Why am I "me" and not someone else? How did my consciousness end up experiencing this reality throught this body and not as someone else?
>>42473160If you take a high dose of psychedelics, you will learn that ego (the sense of “I am”) is an illusion. Take just 5 hits of LSD and you will not be able to tell the difference between your ass and the cushion it’s sitting on.Basically, you are what’s known as the “local observer”. At some point, a human organism was born (“You”) with the ability to sense its surroundings, respond to stimuli, and record memories.Those memories are being recorded in the organism’s brain in real time (the present moment). From our experience of the present moment, which is a window of consciousness around a few milliseconds in length that our brain creates for survival purposes, we extrapolate the existence of ‘past’ and ‘future’ which are not actually real, but mental models that help us understand the world.Basically, you’ve been mindfucked into believing that “You” exist in the “present moment” based on the conscious experiences of an organism in the material world, which we call “You”.All of these are simply mental models that were created by a Human Brain help the Local Observer navigate their survival needs in the Present Moment. It’s all based on a model that exists inside of the logical structures of the brain. Reality doesn’t care who you are, or that ‘You’ are ‘Yourself’. As far as outside observers are concerned, you might as well be a philosophical zombie. And when (You) die, the Local Observer will observe nothing… for eternity.
The answer is solipsism. There is no you at all. In fact I am creating this thread subconsciously.
Its simple You are you and not , for example, the person sitting across you on the bus>>42473241Actual liberal wall of text
>>42473241damn
>>42473160Because you are you, the same way a pencil is a pencil and not the pen next to it.
>>42473241Materialist shit.I have memories of floating around my mom and my town a while before I was born (which I verified with her), and I already had an individual awareness and sense of self. Not possible if I'm just an illusion of the brain.
You are asking "me" why you are you? I cannot answer that. Rather than seek an explanation-- any narrative can purport to explain it-- instead simply be aware of what it means to be you. Observe the you. You are the awareness that precedes the "you" that has a need for causation, explanation and narrative.
>>42473160It is hilarious that most on this board cant even comprehend the vertiginous question, let alone try to answer it.
The answer is solipsism. There is no you at all. In fact I am creating this thread subconsciously.You are me.
>>42473614source?
>>42473160why is this water in this glasswhy is it experiencing the glass instead of another container
>>42473875good question
>>42473862Me. The source is me. You are me. I am your source.
>>42473614>>42473862>>42473879There seems to be some confusion ITT. In fact I am the source who is creating this thread subconsciously. This would be obvious to all of you if I weren't subconsciously insane.
>>42473614>>42473893if solipsism is true than who are you?
>>42473900Me, myself, I.Everything is MY self.
>>42473900As if I would let my clearly delusional subconscious mind in on that information. Who knows what you might do with it? No, I think I'll keep it safe until I come to my senses.
>>42473241I generally believe because of the rules of the universe screwed everyone over, you could’ve been who you’ve been if it weren’t for all this RNG shit and getting a shitty brain full of crappy chemicals and survivalist wiring, you know?
>>42473160past life karma
because somebody had to be you
>>42473160The simulation assigns consciousness nodes randomly. Like a cpu.Also It only seems like you're experiencing your current node. There is only one consciousness split into multiple nodes. The node can only experience itself and what's around it most of the time. The rest of the time you experience global consciousness. During ego death, while dreaming, high and after death.
>>42476148Random doesnt exist. It is a word used for when you have no concept of the mechanism.But kudos for at least trying to answer the question instead of not even getting what is being asked like most.
>>42473160Every conscious viewpoint is an eternal and separate God.The people who claim that every conscious viewpoint is a mask being worn by the same God do not answer this question.The answer is separate and eternal Gods.
>>42473241Then I can just say “Why am I this local observer instead of another local observer?”These elaborate explanations just don’t answer the question. You can say ego, local observer, brain, soul, or what have you.The only answer is that each conscious viewpoint is an eternal god who is separate from any other conscious viewpoints.
>>42477752>The only answer is that each conscious viewpoint is an eternal god who is separate from any other conscious viewpointsdoesnt that just push the question back instead of answer it?>why am i this conscious viewpoint is an eternal god instead of different one?
>>42477805We can appeal to the categorical difference here and say that my answer eliminates the possibility of finite souls.I’m going off of the classic causal argumentation which says “if a potential goes from potential to actual, then there must be an explanation.” And most ontologies today assume that each conscious viewpoint has a beginning. Even the ones who say we are all one consciousness wearing different masks. So I’m glad to eliminate that entire sphere of ontologies. But yeah I see how the question can still be asked.In that case, you’d really just have to say that the eternal conscious viewpoints are brute facts. Uncaused Causers. There’s no mechanism to which can precede eternity. It’s the bedrock. The ontology that avoids all of this is Solipsism. I’m a Solipsist.
Basically, asking the question when we’ve reduced conscious viewpoints down to separate and eternal atoms is like asking who made God? After a theist goes down the entire causal chain. We’ve reached the bedrock. There plausibly cannot be an answer other than I was always me and you were always you. With finite conscious viewpoints, there is a selection even if it wasn’t chosen by a being. There’s a reason there. Because a potential was actualized. At one point the viewpoint was not, and then it was. So we can answer that. And eliminate it as a possibility with the eternal and separate God answer.
Even in Solipsism I could ask “Why do I exist?” As one could ask a theist “Why does God exist?”With such fundamental and eternal beings, it is the same as asking why does reality exist?Existence is the bedrock. Something had to always exist.If there are multiple conscious viewpoints. Then that something is a collection of separate and eternal Gods each with our own realities. Where we are the bedrocks of each of our respective realities. If I’m the only One, then it is just me. I’m a Solipsist.
>>42477835There is nothing about op question that demands eternal conscious viewpoints to be eternal and if you are op you need to be more specific with your questions if you automatically assuming argumentations that are not stated. Even with the answer of Solipsism the question remains unanswered>Why i am, the only sole eternal conscious experiencing things from the view point instead of another.
>>42473593not really mr egomaniac. The power is in asking the question more so than any answer as seen by how difficult to articulate and ineffable it is. It has a conceptual name that most are unaware of but even that is lacking. It is true though that the question cant be broached by true NPCs though but if your still stuck in that mindset then you wont get much farther eitherTry to be less of a douche
>>42477899>not reallyTry to be less salty that you dont get the joke.
>>42477895The concept of the solipsistic God being another viewpoint or not existing would not be possible in that case. There are no other viewpoints in that case and there was never non existence. The Solipsistic God is a demonstrable bedrock.Talking about finite conscious viewpoints is not a bedrock.I would say the question is of a different category when asking it in a case where we have already reached the bedrock.Bedrock meaning, an eternal conscious viewpoint.
>>42477899really this is the one thing in philosophy and neuroscience that cannot be fully articulated let alone answered. I've not really seen anything else where the question being asked itself is not clearly defineable and that imo is evidence of something higher at playPeople who are psueds though have to look smart so they can't accept admitting their limitations which is a pre requisite to self inquiring as to "why". They have to couch it in academic technical jargon rather than being more holistic
>>42477930it cannot be properly asked and yet so many of us know it's real. That's the real sticking point of all this and what drove the OP to make this thread Maybe it cant be answered but you should never stop trying?
>>42477938I answered it.Every conscious viewpoint is an eternal and separate God. And asking why one is one eternal God over another is a different question which is on the level of why does reality exist.
>>42477925yet, even in the belief of Solipsistic other viewpoints exist, even if it is self created, so why this viewpoint when there are some many others it could have been.I am not a Solipsistic but i am having this discussion as if it were true to show how Solipsism does not answer op question, because even if the Solipsistic God is a demonstrable bedrock it doesnt explain the current position of that bedrock aka its current viewpoint.It may be possible that conscious viewpoints infinite or finite may not be the bedrock at all. I’m not a Solipsist.
>>42473241nice copy pasta
>>42477946>why does reality exist.I always wondered this
>>42477976I do not define solipsism as other viewpoints existing. When I was referring to Solipsism, I mean only one viewpoint existing. With no other viewpoints able to be “created”.My stance is that any viewpoint is uncreated and a bedrock of its own personal solipsistic reality.
>>42477992Non existence is an illusion. It’s a made up concept.
>>42477998if that's true then why has no one ever seen a buyffgolllmndt orpert?
>>42478011I mean in a very raw ontological sense. There is never nothing. Even if the character you mentioned is formed, it’d be made of the same eternal dream fabric stuff.
>>42478035>in a very raw ontological sense. There is never nothing.myself I prefer not to assume that what is obvious is therefore also true. in fact, the more something is obvious the less I trust it. but that's just me
>>42478057>what is obvious is therefore also true. in fact, the more something is obvious the less I trust it.And yet when it comes to the concept of nothing, the only way to approach it is by never questioning the methods you use with the concept of something.
>>42473160you are not me. what are you talking about?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVnOz7i-JA
>>42476075Why though?
