File: image (51).png (2.32 MB, 1672x941)

2.32 MB PNG

>>43094887
Step 1: See Your Power to See Independence

The light of reason can extend our sight in many directions. That’s why there are growing branches of mathematical knowledge through deductions, and there are new insights into psychology through observations of experience and systems of analysis. What I want to provide here is a system of analysis through which you can extend your sight into your own nature.

To get started, we will begin with a clear case of something I believe you can see by reason. The goal here is to illustrate a general power you have. Then I will show you can apply that general power to specific cases related to who you are.

The general power you have is a power to see that certain natures are independent of others. To illustrate, consider the prime number, seven. Focus on that number and ask yourself, “Does the existence of seven depend on a certain pinecone?” One way to answer this question is to perform an experiment. Destroy pinecones. Then see whether math still works: see if you could still add one and six to get seven. If you can, then you can deduce the conclusion: seven doesn’t depend on a pinecone.

If this example feels tedious, bear with me. It will take some work to identify your power, like the work to install new batteries into an old flashlight.

The power I want to identify is a power of reasoning that you can tap into without destroying pinecones. Consider again the number seven. Do you have to wait until the pinecones are destroyed to see that seven doesn’t depend on them? Check with your mind. Imagine the pinecones are removed. Would six plus one still equal seven? Notice the independence of this math from pinecones. When you do that, something should click in your mind (not literally, of course). Yes, six plus one would equal seven even if there were no pinecones. You can see this by the light of reason.

>>43094907
In other words, you don’t need to actually destroy the pinecones to see the independence of the number seven from pinecones. Waiting until the pinecones are destroyed is like waiting for death to see whether you depend on a material configuration. You don’t have to wait for somebody to destroy all the pinecones to recognize something about seven that is independent of pinecones.

So far, I’m inviting you to see, hopefully clearly, that you can recognize the independence of the number 7 and pinecones in a direct way through reason. Reason reveals natures and their connections to other natures. One thing you can see through reason is that the nature of the number seven is not dependent on the nature of a pinecone.

Someone might argue, “Maybe seven doesn’t depend on that pinecone you destroyed. For any particular pinecone, you could destroy that one, and seven would still exist. They go on to explain that, perhaps, seven depends on there being some pinecone or other. As long as there is some pinecone, seven exists. If you remove all the pinecones, however, there is no longer a pinecone for seven to depend on. And nobody has removed all the pinecones, so how would you know?”

What I’m drawing your attention to is the experience of yourself knowing without that empirical test. You haven’t actually seen all the pinecones removed. Yet you have a knowledge that is prior to that observation. You can recognize that seven doesn’t depend on pinecones before you see what happens when any or all of them are gone.

This method of knowledge is similar to how you can know that mathematical truths hold on other planets. Suppose you go to Mars with two apples in your hand and eat one of them. You’ve removed one apple from two, and now there is only one apple left. You can predict that this will happen on Mars, but you don’t have to actually go there and perform the test to see, by reason, that two minus one equals one on Mars.

>>43094911
This power to see truths about things on other planets is special. You don’t have to visit the plants to see these truths. You just use your mind.

In the same way, you can see with your mind, by reason, that certain things don’t depend on certain other things. For example you can see that seven doesn’t depend on pinecones. To acquire this sight, you don’t need perfect clarity about the entire essence of a pinecone. You just need enough understanding to recognize that the existence of seven does not rest on that kind of thing.

I’m proceeding slowly and carefully so you can appreciate this power you have to extend your sight using the light of reason.

From here, we can shine reason into new places using another principle of reason:

The principle of irrelevant differences: when two things are not relevantly
different with respect to some principle, both things alike are covered by that
principle.
To illustrate this, consider a principle of independence from pinecones. We considered the number seven. But you can see more: you can see that all prime numbers alike are independent of pinecones. No prime number is relevantly different from another with respect to this independence. The difference between seven and eleven, for example, does not make eleven dependent on pinecones. You don’t need to inspect every prime number separately to recognize that the same independence holds. You can see via irrelevant differences that prime numbers exist independently from pinecones.

