#is consciousness fundamental?

[girl4music]

Energy is both ever-present and ever-changing.

It is both permanent and fluctuating.

It is both stable and fluid.

Contradictory? Energy is contradictory because energy is never a specific solid thing. It’s a force. It’s immaterial. It’s something you cannot perceive of but interact and engage with always. Constantly. Forever.

It’s energy. Energy is never created, never destroyed. Energy never stays still and yet we perceive it as if it does because we slow it down ourselves. That’s how powerful our minds actually are. How complex it is to exist, to engage, to interact, to experience. To be. And our minds do all of that naturally, instinctually, easily.

We not only generate the information that we perceive and experience, we also edit it in real time. And we turn what is a split-second event/moment/experience into a memory. Into something that has passed but can still be engaged with through the filter thought and emotion. That’s all mental. Every single bit of it.

But reality itself - regardless what it looks, sounds, feels like - is fleeting. It is already something new as nature is nothing but the process of transformation.

Moving - always in movement. Always transforming.

Always in a state and position of there and not there at the same time. Simultaneously 0 and 1 together.

We naturally gravitate towards nature ourselves as human beings because we’re meant to move with it because we are no different to it. We ARE nature too.

We’re not supposed to stay static. A permanence. A “thing” specific from any other “thing” and have a unique identification of from it. We think that we do but that’s because we’re so used to having a dual perspective. It’s the first perspective we ever have when we’re born. To have an “I” and then an “other”, completely ignoring the fact we couldn’t have either without both there at the time working in tandem like a machine. Clockwork. The functionality of the cogs. That’s what we are because that’s what we do. But we forget that we couldn’t do any of it without each other.

As energy and nature we are as a unit of being. One. We put what we experience as “reality” here with us because the whole point is to experience it as real. We have a dual perspective immediately as soon as we’re born because we’re fundamentally not dual. It would be impossible to experience anything if we really were because energy and nature doesn’t ever work alone - separately. There’s always the force and the yield. And nothing ever is or gets done without both interacting.

That’s what “reality” is. It’s interaction and motion. Action and reaction. Cause and effect. There is always an experience of something because there is always a process of change. Ever-present change. Existence is not ever still. It can’t be or it won’t be. It couldn’t be.

But as soon as you place an identification on any part of it that you focus on and zero in on - then it is being. Then it suddenly exists. Because you’ve conceived it.

This processing. This generating. This conceiving. It’s all natural. It’s so natural that we never notice we do it. Our natural state is of what everything else is - nature itself - but we possess a unique trait or skill that gives us dual perspective. Consciousness. Self-awareness. Self-enquiry. And as the theoretical physicist David Chalmers puts it - the hard problem is not figuring out what consciousness is or how any human being can possess consciousness. It is why are we conscious?

But if you ask me - not that you would - the answer is actually very simple. We are because we have to be. I say it’s that nothing would ever exist if we were not conscious. For me consciousness is a fundamental constant of reality. Of having a real experience. It’s a component that is so crucial to the computation of 0+1 that no equation would ever add up without it. You could spend an eternity trying to work it out from the outside looking in, but you’ll never reach a conclusion without the inside looking out. So let’s change the perspective. Not necessarily get rid of the paradigm but rearrange it somewhat. Try something new with it.

Consciousness is as fundamental as energy and nature. Not just in physics, but in every science. You simply cannot “science” without it, so why even try?

If you asked a reductionary classical and conventional physicist to even entertain the thought of combining the metaphysical with the mathematical, they would laugh at you. They would tell you that you’re insane. So it’s not that they can’t do it. It’s that they don’t want to do it because they’re so afraid of the truth. David Chalmers appears to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher that will ask these questions where the metaphysics does have to be talked about. So, therefore, he is the only one worth my attention.

You know, being a neuroscientist really does sound incredibly exciting. But the restrictions man… the limited perceptions and understandings of the mind… it would drive me crazy to be in a field of science that’s so interesting but is ultimately boxed in lies. To study the brain and its infinite complex capabilities,… just to ignore the fact it is literally rendering itself along with everything else in its energetic field…

I couldn’t be apart of something so close-minded that’s meant to expand awareness of the Universe and that naturally, instinctually, easily does by default. Talking about the contradictions in the world - that’s a big one. I could not be apart of neuroscience because I’d be constantly questioning and challenging the intentions and purposes of studying the mind. I’d say things that were so far removed from the objective of the job that I know I would be fired on the spot for it. Even something as simple as “the mind isn’t in the brain, - the mind is omnipresent. It is everywhere.” Even that is too much for the current neuroscience because it’s too metaphysical. Too esoteric for it. No, I don’t belong in neuroscience. Nor even physics. In fact I don’t belong in any science. I’ll be interested in it, absolutely. But my views are just too unconventional and no scientist except this brave man would listen.

I’ve had a theory of everything for practically my whole life. I’ve been building on it more and more as I aged. But it’s too fucking OUT THERE to be heard. Even though it’s logical and based entirely on the information and evidence - both empirical and not - that we have already as well some strong predications from my claircognizance. It is ultimately very sound if one even dares to attempt to entertain metaphysics. Because until you can - it will always sound insane because unknown information is insane. People are afraid of what they don’t or can’t know. Well, I’ve never had the luxury of being able to deny what I shouldn’t know because my mind has never worked that way. I’ve always known shit I shouldn’t or couldn’t possibly know. I’ve always been aware but not of how or why. And it did always drive me crazy until I embraced it. Until I finally fucking accepted that yes, I am psychic. I do possess an expanded awareness than most people. Extra-sensory perceptive abilities very few people do. Abilities that have saved my life more times than I can count. That have led me down a path I couldn’t have possibly seen without it. That have always guided me. Eventually I had to accept that the shit that made me crazy was the same shit that made me able to be me. That only by getting lost could I ever be found again. That’s what a “spiritual awakening” is. A reckoning. And even someone like me - Miss INTP, that needs logic and facts and rationality - was metaphysical and therefore had to accept that the metaphysical exists. Because how the fuck can you deny your own being? I couldn’t deny any of that exists when it was who I am. I am metaphysical. I am spiritual. I am divine. I am multidimensional. There’s no way I can deny it when it’s literally my life every single waking second of it.

So yeah, consciousness is fundamental to me. The subjective is all I have. “Reality” cannot be without it. I don’t think Chalmers is “on to something”. I think he is fucking SPOT ON and people need to listen to him. And not just him. Robert Lanza. Alan Watts. Sadhguru. Spinoza. And even Albert Einstein to a degree as well. We’re all ultimately saying the same thing. Just differently. Majorly differently. Using different terms and definitions, metaphors and frames of reference.

But we are all ultimately saying the exact same thing.

That we have had it all very wrong to begin with. Classical physics. Newtonian physics. Darwinism.

We’ve got it all wrong as a collective consciousness.

And because we’re ultimately stuck for answers in science currently…. We have to do what scares us.

We have to start involving consciousness and talking about metaphysics seriously. It’s a philosophy of physics. A whole new paradigm of getting to the truth of how it all works. Nature. Energy. Us. Everything.

We’re at a standstill. Yes, we’re making discoveries and progress in everything else but the fundamental problem - the umbrella of the whole thing - is ?????.

We don’t know. Except we do - we just can’t face it.

We have to make consciousness a fundamental constant. As fundamental as gravity and electromagnetics. the strong and weak nuclear forces. We have to because we’re getting nowhere without it.

They’re afraid. They’re all fucking afraid. Cowards.

The only one that doesn’t seem to be is Chalmers.

[prettyboysdontlookatexplosions]

Secession was the high point of the Confederate founders' idea of the people. No sooner had they gotten their states out of the Union than they turned to the matter of perfecting the new republic, writing constitutions for the states and for the fledgling national government in Montgomery. Secessionists wasted no time, moving immediately to codify the assumptions about slavery and citizenship that had driven them out of the Union, to secure slavery beyond any possibility of government interference and to delimit democracy, as they hoped, permanently. The first task—to secure slave property for all time—fell to the provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America in Montgomery, Alabama, in late February 1861. The Congress attempted to dispense in one fell swoop with all the agitating issues concerning slave property and black citizenship of the antebellum period. Unlike the original U.S. Constitution, which delegates used as a template, the Confederate Constitution explicitly recognized the "sovereign and independent character" of states (and thus the right of secession), bound the Congress and territorial governments to recognize and protect "the institution of negro slavery," and guaranteed citizens the right of sojourn and transit in any state or territory of the Confederate states "with their slaves and other property." Purging their Constitution of the euphemisms for slavery adopted in the original U.S. Constitution, they struck out aggressively to secure the property in slaves, using the term "slaves" instead of "other persons" in writing their version of the three-fifths clause (Article 1, Section 2), the fugitive slave clause (Article 4, Section 2), and a wholly new part of Article 1, Section 9, which stated, categorically, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed" by the Congress. Confederate founders moved to put slavery under positive constitutional protection and to render it a fundamental and permanent feature of the slaveholders' new breakaway state. The new Confederate Constitution left no doubt that slavery was the foundation of the new republic; it was a proslavery Constitution for a proslavery state.

