Scholar

Member
  • Content count

    2,905
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scholar

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. Nope, relations exist. It's your mind cooking up the idea that relationships are cooked up to make sense of reality. You're missing the point. You haven't actually recognize what I speak of, you have accepted a surface level conceptualization. Look, at this point we're being like two fresh lovers who can't hang up the phone on each other, so let's just call it a day my friend.
  2. Correct on a surface level, but that misses the point of what I am communicating. I went into what a Causal Relationship is, that it is illusiory and only used to generate functional understanding (understanding that can serve us in some ways, like helping to predict or interact with reality). Physicalists are delusional. There is no underlying mechanism to anything, the mechanisms themselves emerge as instantiated relationships between different parts of existence. The physicalists are deluded in that they believe reality is grounded in a mechanistic foundation. What I am pointing to is that the relationship between what you consider individuated consciousness and the physical nature of the universe are related, through no other mechanism than the relationship itself. The desire for a temporal causal order is mostly due to the primary way human beings, today especially, seek to understand reality, which is propositional understanding. Propositional understand is in it's nature temporally limited, it is linear and follows one concept after another, basically a sentence, or equation. Looking exclusively through this framework, or viewing it as foundational or fundamental, is the root of the delusions I am describing. Kastrup is as guilty of this as you are. There will be no "why" or "how" a certain shape within the wavefunction of the universe leads to the color red, or the sensation of cold. I know you will ignore all of what I am saying here, even though it is not too complicated or idiosyncratic, but that is because you have not yet recognized the ground of existence. The Groundless Ground, the Causeless Cause, the Unmoved Mover. If you had, you would relate to everything I am saying. I probably have a tendency of expecting too much of people who Leo decided to mod. The quality of the members on this forum has degraded significantly over the years, such that the seemingly most qualitative mods currently are completely trapped in rationalism.
  3. That's childish, lol. You made the assertion that establishing a causal relationship (in the sense of considering something causally linked, rather than correlated, epistemically speaking) requires a mechanistic explanation of the given relationship. I demonstrated to you how you cannot have a physical mechanism that will lead to a different type of substance of existence, like colors. It's a basic truth about reality that you would see is self-evidently true, if you had even the most basic grasp of your own mind. It's ironic you would say I lost the plot when I kept track of the line of argumentation of this conversation this entire time, whereas you kept being confused about why you even posed questions to me, and were not able to maintain the framework for why something we discussed was relevant to the initial points being made.
  4. You are just proving my point. We aren't actually talking about brains in the academic sense. Academia is deluded, there cannot and never will be a mechanism that will showcase how the color red is related to certain processes in what is conceptualized as physical reality. I was explaining to you why your framework and assumptions are equally as deluded. Of course you will have to leave the framework of academia to understand this, the framework of academia is the entire problem here, lol. Like I said, I explained my language in detail. The terms I use aren't actually that idiosyncratic, especially not when I contextualize them properly. If you think science will find a mechanism for consciousness, you are just lost, and I explained to you why this is the case. How brains are related to different aspects of consciousness is a question of academia, which by the way you are denying, not me. Academia is correct in viewing the brain, and brain activity, as causally linked to consciousness (as I explained to you, it is more a relationship betwee different aspects of existence, as there is no fundamental distinction between mind and world). This is what you are denying, because you have the idiosyncratic view of causation vs correlation. You, funnily enough, missed the entire point of why I moved the topic into a more metaphysical analysis of what is going on here. I'm not particularly knowledgable about neuroscience, but I don't have to be to understand what I have described. You have no problems understanding him because he uses the same framework as you, the academic framework. You should discuss with him standards of causation and correlation, that would be something that would be appropriate in that context. My critique of you is that you fail on both, the academic approach as well as the truthful approach. Academia would ridicule you for your positions, rightly so. And anyone who has even a basic insight into the nature of the mind and existence will be able to see how trapped you are in delusion. I don't mean any of this as a personal attack, but I am surprised you are on this forum and you still maintain the delusions I am pointing to. Although, I really should not be surprised, considering some of the folks here. Thank you, I agree. When I went into detail to explain specifically what I meant by each term, the interlocutor got emotionally triggered and reverted to claims that my perspective is too idiosyncratic for him to engage with, even though I answered all his questions, and he never inquired into anything I said in my explanations and expansions, which would have indicated he was actually attempting to understand what I am saying. The truth is, there is no desire here to understand anything, given that he, from the very beginning, is doing nothing but attempting to defend his own position, which is delusional.
