Correct me if im wrong, but dosent information theory disprove an afterlife?

Recently started digging into metaphysics because I realized that my knowledge on the subject was inadequate for higher level discussions on the subject, but in the process I ran into the following issues:

Information is a metaphysical concept in the sense that it cannot be said to physically exist, but emerges through arrangements or states of material substances. If consciousness exists, and it can be said to be the metaphysical principle of interpreting information, that means that means that without some material to generate information out of for the consciousness to interpret the consciousness would be inert.

Because of this, an afterlife must not exist, because consciousness cannot exist without some medium to base itself off of. If we assume that the spiritual world is metaphysical, an individuals ability to interact with the spiritual world at all ends at death, and is simply recorded in time. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE WORLD IS MATERIALISTIC, I am simply saying that based on my understanding of metaphysics, information needs matter to exist just as matter needs information to exist, without one, the other is literally meaningless. Without a material backdrop to base information on (in this case the spirit world) the spirit world cannot be interacted with.

It seems to me that while there is an "afterlife" (as you continue existing in some form after death) it is not the same kind of afterlife that many individuals perceive it to be, and it is rather still.

Please correct me if I am wrong in this thinking, as this seriously challenges my beliefs as well as my personal experiences with AP and the numerous other claims and experiences related to AP from other individuals. Is there any metaphysical framework which justifies or makes sense of the concept of disembodied spirits or legitimate "consciousness after perceived death"?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if "information" doesn't only exist from material substances then your theory is incorrect

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The issue is that I have yet to find any "thing" which information can be derived from which at some point does not lead back to a material "thing".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What you are describing is essentially the problem of induction as philosophy of science puts it. Just because we have always observed information to be retracable to some physical thing that is never PROOF that it needs some sort of material medium to exist.

        Imagine that you were a caveman living in prehistoric times. In your entire life you have seen 1000s of white swans, but never any black swans. One day one of your tribe members walks up to you and tell you there's a swan on the other side of the plains, but he doesn't tell you the color of it. Can you 100% rule out that this swan is not black but white? Likewise it is so with the problem you have described.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I have yet to find

        https://i.imgur.com/0jn5pr6.jpeg

        Recently started digging into metaphysics because I realized that my knowledge on the subject was inadequate for higher level discussions on the subject, but in the process I ran into the following issues:

        Information is a metaphysical concept in the sense that it cannot be said to physically exist, but emerges through arrangements or states of material substances. If consciousness exists, and it can be said to be the metaphysical principle of interpreting information, that means that means that without some material to generate information out of for the consciousness to interpret the consciousness would be inert.

        Because of this, an afterlife must not exist, because consciousness cannot exist without some medium to base itself off of. If we assume that the spiritual world is metaphysical, an individuals ability to interact with the spiritual world at all ends at death, and is simply recorded in time. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE WORLD IS MATERIALISTIC, I am simply saying that based on my understanding of metaphysics, information needs matter to exist just as matter needs information to exist, without one, the other is literally meaningless. Without a material backdrop to base information on (in this case the spirit world) the spirit world cannot be interacted with.

        It seems to me that while there is an "afterlife" (as you continue existing in some form after death) it is not the same kind of afterlife that many individuals perceive it to be, and it is rather still.

        Please correct me if I am wrong in this thinking, as this seriously challenges my beliefs as well as my personal experiences with AP and the numerous other claims and experiences related to AP from other individuals. Is there any metaphysical framework which justifies or makes sense of the concept of disembodied spirits or legitimate "consciousness after perceived death"?

        >it disproves

        ok.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so what if matter derives from information?
        what do you "lead back" the matter before the big bang to

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        but if all you're trying to say is that as long you assume existence is based off matter, then there's no spirituality without matter, then yes you're correct. you don't need to shit out 1,200 words over it though because it should be obvious from the assumption

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're probably just never going to get it. I think the understanding of non-material things is something that requires an innate instinct for it. At the end of the day consciousness will always be the source of everything. You can say the knower can't be a knower without something to know, but the only thing the knower ever really knows is itself. The material perceived by the knower is nothing but illusion. Source? I'm the knower.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The issue is that I have yet to find any "thing" which information can be derived from which at some point does not lead back to a material "thing".
        Information is nonlocal conceptual structure in the cosmic mind, Nous. Read your Plato.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Laws of the universe? Sure, they aren't even observable without material, but they certainly don't rely on it in order to exist.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Information is light shining through a prism. Materialism is the prism.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          More specifically, information is the rainbow on one side of the prism and spirit is the pure light that spreads into that rainbow from the other side.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The issue is that I have yet to find any "thing" which information can be derived from which at some point does not lead back to a material "thing".

      Essentially what I'm looking for is a metaphysically logical and coherent theory about how the afterlife and spiritual phenomena exist, because thus far, I have found a lot of theories that dont make sense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        all information exists within the consciousness matrix, is that good enough for you?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I am aware of the idea that everything is information and that a logically structured reality is essentially no different than a computer simulation, however I'm looking for something a bit more explanatory than a statement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This does not follow necessarily. In fact, it could be that that there some superstructure or mathematical structure that behaves differently than what we think math is. Our mathematical structures are kinda projections of it. Holographic models of reality come to mind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am very aware that the concept of math isn't universal in the sense that how we view math could be wildly different to how another civilization views math, and there is "math" that we will never know because we are unable to comprehend it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Math is universal

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it paradoxical/incomplete

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what i meant by that is the the perception of what we call math isnt universal. Math can be used as a means of explaining real things, but just like how you can write fiction with english, you can also write fiction with math. Just because it "works" does not mean its correct.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Care to elaborate on the paradoxes? Numbers are universal at least.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Im not so well versed on the paradoxes at the moment however the paradoxes seem to arise out of human misunderstanding instead of there being litteral paradoxes in reality. I could be wrong though so w/e.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Math is symbolic logic. What do you mean "universal"?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >my thoughts exist as abstractions of reality
        >they (probably) physically exist in my mind
        >abstract things can be created and stored physically
        this is where you go wrong
        >only humans are capable of this
        >this doesnt happen naturally in all parts of nature
        >there is no connection between me and other beings
        Really the spiritual world is a mass shared dream, there are endless cases of shared learning and development across the world and not just in humans but all animals (probably plants and maybe things we dont even know about). It could be said that we create the dualism subconsciously or we tap into something that already was there.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes they are called morphogenic fields iirc. You can train a mouse to do something in one country and all of a sudden mice in other countries will do the same thing. Its why as soon as something is discovered, often times individuals who were previously unable to do that same thing are able to do them. Every once and awhile you'll end up with a sport where a record hasn't been broken in awhile and then a bunch of people break it one after another after another.

          I am not trying to prove it to myself as I have enough personal experience to validate these concepts, I'm simply looking for resource on the metaphysical claims which back them up. If everything is information and not matter a point (as it is stated in certain theories) this makes more sense that everything is a shared dream, the issue is that there are a very limited number of well written books and articles on this subject which dont seem to jump the gun. we can observe the effects of these things to a degree, and we will never be able to physically prove them, which is why I'm looking for metaphysical justification of these happenings.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can’t math things outside of math
    Aka your framework works within this frame but whose to say there isn’t something outside of it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No I fully understand this, and I know it to personally be the case, the issue is that with there has to be information, or at least an ongoing debate about this subject.

      I'm just looking for more resources to read/watch.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your assumption is that religions have to subscribe to substance dualist views of the mind and further that the afterlife is some place. That would be true maybe of some religions like Islam and some types of Protestant Christianity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't ascribe to dualism, the issue is that if my theory is correct, it would essentially disprove the concept of astral projection as there is no mode or medium that the information could travel through for that information to end up in my mind after the projection. This directly contradicts the experiences that I myself have had an numerous other people have had. The idea that your "true" astral body is in a higher state of being isnt lost on me, the issue is that I have yet to see anyone actually go through and explain the concept in detail, outside of simply asserting its existence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your metaphysical ascription of astral projection or an afterlife does. For example, if we thought of reality only as processes or a field of potentiality then there is no real issue here. Of course, if that would be astral projection or an afterlife you traditionally think of is another issue. It would just be another way of becoming.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I believe that the spiritual and physical are on a continuum of existence, the issue is that how is the "being" transferred along the continuum in any meaningful capacity? I am aware that eventually everything breaks down into a monad, which implies that at some point matter and information break down into a singular incomprehensible "thing" which transcends either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            maybe it just happens because we or "god" wanted it to, and it could. everything doesn't have to have a mechanical explanation when its all just experiences, cause and effect can be an illusion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The problem with this line of thinking is that it ends up becoming extremely solipsistic. I know that there are resources on this subject the issue is that I dont have them on file or I would have consulted those.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s more like process relational pananthiesm

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I identify as a pantheist, the issue is that I have yet to see a pantheist argument for an afterlife or consciousness after death (in any sense) that does not skip a few steps.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not necessarily, there doesn't have to be things at all but simple flux. This would mean you have a process ontology. Information theory to begin with can't really accommodate things because information is relational, that is to say some type of change of data is needed for information to be information because information being static is no longer information. It would just be data.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you not understanding how something works does not "disprove" it at all

