brain you're born with.
I think you're trying to imply here that there would be no continuity of consciousness. what is there to say? it's definitely curious that it feels LIKE something to BE something. I presume for the uploaded mind, if it has all its memories, the continuity would be seamless.
>world sucks
yea it kind of does. being alive is a raw deal. could be better.';

'>>37759338
>why even bring it up
to sound important, ego inflation';

'>>37761227
I mean theres no evidence to the contrary. People love to wax poetical about the soul till they get Gaged.';

'undefined';

'>>37761274
>>37761413
There's no evidence in a 2D world that a 3rd dimension can exist. Do you understand what I'm saying? There CANNOT be evidence for it because it has no component whatsoever in the plane, and no amount of 2D logic will ever construct that missing dimension because it cannot be reduced down to anything in the plane.

So too with logic. If you're holding on to a subset of reality, and something from beyond your closure slaps you in the face you'd have no choice but to call it an illusion, because it cannot be reduced down to anything you already know.

Every human being knows what consciousness is, and yet despite _knowing_ what it is even the smartest philosophers of all time have been unable to define it...
Usually people think that means it doesn't exist, but on the contrary. To know something without being able to define it _necessarily_ implies that you're dealing with something that's not reducible into any terms you already understand.
You're dealing with a missing axiom of reality.

And in fact, it's the axiom upon which the entire concept of "matter" is built. Matter has always been a theory to explain why you observe what you do, but it's missing the simple fact that you _observe_ in the first place, which precedes any idea built on top of observation.
Modern science has thrown the ground of reality into the trash, and it's no wonder they can't find it again. Nothing inside a subsystem can ever point to something outside that system.';

'What’s your opinion on a progenitor ? With the Darwinian structure of life. I find most do not want to address this problem and create retarded fantasies Such as reincarnation which no one givens any logical proofs for it’s likelihood.';

'>>37759221
this philosophy stems from autism. you believe brains are like computers and can't see outside of your autism';

'>>37759221
serial experiments lain is the best argument for materialist spirituality. it's incredibly rare to meet an intelligent spiritual materialist that doesn't love Lain.
SEL isn't the best thing ever.....but it's damn close';

'>>37761875
>a fucking anime';

'>>37759221
You need to look up the hard problem of consciousness.';

'>>37759221
Materialism proves that we don't know.
There are things that aren't measurable by human senses, possibly even more that aren't measurable by the equipment we have now.

You can reason some dude who saw a skinwalker was just having a hallucination, you could say a group of people who all say they saw an alien got mass psychosis, but these are lazy copes for being just as confused. That or someone doesn't want you to know.';

'>>37761274
Like this anon says >>37761671
There can't be evidence of a 3D plane in a 2D world, we can only conceptualise it.
But I'll go a bit further and say that we exist in a 4D world, which is within us.
Consciousness, and the ability to create, imagine, feel and transfrom ourselves as beings, stem from the 4th dimension.
>It can't really be proven the same way we can't prove that everyone sees the same colours, we just assume everybody does';

'>>37759221
go back nigger faggot jew shill';

'>>37762242
an alien would be materialistic though
and its perfectly possible, like the piraha tribe mass hallucinating their god on the beach while Everett stands there confused';

'>>37759221
I think you will find picrel very helpful in your research.';

'What thinker thinks the prover proves.';

'>>37761875
What is the best?';

'>>37759293
>It's literally the end of your consciousness, it's non existence for an eternity.
You make it sound like end to all suffering would be a bad thing. I would choose that this instant even if it meant end to all fleeting enjoyments that eventually without exception leads back to dukkha.';

'The problem with materialism is the existence of consciousness. Objectively, material reality would seem to hold primacy. However, by own subjective experience filters it all through consciousness. You then realize all human experience is filtered through conscious experience . At that point, you realize that material reality is an agreed upon construct. What reality is is what we experience through our senses. However, its not the object we agree upon but the subjectivity itself. I'm not arguing a postmodernist position here. However I'm pointing out that our conscious lived experience carries more primacy than the objective reality we observe. Phenomenologivally, spirit and mind are problematic to the materialist worldview. In reality, its what the universe may actually be made up of. Material reality is an abstraction of it. If that's the case, then psyche is something stitched in the fabric of reality and not just a mere, fleeting aberration of it. If that's the case your consciousness is part if the fabric of reality and the idea that we cease to be forever is a misconception. Your consciousness is likely something that always has been and always will be. There's no escape. The only thing that continually changes is the form that the consciousness takes.';

