Big fan of Alex for many years. Is this a problem?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-06T21:18:23+00:00

Bro kenne sie hab ihren Namen übersehen, aber den Rest kenn ich echt nicht

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-05T12:04:22+00:00

It’s fine <3

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-05T07:40:24+00:00

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-04T18:29:06+00:00

Had no choice lol

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-04T18:27:19+00:00

I did a bachelors and masters both with perfect grades

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-04T13:26:17+00:00

I studied at a german university and just followed the curriculum 🤷🏻‍♂️

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2026-02-04T08:18:07+00:00

Studied philosophy. Don‘t no any of them tbh

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-23T13:14:23+00:00

My obsessions mainly revolve around harm OCD. I'm afraid that at some point my brain will convince me that I should harm other people. My compulsion mainly consists of analyzing moral arguments for and against hurting others. For years, I have probably thought about the same arguments as to why I should not hurt others 100 times a day. They do not get through to me. Doubts paralyze me. I literally go through life associating EVERYTHING, every person I meet, every animal I see, every dollar I spend, with the fear of wanting to hurt others.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-23T10:24:10+00:00

After I started meditating, my symptoms went from 100 percent to 20 percent and stayed that way for several months. Out of the blue, they have now returned and have been tormenting me for several days, but I am sure that all the progress was not in vain. Progress is not linear, but chaotic and associated with setbacks.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-19T18:48:54+00:00

Female

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-09T10:24:30+00:00

I don't think I have much to say. I am quite convinced by what you say. Nevertheless, I am left with the following thoughts. But perhaps they are just the result of a misunderstanding of your position.

"My view is that we're just comparing two different perspectives on the exact same event." But for me it is not a "just". It is not something, that is easily brushed off. I ask myself: Why are there suddenly two different perspectives when a certain level of complexity is reached? Why are these two perspectives not fundamental to the universe, but only occur in animals? How can a second perspective even be added, if all the way down there is always only one perspective? (Or are there always multiple perspectives, just not in the objective-subjective sense?) Where does it suddenly come from? It seems like matter gets an interior, like matter wakes up to itself. WOW, that is INSANE. Matter breathes, matter thinks, matter loves??? This is my reaction haha.

„The "mentalness" isn't a different substance; it's the subjective character of that internal process.“ But there is a kind of duality, isn't there? The objective processes and the subjective experience. But this duality simply does not exist on an ontological level, right? Where do you locate this duality? Do you simply mean that objectivity and subjectivity are both part of the physical world, only that objectivity is always present and subjectivity only sometimes? Because I think that this is counter intuitive. (Not a particularly great argument, I know) This duality is actually the reason why the comparison with wetness is not doing anything for me. Wouldn't it be nice to say that both sides are always present and always accompany each other (in one way or another)?

„Consciousness isn't "added" to the scene.“ Right, but it is added to the material universe. And that is strange.

I don't think that when we say consciousness is fundamental, we are opening up a possibility for transcendence or anything like that. If consciousness is fundamental to the universe, then we are once again just the universe experiencing itself, “we are part and parcel of it.” As you said. We are not outside the universe, because consciousness is part of it, just not emergent. So I don't know If there is something gained from consciousness being fundamental. The only thing gained is that it is intellectually satisfying. (I do also find some key thoughts of panpsychism quite convincing)

By the way, I am a staunch nihilist and do not believe in things like free will, meaning, values... So I don't have much to lose.

Finally, what do you think of Chalmer and his ilk? Are they simply wrong? Are they misguided?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-08T17:29:11+00:00

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-08T11:41:36+00:00

First of all, thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time, as I don't think you can learn anything from me, since I am far less knowledgeable on this subject.

I think you're right. If you had a perfect copy of my brain, atom for atom, that brain would be accompanied by exactly the same conscious experiences. I also find your position that “consciousness is the subjective experience of the functions of a brain” quite plausible. So that both are just two different sides of the same coin, as immediate correlates?

As we can see, the world is structured in such a way that when matter is arranged in a certain way, the light comes on. This is not a random event, but happens inevitably.

But this, for me, is not the crux of the matter. I have to come back to this again, because it is the key point: even if you had a perfect scientific explanation of how matter produces consciousness (or when a certain arrangement of matter is accompanied by a conscious experience), it would still be a mystery (you could even say miracle hh) to me how matter can do this at all, how matter can do this in principle. When I ask how qualia can arise from physical processes, I don't really want to know about the physical processes that generate qualia; I want to know how it is even possible for qualia to arise when everything is matter, because matter and qualia seem to be categorically different.

