>>23481
>important
By how much? People lived just fine for thousands of years (hundreds of thousands of years) without a doubt the Earth is stationary. Maybe knowing the "real" laws only matters to some extent - for example to the level we could satisfy our basic needs - and beyond that it's just luxury. Also it probably matters to a certain level to make interactions between people easier, so they know they talk about the same things, and so on. But then, are we real? Ar other people real? Am I real? Can we be sure? This goes a long way.
Didn't read the book, generally I keep myself far from philosophical books. I learned some, have pals with such degree, and enjoy giving some thought to questions like how? or why? but beyond that, naw don't want to spend that much time with it.

>>23495
>By how much?

I'd say it's the only thing that matters. Yes, people haven't known that the Earth is moving for a long time, but for that time they've been absorbing another kind of knowledge about the world. Knowledge is growing wider and deeper constantly, and it doesn't matter if we don't know something at the moment, what matters, is the tendency to learn about the outer world, about the inner world, about reality in general. Existence eagers to cognize itself.
I believe, no matter what kind of knowledge one gets, it's about reality, even if one doesn't realize it. In that sense, I agree, that "important" sounds incorrect here.

Subjectively, the future of a given observer may be said to be "open from that observer's point of view" because one cannot measure or observe one's own future. But openness in that subjective sense does not allow choices. If you have a ticket for last week's lottery, but have not yet found out whether you have won, the outcome is still open from your point of view, even though objectively it is fixed. But, subjectively or objectively, you cannot change it. No causes which have not already affected it can do so any longer. The common-sense theory of free will says that last week, while you still had a choice whether to buy a ticket or not, the future was still objectively open, and you really could have chosen any of two or more options. But that is incompatible with spacetime. So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well. We need, and cling to, the belief that the future can be affected by present events, and especially by our choices; but perhaps that is just our way of coping with the fact that we do not know the future. In reality, we make no choices. Even as we think we are considering a choice, its outcome is already there, on the appropriate slice of spacetime, unchangeable like everything else in spacetime, and impervious to our deliberations. It seems that those deliberations themselves are unchangeable and already in existence at their allotted moments before we ever know of them.

>>23529
>Existence eagers to cognize itself.
Now this is an interesting thought. With a spin The Creation is God's self reflection.
Probably more later, back to reality. It's safe to say for up to this point whatever we think we know about reality it seems to be wrong and everything will turn out to be wrong. They are just temporary realities. Still what we do based on what we know seems to be working mostly. Maybe because this virtual-reality puffer.
Or do we shape reality? Since we are the perceivers there is no outside factor to tell us what is objective reality and what is our subjective one. Reality is what we think it is at that moment. So reality can change depending on us.
This may be leads to the question of truth and/or facts. Good scene in the tv-show Northern Exposure.

>23555
>It's safe to say for up to this point whatever we think we know about reality it seems to be wrong and everything will turn out to be wrong. They are just temporary realities.
Yes, there is a concept that knowledge is static by it's nature, when reality is fluent, inconstant, like a plant. Hence, knowledge always fails to graps reality, it just never keeps the pace. The same for the truth, it's eluding.
>Or do we shape reality?
I don't thing there is a difference between "us" and "reality". Reality embraces everything, even "unreal" things, it doesn't need to be real, to be real.
>Good scene in the tv-show Northern Exposure.
I didn't watch it, what scene?

>>23553
So if free will is only an illusion, then, if someone were to commit murder, it would not have been his choice. He was only doing what everyone else is, namely actualizing his predetermined outcome (though this is not an argument against locking him up). If everyone is fulfilling their own outcomes, is it unfair to praise the best of men while condemning the worst of men?

>>23560
>So if free will is only an illusion, then, if someone were to commit murder, it would not have been his choice. He was only doing what everyone else is, namely actualizing his predetermined outcome
Correct.
>though this is not an argument against locking him up
In that way "locking him up" is predetermined too.
>If everyone is fulfilling their own outcomes, is it unfair to praise the best of men while condemning the worst of men?
Praising, feeling of unfair, condemning - all of if is predefined too.

But I'd rather use "defined" than "predefined", because if every outcome already exists, it mean, there is no "pre-", everything just is as it is.

>>23509
The idea of human worth is something I've personally come to consider a selfish idea. What makes our lives worth more than the animals we kill for food, or the flies and spiders we casually kill around our houses? The typical argument would probably be because we are more intelligent, more sentient or something along those lines, but those concepts are only considered valuable by humans. Of course, the real reason we value ourselves above other animals is simply an instinctual desire to preserve our own species. Other animals also have this innate desire, and there is nothing wrong with it. But I think people would be better off simply accepting our own nature rather than trying to make excuses as to why we're somehow objectively more valuable than another species.

>>23562
The definition of worth, within that context, is pretty fluid. Most humans see other humans as worth more than animals because they can empathize more with a similar being. But a solitary human might value their pets more than most humans because of their emotional value. Or someone in a specific field might see certain rare animals as more valuable than the 7 billion strong species that inhabits every continent. People determine worth by placing it on top of an idealized standard. Worth matches their view of a better world, or at least one that makes sense.

People's definition of worth seems to imply a certain goal that they would like to reach to along with a certain personal philosophy/ideology. Issues arise when said philosophy inevitably undergoes revision or outright replacement. When that happens a person starts to see their past progress towards earning "worth" as null and then their shit gets messy. They cling to ideas that are contradictory towards their new perspective, or they start to view their environment and relationships with a disdain that didn't exist before despite acting the same, or they don't see the rationality in their own feelings, or they hate their older selves and try to overcompensate for "lost progress", etc.

>>23559
>I didn't watch it, what scene?
Well the villagers gathers to talk about "Russian flu" which plagued the settlement and they ended up in serious discussion with the doctor about the difference between truth and facts. Which is eternal which is changeable and such.
Good show. Worth watching the first few seasons. It went on Hungarian tv great many years ago and dl'd it once too.

>>23590
I see, thanks.

>>23553
>according to spacetime physics
Well, call me when they prove they are right by predicting the future.
This is my opinion: if we look forward to the future we see possibilities, if we look back to the past we see determinism. Sometimes I also joke that an event (like the odds of the result of a dice roll) is 100% we just don't know about it yet. Otherwise I always considered this question a pointless one, unworthy of debating. I think it's better to believe we have free will, from a societal viewpoint absolutely.

>>23562
>>23568
I can agree with these. How about introducing such concepts as vices and virtues, basically classical étalons?

It all ends with the question "what is reality?". Can anyone answer to this without using another axiomatic term? It is also intermixed with concept of existence that couldn't be described too.

And also imagine that someone experiencing himself as a live person while being a product of someone's dream (or computer simulation, or whatever) - what will be called "reality" for him?

>Another is that we experience the Earth to be at rest beneath our feet, despite its rapid and complex motion in reality.

But Earth is resting beneath our feet. At least my feet, when I'm standing still. Fully stationary Earth and universe moving around it is valid scientific concept that doesn't contradict any law of physics. Just put point of origin onto Earth and everything is ok. Only question is why put it there but not on Sun or center of galaxy or some other distant thing. But why not? These positions are equivalent, at least in terms of modern physics.

Or it is universe (including Earth) is moving around me. Or around you, if you like that. It doesn't matter.

>>23562
>worth

Discussion about worthiness could only exist when some goal exists. Or some absolute thing that can be used for measuring (like concept of god or some ultimate entity).

>>23598
>What is reality?

Look at this question, it means there is you (subject), asking (process) about reality (object).

How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.

The conclusion is, we can't talk about reality without being contradicting. I don't think it's a bad thing, but rather demonstrates we can't be logical, discussing reality.

>But Earth is resting beneath our feet. At least my feet, when I'm standing still.
Sure, that's another very interesting question of choosing a reference point. So, why should we prefer one reference point over another? The answer the book gives, is simplicity. If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.

>>23599
>How about this kind of answer, reality is totality of all subjects, processes and objects? Which means, when you're asking about reality you implying you're out of it, because reality can't ask about reality itself, as it doesn't "know" anything at all. If it knew something about reality, it would mean there was something else besides reality, but that's a contradiction, because reality embraces everything without exception. Actually, I'm committing the same crime along these lines, as you can see.

