/wiz/ - Wizardry

>>189482
Hadn't this already been posted before? Anyway, how does this relate to waifus? Is it possible to escape the prison and be with my waifu?

>>189485
I just thought I'd post about it again since this now has some science to back it up. Also you could replicate your waifu if you trapped a soul, got rid of its memory and created a perfect simulation of the world it was brought up in to emulate your waifus personality traits.

Absolute schizo nonsense

Although mainstream scientific consensus on life after death is inconclusive, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that reincarnation is real, including verified cases of young children remembering past lives vividly and being able to pinpoint locations, names, etc.[2][3][4]

Is there fuck

Just take your schizo meds, bro, they're good for you.

absolutely schizo rambling

Anyone notice an uptick in schizo/religion ramblings?

>>189510
wouldn't surprise me since most people tend to be superficial socialites. their vacant ramblings are attractive to gullible users since they themselves relate to the vacancy. most people don't have rich or interesting thoughts, so impersonating those that do gives them a dim sense of power.

>>189482
How can you experience anything without a brain and five senses?
After brain death, how can one see, smell, hear, taste, or feel the touch of something?

>>189482
Explain:
How does population growth/shrink work if souls get reincarnated?

>there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that reincarnation is real, including verified cases of young children remembering past lives vividly and being able to pinpoint locations, names, etc
This blatantly contradicts your soul laundering hypothesis. Guess the process is imperfect?

>>189482
What about antinatalism? Maybe it could fix your problem

>>189504
these do happen but to say it "suggests that reincarnation is a real" is a huge stretch
reincarnation is bs

Nigga lost his mind

>>189482
Who posts a text with inline citations without also posting the reference list

>>189520
>>189514
The rest of the universe exists, you can easily trap souls or coerce that way.
>>189520
2.https://thefreedomarticles.com/evidence-proof-reincarnation/
3.https://www.infinityexplorers.com/the-reincarnation-of-shanti-devi-the-succubus-who-identified-her-previous-life-family
4. https://newspunch.com/scientific-breakthrough-reincarnation/
5.https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900760001-9.pdf
6.https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R000700070001-8.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IC76QuH4pE&
7. https://farsight.org/FarsightPress/Escape_main_page.html
8. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/NSA-RDP96X00790R000100030004-1.pdf
>>189512
The same way people experience consciousness when astral projecting.
>>189510
>>189509
>>189508

Dont know why you try to act as if posting theories on consciousness, Gnosticism and bhuddism to make you schizophrenic.

>>189487
If you somehow made it out of this dimension, i don't think you would be interested in waifus anymore, as those things are wordly.

>>189522
What is non-worldy/otherworldy to you? Something more like Platonism?

I've always understood worldy as this wordly material realm, and the physical body in it as a tether to it. As the physical body becomes drowsy and falls asleep the connection to the 3D material world becomes weaker and more faint (though not completely off) and one visits other places outside the material world. So I've always seen waifus as breadcrumbs and clues to a world outside of the material.

However, all of that is still transient and sensorial, despite not being itself material, so I guess from a more Platonic view, it'd itself be "wordly". In that case, I fail to understand how there could ever be anything non-"worldly".

>>189482
Death being eternal nothingness sounds too good to be true.

>>189536
I agree with his general idea. I just wish he'd stop using all the physics and quantum nonsense concepts, makes him sound like a charlatan.

>>189537
hes a pseud that killed himself lol

>>189537

Someone should replace the chalk board with that image where it states instead of being alive for a small amount of time, you die for a bit and reincarnate again. LOL.

You know the one.

>>189539
LOL good idea

>yaawn more rambling about there existing something more than our realm
M'kay, cool fantasy you got there. I'd rather concentrate on what I perceive to be true and real than on some abstract ideas…

Seriously, how hard can it be for people to accept that this is it, we live in this world and nothing more, there aren't other dimensions or heavens or hells?

>>189556
Seriously, how hard can it be for midwits to accept that not everyone is idiot like them and their beliefs are not absolute truth?
Faggots like you are no different than traditional religious idiots.

>>189510
No, but i notice in uptick of redditors and normalfags like you.
And you have to understand that no one here asked you, or cares about your hurt feelings and stupid thoughts.
So shut up.

>>189556
You need to accept a simple fact that your perception of reality is not same as actual reality.

>>189556
What if told you that i don't care what some nortmalfag perceives to be true and real?
Go back.

>>189482
My biggest gripe with this (other than the whole space wars and alien invasion force thing sounding like low-quality sci-fi fantasy) is that it's just too good to be true. You're telling me that I could die right now and all I'd have to do is simply not go into the light and I'll finally escape the prison of the demiurgos.

I can't take that gamble, but I will keep it mind. If I were to see some tunnel of light after death I won't go in.

>>189573
OP here, Im 70% sure this scenario is true to some extent. If there is a white light, im sure it'd be some place where they convince you to reincarnate. I'd like to kill myself and find out, but unfortunately I have to take care of my family, I highly doubt that when you die your consciousness just ceases to exist, because people have been astral projecting forever. At most I'd like this theory to be similar to what Philip K Dick called the "black iron prison", I already have a pretty pessimistic view on life and view god as evil - so this theory fits my world view. And to me this isnt too good to be true, it means billions of souls are trapped here.

>>189567
It's not a "belief", it is the truth. There doesn't exist anything other than this world, you are writing up fantasy/science fiction to entertain yourself.

>>189569
>>189570
It's not a matter of debate. Some things objectively exist - it is called reality. While others don't - it is called fiction or fantasy. Grow up. No matter how you twist words you still can't prove to me that Heaven or Hell exist or that reincarnation is real.

>>189578
>I highly doubt that when you die your consciousness just ceases to exist
This isn't something that could even be "probably" true, it's literally the most fundamental fact that one can ever have access to.

(1) Consciousness is the field within which all objects arise.

(2) The objects in consciousness are transient and in constant change, always arising and passing away,

(3) but the field in which they have their existence is never changing or subject to any change. It's a-temporal. Time is just the rate at which certain objects in consciousness change in relation to others, e.g., the movement of a clock's hands.

You don't need philosophy or reasoning to figure this out, but only a single direct examination of the present moment without any conceptual pollution. It's only possible to deny it within artificially constructed conceptual apparatuses. The many materialisms and physicalisms that exists are just conceptual systems, and fallacious ones at that.

The major fallacies that I notice materialists make are:

(1) Conflating consciousness itself with particular objects that arise in it or the structuring of these objects. Then they claim that banging your head with a hammer temporarily wipes out your consciousness, or consuming a certain drug alters it by first altering your brain. But all those examples are examples of things in consciousness altering other objects in consciousness, which is always happening anyway at all times while consciousness itself remains ever unaffected, since it's not a thing but the field in which all things actualize.

(2) Thinking that some objects that only ever exist in consciousness (so called "matter") are actually outside consciousness. This also happened in the previous example with the hammer and the drug, where they were thought to be material objects existing outside of consciousness that would then interact physically with another material object, an organism's sense-organs and brain, producing with this interaction changes in a place called that organism's consciousness, and even the creation and destruction of that consciousness, e.g., if the brain is destroyed the consciousness should be as well. These material objects are usually defined as objects made of physical particles.
There are two key insights to understand the fallacy here; (a) everything that we understand to be a physical particle only ever actualizes within and has reality in consciousness; (b) what is previously described here is only a constructed conceptual model to explain the changes that happen within consciousness. It may be a very useful model, but it's still just a model constructed to understand the behavior of the objects that actualize in consciousness.

(3) Considering memories to be 100% or nearly veridical access to the past. Memories are just another kind of empirical object that actualizes in consciousness. Lacking memories for one period of time, e.g., while sleeping or when knocked-out, doesn't mean the absence of consciousness during that period or even the absence of all objects in consciousness. It is well known that one always dreams when in the REM stage of sleep, which alternates cyclically with Non-REM stages, each cycle getting longer and more profound. If one slept for at least some 8 hours then he certainly had crazy vivid, long, and detailed dreams. He was exploring places and interacting with other beings just like he does when awake, but he probably doesn't remember any of it the moment he wakes up.
It's like the guy in Memento. He knows well that just because he can't remember anything that has happened since his supposed wife's murder and the fact of his condition, doesn't mean that nothing has actually happened, though he expresses it in a materialist way, "I have to believe in a world outside my mind". I do think there is a world outside of my own finite and limited consciousness, just not outside any consciousness full stop, so I don't believe in solipsism.

There are others that come to mind, but these are the main ones and this post is already too long.

The thing for me is that, having realized the a-temporally eternal existence of consciousness and the eternally temporal existence of the objects in it, anything is on the table for what happens after death, except for anything that is supposed to be eternal, like the heaven and hell of many religions, or an eternal absence of any objects (like Nietzsche says, if an eternal state of equilibrium could be reached, it already would've been).

There is no reason why I should just repeat my life over and over again, like that black-and-white diagram that gets constantly posted in discussions like this. I could be reincarnated into some other person in this exact same Earth, or I could be isekai'd into some anime or video game world. Or maybe there's only one consciousness that takes turns being each and every other person and animal. Or maybe it's like in Schopenhauer (and perhaps some Eastern religions?) where a universal consciousness, Nature, unconsciously separates itself into many others, every other living being, and when that being dies, their consciousness fuses again with Nature… etc., etc.

There are so many conflicting claims and models that it's difficult to know what to believe. It's definitely true that the physical body is a kind of tether or prison to the 3D material world, but I don't think its destruction would necessarily free me from it, at least for long. It seems extremely plausible to me that I'll just reincarnate into some other body in the very same world due to attachments I have to it. But I don't know that for a fact, it just seems the most plausible to me, along with my entrapment here being the result of an evil being referred to as the demiurge/demiurgos.

>And to me this isnt too good to be true, it means billions of souls are trapped here.

I meant that if it's true then I already have everything to escape from the prison and could carry it out tonight, as opposed to many years from now, if not many lifetimes. I don't know if I can believe that it's really so easy, and if it isn't I may be just lose all my memories and be lost for who knows many more lifetimes before I grasp what's going on (or perhaps I end up as a monk in my very next lifetime who manages to escape).

