The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => General Misc. => Topic started by: What Came Before on May 14, 2013, 08:12:25 pm
-
Philosophical thread ahead:
I've long tried to find some peace with the reality of death and the inevitability of it, but the whole thing just doesn't sit well with me. I'm not exactly in a depression, but it's bothering me.
The most likely result of death is just the total obliteration of the self - since pretty much all scientific evidence shows that consciousness and personality are totally dependent on the existence of the material brain (and so is "free choice", which isn't really free and spontaneous at all), then that will be the end of it. Death comes, conscious experience goes. The End.
There's only really one other option, that there's some sort of metaphysical law where my conscious experience is transferred to some other place, maybe into a deeper reality that the human mind isn't aware of. But all this quantum alternate-universe stuff just seems pretty unlikely.
Buddhist-style reincarnation doesn't make sense to me.
I'm trying to prepare myself for the first option (total ending of all conscious experience). Obviously, I realize that there's nothing to be prepared for - if my personality and consciousness is totally over at death, it won't feel like an "eternal nothingness" because I'll simply return to that state we all were before we were born, a blank state of not existing at all. (And not having memories of ever existing.)
I can't come to peace with that idea. It just bothers me, and I can't shake this from my mind. I want to let go (especially since it's stupid to gripe about something inevitable), but I can't.
Any thoughts?
-
Just expanding a bit on my post:
I can't just relax and accept the whole reality of "dying is like going back before you were born, so it's okay". Before you were born, you had no knowledge or past experience of having consciousness, since you never existed before, but now that we're all existing in the present, we do have a knowledge of existing, which gives us the feeling that we're losing something when we die. (And that something is conscious experience).
Conscious experience = all the memories we have, the perception of things like beauty, ugliness, happiness, sadness, love, hate, all that stuff. I just feel depressed at the idea of all this vanishing with death, just a total ending of it all.
Something very important is lost in death. Obviously, other people similar to my own self will definitely emerge, but it will never be my consciousness, the one that experiences reality in this body, this brain, this combo of atoms and neurons and stuff.
I used to be all "death is only a natural part of life, no point in sulking about something inevitable," but when you face the fact of your total ending upon death, it's impossible not to feel sad about it. (I know that sadness, just like all my other thoughts, are a part of my living brain. Since we're all tied to a limited block of conscious experience, we know those limits are there, but can't think of anything beyond them. The human brain can't observe itself, for the same reason a fingertip can't touch itself. Knowing these limits, but not being able to do anything about them, is pretty depressing.)
What should I do about my death-obsession? Is there any way to go back to my previous "go with the flow" view on life and death?
-
I want to bear witness to more of the existence of the universe than an 80 year sliver. I will also concede that conscious experience is interesting to take part in, and I want to continue to do so, even though I do not believe that there is a "me" to guide this experience.
Humans are on the verge of creating digital brains. Perhaps in my lifetime I will be able to download a blueprint of all that I am from my brain to a computer so that more experience can be added to the foundation that is "me".
-
I want to bear witness to more of the existence of the universe than an 80 year sliver.
I agree 100% (although my grandparents have lived way over 90, so I'll probably be long-lived by low human standards - but it's still just the fraction of a second on a cosmic scale). I like being who I am, and want to continue witnessing the universe as "I". To me, there's nothing worse than simply disappearing and never having existed at all.
This is why I've never been into Gnostic theology and all that "the material world is evil, life on earth is insignificant and pointless compared to life in Heaven" stuff. Self-hatred and just not caring about life would probably solve my problems, but I can't keep myself from caring.
I will also concede that conscious experience is interesting to take part in, and I want to continue to do so, even though I do not believe that there is a "me" to guide this experience.
It's an illusion created by our physical brains and environment, yeah. Still, it's a very useful illusion, one we couldn't get by without. How do we even think about the meaning of biological non-existence, if all we know is this existence? Is there any point to it at all? I don't know.
Humans are on the verge of creating digital brains. Perhaps in my lifetime I will be able to download a blueprint of all that I am from my brain to a computer so that more experience can be added to the foundation that is "me".
Then it will just be the AI on the computer that is experiencing things, not you (because you're still biological and have an expiration date). I've always found this idea creepy, that somewhere there's a God who makes thousands of copies from you and your personality.
-
I want to bear witness to more of the existence of the universe than an 80 year sliver.
I agree 100% (although my grandparents have lived way over 90, so I'll probably be long-lived by low human standards - but it's still just the fraction of a second on a cosmic scale). I like being who I am, and want to continue witnessing the universe as "I". To me, there's nothing worse than simply disappearing and never having existed at all.
This is why I've never been into Gnostic theology and all that "the material world is evil, life on earth is insignificant and pointless compared to life in Heaven" stuff. Self-hatred and just not caring about life would probably solve my problems, but I can't keep myself from caring.
Yes, it doesn't do me any good if there is another being out there ever experiencing the universe, because that being doesn't have the desire that is being manufactured in the illusory "me". The fact that I have such a desire is evidence that I am playing along with the illusion.
I will also concede that conscious experience is interesting to take part in, and I want to continue to do so, even though I do not believe that there is a "me" to guide this experience.
It's an illusion created by our physical brains and environment, yeah. Still, it's a very useful illusion, one we couldn't get by without. How do we even think about the meaning of biological non-existence, if all we know is this existence? Is there any point to it at all? I don't know.
Some who recognize that the illusion exists may see no purpose anymore. What is purpose, though? Even if there is no higher purpose for conscious beings, the point of playing out our roles in the freak accident that is life and the evolution of life still exists.
Humans are on the verge of creating digital brains. Perhaps in my lifetime I will be able to download a blueprint of all that I am from my brain to a computer so that more experience can be added to the foundation that is "me".
Then it will just be the AI on the computer that is experiencing things, not you (because you're still biological and have an expiration date). I've always found this idea creepy, that somewhere there's a God who makes thousands of copies from you and your personality.