Hmm, yes, you are right here.

But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly? I don't know.

>So, why should we prefer one reference point over another?
>If we chose the model where the Sun was stationary and the planets were moving around it, that would give us a more simple theory to explain the observations.
>You may be asking, "but why should we prefer more simple and elegant model over another one?" The only (and a very unsatisfying) argument I can see here is it is more practical.

Having Earth as reference point is much more practical for many things, from navigation to human interactions. Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model. But people still love it, mostly for historical reasons, and because when that model was created, Sun was considered stationary (and still stays like this in mind of masses).

>>23659
>But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly? I don't know.
This is the main problem with philosophy. It always ends in this.

>>23659
>But if this always ends with philosophical nonsense, is there a way to discuss it properly?
Philosophy has been looking for the answers to the very same questions for ages now, and the final answer has been never found. The same applies to physics, the deeper physicists go, the more discouraging answers they find. So, should we stop? I don't think so, for some reason the problem of reality seems to be very attractive, and even we're sure there is no obtainable answer, it's fun to ponder about it. At the end, this kind of activity is as pointless as any other one.

>Stationary Sun model is less practical I guess, although it has some advantages over Earth model.
Sure, if we considering only interaction of the Earth and the Sun, it doesn't matter which is moving and which is not (actually, it would be impossible to determine). But since there are other celestial bodies moving around, the more elegant theory to explain than movement is the one with stationary Sun. Of course, that kind of knowledge is totally irrelevant if you're just traveling from one city to another. If your journey is relatively short, you don't even need to consider the shape of the Earth, you can assume it's flat.

>>23663
>This is the main problem with philosophy. It always ends in this.
True. But there is a small detail. Unable to find the answer, a philosopher obtains some side-answer (which seems to be negligible at the first glance).
I know that I know nothing, but the others do not even know that.

>>23697
>At the end, this kind of activity is as pointless as any other one.
You are very persuasive, I'm convinced.

Every existing object has a cause. If we try to unwind this sequence of causes, we'll get to the beginning of the Universe. But what was the cause of that beginning?
If we accept the Big Bang theory, that means we agree that space-time, nonexistent previously, started to exist. The problem here, as you can see, we can't tell neither where that happened (there wasn't space before), nor when it happened (there wasn't time either).
So we've got an interesting problem here, existence have to have a cause (because existence exists), but the cause can't be found within existence itself (because as we demonstrated above, the cause of existence is out of space-time). Hmm...
What could be the source of existence? As you can see, that was non-existence. Because, when there is existence, it means there is no non-existence. And vice versa. I can't tell these two are reasons of each other, but rather one leads to another. Both make the sequence, which embraces everything that can and can't be thought of, but what about thinker? Is he within the sequence, or out of it?

>>23871
>What could be the source of existence? As you can see, that was non-existence.

"We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

And although you weren't implying this, I would like to add that the Big Bang Theory is in no way a refutation against God, in fact, it was formulated by a Catholic priest: Georges Lemaître.

>>23873
>We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.
I see a problem here, look. An object can only exist, because if it doesn't exist, there is no object we could perceive directly. This misunderstanding arises from our believe into equality of object and our recollection of that object.

That's also the way we misunderstand Time. Because of memory we think there is Past. We extrapolate Past into the other way and that way we invent Future. But what if we stick to Now only? Then an object exists (if it's perceived), or doesn't exist, (if it isn't perceived). And if we can't perceive an object which we don't have recollection of, there is essentially no object to speak about. In that case we don't even know that we don't know about some object.

>that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing
What is an object? Would you agree that it's some amount of matter configured in some specific way? Thus, we can tell two objects are differ if they have different configuration of matter. Talking about existence I meant rather that matter than fleeting objects formed with it. And of course, once matter exists, it configuration is constantly changes, that's why we experience causality of events. But what about the matter itself? Where it came from?

>Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
I don't think God is being, because "to be" means "to exist", which means to obey the causality principle. But what if God is another name for non-existence?

>>23871
Well that's the good old "nothing is nothing, not even nothing" problem. Quite exciting.
There was God who emanated so make it possible for self-reflection.

>>23883
Eh I made a mistake. It's: "nothing isn't nothing, not even nothing". In English it sounds weird.

>>23885
>nothing isn't nothing, not even nothing
Sounds good!

>>23886
It's a semmi sem semmi, még a semmi sem in Hungarian.
Also I think mathematics differentiate between 0 and nothing.

>>23877
>I see a problem here, look. An object can only exist, because if it doesn't exist, there is no object we could perceive directly. This misunderstanding arises from our believe into equality of object and our recollection of that object.
If existence requires perception, what about that which is perceived yet does not exist (I'm thinking of illusions, hallucinations, or even phantom limb syndrome because the brain registers a limb but reality doesn't)?

>What is an object? Would you agree that it's some amount of matter configured in some specific way? Thus, we can tell two objects are differ if they have different configuration of matter. Talking about existence I meant rather that matter than fleeting objects formed with it. And of course, once matter exists, it configuration is constantly changes, that's why we experience causality of events. But what about the matter itself? Where it came from?
Note that in the argument the word used was things not objects. The definition of object as some amount of matter configured in some specific way could be debated, but this is avoided here since "things" generally encompasses more than what is material. The argument implies that everything, except God, is contingent; this includes matter, energy, and even abstract things like truth, beauty, value. "God does not depend on anything, but everything other than Him depends on Him." And God's existence is an integral part of the casuality principle. Casuality requires a first mover, a cause which is "put in motion by no other", otherwise we would have a infinite regress of causes:

"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

Sidenote: Motion as understood in this argument means any kind of change (motion), not just material change.

>>23553
>But that is incompatible with spacetime. So according to spacetime physics, the openness of the future is an illusion, and therefore causation and free will can be no more than illusions as well.

It is debatable. Mainstream interpretation of quantum effects explains some of these effects by using truly undetermined and random values. So, if physics are right here (there are plenty of oppose views though), we can have real unpredictability in universe. And if these micro-scale effects can influence our consciousness (also debatable though), we have free will. Penrose supports this, for example, although quantum effects may be too small to change the way how neurons work etc.

>>23873
>that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist;
>But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.

Aquinas may be wrong here. We think that everything must need a cause, and with that axiom everything ends in some primordial and/or absolute being, that may be called god.

But is there are requirement for reason and cause? What prevents something to occur without cause? We have empiric knowledge that this couldn't happen (i.e. we just never seen thing that have no cause), and some shady mathematics that says that conservation law works and you can't get anything from nothing. All these things are made in our universe using our concepts of space and time. But you can't fully describe system while being part of that system. Things outside of the system may have different concepts that allow events to happen without cause, because it is related only for our concept of time that may not exist "outside".

In other words: something may just occur from nothing spontaneously and it is ok, although completely impossible from our point of view.

>>23913
>That's why the "first mover" can't be found within existence. If "the first mover" was there, that would imply he had to have a cause too, agree?
Well, "in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence." Non-existence, by its nature, can not be this being because it is nothing; it can't "contain within itself the reason for its own existence" because it does not exist. God, in comparison, is pure actuality and is therefore non-contingent.

>There is no way to find out whether the object exists or not, without us conducting some experiments and perceiving the results of it.
To go back to the question of does existence require perception: if I a saw a lone man, I would know that he has a mother and a father, and I would further know that his mother and his father both have parents and so on for their parents. Once we affirm the existence of something by directly perceiving it, if we obey casuality, we can know the existence of further thing(s), those being the thing(s) which caused the original thing to exist. Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?

>>23931
I didn't see this reply as I was finishing my other reply. I'll respond to this tomorrow.

>>23932
>in order to explain existence, we must come to a being which contains within itself the reason for its own existence
Yeah, that's the main point we're arguing about. You think there is a special case, when the cause can dwell within its reason (God), when I think the reason must always be out of the result. Frankly, I can't prove one of these. Maybe you just pick one and see where it leads you.

>Doesn't this bring us back to the argument of contingency?
Tough question.

