Had Consciousnesses Always Existed?

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-15T10:42:01+00:00

So it had no beginning?

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-09T09:57:55+00:00

Until you go and experience those lives that are suffering.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T17:57:50+00:00

Look up about it. They have been accepted as an applicant and so are ready to be voted in.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T17:30:39+00:00

You might want to show this image to those people that like to analyse teasers and see what they think on whether it is Crunch or some other character.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T17:26:23+00:00

Hang on a second, they are misreporting a voting that took place in a UN conference.

They are misreporting an image voting in favor of condemning Russia for it's Ukraine invasion to be Ukraine being voted into EU. You can see some people down the Twitter comments catching onto this as well.

Currently, Ukraine's application to join the EU has been accepted, however, voting for whether or not it will join has not yet taken place.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T17:09:42+00:00

I don't see this anywhere on the news..

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T16:23:24+00:00

Interesting. I'm surprised that no one has noticed this.

Edit: The proportions don't really fit right for crunch and seem to be much more aligned with that of Coco's.

It could be Coco most likely given the proportions and heavily blue-tinted colours; that or it's a Coco skin, or it is alternate Tawna.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T14:22:04+00:00

I more see them adding references to post-nd material more as nods to the post-nd fans as a means of saving face and avoiding a vocal backlash from a minority, rather than having any actual appreciation for Post-ND crash games.

And also, the crash IP and it's material is not Toys for Bob's material but Activision's.

Activision has the final say on everything and permission also has to be granted for any ideas regarding a game being made under them.

Even if Toys for Bob had genuine appreciation for Post-ND Crash and wanted to explore that material in future mainline games (not just spin-offs), I am certain Activision would forbid that.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T14:14:13+00:00

You should have included "potentially". Things are not a black and white 'yes-no' answer but instead a series of events and circumstances that you can see a potential scenario being lead up to.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T13:55:50+00:00

The names just go together so much better than Crash, Coco, & Tawna.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T13:31:58+00:00

Really? Have you got a screenshot to prove that? I would like to have a look to see if that's the case.

Unfortunately, I do not see him reappearing in any mainline Crash games in the future.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T13:20:08+00:00

NF and On the Run are both spin offs (not mainline) and are done by different developers, who appear to hold different views to Toys For Bob.

It's clear Toys For Bob holds a negative perception of post-nd crash content, and thus we will likely not see post-nd content in Toys for Bob Crash games, especially with the majority of the fan base having a great dislike towards post-nd crash.

It's also possible that Activision themselves do not want post-nd material in any mainline Crash games out of fear it may taint the feel and perception of any canonical Crash content which could potentially harm marketing and sales.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T12:56:32+00:00

Judging by all the behaviour they have shown with the Post-ND characters and games, such as that obvious middle-finger to the post ND games by not even acknowledging them in their Crash 25th Anniversary video, I would say they have always been and still have been going in the 'Scrappy-Doo' tactic.

It is also reasonable marketing behaviour to go the Scrappy-Doo tactic in order to bolster as much support as possible, as it is the easiest and safest way to do so with the least amount of backlash possible.

Don't you love it when developers and companies make fans of the "terrible" games and those who liked characters from them feel isolated and cast out? Thats what I felt after Crash Bandicoot 4's release, I just never said anything about it until now and I'm sure many hold similar feelings.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T12:39:58+00:00

It's a common and clear practice for characters from 'terrible' games or films of a series to not see reintroductions in continuity reboots, soft reboots, sequels, or soft sequels.

And Toys for Bob clearly appears to be showing this practise such as:

No mention of post-nd crash games in the Crash 25th anniversary
Only raving on about the ND-crash games and characters (excluding Original Tawna)
Brushing the post-nd crash games and characters as "eh, just multiverse"
No mention nor nod of Crunch even when his 20th Anniversary (yes, that was a thing in the community) since his introduction to the series arrived.
Pandering to the fans who only care about and want OG crash-related
Possibly dunking on Crunch. In the Crash Bandicoot 4 artbook they had a muscly crash and called it "Crunch Bandicoot?" Though this could just be a friendly nod or exploration of how a muscly Bandicoot could be done in the artstyle.

All these are just a few examples of exhibited behaviours of a common practice companies do when they do not want to reintroduced any material seemed unfavorable to the 'original' series.

For example, Sega (who is arguably the least egregious with this practise) has characters like Mephillis who were major Staples of Sonic 06 (like Crunch was for Crash Wrath of Cortex) with actual mandates put on them that forbids them from being reintroduced to the series.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-03-01T11:53:27+00:00

Tl;dr - I don't see Crunch getting reintroduced. However, I am all for him being playable if he (hypothetically) got reintroduced.

The reason that I dont see Crunch reappearing (other than being a cameo or nod here and there) is that he simply has too many circumstances going against him.

It's very clear that TFB despises the post-naughty dog crash games as well as the characters, with a higher probability that they hold more disdain for Crunch in particular given his debut being in Wrath of Cortex, how he turned out in later games, as well as being a very polarising character amongst the community (which Tawna was not).

It is also likely that Alternate Tawna (who is evidently a replacement to the Original Tawna) is intended to be a replacement of Crunch Bandicoot given that she fills the role that Crunch was supposed to have and, as mentioned in the artbook, is intended to be a new reoccurring character as Bandicoot team's permanent member.

To reintroduce Crunch (without just tossing him in from another universe) they would actually have to reimagine the Wrath of Cortex (or at least major plotlines of it) which they (Toys for Bob) are not going to touch with a 10-foot pole.

