User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 507
  6. 508
  7. 509
  8. 510
  9. 511
  10. 512
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596

Posts by Obbe

  1. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    One perculiarity of our times is that people are so quick to accept the reality they see,touch, taste and smell. We do this automatically, disregarding the fact that every preceding age was totally mystified by existence, to the point that Mystics,poets, philosophers, sages,and spiritual teachers, without exception, insisted that there was an invisible, hidden dimension which constituted the "real" reality. In a hidden realm could be found God and the gods, heavens and hells, a domain of perfect forms, according to Plato, Nirvana, According to the Buddha, or some visions of spirits, ancestors, shamanistic creatures, and so on .

    Where did this "real" reality go? The easy answer was simple. The hidden dimension was extinguished by science. I a scientific age, nothing was considered real unless it was formed by bits of matter, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, bound by elementary forces. On this foundation, which is often called physicalist, reality became consistent from top to bottom, from the farthest galaxies to the domain of the quantum, leaving everyday reality - rocks.

    But the easy answer has been unsatisfactory for over a century, even by the standards of science,and now physicalism hangs on by dint of scientific superstition, given that actually proving it is impossible. Without a doubt modern physics has revived a hidden, invisable, formless dimension that exists beyond time and space. This dimension preceded the Big Bang, without going into detail, we can accept what modern cosmology asserts, that something came out of nothing, the something being our universe and the nothing a formless dimension we can dub the pre-created state(even though there are problems with any word assigned to describe it, since words are a creation in time and space also).

    So the mystery of "real" reality has returned with vengeance.
  2. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Captain Falcon, I am currently having issues with my PC and do not have access to a keyboard. Once I get that sorted out, I will be able to write a reply.
  3. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    The Shining

    Alien

    Taxi Driver
  4. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  5. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by NARCassist well i did mention there was a sauce for it.

    secondly, i actually got it from here so naaaaaaa

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/42-incredibly-weird-facts-youll-want-to-tell-people-down-the






    .

    It was a joke.
  6. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by NARCassist true fact: It costs the U.S. Mint almost twice as much to mint each penny and nickel as the coins are actually worth. Taxpayers lost over $100 million in 2013 just through the coins being made.

    edit: obviously there's a sauce for that, i just can't be assed to find it.




    .

    Plagiarist.

    https://consumerist.com/2014/03/10/production-of-pennies-nickels-cost-taxpayers-105-million-last-year/
  7. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by RisiR † Once again…

    This isn't your kitchen table and I'm not the dude who just came out of your mother's bedroom and took your cereal away.

    I'm RisiR. OG Space Nigga. I died for your sins. Facts.

    Lies. He's an orangutan that spent too much on windows.
  8. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Every circuit that is numbered as either a multiple of 6 or a multiple of 6 minus 1, is a C phase of a 3 phase A.C. electrical system.

    1 2 red
    3 4 black
    5 6 blue
    7 8 red
    9 10 black
    11 12 blue
  9. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Falcon More like you haven't found the proper source to plagiarize yet

    I have I just haven't had the time to do so yet.
  10. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Falcon Wish someone could debate me on this site…

    I will, I just haven't had the time to type up a proper response yet.
  11. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Freewill is an illusion and so is the self.

    By free will I mean the libertarian concept of free will,the idea that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination.

    Captain falcon says a puppet can be free as long as it loves it's strings, or rather, the strings are an extension of the puppets sense of "self". But as explained above, the self is an illusion.
  12. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Falcon that's the point. Again, what is "our"? do you consider your identity to be in a vaccum, like you're some sort of godly black box outside of the universe?



    How is that a problem? There's no condition that what happens inside of your skin is what constitutes free will. You're setting up a straw man to knock down. There is some qualitative content to your experience and this is what the concept of free will is tied to. If that exists for other elements of your body, then that would apply to them too. It might! But we don't know if it does.

    Let me put it another way; you cannot consciously decide what thoughts you have. These seemingly just emerge from the mists of your mind. but whatever box of scraps rattles that thought around and spits out an outcome, if what is considered to be "you". The key difference between this and some other system that spits out an output for an input is your ability, seemingly, to process 2nd and 3rd order reasoning with some qualitative content to your 2nd and 3rd (or higher) order considerations. We can' quantify these qualia but that's fine, we know it exists because we have it (what is blue? The colour you see, not what the wavelength of light).



    that's what your will is; whatever you are predisposed to decide, that's YOUR predisposition, and it comes from that weird black box in your head and not because some other black box is forcing you to, then it's your free will.

    Again, define free will. You're constantly trying to dismiss things as being not free will, but yet you refuse to define it. this conversation is useless unless you actually commit to a position.

    I swear, this is the weasliest discussion on this site.

    Another problem I see with the compatibilist point of view is that it rests solely on the concept of the "self" and how you define yourself, which is actually an illusion. You see, one of the problems we have in discussing consciousness objectively is that consciousness is irreducibly subjective. Consciousness is what it's like to be you. If there's an experiential, internal qualitative dimension to any physical system, then that is consciousness, and we can't really reduce the experiential part of this to only talk about information processing and neurotransmitters. For example, by looking at different states of the brain, all we can do is correlate experiential with changes in brain states. But no matter how tight these correlations become, you can't just throw out the actual experiential side of consciousness. That would be analogous to saying if you just flipped a coin long enough, you would realize it only had one side. It's true that you can become committed to only talking about one side, you can say that heads being up is only a case of tails being down, but that doesn't actually reduce one side of reality to the other.

    To give a more precise example, we have very strong third-person "objective measures" of things like anxiety and fear. Your bring someone to the lab, they say they're feeling fear, you can scan their brain with FMRI and see that their amygdala response is heightened, you can measure the sweat on their palms and see that there is an increased galvanic skin response, you can check their blood cortisol and see that it is spiking. So these now are considered objective third-person measures of fear, but if half the people came into the lab tomorrow and said they were feeling fear yet showed none of these signs, and said they were completely calm when their cortisol began to spike and their palms began to sweat, these objective measures would no longer be reliable measures of fear. So the cash value in the change in physiology is still a change in the first-person, conscious, subjective side of things. We are inevitably going to rely on peoples subjective reports to understand whether our correlations are accurate. So the hope that we are going to talk about consciousness shorn of any kind of qualitative internal experiential language is a false one. We have to understand both sides of it, subjective and objective.

    I'm not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain, or that it floats free of the brain after death. I'm not making any spooky claims about the metaphysics of consciousness. What I am saying is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads, as a kind of passenger in a vehicle of the body. That's where most people start when they think about any of these sorts of questions. Most people don't feel identical to their bodies, they feel like they have bodies, like they're inside the body, and most people feel like they're inside their heads.

    Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuo-anatomical sense. There is no place in the brain for your ego to be hiding. We know that everything you experience - your conscious emotions and thoughts and moods and the impulses that initiate behavior - all of these things are delivered by a myriad of different processes in the brain that are spread out over the whole of the brain, they can be independently erupted, we have a changing system. We are a process and there is not one unitary "self" that is carried through from one moment to the next unchanging, and yet we feel that we have this self that's just the center of experience.

    Now it's possible, I claim, and people have been claiming for thousands of years, to lose this feeling, to actually have the "center" drop out of the experience, so that rather than feeling like experiences are happening to you, you identify with/feel identical to the sphere of experience that is all the colour and light and feeling and energy of consciousness, with no sense of center. This is classically described as self-transcendence or ego transcendence in spiritual, mystical, new-age literature. It is the baby in the bathwater religious people are afraid to throw out. If you were to seriously take on the project of being like Jesus or Buddha, whatever your favorite contemplative is, self-transcendence really is at the core of the phenomenology being described there. And what I'm saying is that's a real experience.

    It's clearly an experience that people can have. It tells you nothing about the cosmos or what happened before the Big Bang, nothing about teh divine origin of certain books, it doesn't make religious dogmas anymore plausible. But it tells you something about the nature of human consciousness. And it just so happens that this experience of self-transcendence does link up with what we know about the mind through neuroscience, to form a plausible connection between science and spirituality. If you lose that sense of a unitary self, if you lose your sense that there's a permanent, unchanging center to consciousness, your experience of the world actually becomes more faithful to the facts. It's not a distortion of the way we think things are at the level of the brain, it actually brings your experience into closer register with how we think things are.
  13. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by mmQ :)

    I didn't have to use Google with the book right there in front of me.
  14. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Falcon I'm not letting go of either.

    You're pretty good at not letting things go.

    Keep it up.
  15. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Captain Falcon When you post something without quotes and rephrase it into the first person, you are fucking claiming they're your words, you neckdjinn

    Once you calm down, I would be happy to continue to discuss this topic with you.
  16. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Yes.
  17. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    No.
  18. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    I wasn't trolling or fronting. I read his book, posted his video, and posted his argument in response to CF. Never claimed those were my words. I don't think it matters.
  19. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
  20. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Have a good time.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 507
  6. 508
  7. 509
  8. 510
  9. 511
  10. 512
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596
Jump to Top