You a few things incorrect. The state I referred to is not the “primal” state, but the supreme genius state, which got bored of being all knowing and perfect and went to Earth to experience challenge and “primal” state.
Earth for it’s perfect imperfections. However you ask is my life worth living, and I will say this, there is truth in the beauty of imperfections, but to what extent? Clearly some of the code is broken, too broken, not how the optimal design intended to be, the code is a little more broken than intended, do to nothing other than what I would call a virus.
The only semblance shared perceptions and realities are words. Words are identical memes. They are condensing of various 3d perspectives into a singular rune. However due to emotional distortion, even those realities are not the same and connect also to different 3d realities.
But, words are the closest thing to a unified reality, because visually speaking, the runes are for all intents and purposes identical to both viewers, same with photographs, books and computers, which allow us to see almost the same realities, versus real life, where the 3d perspective is always off due to our bodies preventing that space being occupied
Believer/Unbeliever unsupported concept: similar words and impressions depend on THEIR distinction on another undefinable force, which gathers momentum only at the very extreme edge of all limitation. There, the unification is all encompassing,
and the soul enters into the phase-area of the miraculous.
Enter the seeming unrelated, dissimilar reality, quanta-like, out of nowhere, a fused force to be reckoned with, fusing the possible with its negation,
forcing a showdown by the ‘impossible’ of the probable, and the unanswered question evaporates.
Charles Ives tells it best, and it is not the visual acuity, whose semblance after all reduces to the similarity, whose words falter during this last stage, but if the choirs of angelic harmony, predisposed avenging Angels.
How can a creation question its own creation? Here the similarity ends, in the cycles of descending coils,
Ending not in the primal nothingness of the pointless-ness of it all, but only that, there is no way to perceive such, by virtue of its temporal-spatial distance. There need not be thought of such end, over the endlessness of transformative illusions between the two: time, and space.
Love it, or, leave it. It is simply another form of the will, to power. It’s a choice, given from those higher ups who have died for it, for its beauty, its continuation. They , in effect became the inviolate, fail proof glue , which no man can tear asunder. They became the immortals, who by their becoming, defeated time and space.
They give assurance to eternal life, by submitting infinite reps to even one delicious aspiration, : the possibility of absolute and perfect love. In this schema, anything is possible, all things, withe the absolution from the sin of doubt.
Yes, that’s what I meant. “Primal” just means something different for each of us.
Ah, so the intended design of your life was supposed to have a bit of hardship, a bit of adversity, but something (or someone) fucked it up (and not just for you but for everyone?) and made the hardship and adversity almost unbearable. A virus, as you say, would imply a kind of intentional sabotage. What kind of being would do such a thing? Can an ordinary human being do it? Or would it have to be a being in a kind of “higher realm”–a realm akin to that which the “supereme genius” resides in–and would this malicious agent have to be sentient in order to carry out such a sabotage, or could it be one of these insentient mechanical organisms that does everything it does by accident?
Well, it’s interesting that you bring up the relevance of 3D reality as 3D space (plus time) is precisely what makes two identical things separate entities. My point about the overlapping region of the Venn Diagrams representing our minds is that the kinds of mental “objects” (mental states, experiences, perceptions, feelings, etc.) that fall into this region are those that can’t be distinguished based on difference in their spatiotemporal locations. If I come up with an idea, and you come up with the same idea, I might say to you: Hey, that’s my idea! I don’t say: Hey, that’s not my idea, because it came from another brain, but it’s identical to mine. Why? Because ideas are metaphysical/immaterial entities–they don’t take place in space and time (at least not in space, but this is true for time as well but it gets more complicated). When a thing is metaphysic/immaterial, there can only be one instance of it. To suggest there are two instances, even though both are identical in every other respect, is meaningless.
Thus, I think you’re onto something with your idea of words being a shared or common entity amongst us, but I think this is true for more than just words. I think it actually applies to the physical universe itself (even from an idealist’s perspective). The physical universe may consist of time and space, but does the physical universe in its entirety have a position in time and space? Speaking as an idealist, if we take each person’s experience of the physical universe and suppose that it projects as a real, solid, objectively existing physical universe, do we have to suppose that each such universe is a separate instance of what is otherwise the same entity? These physical universes may consist of multitudes of spatiotemporal positions, but is there any spatiotemporal medium outside each physical universe? I don’t think so. So I don’t think the grounds are there–namely, difference in spatiotemporal positions–to say they are indeed separate instances.
I think I understand what you’re saying (depending on what you mean by “rune”). But the only difference in how each one of us experiences the physical universe is, like you said, the positions in time and space from which we experiences the universe (there are also differences in the qualities of our sensations–how icecream tastes to us, for example–but these receive the same treatment). However, what I was trying to say in an earlier post was that the identity of things–the fact that I see this object I hold in my hand as “that icecream I got 5 minutes ago”–is no different between us (not necessarily anyway). We experience it (i.e. conceptualize it) the same way. Thus, it can fall into the overlapped region, along with words. In fact, I think this is exactly what you’re getting at with your examples of photographs, books, and computers–they convey ideas: this person, that icecream, such-and-such video game element–ideas that we take to be singular and the same for each of us–but why shouldn’t the same be true of actual 3D objects?
I don’t know if jerkey is naturally ostentatious, or he purposefully formulates his words to sound intentionally enigmatic and poetic. Fact of the matter is, in all of my years I have never met anyone on the internet more deliberately obtuse or a headache to read.
Stop trying to cover your error using feminine relativism tactics. Primal is a common word, it means related to animal instincts. What I described is a super-all knowing consciousness. It has the exact opposite amount of information that animal consciousness does and its consciousness is a bit different! There is no reason to call it the same thing, that is like calling a potato a fruit!
No, it wouldn’t. Most viruses are unconscious, though in this the case it has a possibility of intelligent sabotage, though it was never implied!
Good god, no! They are seperate instances.
The photons in our eyes aren’t even connected! Our sensory perceptions do not extend to a rock. If a rock is injured, we don’t feel it. Other consciousnessness are seperate instances, seperate realities. Each one of us has different color receptors in our eyes, and the very photons themselves are different photons entering different eyes with different shapes.
The photons, become a conglomerate mesh, averaged out because of the scale, forming two conscious ideas which are almost identical. Though two clones are almost identical looking too, but they are still seperate instances.
THere is a theory stating that twins will reincarnate into one or the other, but it is not proven. But what is actually ridiculous is your ideas that two ideas are the same!
The only things that are close to being the same are words or printed pictures shared from hand to hand. Ideas are not even close to being the same! The words are rendered as unique audio sounds (though not technically sound, only an electronic neuronal impulse analogous to sound waves.) So even the narration audio of the words are different! And then, the words are rendered as completely unrelated images! One guy might say he invented a radio amusement park, and say the other guy stole his idea, yet his circus tents are purple and the other guy doesn’t even have any! Different audio, different realities! They aren’t even the same photons!
I didn’t mean the virus itself intended the sabotage. I meant that someone must have deliberately programmed the virus and then disseminated it into the system.
Of course, there are biological viruses that nobody “programmed” and they infect their hosts through natural processes. Is this a closer analogy to what you’re saying?
Yeah, 'cause if they were the same instance, that would be horrid!
Again, the photons are just material representations of other experiences going on in the universe mind. You have to understand that this is not a view in which consciousness is a product of brain processes, nor is it a ghost that exists in a physical spatiotemporal existence, but rather it’s a view in which physical spatiotemporal existence is within it.
And yes, this might at first seem like we each live in separate mind generated universes, but my point is that it need not be conceptualized this way. I’m saying that because space, and with some argumentation time as well, is within consciousness, you can’t speak about consciousness’s own position within space or time. It’s medium is the universal mind itself, the mind that injects representations of itself (like photons) into the universe we generate with our consciousness. But this great mind is not physical itself, not spatiotemporal–it is metaphysical–and so it makes no sense to talk about the physical spatiotemporal position of each universe. Spatiotemporal positions being the only thing to distinguish between what would otherwise be perfectly identical things, it is meaningless to say that two ideas exist in separate mind generated universes insofar as those ideas have no spatiotemporal positions. But so what? What’s wrong with saying that some minds, in the abstract, “overlap”?
Yes, because clones are physical objects occupying positions in time and space.
But if you want to talk about ideas that are almost identical, you might have a point. But my point still stands: there’s no basis for saying two experiences are separate instances if they are identical in all respects, and if you can’t apply spatiotemporal positions to them, then there can’t be separate instances of them.
More ridiculous than twins reincarnating into each other, huh?
At this point, I’m not quite sure you understand my theory.
Why is this idea not so ridiculous but the idea that thoughts in the head might be the same? I mean, if we’re arguing that we each live in separate realities, then why do words and pictures get to count as exception to this but ideas don’t?
What makes you so sure?
Sounds like you’re saying not even the words are the same.
The detailed properties of things don’t have to make two ideas into separate instances. Remember the ship of Theseus argument we got into a while back? Why is it a philosophical problem? Because you will identify the ship of Theseus as “that ship” even after a few of its planks have been replaced with new ones. The mind identifies objects separately from how it identifies an object’s features. You could have a red car, and then one day paint it black. You will still conceptualize it as the same car. The mind’s idea of “my car” is a concept that gets projected onto (or injected into) the object in your visual perceptions of your car and makes it “my car”. This concept, when projected, becomes the car’s “essence”–that which makes it the car it is. The two men who came up with the idea for the amusement park don’t need to have all the same features. So long as each man identifies the amusement park as the same entity, it will have the same essence, they will be the same “thing”.
But it sounds like you rather enjoy thinking of yourself as living in a separate universe, so maybe I shouldn’t try to tamper with that.
Oh my god. Boy what a fool I was. This is the greatest theory ever it explains consciousness for me and the whole of the entire universe too. Thankyou. Is that what you wanted to hear?
The color green is almost the same for two people, oh my god. This means that people dont live in two seperate realities, or two seperate instances, because the color green is almost the same in both their eyes. Or when two people watch a DVD, is almost synchronized, and the colors look the same, so they both have to be in the same instance of reality. Fucking revolutionary.
Hey, you’re the one who supposedly doesn’t believe in this.
You seem to think we’re having a clash of theories. You have your theory of consciousness, I have mine, and we’re arguing over whose is right. I’m not thinking of it as a clash myself. I’m thinking of it as an exchange. You tell me your views, I explore them a bit, I tell you my views, you explore them. To me, it’s like two travelers encountering each other on their journeys. They stop and exchange stories. The one traveler tells the other of his world–his culture, his people, his environment, etc. The other traveler tells the first the same thing about his world. They’re not arguing over whose world is better, whose is right and whose is wrong.
Anyways, I can see you’re getting upset. I’m sorry if this angers you. Maybe we should take a break.
