Panpsychism becoming a more relevant view

[theoneandnone]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

None of your thoughts and ideas and philosophy is unique and this goes for Leo as well.

You extremely naively think you are unique up until the point it is pointed out to you that there are and there were a bunch of other philosophers who articulated those thoughts much more eloquently hunderds or thousands of years ago.

The funny and ironic things is that a good chunk of you just parrot Leo's myopic view of (basically constantly shitting on academics), without first you studying and looking up in depth actually what academic philosophers can offer and what they study.

Sheesh relaxxxx

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

None of your thoughts and ideas and philosophy is unique and this goes for Leo as well.

You extremely naively think you are unique up until the point it is pointed out to you that there are and there were a bunch of other philosophers who articulated those thoughts much more eloquently hunderds or thousands of years ago.

The funny and ironic things is that a good chunk of you just parrot Leo's myopic view of (basically constantly shitting on academics), without first you studying and looking up in depth actually what academic philosophers can offer and what they study.

And it's quite ironic because Leo has probably read more books than 99% of people on here. It's a bit like when neo-advaita teachers tell you "you don't need practice, just be, just realize you're already it", when virtually all of them spent many decades practicing their asses off to get to where they're at.

We can coin it "teacher's amnesia"; you disregard or even forget what you have learned in the past and it tends to detrimentally impact the way you teach. I actually had this insight when I was around 7-8 years old in school, that me who is a child could teach some things better to another child than the teacher because I understand how it's like being a child (by virtue of currently living through it).

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Hojo]

@Carl-Richard I'm not sure i need it explained like im 5 because I'm retarded and thats alot of big words.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

@Carl-Richard I'm not sure i need it explained like im 5 because I'm retarded and thats alot of big words.

If you say "reality is fundamentally made out of consciousness, everything springs out if it" but you also say "you cannot communicate telepathically, precognition is not a real phenomena, remote viewing, spirits, ghosts, all of it is hocus-pocus make-believe" — be it because you haven't looked into the data, or haven't had those experiences, or because you don't believe they're real in principle (they break the "laws" of reality) — I call that "crypto-materialism".

Edited 6 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Hojo]

@Carl-Richard Its an original name but thats just physicalism then isnt it? Where are these mystical experiences taking place if not conciousness? And if you had one wouldn't that automatically change the view?

Edited 6 hours ago by Hojo

[theoneandnone]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you say "reality is fundamentally made out of consciousness, everything springs out if it" but you also say "you cannot communicate telepathically, precognition is not a real phenomena, remote viewing, spirits, ghosts, all of it is hocus-pocus make-believe" — be it because you haven't looked into the data, or haven't had those experiences, or because you don't believe they're real in principle (they break the "laws" of reality) — I call that "crypto-materialism".

What proof is there about telepathy and such?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

@Carl-Richard Its an original name but thats just physicalism then isnt it?

It's physicalistic with regard to the behavior of reality; that the scientific laws operate as if the world is bound by physicalism. But it's idealistic with regards to what reality actually "is" most fundamentally (ontologically idealist).

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, theoneandnone said:

What proof is there about telepathy and such?

If you want to be a nerd about it, there is no "proof" in science, only corraboration of hypotheses (often based on statistical inferences). But this seems pretty solid on the surface (although I would have to review the limitations to say more about it):

Quote

Many people claim to have known who was calling before they picked up the telephone, or to have thought about someone for no apparent reason, who then called. We carried out a series of experiments to test whether or not people really could tell who was telephoning. Each participant had four potential callers, and when the telephone rang had to guess who was calling before the other person spoke. By chance the success rate would have been 25%. In a total of 571 trials, involving 63 participants, the overall success rate was 40%, with 95% confidence limits from 36 to 45%. This effect was hugely significant statistically (p = 4 x 10^-16). [...]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252380718_Experimental_Tests_for_Telephone_Telepathy

Statistical significance of p = 4 x 10^-16 is way beyond the threshold of what essentially all behavioral scientists are comfortable publishing (p = 5 x 10^-2).

Edited 29 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[theoneandnone]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you want to be a nerd about it, there is no "proof" in science, only corraboration of hypotheses (and often based on statistical inferences). But this is as solid as you can get:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252380718_Experimental_Tests_for_Telephone_Telepathy

Statistical significance of p = 4 x 10^-16 is way beyond the threshold of what essentially all behavioral scientists are comfortable publishing (p = 5 x 10^-2).

I do have those kinds coincidences a lot like tapping into knowing before it happens. Are you a advocate for telepathy?

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, theoneandnone said:

I do have those kinds coincidences a lot like tapping into knowing before it happens. Are you a advocate for telepathy?

An advocate? What does that mean? Maybe ask @Natasha Tori Maru what I am, I'm not quite sure 😛

Edited 34 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Hojo]

@Carl-RichardLike a simulation if the simulation was real? Do you beleive in experience after death with this or that too simply a hallucination?