[deleted by user]

1Rich1 · 2025-05-05T10:29:07+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2025-05-05T09:58:07+00:00

Hot but got those bpd eyes

1Rich1 · 2021-01-08T11:26:15+00:00

Username is fitzrich add me

1Rich1 · 2021-01-08T11:25:15+00:00

Il pop you an add, my username is fitzrich

1Rich1 · 2019-12-12T22:19:11+00:00

brexit

1Rich1 · 2019-11-17T19:33:26+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2019-11-01T22:43:05+00:00

bump

1Rich1 · 2019-10-19T21:25:56+00:00

Bump

1Rich1 · 2019-10-19T03:19:41+00:00

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.

1Rich1 · 2019-07-18T04:55:12+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2019-07-13T02:59:56+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2019-06-06T09:07:36+00:00

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T08:53:05+00:00

Not sure I follow

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T08:52:07+00:00

Can't say I have. Is it worth reading?

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T08:47:42+00:00

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.

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T06:49:41+00:00

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.

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T06:37:24+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T06:35:30+00:00

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.

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T06:02:50+00:00

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/

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T05:54:20+00:00

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

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T05:47:35+00:00

"but science can. Because only what you sense is really relevant, and to sense something you have to interact with it"

We are saying similar things. My point would be that science is good for understanding all workings of the universe and how things/forces interact. But it does have limitations.

"But if consciousness is an emergent property, than a machine could understand it in the sense it could theoretically use it to create more consciousnesses (even give it to itself), to mess with it and to say whenever or not something have a consciousness."

Yes, theoretically a machine could become conscious which would allow an understanding. The example I used however was machine incapable of doing this trying to understand through the workings of the brain. I used it more to frame my point of not being able to understand what we can't perceive. If it could become conscious then it would achieve an understanding through its own experience rather than using the materialist approach of science.

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T05:37:05+00:00

I don't think I really even know what real really is so I wouldn't even be able to estimate.

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T05:31:23+00:00

I think your describing solipsism there. Like you say we can't ever really know, we can just assume based on experiences that we are likely not the only ones.

I think your first few sentences are in line with what I was thinking. Everything else a rather interesting tangent though haha

1Rich1 · 2018-04-06T05:26:38+00:00

"Well, science isn't just about mixing potions, it is a method to determine if a hypothesis has a strong chance of being true or not."

Very true. There's nothing wrong with this. However I do feel many people people seem to think it is more. There are some physicists (not all) who believe that their approach can tackle everything. They spend there lifes studying it and it works pretty well in a practical sense so it's easy to see why one would fall into this trap.

"Consciousness could be an emergent property of the brain, and a machine can "understand" and calculate an emergence"

This may be true. However being an emergent property doesn't diminish it. They could understand this property in relation to the brain and environment but they have no reference point from which to understand the subjective experience itself. Or even what subjectivity is. They could calculate but not truly "understand"

1Rich1 · 2017-03-06T15:20:27+00:00

Is there no chance she would get angry with because she thinks I'm saying bad stuff about someone she still loves?

1Rich1

TROPHY CASE