>>23931
>Things outside of the system may have different concepts that allow events to happen without cause, because it is related only for our concept of time that may not exist "outside".
This is a concept I've thought about in the past. Aquinas makes a convincing argument if we view it from the laws of our own universe, but what about from the views of a different one? Maybe our universe was created by another universe with different laws of logic, where there was no "beginning" and the law of causality doesn't exist? Many people believe we were created by ayylmaos or that we're living in a computer simulation etc., so maybe that this could work as an argument for those ideas.

Do you remember when you realized you exists for the very first time?

>>23953
I'm not even sure I do.

>>23935
>Yeah, that's the main point we're arguing about.
I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.

>Frankly, I can't prove one of these. Maybe you just pick one and see where it leads you.
Yes, it's not in the realm of science to prove because it isn't within the universe; all we can do is juxtapose the positions and see which seems about right.

>>23931
>Something may just occur from nothing spontaneously.
I'm familiar with this argument, and as said above, this isn't in the realm of science to disprove. Why I favor the existence of a God as to not is because I think it takes greater faith to believe that from nothing came something than that from something came something (video partially related).

>>23969
>I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.
Well, at least, that would be boring if we agreed on everything.

>that video
I extracted a part of it from the very beginning (attached). I think, the priest is wrong there, because what both science and religion are trying to do, is to explain the world. Philosophy is reaching for the same fruit too. But those disciplines are differ in methods.

Religion: Here is the ultimate explanation, some great people have produced already, you just trust, take and use it as is. Do not think, just believe.
Science: The world is unknown, but we can make theories about its qualities and conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theories. We don't think the theories represent the ultimate truth, they just explain the world as best as it possible at the moment.
Philosophy: The world is unknown, but we can try to explain it, using mind. Since our senses are unreliable, mind is the only tool we have.

Sometimes the verge between those is vague, like with Buddhism, where part of the knowledge is given as is (sutras — mediate knowledge), but some of it an adept should get for himself (meditation — direct knowledge).

Why do we have all three methods (religion, science, philosophy), instead of just one? Because none of those works for everyone. And it's not about people who inherited their views from parents or surrounding, but about those who is sincerely trying to understand, what's "life", "me", and "why I'm here". There are people, who try to find the answers with science, and being unsatisfied, turn away to religion. There are opposite examples too.

>>23960
You're not sure you exist? That implies existence of someone who is unsure, right?

>>23969
>I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.
How about "unknown" then? But not like something that unknown just now and can be revealed in future, but absolutely, fundamentally "unknown"? Unknown to that extent that it's even impossible to say whether this "unknown" exists or not?

Now, be careful to disagree, because that would imply your intent to make God cognizable.

>>23972
>You're not sure you exist?
How can you? There are so many possible explanations philosophers and fiction writers can come up why our existence is questionable it's not even funny.
>That implies existence of someone who is unsure, right?
No that implies the nonexistence of existence.

23974
>No that implies the nonexistence of existence.
But existence can only exist, otherwise that's not existence. The same way non-existence can't exist by definition.
But what about the one who ponders about both existence and non-existence? To know existence he should be non-existent, and to know non-existence, he should exist.
Ergo, one must neither exist, nor non-exist, right?

>>23978
No those are just human concepts. Without us none of it matters as it didn't matter before us and won't after us. So in a way not existence nor nonexistence exists not neither.
Thread theme band:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-5ODYjt_5-k [Embed]

>>23986
It means humans are a concept too. In your opinion, is there anything that is not a concept?

The truth is that all of these philosophies are false and only serve to weaken your mind and bring misanthropy.
The only truth is in the Holy Bible.

>>23913
By the way, the entire "sheeple" meme is only to attack those who believe in God, referred to lamb or sheep. What we should use is GOAT.

>>23989
I have no opinion. For me this topic has very marginal importance and I think I could easily agree or reject any kind of ideas about it. I don't feel bound by my own previous statements neither (this doesn't mean much anyway, anybody can change his mind for whatever reason).
I'd rather throw in something from the "practical" side of the question of reality and existence.
Let's say there is this person, Joe Smith, he did deeds which might classify as interesting or real achievement for the general opinion, something which raise him above the great grey average. He meets Peter Jones who doesn't know his deeds, and gains and impression of him.
First impressions are very important they can decide how we view a person for a long time and only repeated witnessing of the other's deeds can destroy this picture we created - some are less prone to create these boxes to fit in other people (or these boxes are more elastic or changeable), some more, but we all do.
So Peter Jones will think that our Joe is something, he will have a verdict on him, and he might think he isn't capable of doing those things he did. Then later they talk and Joe says he did this thing, and Peter won't believe him, he would think he is lying and bragging about nothing, trying to build a reputation he does not deserve. Maybe those things Joe did cannot be proven easily or at all. There's no documents or witnesses about it or very hard to find. Were those things real? Were those things real only for him? For Peter they sure aren't. And won't be until he witnesses the capabilities of Joe.
Some people say they don't care what others think about them. Opinions of others don't matter. Let's say James Taylor is such a person. He also has achievements others might be jealous of. And Peter says he doesn't believe him, or he's a liar. But James go on with his life without wanting to prove anything. But Peter doesn't stop poking at him and starts to interrogate him why he doesn't reply, why he doesn't prove his words are true (now let's not judge Peter's overinflated self-importance). What would James do? If he really is indifferent about Peter's opinion he isn't obligated to talk about his motivation of ignoring his demands. Most people, who has this claim and loud about it, adopted this attitude to stop people criticizing them, to stop hearing negative feedback. However those who really don't care will let praise too fly by their ears. They are confident in their own reality and doesn't feel the need to conform to what others try to build.

>>23993
I don't think so. While priests can be seen as herders and the followers as herd this metaphor isn't specific enough to claim it's just for them. Priests are also compared to fishermen why noone memes with "fishle"?

>>23995
It specifically refers to all Christians, priests or ordinary followers. There's no hierarchy (sheeps, herders, lords, etc.) here.

>>23997
(also, why do I have a Spanish flag now?)

>>23997
Nope. Sheeple is about those people who can be told what to think, who follow the "herders" mindlessly. Usually used in politics.

>>23998
Posting on endchan.org goes through cloudflare. Use .xyz and you get your flag correctly. Mostly. If you don't use proxy or VPN.

>>23999
>Sheeple is about those people who can be told what to think
Which is why I say it's a mockery of Christianity. Specifically using the term "sheep" rather than "goat".

>>24000
Cattle is also used. Especially when referring to the elite living off the people. This nothing has to do with Christianity either. Just like sheeple.

>>24001
I know. I'm specifically referring to the use of "sheeple" in that manner.

>>23992
C'mon dude, that's not the way one makes a serious statement.

>>23994
>They are confident in their own reality and doesn't feel the need to conform to what others try to build.
Sounds wonderfull, thanks for the answer.

>>24000
>goat
Then Satanists can feel offended instead. It's hard to please every creed.

>>24005
>C'mon dude, that's not the way one makes a serious statement.
<serious statement
<C'mon dude
Dropped.
>Then Satanists can feel offended instead. It's hard to please every creed.
Please not the Satanists. If anything, we should do everything to DISPLEASE them.

>>24006
Your behaviour isn't very Christian you know. You write all haughty when you should be humble. You show the arrogance of Pride when you should be tolerant out of Patience.
On the other hand, appealing to authority, like how you did it with the Bible, is very Christian. And Communist (muh Das Kapital, muh Little Red Book of Mao). And Nazi (muh Mein Kampf). And Muslim (muh Koran). And all the other book cults.

Whether a mathematical proposition is true or not is indeed independent of physics. But the proof of such a proposition is a matter of physics only. There is no such thing as abstractly proving something, just as there is no such thing as abstractly knowing something. Mathematical truth is absolutely necessary and transcendent, but all knowledge is generated by physical processes, and its scope and limitations are conditioned by the laws of nature. One can define a class of abstract entities and call them "proofs" (or computations), just as one can define abstract entities and call them triangles and have them obey Euclidean geometry. But you cannot infer anything from that theory of ‘triangles’ about what angle you will turn through if you walk around a closed path consisting of three straight lines. Nor can those "proofs" do the job of verifying mathematical statements. A mathematical "theory of proofs" has no bearing on which truths can or cannot be proved in reality, or be known in reality; and similarly a theory of abstract "computation" has no bearing on what can or cannot be computed in reality.