stephanie mccurry, confederate reckoning: power and politics in the civil war south

[theboggskids]

With Randall stuff, I’m very much someone who doesn’t care for redemption ideas or angst for the sake of angst. I’m not someone who’s entertained by characters crying over something they have no reason to cry about. It doesn’t enrich their character or make them anymore sympathetic than they already are. (Oh boohoo you’re sad you faced the consequences of your actions or life didnt work out how you planned. Are you actually going to do something about it or just wallow?) Randall’s much too vindictive and proactive for that, imo. He hasn’t shown the signs of suffering enough for that well-constructed outer layer to break.

Randall’s a character who has been written in the main movies and the spin-off show as someone who felt anxious at one point, yes. Felt the sting of failure and defeat. But certainly not remorse. He’s acted in his own self interest consistently, using other people as a step up in the hierarchy. Perhaps some of the connections he’s formed have some genuine aspects but ultimately Randall is a self serving person. He wants to succeed so that he is remembered.

But, if we want, we can look at where Randall has expressed guilt. There’s two instances we can point to: 1) Randall losing at the Scare Games and 2) Randall being banished by Sulley.

Number 2 I don’t really dwell on because it’s a moment we know only happens because Randall’s lost the upper hand. He’ll do anything to get out of that predicament, and that includes groveling. Randall’s no stranger to kissing ass or even lying to get his way. He regrets it because he got caught, and he’s afraid of what he’s being faced with. He’s losing.

Number 1, however, is worth thinking over. Because it’s not just about Randall’s embarrassment and the beginning of his heated decade long one-sided rivalry with Sulley. It’s his reaction to disappointing Johnny (and, possibly, the rest of his team). He is completely, utterly confused, and it shows all over his face that he has no idea what just happened. For something he hasn’t quite mastered control over, as a result of another’s interference, he has utterly failed himself and Johnny. And Chet, low tier, mistreated Chet, gets in on the ridicule. And this is where Randall’s only true moment of regret occurs. Not for Mike, not even truly for himself. It’s about his reputation, and the reputation of his fraternity, of his only “true friend” that he makes in the movie.

MAW emphasizes a “Johnny, Johnny, Johnny” pattern with Randall. Randall is an independent character who acts alone, but he still looks for that approval (everyone does). But he doesn’t respect anyone in the cast enough… except for Johnny. He’ll do a favor for his friend. He’ll put up with irritating an old sports injury for a friend. He’ll scare the new kid for a laugh and to see that friend laugh.

This is his “bestie” from college, who he apparently holds no ill will toward for almost replacing him with Sulley. It’s almost like if he were in the same position, he’d have done the same. There’s an equal level between the two in MAW that’s not there in MU due to Johnny’s status as frat president and Randall as the last minute replacement. In MAW, we instead see Top Scarer Randall and CEO Johnny, putting them in a dynamic closer to that of Sulley and Waternoose. But whereas they didn’t see eye to eye, Johnny and Randall are one in the same in terms of ideals, with very similar goals. And they are unburdened by an age gap and business relationship that demands professionalism.

They’re frat brothers, who’ve seen each other in all sorts of parties, mishaps, and emotional woes. Randall was probably at the guy’s wedding. I think it’s safe to say even if it’s mostly business, Randall still sees him as enough of a peer, gets along with him well enough that Johnny’s the only opinion he cares enough to hear about in our current cast.

So who exactly would Randall change for? If he were to be guilty again, what would it be for? Randall has no reason to regret what he’s done. The only people who’ve objected to his plan have been Monsters Inc. “dorks and losers” and the temporary imprisonment just adds to the misunderstood genius complex. What he has in mind to succeed is worth it. It’ll all be worth it. And Johnny agrees. And that’s the only important thing we know.