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    According to you all your thoughts exist in a jar with the same chemicals as your brain.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No I never said this. I'm looking for the metaphysical explanation for the conceptual breakdown of everything into concepts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        energy can't be destroyed. your consciousness is energy. therefore it continues after you die

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          In a sense consciousness is energy, however it is the specific patterns of energy which exist which we generally think of as consciousness. The energy that stays is the energy in my biological system, which will be released into the environment after death.

          now, if you wanna view things from a 4th dimensional perspective, you dont die, its just groundhog day on repeat.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > now, if you wanna view things from a 4th dimensional perspective, you dont die, its just groundhog day on repeat.
            Care to elaborate?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            From my understanding of geometry and physics a 3d plane is made up of an infinite number of 2d planes (ie you can infinitely create 2d planes on any 3d object) and passing a 3d object through a 2d plane would result in movement from the perspective of a 2d individual. The same (in theory) applies to the 4d. "Time" or the 4th dimension is an infinite sequence of 3d planes because in the 4th dimension you could make infinite segments in 3d space. Essentially, what we view as "movement" or "time" is the result of our senses interpreting the "solid" 4th dimension in a manner which we can "use". If you look at it from this way, the 4th dimension essentially would stand still to higher dimensional beings, meaning from our perspective of consciousness, life is on loop.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Explain population growth

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >souls take a hiatus, there are 900 quadrillion of souls most of them are on a hiatus rn
      >there are infinite souls each time new life is created a new soul gets to experience life
      >idk like 900 different explanations could be made up in an hour and if you need to ask for it it proves you're a brainlet with 0 imaginary power

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Golens have no soul, so they can multiply indefinitely.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also, to clarify: animals have souls, golens do not.
        This is the reason why the number of animals is stable throughout the centuries, whereas "human" numbers are always increasing. This is solved by war, the favorite activity of the golem.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the only people who still believe in an afterlife are people who use it to cope becasue they'd go insane at the thought of permanently dying

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i will try my best to answer as simply as possible but its not easy with this kind of topic. your thinking is definitely on the right track though

    one of the important things to remember is that information doesn’t require “material” to exist, it requires dimensionality. relative to spacetime geometry, this is expressed as axes of symmetry.

    information does not exist as its lower dimensional projection, this is the basis of holographic theory and holonomic brain theory which both are parallel with information theory. there is higher dimensionality that is projected into the lower ones. so the material you speak of isn’t the information, it is a representation of it. like an app icon is a representation of the actual information that makes up the application.

    so continuing in this direction, you arrive at a kind of biocentrism, where space and time are tools of the animal mind to navigate an unseen higher dimensional reality that is inaccessible to our physical senses. it would lie outside of time, and all cognizable complexity would only be a fractional reflection of its own.

    this is how there is an eternal reality of information, like some kind of cosmic memory, that is reflected in plato’s cave and the description of ideal forms. the information is stored in the form itself, which has no beginning or end. it is of the unitary substance from which all forms of matter arise.

    hope that helped.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes it did, thank you. Platos cave is on my reading list, and I'll look forward to that. Do you have any resources you'd recommend for the concept of bio-centrism? I have heard of this concept elsewhere, specifically in the manner you brought up, but never really found any good resources on the subject.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it's still a relatively new idea that hasn't received its deserved attention, robert lanza is the MD that has put it forward and he has some good material but there are other similar theories like hoffman realism which forms the basis of a panpsychist physics, or hameroff-penrose consciousness that goes deeper into the neural anatomy of these perceptual mechanisms. there are a lot of dots to connect but its very worth the effort because the vision of reality you see as a consequence is more beautiful than most imagine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >navigate something outside of time

      The exception to the rule proves the rule. I'm not being a dumbass, that answer does not solve the question im asking. I dont care if "maybe there is one black swan". Using the concept of probability to prove otherwise isn't what I made this thread about.

      [...]
      The current theory does not solve this and it would lead back to some kind of monad yes. You still dont understand what I'm trying to argue however.

      [...]
      Effectively yes, the problem is that even if you treat it as such my original point still stands, as the information that makes you "you" would cease to arrange itself in a manner in which your "youness" would be expressed based on these metaphysical assumptions.

      I'm looking for real answers to this question, and the only anon in this thread who has been able to help me so far has been [...] and [...]

      >i have asked a moronic question and the only anon who has been able to help me is another moron

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're an idiot if you think that proving that something could happen is the same as explaining why something does happen. You have yet to provide any reasoning for why my original statement is incorrect, outside of changing around a few definitions and reexplaining a few terms. Your argument boils down to an appeal to ignorance.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >consciousness cannot exist without some medium to base itself off of
    You do not need matter to generate information. If we use video games as a metaphor, there is no physical matter in a video game but we can as consciousness (the player) can interpret the information around us and our avatar (the playable character) can interact and create new information. You could say the medium which we interpret and interact (with other consciousnesses) is the video game. Virtual reality is require for interaction because in reality we are just 1s and 0s on a hard drive. The afterlife is just another virtual reality/video game.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      where your analogy sort of falls apart is that video games are run on real hardware. I get the gist of your theory, but that would imply that there is some backdrop somewhere which everything is "reflecting" off of.

      https://i.imgur.com/bowNwOn.jpeg

      it's still a relatively new idea that hasn't received its deserved attention, robert lanza is the MD that has put it forward and he has some good material but there are other similar theories like hoffman realism which forms the basis of a panpsychist physics, or hameroff-penrose consciousness that goes deeper into the neural anatomy of these perceptual mechanisms. there are a lot of dots to connect but its very worth the effort because the vision of reality you see as a consequence is more beautiful than most imagine

      Thank you, I added Lanza's book to my reading list, and I'll look into the other 2 concepts.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >where your analogy sort of falls apart is that video games are run on real hardware
        there is no physical though. your computer is not physical. everything is information. "physical" reality is a subset of non-physical reality. to get from non-physical to "physical" you add more rules which we call physics.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It makes sense if I look at it the right way (I have read authors who have said similar things) but this would be absurd to the average person looking in.

          The universe arose from quantum fluctuations which are basically "information potentiation differentials" which created the entropic state. So the materiality exists as a process of "resolving" this pure information. Even Plato knew that.

          this is where many individuals get tripped up, as based on what I understand on the theory, the information is the probability, but the particle has a definite, but currently unknown location. I'd need to look more into the subject.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Adding to this. If consciousness is what interacts with information then what consciousness is interacting with is consciousness. It is consciousness that is the medium that stores the information. A portion of consciousness has arranged itself into a computer to compute these virtual realities. It's all information stored in the larger consciousness system.

          I would read My Big TOE by Tom Campbell. He is able to explain it in a logical manner as a physicist.

          It makes sense if I look at it the right way (I have read authors who have said similar things) but this would be absurd to the average person looking in.

          [...]
          this is where many individuals get tripped up, as based on what I understand on the theory, the information is the probability, but the particle has a definite, but currently unknown location. I'd need to look more into the subject.

          It certainly would be absurd. I've been thinking about it and analyzing it for 7 years or so since reading My Big TOE.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you very much, I plan on bumming it off of my friends audible account as soon as im done with neuromancer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Qualia is what really exists

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Qualia and witness consciousness are the elements of the universe.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Because of this, an afterlife must not exist,
    You are naive if you think mr.skeleton wildride is so easy to escape.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh I do not. Using the paradigm that I explained in my original post it would essentially be groundhog day on loop..... forever....

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The universe arose from quantum fluctuations which are basically "information potentiation differentials" which created the entropic state. So the materiality exists as a process of "resolving" this pure information. Even Plato knew that.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Within the study consciousness there is a question that needs to be resolved:

    Does the brain generate consciousness, or is the brain a sort of receiver that picks up consciousness as a medium.

    If that can be answered with some strong form of confidence, we may be able to get closer to understanding reality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I generally ascribe to the idea that the brain picks up on consciousness fields however I'm aware that this is a strongly debated subject.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the problem with the theory analogous to ops image is that although the universe manifests consciousness in a localized space that can split into separate consciousness and perhaps combine with others, is that we haven't been able to prove the hypothesis that there is a higher or overall consciousness of the universe that is aware of itself. all we know is that the local manifestations of consciousness are aware that they and anything they observe exists, but nothing beyond that.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First of all, emergence is a terrible theory because it ascribes latent creative properties to material substance. So either a) material is not material at all as it has within itself the ability to produce non-material and multiple substances cannot interact without a medium, or b) a more primordial substance has this attribute and thus there is no problem between spirit and material as nothing is really material.

    THAT SAID, in occult metaphysics you actually are right (for the wrong reasons) that consciousness requires a base, all higher information does require a lower counterpart (or rather, a representation on each plane). As above, so below.