So, a computation or a proof is a physical process in which objects such as computers or brains physically model or instantiate abstract entities like numbers or equations, and mimic their properties. It is our window on the abstract. It works because we use such entities only in situations where we have good explanations saying that the relevant physical variables in those objects do indeed instantiate those abstract properties.

Consequently, the reliability of our knowledge of mathematics remains for ever subsidiary to that of our knowledge of physical reality. Every mathematical proof depends absolutely for its validity on our being right about the rules that govern the behaviour of some physical objects, like computers, or ink and paper, or brains. So, contrary to what Hilbert thought, and contrary to what most mathematicians since antiquity have believed and believe to this day, proof theory can never be made into a branch of mathematics. Proof theory is a science: specifically, it is computer science.

most people dont live in reality

>>24240
>But why is it so dangerous to get rid of meanings?

thats against crab/NPC programs
tho they can be reprogrammed

>>24243
>thats against crab/NPC programs
Maybe, but why?

>>24245
because normies want to be "cool"

>>24246
Why "normies" what don't want to be "cool" are dangerous/unwanted?

>>24247
tribalism

mess with the best or die like the rest -- normie proverb

>>24248
>mess with the best
It reads like, defy the greatest authority. Doesn't strike like a normie motto at all.

>>24249
maybe
i don't understand half of proverbs anyway

>>24230
What do you think did he mean by that?

>>24240
Through all my research (thats a fascinating word in itself, re-search) ive come to the conclusion to use your own mind. We all are born to listen to our parents, then teachers, media, friends etc. Does it make sense? Is it logical? We are born to this world and think everything is normal because everyone else think so. And our parents this its normal because their parents did it to.

Your picture of the dollar bill is a good example. Money is really the biggest religion there is. Money is a belief system. Its based on faith (trust).

Your question about meaning and life is poignant because we arent really allowed to discover our true selves in this world. We exist to produce and consume. I've read accounts on native populations where they could sit and look at a lake for hours. The modern man would think, whats the purpose of that? Whats the meaning? Does it have to have a meaning? We are so blinded by our profit system.

This video is a bit more factual and less hippy

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XzBAFoCqtRc [Embed]

To the mods I would like a hat please thank you

preferably a sombrero

>>24252
Maybe he is eluding to reincarnation I dont know. Im very skeptical about reincarnation because its based on a slave system, the hindu religion and later other religions said that the upper classes deserved to be that way because they were good people and the slaves deserved it. Its a load of bollocks imo.

>>24253
>We all are born to listen to our parents, then teachers, media, friends etc. Does it make sense? Is it logical? We are born to this world and think everything is normal because everyone else think so. And our parents this its normal because their parents did it to.
Yes, we don't investigate for ourselves, but use that second-hand knowledge for granted.

>we arent really allowed to discover our true selves in this world
>allowed
But are we capable of? That looks suspicious too. Maybe the call to find out who you are is another trick, to inspire an illusion of meaning? "I'm not the body" solves easy, because body is perceived, thus there are two: the perceiver and the body. But when the perceiver tries to perceive the perceiver, what should be perceived?

>I've read accounts on native populations where they could sit and look at a lake for hours. The modern man would think, whats the purpose of that? Whats the meaning? Does it have to have a meaning? We are so blinded by our profit system.
Sounds great!

>https://youtube.com/watch?v=XzBAFoCqtRc
Thank you, I'm going to watch all those through.

>>24256
>Im very sceptical about reincarnation because its based on a slave system
There is a way to see life as a game (Lila), which turns both Karma and Nirvana into a joke.

>the hindu religion and later other religions said that the upper classes deserved to be that way because they were good people and the slaves deserved it. Its a load of bollocks imo.
Yes, that sounds like a way to justify the inequality. But what if one be born as a miserable in one life, a king in another, a sage then, a tree, and so on infinitely? Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you, remember? Would that explain (and reconcile) the whole thing?

>>24229
Looked into that video, but I won't watch it. Some stuff sounds cool but then there are stuff like him >>24240 cut from it and makes no sense or wrong, or even malicious fallaciousness.
This "trader is traitor" thing is so horribly wrong. Even the first sentence that when we buy and sell things we are traitors of humanity. How else would things get to their place of use if we wouldn't do that? Even if we would just put everything in a big pile from entirely altruistic reasons for others to take what they need in the end we would also gain something out of it since we also need things (items or services) that we can't provide to ourselves. And even we would profit from it because the worth of stuff can be a slippery thing to define, so maybe we would need goods which longer or harder to make what we produce, wouldn't we gain with such indirect exchange?
If we are living on an economical level which is bigger than a few households traders are goddamn essential. They are the ones who bring the goods from their production site to the place where they are put in use. If the producers would do that they wouldn't have time to produce. And basically everyone else is part of the production: some make sure the necessary skills are passed on, some make it possible for people to be able to work (help them to move their workplace or keep them healthy), some ensure they do it safely, etc. It can be argued how much traders should get for their service but it's sure they aren't traitors but necessary cogs in the wheel.
And billionaires aren't make people starve, on the contrary they allow many people to make more than enough to live. We are passed the times when capitalists kept the workforce just at the threshold of starvation, people are making several times of subsistence. There are some obvious exceptions, probably in China or Africa, but those also could be remedied I guess it would take more of political actions and corrections than economical. And again it also can be argued if billionaires should have all those wealth they don't really need but condemning them just like that is simply isn't correct.
Also someone who knows economy better would also argue: economy isn't a zero-sum game.

>>24270
The extracted video is about stock traders, which are utter parasites.
When one trades stocks and earns, that means someone else looses.
Trader-billionaire = common trader * K (where K is some big number).
And so on.

>>24272
>The extracted video is about stock traders
Not really no. They are part of it but the whole thing isn't about them.
This is the premise:
>When we buy and sell things we are traders of humanity because we are traitors.
He speaks not about stock brokers but about "we". Maybe my English isn't impeccable but I can understand it this much.
And even later in that piece he talks about general things and not specifically about stock broker related stuff.

>>24260
>Yes, we don't investigate for ourselves, but use that second-hand knowledge for granted.

There is also a big gap between the generations of people. Its easy to glorify the past. It was truly a horror show alot of the times. But you had a link, a connection with your parents, grandparents etc. Nowadays everyone gets their opinion from state sanctioned approved media that is telling them what to think, what to say. Pretty much everything that people think and say and act is implanted in their heads. There is very little original thought out there.
>>24260
>But are we capable of? That looks suspicious too. Maybe the call to find out who you are is another trick, to inspire an illusion of meaning? "I'm not the body" solves easy, because body is perceived, thus there are two: the perceiver and the body. But when the perceiver tries to perceive the perceiver, what should be perceived?
The question isn't if we are capable of it. Its about freedom, real freedom in your mind. About being sentient.

Reincarnation can mean alot of things really. It can simply mean to pass your genes off to your children. Then you (your genes) live again.

>>24270
Im not here to defend his videos. It was just an example out of many to widen the mind. What is language? Its just sounds we make, that we then have an image in our head about. Venetian Phonetician sound very similar doesnt it.

Once you really dive into the rabbit hole there is no way out of it.

>>24277
>Phonetician
phonecian

>>24276
one of the reasons normies were allowed to get ""education"" is bacause it was easier to brainwash them

you can't really brainwash someone who can't read

>>24280
Indeed and the bloody prussians are one of the culprits of the weapons of massinstruction

>>24276
>Pretty much everything that people think and say and act is implanted in their heads.
Can you see your own statement as an implanted knowledge too? Not only common people are brainwashed, but those from opposition too. That's where the real horror show reveals itself.

>There is very little original thought out there.
U.G. Krishnamurti used to give talks on the topic a lot. He claimed thought to be a destructive parasite of the body, sustaining own existence at any price. His teaching is known for its nonconformism, it's quite refreshing.

>Its about freedom, real freedom in your mind.
Tough topic. What if mind is a prison itself?

>Reincarnation can mean alot of things really. It can simply mean to pass your genes off to your children.
The whole Buddhism is build around the problem of escaping the reincarnation. If it was just about genes, I bet they would castrate every man whom could reach to already.