>Philip K. Dick
I think it's a failure of mine that the only book of his I've ever read is "The Man in the High Castle" when I've read and watched so much generic isekai trash. From what I've known of his life and works, he was definitely onto something.

>>189573
>low-quality sci-fi fantasy
Maybe "pulpy" would have been a better descriptor.

>>189592
>>189578
>I meant that if it's true then I already have everything to escape from the prison and could carry it out tonight
>I'd like to kill myself and find out, but unfortunately I have to take care of my family
A bit random but what do you guys think about Spinoza's philosophy (if you have read him)? If the theory of the death trap is true then I believe he wrote a very good guide to the material world we are currently in with his Ethics.

You mentioned Schopenhauer but Spinoza was the one that brought pantheism to western philosophy. Eastern religions like the Tao and ZhuangZi are similar to him in the way they talk about God and eternity.
The Ethics are a bit hard to read but he basically tries to explain how even if humans, by principle, are -bound- to seek his own advantage by nature we can still be ethical about it. He says that principle is the foundation not of virtue and morality, but of -immorality-.
So its in our best interests to be good with each other and ourselves. This video came out recently and explains it p well as an introduction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leoBccWOZfo

What I'm saying is that, if we're being reincarnated and farmed à la Madoka for loosh (human suffering) the best way to live is not to suffer yourself or cause more suffering by killing yourself and making your family suffer until your death eventually comes peacefully.
In that moment, not going towards the light is the solution but depending on how much you've attached yourself to this material world it with be harder to resist.
Apparently those guys mask themselves and have access to your memories so they take the form of your most valued objects/people in your lifetime to lure you back into the light. For example, they would appear as Jesus to a Christian, or appear often as relatives and loved ones guiding you with them but in reality they are shapeshifting ¨Archors¨ that want you to reincarnate.
This is relevant to us because they would appear to us as… waifus as this anon said >>189522 maybe that light turns into a portal to a fake 2D isekai dimension which throws you back in here lol.

What I like about Spinoza is that he takes an ¨everything in moderation¨ approach to life so we can still enjoy waifus while we're living. I'm sorry if this post feels proselytizing btw.

>>189606
Yeah, I literally have the Ethics on my bedside table, though I haven't picked it up in many months. I can't claim to have a great grasp of it, though, since it's rather tough. I think I understand very well the first half of Part I, which are the major key points of his metaphysics. I don't get very well most of Part II. And I think Part III-V are amazing, especially his psychology in Part III.

To me one of the most important ideas of Spinoza is near the beginning of Part III in Proposition VII where he "proves" that a thing's essence is nothing other than its endeavors (all of which are to persist, aka, the conatus, which is Prop. VI). I think this position iis what puts him in the same faction as Nietzsche and Stirner, who both also explicitly express it, and is a key point for understanding the rest of their thought and perspective. Nietzsche expresses it in Genealogy of Morals I.13 (first picrel), and Stirner in the "My Self-Enjoyment" section of The Unique and its Property (can't upload another pic).

Also, I don't think pantheism, which is usually defined as "everything is God", is a correct description of Spinoza. I've heard lots of people describe Spinoza's philosophy as "everything is God, including you and this rock" or "the world in its totality is God and you and this rock are both a small part of God", but that's a misconception. To see why they'd only need to read the beginning of Part I. The qualities of substance is being "infinite, unlimited, eternal, and indivisible". It's clear that people and rocks have none of those things (i.e., they aren't themselves substances), and since substance is indivisible, they're also not parts of substance. Rather, people and rocks have their being in God (the only one substance there is). They are finite, limited, and temporal "affections" ("affectiones", which tends to be translated in different ways) of God. And by Prop. I, substance is previous to its affections, so it's not ambiguous that it's wrong to say that to Spinoza everything is God, or that everything is a part of God. I've seen some say that "panentheism" would be a better term for Spinoza, i.e., "everything is in God".

>Tao and ZhuangZi
Sorry, no idea. I was made to read some Taoist texts at some point, but that was awhile back and I don't think I even understood them well, tbh.

>What I'm saying is that, if we're being reincarnated and farmed à la Madoka for loosh (human suffering) the best way to live is not to suffer yourself or cause more suffering by killing yourself and making your family suffer until your death eventually comes peacefully.
The deeper point is that whatever anyone ends up doing is merely the manifestation of his own "nature" (in the Spinozist sense which does not imply some eternal and immutable essence, since its always in change and conflict, but is equal to a thing's desires, which is in turn all the "endeavors" of that thing). The totality of all we consider, discuss, and act is the same as the manifestation of our drives at any one moment. Another insight from Nietzsche (Book II of Dawn/Daybreak) is that even whatever drives are dominant at any one moment is always changing.

>This is relevant to us because they would appear to us as… waifus as this anon said maybe that light turns into a portal to a fake 2D isekai dimension which throws you back in here lol.
I was actually considering that while typing my previous response. It's very scary because assuming that all OP says were true, and adding that I don't 100% buy it (though still heed his warning), I don't know if I would actually reject my waifu showing up and urging me to come to her. But he says that you're not even supposed to get to that point. Still, I have no idea where all these people are getting such detailed info on all this. I don't know if I can trust that much random blogposts on the internet that merely tell me how it is without litte more evidence.

How do I know that it's not the other way around and it's actually the appearance of my waifu who is leading me to escape the prison and the demiurge is trying to trap me through other means, including this whole theory? I can't buy the whole alien invasion force thing as much the idea of the demiurge having created this world as a manifestation of its own evil and irrational nature. You're right, though, that Madoka Magica is a good example that makes the idea a bit more plausible. An advanced alien species might have good reasons to possibly farm human beings, and if there's something humans produce in the greatest of abundance it's suffering.

>I'm sorry if this post feels proselytizing btw.
And I hope I didn't ramble too much.

>>189615
>I hope I didn't ramble too much.
It's ok I enjoyed reading it. I was gonna write a big ramble about philosophy and free will here too but after investigating the topic more for some hours I decided not to, I'll try to keep this post simple.

>and adding that I don't 100% buy it (though still heed his warning)
>I don't know if I can trust that much random blogposts on the internet that merely tell me how it is without little more evidence.
We're in the same boat here, no matter how much we write about this, we're merely speculating and rationalizing loose interpretations from strangers that seem plausible. I mean, I merely stumbled into this recently and googled ¨loosh¨ before writing that post and now I'm entering into esoteric territory with caution

>Still, I have no idea where all these people are getting such detailed info on all this.
If you look at the second thread on the OP, people are connecting the dots between the different experiences and similar interpretations people had while remote viewing/Astral projecting. This anon mentions it >>189521
From what I read remote viewing (RV) is a more basic form of astral projection (AP) and the terms get confused or overlap sometimes, not sure.
They are similar to meditation in the way that anyone can do it with a little bit of practice and some people are better or worse at it naturally.
This is interesting to me because I was skeptical about meditation like many others before having success with it years ago.

>It's very scary because assuming that all OP says were true
You shouldn't be afraid. I read being afraid of abandoning this world is a big part of what keep us here. Also not lying to ourselves and being honest with our feelings. Similar to those new agey ego traps but with fear.
I think is pointless to keep thinking and writing about this until I have some experience with RV/AP. This is the only way we can realistically clench the -personal- thirst of doubt on this topic. I'll try RMing or APing eventually but I'm tired of researching this for now. One last fun fact I discovered: Cats often AP and they are our best friend in the ¨spiritual¨ world just like how dogs are our best friends here.

Here's some interesting links I found if you want to keep the mind gears going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Ed40tVGOg&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seaJcY0kXjk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVMZxH1TIIQ
https://www.reddit.com/r/AstralProjection/wiki/apresource

This schizo thread still getting replies? The fuck.

>>189620
Just because midwits like you cant comprehend discussion regarding to the topics in this thread doesn't make it schizo.

>>189636
Midwits love the word "midwit", for some reason.

I slept soundly to music content and relaxed to a supreme degree. I saw a brilliant white light and complete serenity it lure me towards it or maybe it came towards me but than the serenity began to feel strange and eerie I felt if I were to approach the light I would die, I panicked and struggled with all my might and when I awoke I gave a small grunt which was all I could muster after the struggle and I felt as though my body had been petrified.

I can relate that to the light tunnel you spoke of.
but can someone die of overwhelming calmness?

Also I saw an orange colour equal in brilliance to the white light shortly before I woke

>>189639
Hahaha

>>189639
This is actually a really common psychological phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

>>189644
And it's funny that usually both are right in calling each other a thatfag.

>>189650
>both are right
This is a midwit take. I'll try not to be rude because I used to he like that.
If you read the posts in this thread you can see anons are being very reasonable about the possibility of this theory.
Here's a question, why do you think you level up intelligence when you want to make a wizard character in an RPG?
Because if you're not able to handle this knowledge you end up as a schizo. The anon posting Nikola Tesla quotes might be an appeal to authority but if you read about his life you'll notice he was a bit of a ¨schizo¨ that could handle his visions rationally and use them for good. He also talked to pigeons, etc.

A lot of people get confused when they see something weird while in dream paralysis and attribute it to things like ¨demons¨, they start talking about god and become paranoid not realizing that was just their interpretation of it. Majority of people on 4ch/x/ are like this. You have to keep a lot of things in mind when exploring these subjects, one of them being correlation not implying causation.

The skepticism, disregard and contempt towards mysticism and the possibility of real magic is a product of social conditioning.
If you don't want to bother with complex topics like physicalism, the illusion of free will, chaos theory and its relation to neuroscience and plausible metaphysics, that's fair but you should keep quiet about it if you don't know what you're talking about. It might be an internet joke, but remember, you're sharing a board with apprentices and wizards. The relationship between virginity and magic(k) is real.

