How simple are people?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random 1.all the habits you mentioned prevent harm or improve dopamine baseline.
2. i asked what does it feel like in your opinion and you told me the ways to achieve a divine feeling / soul energy feeling1 who Cares? These are beliefs in top of that, you care about facts
2 i answered, i Saïd it might vary depending on the person, be specific if you ask what i my self specifically felt that i associate to "soul".
-
This post is deleted! -
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
My opinion (which I’d be happy for you to prove wrong) is that we've come as close as necessary to understanding the fundamentals of our universe to recognize that the soul is a belief, not a fact
We've come as close as necessary to make it a tangible scientific hypothesis chap. Stick around.
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
As I said before, I'm not here to argue, I'm here to have a productive debate. So, as I mentioned, I'm happy to listen to your ideas about why I'm wrong or where my position might be flawed. But saying lol and making comments like "While you're busy with sports, others are busy with science" doesn't help me understand your stance
lol
-
@lobotomize-me said in How simple are people?:
@random wait so if I understand correctly, you agree with me that the soul is a subjective matter and not something that can be objectively identified in every human?
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of others -
@random said in How simple are people?:
Objectivity doesn't exist. Reality is what each person feels.
So the soul exists in the reality of some people, and may not exist in the reality of othersSatan-coded waffle.
@random said in Raypeat = infertility psyop?:
"relativism" Can be harmfull.
Schizo.
-
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
-
@jamezb46 said in How simple are people?:
@ThinPicking Not only is the idea that the objective doesn't exist incoherent, its also self-defeating.
Very coherent, there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you, so when you think about the idea of “objectivity” it happens inside you, a subject/person. so objectivity doesn't exist because you never experience an object without being a subject, your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts. It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
-
@random said in How simple are people?:
there is no experience without a subject/person to experience it, all your thoughts and feelings happen inside you
Not in isolation.
your perception is always influenced by your experiences, your feelings, your instincts.
Ok but if you take that to an extreme you might end up sincerely believing a desktop PC can read your mind directly in the present. And defend the idea like gollum to the ring. Or that the dose makes the poison and the concentration has nothing to do with it.
It does not exclude having empathy and considering your perception of other feelings
So too in reverse. I've moved a million miles in a direction I probably wouldn't otherwise have travelled for the science and art of others. Particularly in this "community". And that was often painful. It was an expense to me. Lucky someone gave me bioenergetic cheat codes for free. If I hinged on the feels I might prefer to go nowhere or off in to the grass.
Maybe it's the wrong way. You tell me Truth. Feel free to be cringe and witty. It's better than war.
-
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
@random As I've written about here already, I think the kind of solipsism you espouse here is often the result of a low energy state. It's obvious that everything we see is channeled through our own personal experiences. Nevertheless we need to use objectivity in order to actually accomplish anything (including Peating itself, derived from objective/materialist principles of cellular function), even something as simple as crossing a street requires looking both ways for the objective car which might objectively harm you. It takes more energy to seriously believe in The Real than just oneself. But the fruits are much greater. Now you're actually starting to play the game.
The Abrahamic religions encode this as "faith" imo. Something that is effortful and takes maintenance. With various techniques for doing so.
Opposite, I started thinking that at times when I reached a high degree of energy.
I'm not sure what you mean by solipsism, the internet definition is:
"the quality of being very self-centred or selfish.
"she herself elicits scant sympathy, such is her solipsism and lack of self-awareness"
2.
Philosophy
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
"solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"That doesn't correspond to anything I've said. What I said doesn't exclude feeling empathy for others and considering our perception of their feelings.
didnt say only self/mind exist, i said everything you experience happens with in you at least partly,
So yes objectivity doesn't exist because there is no experience without subjects.Acting on the assumption that things are real and have an impact, as in your example of the car, in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@random
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
-
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
@random
Acting on the assumption that things are real
in no way implies that we consider our perception of the car to be objective.
As predicted. You believe in objectivity like everyone else trying to do anything in the world. You just pretend that you don't using veiled and distant language.
Nah, you just not confused, read better, or increase degree of discernement.
From an individual perspective, what he feel/perceive is real, does this mean this car exist Independently of his perception?no.
Does this mean he can have an Idea about a car or perceive the car with out it being influenced by being a subject? No.Go read definitions for words you use.
Give a definition of objectivity
-
@NoeticJuice said in How simple are people?:
@random so you don't think objective reality doesn't exist, just that we can't have any purely objective knowledge?
From a person perspective, Objective reality doesnt exist, reality is what a being perceive, if you perceive/feel something it exist, if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist. Yes we cant have any purely objective knowledge. It doesnt make an individual subjective reality and knowledge less valuable
-
@random
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
-
This post is deleted! -
@Rah1woot said in How simple are people?:
@random
‘To science definitions are worthless because always inadequate. The only real definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition.’
Friedrich Engels.
Read Mao Zedong's "Where do correct ideas come from".
You're not wrong in any individual statement you make . You're just overemphasizing one small part, possibly the least interesting, of the mental digestive process. It's mental constipation.
if you do not perceive/feel it it doesnt exist.
Imagine seriously taking this mindset into a warzone. Or anywhere else where it actually matters what epistemology one has, like a factory floor.
You are mentally constipated.
I dont overemphasize anything.
What about this mindset in a war zone?