    However, all that (and your own conclusions even supposing you are right) would show is that there is no heaven but you simply reincarnate. After all, under your own views even there must be a material counterpart towards the now existent informational component, it does not go away. You disproved an afterlife but you also disproved death, and ironically that is the reality of occultism as well. Everything indeed takes place within one central ecosystem with no separation, including the planes between which do serve as an afterlife until reincarnation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I do believe in what you describe, however I find the concept of "re"incarnation to be a bit dubious, because at a point everything is just an incarnation of the monad, and to go to a more grounded state, all of your linear incarnations are happening all at once within the 4th dimension, and across all timelines in the 5th, and so on and so forth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        First, about the dimensions. SPATIALLY the universe's 4th (and 5th) dimensions could, hypothetically, be theorized and, if using some sort of tool operating on those dimensions, observed. Hypothetically. However, space is one plane, and there exists many planes of manifestation. For the record, the material sphere IS but is also NOT simply one plane, in reality, the material sphere is a layering of all planes which condense it into a final result. A mirror of the monad which is like that except within potential and hidden. About spatial dimensions such as time, time itself is a property and law which has frequency and must resound across all planes. Within each plane, this principle can be more loose the further away it is from the material sphere's manifest. After a certain point, it even ceases to exist. Due to how loose the relation of rules are such as that in certain and/or far removed planes, interactions on those planes alter the overall manifest trajectory of the material universe. In other words, the universe's current state exists is dependent upon the astral blueprint, and interactions and activity within the astral constantly shift and alter this blueprint. Effectively, the past and future, 4th dimension, and on a higher level it is hard for us to perceive 5th dimension, are all subject to change and exist in a pseudo-potential state where astral activity may be influenced by them but in turn the activity influences their outcome or effects that manifest.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          To bring it back to the point on monad, this means in many realms of perception the act of incarnation is not at all fixed and accurately encapsulated by the monad's full potentiality, in fact it is ever-fluctuating, creation is not static but ever flowing. This part may be a bit of a stretch but is my belief, in that this flow also extends towards the planes of perceptions and actions we cannot see, as below so above. And that even the monad itself may be transcendent and not bound by fixed or unfixed, but carry a property allowing it to encapsulate all but flow as well. That perhaps the world acts not in a circle but a spiral, linear incarnations and static certainty exist on no level while yet preserving the inherent godhood within all things, similar to how all can find themselves to be God yet also turn towards God, it is the same point in a 2D perspective but in reality it is an overlapping spiral. A circle meeting a circle, if you know kabbalistic symbolism, tiphareth.

          From what I understand with physics and dimensions, specifically spatial dimensions, have axis and a temporal component. in the 3rd dimension, we have 3 axis and then time, so 3d+t. Further higher dimensions should mathematically exist, as if we have 3d+t then 4d+t and so on should exist, with the perception of change being the dimension above the highest spatial dimension in the dimensional plane.

          At a point all reality would appear as if it were standing still.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I should have been a bit clearer. 4th dimension is known two ways, by spatial dimensions and by 3 dimensions + time. I sort of swapped terms there when I shouldn't. Mathematically, 4th or higher dimensions can exist spatially with none of them being relevant to time. And this is actually what is meant in scientific circles usually.

            However, we were talking of time and I obfuscated and conflated. Before I give occult perspective, let me give scientific perspective. Time from a scientific perspective is dubious to even exist, and the idea of a temporal component with spatial axis is thrown for a loop the moment you introduce relativity. A 3 dimensional object's mass, speed, gravity exerted, etc. all affect the passage of time. This would be extremely strange from the perspective of a temporal axis being introduced. Even stranger if time was presupposed as a 4th spatial dimension, as it would be oddly effected by mass and speed in the 3 dimensional plane for being something which supposedly would be on an agnostic axis. This is why space is usually referred to as "space-time," the fabric of the universe and passage of time in continual change is interlinked in one fabric substance. Even from the perspective of a photon, time would be instantaneous as its perspective is life speed, no time at all would exist for it, moment it is created it is also absorbed. So no, common physics and dimensions do not endorse a static view of time and effects observed on the universe, in fact there isn't even a real basis to begin building upon that theory atm.

            Now from the occult perspective, time does not exist, only potential blueprint state which will manifest and exists astrally (the future, subject to change) and the current influences and vibrations exerted on all astral forces (the past, it is built-in energetic memory within all thing's nature of how it currently is). As such, these forces are subject to astral play and can all be tweaked and altered.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So no, common physics and dimensions do not endorse a static view of time and effects observed on the universe
            I know this to be the case with some theories, however the concept of relativity has recently begun to be challenged as the debate about the actual speed of light has sort of resurfaced in some circles.

            > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzadkHXIUOs (not a physicist but I found this interesting).

            I am very much so aware of the concept of time standing still in occult circles, however I have heard that a static concept of time is gaining traction in some higher level physics.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Damn do I wish it was a shorter video I could watch in good faith before the discussion rather than needing to tab it and watch it tomorrow after waking up.

            >however the concept of relativity has recently begun to be challenged as the debate about the actual speed of light has sort of resurfaced in some circles.
            True, though most of the foundation of pillars of science are made based off poor assumptions to begin with such as the speed of light being stable in the first place (Check out Rupert Sheldrake btw at some point, there are lots of choice words about scientific practice being too insular). But also much bigger misconceptions, such as the fundamental nature of particles in the first place somehow belonging to a material substance and not concepts within themselves at play spontaneously manifesting results.

            >I am very much so aware of the concept of time standing still in occult circles, however I have heard that a static concept of time is gaining traction in some higher level physics.
            I will just quickly sum up and say I think static time just doesn't have enough evidence physically and more importantly it refutes itself philosophically. If all things are static and fated to be, then they are bound together by the fact they are static and not through a property of logical deductive reasoning, and so if your idea of the universe being static is simply fixed in place similar to a fixture and not by some merit of truth then the idea itself holds no logical nor persuasive weight and so thus I lack a reason to believe it. The mind would act not due to the truth or merit of logic, but arbitrariness fated to be. I have no reason to believe in something which refutes logic as it removes my means to gain belief in it. Same argument can be used for materialism itself btw.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dont mean that the 3d or 4d etc universe is static, but at a certain point our mathematical model will essentially result in a dimension in which everything does not move (iirc some physicists consider this to be the 11th or 12th dimension). Essentially your being would have so much choice that it would be infinite. The concept of the Monad implies static time as at a point the concept of time itself would break down, and from what I understand about the physics model is that at a point what we could conceive of as time ceases to exist at a certain level.

            > https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html (Yes I just randomly searched this up and read the conclusion, but the concept is that what we can conceive of as time does not exist past a certain dimensional threshold meaning the concept of "movement" as we perceive it ceases to exist)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I give credence to mathematical 4th+ dimensions, however the paper and static-time theory and time and possible worlds being higher dimensions and such you linked is of superstring. However, superstring has no real evidence to it and is just an attempt to unify quantum mechanics with gravity. It's not a real mathematical hypothetical which can construct shapes even 100 dimensions up. In fact it is a physical explanation using possible worlds and not relevant to how a monad would do it. Superstring has no evidence to it and a billion assumptions behind the nature of fundamental forces and quantum mechanics, most of which also with no evidence and competitive with other scientific outlooks on them.

            The Monad is very different from the supersymmetry of that static-theory, to understand that you just have to observe the scope of the Monad. Even superstring maintains certain assumptions on possibilities of what can shape a possible universe, however these all abide by certain fundamental laws and forces which you're trying to explain (such as gravity, weak and strong, electromagnetism, etc.). These, hypothetically, "don't have to be" from a metaphysical standpoint. So the realm of possible universes has already just expanded a near infinite amount from a Monad's choice. The Monad is not bound by any rules, rather rules are just a singular emanation. Nothing precludes emanations which abide by entirely different structures of reality our minds cannot wrap around due to our a priori constraints (read Kant for analytical a priori vs. a posteriori stuff). The Monad has no shackles of forces requiring explanations, it is not bound by paradox as it does not embody concepts within itself. Even emanation in itself is not an activity it does, rather only what we perceive it to do as it is transcends any act which constrains capability. So the whole comparison or possible worlds is lost to begin with.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes I am aware that the concept of static time in physics is rather different than the concept of static time for the monad, as what we can scientifically conceptualize is only a small segment of the monad, as the monad is under no obligation to follow the same laws that are present within our little corner of everything. Just to clerify, are you stating that you disagree with the current interpretation of the many world hypothesis? Based on my understanding of geometry, a 4th dimensional object would contain infinite 3d planes, and a 5d object would contain infinite 4d planes and so on, which implies the concept of many world without actually postulating the physics required iirc. I think what I'm trying to get at is aren't we sort of learning how to comprehend the fractal nature of reality through physics?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Just to clerify, are you stating that you disagree with the current interpretation of the many world hypothesis? Based on my understanding of geometry, a 4th dimensional object would contain infinite 3d planes, and a 5d object would contain infinite 4d planes and so on
            I disagree with it. First of all, here is the geometric problem and how I should have summarized it in the first place. What I said I acknowledged was Euclidean geometric dimensions. The entire theory of time being an axis and possible worlds is actually a non-euclidean geometrical interpretation, of which there are multiple btw. It is that usage of dimensions I disagree with because the proposed axis do not exist (but your axiom of each dimension encapsulating the last upon a new axis IS true, just not of this form and bound by mathematical rules rather than theoreticals of non-spatial properties which lead to time and universes).

            The question was never about geometry, but rather what axis exist and what rules they follow. Denying either time or possible worlds, let alone both, denies the entire foundation of the static viewpoint. I do deny both time and possible worlds with the astral reasoning I gave prior.