>>24277
>Im not here to defend his videos.
Obviously, that would be the job of the videos' creator.
I's like to point out however one more problem with that particular video. All in all these are just wordplays. If this kind of "analysis" of the words would be true then why not picking a whole sentence and go through every word in it? Because he can't only a selected few words are eligible for this treatment, these are just wordplays, most of them aren't even mean anything.
>definition
>deaf Phoenician
See? Doesn't mean anything. Why not say "the finition" it's French for finishing.? Or "dolphinition" and claim the dolphins are manipulating our language So long and thanks for all the fish.

>>24280
I disagree. Manipulation (like brainwashing) works best with sounds and images, because it is more like the alteration of emotions, since humans are emotional beings, most people's most decision's based on emotions. Every good propagandist knows this. The Christian churches know (well, all Abrahamic religions), Hitler knew.

>>24276
>Reincarnation [...] simply mean to pass your genes off to your children.
That's quite a materialistic view on reincarnation.
A better one: you die and microbes makes your body into microbepoo which then plants use to build their own body and you become a tree.

>>24286
>Krishnamurti [...] claimed thought to be a destructive parasite of the body, sustaining own existence at any price.
He gave a lot of thoughts to this. Sounds like an expert.
The real knower of sins are sinners.

>>24287
>All in all these are just wordplays.
Agree, but I think there is more to it. On the surface we can see the author makes some distinct propositions, but what is happening underneath? My guess is he's shaking the structure of common knowledge, showing people unknown/forgotten sides of objects that have become boring and well known. (The same thing happens when a wife surprises the husband with larping a maid, to make him again curious about her well known body).
I think that "flat earth" theory (which is ridiculous by itself), serves the same purpose, to "shake the boat", to make people question everything, even the basics.

>>24286
>Can you see your own statement as an implanted knowledge too? Not only common people are brainwashed, but those from opposition too. That's where the real horror show reveals itself.
As lenin said the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. Thats why groups as so easily lead, just control the leader and you control the group.

"he was brought up by his maternal grandfather, a wealthy Brahmin lawyer, who was also involved in the Theosophical Society. Krishnamurti also became a member of the Theosophical Society during his teenage years and mentions having "inherited" his association with the Theosophical Society from his grandfather"

big fat red flag there

>>24287
My point was that Venetian and Phoenician is the same people.

>>24295
On the theosophy movement

http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf

>>24295
>big fat red flag there
No-no, that's just a biographical fact. He broke up with them at some moment and had bashed them (and all the other gurus) for the rest of the life. Here are some samples:

>Society has put before you the ideal of a "perfect man". No matter in which culture you were born, you have scriptural doctrines and traditions handed down to you to tell you how to behave. You are told that through due practice you can even eventually come into the state attained by the sages, saints and saviors of mankind. And so you try to control your behavior, to control your thoughts, to be something unnatural.

>All your experiences, all your meditations, all your prayer, all that you do, is self-centred. It is strengthening the self, adding momentum, gathering momentum, so it is taking you in the opposite direction. Whatever you do to be free from the self also is a self-centred activity.

>I have searched everywhere to find an answer to my question, "Is there enlightenment?" but have never questioned the search itself. Because I have assumed that goal of enlightenment exists, I have had to search. It is the search itself which has been choking me and keeping me out of my natural state. There is no such thing as spiritual or psychological enlightenment because there is no such thing as spirit or psyche at all. I have been a damn fool all my life, searching for something which does not exist. My search is at an end.

>This question haunted me all my life and suddenly it hit me: "There is no self to realize. What the hell have I been doing all this time?" You see, that hits you like lightning. Once that hits you, the whole mechanism of the body that is controlled by this thought is shattered. What is left is the tremendous living organism with an intelligence of its own. What you are left with is the pulse, the beat and the throb of life.

>You are not ready to accept the fact that you have to give up. A complete and total "surrender". It is a state of hopelessness which says that there is no way out. Any movement in any direction, on any dimension, at any level, is taking you away from yourself.

>The plain fact is that if you don't have a problem, you create one. If you don't have a problem you don't feel that you are living.

>It is fear that makes you believe that you are living and that you will be dead. What we do not want is the fear to come to an end. That is why we have invented all these new minds, new sciences,new talks, therapies, choiceless awareness and various other gimmicks.

>>24295
Theosophy is basically the Hindu/European version of masonry.

>>24302
This is why you should never trust a dane

>>24296
I got that your point was that and it was a mistake but I decided to refer to something else, from the very beginning of the video.

>>24291
Some Hungarian hobby-linguists plays with these things - in Hungarian ofc - I find the idea of "word-bushes" - as they call it - appealing but it sounds somewhat better founded then this "sold is soul-ed" thingy, maybe I'll write about it the little I know of this in the language threda.
Btw why didn't he call sold "Saul-ed"? picrel

>>24313
Get a hat!
Will get to it sometimes.

>>24317
The english language is easier since its so masonic. Francis bacon wrote about (500 years ago) that english would be the universal language of the future.

>>24291
My underlining point is that the elite or whatever you want to call them fear the individuals. Thats why they always want to put us in groups.

>>24313
Pic related.
>>24321
I heard before that English was specifically edited by people like Bacon so that it'd be hard to properly express certain concepts, which is why after America became a superpower, they basically Anglified most continental languages.
It all ties into the Georgia Guidestones.
>Unite humanity with a living new language

>>24332
phonecians (and venice) did the same thing before britain, standardizing everything from currency to language.

>>24335
The Phoenician language? It wasn't even widespread. Aramaic and Greek (and Latin) became more widespread than Phoenician.

>>24336
B-but Phoenicians are very evil for making order in things, also almost Jews and Venetians are literally Jews!

>>24337
Technically some of the Phoenicians were Israelites from the tribes Naphtali and Asher (though then again Israelite =/= jew), and Venice/Lombardy in general ferried a lot of crypto-jews.

>>24336
language is more than just words. think outside the box a bit.

>>24339
they were Canaanites

>>24344
In the south, some of them were Israelite. Pic related.

>>24336
quoting straight from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia#Foreign_relations

The spread of the alphabet throughout the Mediterranean extended literacy beyond a narrow caste of hierarchical priests.

>>24349
Ah, alphabet, then yes, the Phoenicians played a huge role in that.

>>24345
I have books on this very subject I can bring out but im too tired for any serious discussions

>>24418
reality is often more ridiculous than imagination

i find it delightfully fitting that a thread started with a reference to that layman preacher deutsch devolves into such idiotic metaphysical blathering (redundant, i know), fluffy teleological retorts, pointless semantic arguments, straight-faced berkelian idealism, etc. by laymen for whom physics stopped at 18th century determinism, infinite regress constitutes the utmost stretch of their intellectual skills, and poe's is (apparently) a natural, not ironic, law.
in short: kek

94b6f9f24899a8840a825c2de49950e19bb20ec8

good soldier svejk is very funny and very well written. I suspect reading it in czech is better since its such good prose.

I purchased 1491 (history book about native america) it had good reviews and I want to learn more about south and north america

>>24496
What is your opinion on reality?

>>25052
Don't ask because he's gonna shame us with his intellectual height and the depth of his knowledge.

>>25055
No-no, it's ok. However one tried to be smart, the topic itself guarantee the impossibility of being smart about it.

what if I tell you guys reality is a scam

>>25065
Sounds sound.

>>25067
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4bmTnRj3fMI [Embed]

your onions

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mP5ZVPwP7bg [Embed]

really great video about this thing we call reality

there is cameras everywhere, your phone tracks everything you do, your computer, there is cctv camera all over and yet people freak out when someone take video of them

>>25106
>about this thing we call reality
It's rather about the thing we call society, which is paltry part of reality. But that was interesting indeed.

>>25124
society is reality for most people

>>23595
I have to correct myself. That particular scene isn't in the episode with the Russian flu - which is in the first season. Season 3 episode 6 is it's place, when they find Pierre a pal of Napoleon, both of whom arrived to Alaska and founded a tribe with some native broads there, then Napoleon left and Pierre froze to death and was conserved by the ice. Then they have the discussion about reality and facts, since this detour of Napoleon alters history as we know it.

Is there another copy of you reading this book, deciding to put it aside without finishing this sentence, while you’re reading on? A person living on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with seven other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect—until now, that is, when your decision to read on signals that your two lives are diverging.

You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction, too. Yet it looks like we might just have to live with it, since the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that this person actually exists in a galaxy about 10^10^29^^ meters from here. This proposition doesn’t even assume speculative modern physics, but merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter. Your alter ego is simply a prediction of eternal inflation, which, as we’ve seen in the last chapter, agrees with all current observational evidence and is implicitly used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences.

It feels extremely unlikely that your life turned out exactly as it did, since it required so many things to happen: Earth had to form, life had to evolve, the dinosaurs had to go extinct, your parents had to meet, you had to get the idea to read this book, etc. But the probability of all these outcomes happening clearly isn’t zero, since it in fact happened right here in our Universe. And if you roll the dice enough times, even the most unlikely things are guaranteed to happen. With infinitely many Level I parallel universes created by inflation, quantum fluctuations effectively rolled the dice infinitely many times, guaranteeing with 100% certainty that your life would occur in one of them. Indeed, in infinitely many of them, since even a tiny fraction of an infinite number is still an infinite number.

And an infinite space doesn’t contain only exact copies of you. It contains many more people who are almost like you, yet slightly different. So if you were able to go meet the closest person out there in space who looked like your spitting image, this person would probably speak an alien language you couldn’t understand and would have experienced a life quite different from yours. But out of all your infinitely many look-alikes out there on other planets, there’s also one who speaks English, lives on a planet identical to Earth, and has experienced a life completely indistinguishable from yours in all ways. This person subjectively feels exactly like you feel. Yet there may be some very minor difference in how the particles move in your alter ego’s brain that’s too subtle to make a perceptible difference now, but which in a few seconds will make your alter ego put this book aside while you read on, causing your two lives to start diverging.

In summary, in an infinite space created by inflation, everything that can happen according to the laws of physics does happen. And it happens an infinite number of times. This means that there are parallel universes where you never get a parking ticket, where you have a different name, where you’ve won a million-dollar lottery, where Germany won World War II, where dinosaurs still roam Earth, and where Earth never formed in the first place. Although each of these outcomes occur in an infinite number of universes, some occur in a larger fraction than others, and making sense of this raises a host of intriguing issues.

>>27408
So it's about parallel universes? I'll read the other posts later.

>>27414
Yep.

>>27415
But not only. The main theme is, Universe is a mathematical object, literally.

All right. So I've some problems. Or him.
It seems the author uses the term galaxy and universe interchangeable and not at the same time. He says the universe is infinite and in a galaxy far far away there's another me (and in other galaxies other mes), but next he call that place as a parallel universe.
And what's parallel about it? It's just another place some further away. It's liek I would call the next town a parallel town. And the next me isn't even me just an alien, a xenomorph, a ufo or whatever.
Also I remember the universe isn't infinite, it's expanding continuously for now but definitely has an end. For human scale and mind it can be as if it was but in fact it isn't.
So maybe these really low-level thoughts about this but these are my problems. For now I'm sure I wouldn't be fan of the book.

>>27443
Yes, he operates many layers there. Universes are combined into a Multiverse, but even there are different kinds of Multiverses.

why hylics still haven't burned this book?

its even part of the bible

https://www.sefaria.org/Ecclesiastes?lang=en

i know they probably never read it (or bible) anyway

>>28410
I guess nowadays it's hard to burn books.
>i know they probably never read it (or bible) anyway
Yeah that sounds typical. People tend to like reading things they agree with and just dismiss anything else accompanied by harsh criticism.

>>28410
>hylics
Who?

>>29322
What Israelity?

>>29342
Yeah, language is funny, yet powerful.

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

>>29480
I got an epiphany from that.
Words are sounds, sounds a resonances. Strings resonate. Is the description of God is an abstract confirmation of string theory?

>>29482
>words are sounds
Not necessarily. One can think words, without saying them. In that sense, God is another word for mind that has realised itself.

>>29483
Maybe so. But Genesis is all about "God said this" and "God said that", it's really about spoken words.
But even thoughts, we think with inner voice...
And thinking is a brain activity and has electromagnetic resonance.

>>29484
>And thinking is a brain activity and has electromagnetic resonance.
Looks like it. Some people even say that brain is merely a receiver of some kind of electromagnetic waves.

>>29485
Really? Who's running the broadcast?

>>29486
That's the question.

Anybody else content with the idea that modern science is just repackaged Greek philosophy and that half of physics as we know it is a lie?
>Anaximander invented evolution
>the atom came from Democritus
>elements came from Empedocles
>Plato's Timaeus is the root of our modern cosmology

>>29493
And even those were some rebranded shit from the Middle-East. Literally for 5000 years we haven't came up with anything new.
My half-assed observation is, that the ancients lived in a speculative era, creating philosophy, then in the modern age the practical era started, and now those who aren't spending their time figuring out new ways to cheapen the manufacturing process are again doing nothing but speculating, and basically reaching philosophical levels again. Which might be nice if we see it as a cycle of idealism-materialism-idealism, but sadly our world is hopelessly materialist.

>>29493
Both philosophy and science are trying to satisfy our need for understanding of the world, no wonder the methods can intersect.

>>29494
>but sadly our world is hopelessly materialist
It's easy to be a materialist, because we're surrounded by the matter, we perceive the matter only, our bodies are material, and we identify ourselves with the bodies. Given that, it's really hard not to be a materialist, yet such people exist.

The material world is not bad, it's just a playground for the spirit, the reflection, the counterpart. It doesn't have it's own existence, but is only the opposite of the spirit. And it's the nature of the matter to dominate out of fear of dissolving, while the nature of the spirit is to not giving a fuck.

>>29497
>It's easy to be a materialist
I disagree. I think as far as we can tell putting the materia first is a very new thing. Even those Greek philosophers whom the commies desperately trying to set up as materialists weren't really materialists.

>>29498
Ok, I might be using the wrong terms. I meant that in attempt to archive contentment, a man starts looking in whatever places possible. And first, starting from childhood, a man is looking into the outer world, world of objects and events (which I call materialism). Many people hang on there for a long time, but eventually the growing dissatisfaction forces them to start looking in other place - the inner world of concepts and ideas (idealism). Of course, the order is not strict and there are exceptions, but it applies to the most people, I think. In that sense it would be more correct to say that usually, a man starts as a materialist, rather than it is easy to be a materialist.

I agree, that the world seems to be forced to keep that materialistic state, but that's unnatural and would lead to the burst.

>>29501
>attempt to archive contentment
Achieve?

>>29502
Yes, thanks.

>>29501
That depends on the zeitgeist, no?
Ofc material goods, possessions, satisfying the physical needs, pampering the body, and other enjoyments are "eternal" things for human beans.
I think what we seek first as the source of contentment is in our infanthood is the love of our parents. Yes we cry and moan when no food, shit in the diaper, tummy aches, etc but the actual happiness of the child comes from the "communion" with his/her parents and it's absence can really distort the development of the bean.

>>29505
>That depends on the zeitgeist, no?
I think, no. Children are oriented to the outer world, they are so curious about it. Building machines, playing with animals, investigating every corner. And the grown ones (parents) have to answer a lot of "why" questions.

I consider myself a materialist but in a positive way. I.e., I deny most metaphysics and most modern physics that derive from metaphysics and Greek philosophy, but I do believe in God, as a unitary physical being. The Bible is wholly "materialist" in this manner as was most mythology.

Another good book on the topic, which breaks down pretty hard concepts as quantum theory. Would recommend.
Some highlights:
1. Space is essentially a gravitational field.
2. Space is not continuous, but rather granulated.
3. Time is not a real entity.

>>29507
>And the grown ones (parents) have to answer a lot of "why" questions.
That's because parents have orientated the child towards asking "why" questions, it's the only reason children rationalize the world through intellectual authority, and not material. Children don't understand causality well, they don't know what they're asking by the word "why", whether they mean the cause or the reason. They're not curious about what they're asking, they've only learned that the question "why" always has an answer to it and so it's a free pass for getting attention in any situation.