I see less and less difference these days. It's like the Ship of Theseus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
If I replace my brain cells with identical biological cells, one by one, is there ever a point where I cease being "me"? What about artificial cells, whatever that may be? If the only difference between the biological and artificial cells is that the artificial cells don't degrade, so memory becomes permanent and expandable like with a computer, then what's the difference, really?
-
This link (http://www.naturalism.org/death.htm) might help?
-
+ Lots, Duskweaver. Quality offerings as always.
Strength on the Journey - Journey well.
It's interesting, and I'll cite projection now, but I read self-challenges in your words - discordant platitudes following:
I want to bear witness to more of the existence of the universe than an 80 year sliver. I will also concede that conscious experience is interesting to take part in, and I want to continue to do so, even though I do not believe that there is a "me" to guide this experience.
Maximize the experience you do have.
I agree 100% (although my grandparents have lived way over 90, so I'll probably be long-lived by low human standards - but it's still just the fraction of a second on a cosmic scale). I like being who I am, and want to continue witnessing the universe as "I". To me, there's nothing worse than simply disappearing and never having existed at all.
Make your mark.
Rather than vent my thoughts (which I did and am editing), I'll offer some intentions, explanations from this capture of Madness.
I'm convinced that the brain is both more prevalently plastic than the cognitive institutions have had the organization and structure to document. We can work out functionally specific locations - even "nuclei" means loose collective of individual neurons, when they discuss in the literature, though new things happen in brain imaging everyday.
Segue things CogSci could be doing - isolating and documenting all different types of neuroanomalous functional structures (the excellent) and the practices that effected those changes in cortical structure or organization, referencing any historical text describing or hypothesizing about intentionality of any soul, spirit, mind, brain, gods, theology, philosophy, mythology for neuroscientific principles. Crowdsource human worth of thoughts.
Its very likely we can change our brain function. If the brain is the lens by which I can experience reality, then changing the function of our brain, will change our experience. Humans on average use effectively, one limb, one language (which some argue is the very manifestation of thought or our very experience of the world - if you can't distinguish something, it doesn't exist), one sense (our eyes), one method of thought (we're still indoctrinating people to "adopt another's perspective in thought" when that should be, arguably, an innate trait - mirror neurons are a specific nuclei of neurons that are activated only when watching others perform an action). But these things are ultimately all that constructs a person's literal physical semantic realities based on our perceptions and our awareness and interpretation of them.
Einstein loved the violin and enjoyed the practice, the play of math. Da Vinci, it's said, could draw two perfect concentric circles or, more impressive to me, write two different sentences simultaneously - sounds delicious and experiencing that state motivates me to this day on achieving ambidexterity. President Garfield could write in Latin and Greek simultaneously.
For my money, we hit a wall, when individuals sought to exercise a historical effort in managing all aspects of human nature for the balance of economic trading entities - the beginnings which extend the reaches of history, possibly.
That aside, death has motivated more of my life than I care to highlight. I've described this in an LTG thread but when I was six or seven, I experienced a conscious, loss of consciousness; I had known instantaneously when I awoke that though my experience was seamless, there was an absence.
I went through years of terrible pains wrestling with many of the self-same thoughts Auriga has taken the care to express in his first two posts. And ultimately, though the idea of a continuation - I'll return to this - informs my pose, death made me decide that my time is precious.
As I grew up this motivated a journey of self-discovery. Acutely aware that my time here is important, at most to "me", or this inscription of experience on the meat, I became simultaneously obsessed with the world and the place of our species in it and a discovery of self.
Childhood segue aside, I've spent much of my time figuring out how "I" became who I am today and why I have my space of the world. Make no mistake, this place is a prison that we impose on each other. The state of the world floors me when I think of the possibilities. Money is the biggest waste of time - always reminds me of that Bill Hicks closing.
So I am motivated by my obsession with death and personal time to help others and myself change the state of the world, a necessary weapon in that battle being learning to control my physical form and experiencing more of the world than I do now because as I stand I don't know enough.
Secondary to that immediately became a quest to develop a novel educational paradigm. We could probably nurture exponentially intelligent entities in our progeny, people just become more scared and insecure the more they become invested in the way things are. Having your children break your mind probably isn't high on societies to-do list.
Lol, apologizes for breadth. I'll cut/chop some.
Platitudes would be my signatures plus what I offered above.
Strength on the Journey - Journey well: this came from the idea of continuation I hit upon above. I had this idea when I was... 12? That each time you died (video games, I tell you), you went to the next-level nested concentric reality, and that Judgment (raised roman catholic) happened at the end of many, many different types of lives as different entities (Lovecraft?)
So an admonition to my fellow man to Journey well and have strength because:
We Are All Alone Together: No matter our state of affairs, no matter how reclusive someone might seem, we're all on the same pale blue marble, with the only other entities that we know we can communicate with.
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Comes from the idea of monasteries, that if I could ditch wage-slavery, I would devote a number of years to some semblance (impossible) of self-mastery. Bakker and I have actually talked about this at some length, that BBT is describing the limits of what I could accomplish without physical augmentation, to which I respond that I only have so much time to explore this form regardless - I'm pretty opposed to augmenting the form without utilizing this one first.
Declare War Inwardly is an admonition of self to use my time better towards those ends.
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit: This translates roughly to the Fleshmakers or Meatmakers: Much Blood Flows. The historical origin, allegedly, comes from the Headsman or Executioner, which is nice touch, but to me it's about reminding myself or others that we are responsible for what we are inside by how we treat the flesh. "I" am what "I" make "me". My experience and how I experience is inscribed in the meat of the brain. Much Blood Flows - Heartbeats/Time.
Die Better has grown out of communication between myself and a good friend of mine. We like making up catch phrases and quick soundbites that disrupt people's thoughtless experience of reality. Die Better is jarring, uncomfortable, and admonishes to be better, more, than what you came into the world as.