  5. It's not a semantic disconnect, but with your attitude it would take 10 years for you to understand what I am describing. I am disconnected in my level of insight about the nature of existence and the mind. I probably underestimate how difficult it might be for a contracted mind to grasp the concepts I am trying to communicate. My language use is different, that is why I go through such lengths to explain every single term I use on request. I also see no reason for this to continue. I explained all of these terms, many of them in detail. There is an inability here for you to dynamically adopt new frameworks and grasp novel conceptualizations. I have noticed this with you in the past, as you continue to attempt to frame things I state in an already familiar framework to you. I already explained that due to this inability, which I believe is rooted in your cognitive biases, it will not be possible for us to have a productive conversation about this. I will nonetheless expand upon concepts because it is useful, valuable and to some degree enjoyable for me to do so. Right, but this is incredibly surface level. If you have no grasp of what I am pointing to when I use the term "Causeless Cause", "Groundless Ground", "Infinity" or "Free Will", there is no way for you to adopt the framework I am using. I already am adjusting my terminology and conceptualization to something that could be understood by someone who is stuck in the consensus framework, in theory. In the end, to escape your contracted framework, I can only recommend meditations that focus on the substance and nature of existence. If you can recognize the fundamental Isness of all Aspects of Existence, you will be able to correct distinguish between aspects of existence which your mind currently deliberately conflates. To clarify, aspects of existence are what your mind currently categorizes as qualia or experience. Colors are for example an aspect of existence. So is sound. These "substances" are of different kinds, of different categories. There are infinite such categories. I used a metaphor of the cut-out elephant in the paper to illustrate how people like Kastrup, and you, do the exact same thing, on a fundamental, cognitive level, as a materialist does, when they try to describe existence as either mind or world. The physicalist has created a framework of reality which opposes the substance of mind against the physical nature of reality, and claim that the physical nature of reality is fundamental. The idealist, due to the very framework he subscribes to, must already uphold an idea of world against mind, otherwise it wouldn't make even sense to describe reality fundamentally as mind. If there is no world outside the mind, then the mind is simply existence. It's just what reality looks like, in that particular instantiation. The fundamental problem continues, the attempt to use conceptualization as a source of reality, to use it as a lense through which to look at existence. "Existence is mind!" This is the same process as the materialist engages in, just flipped. This condition, this delusion, is responsible for the hope that one could find a mechanism to explain how experience is caused, a link between the shape of the physical universe and the substances of mind, as you would see it. It would be equally as naive as to assume that one day we shall find the song which causes redness. Now, reality can instantiate itself such that this is the case, but it's not causative on an existential level, it is simply related. And the relationship is caused by the Causeless Cause. All relationships in reality are maintained and nourished by the Causeless Cause. If you had a certain level of realization, you would be able to understand what I am saying even if I use words that you never use that way.
  6. I can't think of a line of development in which woke people would be more developed, but I don't have all of them in mind right now.
  7. Just because many hippies were undeveloped doesn't mean the average hippie wasn't more developed than the average woke person today.
  8. It's also important to consider that the monks who attempt to raise awareness or protest through self-immolation, do so in a context in which there is no other means of protest. In Tibet, for example, the Chinese government is undemocratic and oppressive, there is no way to protest in China. This of course still makes self-immolation even in that context naive and harmful, and it seems to be the case that self-immolation actually leads to worsening conditions for the populations in which it occurs, but it further shows how immature the attempt to glorify this type of behavior in the context of an american mentally diseased individual is.
  9. The average hippie was far more developed than the average woke person.
  10. As I pointed out in my first post, the reason why Buddhist monks in the past burned themselves wasn't as an act of mere protest, but as an act of raising awareness to a problem that wasn't widely in public consciousness. It still was extreme controversial, and I would say the overall consequences of this were negative (it didn't really change anything but caused many people to imitate this type of practice, achieving equally as little). But to compare this type of self-immolation to a mentally diseased anarchist communist who suffered from white-guilt and apparently had a child and a wife, who had never practiced ego death of any kind, and whose political aim is targeted around an issue that is already in the public consciousness far more than it deserves, is just childish and irresponsible. Even if you would view self-immolation as some sort of valid form of protest, it should obviously be done by people who are prepared to do so, who do so from a perspective of wisdom not mental disease and political radicalization, and who will not cause complete unnecessary suffering to their surroundings. And it should also be highly likely that this type of action will actually make a significant positive impact. With most self-immolations, this is simply not the case. They are done by mentally ill people, people who are radicalized in unhealthy ways and people who are simply delusional. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation_protests_by_Tibetans_in_China In Tibet alone we have had 160 self-immolations in the past 15 years, you know nothing about any of them. Nobody does, and nobody cares. It's a completely futile suicidal knee-jerk reaction that was started by some delusional monk who was warned that he would encourage countless others to do the same.
  11. He will live on as a permanent reminder of the suicidal martydom cult that is the free-palestine movement.
  12. By the way, just to contextualized the sheer stupidity and idiocy of condoning this act: Self-immolation as done in the past by some tibetan monks had the function of bringing awareness to an issue that wasn't known on the world stage at all. Burning yourself to death as a way of protest is the dumbest shit you could possibly do, especially when the biggest international issue and the hottest topic everywhere is the issue you are trying to "protest". And it sets a bad precedent. Since the first self-immolation, hundreds of people have burned themselves to death in tibet. Women, children and so forth. You don't even know it happened, because nobody cares, because it's not really effective in any meaningful way in most contexts.
  13. His alleged reddit account, complete brainrot, and racism: https://www.reddit.com/user/acebush1/
  14. Predictably, the guy is becoming an icon for the complete insanity of the #freepalestine movement. Well done.