*Ultimate Question.*

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Read this article.
lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algor … om_inside/

Basically, this article aims to defeat erroneous labeling and meaning making/searching.

Does a tree fall in the forest? We need not answer the question, lets blame it on psychology. Badda bing, badda boom. Use Network 1 more. Boom.Problem solved. There is no meaning other than whats already there. A=A. Boom. Done. Badde bing, badda boom. Anything else is searching, meaning making, irrational and erroneous, badda bing, badda boom.

Its a bit like the buddhist notion of saying…“we don’t need to ask, all of our questions have already been answered, just be silent. Badda bing, badda boom. THeres nothing to be done. We are finished, man. Badda bing, badda boom.”

Actually, no. There is probably a spiritual reason and advantage of network 2 over network 1. Yeah, thats right, I said it, the meaning making network has an advantage. I believe there is a spiritual purpose to its shape. I believe it, and I, can fly.

You see, people with network 1 never bother to understand spiritual things, they are automatons, A=A, they see what it is, and they are done. There is no meaning making or erroneous connections. But what if their inability to question things, their inability to be erroneous, is actually lessening their understanding? I mean, if people were network 1’s, noone would ever formulate the problem of the tree in the forest. Problems would never be made, and thus, never solved, and people would have never made a website comparing the difference between network 1, and network 2. Essentially we’d all be unconscious, lethargic slugs, simply basking in enlightenment and keep saying that reality is merely reflected in us, Truth is ourselves, etc. never asking or gaining any understanding deeper than that.

So sure, keep telling me that I am part of my brain, and that is why I am conscious and ask questions, because I am part of a nueral network. Question that bugs my mind, is why I am I part of this neural network, and not someone elses neural network, and not some other random network? Why this brain? Of all the brains, I could be a fish at the bottom of the ocean. It is peculiar that I have the brains which is the most curious about it’s own selfawareness, or at least, one of the most curious brains, and not a fish at the bottom of the ocean brain.

So what I would like for you to do, is make an account at the Genius Forums, and ask them this question, “Why am I this brain, and not someone else’s brain?” Then ask. “Why does consciousness happen in the way that it does?”

I can’t do it because they banned my IP. Also, when you make an account, dont give it a girl moniker or avatar, they dont prefer girls over there.

Second thing I’d like to mention is, I have a counter theory to the seperationlessnessishness theory they promote. Its called “entanglement”. Now when they get into that mode of theres they just focus on the now, and then say those little idiots who make labels of things are deluded. In the now, there is no seperation of things.
But in entanglement theory, you look at the global timespan of interactions, and you find that “you are not the tree” because after 5 minutes and you walk away from the forest, the tree is no longer part of you. Therefore, you are not a tree, and it is safe to label trees as something distinct and seperate from you. However, for your conscious life you are part of your own body, therefore it is fairly probable that you are your own body, and not a tree. You just gotta look at the timeline. Mind blowing, I know. Rational. Concise. Intuitive. Trixie’s Entanglement theory is in, Kelly’s seperationlessnessishness is out.

2

Trixie and Kelly are not in or out in an absolute way. Entanglement or separation. Either or, .! So what? When walking away from the tree, you can still see the forest. Then there is the place in the forest where it can not be further traversed. Out of fear? The boundaries are pretty well territorially set, and walking from a tree does not mean that there is no part of it in whomever is walking away. It is the forest that matters, because it is already by this time a re-cognition of a tree. In a forest, you never walk away from a tree, because the are so similar. Unless it’s marked, as a special tree, one is good as another, they are unrecognizable, they are of nomadic insignificant. It goes that way also, by consciousness.
Unless a tree becomes more then just a mere sign,
it rarely can become an object of consciousness. It is
yet both; consciousness and it’s object. No one is in or out of the range of the tree, because it merely signals the boundary of the forest. This anomaly predates the distinction as entangled.

3

The tree once remembered, becomes part of the brain, like a little tree figurine a collectible item, inside of the brain, the brain its container.

However, the brain existed before a tree was ever cloned or rendered within it, therefore trees can be said not to be brains, by virtue of their prior nonexistence.

4

Guess, will look into Geniusforums…

5

The question was to segregate the people who accept hiding major events from the public vs those who do not. So yes, there really was another, hidden, meaning.

If you say “yes”, you are a whistle blower type - “werewolf”, not to be trusted with social secrets.
If you say “no”, you are a conspiracy advocate - “vampire”, potentially a trusted insider.

6

I use to think the objective was to reach some kind of completion within the self, namely through the act of meditation. Like all that is external is important, but you can be internally content even when processing externally. Like the entire idea is to be aware of an everlasting spirit and to be in a pure submissive state before it, meaning a cultivation of awareness and remembrance. It can be difficult especially when you are an earthly being because that implies a roughness and imperfection…but it doesn’t matter because we are not really here, I mean we are, but it seems like we exist elsewhere too, like in a complete isolation of individuality where the essense doesn’t know the other, or the spirit completely, but is only known completely by the spirit. This place is free of earthly things like death, pain…it’s also a timeless place… I’ve always felt like this even before I knew anything about souls, spirits etc…as a child, I use stand in the playground looking around observing, everything is processing accordingly, except me…I have always had this weird detachment, it’s not emotional or physicalyl inactivity, it’s just like I can see the process happening or can even interact with it, but never in sync with it…some kind of world within a world…I use to think this was normal and is how humans are until I realized almost no-one is like this…I went out, as an adult, to search and find others …nobody was there, just typical activity, occasionally I would find somebody staring from a distance then I would act like the typical process, then look back and but by then they would already be synced again, so I would see this as like a glitch of somekind…there is also degrees and the maintenance of a degree…whenever I try to explain this, people just call me crazy…

7

No detachment is not crazy, there is a hybrid, at once vampire and werewolf, as Steppenwolf.

8

Ultimate question; why/how does this organic camcorder see what it is filming?

…and why isn’t the camcorder in my hand also doing that.

What happens such that one instrument is alive and hear the sounds of trees falling in the forest, and another instrument identicle in function does not? More critically, what occurs that makes two of the same living instruments, into different beings? [if you made a copy of you].

9

Could be suns rays entering babies brains and becoming consciousness.

Still doesnt explain how the suns rays, or spirit realm is inherently conscious, why the viewer of the brain/camcorder is inherently conscious. If there is no viewer, and just a brain, why is this brain inherently conscious and other brains with near identical properties, not inherently conscious.

Doesnt explain qualia either. Only video function makes empirical sense…sound function seems to be a spiritual function and not wholly explained empirically, and pleasure/pain are spiritual functions.