[artemisiafem]

one way reading feminist literature changed my life for the better is it unironically helped my relationship with my mother so much. i was going to go into more detail but it’s probably a bit too personal for a public tumblr account lol but it really put a lot of things in perspective for me, and also gave me things i could bond with my mum over. some of the things she’s done can never be undone and our relationship is still very strained at times, but now i can approach it with a lot more understanding and maturity. and while part of this can just be credited to me growing up, i truly believe that without reading feminist literature that i would not have made this much progresss

[wayti-blog]

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." - Max Planck

[seafoam-taide]

Pacific rim on the TV at family house hellooo my beautiful absolutely insane scientist freaks

[guiltyonsundays]

Incredible sequence of posts on the dash just now

[finalgirlminamurray]

28 days later is one of the few modern classic horror movies i haven't seen and don't plan to. it's just the kind of zombie movie that very much is not my thing. i guess i'm just one of those boring traditionalists who prefers "slow zombies" to "fast zombies". although i did really love train to busan. it's just that the kinds of movies they make with "fast zombies" tend to be inherently less interesting to me

i do think it's funny that of the two films credited with basically redefining the zombie as a concept for their era (night of the living dead and 28 days later), the creators have both been pretty adamant that the creatures in their films are not zombies.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

another day another "applying the concept 'disposability' to 'someone withdraws from a personal relationship, & that wasn't signed off on by the other'" kill me

[gay-caesar-truther]

Gunna yap about Gabriel seeing as his character sheet is done

(I haven't finished FO3, pretty much just got James back to Project Purity, so this is likely to change as stuff progresses and I learn more about what's going on)

If anyone wants to know anything about him lemme know 👉👈

General content warning for discussions of shitty mental health and trauma

(Loosey Goosey type summary at the end if you don't wanna read all that)

He's a MAJOR daddy's boy- he didn't get along with a lot of the other kids in the Vault so spent a lot of his time growing up hanging out with his dad, watching him work, learning things about medicine and helping organise all the tools.

When James left the Vault Gabe was DEVISTATED. He couldn't help but feel abandoned- Why would his dad leave? Was he not a good son? Did he do something wrong?

Then all the immediate fallout made him kinda resent his dad for a spell- (general how could he leave and be okay letting me deal with all that? Not that James knew the overseer was gunna utterly flip his shit ofc)

Once out of the Vault he learned pretty quickly that he cannot aim for shit, he just can't get the hang of guns and instead had to rely on a baseball bat and his fists. Begin a sheltered kid then suddenly up close a personal with all this violence took a major toll on his already shaky mental health.

When he reached Megaton he felt immediately out of place- he was unfamiliar with the social customs, he was naive and clueless about basically everything. He defaulted to Overly Polite in order to compensate but this came off (at least at first) to a lot of the settlers as him having a holier than thou attitude and as a result he wasn't well liked for a while.

He also struggles with the transactional nature of the wasteland (I help you, you help me), and got really frustrated that nobody would help him unless he but himself in danger. They KNEW he was inexperienced, frightened and confused and still demanded he go out into the wastes anyway.

He still goes out of his way to help people- giving up his own meager supplies for those in need, putting himself in danger time and time again, choosing to be kind where he can. He wants to be liked, he wants to be accepted and he wants to make the wasteland a kinder place than he found it. He puts the emotional and physical needs of others before his own (he's got a bit of a Martyr complex)

This feelings of abandonment with his dad, his feelings about being put in danger and not helped kinda manifested into a lot of anger and resentment. Hes MAD, at the world, hes made at his dad and hes mad at himself for being a terrible son and a terrible person. He takes that out on enemies in combat, and gets pretty damn good a punching thing but hates how relived the violence makes him despite his general dislike of such things.

He doesn't enjoy it though- all the blood and the fighting makes him feel like a monster. That he's commiting unspeakable sins and even if he finds his father Hes going to be so disgusted by the things he's done that he'll abandon Gabe AGAIN. It's something that haunts Gabe for a while, and he never quite gets over it, but he keeps looking for his dad, becuase James is all he has, despite his own fears of rejection and distain.

When he gets to Tranquility Lane and Braun's asking him to do all those shitty things to people in order to get his dad back- Gabe does it. No questions. He's come all this way, done all these horrible things- he swallows his revulsion, accepts this is how it is, and does whatever it takes to get his dad back. His actions at tranquility Lane deffo haunt him- he was selfish, he hurt people becuase he wanted his dad back so badly.

When he is FINALLY reunited with James he's kinda shocked that his dad doesn't hate him- He thought his dad would just be able to TELL that he's done bad things, that he's been selfish and cruel to get here but his dad seem oblivious to it. He kinda keeps himself away at first, afraid James is going to find out what hes done and hate him for it. There's still a lot of resentment about being left alone, even after Gabriel learns of project purity and that makes him feel so much worse. (Overall though Gabe is just so HAPPY to have is dad back and is finally able to relax a bit and start to process all the shit he's been through)

His dad left to go save lives, believing that Gabriel would be safe and relatively happy in the Vault, and Gabe hates himself for being so wishing his father had just stayed and left the people of the wasteland to suffer.

In summary- Gabriel's a Daddy's boy with a deeply unstable sense of self that hinges on his, often wildly incorrect, assumptions about how people perceive him. His perception of his own morality is massively incongruous with his actions. He's got abandonment issues, a martyr complex and is deeply angry at the wasteland, his dad and himself.

[gammija]

iiii dont think im gonna post much amagaday about this arc, because i don't enjoy the interpretation that jon was completely innocent in taking live statements, nor do i think basira or especially melanie were irrationally upset at him, and i know a significant amount of posts at least read as if people vehemently disagree

[boycum3000]

I think my most cancelable take is that I'd rather put energy towards re-naming the disorder of Narcissism than put energy towards trying to get people to stop using the word narcissist casually....

[sourkitsch]

Do you ever think you’re not meant for this world and would fit so much more easily into the depraved sex horror mutilation novels you’re so fond of

[paradife-loft]

"I guess maybe some people just have a weird relationship with fear," says Gerard Keay.

......*delicate cough* :')

[tunnels-end]

sorry. guess I'm blogging trans drama now. But I still don't know what a baeddel is and at this point I really just don't super care

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Mike Nayna

Published: May 19, 2023

In the deleted scene above, Peter proposes a thought experiment to his philosophy class. He asks his students how they would have gone about discrediting the pseudoscience of phrenology at the height of its popularity. This not-so-subtle dig at the identity studies departments is an interesting way to think about how theories can flourish into fields with almost no connection to material reality.

The scene highlights Peter, James, and Helen's fundamental critique of the identity studies canon, which is that it gains legitimacy by mimicking scientific forms but doesn’t adhere to the expectations of the scientific method. Allow me to flesh this perspective out by drawing a comparison.

A scientific theory emerges from the observation of facts. It’s a kind of story we tell about how certain groups of facts relate to each other and why they show up in the way they do. There’s an expectation among scientists that you should be able to familiarise yourself with a scientific theory and then use its principles to predict something new and verifiable about the world.

A Critical Theory, however, which is the genre of theory studied in the identity studies departments, doesn’t hold itself to this expectation. Critical theorists claim that the social sciences must integrate philosophy into their methods to make their findings work practically toward a moral cause. Where the purpose of a scientific theory is to understand the world as it is, the purpose of a Critical Theory is to change the world into something it ought to be.

Critical Race Theory, Postcolonial Theory, and Queer Theory, the three heads of the Social Justice hydra, are all different methods of criticising Western social norms from the perceived perspectives of outsider identities. I use the word “perceived” here because critical theorists are self-appointed representatives of the groups they study and they seek to generate a particular kind of “oppressed” perspective among thier subjects rather than exploring their authentic thoughts and feelings.

They critique everything, from the way we form couples, to how buildings are designed, right down to the way white people prepare food. Thier seemingly bottomless body of criticism is now decades old and is actively disseminated with the aim of “liberating” non-normative identities from the bondage of conservative social values and customary expectations.

“Criticism, yoked to a fixed set of conclusions, turns into an orthodoxy.”

-- Kenneth Minogue

While some scholars working with Critical Theory use these theoretical frameworks as starting points to do real research, the standards of the field have devolved so badly that a fundamentalism has emerged from their vast body of work. This happens through a process I call “theoretical laser surgery,” where a scholar imbibes so much abstract theoretical philosophy that they can’t unsee it. Critical Theory is no longer a lens to apply to particular phenomena but a worldview grafted into every aspect of their consciousness.

“The question is not ‘did racism take place?’ but rather ‘how did racism manifest in this situation?’”

Differing from scientific practitioners who are required to attempt to disprove their starting assumptions, these fundamentalists start with their conclusions and move into the field to accumulate proof and punish dissent. They write papers, books, articles and tweets, devise courses and workshops, create art and films, and contort statistics to reify their beliefs and evangelise their worldview.

The quasi-religious movement that proceeds from this body of work is my narrow definition of “Woke.” They themselves call their worldview a “critical consciousness,” and they seek to create a mass awakening to the oppressive superstructures of patriarchy, heteronormativity, and white supremacy, through our centres of cultural production - academia, law, media, religious institutions, and the arts.

I think it’s important to keep this label narrow and avoid applying it to the vast array of left-wing sensibilities that are now popularly deemed “Woke.” The work done by the fundamentalists in these fields, and now far beyond, informs many people I wouldn’t consider fundamentalists at all. If you make a distinction between the activists I’ve described above and your garden-variety leftie with technocratic leanings, you can paint a more detailed picture of how something like this has been able to claim so much power from within ostensibly liberal institutions.

==

We're living in a world created by phrenologists.