If you seek knowledge here's a famous short introductory text about the topic of this thread - physicalism.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/study/ugmodules/humananimalstudies/lectures/32/nagel_bat.pdf
And a youtube video explaining it in a simpler manner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaZbCctlll4

Classic video showing you how powerful the mind can be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epfNsk5l26U

>>189651
Correct link for the last video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwQTsCiguHc

>>189651
>you're sharing a board with apprentices and wizards. The relationship between virginity and magic(k) is real.
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, I just have never found another context to ask this and don't know much about magick and the occult. There once was a poster here who argued that masturbating to 2D anime females was an effective method to do magick, while masturbating to 3D succs would drain you of energy. He didn't seem to be trolling at all. I was wondering what you guys who know about magick and the occult think of that. I definitely do feel more happy and at peace when I masturbate to 2D, and more shitty when to 3D, so I think there's something to what he was saying.

>>189620
>schizo
Literally, a nuspeak for heretic.
Just why do you need to be so annoyingly preachy and fanatical?
You stick like sore thumb, you clearly don't belong to this site unlike reddit, twitter or any other site normgroid that shares your faith.
But anyway, what do you even forgot here?

>>189655
He is partially right, majority of succubusses are not so different than actual succubuses.
Plus you could probably use image of your waifu as something like sigil.

>>189667
The answer was in a simple youtube video all along, who would have thought?

>>189667
So do I go into this light or not?
You guys say different things every second

>>189678
Don't go, don't trust when something good is given to you for free.

>>189655
>>189662
It is one of the most retarded thing I ever read here. Sounds like something waifufags invented because they can't enjoy masturbating to 3D anymore.

>>189810
+1

>>189880
-1
This isn't Reddit.

So it's just as easy as turning around and walking, or do I have to do some praying thing to walk away from the light. Surely if it's this easy most people wouldnt go towards the light

>>190099
If you read the links they say that they scan your memories and impersonate whomever may be most effective at luring you in; your mother, Jesus, your waifu, etc. They may make you think you're going to Heaven or to a beautiful 2D isekai world.

>>189619
Hi again. While I haven't been able to astral project, I developed a personal theory about what happens after death.

We don't have free will (only the illusion of free will) right now but when we die we develop true free will.

What happens after that I don't know but if my theory is true it means that someone will try to fool us when we die. The good thing is that we are just as powerful as them if we don't fall for the trick.
Similar to how we are helpless as kids and our parents and grown ups are all powerful in our eyes and do whatever they want with us because of physical strength, we die and they (whoever they might be) will try to trick us into believing we are helpless without them.
So we shouldn't fall for whatever trick they try to play with us. I'm not sure if we'll have to fight them but they can't make us reincarnate by force because of our newly acquired free will so they will probably leave us alone and go onto the next victim that just died. (truly tragic!)
Law 40 of the 48 laws of power: Despise the free lunch
I believe this and the other laws of power written by Robert Greene apply here and on the ¨astral¨ realm or whatever. This is why, in my opinion, Christian people into paranormal stuff say things like ¨as above so below¨.
Anyways, Don't let them get you anons!

>>189655
Mmmhh, Spinoza said that ¨The happiness of man depends on the object that he loves the most¨. People like you and me cannot fully love real succubi with all of our feelings and infatuation not because we are narcissistic but because we know that they are human and flawed. Children and ¨Bluepilled¨ people view them, unconsciously, as ¨angels¨.
Anime succubi work as a Symbol which you can love. Carl Jung had good ideas about this but he lost the culture war against Freud because people like sex. His writings are considered
by most academics as ¨midwit¨ tier because he explored the most common alternate state of consciousness (dreams) and esotericism. It was fun downloading a book by D.T Suzuki and reading the foreword written by him saying that Zen helps us make the unconscious, conscious. I'm rambling like a schizo so I'll get to the point.

It's important to know about the Sublime object of Ideology mentioned by Zizek when talking about Symbols and sigils. Jung's book ¨Man and his Symbols¨ is a good introductory text to this. Also remember that we humans like symmetrical patterns like crosses, mandalas and circles. You can see this across cultures developed in different parts of the world (Christian crosses, The painting on the OP, The Zen circle, etc).
Part of this is biological and, in my opinion, humans finding solace (heh) in the fact that the Sun will always come out again doesn't matter how bad their day is. (The sun is symmetrical). Some say the sun is the oldest god.
Ok , the important part of this is that we can keep masturbating to anime succubi and
not feel ¨cucked¨ and sad like the norms when they watch porn alone. Some anime fans don't like NTR but some others do. Overall anime is better for this if you can get turned on by it because it is fiction. Please remember that reading ¨wicked¨ fiction without moderation for too long can mess up your conscious and unconscious mind without you being aware of it. Everything is moderation, as people say. Masturbating with happy feelings and keeping your prostate healthy is a good thing. Btw most people doing chaos magick don't know what they are doing because they tend to be chaotic themselves.
Anime is highly symmetrical, aesthetic and they literally have a genre called Iyashikei (癒し系), so people like us tend to like and love it, so yeah that anon was correct because otherwise you're giving your ¨energy¨, believing and praying to a real person, not so different from what people in cults do.

Reading takes a long time so I'll link Youtube videos as my source instead and you and others reading this can decide if you want to read the books I mentioned:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtIckkHsUQ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohk5TvaW6vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Wem2Z3rME
https://www.youtube.com/c/Eternalised (good channel for book summaries and art just ignore the clickbait)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyashikei

I'd also recommend watching Majo no Tabitabi for fun and reading behave by Robert Sapolsky to know the role biology plays in all of this. He has a full lecture about evolutionary biology on Youtube but honestly it takes less time to read the book, I'll leave it here anyways https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&list=PLMwddpZ_3nkAWijQlBnkwnr9wfcuderVe

>>190933
>Everything is moderation,
*in moderation. I'll try to be more careful and less childish the next time I make a lengthy post like this so I don't come out as a schizo or arrogant. Sorry. I'd reccomend reading ¨The elements of style¨ and ¨Plain Style¨ for anyone like me that struggles to put their ideas on paper/text but I haven't read them myself so…

Just aim for ego death or end your(self) already

>>190103
So I can just turn around and walk away?
That sounds VERY easy. Sure these aliens/animals/gods can impersonate anyone they want but now I know they're lying I can just walk away then

>>190943
Also I know I am not going to Heaven so them pretending to be Jesus/God will be unconvincing. I know my mother or father or grandparents wont be at the end of the tunnel so that wont work. I dont like anime so them pretending to be little anime succubi wont work. Them pretending to be sexy succubi wont work obviously.
The only thing that would make me go to the white tunnel would be if the opposite side has a scary demon threatening to flay my skin or if they literally drag me to the tunnel

>>190943
>So I can just turn around and walk away?
try doing literally anything when its the first time youve been able to truly rest in your entire life. no responsibilities, no worrying about what to eat, no discomfort, no more worrying about other people. its all over (or so you think), all the little things that bothered you are just gone, its like sleeping in the city vs sleeping in the country. theres also likely going to be an immense feeling that you are loved (which may or may not be an illusion), you lived your entire life and for the first time you feel a love so amazingly strong like its telling you everything is okay, how could you not take just 5 minutes to sit back and reflect after all youve been through? i think its gonna take all you got to get up and keep going those few extra steps when everything is trying to tell you its over and to just relax.

>>190967
That still sounds very easy. If I wake up in an afterlife where I am not threatened with being tortured then it's very obvious the people there are liars. Besides, me being conscious and aware, even in a pure-white afterlife, isnt relaxing so I would still walk the opposite way because my ideal 'heaven' would be the atheist afterlife aka unconscious nothingness forever.
The love feeling probably will be a problem, I doubt it will be a literal feeling that you're loved more like you're being blinded/brainwashed by something sort of like how an some guys get 'blinded' by their lust for some attractive succubus.
Since so many people fall into this trap supposedly, I am guessing these gods/aliens just wipe your memory so you wont remember what you did in Earth nor would you remember this thread

Good ol' schizo posting.

>>190975
Hehe, I have to let my mind rest by not reading anything and sleeping well for a few days after making "schizo" style posts.

>>189592
>You don't need philosophy or reasoning to figure this out, but only a single direct examination of the present moment without any conceptual pollution. It's only possible to deny it within artificially constructed conceptual apparatuses. The many materialisms and physicalisms that exists are just conceptual systems, and fallacious ones at that.
People are just stupid, they dont think about abstract things, they just see the world and nothing more apart from the government prescribed world view, they are like slaves of their own voalition. Everything from the world arises from ones own consciousness, but im more inclined to say that everyone's consciousness is split from God rather then solipism.

Schopenhauer's world view and his theory on the 'will' resonates with me, everyone is a slave to their biological imperative (to reproduce and create more suffering). There is no reason to continue the cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again, its why widespread anti-natalism would be the perfect solution for the world. But unfortunately I dont think the world outside of earth, or in the 4th dimension is good either, I have read astral projection recounts of beings saying that multiple races have made their own slave races similar to humans and those races would then make slave races, in another 10,000 years I can see humans making fully functioning simulations as well. And I wouldnt say that the demiurge is evil, similarly to how humans harvest and kill animals that is most likely how the alien race that is enslaving humanity views us, as unintelligent life forms to satiate them. And the physical body is a fleash prison, it grows sick, old and provides pain and suffering for us - imagine if our brain gave us higher doses of dopamine rather then force us into constant state of ennui and pain.
>>189615
>I don't know if I would actually reject my waifu showing up and urging me to come to her
On the topic of waifus, if other races are able to make fully functioning simulations its highly possible that you yourself could create a world that mirros the one your waifu lived in and create her, you'd probably required some sort of soul or something though.

>>191135
Sorry for the late response, I was taking a small break from Wizchan. Anyway, I think it's great that you're still around responding.

>but im more inclined to say that everyone's consciousness is split from God rather then solipism.
Yeah, I agree. You can prove to yourself through pure direct perception of the present moment that everything is in consciousness (I say "in" to reference Spinoza's conceptual distinction of substance and affections/modes), and then from the patterns and structure of the objects actualizing in your own consciousness infer the existence of something outside your own consciousness. But then whatever is outside our own consciousness must still be in consciousness, instead of making the unjustifiable materialist jump in reasoning that whatever is outside my consciousness must be something completely different than consciousness, consciousness-independent "matter".

