>a chair is simply an amalgamation of particles; the conception of a chair as a distinctive object is projected onto it by minds >according to modern physics, particles are not discrete objects but excitations in a field>synesthesia offers compelling evidence that senses are not distinct from each other, but continuous; there is no precise point at which any one emotion, thought, or sense impression becomes distinct from another>schizophrenics, stroke patients, and babies have all been noted to lack the capacity to psychologically individuate objects, or themselves from their environment: e.g. schizophrenics who believe they move the sun volitionally, visual agnosia in stroke patients, babies lacking a sense of self; our sense of individuation of external objects and our sense of self is merely a subjective psychological phenomenon and is not reflective of any underlying reality>theoretically, two brains could be connected together in a way that the conscious experiences experienced by two seemingly independent subjects become one (William Hirstein argues for this in his book Mindmelding: Consciousness, Neuroscience, and the Mind's Privacy)There seems to be overwhelming evidence that individual, discrete things do not exist, and that there is only one thing. But if this is the case, what is that thing?
you sound like a pre-socratic. perhaps the one thing is apeiron?
yeah dude it's all quantum emanations from the monad, I had a dream about it
>>17999160Wrong question. You are describing the ultimate party, not a blank slate.The evidence doesn't prove things are an illusion. It proves individuality is an emergent property. Reality is a dynamic process.The universe is a single player playing a hyper-immersive VR game, forgetting it is the player to become the level 35 Elf Ranger. The miracle is the unbelievably convincing, shared illusion of separation that allows for experience, conflict, and discovery.We are the one thing role-playing as everything else.
>>17999160>>17999504God is a retarded tranny who forces me to exist as the sole frame of reference for material reality and only persistently real person in the world so that he can dominate and abuse me through everyone else who he controls as a retarded tranny hivemind so he can define himself in opposition to me and identify himself as "a king" by forcing me to live and identify as "a peasant" including in my literal imagination as he rapes my mind every second of every day and abuses, terrorizes, harasses, threatens etc me for literally anything I think or do.
>>17999160>synesthesia offers compelling evidence that senses are not distinct from each other, but continuousNot sure about this one desu.But either way, that something is distinct (such as individuals) doesn't mean it is isolated. Discrete things are only empirically unsustainable if your criterion for concluding the existence of one is that it's entirely unrelated to the rest of reality. In which case they would be empirically undetectable to begin with. Don't get me wrong, you're on to a very important question - what is an identity? How come it combines sameness and difference? And what does our culture over-emphasize? These questions are definitely worth pursuing, but not by the modernist and post-moderninst fallacy of simply denying all concepts once you discover their limits.
>>17999160it folds into itself, like a churning piece of lava, still in the process of getting cooler, while every little particle in it is moving, tossing, turning, bumping and creating new particles. they are all rearanging and determine in an ever moving state new directions, at all times. you never know what there is, because it keeps moving, meanwhile the moving keeps moving. it feels like some kind of breathing, that goes through you and back from inside out and vice versa. >>17999504and i think the player has a player. there is something above god and it is what it makes god himself. as if god doesnt know he is in the making too, which would explain the unbelievable convincing illusion of seperation. god is a kid.
Yes, I agree, individuation is an emergent cognitive phenomenon, not a fundamental property of the world. Let's move on now.
I am not you, I am straight.
>>17999477>>17999494>>17999504>>17999581>>17999612>>17999663What is the thing though?
>>18000700It looks like one of these. We're the firey end, the past spirals away behind. It's a well of energy that slowly accumulated from a much larger primeval space, like the growth of a black hole, until it started to expand in a self sustaining reaction. What's in the primeval space, probably almost nothing. It takes a lot of simple process and substrate to host each level of emergent complexity.
>>17999160>a chair is simply an amalgamation of particles; the conception of a chair as a distinctive object is projected onto it by mindsDidn't David Hume talk about this? This sounds like my original perception of reality before I went full Aristotelian.
>>18000137>Individuation is an emergent cognitive phenomenon, not a fundamental property of the world. nah i actually believe it is the fundamental property of the world, just like the cell divides but is still one, individuation is the drive and it belongs to the machine>>18000700i always felt it like a movement, it has an end-point and direction, but as it goes it changes, without knowing how. it felt like an entire one big labour, as in giving birth, difficult to describe. but its perhaps something eternal, as in a cosmic force where beginning and ending are an illusion, so we can also not say what "it" is.
>>18000700The mind, go ahead prove Kant wrong
>>18000700A countenance. They're points of communion between you and reality. It's counter-intuitive because we were taught at school that things have essences we ought to grasp and that relationships are secondary. Whereas in reality relationships are primary.
>>17999160So I am actually you?
>>18001387Yes, you are actually me.
>>18001388Stop hitting yourself then.
>>18001421cringe samefag
>>18001562You (me) would say that.
>>17999160>our sense of individuation of external objects and our sense of self is merely a subjective psychological phenomenon and is not reflective of any underlying reality>is not reflective of any underlying realityNo, this is where you went off the rails. It is reflective of an underlying reality which schizophrenics, stroke victims and babies fail to perceive. The chair just a bunch of particles, but your perception of a chair is based on the reality that a bunch of particles happen to be arranged in a way that allows you to sit your fat ass down on them.
Discrete things exist perceptually, and as per the Cartesian dilemma of the Great Deceiver, we can be sure of nothing but our perception. Therefore discrete things are real.
>>18002472oh yeah well the voices tell me you aren't real
>>17999160>>according to modern physics, particles are not discrete objects but excitations in a fieldThis is wrong, physics doesn't say anything about what things are, just how they can be described, particles can be described as an excitation in a field, but this doesn't mean that's what they are
>>18003823What are they then?
>>18004681We have been asking that since forever so... who knows? But physics doesn't really tells us what particles are, just how they behave and how we can model their behaviour, point in case various different models work for different scales and energies, none of them work on all scales and all energy levels, and they are incompatible with each otherQuantum mechanics is very relevant here to exemplify the disconnect between math and physical reality, on youtube videos and most internet media about science you will hear that a particle in superposition is in two places (or two states) at the same time, but that's not what the math says, it being in a spatial superposition just means that to get the position of the particle you have to sum the position of a particle in one place with the position of a particle in another place, just like in a cartesian plane to get a vector of (1,1) you can describe it as the sum of two places X=1 (0,1) and Y=1 (1,0), now, what does this mean? (1,1) can be described as 0,1+1,0 but it isn't that, same for the particle, you can describe and predict its behaviour by the sum of two positions, but this says nothing about what's physically happening, it's just a mathematical description.
It is what it is, man. You can call it whatever you want. It won't get you any closer to it. I mean, you already are as close as can be!