            But I will give a philosophical argument to be against possible worlds and the entire superstring structure as well. Possible worlds only make sense when assuming they all are in isolation of each other, but if things can be understood they can be manipulated, if a metaversal structure exists with metaversal principles then they can be used and this insinuates a world can connect and travel to another world. However, if you do this, what dimension are you on? You aren't even on the dimension higher up, instead you basically are making a totally agnostic axis. You spawn infinitely more axis the moment you open that door and suppose the events occurring.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Just to clerify, are you stating that you disagree with the current interpretation of the many world hypothesis? Based on my understanding of geometry, a 4th dimensional object would contain infinite 3d planes, and a 5d object would contain infinite 4d planes and so on
            I disagree with it. First of all, here is the geometric problem and how I should have summarized it in the first place. What I said I acknowledged was Euclidean geometric dimensions. The entire theory of time being an axis and possible worlds is actually a non-euclidean geometrical interpretation, of which there are multiple btw. It is that usage of dimensions I disagree with because the proposed axis do not exist (but your axiom of each dimension encapsulating the last upon a new axis IS true, just not of this form and bound by mathematical rules rather than theoreticals of non-spatial properties which lead to time and universes).

            The question was never about geometry, but rather what axis exist and what rules they follow. Denying either time or possible worlds, let alone both, denies the entire foundation of the static viewpoint. I do deny both time and possible worlds with the astral reasoning I gave prior.

            But I will give a philosophical argument to be against possible worlds and the entire superstring structure as well. Possible worlds only make sense when assuming they all are in isolation of each other, but if things can be understood they can be manipulated, if a metaversal structure exists with metaversal principles then they can be used and this insinuates a world can connect and travel to another world. However, if you do this, what dimension are you on? You aren't even on the dimension higher up, instead you basically are making a totally agnostic axis. You spawn infinitely more axis the moment you open that door and suppose the events occurring.

            >I think what I'm trying to get at is aren't we sort of learning how to comprehend the fractal nature of reality through physics?
            Probably you are, and I like that thought. However, I standby the opposing perspective earlier than the universe and life seem ever-flowing. If the universe is truly fractal, then a truth exists in some forms on every plane and perspective. So then, if the monad and universe are static, how is the fractal not broken by the fact your experience is not static? To me, that is evidence against it right there. But there are no contradictions if you see that life flows and then presuppose higher planes, the universe, and ultimately even the Monad are flowing and ever-changing too.

            Anyways I need to go to bed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Understandable, have a good night.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        First, about the dimensions. SPATIALLY the universe's 4th (and 5th) dimensions could, hypothetically, be theorized and, if using some sort of tool operating on those dimensions, observed. Hypothetically. However, space is one plane, and there exists many planes of manifestation. For the record, the material sphere IS but is also NOT simply one plane, in reality, the material sphere is a layering of all planes which condense it into a final result. A mirror of the monad which is like that except within potential and hidden. About spatial dimensions such as time, time itself is a property and law which has frequency and must resound across all planes. Within each plane, this principle can be more loose the further away it is from the material sphere's manifest. After a certain point, it even ceases to exist. Due to how loose the relation of rules are such as that in certain and/or far removed planes, interactions on those planes alter the overall manifest trajectory of the material universe. In other words, the universe's current state exists is dependent upon the astral blueprint, and interactions and activity within the astral constantly shift and alter this blueprint. Effectively, the past and future, 4th dimension, and on a higher level it is hard for us to perceive 5th dimension, are all subject to change and exist in a pseudo-potential state where astral activity may be influenced by them but in turn the activity influences their outcome or effects that manifest.

        To bring it back to the point on monad, this means in many realms of perception the act of incarnation is not at all fixed and accurately encapsulated by the monad's full potentiality, in fact it is ever-fluctuating, creation is not static but ever flowing. This part may be a bit of a stretch but is my belief, in that this flow also extends towards the planes of perceptions and actions we cannot see, as below so above. And that even the monad itself may be transcendent and not bound by fixed or unfixed, but carry a property allowing it to encapsulate all but flow as well. That perhaps the world acts not in a circle but a spiral, linear incarnations and static certainty exist on no level while yet preserving the inherent godhood within all things, similar to how all can find themselves to be God yet also turn towards God, it is the same point in a 2D perspective but in reality it is an overlapping spiral. A circle meeting a circle, if you know kabbalistic symbolism, tiphareth.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Matter does not exist. Information does not require a "medium" other than consciousness.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This consciousness is its own medium

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Information doesn't exist. It's entirely an abstraction. All that exists is energy, matter, and the influence it has/receives from other energy and matter.
    Funnily enough that information is so obviously not real but so obviously useful and compelling is a huge point in hindu favor regarding the concept of Maya/Illusion

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. This is why the ancients obsessed over preserving the body, funerary rituals and such. Modern idiots went from materialism to thinking the physical is irrelevant because they're locked in dualistic thinking like the capitalist sheep they are.
    The soul is not immortal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the conclusion that I have unfortunately come to myself.

      >I have yet to find
      [...]
      >it disproves

      ok.

      Generally speaking a pattern is going to continue. Someone more knowledgeable could probably argue that this is always the case, I simply do not have that information.

      but if all you're trying to say is that as long you assume existence is based off matter, then there's no spirituality without matter, then yes you're correct. you don't need to shit out 1,200 words over it though because it should be obvious from the assumption

      I never said existence is based off matter, I said existence is based off of the combination of matter and information. Also, the Big Bang according to the current theory didnt create matter, it simply was the start of how the matter "here" behaves.

      https://i.imgur.com/qIesbXe.gif

      You're probably just never going to get it. I think the understanding of non-material things is something that requires an innate instinct for it. At the end of the day consciousness will always be the source of everything. You can say the knower can't be a knower without something to know, but the only thing the knower ever really knows is itself. The material perceived by the knower is nothing but illusion. Source? I'm the knower.

      I already told you that I have an innate understanding of how this works as I have discovered that the active consciousness is still around after the body dies, the issue is that there should be some metaphysical answer for such, but instead I ended up here.

      >The issue is that I have yet to find any "thing" which information can be derived from which at some point does not lead back to a material "thing".
      Information is nonlocal conceptual structure in the cosmic mind, Nous. Read your Plato.

      Based on my limited study of Plato, Plato would probably agree with at least most of my statement, after we had a discussion about information. I plan on doing more study on plato, however I have yet to find my answer in his work so far.

      https://i.imgur.com/LhHODRb.png

      This consciousness is its own medium

      I'll give it a read.

      • 1 month ago
        sage

        >Generally speaking a pattern is going to continue. Someone more knowledgeable could probably argue that this is always the case, I simply do not have that information.
        homie "somebody more knowledgeable" already debunked your dumbass opinions in

        What you are describing is essentially the problem of induction as philosophy of science puts it. Just because we have always observed information to be retracable to some physical thing that is never PROOF that it needs some sort of material medium to exist.

        Imagine that you were a caveman living in prehistoric times. In your entire life you have seen 1000s of white swans, but never any black swans. One day one of your tribe members walks up to you and tell you there's a swan on the other side of the plains, but he doesn't tell you the color of it. Can you 100% rule out that this swan is not black but white? Likewise it is so with the problem you have described.

        and then you don't even try to refute it and assume someone to can prove what you want to think. Pic related.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The exception to the rule proves the rule. I'm not being a dumbass, that answer does not solve the question im asking. I dont care if "maybe there is one black swan". Using the concept of probability to prove otherwise isn't what I made this thread about.

          >Big Bang according to the current theory didnt create matter
          no shit. still where did the matter come from? from other matter?
          >what do you "lead back" the matter
          or maybe it comes from / it was there due to something other than matter?

          The current theory does not solve this and it would lead back to some kind of monad yes. You still dont understand what I'm trying to argue however.

          >I said existence is based off of the combination of matter and information
          at that point, you can just treat matter as specific kind of information

          Effectively yes, the problem is that even if you treat it as such my original point still stands, as the information that makes you "you" would cease to arrange itself in a manner in which your "youness" would be expressed based on these metaphysical assumptions.

          I'm looking for real answers to this question, and the only anon in this thread who has been able to help me so far has been

          https://i.imgur.com/i9Q4iyO.jpeg

          i will try my best to answer as simply as possible but its not easy with this kind of topic. your thinking is definitely on the right track though

          one of the important things to remember is that information doesn’t require “material” to exist, it requires dimensionality. relative to spacetime geometry, this is expressed as axes of symmetry.

          information does not exist as its lower dimensional projection, this is the basis of holographic theory and holonomic brain theory which both are parallel with information theory. there is higher dimensionality that is projected into the lower ones. so the material you speak of isn’t the information, it is a representation of it. like an app icon is a representation of the actual information that makes up the application.

          so continuing in this direction, you arrive at a kind of biocentrism, where space and time are tools of the animal mind to navigate an unseen higher dimensional reality that is inaccessible to our physical senses. it would lie outside of time, and all cognizable complexity would only be a fractional reflection of its own.

          this is how there is an eternal reality of information, like some kind of cosmic memory, that is reflected in plato’s cave and the description of ideal forms. the information is stored in the form itself, which has no beginning or end. it is of the unitary substance from which all forms of matter arise.

          hope that helped.

          and

          Adding to this. If consciousness is what interacts with information then what consciousness is interacting with is consciousness. It is consciousness that is the medium that stores the information. A portion of consciousness has arranged itself into a computer to compute these virtual realities. It's all information stored in the larger consciousness system.

          I would read My Big TOE by Tom Campbell. He is able to explain it in a logical manner as a physicist.

          [...]
          It certainly would be absurd. I've been thinking about it and analyzing it for 7 years or so since reading My Big TOE.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Big Bang according to the current theory didnt create matter
        no shit. still where did the matter come from? from other matter?
        >what do you "lead back" the matter
        or maybe it comes from / it was there due to something other than matter?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I said existence is based off of the combination of matter and information
        at that point, you can just treat matter as specific kind of information

  17. 1 month ago
    DoctorGreen

    >physically exist
    the physical is also a metalhysical concept. the material is an illusion. It is all forces forcing each other in and out.
    >I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE WORLD IS MATERIALISTIC
    this shouldn't need to be said if the spiritualists didn't misinterpreted the material

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE WORLD IS MATERIALISTIC
      Yes you are, because you are assuming the only medium consciousness can be based off of - which I am not agreeing with as your basis, only showing that even if I did - you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing.
      Consciousness interpreting spiritual medium = afterlife.

      You all have misunderstood what I have said. Even if the material is made up of spiritual substance, which I agree with, the laws and theories that we have regarding what we refer to as material, even if it is itself not material, dont explain the continuation of consciousness after death. You have to make some MAJOR leaps in reasoning in order to conclude otherwise using the standard paradigm. I know individuals have attempted to discuss these things in a metaphysically coherent manner, as the 2 anons did in the posts that I highlighted, but for the rest of you, you have only brought up theories and ideas which have nothing to do with my original question or the implications of what I was discussing.

      Instead of actually looking at what I am implying about the nature of consciousness (regardless of if it is all spiritual or all material etc) you are postulating that it does not work in the manner I described (Substance A flowing through Substance B resulting in information which can be understood by a consciousness) It does not matter if 1 is material or 1 is spiritual or both are spiritual, if the spiritual flow doesn't function, then the system dosent function, and that system is consciousness. Instead of coming up with well thought out responses, I have been greeted with "you dont know enough", "you'll probably never know" and "your question is idiotic". Just because everything is "spirit" does not mean jack shit unless there is a way for that to MEAN something. Without meaning, being does not exist, its really that simple. What I have been asking for is a metaphysical theory which explains the difficulties that I ran into with my cursory understanding of information theory. You cant change the "material" to another form of "spirit" and everything works out fine, when the logic behind the original idea still holds water.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >You cant change the "material" to another form of "spirit" and everything works out fine
        Then discard your theory, since it requires something that does not exist.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You once again did not understand what I said. You cant just say that everything is information or spirit and not know what information or spirit is.

          Even if everything is spirit, what happens when the arrangement of spirit which makes up your consciousness no longer is arranged in the same manner necessary to bring forth your consciousness. Its still the same problem as I listed above outside of the fact that you have substituted "matter" for "additional information arranged in a different manner".

          Some information is arranged into what we call particles which then themselves display information which is then arranged into structures which are able to interpret information in a way that we call consciousness. Even if everything is information, you have still yet to prove of any metaphysical paradigm or theory which explains how once that information is misaligned from the patterns necessary to bring forth consciousness, that that consciousness continues, if consciousnesses itself is essentially just a patterned form of information.

          The resources that those anons presented makes sense, what you and the rest of the people in this thread have used is essentially an appeal to ignorance or denied the question because you dont seem to understand that the concept of spirit does not need to be personal or even present itself in a way that we could call "conscious".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You cant just say that everything is information or spirit and not know what information or spirit is.
            But I know what information or spirit is.

            >Even if everything is spirit, what happens when the arrangement of spirit which makes up your consciousness no longer is arranged in the same manner necessary to bring forth your consciousness.
            Consciousness itself is not complex. It does not need to have a certain "arrangement" or structure. It whole and indivisible, the very substance of being.

            >Some information is arranged into what we call particles which then themselves display information which is then arranged into structures which are able to interpret information in a way that we call consciousness.
            Wrong. Particles do not exist. Structures are not conscious. They are inventions of the mind. Information is encoded in Platonic forms (ideas, archetypes, numbers, etc).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > But I know what information or spirit is.
            You have to have a working definition which cant just be random shit that happens to work when you need it to work and dosent work in other cases.

            > Consciousness itself is not complex. It does not need to have a certain "arrangement" or structure. It whole and indivisible, the very substance of being.
            As this anon pointed out

            https://i.imgur.com/HNZdmhr.png

            I'm going to give my 2 cents by synthetizing the different models and traditions i've studied, in other words, my paradigm based on their trends.

            1.Information is formed entirely by sensations, from our point of view there are physical and mental sensations, mental sensations would refer to memories for example, which are sensory conglomerates. Trends point towards the idea that physical sensations for us, are mental sensations for the "host" of our universe, in other words, our physical elements are the psychic elements of something "bigger" (for lack of a better term). If we go the opposite way we find that our psychic elements, mental sensations, are the physical sensations of something "smaller". This is hard to grasp for many, since we try to project our natural dynamics into these "smaller" recipients that experience our mental sensations as physical, but they're obviously subjected to different time and space dynamics so that exercise is pointless.

            2.Consciousness which is often referred to as awareness depending on where you're at, is the only element that isn't a sensation. All sensations are impermanent, they change and they unravel cyclically. Awareness however is permanent, it never changes, the sensations attached to it and forming the ego change, unravel, but awareness stays the same.
            Awareness can move through the fractal pond system and "coccoon" itself in a new set of sensations in each one, a new set of sensations forming an ego. All this references the soul and spirit dynamic expressed in many ways through many models, the soul would refer to the sensory conglomerate attached to awareness, and the spirit would refer to awareness itself. In other words, the soul changes and unravels, it's impermanent, the spirit is eternal. As is logical, a soul, something that is formed by sensations, can't "move" into a "pond" with dramatically different sensory dynamics, the soul would understandably be "unraveled" in the process for "not fitting".

            Consciousness requires awareness, and awareness requires information and sensory perception to be aware of. You are using an equivocation fallacy to change the definition of consciousness when the type of consciousness I am discussing isn't the same kind you're arguing for.

            > Wrong. Particles do not exist. Structures are not conscious. They are inventions of the mind. Information is encoded in Platonic forms (ideas, archetypes, numbers, etc).
            Appeal to ignorance. Particles are created out of platonic forms, and they most certainly do exist. You do not need to see atomic particles to understand the concept of a particle. You cant just expect me to take things at face value unlike so many other people on this board.

            What is consciousness bro lol

            Awareness. You are not said to be conscious if you're unable to process information. Many people in this thread are conflating other ideas of consciousness with human consciousness.

          • 1 month ago
            Small Penis McGee

            Didn’t even read it whatever you said it’s wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And I know that you have no interest in having a genuine conversation because you already know everything and are unwilling to have reasonable dialogue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >awareness requires information and sensory perception to be aware of.
            No, awareness is more basic than any structure or manifestation.

            >You are not said to be conscious if you're unable to process information.
            No, consciousness has no dependence on information processing whatsoever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Proof? Because this goes against everything we know about human consciousness. You're changing the goalposts. What you're saying has no effect on what I'm trying to understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because this goes against everything we know about human consciousness.
            What "we" know, really? Information is the content of awareness, not its source. The mind is a system of information-processing capabilities built on top of awareness. Without awareness, the mind could not exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And awareness is generated from what exactly, because awareness itself seems to be the sum of information being processed by other phenomena.

            You say things and expect me to simply believe them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            These are basic points of philosophy. Awareness is the prima materia, the one substance that makes reality possible. There is nothing more basic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is news to me, because I was under the assumption that the "prima materia" is the potential in the monad, not awareness.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Awareness is the pure potentiality of experience and the one universal substance.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How, this does not follow. You have yet to explain your position.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not a position, it's just the way things are. The Self is the witness only.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Monad and awareness are both elemental.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nta but awareness tends to be considered an ineffable concept in most models. What one can gather from cross referencing an average from these models is that awareness is a constant rather than a variable and it's homogeneous rather than heterogeneous. What i mean by this is that awareness is found in literally everything whether inert or alive, micro or macro, that there aren't a number of awareness, there's just one giving place to the trend of interconnectedness, and that sensory information clusters are gathered on the awareness. What people self identify as are these sensory information clusters.

            If i had to speculate myself, i'd say these sensory clusters act as "eyes", although depending on which set of analogies you prefer they could also be seen as "fruits" and awareness as a tree. I could speculate further but i might sound too schizo at that point, i like to keep those drafts to myself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those laws and theories dont explain consciousness at all. Plenty have attempted, but none have succeeded.
        > if the spiritual flow doesn't function, then the system dosent function
        You misunderstand consciousness and self. Consciousness is no function, no system.
        You keep hitting "you dont know" because you keep insisting on not knowing when told.
        >Without meaning, being does not exist
        Being is what gives meaning. Simple as. You have it backward.
        I'm sorry you have to keep hearing it, but you simply dont understand what you are talking about.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where have I been told any of this outside of some vaguely esoteric mumbo jumbo which has been said in this thread. I fully understand the concept of consciousness and the self, it appears as if you have been mislead by some practice which does not teach a coherent understanding of consciousness. I have not been told, because no explanation which I have been given works. Consciousness can either emerge from a system, or it creates a system in which it layers meaning onto in order to create, in either situation, you first have to prove how consciousness and what we perceive as the material body are not inherently linked to each other, and if so, how does it maintain what we can describe as "thought" or "processes involving the aspect of time or movement" after the consciousness no longer has a moving vessel in which to anchor itself to. I know very well what I am talking about, I simply refuse to believe in something which has so many major errors and leaps in judgement. You are using the equivocation fallacy by changing the meaning of what I referred to as consciousness.

