Why you are a materialist in disguise (crypto-materialist)

[Oppositionless]

On 8/4/2025 at 4:43 PM, Sincerity said:

@Carl-Richard Sorry for the late response. I knew this would take me long to write.

What physical mechanism there? Do you mean mechanism for "coming back to life"?

The mechanism is the body "coming back". That's the mechanism. Being a result of some energetic happening.

While we're at this, I want to mention that I think that a LOT, much more than conventionally thought, is possible in the "physical world" - as long as there is alignment with the "energetic world". If given and acted upon an especially high/godly/miraculous energy, I believe miracles are possible.

The physical world is NOT restricted by physical rules per se. The mental/energetic reality and the physical reality are completely intertwined - THAT is the rule. This is why I agreed with your 2nd point where you said that "interactions are solely bound by physical mechanisms". To change the wording to align with my point more, but still reflect yours: interactions require acting energetically upon, which results in change in physical (and energetic) reality. Interactions aren't bound by physical mechanisms per se, but bound with.

Do you mean OBEs where you can explore the plane and hypothetically learn things about the world that you didn't know before? For example, a friend of mine puts a note on his fridge with a 4-digit number, and I can fly there and get to know the number?

I'm agnostic whether that is possible. I dunno.

In general though, I'd raise this view of mine: what "physical reality" is, changes. While dreaming, I would consider "physical reality" to be that dream. In an OBE, being in some higher dimension or some shit, that's the reality.

It's important to note that physical reality is not a thing that is always there even when I'm "unconscious" of it. For me, what's "physical" is what IS. NOW.

Perhaps the word "physical reality" loses meaning. Or it's me who should drop the word. Guess I got caught up.

 

I think there is a strong argument that can be made that "Consciousness" or perhaps more specifically Mind is not restricted to what we know as experiential awareness. Like how do you explain the order and complexity of the whole universe in terms of just awareness? A kind of "physical universe" or pattern intrinsic to Mind may exist . I guess the difference from your view as I understand it is, is I'm unsure physics is able to study the "real structure" of mind because it would also be nonphysical.

Edited yesterday at 04:01 AM by Oppositionless

[Carl-Richard]

34 minutes ago, Oppositionless said:

I guess the difference from your view as I understand it is, is I'm unsure physics is able to study the "real structure" of mind because it would also be nonphysical.

The way to study the non-physical is to propose principles, models and theories that describe and predict patterns (archetypes) of the non-physical. Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance is one such a theory. But there is actually nothing special about such theories. They're on the same level as the Theory of Evolution: generalized principles about how the patterns of nature unfold. There are no particle accelerators or detectors involved in the Theory of Evolution, only observations about the regularities of nature. The only "new" thing with studying the non-physical is that you have to drop the assumption that reality works like a game of billiards where all interactions boil down to local collisions of particles.

Edited yesterday at 04:30 AM by Carl-Richard

[Oppositionless]

58 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The way to study the non-physical is to propose principles, models and theories that describe and predict patterns (archetypes) of the non-physical. Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance is one such a theory. But there is actually nothing special about such theories. They're on the same level as the Theory of Evolution: generalized principles about how the patterns of nature unfold. There are no particle accelerators or detectors involved in the Theory of Evolution, only observations about the regularities of nature. The only "new" thing with studying the non-physical is that you have to drop the assumption that reality works like a game of billiards where all interactions boil down to local collisions of particles.

When I'm tripping I can sometimes feel the physical world being generated from my chest, it's very strange. And if I'm with someone else I can also feel them creating the physical world , a kind of radiation emanating from their chest . It feels like we're each independently creating our own physical world but because some kind of deeper principles they more or less line up (unless it really is just pure fucking solipsism wtf do I know)

 

Edited yesterday at 05:25 AM by Oppositionless

[Sincerity]

12 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I want you guys who use the "My Content" functions on the forum, particularly on your phone, to notice the times you open one of them and you can feel that nobody has responded to one of your posts even before you have scrolled down all the way to the last newest post. This is a form of precognition that I experience regularly.

Not my experience.

I can never precognize when someone will respond to me. Very often I open the forum after some time, thinking I'll get a notification, but I don't. Or, I get a notification unexpectedly.

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Sincerity said:

Not my experience.

I can never precognize when someone will respond to me. Very often I open the forum after some time, thinking I'll get a notification, but I don't. Or, I get a notification unexpectedly.

I was specifically talking about opening e.g. the "Content I Posted In" page, and on top of the page, before scrolling, seeing that all the posts are new but that nobody has responded yet, and then having a feeling that indeed nobody has responded yet, and then scrolling down and confirming that feeling.

Edited 16 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

@Carl-Richard Sorry for the late response. I knew this would take me long to write.

What physical mechanism there? Do you mean mechanism for "coming back to life"?