I know it's cheesy but:
“I’ll tell you a secret. Something they don’t teach you in your temple. The Gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”
All experience is novel. Including this moment right now ;).
-
+1 Duskweaver
The article that Duskweaver posted does very well in exploring the supposed finality of the void that death brings. I especially liked the comparisons that arise between death and "lapses" in conscious experience. 1) Someone who is put in suspended animation and then revived years later with no changes to cell structure or brain function is surely the same "they".
What if all of the cells are frozen and cease to function during suspension, but are fine after revival? What if during suspension, the person's body is stripped down to individual cells and then put back together such that the post-revival person is in the same state as in case 1)? What if 1% of cells are replaced by identical cells? 10%? What if 100% of the cells are switched out (case 2) ) and the person, upon revival, is identical to the person in case 1)?
What if there are cell-changes during the suspension on the order of changes that occur during a typical night's sleep or a day's worth of experiences? A month's worth of experiences? A year's worth?
What if a person dies normally (no suspension), and hundreds or thousands of years later, cells are arranged by artisanal hands in an arrangement consistent with case 2) above? There would be a lapse of experiences much like a suspended state, but with a traditional "death" occurring instead of an initial suspension.
It is interesting to think of death in terms of lapses of "individuals'" experiences.
+1 for your thoughts, Madness. I find myself separating my thoughts into two sets these days. One from the perspective of knowing that the Darkness is there, and another that is playing along with the illusion. The former is now agreeing with your calls to maximize experience and make marks. The latter is frustrated because of a perceived lack of time; not only time to engage in the experiences that would leave worthwhile marks, but time to condition myself to best be able to use the experience to leave worthwhile marks.
Your aphorisms are well crafted and speak clearly to those of us who seek to use time wisely despite the Darkness, so says the former. The latter looks at your final quotation and still envies the Gods 8-)
-
I'm leaning heavily toward joining my ancestors in the Great Nothingness (or whatever) no matter the options available. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to see where humanity is going.
-
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.
We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.
It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.
Meyna, it's a bit of a spoiler for the blue planet RPG, but there's a bit in it where aliens capture a human, then atomically duplicate her (not grow a clone, but build a clone, atoms up), then inexplicably throw away the unconcious original into the depths to be eaten by various creatures. I think the clone then escapes, with her exact duplicate memories - completely unaware of the kind of identy 'rape' she's a product of.
From the naturalism link:
By degrees, the reader is supposed to see that the notion of a blank or emptiness following death is incoherent, and that therefore we should not anticipate the end of experience when we die.
Foo wee, so skeptical that something seeming incoherant to us counts for something! I'll see if I can fit it into debunking reading latter.
-
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.
We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.
It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.
This is my gripe and goad. We're embodying a version of humanity decided by people dead and perpetuated by few living, mostly out of fear.
As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.
I'm leaning heavily toward joining my ancestors in the Great Nothingness (or whatever) no matter the options available. Frankly, I'm not so sure I want to see where humanity is going.
Again, I hope I didn't sound like I was advocating some kind of human transcendence or self-continuation, Ajokli. I mean, it's possible (I'm suggesting more practices that we know have a history of instilling those dividends found in the brain - wisdom, intelligence, whatever else) and otherwise, I think only the static (semi-decried) computer existence has been suggested so far.
This is why I like philosophy and one of mark of my changing states when growing up - I began to think in terms of, what I hadn't known, were part of logic squares. Absolutes.
Growing up Roman Catholic, it became a question of God or No-God ;). Either God existed or it didn't. Either God was created or it wasn't. Either Judgment was real or it wasn't. In this way, I could reduce my Sunday imaginings of constantly warring angels, fighting each other for my soul to some tangibles.
Forever was a big one eventually, as I mentioned in that other thread (which is the Nancy Moment in LTG forum, I believe). I can't imagine not-forever, as it's still going to be forever.
Death is the final human novelty? It's where our shared Journey ends, excepts its not because Reality Is, Forever. Something happens. Nothing's not really possible in my opinion.
The point of my posts in this thread and why I take great pains in writing my words is because we can agree enough on this instance of experience (humans in general), despite that being obvious illusory correlation, enough to communicate with each other in such useless and wasteful endeavors. You want abundance - try truly unlocking the power of seven billion brains. The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore. The Earth only took a couple hundred thousand years. It's just going to take more forethought and grace.
Hell, Warhammer 40k always had it right. The Universe is War, so long as only one malicious species decides it so. Then its Defend or Die ;).
-
Before I posted my quandary here, I also put it up on "the" philosophy forum. I can't bother to re-post all my thoughts twice, but here's a link to them: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/trying-to-be-comfortable-with-death-60092.html (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/trying-to-be-comfortable-with-death-60092.html)
As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.
I agree, to some point. Pretty much all neurological evidence says that "the self" - what we perceive of our individual selves, in other words - is mostly an illusion of the brain. Without the physical body and memory, there isn't much of a self.
So even if there is a reincarnation at the end, or some other state of consciousness, we won't take part of it as ourselves. Memory is stored in the brain, which dies and rots to dust - and even living people with brain damage or Alzheimer's can't be said to be their original selves. Whatever we become after physical death, it'll be something else than what we think of as "us".
IMO, Thomas Clark's article on naturalism.org is what makes the most sense to me. Either rejoining a "cosmic consciousness", living on in the consciousness of other beings, or simply turning into thoughtless atoms until we take shape as something else. (Clark disproves the atheist fear of an eternal nothingness pretty well - we won't actually feel an eternal darkness after we cease to have physical senses.)
Death is the final human novelty? It's where our shared Journey ends, excepts its not because Reality Is, Forever. Something happens. Nothing's not really possible in my opinion.
"Infinity" is a pretty big word. Like "death", we don't really understand it, only by rough approximations and symbols. If existence is infinite, then our current selves will be created again, eventually (even if millions of years pass by). Of course, this won't really be "us" in the strict sense, but rather our consciousness continuing as a blank slate.
I finished reading Neuropath a couple days ago. I found most of it depressing, and just adding to my "existential angst", but there was a line that was oddly soothing to me:
'The central nervous system of homo sapiens,' Neil was saying (though just when he had started saying this Thomas couldn't recall), 'isn't like the heart or the stomach. It isn't a distinct organ with discrete functions. So much of our brains' structure is determined by other brains. In a certain sense, there's only one brain, Goodbook, sprawled across the face of the planet, busily rewiring itself into a key that will unlock the universe.'
-
I actually find Madness' life philosophy rather depressing, lol. The whole mentality of carpe diem has this undercurrent of desperation. Forcing myself to be happy now ("or you'll die and never be happy again!!!") doesn't really help.
A Buddhist philosophy of not being so attached to the things in our lives and being at peace with the ever-changing world is probably more helpful to me personally. On the more scientific side, there's articles like this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/universe--brain-growth-networks_n_2194003.html?utm_hp_ref=science (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/universe--brain-growth-networks_n_2194003.html?utm_hp_ref=science)
-
I agree, to some point. Pretty much all neurological evidence says that "the self" - what we perceive of our individual selves, in other words - is mostly an illusion of the brain. Without the physical body and memory, there isn't much of a self.
So even if there is a reincarnation at the end, or some other state of consciousness, we won't take part of it as ourselves. Memory is stored in the brain, which dies and rots to dust - and even living people with brain damage or Alzheimer's can't be said to be their original selves. Whatever we become after physical death, it'll be something else than what we think of as "us".
IMO, Thomas Clark's article on naturalism.org is what makes the most sense to me. Either rejoining a "cosmic consciousness", living on in the consciousness of other beings, or simply turning into thoughtless atoms until we take shape as something else. (Clark disproves the atheist fear of an eternal nothingness pretty well - we won't actually feel an eternal darkness after we cease to have physical senses.)
I can't suggest that "I" won't continue on in some measure. What if this existence is just a womb and these bodies and our "self" are the gestation process? What if the "I" actually reflects both the inscription in the meat and the ethereal "self" simultaneously?
"Infinity" is a pretty big word. Like "death", we don't really understand it, only by rough approximations and symbols. If existence is infinite, then our current selves will be created again, eventually (even if millions of years pass by). Of course, this won't really be "us" in the strict sense, but rather our consciousness continuing as a blank slate.
I finished reading Neuropath a couple days ago. I found most of it depressing, and just adding to my "existential angst", but there was a line that was oddly soothing to me:
'The central nervous system of homo sapiens,' Neil was saying (though just when he had started saying this Thomas couldn't recall), 'isn't like the heart or the stomach. It isn't a distinct organ with discrete functions. So much of our brains' structure is determined by other brains. In a certain sense, there's only one brain, Goodbook, sprawled across the face of the planet, busily rewiring itself into a key that will unlock the universe.'
Again, I don't think you can make these absolute statements (EDIT: To specify, I was talking about " If existence is infinite, then our current selves will be created again, eventually (even if millions of years pass by). Of course, this won't really be "us" in the strict sense, but rather our consciousness continuing as a blank slate." I'm taking issue with these, not absolute statements in general). We simply don't know, Auriga.
I like that quote as much as it discomforts me. To be fair, I'm fairly convinced that the noospheric human entity does exist (just a fancy way of saying what Neil said) and it will emerge into it's own "self" at some point and we'll probably be Sranc to its No-God; side note, there's decent argument that Strong AI will mirror this result, especially if attempted via Quantum Computing.
I actually find Madness' life philosophy rather depressing, lol. The whole mentality of carpe diem has this undercurrent of desperation. Forcing myself to be happy now ("or you'll die and never be happy again!!!") doesn't really help.
A Buddhist philosophy of not being so attached to the things in our lives and being at peace with the ever-changing world is probably more helpful to me personally. On the more scientific side, there's articles like this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/universe--brain-growth-networks_n_2194003.html?utm_hp_ref=science (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/universe--brain-growth-networks_n_2194003.html?utm_hp_ref=science)
+1 on the paper. I'm sorry my perspective can't offer more solace but then I'm heavily invested in destroying the status quo and the human society isn't bursting with joy and happiness.
Beyond carpe diem, changing mental and physical habits and behaviours is an effort, is learning, and takes time and practice. I find a measure solace in novelty - that "I" have never experienced this moment before and will never experience its exact likeness ever again, which motivates me to keep trying to experience more, work to experience experience more, and develop a presence in each and every moment. Engage life :). And because sometimes it's ugly to our human perceptions that might involve being the difference, creating a sense of experiencing, cultivating human being.
Just thoughts, always. Cheers - Strength on the Journey :).
-
Death is always a tough theme to talk about with other people. Whenever I want to talk about it with colleagues or friends it ended mostly in awkwardly situations.
Many people seem to don't want to talk about it in earnest. Oh, of course every time I talk about it, I hear senctences like that:
"I don't know what comes after my death, but I'm sure, something will await me!"
When I ask:"Ok, it is all about Believe than? Why are you so damn sure about it?", the answers aren't very satisfying:
"It is a feeling of mine", or "God has something prepared for me after this life..."
It is almost the same with conversations about god and religion.
Ok, maybe, I am to cynical in those conversations ( as in many others, I admit that ) but after those answers, my wish to explain my attitude about this topic drops drastically.
The conversations ended mostly like this:
"So, you do believe in nothing? How sad!" followed by an obscure frown and that priesterly look, an old man would give an 6 year old child ( Oh, how I hate that :evil: )
My answer is always: "Yes, your're right. I believe in nothing. How refreshing, huh?" accompanied by an derisive smile.
Maybe I'll talk always to the wrong people about it. It can't be my fault! I believe it. ;)
-
Death is always a tough theme to talk about with other people. Whenever I want to talk about it with colleagues or friends it ended mostly in awkwardly situations.
Many people seem to don't want to talk about it in earnest. Oh, of course every time I talk about it, I hear senctences like that:
"I don't know what comes after my death, but I'm sure, something will await me!"
When I ask:"Ok, it is all about Believe than? Why are you so damn sure about it?", the answers aren't very satisfying:
"It is a feeling of mine", or "God has something prepared for me after this life..."
It is almost the same with conversations about god and religion.
Ok, maybe, I am to cynical in those conversations ( as in many others, I admit that ) but after those answers, my wish to explain my attitude about this topic drops drastically.
The conversations ended mostly like this:
"So, you do believe in nothing? How sad!" followed by an obscure frown and that priesterly look, an old man would give an 6 year old child ( Oh, how I hate that :evil: )
My answer is always: "Yes, your're right. I believe in nothing. How refreshing, huh?" accompanied by an derisive smile.
Maybe I'll talk always to the wrong people about it. It can't be my fault! I believe it. ;)
It is indeed a sensitive topic, and therefore your upfront approach may turn most people off. It's not that you talk to the wrong people, but, rather, the journey that you take these people on with your words leads to dead ends (or, at least, leads to destinations that don't correspond to what you hoped for). The trackless steppe is infinite, after all ;)
-
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.
We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.
It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.
This is my gripe and goad. We're embodying a version of humanity decided by people dead and perpetuated by few living, mostly out of fear.
As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.
I don't understand?
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.
Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.
-
"So, you do believe in nothing? How sad!" followed by an obscure frown and that priesterly look, an old man would give an 6 year old child ( Oh, how I hate that :evil: )
My answer is always: "Yes, your're right. I believe in nothing. How refreshing, huh?" accompanied by an derisive smile.
I'd be inclined to say I believe I'm talking with them, that we talked in peace, respecting each others space, no violence broke out and that this all happened.
And that I'm not inclined to ignore special events like this by blocking it all out so as to think about a sky fairie.
Granted I am thick and ignore such moments as mundane alot - so I'd thank the other person for reminding me of the moment. The did good in doing that. A wonderful moment, indeed.
-
As always, Davias, this place is an anomaly. Rest, pursue your discursive goals in excess here for a moment.
Meyna probably offers quality commentary (in terms of likeliness of validity) in that people generally avoid discomfort in communication. I, for one, alienate people all the time as I'm an abrasive communicator - there's no time for mundanities with Reality practically crackling with novelty around me. We're a young species and scared of our maturity. Kellhus might say that people communicate to fill the unknown with comfortable fictions, rather than engaging the world around them with honest reflection.
I've found because I have a genuine interest in anything and everything, so long as people talk about their interests conversations can at least continue until I've outrun another's interests (in that, many, many people are sadly so vapid that they cannot carry an engaged conversation about their own habits, that my interest in their interests is too deep, too bottomless).
We speak the words of men (and women) long since dead. Many things are passed on and so still live.
We leave alot of ripples around, in others, in how we affect them. And they will combine with other ripples and pass on into latter generations.
It's not much, but try to think how much of you will live on in others rather than it ALL coming to an end at death.
This is my gripe and goad. We're embodying a version of humanity decided by people dead and perpetuated by few living, mostly out of fear.
As Duskweaver's link seems to suggest, the complete and total obliteration of self is a very meager human suggestion.
I don't understand?
Hmm... the Duskweaver comment was fulfilling a secondary stream of thoughts. (EDIT: It "ALL" coming to an end is a human conception and I don't put a whole lot of stock into human conceptions at the moment. You really think someone here, on planet earth, has actually figured out this Universe?)
The Myth of Social Mobility is something lockesnow mentioned in the Feminism and Slavery thread as crux of our conversations there. There's a very real likelihood, based on the social organization of humanity as is, that I will never escape the economic position I've been born into. Even worse, we're all judged socially, everyday, based on people's unconscious assumptions about us (though, I can hardly gripe too much about physiology).
However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. I care about our species (bias) and I care how our propagation. I care about our style, our pose. I care that vested interests have ground human progress, that much lauded phenomenon, to a meager trickle at best.
As you described, Callan, and I tried to echo, everything around us is an idea and these conceptual structures for the most part were manifested by humans who aren't contemporary of us, who are not living now to reap the wages of what they've sown. It shouldn't be so hard to change those ideas, to truly improve the agency of our species. It shouldn't be so hard to change ourselves, if we'd like - again I'm not advocating augmentation of self through technology (though, we're pretty much past this point of original preservation with antibiotics and gadgetry) but augmentation of self, through practice, using only the embodied form. Obviously, there are tools that can supplement this.
Planned obsolescence is a prime example of these fulcrums, the fiction of progress.
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.
Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.
Now I don't understand?
-
Getting back to these questions from Meyna, which I've been thinking about...
What if all of the cells are frozen and cease to function during suspension, but are fine after revival? What if during suspension, the person's body is stripped down to individual cells and then put back together such that the post-revival person is in the same state as in case 1)? What if 1% of cells are replaced by identical cells? 10%? What if 100% of the cells are switched out (case 2) ) and the person, upon revival, is identical to the person in case 1)?
What if there are cell-changes during the suspension on the order of changes that occur during a typical night's sleep or a day's worth of experiences? A month's worth of experiences? A year's worth?
What if a person dies normally (no suspension), and hundreds or thousands of years later, cells are arranged by artisanal hands in an arrangement consistent with case 2) above? There would be a lapse of experiences much like a suspended state, but with a traditional "death" occurring instead of an initial suspension.
I would say it depends on a core agenda of the person. Was their agenda to be stripped apart and reassembled? Or to be replaced?
If such an agenda wasn't there, then these things which tamper with a non desire for such things to happen. It's a disruption of the person - it might not be a traditional notion of death. But then again traditional death can actually be more respectful, in that it doesn't mutate you into something else against your agenda that then goes on living, in a state against it's own agenda, not quite what it was.
-
Hmm... the Duskweaver comment was fulfilling a secondary stream of thoughts. (EDIT: It "ALL" coming to an end is a human conception and I don't put a whole lot of stock into human conceptions at the moment. You really think someone here, on planet earth, has actually figured out this Universe?)
The Myth of Social Mobility is something lockesnow mentioned in the Feminism and Slavery thread as crux of our conversations there. There's a very real likelihood, based on the social organization of humanity as is, that I will never escape the economic position I've been born into. Even worse, we're all judged socially, everyday, based on people's unconscious assumptions about us (though, I can hardly gripe too much about physiology).
However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. I care about our species (bias) and I care how our propagation. I care about our style, our pose. I care that vested interests have ground human progress, that much lauded phenomenon, to a meager trickle at best.
As you described, Callan, and I tried to echo, everything around us is an idea and these conceptual structures for the most part were manifested by humans who aren't contemporary of us, who are not living now to reap the wages of what they've sown. It shouldn't be so hard to change those ideas, to truly improve the agency of our species. It shouldn't be so hard to change ourselves, if we'd like - again I'm not advocating augmentation of self through technology (though, we're pretty much past this point of original preservation with antibiotics and gadgetry) but augmentation of self, through practice, using only the embodied form. Obviously, there are tools that can supplement this.
Planned obsolescence is a prime example of these fulcrums, the fiction of progress.
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.
What's it part of when things change, but then change again in non sequetur to the past a moment latter? Nothing in particular except the utterly modular notion of change over and over - always new. The spirit of cancer.
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern). As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.
However, I don't care at all about possessions or material. *snip* I care about our style, our pose.
Not seeing a huge difference between the two?
The version of Ripple World, as Callan described, or Clockwork Earth that we embody is ridiculously ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned. There is a universe of wonder to explore.
Well, maybe you're bet will be right - I'm okay with that. If someone else wins the lottery, I fully intend to bum that kind of money off them - when they get to heaven, they can buy me a sandwich! One reason for diversity - so we can get loaners of those who belief won the lottery.
Now I don't understand?
Invisible claims are the most over powering - particularly when the claim is made simply as the shadow of calling some other claim ignorant, short-sighted and small-visioned.
I'm, in part, saying you have a claim, Mike - a stake, a bet, a ticket in the belief lottery.
As said, it wont seem to be a claim as it'll just seem to be the other dude being ignorant, short-sighted, etc.
Amorph-thingie of the day: Every time we see a wrong, we claim a right. But generally we only see the wrong. The claim remains invisible. Even as (or because) it animates us.
And maybe it's the winning claim. And if so, when you get to heaven, I'll pester you to buy me a sandwich.
* In terms of it being a chip on my shoulder, I think it matters as well.
-
Getting back to these questions from Meyna, which I've been thinking about...
What if all of the cells are frozen and cease to function during suspension, but are fine after revival? What if during suspension, the person's body is stripped down to individual cells and then put back together such that the post-revival person is in the same state as in case 1)? What if 1% of cells are replaced by identical cells? 10%? What if 100% of the cells are switched out (case 2) ) and the person, upon revival, is identical to the person in case 1)?
What if there are cell-changes during the suspension on the order of changes that occur during a typical night's sleep or a day's worth of experiences? A month's worth of experiences? A year's worth?
What if a person dies normally (no suspension), and hundreds or thousands of years later, cells are arranged by artisanal hands in an arrangement consistent with case 2) above? There would be a lapse of experiences much like a suspended state, but with a traditional "death" occurring instead of an initial suspension.
I would say it depends on a core agenda of the person. Was their agenda to be stripped apart and reassembled? Or to be replaced?
If such an agenda wasn't there, then these things which tamper with a non desire for such things to happen. It's a disruption of the person - it might not be a traditional notion of death. But then again traditional death can actually be more respectful, in that it doesn't mutate you into something else against your agenda that then goes on living, in a state against it's own agenda, not quite what it was.
Our agendas are already mutating and evolving constantly by virtue of the fact that our brains never cease operations. think about a snapshot of your brain state at this very instant, and then compare that to another snapshot 24 hours in the future. There are countless possibilities for the state that that snapshot could take on, each correlating to a different set of experiences on a different path that you take in this 24-hour period. Each is different, however, there are many that will not have crossed a threshold beyond which the new "you" is unrecognizable. You could take the length of time as 2 days or 3 days or whatever -- extending the time only increases the possible number of brain states, of which a portion will still be more or less recognizable as the "you" at this very moment with your current agenda (or close enough to it such that the change is consistent with the constant change that happens anyway). Thus, there are many, many possible configurations of a recognizable "you" that could be constructed, I think.
-
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?
No, we have your gravitas. Gravitasas, really - or whatever the plural would be. Were gunna be doing the same sorts of things tomorrow - do you think a brain is going to genuinely have a whole new configuration, and yet still do the same sorts of things as prior to that configuration? No - it's going to be that it's not really a whole new configuration at all.
I think to have an agenda that has one go through the sort of stuff you describe - I think it's a savage agenda for someone to have, it could see so many subtle nuances of their functioning sheared away through mechanical destruction, I'd agree on that.
But to forfil the agenda it has set itself upon, it would have.
Went a bit Yoda at the end there, I did...
-
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.
I have no illusions as to the unlikely hold my ideas will have on the world. Entrenched interests are my issue? It is become increasingly unlikely for revolution to ever succeed again.
What's it part of when things change, but then change again in non sequetur to the past a moment latter? Nothing in particular except the utterly modular notion of change over and over - always new. The spirit of cancer.
Wow. I've never read my life so succinctly described... such reduction. I might appropriate that for my sig - as much as I dislike the connotations I have.
Again, I'm not sure you haven't taken this to an extreme I'm simply not thinking about yet. Not a bad thing - but you were specifically responding to thoughts that societal change seems too difficult, it is more entrenched than it should be; entrenchment comes from people, human bodies, practicing the beliefs, embodying the rituals of their beliefs, which gives power to institutions. I'm talking about change in this vein.
(EDIT: In hindsight, you might also be mashing the thoughts I'm portraying about societal change vs. the brain change that Meyna and I have been mentioning; neuroplasticity being constant change.)
However, if you were primed by Meyna's thoughts than I'd imagine your thoughts were concerning a biologically augmented fluidity, which I'm most certainly not advocating.
Clarity?
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern).
What is a prime concern and how does it differ from a social concern?
Also, there are humans far, far more dominated by their 'economic position' than I - yet those same humans might represent cortical anomalies, diverse variation, that might save us from ourselves - as far as there are "problems in the world" that apparently don't have "solutions" to them. As AE says, "you cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them."
As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.
I would argue that you aren't considering a static world - It seems to me a sad, state of affairs. And I also don't know what your connotations of "world of continual change" are or how they relate to your interpretation of my words.
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?
Possible and probable, increasing in likelihood based on practice.
Our agendas are already mutating and evolving constantly by virtue of the fact that our brains never cease operations. think about a snapshot of your brain state at this very instant, and then compare that to another snapshot 24 hours in the future. There are countless possibilities for the state that that snapshot could take on, each correlating to a different set of experiences on a different path that you take in this 24-hour period. Each is different, however, there are many that will not have crossed a threshold beyond which the new "you" is unrecognizable. You could take the length of time as 2 days or 3 days or whatever -- extending the time only increases the possible number of brain states, of which a portion will still be more or less recognizable as the "you" at this very moment with your current agenda (or close enough to it such that the change is consistent with the constant change that happens anyway). Thus, there are many, many possible configurations of a recognizable "you" that could be constructed, I think.
+1 on description, if "agenda" means cortical architecture representing "whatever you and Callan are surmising as someone's self-image."
To attempt a synthesis, I'd hazard, Meyna that over both cases, the entity awaking from the various unconsciousness you've described would still feel a unified experience, even temporally. I feel this was Auriga's gripe with death to begin with... the total dependence of consciousness on biology?
-
What's the point of a change to anything, if it just gets changed again a moment latter? I mean, as you describe it it sounds like you think you'll get to make your change and that'll...stay.
I have no illusions as to the unlikely hold my ideas will have on the world.
So you resent the idea of a ripple influence on others - which may have a kind of permanence - instead you want to make changes which...dissappear in the next tide?
Entrenched interests are my issue? It is become increasingly unlikely for revolution to ever succeed again.
Not sure what you mean here?
but you were specifically responding to thoughts that societal change seems too difficult
I think I just talked about having a ripple effect on other people, as giving a sense of what ones life actually is, continuing on (once the stone has passed below the surface of the water)?
It seemed to goad you?
I'm not sure I specified any particular scale of ripples.
Never mind that you talk about escaping an 'economic position' - you're essentially seeking freedom from that because you're still trapped within some socio conditioning of it mattering* (in a pratical sense it might matter, in that if you did not have to work you could spend more time reading/learning, for example. But we can act like this is the prime concern, or we can consider it's actually a social concern).
What is a prime concern and how does it differ from a social concern?
In that the social is largely whimsy (or atleast these days it is) while practical is practical. But the whimsy of considering others judgement of 'economic position', you treat as if it's not whimsy to listen to their judgement.
Then again I guess when they take their judgement dreadfully seriously, to treat it as whimsy is to disconnect from them.
Also, there are humans far, far more dominated by their 'economic position' than I - yet those same humans might represent cortical anomalies, diverse variation, that might save us from ourselves
Sounds like any solutions will be well within the frame of economic position importance?
As AE says, "you cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them."
Not sure about that - I think someone of the same conciousness as you could make up a sedoku that you can then solve.
Other variants of that phrase seem to be more about having to give up certain values held that are involved in a problem before that problem can be solved.
As much as the economic position inflicts it's mattering upon your perceptional width, you're not really considering a world of continual change.
I would argue that you aren't considering a static world - It seems to me a sad, state of affairs. And I also don't know what your connotations of "world of continual change" are or how they relate to your interpretation of my words.
Okay...so you tell me you don't know what my connotations...wait, you're just saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Then leaving it at that. Okay, if you don't have any questions, okay.
I gotta be skeptical - are you going to be speaking french tomorrow? More importantly, when you think thoughts in your head, when they rise up from feelings into the psuedo verbal (but really only imagined verbal), are they going to be in a different language tomorrow?
Possible and probable, increasing in likelihood based on practice.
You don't get any visualisation to mind of residual base and simply peripheral changes in regard to this - you see it as utterly plastic change?
I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.
-
So you resent the idea of a ripple influence on others - which may have a kind of permanence - instead you want to make changes which...dissappear in the next tide?
Again, we're coming to the same communication issue again.
If I interpret your ambiguity correctly, then I think I resent the success and entrenchment of the ripple influence of others and instead want to facilitate the changes of any/every other.
I think I just talked about having a ripple effect on other people, as giving a sense of what ones life actually is, continuing on (once the stone has passed below the surface of the water)?
It seemed to goad you?
I'm not sure I specified any particular scale of ripples.
I don't understand your connotations.
In that the social is largely whimsy (or atleast these days it is) while practical is practical. But the whimsy of considering others judgement of 'economic position', you treat as if it's not whimsy to listen to their judgement.
Then again I guess when they take their judgement dreadfully seriously, to treat it as whimsy is to disconnect from them.
Practical is practical?
Also, I don't know about you but I don't have the choice to suddenly jump my tax bracket one day and get more for doing less.
Sounds like any solutions will be well within the frame of economic position importance?
So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?
Not sure about that - I think someone of the same conciousness as you could make up a sedoku that you can then solve.