          In regards to meaning and being they both breakdown to a point. You cant have one without the other. The state of being requires a meaning to be ascribed to the state of being, that is what I was trying to explain.

          https://i.imgur.com/HNZdmhr.png

          I'm going to give my 2 cents by synthetizing the different models and traditions i've studied, in other words, my paradigm based on their trends.

          1.Information is formed entirely by sensations, from our point of view there are physical and mental sensations, mental sensations would refer to memories for example, which are sensory conglomerates. Trends point towards the idea that physical sensations for us, are mental sensations for the "host" of our universe, in other words, our physical elements are the psychic elements of something "bigger" (for lack of a better term). If we go the opposite way we find that our psychic elements, mental sensations, are the physical sensations of something "smaller". This is hard to grasp for many, since we try to project our natural dynamics into these "smaller" recipients that experience our mental sensations as physical, but they're obviously subjected to different time and space dynamics so that exercise is pointless.

          2.Consciousness which is often referred to as awareness depending on where you're at, is the only element that isn't a sensation. All sensations are impermanent, they change and they unravel cyclically. Awareness however is permanent, it never changes, the sensations attached to it and forming the ego change, unravel, but awareness stays the same.
          Awareness can move through the fractal pond system and "coccoon" itself in a new set of sensations in each one, a new set of sensations forming an ego. All this references the soul and spirit dynamic expressed in many ways through many models, the soul would refer to the sensory conglomerate attached to awareness, and the spirit would refer to awareness itself. In other words, the soul changes and unravels, it's impermanent, the spirit is eternal. As is logical, a soul, something that is formed by sensations, can't "move" into a "pond" with dramatically different sensory dynamics, the soul would understandably be "unraveled" in the process for "not fitting".

          3.The kind of afterlife most people expect is one where the soul, or sensory conglomerate stays intact, therefore conserving all memories and ego. This can be the case if the awareness or spirit moves, or is moved into a "pond" where sensory dynamics are compatible with the one you're "coming from",

          Finally, someone who is taking this thread seriously and wrote out a logical well thought out response. Thank you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >vaguely esoteric mumbo jumbo
            I said very directly in the post you are replying to.
            All of your issues are moot so long as you have no answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
            And you dont.
            You ignore this glaring poroblem with your stance, and you backp-edalled on meaning because you cannot support your claims.
            I hate to say it again, but it's the only conclusion to give -
            You dont understand what you are talking about.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE WORLD IS MATERIALISTIC
    Yes you are, because you are assuming the only medium consciousness can be based off of - which I am not agreeing with as your basis, only showing that even if I did - you are doing exactly what you claim not to be doing.
    Consciousness interpreting spiritual medium = afterlife.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm going to give my 2 cents by synthetizing the different models and traditions i've studied, in other words, my paradigm based on their trends.

    1.Information is formed entirely by sensations, from our point of view there are physical and mental sensations, mental sensations would refer to memories for example, which are sensory conglomerates. Trends point towards the idea that physical sensations for us, are mental sensations for the "host" of our universe, in other words, our physical elements are the psychic elements of something "bigger" (for lack of a better term). If we go the opposite way we find that our psychic elements, mental sensations, are the physical sensations of something "smaller". This is hard to grasp for many, since we try to project our natural dynamics into these "smaller" recipients that experience our mental sensations as physical, but they're obviously subjected to different time and space dynamics so that exercise is pointless.

    2.Consciousness which is often referred to as awareness depending on where you're at, is the only element that isn't a sensation. All sensations are impermanent, they change and they unravel cyclically. Awareness however is permanent, it never changes, the sensations attached to it and forming the ego change, unravel, but awareness stays the same.
    Awareness can move through the fractal pond system and "coccoon" itself in a new set of sensations in each one, a new set of sensations forming an ego. All this references the soul and spirit dynamic expressed in many ways through many models, the soul would refer to the sensory conglomerate attached to awareness, and the spirit would refer to awareness itself. In other words, the soul changes and unravels, it's impermanent, the spirit is eternal. As is logical, a soul, something that is formed by sensations, can't "move" into a "pond" with dramatically different sensory dynamics, the soul would understandably be "unraveled" in the process for "not fitting".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      3.The kind of afterlife most people expect is one where the soul, or sensory conglomerate stays intact, therefore conserving all memories and ego. This can be the case if the awareness or spirit moves, or is moved into a "pond" where sensory dynamics are compatible with the one you're "coming from",

  20. 1 month ago
    Small Penis McGee

    What is consciousness bro lol

    • 1 month ago
      Small Penis McGee

      Dudet what is free will

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't have much to add in terms of the information discussion because I'm not familiar with it, but I realized through the thread you're very clearly bothered by the fact it's not something as discussed as it should. In fact, you shared you have faiths of your own that actively go against the shallow materialism that shrouds the world as it is. As such, I have to commend your effort to challenge your views and finding a solution to a problem that, if it hasn't been made clear by now, no one knows how to solve. I won't mention the guy's name because I'm certain it'd attract bots to the thread, but this idea of juxtaposing and wrestling different views to give birth to a more polished, in-the-moment adequate mentality, is a defined process by that voldemort I mentioned, and it's a shame how it's mostly ignored in these discussions because of that guy's fame. Regardless, it's through that same process I expect things to slowly change. For better or for worse, only the future holds, and surely new problems will arise, but I'm more than eager to dive into that age after this current stupid materialism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The issue that I have run into is that this subject is considered so fundamental to so many people that they have never sat down and contemplated the consequences of what we understand to be "known" about awareness and consciousness and how it interacts with the "material" realm. We can observe that if you mess around with someones brain, either through surgery or by adding chemicals, you can change how they think and what they perceive, so we clearly know that there is a material aspect to consciousness, however to what degree is unknown. What I was originally postulating is that if the mind is metaphysical, but the metaphysical properties of the mind are essentially constructed from "material" building blocks, does that mean that the metaphysical aspect of the mind ceases to exist when the physical aspect of the mind also ceases to exist? Simply swapping out the material components for "immaterial spiritual abstraction" still results in the same issue, as when those spiritual "information stores" breakdown into something that they are not, the additional information (the consciousness or awareness) should cease to exist. The solution to this theory would be that reality does not have consciousness emerge from it but rather reality is structured in a way to build itself around consciousness, which makes sense when you go down the rabbit hole.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We can observe that if you mess around with someones brain, either through surgery or by adding chemicals, you can change how they think and what they perceive
        Well, the mind is formed by sensations and chemicals are sensations too, sensations in a different scale, it only makes sense that sensations get altered when other sensations are added to them. Everything is a sensory element except awareness, if you look into the mirror for long enough everything will decay and arise through change except for awareness which is maintained as a constant.

        > so we clearly know that there is a material aspect to consciousness
        There is a material aspect to the mind, but not awareness really, have you ever heard about the axiom "the universe is mental"? What makes us perceive mental and material as separate entities is just a cognitive scale shift, but technically speaking, the material is mental. In dynamics where this shift is more subtle the separation is less obvious, such as for example psychology influencing physiology.

        I can see you're looking for some sort of reassurance on the safety of your mind after your body dies. The mind and the body are connected because the material is a state of the mental, however the mental has many states not just the material. The sensory cluster of the mind can partially survive in these "layers" of the mental that exist before reaching the state of the material, this is what some models express as astral body, aura, etheric body....etc, layers.