Now suppose someone objects by offering what they regard as evidence to the contrary. Perhaps they heard a story about some pinecones that allowed certain numbers to exist. Or perhaps they took seven pinecones, removed them, and argued that the seven of those pinecones no longer exists.

>>43094915
This objection would not overthrow your direct insight into the independence of prime numbers and pinecones. Their considerations might invite your curiosity, and they could even call you to question your insight. But they would not themselves remove your insight. You have insight into the independence of prime numbers from pine cones, and this insight comes from a general power to see that certain natures are independent from certain other natures. Let’s call this “the power to see independence.”

Now that I have identified your general power to see independence, I want to show you you can use this power to see your independence from your own body. We are now two steps away from the treasure.

Step 2: See Your Independence from Triangles

Now that we’ve identified this general power of seeing independence between certain natures, I want to show you how you can activate that same power to see something about your own existence. Again, we’ll start with a clear case. Focus on a triangle. You might focus specifically on the triangular shape of a certain object. Ask yourself whether you depend for your existence on that triangular shape.

To consider this carefully, focus on the sense of self you have, that sense of being me. I don’t want there to be ambiguity when I talk about your existence. I’m talking about your inmost being—that which can have your sense of self.

Now put aside for a moment any additional theory about what you are. Sometimes a theory can distract you from seeing the connection between the nature you do recognize and your independence from other things. Here I want you to attend to yourself as you encounter yourself in experience—the familiar you.

I believe you can see, by reason, that you are independent from a triangle. Here is how. Consider your existence and then focus on a triangle in your mind. When I do this for myself, it is as evident to me that I don’t depend on that triangle, just as it is that seven doesn’t depend on a pinecone. I can see clearly, by reason, that whatever I am, there is an aspect of me—me-ness—that does not depend for its existence on a triangle. Triangles can come and go, and I would still exist.

>>43094923
There is also empirical evidence for this. I can have my sense of self even as my body changes. Triangular shapes could enter my body and then leave my body, and I would still exist. I can observe this directly. So there is empirical evidence.

But the empirical evidence is extra. I can notice a triangle entering and leaving my body while my sense of self remains. This observation is a second witness that corroborates the direct insight from reason. The direct insight doesn’t wait for empirical verification. In the same way that I can know that being prime doesn’t depend on being a pinecone, I can know immediately, by the light of reason, that me-ness does not depend on triangularity. The natures are independent.

Seeing the light of reason at work gives you power. You don’t have to first observe every possible change in a triangle to see that you can survive them all. You can recognize directly, right now, that your existence does not require the triangle.

Now, let me be clear: I am not saying that a triangle cannot affect you. Triangles can affect you. If you see a triangle, it might make you excited. Or perhaps if some tissues in your brain form a triangular arrangement, then that arrangement will affect your experiences in some way. Indeed, it is evident that there is a connection between brain activity and experiences. But there is a further question about whether you depend on brain activity for your existence. That’s a question we are approaching step by step.

To illustrate further what is at stake, consider motions of water in a river. Those motions can affect the river, but it doesn’t follow that the motions of water are the source of the river’s existence. We can instead understand the river as sustaining and allowing those particular motions of water to occur. Here the point is that merely observing that one thing can affect another is not by itself enough to establish which way the dependence goes.

>>43094929
The fact that motions of water affect the river doesn’t by itself show that those motions bring that the river into existence; it could be the other way.

I will argue that your existence, the deep sense of you being you, is actually prior to your brain activity. I call this the “prior self” model. But here I don’t want to rely on any model. The point is not to be distracted by models, whether brain-first or mind-first models. There is a line of reason I want to trace, and it requires careful attention. So push models away for now.

Let us return to the clear case. Focus on your sense of being me—your me-ness. Focus on a triangle. Can you recognize that the triangular shape is not required for your sense of being you? You can.

Step 3: Extend Your Sight by Steps

We are now ready for the final step. This step takes us to the treasure, and the powers you recognized from the previous steps prepares you to take this step with resilience.

To extend your sight, apply the principle of irrelevant differences. Ask yourself, “Would changing the shape or size make a difference with respect to the dependence of your sense of being you?” If you your me-ness does not depend on a triangle, might it depend instead on a square?

Really think about that. There is no replacing doing the work of seeing this for yourself. Think about a triangle. Think about a square. Think about their difference. A square has 4 sides, not 3. Now consider this difference between 4 sides and 3 sides. Does this difference make a difference with respect to me-ness?

I claim that you can recognize an irrelevant difference here, just as you can recognize that differences between prime numbers are not relevant to their independence from pinecones. You can see that, in general, differences in shape and size are not relevant to your dependence on them, just as differences in number are not relevant to dependence on a pinecone..

>>43094937
Notice how the reflection progresses. First, you attend to yourself and a clear example of a shape. Then you consider whether changing the shape or size changes the relationship of dependence. My claim is that you can recognize why those differences don’t make a difference to whether you exist.

We can extend this insight further. Considering any spatial changes. For example, consider changes of shape and changes of size. Does me-ness depend on the motion of a triangle? What about a triangle morphing into a square? Now we are considering not merely a shape, but a shape undergoing a change. Does that change provide something on which your existence depends?

Here again, I claim you can see an irrelevance.

Don’t let the branches of worldview and prior models occlude or distract your vision here. Focus your attention on the differences between shape and motion. See by reason if any such difference makes the difference in your me-ness. To my mind, it becomes plain that these changes don’t make the difference. My me-ness is a kind that, as far as reason reveals, doesn’t depend on any mere quantitative differences in shape or motion.

As before, empirical evidence is a second witness. As your body changes, you continue to have a sense of self. Your sense of self persists through changes in shape, size, color, and motions. Reason confirms: no mere change in shape, size, color, or motion makes the difference.

>>43094938
The same analysis applies to functions from input shapes to output shapes. We can describe one arrangement changing into another, with certain motions producing certain results. But any analysis merely in terms of shapes and their motions does not provide a basis for your existence. Adding changes and relations among shapes does not, I claim, remove the independence you can recognize.

The insight concerns the natures involved. Recall the suggestion that seven could depend on some pinecone or other even if it doesn’t depend on any particular pinecone. We saw that, by reason, this distinction is also not relevant to dependence: prime numbers don’t depend on whether there any pinecones. In the same way, I claim that you can test and see that me-ness doesn’t depend on any motions in space. (Again, let paradigms not distract you from glimpsing this line: motions can affect your experiences, just as waves can affect a river, but it’s a further question whether your existence is deeper in than the motions that affect your experiences.)

From all of this, tracing irrelevant differences leads to the result: me-ness does not depend on any mere motions or changes in space. From here it follows that your existence (that which has your me-ness) can survive the annihilation of any body, including the one(s) you operate now. In other words, there is life after death.

>>43094942
Removing the Paradigm Barrier

The biggest barrier to this result that I see is that it contradicts a paradigm. Many people have a mental picture of material objects forming first and then conscious beings forming out of certain material configurations. This picture creates a barrier to seeing how you could exist without any material configuration. Even if you can see your independence by the principle of irrelevant differences, something tells you, “Don’t believe what you see.”

I once had an experience like this when I was looking for my broom. I asked, “Where’s my broom?” My wife said, “It’s outside.” As I heard those words, I actually saw the broom tucked into a dark space between the refrigerator and the wall. I did see the broom, but I didn’t believe what I saw because of the authority of my wife’s statement that it was outside. So I went outside, verified that it wasn’t there, and then came back inside. I saw again with my own eyes what I had already seen.

I think you can have a similar experience here. You can see by reason that your existence, that first-person sense of being you, does not depend on any shape, motion, or spatial configuration. But you might not believe it if you have a paradigm that says your existence depends on a brain. The difficulty can become especially sharp when you consider evidence that conscious functions seem to deteriorate as brains deteriorate.