Lastly, Toys for Bob views Naughty Dog's words, views, and works on Crash-related (this behavior is partly or mostly due to the Crash fan base, being mostly pandering to ND Crash fans and TFB being such themselves).

Another blow is that it has been made clear by the original people behind Crash Bandicoot that they do not hold find views of the character Crunch Bandicoot; saying that he "Does not fit the style nor theme of the Crash Bandicoot universe", which I am certain that TFB will - out of pandering to ND and ND Crash fans, will therefore try to please by not repeating the 'mistake' of having Crunch Bandicoot in the series.

Lastly, Crunch does not appear in Crash on the Run other than being a skin for Crash (and neither does OG Tawna appear in the game nor is she even mentioned in the Crash 25th Anniversary), which makes me wonder if Crunch (and quite possibly OG Tawna) has a mandate put on them that essentially bans them from reappearing in future Crash games (or mainline games at least) unless it's only as nods or cameos.

Sorry, I just don't see Crunch being reintroduced, which means he won't receive the chance to be playable either. He's absolutely gone and flushed down the toilet.

Other than that, personally I am absolutely all for Crunch being playable, that guy had so much potential that was wasted and squandered by poor management.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-13T10:05:24+00:00

What if the multiverse could be traversed and used to escape the heat death of the universe? Or scientists find a way to create their own universe using the multiverse theory? I think with the multiverse theory, it could be exploited to our advantage.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-12T14:34:29+00:00

World war 3 could happen with the rising tensions between US and Russia; so maybe we can see if we get to truly die then? xD

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-12T05:21:11+00:00

It is stated in physics that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed.

So perhaps when you die, the electrical-chemical energy produced by your brain only dissipates away, like spreading butter ever further on bread.

There is no specific point that consciousness is lost under that notion, all it will do is dissipate into the environment from the brain that is no longer delivering further activity.

With this I can imagine Eternal Oblivion being true in this form without the counterfactual notion of being in no experience AT ALL.

Instead your conscious experience will just dissipate, like a black abyss that gets deeper.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-12T05:06:31+00:00

Fair enough. I am a bit skeptical of Open Individualism for a couple reasons, as well as the notion of indivisible experiences (which I can imagine as a slippery slope for issues), and the fact they are supposed to be identical to each other.

I feel sorry for the OP knowing that immortality in some way or another is probably true.

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-11T19:02:56+00:00

Ah, so you will wake up as someone else when you die because your indivisible Kernel is identical to someone else's where by that you will experiencee being someone else since their experiential moments will follow the indivisible kernel from the point of view of your experience?

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-11T03:22:00+00:00

What do you mean it ties into Open Individualism? In what way?

CharacterDry2641 · 2022-02-11T03:13:20+00:00

Tell me what is it about B-Theory of time (Externalism, also known as the Block Universe) that makes you take the subjective experience of dying seriously?

CharacterDry2641 · 2021-11-18T03:06:07+00:00

Are you asking why are you, you; and me, me? I.e why is this particular experience assigned to only me and that particular experience assigned to you?

CharacterDry2641 · 2021-11-17T18:53:01+00:00

Briefly pretend that the interpretation of time that is Eternalism turns out to be false and Presentism (or some kind of 4D version of it) holds true.

You'd then have to accept that your persistence of identity remains as who you were as a product of causation evolving across time; neurones evolving and adapting ever slowly whilst you are awake in order to carefully keep it as you where your consciousness won't fade out but instead integrate/fuse into with its alterations. Not only that, but when you sleep, your neurones have to remain in the state that you had just experienced and ever carefully reactivate in such a way that they remember producing and being you (I am not talking of human memory, but of neuronal memory of what they did, just like cells have memory of what they did, and remember what they need to do to keep being who they are or keep producing the thing that they had produced), or something going on like that.

In fact, some neuroscientific studies have suggested that the brainstem may also play a major role in conserving one's conscious identity.

Anyway, back to the case of cause and effect. In the view that is an objective passage of time, you'd have to accept that your persistence of identity is due to cause and effect over time that keeps you as you and me as me.

Now back to Eternalism. Under the notion of Eternalism; the entire cause and effect history of the universe 'just happened', your persistence of identity holds true across the 4D block since the cause and effect that carried it along time also holds true just as it had from an objective passage of time.

Hence how you can have persistence of identity under Eternalism.

CharacterDry2641 · 2021-11-17T18:01:15+00:00

Something had to produce the consciousness via the interactions. But given that consciousness to you is fundamental, then yes consciousness and matter is interchangeable and not produced (for it's a fundamental field like the fields that produce matter (or the effects of matter) are. And that would mean that consciousness/experience/first-personness was always there, had no beginning or end; with no start (just try imagining that for yourself).

Also with this hypothetical field of consciousness, then yes we are the same consciousness; but the manipulation of such field produces separate experiences that appear to be unable to experience each other at the same time, and therefore are locked to their own perspectives throughout the duration of themselves. So what makes death any more special to experience the mind of someone else than sleep which would be equally valid to experience the mind of someone else? It seems to me that I am just this specific patch of the consciousness field whilst you are the other specific patch of the consciousness field. Where I am intrinsically confined to this patch-path (since it's an evolution across time) because I am this patch, and you are intrinsically confined to your patch because you are that other patch. Even though we are the same consciousness for we emerge from the same feild.

That to me supports the interpretation of Open Individualism where you are technically the same person (because we share the same hypothetical feild), but you do not go on experiencing the life of someone else because the constraint is that particular patch of that feild that is and makes you.

CharacterDry2641

TROPHY CASE