If there seem to be holes in this reasoning I can expand at length on it, but if you're familiar with Spinoza's Part 1 of the Ethics, then you should see that the same reasoning he applies to derive the prop. that there's only a single substance can be used to prove that whatever exists must be consciousness or in consciousness, and that nothing other than that can exist because there can only be that one substance. That consciousness is a substance in Spinoza's sense can be seen immediately at any one moment through direct perception of the present moment. Since Spinoza called the only existing substance God, it makes sense to think of consciousness as God. It's just that this infinite, illimitable, eternal consciousness also takes the shape of and localizes itself into finite, limited consciousness such as ours. (Not that Spinoza is an idealist or ever had in mind the way I'm applying his reasoning, but I believe it's sound.)

>I wouldnt say that the demiurge is evil
I used to think of the demiurge as a God-like being who created the world we call physical reality (and perhaps also being the matter out of which that world is made of). Perhaps there is such a being, and whether there is, is an empirical issue. But I've also been more inclined lately to think of the demiurge as the consciousness sustaining the material/physical world, giving it its observable objectivity and rigid iron-clad laws. So the demiurge would be the consciousness dreaming up everything that in our consciousness actualizes as the material/physical world. Most relevant to understanding this is the protein vessel we call our own "physical body", the object in the demiurge's consciousness localizing our consciousness to his prison dream we call the 3d world, making it actualize in it the empirical content that corresponds to being an organism in an external, natural environment.

Experiences of dreaming, astral projection, and NDEs (and I suppose drugs, but I'm not at all familiar with that) are limited free trials of what it's like to be untethered to a certain extend from the protein vessel, with NDEs being the closest. So when I'm seeing a tree in a dream it's not because there's some physical object "out there", and particles of light reflecting off of it and into my retinas, which in turn send electrical signals to my brain, etc., etc., i.e., I'm no longer just actualizing the content of stuff happening in the demiurge's consciousness as filtered through the protein vessel, like a TV that merely displays the signals it receives, but I'm finally having my own dream. Perhaps this would tie in with >>190933 about free will, but I don't understand the concept of free will and find plausible that it's not just a one-way relationship between the empirical content of the demiurge's consciousness and that of my own, and that the empirical content of my consciousness does in turn affect that of the demiurge's — so idk.

I said in some other post that I think it's likely that the demiurge is incapable of understanding higher-level phenomena like organisms and such, and is probably more of a "dumb" mind dreaming of the kind of phenomena studied by quantum physics. Anyway, I hope all that wasn't too "schizo". (I just realized while rereading your comment that I talked through what you were saying and didn't address the alien beings imprisoning us in the 3d prison.)

>On the topic of waifus, if other races are able to make fully functioning simulations its highly possible that you yourself could create a world that mirros the one your waifu lived in and create her, you'd probably required some sort of soul or something though.
That's precisely my plan, actually, to live in a peaceful version of my waifu's universe, which was already meant to begin with to be a peaceful version of her original universe where she can be happy, but mangaka eventually decided to take things down a much darker path and make her suffer (in all the infinite, boundless sphere of consciousness, I'll never forgive it). However, I don't see it as "creating" a simulation, or "trapping" a soul (though, I guess all souls living in an observably objective world are technically trapped to the demiurgical consciousness sustaining that world, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if it's a nice universe). Since all things already exist in infinite consciousness I see it as merely actualizing that virtuality in my consciousness (using the original definition of virtual as "real but not actual"). I see isekai as documentaries, and just as there are all sorts of conscious beings in this world such as people and cats, there should also be all kinds of demiurges dreaming up all possible worlds.

But I'm straying too far from your original topic of freeing oneself from the demiurge's 3d prison and living in a world of one's own creation, and instead talking about tethering myself to another, much nicer, world. It's just another possibility I thought about. Absolute power over one's own dream could eventually become boring and meaningless, and perhaps that's how I ended up stuck here for who knows how many lifetimes already, with no previous memories of all the infinite series of lives that have actualized in my eternal, ever-present consciousness.

>>189482
This is just a sadistic conception of God.

>>191448
i.e. rationalizing sadism.

>>191443
This is a bit off topic but I used to believe in this theory quite a bit, ironically this entire acceptance of this world view can be attributed to my severe depression and ocd. Now that I have recovered from it and no long depressed I can clear some misconceptions I have. One of the reasons I dont believe that a demiurge could possible exist is that suffering isnt something inherently negative, suffering is a prerequisite to achieving something. I used to believe the realms outside of earth would be eternal bliss but this cannot exist because even in astral projection recounts, their mental state did not change drastically when they astral projected while depressed. After reading the gateway documents which are not by any means well accepted scientific literature, it appears that our own consciousness aligns with specific frequency's in the process of astral projecting - it could be very likely that once we escape the earth the realms outside are identical to the earth in that we do feel pain and ennui.

Eternal bliss cannot be achieved as a state of total equilibrium would have been achieved by now. Its like a person attempting to be high on heroin for eternity, its simply impossible. I also believe that reincarnation could be a mechanism to stop the pain that comes with being conscious forever. Another reason could be the boredom associated if there were no pain or anything, it would be like a story where none of the characters go through hardships or pain it would be mundane. Maybe it is true that the driving force of all humans is the will to power like nietchze said, and that we all exist to satiate this will one way or another.

>>191825
A person’s world view is ultimately shaped by their own experiences, its fallacious to project their own experiences onto others – I am guilty of this. At the height of my misery I truly felt as if everyone would experience suffering similar to what I have felt, this is what I feel a lot of Wizchan, nihilists and pessimists do. Of course, suffering is an innate characteristic of existence, but that doesn’t mean that life isn’t worth living due to this. A life worth living is ultimately determined by an individual, and as an individual, I have no right to tell others that they shouldn’t procreate or reincarnate, it's why I detest these gnostic notions of reality.
Another perspective I’d like to share is comparing life to dark souls, it’s one of my favourite vidya games but its also a good analogy to existence itself. Despite norms calling the game overly difficult, it is very satisfying to die over and over again fighting the same enemies and slowly learning their patterns until your onto the next stage and onto the next boss as you traverse through the world – the enjoyment of beating an incredibly hard boss ultimately leads to wanting to play again and beat another and so forth. I view this endless struggle the player faces in dark souls against the inevitable age of darkness as analogous to human existence, we are ‘cursed’ so to speak with a will to power that we must satiate by transmigrating our suffering into achievements. Although our existence is inherently meaningless and absurd we can achieve happiness or contentment by satiating the will to power.
And furthermore, a world with pure bliss cannot exist because without suffering there cannot be happiness and vice versa. It cannot possibly exist.

>>191833
Op here, I did have psychotic symptoms so I was probably more prone to believing in this stuff. But as you can see the NDE state can be recreated using hallucigens and ketamine. Another thing that doesnt add up is that only According to van Lommel only 31% of NDE'ers reported passing rapidly through a transitional world of dark tunnels in what is sometimes referred to as "the tunnel experience." Often they then emerged into a light at the end of the tunnel. A scientific explanation I copied from the rationalwiki.

"Aspects of NDEs indicate that the temporal lobe is involved. The temporoparietal lobe is the area in which the brain locates itself in space — that is, behind the eyes. Co-ordination between the organs necessary for interaction with the outside world — limbs, sensory organs and of course the brain — is vital for our survival, and the brain must locate the body's organs (mistakes in doing this could be the cause of phantom and alien limb syndromes) and itself in order for this to work. Electrical stimulation of the temporoparietal lobe has been shown to reliably induce the same dissociation found in NDEs and OBEs. Out-of-body experiences can also occur during episodes of fainting or extreme physical exhaustion such as hiking at high altitude. Additionally, some of the elements of NDEs can be reproduced with anesthetics. Kevin Nelson suggests that the common factor in all these experiences is reduced oxygen supply to the brain, which shuts down region by region in such circumstances to conserve energy. When the oxygen supply to the temporoparietal lobe is cut off, this would trigger an out-of-body experience.[7] It should be mentioned that the temporal lobe, which is near structures such as the hippocampus and amygdala, is heavily involved in the storage of memory; temporal lobe epilepsy (a localized form of the common seizure disorder) often involves sensory hallucinations of various kinds and memory disturbances. Furthermore, as the brain dies, the brain releases most of its serotonin, the "feel-happy" hormone, which would create a sense of euphoria"

Another problem with the whole physical objects actualized from our consciousness is that it is more likely property dualism is an accurate model because it utilizes actual scientific metrics to discern what is cousciousnes. And we use these same biological concepts in our daily life, in aspects like medicine etc, its just more rational to believe in the property dualism.

>>191825
>This is a bit off topic but I used to believe in this theory quite a bit
You mean my post or the OP? Because I agree with nearly all of what you say.

>One of the reasons I dont believe that a demiurge could possible exist is that
In that post I'm moving away from the idea of the demiurge as a being and more towards conceiving it as the consciousness that sustains the so called material/physical, objective world, and also moving towards the idea of there being infinite demiurges, each dreaming another world, without necessarily discounting the possibility of there existing the artisan-like figure more traditionally conceived by that term, which would be more an empirical question and not one of inference.

>suffering isnt something inherently negative, suffering is a prerequisite to achieving something.
But that by itself doesn't deny the existence of the possible Incubators (to borrow the term from Madoka Magica) that OP talks about, who may be farming our suffering, or whatever else, for loosh. In Madoka Magica, that the hope and despair which the Incubators respectively sow and reap from magical succubi may still have meaning to the magical succubi doesn't by itself make any difference to their utilitarian, entropic Ponzi scheme — except, of course, as we all know, when those emotions they are using and abusing turn out to be so powerful as to end up overthrowing their whole system.

>Eternal bliss cannot be achieved as a state of total equilibrium would have been achieved by now.
Exactly, 100%. I've written that second bit multiple times in this ib, but it's because I'm quoting Nietzsche. Just think of how one's own consciousness is eternal (in the sense of being ever-present), and within all that eternity this one arbitrary moment has ended up currently being actualized. So it's a simple inference to me, that my consciousness will continue dreaming more worlds and lifetimes after this life is done and over with, just as it has done for all eternity.