In response to this paradigm, I want to suggest, first, that positing enduring brains as independent objects is not itself trivial. Brains are strange objects (perhaps even stranger than souls). https://worldviewdesign.substack.com/p/brains-are-stranger-than-souls Elsewhere, I’ve argued that there is reason to be skeptical that you have a singular, persisting brain on every theory of your brain’s relationship to atoms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7EiUlTyNPM

>>43094947
Second, and more fundamentally, there are other models for explaining the empirical data. We don’t have to deny the connection between brain activity and experience to consider a different account of that connection.

For example, consider the priority self model. According to this model, the brain acts as a facilitator of experiences. It facilitates certain interactions in this world, but it is not the source of your existence. It is more like a vehicle through which you have a certain kind of existence while you are in the vehicle. The vehicle matters for those interactions, but you don’t depend on it for your existence.

On this view, you don’t depend on your brain for your existence. The reason, in the argument we’ve been considering, is that a brain described in purely physical terms is an arrangement or functioning of shapes and motions. If your existence is independent of shapes and motions, then it is independent of a brain so described.

Now, suppose we want to posit something else: something that is you, the self you are aware of. If we say that this additional reality is what you are, then I think it becomes misleading to call that reality a “brain.” Brains are ordinarily understood as spatial objects. The question is whether your existence depends on such an object, and the reflection above is meant to let you recognize that it does not.

In this way, I think you can derive the result that your existence does not depend on any brain. This fits the testimony of near-death experiencers who report leaving their bodies and recognizing, “Oh, that’s not me over there.” That’s not you. But the recognition I am inviting you to consider does not require you to rely on those reports.

>>43094955
On this analysis, you are no more the same as a brain than seven is the same as a pinecone. And you don’t depend on a brain, I contend, just as seven doesn’t depend on a pinecone. You can know this by reflecting on your own experience, using reason, and noticing the independence.

The challenge here is not so much to recognize your existence. The challenge is figuring out how to believe what you are seeing when another paradigm tells you not to believe it. That is why considering an alternative model can help. The model need not supply the insight; it can remove an obstacle to accepting the insight.

If we can roll away the obstacle of the brain-first paradigm and consider a self-first paradigm, we can open the door to recognizing what is already available to our reflection: your own sense of self persists even as the shapes shift. You don’t depend on the shapes just as the ocean doesn’t depend on its waves. You generate motions, and those motions interact with you, but you are prior to the motions.

>>43094961
Summary

The argument begins with a power you can notice in a clear case: you can recognize that seven is independent of pinecones without waiting for every pinecone to be destroyed. Through the principle of irrelevant differences, you can recognize that the same independence applies to other prime numbers. Differences between those numbers do not introduce dependence on pinecones.

Then turn that same attention toward yourself, the one capable of awareness. Begin with your independence from the triangular shape. Consider whether changes in shape or size make a relevant difference, and then consider motions, transformations, and functions among shapes. My claim is that you can recognize your independence throughout this progression, while still acknowledging that these arrangements can affect your experiences.

This result invites a model of brains to make sense of this. I offer the priority self model. Here a brain—described in terms of shapes and motions—can facilitate your experiences without being the source of your existence, just as waves of a river can affect the river without being the source of that river. A self-first model helps make room for that possibility.

But the insight I am inviting you to consider comes from attending to the independence itself. Just as you don’t have to destroy the pinecones to know that seven will remain, you don’t have to wait for your body to die to know that you will remain.

Whether you agree with the precise lines I traced here, I hope appreciate the power you have to trace lines of reason to explore natures beyond your current sight.

In conclusion, by my analysis, you are not fundamentally from this material world of shapes. You are deeper in. You can see this by shining the light of reason on your own me-ness. When you do, reason reveals that you are beyond this world.

The actual final boss of schizobabble. Seek Christ

I read everything and i just wish my attention wasn't so easy to grab. I wish it wasn't so easy for people to waste hours of my time.

>>43097605
Can you make a quick summary of this wall of text?

Il bump OP