The question "why" always molds itself to the answer that anybody is willing to give, it doesn't have rhetorical strength besides essentially being an order: "tell me why". That's what children are interested in. If they ask why is there a plane in the sky, they don't scrutinize the more valid answer between "it's not on the ground" or "it flew up there", all they need is any answer at all. How they come to understand the world afterwards depends on the answer.

>>25106
>and yet people freak out when someone take video of them
It fits perfectly with my theory of mind on other people. Rather, all people.

Instinctively people do know that the use for records is a malicious one; it would be if they filmed you. Especially in an increasingly feminine world, the purpose of putting others in spotlight is to hide yourself in a smaller spotlight, so you both get fame but only the biggest celebrity suffers the risk. It's like the trick to survive an angry bear, you don't outrun the bear, you outrun the guy next to you. But average people want the bear to be around because they are the ones who want to see the maulings, from a safe distance. Public executions are not an excaption to peak human compassion, they ARE the peak of human compassion.

>>33242
They also ask many "what is this" and "what is that". Then usually follow up with whys.
I do agree the growing human nervous system needs a certain maturity to be capable of comprehend causality. Yes they are also enjoy the attention of the parent and the time spent together, but they are also curious about the world, asking questions about things is part of the ontogenesis, it's a biological program in them, which is more instinctive than conscious (later they might learn consciously about the world, some people just never do). The parents do well to feed the kid with answers, this is how encourage the children to be curious about the world, to find answers, which is a handy skill throughout the whole life. This also helps with fear. The unknown is a big fear inducing source, those who get to know stuff won't fear that particular stuff. Those who are curious will attempt to gain knowledge instead of fearing something unknown, and this will help them overcome obstacles. This also gives confidence in themselves and dealing with their environment.
Dogs work the same, those who grow up investigating objects, people, whatever around them won't be cowards, they'll become more calm (who won't get scared by unknown object, sounds, people, etc.) and friendly.
Do you view this inquiring behaviour of kids solely as a way of control, practicing power?

>Public executions are not an excaption to peak human compassion, they ARE the peak of human compassion.
What do you mean by that?

Swebernd put forward the idea that "our thoughts aren't our own".
I'm curious how he arrived to this conclusion. Or should I say how someone else arrived instead of him? What Bernd think of it? What others think of it instead of Bernd?

>>38501
I think in some cases there may be some merit to it, such as with Schizophrenia and OCD. But in the context it was used, where he is worrying about issues with the law because of something he has done, I don't think so.

>>38502
Yeah, he most likely used in different way than mental illnesses. Or who knows. Probably I would argue, but I don't know his standpoint, so anything I out forward would be my assumption what he meant.

>>38501

This is very philosophical question. There are plenty of different kinds of answers, but they may be grouped into two big groups: materialistic and not.

Materialistic way depends on current scientific (excluding psychology) concept, and it says that there is no separate "person" in your body, it is only abstraction that we use to describe everything. Subconscious is also abstraction, because brain makes decision "as a whole", and thought process that you have in your mind (i.e. "choose this or that") is just a "reasoning part" of you, not separate thing that decides what to do. Decision is formed by you as a whole and thoughts only used to represent it. Even parts of your body influence this, like when you have stomach pain, you tend to be more negative in everything. So, your thoughts are your own, because there is nothing else. But "your own" is not about "mind", but about you as a living person, you can't separate some part of your brain from complete thought process. And any mental illness is just a state when parts of your body (mostly brain) work untypically, so your behavior is non-standard. But it is still you.

Non-materialistic way is often about duality of mind and body. Or soul and body, if you are religious. With that separation, you can have some foreign thoughts that not directly made by your mind, but influenced by something else (body, when you have addictions, or evil demons when you believe in them etc).

>>38530
In religions (for example in Buddhism) the body's ego is the false one, which changes with every life. In fact we probably don't even hear ourselves until we reach enlightenment. Then it doesn't really matter because self isn't exist anymore, it was an illusion in the first place.

Related to Buddhism. I think it's new age stuff. Those self help books and motivational speakers and whatevers, and this mindfulness thing copypasted out of Buddhism, they frequently talk about the quietening of the thoughts since they are interfering noises and have to be shut down. They are baed, mkay. I find this a load of bs, even tho it's a good thing if someone can concentrate when needed without getting distracted.
The basis I think is, that lots of people's inner voice isn't helpful, but say such stuff "you won't manage", "you will fail", "this is pointless", etc etc, and propel people to give up or not even start stuff, and prevent them to be successful. Probably this comes from their childhood, when they tried to explore the "world" (like little kids tasting anything they grab), their capabilities, implement their ideas, doing whatever, and their parents constantly harassed them to not do this, not do that, warning them they'll hurt themselves, or saying they can't or incapable of doing they want to do. Basically the result of faulty parenting. So in a way it isn't really their voices, but echos of their parent's, grandparents (or the teachers in kindergartens, nurseries) etc.
But not everyone has these negative voices. Someone has encouraging thoughts, or narrating, explaining ones, which helps them process what they do.
And this leads to a problem what I have this "your thoughts aren't your thoughts" thing. Thoughts are starting points of actions, and if my thoughts aren't mine, it's easy to arrive conclusions such as: "my actions aren't mine". It takes off the responsibility, "oh I did a bad thing? it's not may fault". But then we don't get just bad thoughts but good ones, we don't do just bad actions, then those people who claim their thoughts not theirs... will they disclaim their good actions? The good results, the successes?

Wisdom here: "your thoughts aren't your thoughts"

So we ask "why do I think that I am having these thoughts?" I know, personally, that many of my thoughts are just noise in the machinery of the language part of my brain.

The more you think, the less you know. Really! Nothing makes sense unless you posit a god or a simulator (essentially indistinguishable). If you want an explanation you have committed to a view of everything which rests on the monkey-brain fiction of causality.

Therefore thinking is unprincipled and can be justified only by its fruits.
Look at those delicious fruits:
[exercise for the student]
Who do you think is directing this thread?
(((?)))

>>38555
If they derive from or involve some other source, then they aren't wholly "your thoughts", that's for sure.

>>38555

Darling Denmark, You are of course, indefeasibly correct.

My thoughts oscillate about some things which make no sense. Stupidly that includes Laura & Valensaiya.

>>38555
https://www.bookdepository.com/AN-AMAZING-JOURNEY-INTO-THE-PSYCHOTIC-MIND---BREAKING-THE-SPELL-OF-THE-IVORY-TOWER-Jerry-Marzinsky-Sherry-Swiney/9780359783366

Read it.

>>38558
Really? You want me to read some overlong halfwit Freudian superstition. I skimmed it because you were so insistent. Are you one of the authors?

I might suggest that you lack the gene for humour.Look it up.

>>38555
>thinking is unprincipled and can be justified only by its fruits
Common saying, judge a man by his actions.
If all our random thoughts would be displayed publicly everyone (well not psychopaths) would be ashamed all the time.
>Who do you think is directing this thread?
>(((Der evige Hun)))

>>38556
This is another good point. Ideas can be implanted, thoughts can be provoked, even by just hinting.

I did read that book. It made me feel cleverer than I deserve.
I also read Penrose's book. It starts gently and then accelerates to the point that I know I'm too stupid to understnd.
I fuckin love science!

>>38556
>If they derive from or involve some other source, then they aren't wholly "your thoughts", that's for sure.

Can thought exist without other source? Brain always has some external stimulation. Even in these special isolated chambers your body feels something (and eyes see nothing - it is also a source for thoughts in your brain).

>>38559
>halfwit Freudian superstition
how are demons freudian superstitions?

>>38578 et al.
I wish to unconditionally retract all of my posts. I was, as you probably detected, drunkposting to the max. My shame is horrendous. Thank God for anonymity.

>>38583
"Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan"

>>38583
>I was, as you probably detected, drunkposting to the max

It's ok. It happens

Always a physics thread degenerates into nonsense. It's built into our genome.
Bernd should be capable of better things than TV watchers, don't you think?

>>38600
1. It's a philosophy thread.
2. Physics is nonsense.
3. You could have wrote something meaningful relating to whatever point the thread originally had. You did not.

>>38602
Your barrage of 1,2,3 is intended to intimidate, but you're talking to a drunken fistfighter. You are wrong in every navigable dimension, and I think you know it. A joke is a joke but you should polish your material bit more.