'https://youtu.be/DNGT0uYPHAo?si=DPTgGTT_fPfNbqfe

Here's a good video on the topic.';

'>>37761836
>I find most do not want to address this problem and create retarded fantasies Such as reincarnation

Reincarnation is very logical. Your consciousness is incarnated now in its current ego form. You know the possibility of it incarnating once is possible simply because you're here. Its illogical to think it can't happen again and again and that it hasn't already happened an infinite number of times. The same is true of the big bang. We know one big bang is possible simply because were here. Its illogical at some point to assume it never happened before and will never happen again.';

'>>37764057
literature like The Passion According to G.H.';

'Here you go OP';

'>>37766042
literally means nothing
fight against fucking what? nothingness?
how do you find a dog fighting a metal collar he will never be able to break? silly? that's how you look fighting against what cannot be fought against.';

'>>37766667
You can't see the bigger picture OP';

'>>37766679
not op
is this what you feel like?

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

if yes then i understand';

'>>37766724
Isn't it fighting 'tho?';

'>>37759710
You are right. But capitalists are materialists also.';

'>>37764695
Also this. Problem with materialism is consciousness. Consciousness/Awareness is one thing that we can call spirit.';

'>>37764783
I mean philosophical proofs your making blind assertions which you have no Evidence for. Ie proofs for the souls, why there would be a continuation etc.';

'>>37759221
Then where does the material world and it's laws come from?';

'Niggas out here be so intellectually lazy.';

'>>37759221
>I don't believe in transhumanism, not because it's right or wrong, there is no such thing as mind uploading and saving continuity of consciousness in a medium other than the brain you're born with.
This is kind of an odd one out in the context of your other points.

According to most philosophical materialists, consciousness is merely the result of neural activity in the brain. It's just information processing. If all that activity can also be carried out in a silicon processor or some other system isomorphic to the human brain, then in principle consciousness can exist in artificial systems.

For the record, I don't believe this is the case at all. I actually agree with you on this. I only point it out because most philosophical materialists believe it's possible.';

'>>37761436
>Wireheading Done Right
Andres Gomez Emilsson is so based';

'>>37759221
i used to feel the need to try to help people in a position like this, to deconstruct their assumptions and guide them to see reality as it really is. but i have this feeling about you that the attempt wouldn't be worth the effort. like you are trying to convince yourself that you are right instead of us, because you'd maybe be afraid if it was more than you thought. not a single one of your green texts is true and/or complete, you have a half education. which is why people who hold points of view like this are mediocre intellectuals. i cant blame you, but i hope things will change eventually';

'>>37759221
K, keep me posted';

'>>37759221
When are you going to wake up from the idiot soup of empiricism? Almost everything you're talking about there is shit you've been spoonfed. You're absolutely encumbered with the vocabulary and concepts of other people. What you need to realize OP is that no human that ever walked this earth has been identical to you, nobody else has thought and felt in the exact same way and your subjective experience and fate and "death" will be just as unique. By paying too much attention to things outside your own subjective reality tunnel all you're doing is burying your head in the sand.';

'>>37761274
Well materialism hasn't been proven either
Making up reasoning as to why people behave a certain way doesn't prove that is the case';

'>>37759221
Your reality confirms itself, you wish to doubt so the reality appears to support it.
Do some experiments open mindedly like feeling your energy or predicting what card comes up next.';

'>>37769753
do you have the full meme';

'>>37759221
>there is no such thing as mind uploading and saving continuity of consciousness in a medium other than the brain you're born with.
There is no materialist reasoning for this.';

'>>37761671
>Nothing inside a subsystem can ever point to something outside that system.
Not true in the slightest. Things inside subsystems HAVE to point to things outside the subsystem or else they are useless and not a subsystem.';

'>>37766770
The thing is, in capitalism religion is not restricted. In communism it is. In Russia and China people got sent to labor camps just for being "too reigious".';

'>>37770402
>in capitalism religion is not restricted.
Of course it is. Those with capital can force their religion and those without have no recourse.
You likely think there is some safeguard against this, but that is in place historically to limit and confine capitalism.';

'>>37770396
That's not how logic works. The definition of what's inside the system is all possible statements that can be made given the axioms of that system.
If you can reference something outside the system then it would NOT be outside, it would (by definition) be inside the system.

I already gave you an example even. Can you refute my example?
A 2D world. You have 2 unit vectors: x and y. They form a subsystem of a higher space which contains x,y,z, but it's absolutely impossible for you to reference the z-axis using only what is given in the x,y plane in any possible way.
Because they're all orthogonal. The z axis cannot be reduced to any components of x and y.

I use vectors as an analogy because most people aren't familiar with the concept of _axioms_, but that's exactly how axioms behave.
1 axiom CANNOT be reduced to any terms involving other axioms, or they wouldn't be axioms. Axioms are logically orthogonal. Any statement you can make from those axioms is by definition inside the system, and nothing outside the system can be referenced by those axioms.';

'>>37770816
>The definition of what's inside the system is all possible statements that can be made given the axioms of that system.
Then it is no longer a subsystem, but an entirely separate and unconnected system.
> Can you refute my example?
Easily. Any object with a z dimension can still exist in part in a coordinate system with z. this is easily and logically explained in flatworld, if you want to try and use this as your metaphor.';

'>>37770824
>a coordinate system without* z';

'>>37770824
>Any object with a z dimension can still exist in part in a coordinate system with z.
That has nothing to do with the fact that you still can't reference that z coordinate by only talking about x and y.

You're talking about something else. What you're talking about is the idea that you must exist in the highest system, and I agree with that. So because you exist in true reality then you will always be able to find things outside any subsystem and "escape" it.
Yes, that's true.
But that doesn't mean you get outside the subsystem by ONLY referencing terms inside the subsystem. My point is that you can't.

You can only see what's beyond a system of logic by simply seeing it. You CANNOT reduce something outside the system into terms inside the system.
So in the example with the z-axis. Yes, you can still have a z coordinate, but if your logical language ONLY contains x and y, then your z coordinate CANNOT be expressed in that logical language. Because it's something fundamentally new. Something fundamentally distinct from x and y, and the only logical course is to observe that your logical language is missing something (i.e. the z-axis) and then add a NEW axiom called "z" into your logical language.';

'>>37770855
>That has nothing to do with the fact that you still can't reference that z coordinate by only talking about x and y.
But you can by understanding there is an influence on the system with unknowns. You may not understand or even be able to conceptualize the unknown, but you CAN talk about there being an unknown and how it impacts your subsystem.
If it doesnt impact, then there is no subsystem. there are two completely unconnected systems.
>But that doesn't mean you get outside the subsystem by ONLY referencing terms inside the subsystem.
And no one has argued that. You arent listening to what I said.
Any subsystem will have things that point outside that system. Otherwise it is not a subsystem.';

'>>37761671
>Modern science has thrown the ground of reality into the trash
>>37764695
>our conscious lived experience carries more primacy than the objective reality we observe.
Your logic is ungrounded. By default/from birth we are solipsists but then we (atheists) become ''materialists'' (which is a misnomer by the way because even atheistic materialists are dualistic). Therefore you need to address why materialism is compelling and you need to do a better job than ''muh jewish indoctrination''.

One compelling reason starts with object permanence. When something/someone ''disappears'' outside our perception we imagine that the object continues to exist and we confirm that imagination to be true with observation. The next reasonable step after object permanence is called theory of mind: we must assume that other people are thinking and feeling because disregarding the NPC meme people act as if they think and feel in a manner that we can predict based on our own thougts and feelings even though we can't observe their thoughts and feelings. It follows that the stuff we observe has an invisible component: the brain = conscious. That is the duality of materialism. Material already has a dual aspect like a coin with two sides. It doesn't need extra sauce.';

'>>37771024
But how does that invisible thing arise from matter, which it is otherwise completely distinct from.

Wouldnt it make more sense to say that consciousness is a field like the higgs field, that encompasses all of existence, and that brains made of matter merely serve as receivers of this field to give rise to qualia.

Because in that sense consciousness and matter are once again made into one and the same thing since matter also arises from quantum field fluctuations and isn’t actually a real tangible thing on its own, and mass arises from particles interacting with the higgs field, and is also not a fundamental property.

And this all can be easily asserted through the Ship of Theseus thought experiment, where one realizes that the so called permanence, doesnt exist, everything changes every moment, even if only for a single atom, thus since one cannot say when the old thing became the new thing we have only 2 options.

1. Everything is a distinct separate island of existence from every other thing (Buddhism)
2. Everything is fundamentally different forms of the one and the same eternal permanent thing (Non-Dualism/Advaita Vedanta)';

'>>37771268
>arise from matter
Basically there are two types of materialism: 1) the brain produces consciousness 2) the brain is conscious. You seem to refer to 1 and I refer to 2. Perhaps 2 is a little bit similar to panpsychism in the sense that every thing that exists already has the quality of what it's like to be that thing. We can't imagine what it's like to be a rock because a rock doesn't have perception or cognition so to an atheistic materialist to be a rock is to be like a dead body: nothing. But to perceive and to cognize is just one particular kind of being. What it's like to be a thing = how the thing is organized/structured in relation to other things.

>consciousness is a field that encompasses all of existence
This view is similar to the kind of materialism I'm referring to but with a few key differences: 1) instead of the brain receiving the field I propose that the brain is part of the field. There is no difference between the field and everything we observe. Some parts of the field are humanly conscious because of the humanly way the field is structured at that particular location in space and time.The advantage of this view is parsimony: less assumptions than religious dualism, idealism, panpsychism and the signal/radio analogy.

>2. Everything is fundamentally different forms of the one and the same eternal permanent thing
Except we are the temporary form and not the permanent thing. Look at a mosaic: the picture does not manifest as fragments but the fragments appear to make a picture.';

'>>37759221
Matter does not exist outside the Mind.';

'>>37771684
> Except we are the temporary form and not the permanent thing. Look at a mosaic: the picture does not manifest as fragments but the fragments appear to make a picture.

Thats exactly what I meant when I divided the 2 possible interpretations.

Either empty individualism where every moment of existence is different from the other, thus there is no such thing as a permanent self or atman, and thus anatta or no-self.

Or we identify the self to be equivalent to the conscious experience/awareness that possesses qualia, and at its very core seems to be absolutely essential for the existence of everything, and appears to be indivisible/is singular and unified.

I prefer the latter because ethically it makes more sense, since if we acknowledge the existence of other states of consciousness beyond the present moment, then temporally there is no way to distinguish them from ourselves, even if there is no illusory ego/memory to seemingly link them together.

Thus all is one, we are all the same eternal consciousness, and death and birth are an illusion.';

'>>37759221
Sometimes I wish I could go back for a moment to being a delusional materialist who’s never had metaphysical experiences. Must be bliss being so sure of oneself based on faith alone. It feels lonely (for “me”) to be like the only guy in town who can glimpse beyond the veil and not understand a fucking thing except I am. You know OP, you’ll be in for a ride once you die. You will spend your lifetime thinking about matter and get a short circuit from horror after death and realizing you are still conscious, for a time, slowly disintegrating like a dream. It’s what makes NDE people crazy sometimes.';

'>>37771914
>I prefer the latter because ethically it makes more sense
Because you are short-changing ''empty'' individualism. Instead consider ''open'' individualism: we are all in the same environment and what's outside the form is also inside the form. Some part of the soil brings forth a weed and another part of the soil brings forth a flower: it's an ethical perspective because weeds and flowers can't blame or praise what they are.
>acknowledge the existence of other states of consciousness beyond the present moment
That's not a discerning factor between material and spiritual worldviews.

>Thus all is one, we are all the same eternal consciousness
There's a huge flaw from an ethical perspective: the one awareness is very concerned about what happens with the particular experience at a particular point in space-time. The one awareness loves darwinistic struggle between its split personalities. This passion extinguishes itself when you realize that you will go like a candle in the wind.

What no one seems to address is why atheistic materialism leads to darwinism and nihilism instead of the zen buddhist view of losing such passion and living a frictionless life.';

'>>37759221
Science is a product of the human mind. You have to use something beyond your own mind in order to understand more. The problem is that you're convinced that your human mind is the only mind your consciousness has access to. My advice would be to isolate yourself and do intense mediation or consume large amounts of hallucinogenic drugs. Starving yourself also seems to work. Then maybe you'll see outside the walls of your human mind..';

'>>37772358
>do intense mediation or consume large amounts of hallucinogenic drugs. Starving yourself
Why would you need to do these physical acts, since they are all within my mind? How do these things in my mind help when you say I need something outside the mind?
How is that even possible when you insist EVERYTHING is in the mind?
You self-contradict.';

'>>37772358
Tell me about the starvation path. How long for?';

'>>37773887
Less questioning more starving yourself';

'>>37774051
As long as you can. Don't drink any liquid for 24 hours.';

'>>37773887
You need to use something from within your mind as a tool to get out of it. Think of it like being in a prison trying to escape. You can't really use something from outside the prison to get out. You have to rig together whatever you can from the inside.';

'>>37776578
>You have to use something beyond your own mind in order to understand more.
>You need to use something from within your mind as a tool to get out of it.
>The problem is that you're convinced that your human mind is the only mind your consciousness has access to.
Self contradictory.';

'>>37771024
>When something/someone ''disappears'' outside our perception we imagine that the object continues to exist and we confirm that imagination to be true with observation.
Wrong. This was debunked. In fact, in 2022 three physicists were awarded the nobel prize for debunking this theory.';

'>>37777628
How'd they prove it?';

'>>37777193
>something beyond your own mind
Nothing is "beyond Mind" apart from the Absolute Self. But everything valuable abides beyond the confines of the Ego.';

'>>37777738
>beyond Mind
There is a reason you capitalized this, and I did not.
And you know this, and you ignore it anyway to argue.';

'>>37777755
Capitalized it because it's a core aspect/ simple as';

'OP is confused from uncritically accepting popsci narratives instead of using scientific knowledge to develop more accurate concepts. And /x/ fails to realize that what they see as the materialist view is a strawman which has been abandoned by science since Newton. The strawman only serves to excuse a lack of rigor, and to avoid the demand for a scientific approach the counternarratives hide behind unintelligibles with miraculous(ly) convenient legible consequences. The popsci narrative reinforces this by, in the case of consciousness, equating explanans with explanandum, or matter and form. As though matter understood by science were a criterion for existence instead of a qualification for the phenomenon of inertia. The common counternarrative on consciousness refuses to explain and only posits soul-stuff into which all consciousness-phenomena can be stuffed. As with popsci materialism, this alone is not a meaningful scientific claim. This leaves only two options for further development, either pure and useless mysticism optionally with socially mediated miracles, or recapitulating a scientific approach on the soul-side and falling into isekai materialism. As God is dead, materialism wins either way.

Now that it is clear both sides are not even wrong, we can ask: Why does the "materialist" side win and not the "idealist" side? Why is the former the mainstream narrative?
>all humans for the most part act the same, there is little to no uniqueness in the quality of people you meet
How related? The "materialist" view is more correctly the "managerial" view. An ideology for the masses adapted to the cybernetic socialist dream. The counternarrative acts in lockstep by either making serious investigation into strategically relevant phenomena impossible, or distracting attention from useful actions by refusing to make falsifiable claims. Whether the phenomena are real or not, the "counternarrative" poisons the well either way. They can't imagine any real new path.';

'>>37759293
Even conscious nothingness would be worse than death. Eternal consciousness alone in nothingness. Not existing sounds nicer.

I have some thoughts that go against your views. I’ve always been fascinated by the concept of ”self-deception”. In purely materialist world view, how is that possible, and why would it even be? Why do we need to subconsciously manipulate ourselves to do things? The mechanism is so strong, that even people who have seen something happen can manipulate themselves into believing it never happened.
Having our mind split into cosncious and unconscious parts, both of which capable of making decisions, wouldn’t make any sense from deterministic point of view.';

'Despite materialism being the mainstream position for over a century, the vast majority of people (in the West) are dualists, without realizing it.
>mind over matter';

'>>37778210
i think they are still materialists because their conception of what mind is takes on a physicality.

A ghost made of ectoplasm is materialism. A spirit having a presence that is conceived of as being within physical locality but just being invisible is materialist.

A ghost inhabiting a haunted house is a materialist view. A haunted house symbolically referencing a nonphysical state in which ghosts are present is more dualism i think.';

'> > I don't believe in transhumanism, not because it's right or wrong, there is no such thing as mind uploading and saving continuity of consciousness in a medium other than the brain you're born with.

1. That statement is neither a part of the materialistic viewpoint nor a implication of it.
2. In fact, his is specutlation.
At the current state of knowleade, we don't know. The question whether we will ever know can not be answered yet.
I believe that there will be an answer but I'm ot sure, which one.

We don't know what consciousness is. Some neurologicsts and philosophes discuss this topic but their points of view are merely speculations.

>> >The world itself is a cold and scary place. Imagine the worst thing a human can possibly do on many gore sites; nature has been doing this for billions of years. I see little evidence for some benevolent god when the type of universe we reside in exist.

I would say that his statement is neither true nor false. Its a question reagarding individual judgment, everybody has a right to answer it to themself.
If we thing about this as a logical statment which has to be true or false, I would argue that its impossibile for us to know the answer, for us humans.

We feel that the world is cruel and grusome for some animals. For the prey. What is with the lion which catch the prey?
For him, this sucess just means life.';

'>>37759221
>>all humans for the most part act the same, there is little to no uniqueness in the quality of people you meet
You are using npcs to form your opinion. When people gain true consciousness of the soul, they act in ways which are more unique and can conceive of thoughts that aren't conformant to the dominant social views of the day.
If anything, the stupidity of normies and their unquestioning acceptance of materialism should be a clue that it isn't the end all be all of intelligent awareness of reality.';

'>>37777764
Because what you are talking about and what I was talking about are not the same thing.
But fine, let's take your Mind, which makes it even worse.
What is outside Mind? Because that is what you said is the only way to comprehend.
Or rather, that WASNT what was said, but you changed it to that and now it makes even less sense.';

'>>37759343
I wash my hands and spray mites off my plants

Everything in an absurdist perspective is terrible, morality is semi arbitrary and good or bad is an illogical thing the consider and is entirely emotional and based on your perspective

>>37760720
I do remain open to all of this shit, I just laugh at everybody claiming to have any fucking clue what is going on because nobody does

>>37761671
You could absolutely come up with proof of a third dimension in a 2D world, be it curvature of their plane or miraculous seeming things that can only be explained by a third dimension.

I gotta wonder if virtual particles piping in and out of existence represent a 4D thing intersecting us, because that’s kinda the only explanation for something suddenly appearing in space

>>37764695
I don’t see why the specific filtered way we happen to experience the objective external reality makes it less real than the illusion we see, that doesn’t make any sense. I think consciousness is just an emergent thing when a system can hold and integrate multiple bits of information simultaneously. The brain is like a “computer” and the act of processing is our experience, why neurons collectively experience knowing rather than just being in an entirely mechanical unthinkable process that would seem to have the same results is an unknown, I don’t think it means there is a soul, I think it might actually mean that tons of things might be conscious and we obviously have no way to prove it, we say that ai is not conscious but we don’t really know, maybe you can have types of brains that are not and brains that are, but since we would only have even a chance of recognizing it if it was based off our own design, and only because we happen to know we are, I have doubts that we can actually dismiss it. You wouldn’t look at a brain and assume it has a sense of self any more than we think plants do, but it seems like even plants actually might. we are horribly naive on the subject';

'>>37778777
>You could absolutely come up with proof of a third dimension in a 2D world, be it curvature of their plane or miraculous seeming things that can only be explained by a third dimension.
You're still missing my point. The point is that you still cannot define that 3rd dimension in terms of the previous 2.
Why is this so hard to understand? Have you people never taken linear algebra? Do you not understand the concept of orthogonal unit vectors?
You CANNOT reduce another unit vector into components of other unit vectors, or they wouldn't be unit vectors.

What you're describing is a deduction where you realize you need to add a NEW unit vector to your understanding.
So the end result of what you described is still 3 separate unit vectors. Not a situation where you can describe a 3rd in terms of the 2 you already know.

That being said... I would also argue that what you described wouldn't constitute an absolute proof. It's more like a suggestion that you're missing something, but what's missing cannot be proven/known given what you already know.
It's a hint that your system is missing something and the only way to account for what's missing is to add something fundamentally NEW into your system.';

'>>37779214
>Why is this so hard to understand?
Because your analogy is bad and does not fit.
You can argue about linear algebra all you want.
We are talking about souls.';

'>>37779214
I don’t know shit about mathematics, I think I get what you mean but that wasn’t what I was really arguing. I think you can use math to model the physics though and if it is the only working explanation then that’s gotta be good proof. An object that can appear from nowhere, change its shape in perplexing ways, and seems to have more inertia than should be possible for its size would probably be how most 3D objects would appear in a 2D world, the inertia thing is an interesting one because it would be the most reliable clue since the other two may not be possible to observe

>>37779301
I don’t know if I’d even consider it an analogy it’s just an example of they kind of way we might be entirely missing a chunk on context

At the very least I think we should be able to predict SOMETHING about it right? There probably multiple options but is it something so exotic that we couldn’t make some kind of prediction about what we might expect from it?

If people want to invoke god or something and an afterlife if a different plane of existence that seems like simulation theory with some kind of method for escaping or leaving it

If life just spawned randomly through abiogenesis then I have a much harder time entertaining the idea that life might have evolved in such a way that it somehow connects with some higher dimensional quality that allows consciousness to persist outside of the organism, because there isn’t any method for it to do such a thing.

if we are in base reality then we are almost certainly soulless and if we are in an artificial reality there’s at least a chance that there’s something we would consider a “soul”';

'>>37759221
You are a single shift of perception away from recognizing that the astrological narratives and parables in all mystic and religious traditions are just materialism reconciled with spiritualism. Balance. And that this narrative includes the codifyed bible which is a book of astrological allegories. The hermetic master key is the psychological key to understanding human behavior on in individual level and tapping in to the universal consiousness that governs the intelligence of nature and the stars. Which u can call God.

This is the basis for all mystery. And most everything else is litteralidt dogma doomed to wash away in the changing unstopable tide of harmony between opposing extreems.';

'>>37772358
>maybe you'll see outside the walls of your human mind
is using drugs and starving yourself still not just your mind? like arent hallucinations STILL your mind putting things there where it craves something to be? you starve yourself and is it not your brain literally going crazy cuz youre not putting the things in your body that you have to? and drugs arent just scrambling up the normal way your brain does its normal thing, taking that normal function and whatever drug messes it all up for a little while?';

'>>37782923
A little off-topic, but isn’t the idea that under extreme circumstances such as starvation, heat, cold, poison(drugs) the brain would start producing extra distractions very much against the whole evolutionary function of the brain? From materialist viewpoint, the consciousness was born because it gave us advantage in evolution, in survival. By all logic under dangerous circumstances the brain should make us laser focused on survival. In reality when the brains resources and functions are limited, we become less focused on surviving, stop fearing death, feel the harmony of nature, feel presence of god etc. It wouldn’t make evolutionary sense for the brain to start distracting us from reality and survival, whenever it ran low on nutrients. That is when we’d need it the most.';

'>>37784461
Because nature isnt perfect and not as effiecient as people think it is. Evolution/nature is not gonna have your back when "you'd need it most." It doesnt have any concern for your wellbeing. Its a lot more sloppy and crude than people say.';

'>>37766952
yh lol they invent magic instead of putting work into accepting r3ality';

'>>37768903
Wrong! There are 8 or so clones of you on earth right now!';

'>>37772154
you mean hallucinations';

'>>37784461
>>37784854
Yeah anon, I don’t know why you seem to think that it’s illogical for something to break down when it’s near it’s limits, there is obviously stuff like adrenaline which is a kind of rally your potential situation but that’s under different circumstances';

'>>37769753

The Heisenberg quote is fake';

'>>37786337
It's not fake, millions of believers really want it to be fake. Makes them fucking seeth how their hero shits on their religion.';

'>>37786403

I'm not an atheist. I'm a true philosophical agnostic who has seen communication from what people call the divine. The quote is still fake';

'>>37786416
>The quote is still fake
Based on what? I told why people want it to be fake.';