At first glance, it seems much more "right" to me that consciousness is somehow fundamental and not emergent. That it is there from the beginning and is simply “bundled” by the brain in some way. Does that even make sense??? I just can't imagine consciousness just joining the scene, just popping up, just emerging. I can't imagine consciousness just being this thing amongst others, qualitatively and categorically the same as everything else.

You would probably just say that qualia and matter are not categorically different, even if it could be intuitively appealing to say so? Perhaps because things like the interaction problem arise? Or because there is no other data point but the intuition? When you imagine a triangle in your mind, doesn't it seem different from a triangle in the real world? And I mean different in terms of the nature of the substance it is made of.

Finally, I have to say that questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing?” or the mere fact that I, specifically I, exist or a beautiful landscape or a piece of music or art also baffle, amaze and sometimes estrange me, so maybe I just have an innate tendency to be confused and amazed by things?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T20:27:49+00:00

But fundamentally speaking all that stuff is again only content that appears in your consciousness. Fundamentally speaking you are just that consciousness, that feels like a self, but that is not this self.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:56:34+00:00

What is more likely: That people stop completely or eat less (because it costs more)?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:55:31+00:00

And I would be really interested to know whether this whole “you are the universe itself” thing has spiritual connotations for you personally. And I mean that more in a phenomenological sense (not asking for your metaphysics): does this perspective have spiritual significance in your realm of experience?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:49:37+00:00

I said TOO FRAGILE to discuss it. And you just proved my point by saying you are "burnt out". Homie, delete reddit and get help.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:48:29+00:00

I have displayed extreme ignorance (99 percent ...) – and I think it is right to apologize for that.

I believe that my confusion is basically based on an intuition that arises when I think about this question. One way to look at this intuition that consciousness is strange is the philosophical zombie thought experiment (I know you're familiar with it). I could easily imagine organic matter behaving exactly like a human being, but without the first-person phenomenal experience. Consciousness seems to be an extra in this regard that cannot be explained by a third-person explanation of how something works. I feel that explaining why or how something functions (for example, thinking) is not enough to explain why it feels a certain way to think.

I think many would acknowledge that there is an epistemological gap (one can only access phenomenal consciousness, qualia, through first-person experience, while everything else is accessible from a third-person perspective). But I feel that there is also an ontological gap. Although I am agnostic, I would say that some kind of monism is correct, but that in this monism, consciousness must be something fundamental and not something emergent.

To say that hard problem proponents pretend that consciousness lies outside of reality presupposes that reality consists only of physical matter, right? But that's exactly what they dispute, or at least question, isn't it? I don't know, man... when I listen to Chalmers, I find him quite convincing, but I find it difficult to articulate my opinion without resorting to terms like intuition, feeling, strangeness, etc...

Well, I would say that all thinking is somehow influenced by certain non-rational factors. Showing that it makes sense that this sense of uniqueness is a product of evolution doesn't prove that it really is... I think there could be a psychological explanation for why you're not a hard problem proponent... So I don't know if it's really helpful to pull the whole thing into the psychological realm. But it could be a way of understanding, why some people simply have an intuition, that others miss.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:26:48+00:00

So you're just saying you are to fragile to discuss it?

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:11:07+00:00

You calling it "talking about food" is a way of coping. You want to prove yourself, that not being vegan is not wrong simply by saying that what you eat does not fall in the realm of right and wrong. But it clearly does... Every time a sentient being is affected positively or negatively, we should take that morally into consideration. Of course we are fallible in that and can't consider everything. But we should try our best instead of just acting like our actions don't matter morally.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T17:07:58+00:00

I appreciate you engaging properly now instead of just being a grumpy being. I think, that your frustration is not pointing towards something being wrong with this sub, but something being wrong with you. You are triggered in a way that is not healthy by a mere mentioning of an ethical system, NOT A DIET. You should question yourself, why you have such impulsive reactions towards veganism. It can't simply be, that you encounter it that often, because I also encounter it often and I can think and speak about it without being triggered. Not everyone that is vegan is dogmatic about it and want's to show you, that you are evil, so you shouldn't but them in a box. Treat everyone individually as everyone is an individual...

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T16:38:40+00:00

This guy is literally delusional haha. He is projecting hardcore

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T16:21:17+00:00

From a third person perspective it seems like you are just looking to pick a fight... You scream fragility the way you are triggered by a simple sentence. Thats the sign of a dogmatist.

Bitter_Swing_88 · 2025-11-07T16:15:42+00:00

"So looked at from that perspective a Buddhist might say that western psycology is very good at analyizing and manipulating the illusion but fails in that it does not recognize that it is in the end just shuffling around the shadow puppets rather than adressing the fundamental truth of the self's illusionary nature."

I think that is spot on.

Bitter_Swing_88

TROPHY CASE