        Some models, specifically daoism's praxis focuses on cultivating these layers beyond the material until they can carry the totality of the mind, it is what daoists understand as immortality. They achieve it by a varied methodology that focuses on stressing the fascia of the whole body which they call "huang", the most mind conductive part of the body in their praxis, amongst other strategically selected internal physiology. Went on a tangent there but it's still related to the point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Or rather, the curiosity is somehow blocked halfway through. Literally just search the topic throughout the mainstream, you'll realize people always stop abruptly at some dead end. Either "wow this is amazing" (doesn't dive into the implications, as if denying the aspect of spirituality into the conversation), or "the human brain sure is a complex structure!", all the way to the most absurd "high school level understandings of chemistry and biology explain consciousness" (which, I kid you not, I've read multiple times). In fact, I've come to realize we're often presented with provocations to that discussion, but rarely do we make the connection of just how massive it actually is. Plato's cave, meditation, several religious texts from as many religions as you can think of that reference the dilemma of consciousness as a singular reference, Descartes, the list goes on. The purely materialistic crowd also chooses to ignore Planck and Schopenhauer, two modern scientists who dove deep into such discussions. It's not surprising that the world chooses to ignore that discussion, because it actively forces the science ideology defenders (which is different from science as a way of viewing the world) to engage in philosophy and spirituality. It's thanks to those people that you hear shit like "anything science still can't answer is philosophy. But with enough advancements, science can substitute philosophy.", or the immense wave of materialism that fails to perceive the most ironic induction by arrogantly assuming "it's muh emergent properties bro!". All nuance is lost, and the discussion dies because it's uncomfortable, it's challenging and the modern world is too busy dealing with ego to allow such debates to flourish.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/VLs9UzN.jpeg

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          sorry, meant Schrodinger, but Schopenhauer weirdly fits too. As for the idea you present at

          The issue that I have run into is that this subject is considered so fundamental to so many people that they have never sat down and contemplated the consequences of what we understand to be "known" about awareness and consciousness and how it interacts with the "material" realm. We can observe that if you mess around with someones brain, either through surgery or by adding chemicals, you can change how they think and what they perceive, so we clearly know that there is a material aspect to consciousness, however to what degree is unknown. What I was originally postulating is that if the mind is metaphysical, but the metaphysical properties of the mind are essentially constructed from "material" building blocks, does that mean that the metaphysical aspect of the mind ceases to exist when the physical aspect of the mind also ceases to exist? Simply swapping out the material components for "immaterial spiritual abstraction" still results in the same issue, as when those spiritual "information stores" breakdown into something that they are not, the additional information (the consciousness or awareness) should cease to exist. The solution to this theory would be that reality does not have consciousness emerge from it but rather reality is structured in a way to build itself around consciousness, which makes sense when you go down the rabbit hole.

          it seems you matured it a lot more from this thread alone, that's the impression I've had. Almost like an opposite "Boltzmann Brain": it's not a mind spontaneously forming itself from the material, but the material forming to allow its connection to that awareness. Or, even more so, the material being that awareness trying to perceive itself. If that's the case, and more directly answering your original question: what if the material experience is a stepping stone for such awareness to consolidate itself? Like an ignition that was required to kickstart "immortality"? Of course, that could rise the question of "what made that awareness act to begin with, and shape the material for this to begin?", to which we are very well speculating. Not any different from "what came before God?". If I could add a side note to the discussion: I've recently realized there is a possible connection inferred by most religions regarding mountains and meditation. About how climbling a mountain is akin to diving deeper into the essence of your mind, and at the end finding the only truth you can actually have, your own awareness (or, by those religions: God). I'm not sure if that was the original intention (but honestly, that doesn't necessarily prevent us from figuring it out ourselves), but it shed a ton of light into the passages of Moses meeting God at the top of Mt. Sinai, alongside most religions who saw mountains as the place you can meet the divine. I always thought it was anachronic to apply a scientific methodology lens to such ancient cultures, as if they based the divine on what they observed ("Mt Olimpus has magnetite so it had plenty of lightning. To explain that, the greeks said it was Zeus doing it"), as opposed to starting with the divine as an explanation for the material, which fits a lot more to how a single god could correspond to multiple phenomena.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The consciousness must interpret the information it is getting. The way it is getting this information is through the sensory data of the body. Using the video game metaphor again, in the same way from the point of view of the video game character the world is physical because they can't walk through walls, if they fall from a great height they get damaged, etc, we view this reality as physical because we get feedback that tells us in a similar way. When your character gets damaged, burned, poisoned, you becomes aware of it be the video game giving you information about what is happening. The video game might also have status effects that block your notification on these indicators.

        In the case of this video game, the feedback is through the body. Even though it is not actually physical you get information based on the rule set of this video game. So if the rule set says if your brain gets damaged, you lose or change the way you get this information then that will be what happens. The information we get is limited by the rule set of this video game like in any other game.

        The video game character views its world as physical but the player can see that it is just pixels on a screen. From the player's perspective (the consciousness) this video game reality is non-physical. From the video game character's perspective the player is non-physical (it is outside of the video game reality). There must also be a computer that is computing the video game. This is also outside of the video game character's reality. So none of these things are actually physical. They are all non-physical.

        The player and the computer interact be passing information to each other. The player takes that information, makes a choice in the video game, the computer takes that choices, computes the action, and then the computer gives the update for that choice in the video game. If the character is lacking sensory information, the computer will not provide that information.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We can observe that if you mess around with someones brain, either through surgery or by adding chemicals, you can change how they think and what they perceive
        Well, the mind is formed by sensations and chemicals are sensations too, sensations in a different scale, it only makes sense that sensations get altered when other sensations are added to them. Everything is a sensory element except awareness, if you look into the mirror for long enough everything will decay and arise through change except for awareness which is maintained as a constant.

        > so we clearly know that there is a material aspect to consciousness
        There is a material aspect to the mind, but not awareness really, have you ever heard about the axiom "the universe is mental"? What makes us perceive mental and material as separate entities is just a cognitive scale shift, but technically speaking, the material is mental. In dynamics where this shift is more subtle the separation is less obvious, such as for example psychology influencing physiology.

        I can see you're looking for some sort of reassurance on the safety of your mind after your body dies. The mind and the body are connected because the material is a state of the mental, however the mental has many states not just the material. The sensory cluster of the mind can partially survive in these "layers" of the mental that exist before reaching the state of the material, this is what some models express as astral body, aura, etheric body....etc, layers.

        Some models, specifically daoism's praxis focuses on cultivating these layers beyond the material until they can carry the totality of the mind, it is what daoists understand as immortality. They achieve it by a varied methodology that focuses on stressing the fascia of the whole body which they call "huang", the most mind conductive part of the body in their praxis, amongst other strategically selected internal physiology. Went on a tangent there but it's still related to the point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        When and where has this been written? If I had to guess before doing any research, it's nineteenth century onwards in Europe-North America. It's a daunting idea we're all familiar with, but I think it's just not enough. In a weird way, saying it all ends blank is a comfortable view: you don't have to think about it, you're just a fluke of molecules acting weird. But not only do we not know even half of this material world, let alone any other possibilities, but if you think about it, basing ourselves on our own awareness and experiences as our single truth: have you ever died? This question may seem redundant but the truth it, what we hear of death, is based on what happens to others. We don't know what it's like, and naturally with that comes the fear that you'll end up in a bed, slowly fading into the nothingness and feeling desperate about it. Except this too is actually a cultural, external view, which arose at the time and space I specified. Other cultures, and in fact even the abrahamic religions to some extent, embrace death, not as an impending doom, but as natural as life itself, an intended feature of our experience here, and not the end. You could argue those religions were "coping" with what little they knew, but then again: even with our centuries of scientific knowledge, we don't know the answer to the basics. What is life? There are some half baked definitions but all fail to be accurate outside practical use. What is consciousness, where does it come from? Again, anyone who claims to know the precise scientific answer is outing themselves as fools. In fact, looking at a more pragmatic and materialistic view: assuming this is it, and what follows is impending nothingness. Don't you agree a life of hope is more pragmatically worthwhile than "accepting the hard truth" (which is not even a truth and as much of a guess as anything)?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Two words: Occam's Razor

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which is as shallow as it could be considering probability only goes so far. It's useful for certain situations such as when dealing with small probabilities when talking science (example: statistical error margins), but you don't even have to talk about spirituality for it to stop making sense. "Occam's razor" has been responsible for quite plentiful of wrong decisions made by judges. Not only that, but by definition you shouldn't come up to a proper conclusion of an unknown situation without admitting it's pure speculation. If anything, Occam's Razor is a comfortable exit that only really holds any meaning when dealing with studying the material at more pragmatic situations. But assuming we're all matter and there's no such thing as spirituality because it's the more probable outcome.... doesn't just make no sense, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of spirituality, science, Occam's Razor, everything. In fact, it is almost religious: it assumes the universe works according to what we arbitrarily assume to be more probable (even though existence itself is not really that likely as opposed to nothingness, and plenty of highly unlinkely events, such as the origin of life itself, have happened). I recommend reading some of Popper's works, he properly explains the scientific method as we know it and its limitations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There simply is no evidence for the post-death existence of human (or any other) consciousness.
            That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But there is no reason, beyond wishful thinking, to suppose it does.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is essentially what I was trying to get at. Even if the universe is made out of consciousness, how do we know that what makes "us" us actually continues on. Even bringing up the concepts of astral projection and remote viewing only work to a point, as we have very little data to work off of and using those phenomena as justification for "life after death" or "disembodied consciousness" is a rather large leap. I do believe that a part of us survives after death, however I'm not sure many of us would actually consider that part to actually be "us".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe, but because of the emotionally charged nature of this subject, it's nearly impossible to have an honest dialogue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >how do we know that what makes "us" us actually continues on.
            What makes us us is simply the witness consciousness that underlies everything. In the end, everything else -- "your" history, achievements, strengths and weaknesses -- peels right off like a decal. Sounds traumatic but it's not.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >explains the metaphysical concept of an afterlife while retaining what many individuals would consider to be themselves
            What many individuals consider to be "themselves" is not themselves but a set of ideas they have decorated themselves with. After death, such an individual will understand that he is only the sentient receiver of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

            This was one of the concepts I was hoping would be brought up in this thread, thank you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are there more than one consciousness, or is there only one in the universe?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Only one, dissociated into an apparent multitude.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is essentially what I was trying to get at. Even if the universe is made out of consciousness, how do we know that what makes "us" us actually continues on. Even bringing up the concepts of astral projection and remote viewing only work to a point, as we have very little data to work off of and using those phenomena as justification for "life after death" or "disembodied consciousness" is a rather large leap. I do believe that a part of us survives after death, however I'm not sure many of us would actually consider that part to actually be "us".

            If you limit yourself to the scientifically verifiable evidence, then indeed, there is none. But it is as much of wishful thinking to assume there is nothing, as it is to assume there is something. Admitting otherwise would be induction. In fact, what drove the scientific method to begin was the realization our singular human views are too biased to be reliable. You two seem to be too attained to hardcore evidence and data, but neither have been enough to properly explain consciousness and life, because there's a limitation of the scientific method. We'll only be able to properly define life once we find a lifeform that completely breaks our paradigm, because only then we'll be more sure we're not excluding something we don't understand. Similarly, we can only comprehend consciousness by understanding where it begins and how, but no amount of scientific and technological advancements will give us the answer because it will keep boiling down to "emergent property x exterior phenomenon". Occam's Razor and the duality "either there is hard evidence, or it's probably not real" are limited to certain aspects of natural sciences which fail to work outside those conditions. Trying to force them in these discussions is dangerous because either you admit there's a limit to the scientific method and use other "instruments" more adequate to the level of the discussion (philosophy and spirituality), or you'll be spouting as much inaccuracies as the "anti-science" crowd of the last years. Lastly: can you prove you're not the only consciouness scientifically? The methods are all entirely based on the pragmatic assumption we have a certain answer (and I agree with the stance since living a life thinking you're alone is practically useless), but that's it. The foundations of science are philosophical stances, more encompassing and adequate to dealing with consciousness and afterlife than the limited scientific method that has a more specific and defined use.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My goal isnt to explain consciousness in this thread, my goal was to attempt to find resources on a metaphysical model which could potentially explain 2 things: An afterlife/spirit realm, and the concept of disembodied "consciousness". I have no interest in proving what consciousness is, and I dont want to fall into the trap of other anons in this thread who have expanded the concept of consciousness to be so large that it completely disregards the original question. I would also disagree on us using science, we're simply trying to use coherent logicto the best of our ability to attempt to discuss this concept. I understand what you're saying, I just think that it should be possible to discuss this subject without having to first define consciousness itself, we just need to know what it can and cannot do in regards to the human experience.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    does anyone have the unedited version of this picture without the text

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >an afterlife must not exist, because consciousness cannot exist without some medium to base itself off of

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This explains nothing.

      >vaguely esoteric mumbo jumbo
      I said very directly in the post you are replying to.
      All of your issues are moot so long as you have no answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
      And you dont.
      You ignore this glaring poroblem with your stance, and you backp-edalled on meaning because you cannot support your claims.
      I hate to say it again, but it's the only conclusion to give -
      You dont understand what you are talking about.

      I am not looking for an answer to what consciousness is, I'm looking for an answer that explains the metaphysical concept of an afterlife while retaining what many individuals would consider to be themselves. I am very aware of the general philosophical and esoteric practices in regards to this question, and I even stated that I dont believe in the materialistic modle, however the issue is that the "materialistic model" puts up a very good argument as for why an afterlife might not exist.

      In regards to the hard problem of consciousness, that is irreverent on my end because in my original post I assumed (whether or not this is true or false) that consciousness manifests through organized patterns of information an once that informational pattern is no longer present the metaphysical thing we call consciousness is also no longer present. You can say that I don't know what I'm talking about over and over again, but I have attempted to explain what I have meant in the best ways that I could numerous times, only to be shot down with single sentence explanations which don't do anything besides assume that consciousness is fundamental and not emergent (which might be the case). Please see picrel.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >explains the metaphysical concept of an afterlife while retaining what many individuals would consider to be themselves
        What many individuals consider to be "themselves" is not themselves but a set of ideas they have decorated themselves with. After death, such an individual will understand that he is only the sentient receiver of ideas, not the ideas themselves.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >This explains nothing.
        So it explains everything.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your definition of "information" is far too broad to be useful. There is a reality that exists a priori both in the physical and metaphysical universe. That is to say that these things exist without any interpretation.

    I also don't agree that "consciousness" equals the interpretation of information. It's possible for a passive, non-analytical consciousness to exist

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > It's possible for a passive, non-analytical consciousness to exist
      Rigpa?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1,1,2,3,5,8
    1: monad
    1: indefinite dyad
    2: space
    3: medium
    5: being
    8: eternity

    Medium, in the physical plane, is matter.
    In other planes it will change for something else.
    But as long as you have the golden ratio, everything works.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Information is a state of matter.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >When you die
    >Game over
    ?
    God codes that shitty?

    Anyway, "information theory" can be used to argue for the existence of an after life.
    >How?

    Details to consider:
    1. Boltzmann Brains
    2. Time scale of the Universe (Unknown, may be infinite, else-wise entropic death is a very, very, very, very long time from now.)
    3. Exponential speed/linear and nonlinear improvements of processing capability.
    4. DeMorgan's Theorem and it's implications.
    5. Any human consciousness can be broken down into a single numerical value that can be represented in unique binary format, as per DeMorgan's Theorem's implications.

    Review: If the true longevity of the Universe is unknown, and either it approaches infinity, or the upper bounds on processing power and storage, for highly advanced civilizations may be far, far, higher than we know. Ergo, there is both enough time, and potential for a human consciousness to be simulated in the future, regardless of where it existed on the timeline, if there is enough time to process the information or if the processing power is fast enough, all of this can happen before the technical entropic death of the Universe.

    So, either the Universe exists for an infinite amount of time, or if processing speeds get fast enough, you WILL live again, after death, at some point.

    Blue Eisenhower November

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Any human consciousness can be broken down into a single numerical value that can be represented in unique binary format, as per DeMorgan's Theorem's implications.
      Human consciousness itself is completely formless and unstructured. Only the contents of consciousness have structure or information value.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Consists of a numerical value.
        ^
        Remains true. Computationally, everything you know, including the structure and internal representation of your own memories, thought processes, and opinion forming and decision making mechanisms, are computationally sound.
        You as a structure, exist as a single numerical value. Very large, because relativity to all other Baryonic matter in Hilbert space is a factor in the equation for your own Baryonic constituent pieces. Even if you're one of those people that think the brain acts as an antennae for a consciousness field or something like that, at the end of the day, again, the information concerning all sides of that equation, is sound to be broken down into computational processes, be Turing complete, and thus, following DeMorgan's Theorem's implications, we still arrive at the fact that all of those constituent data points, even if consciousness is a field, a wave, or some temporally ethereal manifestation of an emergent property only discontiguous in 3D space... Each piece can be broken down into binary representation and processes by a Turing complete parser.

        A consciousness is just a series of decisions applied by a shell program, implanted in a specific Planck moment within 3D Baryonic space-time as you know it. Those series of decisions though, are very important, they define who you are as an individual, the rest is just positioning information within space-time by relativity.

        You are a measurable amount of decisions, applied over a pre-existing Universe, in the form of a Human Of Planet Earth.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Computationally, everything you know, including the structure and internal representation of your own memories, thought processes, and opinion forming and decision making mechanisms, are computationally sound.
    >You as a structure, exist as a single numerical value.
    Wrong. The Self exists prior to computation and cognition. It is the formless backdrop of Presence-Awareness that witnesses the forms and structures imposed by the Mind. Your are not a structure.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can be reduced to information that represents your point of existence within observable space-time by many theories.
      Do you have explicit evidence that proves the viability of your viewpoint over those others?

      If yours is conjecture, I will build off what I know, while keeping your idea in mind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are assuming an external world of material objects in spacetime. Such a world does not exist. The only direct 'evidence' available to you are thoughts, feelings, and sense impressions. Start there. Being is pure awareness.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Thoughts, feelings, and sense impressions are all external and material.
          "Internal" does not exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >external and material
            There are no such things.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The mind is interacting with a Baryonic environment at all times while the consciousness is alive, you know?
      If you believe relativity applies over infinite distance, then the Baryonic world has an equivalent effect on this mind object as you describe it, that can be broken down into fixed positional information of forces, fields, and celestial body positions all across space-time, relative to the one dot, that is you, as a conscious observer.
      I am literally explaining to you, even if consciousness itself is some magic black box, we can computationally.simulate literally every piece except for the subjective observer.

      You can choose that it is unique, or you can choose that it is the same stream.
      That's where the logic branch should split for most.
      Do you believe individuality transcends environmental factors? Well you need to buckle up because we are only a few years from simulations that can start giving us definitive answers to this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >we can computationally.simulate literally every piece except for the subjective observer
        In other words: everything except the one thing that absolutely exists. The subjective observer is the very substance of reality. All simulation shows is that minds can host other minds, since cognition is reducible to information processing. Consciousness is prior to all information, all structure, and all physics. Your physical theory only describes patterns within the *content* of sense experience and is therefore irrelevant to understanding the ground of Being as such.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP, do you ever watch Closer To Truth? They are short and kind of sound-bitey, but he interviews interesting thinkers, and it could be a good gateway to books or other videos that you might be interested in. He has some episodes about the afterlife, and some about information.

    ?si=iuRYTQi_lpzmZJl7

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dumbass. The medium is the earth and cosmos.

    Unconscious is medium for conscious

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *