Sensory Fractalism

I have been developing a cosmological model out of my paradigm and i'm at the point where i need people to challenge it looking for holes. I'll summarize it as much as i can and then i will expand on it by answering questions.

Sensory Fractalism is a model that posits all information as fundamentally formed by sensations, which are the building blocks of our perception of reality. It proposes that both physical and mental sensations exist, with physical sensations representing the psychic elements of a larger "host" or universal consciousness, while mental sensations correspond to the physical sensations of a smaller, subtler existence. This suggests a layered or fractal nature of reality (fractal pond system), where each level or "pond" has its own distinct sensory dynamics and time-space frameworks, which may differ vastly from our own.

In Sensory Fractalism, consciousness/awareness, is seen as the only constant element that remains unchanging. All sensations, including those that form the ego and personality, are transient and subject to cycles of change and unraveling. Awareness, however, is permanent and homogeneous, a singular element that permeates everything, whether inert or alive, large or small. This awareness can traverse the fractal layers of reality or "ponds", adopting new sets of sensations and forming new egos at each level. This dynamic aligns with various philosophical and spiritual models where the soul, representing the sensory conglomerate, is mutable and impermanent, while the spirit, equated to pure awareness, is eternal and unchanging. (1/2)

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The model also explores the interconnectedness of all existence, suggesting that there is only one awareness that manifests in myriad forms and sensations. Sensations are not confined to human experience but are intrinsic to all aspects of reality, linking the mental and the material. The material world is viewed as a state or manifestation of the mental, with each state of the mind influencing and being influenced by physical phenomena. This interconnectedness supports the notion that mental processes can have physical effects, a concept that is often observed in the way psychological states impact physiological health.

    It also includes a framework for the idea of an afterlife, proposing that the sensory aspects of the mind can persist in different layers of reality beyond the physical. As the densest state of the mind, the physical body is only one aspect, with other, subtler layers of existence where the personality and essence may continue.

    Time within this model is perceived as a construct linked to the cyclical patterns of sensations and states of being. It is not an absolute measure but a relative experience that varies across different layers of reality, influencing the perception and manifestation of sensations. (2/2)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      at first i thought you were going to hit on something pretty deep but i honestly don’t see anything truly original in this. not to say it isn’t valuable or interesting, but it’s just different words for concepts that already exist and not as flushed out as alternative models

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >suggesting that there is only one awareness that manifests in myriad forms and sensations.
      If that were true then there could be no awareness outside of your own awareness.
      You could still have sensations outside your awareness, but there would be no awareness that's experiencing them.

      Also, what does it even mean to have sensations that no awareness is aware of?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If that were true then there could be no awareness outside of your own awareness.
        Your own awareness is everyone's awareness in this model, because awareness is an homogeneous constant across every "pond" or reality in the fractal.

        >You could still have sensations outside your awareness.
        Like i said, awareness is an underlying element that that is present in everything, be it alive or inert, and there is no multiple awareness, there is just one. Living beings are sensory conglomerates that form on the awareness, the complexity of these sensory configurations varies, giving place to minds of different cognitive quality or to simple sensory configurations (non-biological matter).

        >Also, what does it even mean to have sensations that no awareness is aware of?
        I don't remember saying this, but i think you're referring to preconsciousness maybe?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cool idea. You modularized reality like I do.
    But what about prescience? How do you interpret presence and preconsciousness into this model?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Prescience and preconsciousness can be derived from the layered and interconnected nature of awareness and sensations that the model is based on. For prescience, since each layer or "pond" of reality has its own unique time-space framework, prescience could be explained as the awareness accessing these different layers where the perception of time varies.

      As for preconsciousness, in Sensory Fractalism the mind is seen as a conglomerate of sensations that exist in various states. Preconsciousness can be seen as a layer of the mind that holds information in a latent state, ready to be accessed by awareness. In other words, a subtler layer of the mind’s sensory states, accessible by awareness and existing below the threshold of active consciousness.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >existing below the threshold of active consciousness

        Thats right, it is below active consciousness, but it is not the subconscious, and is not the collective unconscious. People usually mistake these levels one for the other.
        The preconscious is the frequency we use to talk to spirits. It precedes consciousness and is from where precognition and the ability to predict the future comes from.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    swarm intellect is vulnerable to one 0day vul

    same way my d&d campaign w zombies got ruined by party inventing box truck with holes in it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm not sure i understand what you're implying in relation to the model, could you reformulate or expand on it?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        fractal is clonal

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Lately /x/ seems to have seen an influx of threads concerning the NPC meme. The idea that people who don't direct their own attention within the space behind their eyes, or have an internal dialogue.

    How do these people factor into your model?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It depends on what the NPC narrative is referring to, for example most of the time i see NPCs being defined as people who lack a soul. A soul is a sensory conglomerate that defined someone's personality and cognitive functions, no matter how stupid or gullible someone is considered to be, they can't lack a soul, otherwise they'd be in a vegetative state.

      The whole NPC thing has just become a new way to call people gullible and there's nothing more to it.

      at first i thought you were going to hit on something pretty deep but i honestly don’t see anything truly original in this. not to say it isn’t valuable or interesting, but it’s just different words for concepts that already exist and not as flushed out as alternative models

      I developed my model by synthetizing many other models/traditions i've studied, if i had to break it down i'd say for its different key points it combines a mix of Indra's net and the holographic principle, advaita vedanta and perennial philosophy, panpsychism and idealism and phenomenology with cognitive sciences.

      The only new thing in my model is the fact it's all in one model in a cohesive manner.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well i forgot to add it's also inspired in wider strokes by taoism, buddhism and some elements of western mysticism. I really have drawn from everything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The whole NPC thing has just become a new way to call people gullible and there's nothing more to it.
        The idea is to dehumanize the other, so he becomes a target for derision. In this way you can protect yourself from their doctrines. It empowers luciferianism and individualism to a large extent. It is also a attack on the idea of collective new age spiritualism ie "we are one", or the idea of "universal love" which is a hypocrisy, as people hate each other every day.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The only new thing in my model is the fact it's all in one model in a cohesive manner.
        i wouldn’t necessarily call it that, if it were more scientifically/mathematically rigorous i would feel differently. good stuff, though

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well, it is a philosophical model. I already had to make it into two parts after summarizing it as much as possible, so i thought i'd just add the nuances by letting people poke it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yea i understand, but even good philosophy is incredibly rigorous in its application of logic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'll show its rigorosity as people throw stuff at it, that's the intention behind the thread. Don't really know anyone i can use have a back and forth and challenge it, so this place is the next best thing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >internal dialogue
      Unpopular opinion but I don't think an internal dialogue is necessary to function as a human being. Language is a tool; you use it when you need it and you don't when you don't. The mind is another such tool. Use it when you have to. It's the autistic mutants whose brain is always buzzing with tedious discourse, the self-doubters who overthink every decision to the point of near-paralysis, THOSE are the NPC's. When you let your thoughts and feelings control you (instead of being in control of your thoughts and feelings), you become an NPC.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >with physical sensations representing the psychic elements of a larger "host" or universal consciousness, while mental sensations correspond to the physical sensations of a smaller, subtler existence.
    You've got these the wrong way around. Mind with a capital 'M' is closer to the Universal than our physical or individual perceptions. This does feature in other systems, I'm not just making it up, although it is also my experience.

    Our mental perceptions may be just as small as our physical ones, and indeed most of what passes for thought in the mass of people is just rehashed emotion. But if we experience Nothingness we see Mind in its Universal sense. Which sounds paradoxical, is it nothing, or is it Mind, I'm not going to argue the point, it has to be experienced.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a semantic issue, are you saying that you prefer to refer to the "host" as "Mind" rather than "universal consciousness"? If that's the case it doesn't really affect the model as long as you clarify it has to be Mind with capital M.

      As for the second part of your comment, can't argue against an experiential qualia and have no reason to since it doesn't seem to be challenging my model.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >prefer to refer to the "host" as "Mind" rather than "universal consciousness"?
        No preference, I'd use both interchangeably. It just sounded to me that your first paragraph was putting mind (Mind?) in the 'foreground' of human experience, rather than as something which lies closer to Source than our physical perceptions.

        > it doesn't seem to be challenging my model.
        Yep, it fits my experience.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nice work OP.
    Kinda reminds me of Indra's net where every node contains a copy or reflection of everything else including itself.

    My personal interpretation of this is that each individual being is a node, each containing a copy, or reflection, of the universe as we see it and sometimes "choose" to see it. Like if someone wished to live a life of lies or delusions they can, and that'll be reflected from them and visible from other nodes. Then, because it's visible to other nodes, each node is forced to either accept/see this lie as a new truth and also reflect it outwards or accept/see it as a lie. In this way a lie is sorta contagious and can shape it's own reality around it, or falsely perceived reality, but never change the greater and grander universal truth/reality. The many lives we live are shared delusions or dreams if you will.
    It also implies that if the entire universe is being reflected onto us, then if someone really wished to know the truth of it all they should look inward instead of looking outward as the answers are already there.... well maybe... Not really sure tbh, just my thoughts.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This but it’s crystals and they reflect lasers between eachother and you can change the reflection of the light or be a funky crystal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I actually mentioned the main elements used in the model before in a separate post

      It depends on what the NPC narrative is referring to, for example most of the time i see NPCs being defined as people who lack a soul. A soul is a sensory conglomerate that defined someone's personality and cognitive functions, no matter how stupid or gullible someone is considered to be, they can't lack a soul, otherwise they'd be in a vegetative state.

      The whole NPC thing has just become a new way to call people gullible and there's nothing more to it.

      [...]
      I developed my model by synthetizing many other models/traditions i've studied, if i had to break it down i'd say for its different key points it combines a mix of Indra's net and the holographic principle, advaita vedanta and perennial philosophy, panpsychism and idealism and phenomenology with cognitive sciences.

      The only new thing in my model is the fact it's all in one model in a cohesive manner.

      , an yeah, indra's net is one of those.

      Your view of each individual being or sensory conglomerate being a node in the net is correct in the model's guidelines. The analogy i decided to use in my case was one of a tree representing the net and fruits representing sensory conglomerates. The tree is inside each fruit's seed, so it effectively creates the guaranteed fractal.

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