You have to understand Trixie to get this. She sometimes “becomes” God.
How DARE YOU refer to God as “He”. Your gunna get a serious peepee wackin for that, son. 
I understand that the size of the average male’s consciousness is about 6 inches, although now they have all kinds of chemicals and germs to alter that in selected males. Women’s consciousness is somewhat inverted, but we all knew that.
Yes she does but it was not obvious she was referring to herself this time
She is now just a regular human being. You might think of “God” as a spirit that possesses her during her maniacal peek and becomes one with her.
“Conciousness is be the brain”
Consciousness is not the brain, me and Amorphos already discussed this extensively. Qualia is bijective function (or injective, can’t remember which.) Bottom line is, it is not equal to the brain, but simply data transformed into something else using the brain as conduit. The fuel and reason of transformation is unknown.
If you live in Texas and eat a different icecream, we do not have the same realities.
We live in the same network with physics code, but the reality generated from the code is different.
“consciousness cannot rip from the brain it is from”
So death does not cause consciousness to cease in the brain, and I do not exist, because your consciousness will never leave your brain and experience my life.
Forgive me for not addressing your other nonsense sooner, it is tiresome.
Funny because, over here you seem to say that consciousness can leave it’s body at any time, which is the exact opposite of what you are saying here.
“Many humans hate their lives; they wish they could escape the pain and suffering. This is normal, and spirits know this. Yet we stick with our bodies; even though we could, at any moment, choose to leave it. But this choice is unconscious, held firm at a profoundly deep level of our being. Though on the surface a particular human being might whale and pine over the adversity of his life, on a deeper unconscious level, he holds on because he knows his purpose has not yet been fulfilled.” - gib
Presumably, you mean that our brain still remains, when our body dies, floating along the astral planes, brain don’t need no body!
In terms of the brain projecting from consciousness, no it is not the whole of consciousness, but it is a part.
In terms of what the brain represents, it does represent our consciousness. Our consciousness is the being of the brain.
That’s like saying: if I live in the kitchen and you live in the bedroom, we don’t live in the same house.
The kitchen may be all I’ve ever known, and the bedroom may be all you’ve ever know, but that doesn’t make the kitchen and the bedroom incompatible in the same house, and it doesn’t mean that we each assume there is nothing outside the kitchen or bedroom.
This all depends on which model of consciousness we’re dealing with. If we go with your model (ghost in the machine), then sure consciousness may go on after the body dies. If we go with consciousness qua product of the brain, then yes, death causes consciousness to cease (this is not the same as “ripping” consciousness from the brain). If we go with my view–pantheistic subjectivism–then once you die, the pattern of your subjective experiences undergoes radical qualitative changes and you most likely lose your individuality, thereby becoming one with universal consciousness. ← But this is from a 1st person subjective point of view. From a 3rd person objective point of view, others around you–your family and loved ones who are there the minute you die–will observe the decay of your brain (if they bothered looking). They will not see a ghost leave the body, but will observe the metamorphosis of your brain tissue undergoing the corresponding physical changes that match, as a material representation, the subjective qualitative changes you feel yourself undergo as you transition into the afterlife.
I’m not sure why you think I need to experience your life in order to assert that you exist–not according to your perspective at least–unless you’re speaking in terms of my perspective. Yes, idealism is often charged with solipsism, but they are not synonymous–it’s just challenging to be an idealist and not a solipsist at the same time; but really, all an idealist must do in order to avoid solipsism is to believe in the existence of other minds; a further step may be required to philosophically justify that belief (i.e. to show how your idealism doesn’t necessarily lead to solipsism), but even without that, just merely believing in the existence of other minds keeps you from being a solipsist.
That being said, I do have my justifications: for one thing, my mind certainly projects other people along with their minds, so right there I live in a subjective world that features other people with minds of their own; however, this is not quite enough as it implies that their minds depend on being projected from mine. So there is a more complicated solution to this problem and I won’t get into it now as it requires a lengthy discussion and lot of background knowledge–namely knowledge of the Kantian dilemma of the ding un sich. Essentially, this is the dilemma of how Kant can claim to conceive and know about the inconceivable, unknowable thing-in-itself–if you can solve that problem, you can solve the problem of other minds (at least to the extent that you can refrain from solipsism).
Well, I wouldn’t want you to strain yourself.
I wasn’t going with my default perspective here. I was going with something I thought Random Factor might appreciate more easily. As a relativist, switching perspectives comes natural to me. I don’t always need to assert my default one and in fact I have several.
What I was trying to offer you was an alternative perspective to the one you’re clinging to. It seemed you were struggling with a philosophical problem (or a spiritual one) and I saw the crux of the issue having to do (maybe) with your ghost in the machine model. I tried to suggest an alternative according to which that just isn’t possible, thereby maybe settling the matter and allowing you to move on.
I know you’re interested in truth. That’s because you’re an objectivist. I’m a subjectivist, which means I think truth is whatever you want it to be (although some truths have more integrity and coherence than others) and the real interesting stuff in philosophy is analyzing ideas and seeing how they tie together, maybe arriving at unexpected conclusions. This can be done with anybody’s perspective, so I have no problem jumping in and out of different people’s perspectives and arguing with them on their own terms.
But anyway, in regards to my quote above, I didn’t exactly say the soul can leave the body in the form of a ghost; I left it open ended on how to interpret that; you could interpret it to mean that one can choose, at any moment, to “wake up”–as if life were a dream, and the afterlife were the waking world. Would you describe yourself getting out of bed in the morning as rising from your dream body as a ghost? You could also think of it as choosing to unplug yourself from the Matrix–again, not quite the ghost leaving the body imagery, but a kind of “leaving” nonetheless.
What I can say for certain is that any transition into an afterlife is going to be experienced, from a 1st person subjective perspective, as a radical transformation of the qualities and configurations of one’s experiences.
The two houses would be different instances, different realities, based on an invisible parent code. The invisible parent code, generating the house templates would be the same, but it would be invisible, and so not part of reality. The actual houses which are part of reality, would actually be two different instances of reality, not the same reality.
Death is not unknowable, unless there is eternal nothingness in it. Lots of dying people have out of body experiences which can be empirically tested and verifiable, only problem is hospitals are staffed by idiots and scrubs and (to my knowledge) noone has done a proper experiment.
The afterlife may be 5d, which means a camera projection onto a cylinder or cube, rather than converging onto a single point as we are accustomed. The avatars may be dreamlike, as experiencing our bodies in 3rd person view as attached to our consciousness, while looking at ourselves.
The afterlife should be able to be remembered, because memory is outside of the brain. There is memory in the brain but there must also be memory outside the brain or we would not be sentient and events would not appear to exist.
If one of us never experiences each other’s life either in the past or future lives, then the other cannot be said to exist or be sentient. So if i never will experience your life in a past or future life, you cannot be sentient, for I would be lying and your sentience would not be true, since it never existed, cannot ever exist and there is no evidence of it existing, if am never to be you in a past or future life.
I’m not getting it. My house analogy was a response to this:
Are you speaking from the point of view of idealism? In that case, any two people having different sets of experiences might be said to be living in wholy separate realities. So it has nothing to do with being in Texas per se, or eating icecream per se, huh?
While you could say that my disliking for a cone of icecream is a different way of experiencing the icecream than your liking for it, and therefore project from two different minds which in turn constitute two different realities, there is a way of conceiving these different minds as overlapping on certain experiences. For example, even though the icecream tastes different between us, we both recognize the icecream for the same object we take it to be; we identify it: it’s the icecream we got at Joe’s Icecream Parlo five minutes ago and decided to share. The mind will make objects out of its sensory experiences, and it will infuse it with an identity, making it a “thing”. This “thing” then becomes identified as the same thing (in an objective spatiotemporal world) that everyone else sees and knows about.
There is no reason to think that just because each perception of the object, of the icecream, projects from different minds, that those projections aren’t being projected into a common or “shared” area of mind. Think of it in terms of set theory. Imagine a Ven Diagram of two overlapping circles (not completely overlapped but partially). These circles represent sets of experiences, or if you like, two people’s minds. The taste of the icecream might fall into the non-overlapping region of each mind, but the identity of the icecream as “that icecream we got 5 minutes ago” falls in the overlapped region.
See, that would falsify my theory (unless the brain is somehow capable of simulating OBEs as an elaborate hallucination, like in a dream).
Oh, I think I get you know. You believe that there is only one consciousness in existence and it takes turns occupying different people during different lifetimes. So this consciousness is now living Trixie’s life, and when Trixie dies, it will return to some “primal state” for lack of a better word. In this state, it remembers who it is. It is all that exists, all that ever did and ever will exist, and these people whose lives it jumps into and out of are the “avatars” you’ve been talking about. So now, this consciousness is living Trixie’s life. In a future life or in a past life, it might or might have lived gib’s life. If it will or did, that determines that gib is sentient.
But by this token, doesn’t it mean there are other minds besides yours? Even if those minds will be or were you? Not everybody has a mind, obviously, because, in your own words, this ultimate consciousness would not choose to be sentient of a life full of pain and suffering (it would clog up the time line, as you said).
So besides Richard Dawkins, you said your life is one of the more popular ones (obviously, since this universal consciousness chose to live it). Man, my life must be pretty interesting too, 'cause I swear to God I’m sentient. You’ll see (or you have seen). But let’s talk about you. Would you say your life is worth living? Do you find it more painful than pleasurable, or visa-versa? If you say this consciousness chose you in order to experience living your life, your life must be worth living.
You a few things incorrect. The state I referred to is not the “primal” state, but the supreme genius state, which got bored of being all knowing and perfect and went to Earth to experience challenge and “primal” state.
Earth for it’s perfect imperfections. However you ask is my life worth living, and I will say this, there is truth in the beauty of imperfections, but to what extent? Clearly some of the code is broken, too broken, not how the optimal design intended to be, the code is a little more broken than intended, do to nothing other than what I would call a virus.
The only semblance shared perceptions and realities are words. Words are identical memes. They are condensing of various 3d perspectives into a singular rune. However due to emotional distortion, even those realities are not the same and connect also to different 3d realities.
But, words are the closest thing to a unified reality, because visually speaking, the runes are for all intents and purposes identical to both viewers, same with photographs, books and computers, which allow us to see almost the same realities, versus real life, where the 3d perspective is always off due to our bodies preventing that space being occupied
Believer/Unbeliever unsupported concept: similar words and impressions depend on THEIR distinction on another undefinable force, which gathers momentum only at the very extreme edge of all limitation. There, the unification is all encompassing,
and the soul enters into the phase-area of the miraculous.
Enter the seeming unrelated, dissimilar reality, quanta-like, out of nowhere, a fused force to be reckoned with, fusing the possible with its negation,
forcing a showdown by the ‘impossible’ of the probable, and the unanswered question evaporates.
Charles Ives tells it best, and it is not the visual acuity, whose semblance after all reduces to the similarity, whose words falter during this last stage, but if the choirs of angelic harmony, predisposed avenging Angels.
How can a creation question its own creation? Here the similarity ends, in the cycles of descending coils,
Ending not in the primal nothingness of the pointless-ness of it all, but only that, there is no way to perceive such, by virtue of its temporal-spatial distance. There need not be thought of such end, over the endlessness of transformative illusions between the two: time, and space.
Love it, or, leave it. It is simply another form of the will, to power. It’s a choice, given from those higher ups who have died for it, for its beauty, its continuation. They , in effect became the inviolate, fail proof glue , which no man can tear asunder. They became the immortals, who by their becoming, defeated time and space.
They give assurance to eternal life, by submitting infinite reps to even one delicious aspiration, : the possibility of absolute and perfect love. In this schema, anything is possible, all things, withe the absolution from the sin of doubt.
I can’t discern meaning from things that read like a Peter Gabriel trip on LSD.
If you stop posting things in an alien dialect, I might be inclined to respond meaningfully to your points.
Yes, that’s what I meant. “Primal” just means something different for each of us.
Ah, so the intended design of your life was supposed to have a bit of hardship, a bit of adversity, but something (or someone) fucked it up (and not just for you but for everyone?) and made the hardship and adversity almost unbearable. A virus, as you say, would imply a kind of intentional sabotage. What kind of being would do such a thing? Can an ordinary human being do it? Or would it have to be a being in a kind of “higher realm”–a realm akin to that which the “supereme genius” resides in–and would this malicious agent have to be sentient in order to carry out such a sabotage, or could it be one of these insentient mechanical organisms that does everything it does by accident?
Well, it’s interesting that you bring up the relevance of 3D reality as 3D space (plus time) is precisely what makes two identical things separate entities. My point about the overlapping region of the Venn Diagrams representing our minds is that the kinds of mental “objects” (mental states, experiences, perceptions, feelings, etc.) that fall into this region are those that can’t be distinguished based on difference in their spatiotemporal locations. If I come up with an idea, and you come up with the same idea, I might say to you: Hey, that’s my idea! I don’t say: Hey, that’s not my idea, because it came from another brain, but it’s identical to mine. Why? Because ideas are metaphysical/immaterial entities–they don’t take place in space and time (at least not in space, but this is true for time as well but it gets more complicated). When a thing is metaphysic/immaterial, there can only be one instance of it. To suggest there are two instances, even though both are identical in every other respect, is meaningless.
Thus, I think you’re onto something with your idea of words being a shared or common entity amongst us, but I think this is true for more than just words. I think it actually applies to the physical universe itself (even from an idealist’s perspective). The physical universe may consist of time and space, but does the physical universe in its entirety have a position in time and space? Speaking as an idealist, if we take each person’s experience of the physical universe and suppose that it projects as a real, solid, objectively existing physical universe, do we have to suppose that each such universe is a separate instance of what is otherwise the same entity? These physical universes may consist of multitudes of spatiotemporal positions, but is there any spatiotemporal medium outside each physical universe? I don’t think so. So I don’t think the grounds are there–namely, difference in spatiotemporal positions–to say they are indeed separate instances.
I think I understand what you’re saying (depending on what you mean by “rune”). But the only difference in how each one of us experiences the physical universe is, like you said, the positions in time and space from which we experiences the universe (there are also differences in the qualities of our sensations–how icecream tastes to us, for example–but these receive the same treatment). However, what I was trying to say in an earlier post was that the identity of things–the fact that I see this object I hold in my hand as “that icecream I got 5 minutes ago”–is no different between us (not necessarily anyway). We experience it (i.e. conceptualize it) the same way. Thus, it can fall into the overlapped region, along with words. In fact, I think this is exactly what you’re getting at with your examples of photographs, books, and computers–they convey ideas: this person, that icecream, such-and-such video game element–ideas that we take to be singular and the same for each of us–but why shouldn’t the same be true of actual 3D objects?
You’re one to talk, Trix. 
I don’t know if jerkey is naturally ostentatious, or he purposefully formulates his words to sound intentionally enigmatic and poetic. Fact of the matter is, in all of my years I have never met anyone on the internet more deliberately obtuse or a headache to read.
Stop trying to cover your error using feminine relativism tactics. Primal is a common word, it means related to animal instincts. What I described is a super-all knowing consciousness. It has the exact opposite amount of information that animal consciousness does and its consciousness is a bit different! There is no reason to call it the same thing, that is like calling a potato a fruit!
No, it wouldn’t. Most viruses are unconscious, though in this the case it has a possibility of intelligent sabotage, though it was never implied!
Good god, no! They are seperate instances.
The photons in our eyes aren’t even connected! Our sensory perceptions do not extend to a rock. If a rock is injured, we don’t feel it. Other consciousnessness are seperate instances, seperate realities. Each one of us has different color receptors in our eyes, and the very photons themselves are different photons entering different eyes with different shapes.
The photons, become a conglomerate mesh, averaged out because of the scale, forming two conscious ideas which are almost identical. Though two clones are almost identical looking too, but they are still seperate instances.
THere is a theory stating that twins will reincarnate into one or the other, but it is not proven. But what is actually ridiculous is your ideas that two ideas are the same!
The only things that are close to being the same are words or printed pictures shared from hand to hand. Ideas are not even close to being the same! The words are rendered as unique audio sounds (though not technically sound, only an electronic neuronal impulse analogous to sound waves.) So even the narration audio of the words are different! And then, the words are rendered as completely unrelated images! One guy might say he invented a radio amusement park, and say the other guy stole his idea, yet his circus tents are purple and the other guy doesn’t even have any! Different audio, different realities! They aren’t even the same photons!
Sure! But still, take it easy on the guy.
I didn’t mean the virus itself intended the sabotage. I meant that someone must have deliberately programmed the virus and then disseminated it into the system.
Of course, there are biological viruses that nobody “programmed” and they infect their hosts through natural processes. Is this a closer analogy to what you’re saying?
Yeah, 'cause if they were the same instance, that would be horrid!
Again, the photons are just material representations of other experiences going on in the universe mind. You have to understand that this is not a view in which consciousness is a product of brain processes, nor is it a ghost that exists in a physical spatiotemporal existence, but rather it’s a view in which physical spatiotemporal existence is within it.
And yes, this might at first seem like we each live in separate mind generated universes, but my point is that it need not be conceptualized this way. I’m saying that because space, and with some argumentation time as well, is within consciousness, you can’t speak about consciousness’s own position within space or time. It’s medium is the universal mind itself, the mind that injects representations of itself (like photons) into the universe we generate with our consciousness. But this great mind is not physical itself, not spatiotemporal–it is metaphysical–and so it makes no sense to talk about the physical spatiotemporal position of each universe. Spatiotemporal positions being the only thing to distinguish between what would otherwise be perfectly identical things, it is meaningless to say that two ideas exist in separate mind generated universes insofar as those ideas have no spatiotemporal positions. But so what? What’s wrong with saying that some minds, in the abstract, “overlap”?
Yes, because clones are physical objects occupying positions in time and space.
But if you want to talk about ideas that are almost identical, you might have a point. But my point still stands: there’s no basis for saying two experiences are separate instances if they are identical in all respects, and if you can’t apply spatiotemporal positions to them, then there can’t be separate instances of them.
More ridiculous than twins reincarnating into each other, huh?
At this point, I’m not quite sure you understand my theory.
Why is this idea not so ridiculous but the idea that thoughts in the head might be the same? I mean, if we’re arguing that we each live in separate realities, then why do words and pictures get to count as exception to this but ideas don’t?
What makes you so sure?
Sounds like you’re saying not even the words are the same.
The detailed properties of things don’t have to make two ideas into separate instances. Remember the ship of Theseus argument we got into a while back? Why is it a philosophical problem? Because you will identify the ship of Theseus as “that ship” even after a few of its planks have been replaced with new ones. The mind identifies objects separately from how it identifies an object’s features. You could have a red car, and then one day paint it black. You will still conceptualize it as the same car. The mind’s idea of “my car” is a concept that gets projected onto (or injected into) the object in your visual perceptions of your car and makes it “my car”. This concept, when projected, becomes the car’s “essence”–that which makes it the car it is. The two men who came up with the idea for the amusement park don’t need to have all the same features. So long as each man identifies the amusement park as the same entity, it will have the same essence, they will be the same “thing”.
But it sounds like you rather enjoy thinking of yourself as living in a separate universe, so maybe I shouldn’t try to tamper with that.
Oh my god. Boy what a fool I was. This is the greatest theory ever it explains consciousness for me and the whole of the entire universe too. Thankyou. Is that what you wanted to hear?
The color green is almost the same for two people, oh my god. This means that people dont live in two seperate realities, or two seperate instances, because the color green is almost the same in both their eyes. Or when two people watch a DVD, is almost synchronized, and the colors look the same, so they both have to be in the same instance of reality. Fucking revolutionary.
I sense sarcasm.
Hey, you’re the one who supposedly doesn’t believe in this.
You seem to think we’re having a clash of theories. You have your theory of consciousness, I have mine, and we’re arguing over whose is right. I’m not thinking of it as a clash myself. I’m thinking of it as an exchange. You tell me your views, I explore them a bit, I tell you my views, you explore them. To me, it’s like two travelers encountering each other on their journeys. They stop and exchange stories. The one traveler tells the other of his world–his culture, his people, his environment, etc. The other traveler tells the first the same thing about his world. They’re not arguing over whose world is better, whose is right and whose is wrong.
Anyways, I can see you’re getting upset. I’m sorry if this angers you. Maybe we should take a break.