Other variants of that phrase seem to be more about having to give up certain values held that are involved in a problem before that problem can be solved.
You can create problems without having the biological capacity, or sensation, to recognize the problems you've created.
Okay...so you tell me you don't know what my connotations...wait, you're just saying you have no idea what I'm talking about. Then leaving it at that. Okay, if you don't have any questions, okay.
We've drifted far off course from Auriga's thread so I think the onus is on us to justify relevance to topic?
You don't get any visualisation to mind of residual base and simply peripheral changes in regard to this - you see it as utterly plastic change?
I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.
BBT isn't actually a gradient, except in terms of perception. We are all blind brains. It, however, has no effect on the plasticity of the brain. It simply describes limitations.
Also, check out some accounts of synesthesia or talented, yet perceptively-deprived individuals (blind-musicians, mathematicians). There are many different experiences of cognition.
-
If I interpret your ambiguity correctly, then I think I resent the success and entrenchment of the ripple influence of others and instead want to facilitate the changes of any/every other.
Well, I've given a few guesses as to what you mean and don't seem to have guessed all that accurately, so this time I'll just go eh? What does that mean?
I don't understand your connotations.
Well, I just talked about ripples - I don't know why you see that as related to anything being too difficult?
Practical is practical?
Also, I don't know about you but I don't have the choice to suddenly jump my tax bracket one day and get more for doing less.
That's resource gatherers.
Are you talking about A: You, as a person, being judged by your fiscal status?
Or are you talking about B: resource gathering capacities that are under your control?
Seperate things.
So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?
Oh, I thought you were just talking about A from before, not B. Gotta nail down this A/B thing!
We've drifted far off course from Auriga's thread so I think the onus is on us to justify relevance to topic?
Well, no, not us? I talked about ripples and...I'm happy to leave it at that.
BBT isn't actually a gradient, except in terms of perception. We are all blind brains. It, however, has no effect on the plasticity of the brain. It simply describes limitations.
*shrug* I was talking about perceptions. If it sounds interesting to talk about, I will, but I wont go into it otherwise.
-
Well, I just talked about ripples - I don't know why you see that as related to anything being too difficult?
In engaging your thoughts, initially, wherever it was we diverged, I was considering how the ripples of others become entrenched in the world - I've been interpreting "ripples" as the effects of the expression of individual agency, how ideas are expressed and physically maintained in form, biological or otherwise.
That's resource gatherers.
What?
Are you talking about A: You, as a person, being judged by your fiscal status?
Or are you talking about B: resource gathering capacities that are under your control?
B, so long as you mean, the capacity under my control to gather further resources allotted to me by A - as you've juxtaposed them A mostly determines B in society.
So if a child in any destitute country has the capacity to exceed our intelligence given the same education, we should perpetuate the status quo [what is] just because, rather than change it?
Clearer on this now?
Well, no, not us? I talked about ripples and...I'm happy to leave it at that.
Again, I'll let the community establish and embody its own code of etiquette as I have no desire to spend my time, first imaging a will and then imposing it. However, for my vote, I definitely think the onus is on the poster to justify relevance of their words to a thread.
It would be fairly immature of anyone interested in communication to think they can simply drop whatever words they want into any thread without attempting to make clear their personal connotations and intentional meanings, as articulately as possible, in relation to the topic at hand.
*shrug* I was talking about perceptions. If it sounds interesting to talk about, I will, but I wont go into it otherwise.
But what does "talking about perceptions" in regards to invoking BBT mean to you, Callan? Especially, in relation to the thread of our conversation?
-
I must have missed this reply, Mike? Sorry for the delay.
B, so long as you mean, the capacity under my control to gather further resources allotted to me by A - as you've juxtaposed them A mostly determines B in society.
Do you mean rich men are more likely to get loans?
I don't think I've juxtaposed them - to me (as I'm sure will seem a banal reversal) it seems the other way around. You seemed concerned about being judged personally on your resources simply in terms of being judged by other humans - in how you are personally treated by other humans, whether you are ostracised.
But you want it to also be about the money as well.
Which comes first for you, bro? Money or the human contact?
They seem too very different things to me - and to try and twist them together into one object (oil into water) seems the juxtaposition. Though I totally grant in the not so distant historical past, ostracism meant death. But ignoring death just for now, which one comes first for you? Say you're super man, but a hobo - you don't need to eat, don't need shelter, but you crave human company yet people shun you for you're looks (even though you're actually several thousand times more powerful than them) - does this concern you the most? Or are you actually chilly chillax with it, as you've got the power? Or it can be a mixture of both over time, but which comes up the most often for you?
Again, I'll let the community establish and embody its own code of etiquette as I have no desire to spend my time, first imaging a will and then imposing it. However, for my vote, I definitely think the onus is on the poster to justify relevance of their words to a thread.
My vote is that you have to ask if the other guy wants to try and make replies hot and sexy for everyone else. If that person was on topic, yet your enquiries into it are off topic, my vote is the onus is on you to make your off topic-ness somehow engaging.
It would be fairly immature of anyone interested in communication to think they can simply drop whatever words they want into any thread without attempting to make clear their personal connotations and intentional meanings, as articulately as possible, in relation to the topic at hand.
I thought the issue was that discussion had become off topic?
But what does "talking about perceptions" in regards to invoking BBT mean to you, Callan? Especially, in relation to the thread of our conversation?
It means what I said before:
I'm thinking blind brain theory can, subjectively, burn both ways - either one sees oneself as utterly solid and immoveable, or utterly ephemeral and every changing. With nothing to see, nothing to guide any kind of middle ground, eventually the conclusion crashes either to one extreme end, or the other.
When I say 'blind brain theory can', by 'can' I mean the viewers perception of it can affect them in such a way.
I'm not refering to some sort of grasp of BBT that is somehow above and beyond perception.
Also, perhaps this thread could be transfered to the new forum, if possible? Please :)