Whether one is inside or outside this world, everything is always "worldly" in a way. So you're correct in saying,
>I used to believe the realms outside of earth would be eternal bliss but this cannot exist,
and,
>it could be very likely that once we escape the earth the realms outside are identical to the earth in that we do feel pain and ennui.
But neither of those contradict the accounts detailed by the OP's links of what it's like outside this prison.

>>191833
>that doesn’t mean that life isn’t worth living
It doesn't ultimately matter if it's "worth living" or not, since you can't not live. But maybe one could change to another video game if one hates this one so much, unless something is keeping you stuck playing this particular one no matter how many times your characters die, as the OP argues for.
>Although our existence is inherently meaningless and absurd we can achieve happiness or contentment by satiating the will to power.
And any achievement is only a temporary break from the next struggle. Struggle itself is eternal, as full satisfaction would already have been achieved (I think even Neville Goddard put it this way, and I don't think he ever read Nietzsche). Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. It's always some drive that evaluates existence and rejoices or recoils in terror from it, but drives are themselves just more transient empirical objects actualizing in consciousness, while consciousness itself remains ever-present despite the horrors and ecstasies that actualize in it.

>>191835
>NDE state can be recreated using hallucigens and ketamine.
And also with proper training in sleep paralysis and dreams/OBEs (it should be evident that when you're dreaming you're exploring an environment and inhabitants "somewhere else"). See Michael Raduga who's shown he can train people in a few weeks with no use of drugs to recreate NDE experiences, experiences of alien abductions, being visited by angels, etc., with the same vividity that waking-consciousness has, if not more.

>I did have psychotic symptoms so I was probably more prone to believing in this stuff.
To clarify in my case, the only things I've ever been diagnosed with are big penis disorder and eating disorders, so no kind of mental illness has influenced my beliefs. It's all just observation + reasoning to me. (Obviously, as a KHHV hikki NEET I'm still a very weird individual by any standard.)

(Hope this doesn't come up as too proselytizing.)

>>191443
>>189592
How do I become intelligent? I read posts like this and it perfectly articulates half-formed ideas that I have floating around inside of my chimp brain, but I would never be able to do this on my own. Just the overall writing style is very similar to a few other high IQ wizards that I've known while I type like a knuckle dragger in comparison.

>>191849
What makes you think that guy is intelligent? Writing well does not equate to intelligence.

I'd say you're all going to be in for a world of disappointment after death but you won't be aware of it anyway.

>>191869
The most beautiful idea there is, is that one's own consciousness begins and finally ends for all eternity with one's own life — as well as the most absurd.

Non-existence is absolute bliss, the only purity and the greatest perfection. But it doesn't exist, except as an idea in consciousness. Consciousness is always present, for all the eternities before that idea was ever conceived, and will remain for all eternities after it is forgotten.

>>191870
You didn't exist for 13.5 billion years before the present.

>>189655
2D/3D porn do have different effects on the mind but that has nothing to do with magic.

Imagine a caveman drawing a female figure on a wall and masturbating, and another caveman hiding in the bushes to watch a couple have sex to masturbate. No matter how advanced technology is the use of 2D/3D porn is fundamentally not any different than those scenarios.
When using 3D porn, to your monkey brain watching real people have sex on a screen is not any different than watching through a keyhole, it is voyeurism.

Everyone has heard of or experienced post-masturbation guilt, but the modern man living with technology doesn't realize that that feeling is unnatural. That famous feeling of guilt is not caused by the act of masturbation but because of the subconscious understanding of being a voyeur.
With fictional 2D porn there isn't any voyeurism against real people so any feeling of guilt that might arise due to other factors is much less or nonexistent than what happens with 3D porn. This is why 2D or using your imagination is better than using 3D porn.

>>191889
The age of universe doesn't mean anything when you can't even prove whether you are or aren't a Boltzmann brain.

This schizo thread still up? Damn, people love schizo bullshit.

>>191892
schizooid is the only word they knos desu

>>191889
>You
There are two fundamentally different things referred to as "I" here. The first is a transient human being who was born at some moment past, will die at some moment future, and is currently in a state of becoming and decay.

>"We continue to die. My arms, my abdomen, my legs, the tip of my tongue, my sex, my eyes, my hair… everything that constitutes who and what I am, every part of this material body of mine fated to be disintegrated cries, writhes and kneels, pitying the dying other, my material brothers and sisters. However, my soul, my still ever captive soul, upon witnessing those others disassembled on the occasion of their death, my soul is filled with envy—from the deepest depths of my being." (Patchouli Knowledge in Umisawa Kaimen's Portrait of Legion, quoted from a translated review)

But as that "I" is decaying, there is a prior, more fundamental "I" that has remained unchanged through it all. As a metaphor, think of how a body of water adopts many forms and shapes while still being the very same water, and how without the water there can be no shapes or forms of water (and to speak of planets, galaxies, cells, atoms, etc., without consciousness is equivalent to speaking of shapes of water without any water). This "I" that actualizes as a toddler is the very same "I" that later actualizes as an aging man, remaining itself unchanged as everything about that human being has changed, and the very same present in which he was born is the very same present in which he will die, with not a single moment having passed from the perspective of the unchanging present itself. So the temporal "I" born and dying is just a temporal form that the unchanging, ever-present "I" adopts. Kant referred to the former as the empirical subject, and the latter as the transcendental subject, because the former is just an empirical object, while the latter is not an object but that without which there can be no objects of any kind (transcendental for Kant means the immanent, necessary conditions for the possibility of something, in this case empirical objects, and is the opposite of what is usually meant by "transcendent", namely, something outside or external).

This may all sound too conceptual and abstract, but it is something that you can prove to yourself very simply at any one moment. Just look at a clock and notice how the present time it displays always continually keeps changing and never remaining the same, all the while the present itself remains the same throughout, so that while the specific current time itself keeps changing, the present itself is always there, just actualizing in it a different time. That is all it takes to prove to yourself that the present we inhabit is eternal. You can do it with any other object, since all objects are in a process of continuous becoming, because if it all could stop moving for a single moment, it would never again come into movement. This unwavering present that is always there is what is meant here by consciousness and "I" in the transcendental sense.

So to say that "I am eternal", or "consciousness is eternal", certainly sounds like "schizo" nonsense at first glance, but when examined in this sense you can see that it is only a trivial observation that anyone can make without needing to do psychedelics for months, or meditating for decades, or reading dense, abstract voluminous tomes that took one of the greatest human minds over a decade to write and were already too long to include any concrete examples or metaphors. "I" and "consciousness" in this sense just mean the present, and "eternal" doesn't mean infinite and never-ending, always going on and on forever, but "a-temporal being", as Spinoza understood the concept. "By eternity I mean existence itself…" (Spinoza, Ethics I, Def. 8), and, "in eternity there is no such thing as when, before, or after…" (Ethics I, Prop. 33, Scholium 2).

>You didn't exist for 13.5 billion years
So consciousness is itself ever-present, always there, while everything in consciousness is always transient and in a state of becoming, so then time — the movement of the hands of a clock, or the movement of sand through glass, or the movement of the stars, or the periods of radiation of a certain element's isotope — is in the final analysis just a measure of the rate of becoming of certain empirical objects in relation to other objects that actualize in consciousness. So to say that I, as empirical object, did not exist for 13.5 billion years only makes sense in relation to the rate of becoming of other objects, but when seen from the perspective of consciousness, is nonsensical because consciousness was always there even "13.5 billion + 1 years" ago.

>before the present
There are also two fundamentally different things that may be denoted by the word "present", which should already be evident from the clock example. There is the eternal present, and there is the state that the present currently actualizes in it, namely, $(date). To speak of "before the present" in the former sense is nonsensical because, to repeat Spinoza, it itself has no before or after. The future and the past are just concepts derived in thought as an abstraction of the eternal phenomenon of becoming.

To conclude, the statement,
>You didn't exist for 13.5 billion years before the present,
only makes sense in a limited empirical context, which is not the meta-empirical (or transcendental) sense which the comment you replied to is operating in, or that of the fundamental issues of this whole thread. To bring up empirical issues in a discussion about that which is prior to the empirical is utterly futile and meaningless. The empirical method of modern science is merely a method to understand the behavior of the objects that actualize in consciousness. Philosophically insightful scientists like Schrödinger and Niels Bohr were well aware of this, unlike most modern bourgeois scientists. What is instead happening here is that the cognitive process through which a conceptual model was constructed to understand the empirical world has been forgotten, and now the model is seen as if it were reality itself, over and above the consciousness in which it was born and will die (and likewise this last bit with the idea of the non-existence of consciousness).

>>191841
>>191899

I am OP. I just was clearing up various misconceptions I had to myself, I guess.
>But that by itself doesn't deny the existence of the possible Incubators
I should probably read Madoka Magica but I’m unsure whether there are creatures harvesting our suffering. Is the sum of human experience suffering? Is suffering bad in itself? Isn’t the cause of suffering something due to biological mechanics, like a sort of feedback loop, "I am suffering because of a lack of socializing leading to depression", "I’m suffering because a person is inflicting pain on me", and so forth. Wouldn’t suffering be used as a feedback loop to our brain.
>Just think of how one's own consciousness is eternal (in the sense of being ever-present), and within all that eternity this one arbitrary moment has ended up currently being actualized.
Yes, I agree because death is nothingness and time does not exist in a state of nothingness, thus we can conclude that before this state of being we were a previous consciousness that died and then this consciousness came to fruition.
>But maybe one could change to another video game if one hates this one so much, unless something is keeping you stuck playing this one no matter how many times your characters die, as the OP argues for.
I agree,if I’m going to die, I want my consciousness to experience a better reality then this, like some sort of anime or fantasy world.
>And also with proper training in sleep paralysis and dreams/OBEs
I guess I’m in a limbo on whether I’m to believe a more rationalist belief and attribute these things to scientific metrics despite the concept of transcendental idealism, where these are merely constructs of how things merely appear to us and us humans just creating an apparatus to explain things. Is it better to believe in these scientific metrics or believe that these objects merely actualize In our consciousness or is transcendental idealism a more accurate description where those objects really do exist but we only perceive them?
The theory I had in mind was that God was the first consciousness that split itself into fractals of minor consciousnesses in order to gain information, because human existence is inextricably linked to the futile pursuit for an ultimate truth whether there is one or not matters because our entire existence is predisposed to finding knowledge in one way or another.

>So the temporal "I" born and dying is just a temporal form that the unchanging, ever-present "I" adopts. Kant referred to the former as the empirical subject, and the latter as the transcendental subject, because the former is just an empirical object, while the latter is not an object but that without which there can be no objects of any kind (transcendental for Kant means the immanent, necessary conditions for the possibility of something, in this case empirical objects, and is the opposite of what is usually meant by "transcendent", namely, something outside or external).
Am I right to interpret this as that human body is a temporal entity, and the state of consciousness/sentience is because objects actualize from it, so the body is an empirical object, while the mind is a transcendental subject because all objects actualize from it? That is true, it is a sort of curse that existence is, true nothingness would be bliss ultimately. And the fact that all objects actualize from our consciousness cannot be disputed, it is irrefutable – so yes, I do agree.
>. What is instead happening here is that the cognitive process through which a conceptual model was constructed to understand the empirical world has been forgotten, and now the model is seen as if it were reality itself, over and above the consciousness in which it was born and will die (and likewise this last bit with the idea of the non-existence of consciousness).
I concur. Science itself has become a religion in which it presupposes that which we observe is real, which is an erroneous assumption. The problem I have here is understanding Kant vs Spinoza, I don’t know whether I should even attempt to read Kant’s work on metaphysics or start with Spinoza’s.

Also off-topic what do you do in your spare time to kill time, any visual novels, anime or manga to recommend. Due to my boredom I thought I'd make a game that explored some of these concepts.

>>191954
>I agree,if I’m going to die, I want my consciousness to experience a better reality then this, like some sort of anime or fantasy world.
What would you isekai yourself into?

Summary of what I learnt:

We cannot prove that actual objects outside of our consciousness exist, rather all objects we perceive are simply actualized from the consciousness - in other words the objects we perceive are the result of our own consciousness. In other words, scientific rationalism presupposes that which we observe is real, which is an erroneous assumption, that is unprovable. Thus, using artificially constructed apparatuses to discern our reality based on empirical evidence is fallacious, as these things are based on how we perceive these objects not on how they really are. Now the eternalness of the consciousness can be determined through an observation of our state. There are two different things referred to as ‘I’ in our existence, one is the ‘I’ as a transient human being that body is decaying, and the ‘I’ has remained unchanged throughout our existence; to put it simply, the body is a temporal state that is decaying and transient, while our mind is the reason that these objects we perceive exist. To observe this, recognize that the present does not have beginning or end, just like the concept of eternity, there is no beginning or end.
The body is merely a vessel for the mind (or soul) analogous to how a cup is the vessel for water. This ultimately ties in with reincarnation, but one theme common in eastern religion is moksha, a release from samsara and the endless process of reincarnation. This would require being less attached to the world in order to not reincarnate. The main problem with this concept that eternal bliss is impossible, because a state of equilibrium would have already been achieved by now. From NDE recounts (which are dismayed as pseudoscience) there is a white light that has beings such as God or various family members beckon you to join them, this could possibly be a trap by archons or other beings in order to get one to reincarnate. It seems if someone wants to escape being reincarnated on earth, one needs to reduce his attachments and choose not to reincarnate – what is known after that is dubious but could lead to reincarnating in a different reality.
The reason I came to this conclusion was my theory of God; God was the first consciousness that split itself into fractals of minor consciousnesses in order to gain information, because human existence is inextricably linked to the futile pursuit for an ultimate truth whether there is one or not matters because our entire existence is predisposed to finding knowledge in one way or another, thus God himself must’ve been in the same predicament as us. Thus there must be other realities to reincarnate in if God requires infinite knowledge.

>>191955
I have a lot of Ideas, a typical fantasy world where I live as a warrior, a dark and accursed world like Dark Souls, a sci-fi type universe where there are intergalactic wars or a world similar to earth except maybe with some sorta natural enemies of humans or interplanetary invasions and the existence of magic. Something more interesting then this world would be amazing.

>>191954
>I should probably read Madoka Magica
*watch, and sorry that this plot point is actually a spoiler, and yeah, it's a great anime, maybe one of the best.

>I guess I’m in a limbo on whether I’m to believe a more rationalist belief and attribute these things to scientific metrics despite the concept of transcendental idealism
There's no contradiction because the scientific method is just a method, and as a method is independent of ontological systems such as idealism, materialism/physicalism, etc. The only thing that changes there is the underlying metaphysical interpretation of what its descriptions and explanations of observable phenomena fundamentally mean. This may still contradict certain current scientific theories, but our scientific knowledge in this area is still extremely infant, and is not being helped by the current stifling academic system. I think it's extremely plausible that this world we refer to as "the universe" isn't the only reality due to the phenomena of dreaming, OOBEs, and astral projection. I find very reasonable Neville Goddard's idea that all that could be imagined as a scene in consciousness already exists in God's infinite consciousness, and that it only needs to be actualized in our finite consciousness by imagining it. I find it extremely arbitrary that only this specific world would be the only one that could exist. (And there's also nothing contrary to the spirit of rationalism in any of this.)

>or is transcendental idealism a more accurate description where those objects really do exist but we only perceive them?
Ultimately, transcendental idealism is also another conceptual system, and you don't fundamentally need any conceptual systems. You could be like Rupert Spira and just practice pure contemplation of the present moment without recurring to any concepts to understand it (though I still find he adds some unnecessary stuff not really found in the pure observation of the present moment).

>The theory I had in mind was that God was the first consciousness that split itself into fractals of minor consciousnesses
There are many possible theories one can come up with, none of which appear to be conclusively provable or disprovable, but this is also the one I find most plausible.

>The problem I have here is understanding Kant vs Spinoza, I don’t know whether I should even attempt to read Kant’s work on metaphysics or start with Spinoza’s.
I'd recommend more to just dive right into Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, ignoring the preface(s) where he keeps saying that you shouldn't read it without first having read his earlier treatise, and to stay away from most secondary literature, especially Christopher Janaway (though the edition edited and translated by him, et al., is the one I'd most recommend https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=979FD118383A434977FF362225AE6F48), and then decide what to read from there. And if you haven't read Hume's Enquiry, I'd recommend to read it before anything else.

>Also off-topic what do you do in your spare time to kill time, any visual novels, anime or manga to recommend.
I'd highly recommend the VN Subahibi (picrel) since it explores some of these ideas in a very fascinating way, as well as being an amazing story unlike any other found in other media (as a warning, it also has a lot of gruesome scenes of violence, rape, and nausea-inducing bullying). I watch a lot of anime, but I don't know what I could recommend that is relevant to this, and I read even more manga that is pointless trash, though here I would recommend Go Nagai, Kazuo Umezu, and Shintaro Kago, despite not being particularly relevant just because I really like them (a similar warning also applies to them). Maybe some elements in Umineko would be relevant, such as the "sea of fragments" which contains all possible worlds and the voyager witches who can travel across them. Maybe Planescape: Torment because the protagonist is immortal but has no memories of his past lives, and because it also takes place in a world that behaves very "idealistically", where the more strongly people believe in things the more real they become (and it's also often ranked as one of the greatest video games of all time).

>>191956
>We cannot prove that actual objects outside of our consciousness exist, rather all objects we perceive are simply actualized from the consciousness
In logical order, before everything else should come the observation into the present moment that notes that the present itself is unchanging, while everything in the present is continuously changing. I would consider that to be the starting point of all (sound) reasoning, like Schopenhauer starts The World as Will and Representation in picrel, because it is prior to even being able to consider if "we cannot prove that actual objects outside of our consciousness exist", which already presupposes quite a lot of concepts. As a thought experiment, imagine being a completely newborn rational person with no memories or preconceptions, you could make the aforementioned observation, but you couldn't yet be able to understand the question of whether these somethings that you are perceiving "exist outside of our consciousness" or not. After having made that observation we'd proceed to define the word "consciousness" as this unchanging present, and "objects" as those changing somethings being observed in the present. "If any a priori truth can be asserted, then this is it; for this truth expresses the form of all possible and conceivable experience" (picrel). One could be wrong about absolutely everything, but not about this observation which is the only thing one can ever be truly certain of.

>using artificially constructed apparatuses to discern our reality based on empirical evidence is fallacious
I didn't say that they were all fallacious, but specifically the ones that deny the previous observation, such as materalism and physicalism, otherwise I'd be saying that all conceptual thought would necessarily be fallacious (actually, you can make an argument for this in the sense that concepts and words are never capable of expressing consciousness itself because concepts and words are themselves merely transient objects that actualize in consciousness, and it would be like if mere shapes and patters of water were capable of expressing the water itself that they're made of, hence Rumi's famous saying that "silence is the language of God, and all else is mistranslation"). "Artifically constructed conceptual apparatuses" that are built on top of this observation are not necessarily fallacious by their quality of being conceptual and artificially constructed, as also happens to be the case with the theory that God is the primordial infinite consciousness that splits into finite consciousnesses such as ours.

>Now the eternalness of the consciousness can be determined through an observation of our state.
Yes, though in logical order this should come just after the aforementioned starting observation. Since eternal in this (Spinozist) sense just means "a-temporal" and unchanging, when we observe that the present itself is unchanging from moment to moment we are also immediately observing its eternity, as well as also observing the eternal impermanence of all objects perceived in the present when we observe that they are changing from moment to moment. We don't need to sit around forever observing our consciousness to make sure that it doesn't just happen to magically disappear in the next moment, which would bethe traditional conception of eternity as something that goes on and on forever. We can't ever know for certain what will be present in our consciousness five minutes or five million years from now, because otherwise it would already be that moment, but we can be sure that whatever that may be, consciousness will be there. Therefore, that there is something after death is an absolute certainty (as well as that there was something before birth), but what that is, is more a matter of speculation.

Now, all that just previously described is only an attempt to put in words and concepts something that is neither a word nor a concept and that can never be fully expressed in words and concepts, but only be directly experienced by observing the present moment. Then on top of that we can finally begin to build theories (what your next two paragraphs are comprised of) and conceptual systems (your diagram, for example), and even ask questions such as whether the objects we observe in consciousness might not in fact be coming from some source outside consciousness, and whether that something is non-consciousness "matter" or just the content of another consciousness, etc. But I won't write about any of that in this post that is already too long.

>moksha, a release from samsara and the endless process of reincarnation.
Alternatively, we could interpret this idea in terms of the "bifurcated God" theory as that a consciousness split from God's infinite consciousness stops being separate from God and once again becomes one with the infinite consciousness.

In regards to your diagram, I only see one misunderstanding in the left side:
The body is not a vessel for consciousness because the body is itself just another object inside consciousness, as are our sense-organs, the brain, and the objects they interact with such as trees, etc. It just so happens that the body is a very particular and somewhat special object in determining the content that actualizes in consciousness. For example, if I see an object in my consciousness, another person's body, interact with another object, a psychedelic drug, by consuming it as a substance, then I'll next see him acting like an idiot thinking he's traveling to other dimensions and interacting with hyperdimensional beings. But if it's instead my body that consumes the psychedelic drug, then I am actually traveling to other dimensions and meeting with hyperdimensional beings. (I'm making up the specifics of this because I've never done psychedelics.) (You may also follow here a line of reasoning on those observations about the other person's body to infer that they also have a consciousness like yours that just happens to be split and inaccessible from yours, because I realize that this example may seem almost solipsistic.)

Another thing is that it seems to imply that consciousness is "somewhere", which makes no sense since spatial locations only make sense inside consciousness. Consciousness is not anywhere, it merely perceives/actualizes something in it or it doesn't. To use another metaphor, it would be like saying that the video game console in which you're playing a first-person POV video game inhabits your player character as a vessel.

(Also, you wrote transcendental object when it should be transcendental subject. Anyway, hope this doesn't come out as arrogant or overly preachy, I'm just trying to clarify things as I think they are, so I could be wrong except about the most fundamental thing.)

>>191957
>Something more interesting then this world would be amazing.
I'm inclined to think that that's the case given the fundamental arbitrariness of this world and that of any other imaginable one. So I don't see why this particular one would happen to be the only existing one, and not any other, and so it makes sense that all possibly experienceable worlds exist as potential to be actualized in one's consciousness and we just happen to be experiencing this one right now. We already have glimpses of this in the form of dreaming and AP, as well as in our capacity to imagine new worlds and their inhabitants.

There are men here who write paragraphs after paragraphs in a absolute nonsense crazy thread. I just don’t understand some people

>>191973
You have to understand this particular type of person. The philosopher/intellectual or the pseudo variations of these you can encounter here in this thread are all incredibly bored with life and its pleasures. They don't know how to occupy themselves in decent ways. So they think. Or rather fart. And want to spread the smell of their farts as far as possible, because the intellectual and philosopher only wants attention and recognition, he is an extremely vain person who thrives on the amusement and praise of his "uneducated" sisters and brothers. These people arrogantly think they know everything better than others and have life and the universe itself figured out and they want admiration and praise in turn for their "efforts". And when someone just shrugs at their walls of texts or countless paragraphs they just label him as a simpleton and ignorant man. It's like watching 2001 A Space Odyssey and saying it is shit afterwards. "What? You can't say it is dumb. It IS art! You are too dumb 2 get it!" Yes, it is same in this case too.

These intellectuals just want to smell their own tight buttholes all day and masturbate to how intelligent they are compared to everyone else, even to each other. It is another cope for people so that they can feel superior to everyone else.

Don't take them seriously. Either this is the case or some of them are downright schizophrenics and want to spread their insanity.

>>191980
I don't feel superior to anyone. You can find someone annoying without feeling superior to him.

>>191968
Thanks for explaining this.
> Then on top of that we can finally begin to build theories (what your next two paragraphs are comprised of) and conceptual systems (your diagram, for example), and even ask questions such as whether the objects we observe in consciousness might not in fact be coming from some source outside consciousness, and whether that something is non-consciousness "matter" or just the content of another consciousness, etc. But I won't write about any of that in this post that is already too long.
Could you please delve into that in further detail? I find your explanations to be quite good.

>>191968
>In logical order….
Correct me if I’m wrong but to summarize the first concept you have written about: The first innate truth one can observe is that our present is an unchanging state of being (our mind) whilst everything in the present is changing, thus we could assert this unchanging present as consciousness.
>I didn’t say they were all fallacious
Yeah, that was my misinterpretation I meat to refer specifically to materialism and physicalism. My understanding is that our conceptual models based of the aforementioned observation, are fallacious because they are conceptual after all it is the use of logic to somehow make sense of the world. Rather we are inferring and creating hypothesises based on probability and previous observations to create a conceptual model. This is my understanding of philosophy and science in general, using observations to construct a likely model to explain a phenomenon to the best of our ability – even though these models can never be proved to be 100% true, they are useful in understanding the world. But as Kant put it, subjective reality requires objective reality, thus these objects we perceive must me true and we prescribe a nature to these objects. These objects we prescribe a nature to through observation are not ultimately futile but help us understand the world around us – thus we use a priori synthetic knowledge to construct conceptual systems.
>The body is not a vessel…
I agree with your post, also you do not come off as arrogant, I lack knowledge and you are simply explaining it to me. Regarding the inference of human behaviour meaning that another being has a consciousness in accessible to ours, is this accurate? Is there any further elaboration of this concept? I have heard the problem of philosophical zombies, but it seems more accurate to believe in the God Bifurcation theory where his consciousness has split off.

>>191987
So you don't want validation from normals, you desire validation from your "fellow" intellectuals on an obscure image board. Doesn't make a difference.

It is arrogant of you and others here to discuss your brainfart thoughts, just like it is arrogant in nearly all cases. You won't come closer to the Truth or understanding the secrets of the universe. You are just feeding your own vanity and egoism but want to pretend you are doing something high and elevated. All of human thought and philosophy is ultimately worthless and a monkey fart.

>Its just dumb to feel insecure and project your negative feelings towards other people in this thread, that we think we're better than you.
>>t. brainlet
Yeah right.

>>191979
Lmao dude, we're just trying to have a legitimate discussion here on issues that we find very interesting and suddenly you come in with all this pointless, off-topic psychologizing.

>The philosopher/intellectual or the pseudo variations of these you can encounter here in this thread are all incredibly bored with life and its pleasures. They don't know how to occupy themselves in decent ways.
No, even as a hikki NEET I consider my time to be extremely valuable because there's loli eroge to be read. I will admit, however, that I do tend to get distracted by pointless trashy manga and end up wasting a lot of time.

>"What? You can't say it is dumb. It IS art! You are too dumb 2 get it!" Yes, it is same in this case too.
I'm trying to write these posts with very clear and transparent reasoning and to make the premises as evident as possible, which is why they end up being so long and verbose despite the actual ideas being very simple once you intuitively get them. If I have failed in that then that's my fault, and would appreciate having pointed out the parts where I did. Likewise, if you disagree with them because you've noticed that they are operating under fallacious hidden assumptions, or have noticed a logical error, or fallacy in the reasoning, or have noticed a sudden unjustifiable jump, or simply have a better argument to refute it all, then post it. I don't have a personal attachment of vanity to any of these ideas, and my views have been all over the place throughout the years, but have coalesced into this, none of which is original to me, obviously

>These people arrogantly think they know everything better than others and have life and the universe itself figured out
You suddenly come here and dismiss everything claiming to have perfect insight into the psychology of the people here who are themselves putting their premises and reasoning out in the open for anyone to attack and pick apart. How is that not more arrogant? How is it not more arrogant to dismiss it all as being either vain or schizo while refusing to even enter the ring so your views and beliefs remain perfectly safe from being themselves picked apart and questioned? Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, but some of use are actually interested in rational discussion regarding this subject. You're free to not post here.

Anyway, I won't address any of the other psychologizing because I find it too bizarre, and more telling of the person's own psychology than that of who he claims to be understanding. I do realize that my style may seem preachy and arrogant, which I'm trying to avoid. I find both this psychologizing and arguing about what happens to be arrogant completely pointless and uninteresting, as I'm not interested in the inner psychology of anyone, and I'm interested in having the ideas and arguments of my posts being attacked rationally. But you made very clear you're not interested in any of that, so why did I even type all of this?

>>191988
>It is arrogant of you and others here to discuss your brainfart thoughts, just like it is arrogant in nearly all cases.
I understand now, so you're categorically opposed to rational discussion of any kind because of you're personal psychological repulsion to anything vaguely arrogant, except when it happens to be you, of course, claiming to have perfect insight and understanding on the psychology of others, for which you require no actual argument to support your assertions, because then that'd be so arrogant of you to provide actual arguments for your claims.

>You won't come closer to the Truth or understanding the secrets of the universe.
Lol I literally agree 100% with this, which is in turn itself a strong claim that would require an actual argument to support it. If you don't have it, then why even believe it? The problem is that you still can't refrain from making claims such as these, but then in the same breath denounce rational discussion as "arrogant brain farts".

>>191995
>if you dare to talk shit about my brainfarts then u brainfarting too
Whatever.

My advice is you just should rather stick to your loli manga instead of farting all over the internet. Writing paragraphs upon paragraphs of baseless reasoning, fanfiction and the like isn't what I would consider "rational" discussion. You have zero proof to back up anything here in this thread besides references to other brainfarters (philosuckers) and pop science.

Just admit it, you love yourself WAY too much. Especially that "highly intelligent" brain of yours. You love listening to yourself, you probably re-read your posts itt daily twice or more.

Humanity never came out of the cave. Discussion of philosophy is a waste of time. It is another effortless go at trying to rationalize our world and our lives. Human rationality which developed extremely late in time compared to other things looks at the universe and shuts down in amazement. Because your rationality fails horribly. Same for that of other philosuckers'. Projecting your headcanon onto TRUTH and trying to sell it to others is laughable at this point.

>>191997
>if you dare to talk shit about my brainfarts then u brainfarting too
You couldn't have misunderstood the point more — if you had in fact read it.

>You have zero proof to back up anything here in this thread besides references to other brainfarters (philosuckers) and pop science.
I'm constantly repeating that I could be wrong about absolutely everything and asking to be refuted. Can you really not see the irony in that all you do is claim that it's all baseless without pointing out where and giving the proper counter-arguments and evidence for it? Oh, and the references to philosophers are merely to help in clarifying some of bits here so I don't have to expand even more an already too lengthy post.

>Just admit it, you love yourself WAY too much.
I'm just trying to have a discussion and answer other people's questions and rebuttals, though no one so far has appeared interested in the latter. I'm just gonna ignore these psychologizing pseudo-attacks from now on because I've never been interested in the underlying psychology of people in a discussion of this kind instead of addressing the actual arguments they put forward, of which you've given none. There is still something interesting about the kind of person who makes these psychological projections on others, which are simply bizarre to me, and you end up coming out to me as weirdo (which is fine, of course).

>Humanity never came out of the cave.
That is a legitimately interesting discussion to be had, and I think you'd find that I agree more with you than you think, but the problem is your style where all you do is make strong claim after strong claim without give any arguments for them. Please, stop being so humble by refraining from giving me a point-by-point refutation of everything I've argued for, because I personally don't care if you come out as a tiny bit arrogant for daring to engage in rational discussion.

>Projecting your headcanon onto TRUTH and trying to sell it to others is laughable at this point.
All you've done in this paragraph, however, is give out disjointed points with no logical structure capable of reaching any conclusion, and which themselves lack any ground to stand on. What I'm trying to do in the lengthiest posts here is try to point out the fundamental base on which we can then discuss these issues that would otherwise be considered "schizo nonsense" on a proper rational foundation — and if I'm utterly wrong about that as well, then please point out the places where I'm wrong and give a satisfactory explanation for why it's wrong, instead of saying,
>lel your so wrong cause humans are dumb apes and your a dumb ape 2.
Yes, I'm a dumb ape too who's very likely wrong about everything, but how am I to see it if you or anybody else doesn't point it out to me?

>>191999
I don't "point out" anything to you or don't offer rebuttals or "step into the ring" myself because that is exactly what I am criticizing. I think discussions like these are inherently worthless. Honestly I didn't read your posts all or even most of the posts itt, and it's not because you post these. I don't have patience for these endless paragraphs even if they are written by respected figures of philosophy. I don't take philosophy seriously and I certainly refuse to waste too much time on it nowadays.

I feel like I am a happy primitive caveman skeptic so I don't want to get into discussions like these. In the rare cases I do brainfart I do it in good taste, meaning I don't draw out things to be too long or academic.

By the way, how is your waifu, Illya? You are dangerously easy to spot. Maybe you want to tone down your vn and waifuposting. Mods may punish you for avatarfagging. Just a friendly advice.

(Alright, hopefully I answer your questions and make this my last response here since I feel bad just dumping these long posts here that most aren't interested in engaging with, and just making this thread unnecessarily long and cluttered for everyone. Also to clarify, picrel isn't an avatar but something I'm making reference to in parts of this post to help further explain some points.)

>>191985
>Could you please delve into that in further detail?
You mean about the specific questions
>such as whether the objects we observe in consciousness might not in fact be coming from some source outside consciousness, and whether that something is non-consciousness "matter" or just the content of another consciousness?
Or do you mean about questions in general? If it's the former I already went into that in two previous posts here. But I'll try to give a more structured and summarized answer here.

(0) We have already established from pure observation that there exists consciousness in the form of one's own personal finite consciousness, and objects constantly actualizing in this consciousness.

Now we want to answer the questions,
>are the objects we perceive in consciousness coming from outside consciousness,
and,
>is there something outside consciousness, or something that is neither consciousness nor in consciousness, i.e., "matter", defined as "something independent of consciousness"?

(1) We make the observation that sometimes, e.g., when dreaming, the objects we perceive and their observable behavior is highly malleable to our thoughts, expectations and emotions, and that if we forget them or our working memory is overloaded, they simply vanish, or return only when we imagine them back.

(2) We also observe that in waking life the objects we perceive and their behavior is highly rigid and stable to being directly changed one's own thoughts, etc., and that even when we forget things, our forgetting does not appear to affect them in the least, i.e., that even when we completely forget about them, they may still come back and appear just as if they'd continued to exist all the while despite being totally absent in our consciousness.

(3) We also have the observation that our perspective is structured in a first-person perspective from an object we call "my body", and that in our consciousness are also as objects human and animals bodies like ours but from a third-person perspective. To bring back a made up example I gave before; I observe someone do some psychedelic drug and then they start acting like they're traveling to other dimensions and interacting with hyperdimensional entities right in my living room. But if it's my body that consumes the drug then I experience traveling to other dimensions and meeting hyperdimensional beings, and once I'm back from my trip people tell me I was just acting like an idiot in my living room and show me a video of it. So these observations makes me infer that people's bodies imply a consciousness from the first-person perspective of their bodies, where my body is just an object in it, just as their bodies are objects in my consciousness.

(4) These other conscious beings also happen to agree with some of my perceptions about the world, and not with others, and we usually call the former objective, and the latter subjective.

(Conclusion 1) So we have already inferred in (3) that there is something outside our personal consciousness, namely, other consciousnesses with empirical content directly inaccessible to my own. From that together with (1, 2, 4), we infer that there is also something else outside my consciousness and that of those other conscious beings, which corresponds to what we call the objective natural world.

(Conclusion 2) Then we apply the same reasoning we used in (3) to now infer the existence of a greater (though still finite) consciousness whose contents correspond to what in my consciousness actualizes as an objective world, analogously to how another person's inner mental life actualize in my consciousness as observable phenomena that correspond to those inner phenomena in their consciousness that I couldn't ever possibly observe directly. (For a more complete reasoning on why whatever may be inferred to be outside of my personal consciousness must necessarily be also consciousness see the earlier Illya pic post where it's pointed out how to use Spinoza's Ethics to reach that conclusion.) (I call this the demiurge, and not God, because despite how immense it may be, it's still a finite, limited consciousness, and there are still places outside of it that one can experience; though I'm aware that I'm somewhat misusing the term demiurge from its original meaning.)

This is one possible, fallible answer, among many, to those questions. See picrel.

>>191986
>subjective reality requires objective reality
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, but it seems to be the other way around to me, as in, objective reality is a particular pattern of experiences. If the world we lived in behaved very differently, like in Jorge Luis Borges's "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius", even if its objects were the same, then we wouldn't ascribe the same objective reality to it. But it just so happens not to behave that way. And when we experience a non-objectively-behaving world such as in some dreams and APs, it makes more sense to think of that place as being somewhere else outside the aforementioned objectively-behaving world, and to think of the latter as being content received from one particular consciousness we're currently tethered in a relation to.

>I have heard the problem of philosophical zombies, but it seems more accurate to believe in the God Bifurcation theory where his consciousness has split off.
In terms of "accuracy" they're both equal since neither deny or contradict anything we experience or could ever experience. See picrel. The best we can do is try to determine which is more plausible. Given the observations and arguments I just made here I believe that they're much more plausible to solipsism, without being an absolute proof of it, likewise, solipsism is also something impossible to prove or disprove beyond simply being the most implausible conception of our experience. (It would be making the same mistake that the demiurge makes in one of the Gnostic stories of believing himself to be the only existence once he becomes self-aware because he can't see beyond the cloud Sophia covered him in to hide him.) These questions ask about things that can never actualize as evidence in consciousness, which is all we ever have, so they're fundamentally supra-empirical questions, i.e., metaphysical questions. I can never perceive anything that is not in my consciousness, because to perceive something is by definition for it to be in my consciousness, so I must observe the overall patterns of behavior of objects in my consciousness and use reasoning on them to infer things beyond what I could ever possible experience in it.

>>192062
>You are dangerously easy to spot.
That's mostly survivorship bias. You could connect the posts in this thread to a few others scattered throughout the ib, and perhaps one older discussion from some months ago in another board. But the vast majority of my posts don't even mention waifus, vns, and much less consciousness.

>I don't take philosophy seriously and I certainly refuse to waste too much time on it nowadays.
>I feel like I am a happy primitive caveman skeptic.
I mean, I actually agree with you. Although to me, your replies imply you still take at face value many fantastical concepts and assumptions. So I'd say you're more of a self-described skeptic who hasn't yet examined deep enough the hidden assumptions in his mind, and that anything that seems to imply they're false, or at least throw some doubt on them, is instantly suspected of.

>>192066
>subjective reality requires objective reality
Sorry I meant objective reality requires subjective reality.

Thanks for answering my questions, I came to a similar conclusion while thinking about it - overall as humans were just creating our own systems to describe the objects we percieve. It seems more likely that im a finite soul part of a greater soul, then any other system of thought. Ultimately our theories will be put to the test once we die, I hope to meet god or brahma or whatever. I'll bring up some more theories and questions I have.

>>192068
>So I'd say you're more of a self-described skeptic who hasn't yet examined deep enough the hidden assumptions in his mind, and that anything that seems to imply they're false, or at least throw some doubt on them, is instantly suspected of.
Brainfart this one to me. I mean elaborate a little.

I've read hundreds of NDEs, alongside books, personal accounts, OBEs, remote viewing and I'm torn between the Idea of the new-age "God sent you here for a missioN' and the horrifying Archon theory.

There's good evidence for both. I think about this stuff constantly. It just consumes my thoughts so much that I pay no attention to material matters anymore

>>192476
Archon? Like entire legions of djann?
I'd recommend you to read Castaneda's books about toltec shamans… they also mention these demons.

Hello once again. Im here to discuss further things with you, I would like to contact you via email or discord, but if you do not wish to that is fine.

Anyway what is your opinion of the outside realm, I suspect simialar to the madoka magica anime humans may be harvest in a similar fashion but we certainly live in a rather nice prison, where we are able to live wonderful lives but also the deepest horrors. Im scared to find out what exists out there, but also intrigued. It seems many humans do not mind suffering if they are gifted pleasure.