>>38603
You read a couple of lines of mine and your thought:
>intimidating
Noice.

>>38604
I have a lot sympathy for incontinent old gentlemen whose minds have deserted them.
I know that wishes for your future are essentially meaningless, so I just wish you a peaceful death

>>38501
I have self diagnosed OCD, I think it's fairly safe to assume since the backs of my hands have become so dry and worn out through washing that they are cracking and bleeding.

It's caused by a faulty trigger in the brain that fails to activate when you complete a task. So you never feel you have washed your hands enough or whatever it is and it always bothers you even though you know it is absurd. This goes on to thoughts as well, you always doubt and lie to yourself to become your own worst enemy. If the sky is blue and you know it's blue you will doubt it over and over and keep trying to prove that it's blue and find evidence that it's blue(this is just an example not to be taken literally), if you like something you will keep telling yourself that you don't or vice versa. Your thoughts are always fighting against you, you know it's absurd but you can't help it, you can't stop making connections, you can't stop doubting obvious facts and checking them over and over even if you can see the evidence in front of you. OCD has been linked with schizophrenia and Autism(I was diagnosed with the latter) I can see how they connect, like they are three sides of the same coin.

>>38635
So you would agree that both the rational and irrational thoughts are yours. The negative, uncomfortable, self-destructive too.

>>38635
>>38635
>cracking and bleeding
You havent heard of hand balm? coconut oil?

You probably have a bad gut flora, thats causing the ocd and autism

>>38636
Not really, because they are not what I actually think or believe. It's my brain trolling myself because it knows that I don't believe it and it knows it bothers me, that's also why it makes connections between things I like and hate, it knows it bothers me so if I do something good one day and something bad happens or I think or hear about something bad my brain will try to connect the two to frustrate me.

>>38640
It's probably better in the long run to just let it happen, I should be finding a way to fight the OCD not play along with it.

No, it's environmental. Last year I would not have even said I had OCD but just that I had some OCD like tendencies, then my living situation changed and stress came with that which triggered this and it can rapidly escalate. It tends to snowball, if you tell yourself that you tapped another key while logging in to the computer so you have to restart the computer then you will restart every time you do that from now on but on top of that if you do anything else while logging in you will add that to the list of things that you need to restart for, it's a slippery slope. But as I said, it's caused or exacerbated by my living conditions so once I find a new house it should get better.

>>38645
stress causing ocd sounds like a plausible explanation

>>38647
From an evolutionary perspective it does as well, usually stress would entail danger so OCD like traits might really have helped our ancestors survive in situations like that.

Apparently it's linked to Neurogenesis as well, well that depression and schizophrenia. Stress can create chemicals that decrease the natural rate of Neurogenesis and it's been seen that SSRIs actually promote Neurogenesis and that if you give a patient(I think a patient but it might have been a mouse study) SSRIs yet at the same time you inhibit Neurogenesis then it does not cure depression, so it may be that is what causes it. Exercise also promotes Neurogenesis.

>>41532
as I can see it there is 3 explanations all can be valid.

vaccines causing damage to our brains. all these various heavy metals, plastics, animal hormones etc which damage the brain. autism rates have skyrrocketed for example.

stress which is just the bodys inability to produce enough energy. I myself can relate to this, I get mild ocd when life gets too hard. I used to look at it from a mostly metabolic viewpoint but I think the psykodynamic angle is the most important.

psycodynamic conflicts which are unresolved. which then cause disease. the usual theory what causes cancer is a load of bs to me, just like most things are a lie in the world today.

interesting article about serotonin and stress (brain energy)

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/serotonin-depression-aggression.shtml

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/dark-side-of-stress-learned-helplessness.shtml

Maybe this should go into politics.
I want to write about unconditional love. Now just as generic love one could feel towards relatives, or pets too, and not exclusively toward romantic partners.
How I see it, unconditional love is really nice thing. Accepting someone else how that person is, with their faults, and without any expectations. The problem is that it is demanded to escape the control of conditional love. Or even worse, to turn the table and subject you to conditional love from the loved one.
Society is hierarchical, even the smallest component of it, the family too is hierarchical. Even if we put two random persons next to each other one will control the situation, make decisions, and the other will follow.
It's the norm to love our spouse, our kids. But someone has to make decisions. If not you, then your spouse and your kids will decide themselves. And if you let it, they will decide for you too (remember what I wrote about power back then).
Let's say you have a kid, stupidest motherfucker who don't want to learn. As a parent you have the power to decide that he has to learn. So you are kind to him when he does his homework. Pet his head, tell kind words, buy a toy (video game) or whatever. He will mistake these manifestations of affection with love, and will think you only love him if he he learns, and you hate him if he's stupid. So he'll demand unconditional love (when he becomes teenager and starts to get it how stuff works and believe himself as a genius for that, but in reality he still knows jack shit), but not for the love itself, but to get rid off your demands of him doing his homework.
Same with spouse.
>if you'd love me you'd let me
>a. fuck the whole neighbourhood
>b. grow my fat ass to giant proportions
>c. spend all our (your) money on clothes
>d. lazy all day and let the house look and smell like a garbage dump
>e. [whatever she shouldn't do]
So she just wants to make her own stupid decisions.
Ofc, you can be the stupidest motherfucker and even the spider in the corner would make better decisions, but this isn't about that.

And even worse, when they want respect unconditionally. And respect is a thing that has to be earned, it can only exist on conditions.
Or if we go by Machiavelli's definition, respect is love + fear. So they want you to love and fear them at the same time. Which means to obey their decisions.
Unconditional love is one of the scams our modern society paddles. Another tool to destroy the traditional structures.

Maybe unconditional love can exist between peers, like siblings. And children should love their parents unconditionally (and in the beginning parents are like gods to kids) let's not dwell in the shitty parents and parenting problem now.

Looking it differently.
A parent ofc should love their kids unconditionally. See their faults and shortcomings. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't help them overcome these. Same with spouse. Failures and mistakes aren't there to be happy about them (well one can be happy for them to show what needs chiseling) but to learn from them and do "better". Because of the love the parent goes out of his way to help, and not leave them as is.
Well, if we suppose there is development, or it matters what happens with anyone, or how they fare.

>>45976
>>45977
>>45981
Well, unconditional love as in unconditional tolerance and endorsement isn't a deep love. If you really love someone you'll try to prevent them from engaging in self-destructive behavior.

>unconditional love
>on condition that X shares my genes or fucks with me to propagate my genes
You are robot.

>>45981
>A parent ofc should love their kids unconditionally

depends tbh. I've seen some very nasty people and the way they treat their kids. That's not always tru though

>>45996
I do agree in general.
>prevent them from engaging in self-destructive behavior.
But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need? I have a pal who had no aim in life and engaged in self-destructive behaviour until the very edge of breaking, which in the end motivated him to change things.
But in general I agree with you even with this because many people can do that and go over the edge, never getting off from the downward slope.

>>45998
>on condition that X shares my genes or fucks with me to propagate my genes
Wait, you're talking about incest?

>>45999
>depends tbh. I've seen some very nasty people and the way they treat their kids.
Yes, I mentioned in spoiler similar scenario.

>>45996

This.

And even term "unconditional" doesn't mean that there will be all-forgiveness.

>>46021
>But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need?

We don't, but as imperfect and irrational human beings, we think that we do.

Although sometimes we really know better, but society likes to highlight wrong cases more.

I don't think there is such absolutely "unconditional love". There is real love, either passional or filial, which is, ultimately, a willingness to sacrifice one's own life to keep and protect the loved one, and there are lower degrees of affection. But even love, when considered as a human emotion rather than an abstract, poetic, atemporal concept or inspiration, turns out to be conditional, if on nothing else, at least on Entropy, God of Destruction.
>>46021
>But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need?
Basically, "yes". If passional love, then because this is a burning and possessive love then we will believe that we do know better. If parental love, then in most cases we certainly do know better

Btw, I really hate the Anglo banalization and bastardization of the word and concept "love". In English somebody might say he "loves" ice cream, for example...

>>46065
>Btw, I really hate the Anglo banalization and bastardization of the word and concept "love". In English somebody might say he "loves" ice cream, for example...
Speaking like a true Hungarian. Like there was any doubt.