Somehow, a person is experiencing things very vividly independent of a functioning brain, independent of a physical mechanism that "explains" the experience (which is already a huge concession, to say that brain states explain experience, but I digress). The usual physicalist (materialist) assumption is that brain states (and related sensory faculties, sensory impressions, memories) cause mental experience. That is what I mean by physical mechanism in this case (and in this case, there doesn't seem to be a physical mechanism that explains the phenomena).

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

The mechanism is the body "coming back". That's the mechanism. Being a result of some energetic happening.

While we're at this, I want to mention that I think that a LOT, much more than conventionally thought, is possible in the "physical world" - as long as there is alignment with the "energetic world". If given and acted upon an especially high/godly/miraculous energy, I believe miracles are possible.

The physical world is NOT restricted by physical rules per se. The mental/energetic reality and the physical reality are completely intertwined - THAT is the rule. This is why I agreed with your 2nd point where you said that "interactions are solely bound by physical mechanisms". To change the wording to align with my point more, but still reflect yours: interactions require acting energetically upon, which results in change in physical (and energetic) reality. Interactions aren't bound by physical mechanisms per se, but bound with.

We can make the distinction between saying that the world seems to follow certain rules or patterns and saying that the world seems to follow the rules of a billiard game (particles bumping into each other). If you think miracles can happen in the sense that it no longer follows the rules of billiards (e.g. non-local mind interactions), then you're not qualifying for the second criteria.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

Do you mean OBEs where you can explore the plane and hypothetically learn things about the world that you didn't know before?

Well, that too, but not even that: the mere fact that your holistic mental experience becomes decoupled from your physical senses (the localized limitations of your literal eyes and ears) and somehow you keep experiencing "sense content", as if you're a separate observer looking from elsewhere. I have had mild OBEs where I observe myself from just above myself, in a way that wouldn't be possible (or hard to explain) if I was only perceiving the world through my literal physiological eyeballs.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

For example, a friend of mine puts a note on his fridge with a 4-digit number, and I can fly there and get to know the number?

I'm agnostic whether that is possible. I dunno.

There are too many stories about this with indeed cardiac arrest NDEs.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

In general though, I'd raise this view of mine: what "physical reality" is, changes. While dreaming, I would consider "physical reality" to be that dream. In an OBE, being in some higher dimension or some shit, that's the reality.

It's important to note that physical reality is not a thing that is always there even when I'm "unconscious" of it. For me, what's "physical" is what IS. NOW.

Perhaps the word "physical reality" loses meaning. Or it's me who should drop the word. Guess I got caught up.

Of course, idealists don't think there is a "literal" physical world, hence crypto-materialism. So you substitute "physical" with essentially the sensory world; patterns and forms implemented in things you can smell and touch.

The "literal physical world" is quite simple: atoms or sub-atomic particles (or the modern physics equivalent), that exist out there, that create the rules of the game.

But the weird thing is that even the people who believe in all the weirdness of modern physics (non-locality, field interactions), when it comes to explaining everyday life (e.g. how we think, how we interact as humans), they suddenly become very Newtonian (billiard balls). Suddenly, they start to believe in these outdated rules. And they are outdated: modern physics has non-local interactions, it has fields rather than particles. 

We're seemingly just complacent with applying this outdated view in our everyday life because that is how numbed and unskilled we are in non-local/psychic aspects of life; we're generally not sensitive to things that are non-Newtonian. And if you are sensitive, you gaslight yourself to fit the paradigm; anomalies are just that — anomalies, and you have 100 years of Western psychology and cognitive science to help: "you're just engaging in these 12 cognitive biases", etc.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

On second thought, I can agree that in some cases experience/receiving of psychic phenomena is possible.

I feel like I'm reading the narrative arch of a hero's journey with these transformations I'm seeing, but hey, that's my goal.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

However, I still think there must be energetic (and thus "physical") action to "send" things out there. For example, even in the experiment from Sheldrake you mentioned, the action of calling the phone must still be performed in order for the receiver to have any intuition that someone is calling them.

So yes, patterns happening in the sensory world.

 

On 4.8.2025 at 11:43 PM, Sincerity said:

Thanks for sharing. Interesting.

I read it, not sure I believe it, but then again 🤷‍♂️ maybe.

Hmm. You don't believe the science? So the expectation was 25% correct if purely due to chance, but it turned out to be 40% (15% more than expected). It was 571 trials. 

Let's toss a coin 571 times. We should expect roughly 50% tails. In 571 coin tosses, do you know how unlikely it is that we end up with 65% tails? 1 in 10 trillion according to ChatGPT.

Do you think the scientists are making it up and fabricating their results? These results have been replicated independently by others. A 2025 meta-analysis that combined 26 datasets reported a hit-rate of ≈ 8.6 % above chance, p ≈ 10⁻⁷: https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/download/25934/24357/74647. Is everybody making it up?

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard