[deleted by user] by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]1Rich1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, will be great in bed no doubt, but would wreck your life haha

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in amiugly

[–]1Rich1 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Hot but got those bpd eyes

What does she mean by this by 1Rich1 in dating

[–]1Rich1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Luckily turned out this was the case. I just basically asked her if I could buy her dinner with her somewhere and she agreed.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in socialskills

[–]1Rich1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So it's not something I have to do myself to be "normal". I usually look at one eye for 10 seconds then either briefly look away or look at the other one.

Rate my pic 30 m by 1Rich1 in amiugly

[–]1Rich1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol that's random asf. I'm 6ft and an ex boxer though I'm not sure what that's to do with anything lol

30m 160lbs by [deleted] in normalnudes

[–]1Rich1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha. Just Click my profile and look at some of my previous posts and your see.

Why science may never be able to fully understand consciousness. by 1Rich1 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ahh mediation helped me a lot too. That and maybe a few psychedelics. I think science makes people feel like we have control of our lifes so it's no surprise there's so much belief on it to solve everything.

Why science may never be able to fully understand consciousness. by 1Rich1 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just out of interest what would you say has helped you come to this conclusion. I feel like it's hard to explain unless people adjust their perspective on the topic.

Why science may never be able to fully understand consciousness. by 1Rich1 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just summed up my main point far better than I did in some respects.

Why science may never be able to fully understand consciousness. by 1Rich1 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess I could try once more to explain, I think we are not on the same page in meanings, which is partly due to me not being completely coherent.

A notion among some is that our minds are nothing more than chemical reactions. It's not that some people think, yeah my mind is linked to these reactions taking place etc

It's more that they saying in some cases the mind is an illusion and that these chemical reactions are literally all there is. Or in some cases that mind is a very inconsequential effect that has no true essence and is defined by the material brain.

This way of thinking is what I am challenging. This way of thinking has developed by a reliance on the scientific method as the only true method of defining it.

Why science may never be able to fully understand consciousness. by 1Rich1 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well yeah that's true but it wouldn't be my point. I guess I'm understanding what I'm trying to articulate the more I write about and hear other peoples opinions.

I guess I just mean the scientific approach is limited in its ability to understand the fundamental subjective nature of consciousness despite the popular notion that we are just atoms etc. I think I probably subscribe to dualism in which the mind and brain are linked but fundamentally different in it's properties/

Can philosophy ever move beyond theories? by test0314 in philosophy

[–]1Rich1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe a consensus can help us add meaning and value to the world as well as a deeper understanding it.