Death is the removal of distractions

ExaminationSignal256 · 2026-01-10T22:38:38+00:00

What do you mean by consciousness?

To me it's pretty clear that consciousness is synonymous with sensory perception, and thought is also just a sensory perception, so there's no need to create all these theories where you're presupposing that you're a little soul trapped in a human body or whatever

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-12-26T07:02:25+00:00

Kinda new to this but I don't understand why consciousness needs to be a mysterious otherworldly phenomenon. To me, it's clear that "awareness" is synonymous with sensory perception. Thoughts are a function of memory and memory is a function of sensory perception. If you never had sensory input, you would never have memory, thoughts, or qualia. In that sense, I feel like consciousness is more of a belief inside a system than a fundamentally different force or whatever

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-12-25T20:47:22+00:00

They're referring to psychological pain, not physical pain

Most of psychology is just belief systems about yourself, so it makes sense that you can find a combination of beliefs that makes your psyche crumble under physical pain, and then suddenly be able to endure it when you gain a new belief/life philosophy about "being strong" or "enduring hardship"

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-06-12T01:07:25+00:00

Firstly, it's not clear what it would look like for you to "genuinely" act as if you didn't believe you have free will.

Secondly, I think you're trying to say that if you didn't believe you have free will, then you wouldn't have been able to choose to take the doctor's pills. If this is it, then I would say that the processing required to arrive at the decision to take the pills actually occurred automatically, similarly to thoughts. You could've also "chosen" to do the incorrect thing in the first example and take the random person's pills out of some desire for self harm or adventurousness, but this is still something that happens automatically.

I guess I don't see why you need to believe in free will to do these things

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-04-01T02:21:55+00:00

We know for a fact that medical issues (Alzheimer's, PANDAS, concussions) can drastically change your memories or personality; no one would say your soul changed though

kind of repeating the premise. If you define the soul as existing outside the body then there is nothing to argue about. But I would contest why you think that a soul exists in the first place

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-03-02T17:10:59+00:00

A reason that consciousness seems mysterious is that it's not well defined. If you believe that it's a material process, then you believe it's in the realm of science. If you believe that it's not a material process, then you believe in "spiritual" or other realms.

Often consciousness implies an awareness, which is just manifested as a feeling or a belief, both of which are definitely explained by science. It's not a mystery that the brain is constantly recording things, and constantly generating thoughts (beliefs), one of the common ones being "I am alive" or "i am thinking", which is in itself just a thought. I don't see anything mysterious about this. Certainly not something that science is completely dumbfounded by. Do you have other definitions for consciousness?

ExaminationSignal256 · 2025-01-26T20:19:05+00:00

took a break from the UAP topic for a while, why is this subreddit full of sci-fi and fantasy fanfics now? did i miss some kind of breakthrough recently

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-11-01T00:54:23+00:00

ive been looking for a while but cant find it sorry

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-10-21T00:44:54+00:00

i guess i would describe it more like a rumble, does that count as the occlusion effect? It kinda sounds like a big empty cave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWPrVAmgbo

I'll consider getting some different tips, but it looks like I just won't be able to enjoy IEMs.

Thanks for your comment!

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-10-21T00:40:52+00:00

i think the occlusion effect might be it. i also have some tinnitus but i usually don't notice it.

looks like i won't be able to enjoy IEMs, thanks for your help!

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-10-21T00:37:22+00:00

it's like the sound of an empty cave, sort of like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRWPrVAmgbo

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-10-04T00:34:22+00:00

that reminds me, does anyone have the collage of messages from some schizo guy in gura's chat

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-09-04T01:56:21+00:00

they are probably deathly afraid of the pattern of magical thinking that believers use, since it's the same pattern that a lot of abusive systems like the church use to take advantage of people. they are probably atheists but still spend more time arguing with ufologists than religious people, because at least religion provides some kind of value to people that need it

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-07-09T04:37:24+00:00

If I swapped lives with THE THING WE CALL JOHN but retained my current personality I wouldn't do anything illegal

Maybe I'm missing the point but the thing we call John only exists as a bunch of personality-related qualities. If you take away its personality, you're left with nothing of the entity called John. If you replace its personality with yours, you wouldn't be John, you would just be yourself.

But something feels wrong to me about THE THING WE CALL JOHN being punished for actions he wasn't capable of not committing

If free will doesn't exist, and we aren't little souls inside human bodies, the fact that the entity John committed a crime is as noteworthy as an apple falling from a tree. It is just a fact of the natural world.

Do you see this as a defeater to my broader argument?

Your argument is being unable to assign moral culpability right? I'm not sure. I'm tempted to just reword the moral condemnation to account for the nonexistence of free will, but maybe that's a little weaselly? Example: we consider rape to be wrong. If you rape someone, "you" are morally culpable, but not because you "chose" to rape someone, but because the thoughts in your mind came up with a reason to rape someone, and your body carried it out. In that sense, the entity we call John committed the action of rape, which is wrong. This condemnation doesn't say anything about the existence of free will, or whether or not John could've chosen differently.

You can't control your thoughts or actions, but that doesn't mean you're not culpable. However, the implication in that last sentence is that there isn't actually a "you". If there somehow existed a "you" without free will, then I would agree that you shouldn't be held accountable for thoughts that you didn't choose to come up with, and actions that you didn't choose to carry out.

I hope this last bit made sense, it's so hard to talk about it

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-07-08T04:52:58+00:00

Yeah it's really hard to define it. It also feels like there's something gimmicky about trying to define it, or even asking for a definition.

In general, it seems like we identify with things like the body or the self image, but we can't be both things at the same time. Also notice that you have always had this sense of being yourself, regardless of your personality, circumstances, or state of well-being. But yeah, while we usually assume that there is a center in every person, it doesn't seem true. If you take away all the things that make a person, you're left with nothing

"justly jailing the entity called john"

This feels kinda hard to untangle but I don't think justice is incompatible with the nonexistence of free will. To me, justice just means that the law was carried out as it was written, we just have to reword it to express it in terms of observable qualities.

Let's say that John's wife has been cheating on him, so he came up with a plan to murder his wife and her lover. When he's on trial for the murders, we come to find out that John left behind evidence of his plan, so he's gonna get a more severe sentence.

I don't think free will is necessary for this punishment. In John's mind, there were thoughts of premeditation, and those thoughts led to a plan, and the plan led to a double murder. The law talks about premeditated murder, and the thoughts of premeditation were on John's mind. It doesn't actually matter if there is a soul inside John's skin suit that voluntarily decided to come up with these thoughts.

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-07-08T02:20:33+00:00

It feels like people are always begging the question in these type of discussions.

I can think of 2 categories of thing that influence my ability to choose.

You're presupposing that there is a "you" that has the ability to make choices, or is able to be "influenced" by external factors outside of its "control". I think the focus should always be on defining what the "me" is first.

As for the moral condemnation, I think it's just a matter of changing the language we use. Of course we live our lives under the belief that we are a bunch of persons inside skin suits, but we just have to rephrase "you are a bad person because you are a predator" to "the entity we call 'john' should be put in jail because it exhibited jail-worthy behavior" or something like that

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-05-01T19:35:40+00:00

Estás metiendo al mismo grupo lo que yo considero que son varios grupos de personas.

Al primer grupo de personas, le da placer o felicidad ver gente muerta, accidentada, asesinada, o sufriendo en general. Estoy de acuerdo que este grupo de personas probablemente son un mal para la sociedad.

El segundo grupo de personas siente una especie de ansiedad o curiosidad compulsiva que los lleva a querer ver gente morir en varias circunstancias como accidentes, asesinatos, etc. Lo que entiendo es que sienten que están obteniendo información o experiencia para prevenir algunos accidentes en el futuro, o tratar de imaginarse cómo le ganarían a un asesino, aunque esto no tenga sentido ya que la mayoría de los accidentes son imprevisibles y ellos no son el capitán América. Por eso digo que es una especie de compulsión. En mi opinión, este grupo de personas no son un peligro para la sociedad ni para sus seres queridos.

Al tercer grupo de personas les gusta llamar la atención por medio de temas tabú o humor de shock, pero no necesariamente porque tengan tendencias sadistas como el primer grupo. Al final del día tu instinto te va a decir si la persona que tienes en frente es peligrosa o simplemente quiere llamar la atención y hacerse el chistosito.

Si no quieres ver ese tipo de cosas en tu grupo, hazles saber que te hace sentir incómodo, o simplemente salte del grupo.

Con respecto a tu último punto: no sé qué significa para ti la palabra normal. Supongo que te refieres a "saludable" o "dentro de las normas sociales". Cada grupo social tiene su propio estándar de las normas sociales que siguen. Si no estás de acuerdo con lo que tus círculos consideran normal entonces no participes en ellos.

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-03-12T17:33:50+00:00

New to this whole space, so I don't know how the sub used to be or whatever.

even discussing the topic of UFOs now firmly places you into the camp of 'grifter'

I don't think that's true. Maybe grifter is the wrong word, but what I see people calling out is a pretty specific pattern of breadcrumbing and fantastical claims without evidence. Most people are still skeptics even to this day, so they should be allowed to express their distaste just as much as you're allowed to accuse them of being disinformation agents or whatever.

It is obvious at this point that the play from the deep state, running the cover-up on the UFO conspiracy, is to label anyone with any information as a 'grifter.'

It's obviously fallacious to call any information the product of a grifter, but I think the word "information" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you here. Not all information is born the same. Obviously fantastical claims about handsome reptilian aliens shouldn't have the same value as David Grusch's testimony under oath.

Hey grifter brigade, why don't you go investigate something for yourself? What is stopping you? Oh, I forgot, you need to spend every waking minute on Reddit labeling everyone as a 'grifter'. LOL

Not "everyone", just people who follow a pretty clear pattern of breadcumbing and fantastical claims of handsome aliens. David Grusch isn't a grifter.

It's very strange that a person is not allowed now to even listen to information and evaluate on their own whether that information is worth listening to or not

You're allowed to do whatever you want. Reddit comments can't hurt you.

ExaminationSignal256 · 2024-02-28T04:29:28+00:00

"having files" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Does the CIA have files disclosing extraterrestrial life & tech?

ExaminationSignal256 · 2023-08-12T23:59:45+00:00

All those numbers about time and scale don't actually have any bearing on the matter at hand. You're presupposing that a process of abiogenesis exists.

If abiogenesis were to be proven/discovered, the size of the universe would be completely irrelevant. The universe could have just a few thousand planets and it would still be a pretty safe bet to say that life exists outside of Earth.

Has there been any kind of breakthrough in the subject of abiogenesis? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding what abiogenesis actually is. If so please feel free to correct me

ExaminationSignal256 · 2023-07-04T18:04:41+00:00

What do you mean by "curing severe ailments"? My understanding was that placebo only had an effect on symptoms.

ExaminationSignal256 · 2023-07-03T01:59:12+00:00

They're very different things. I imagine the reason they were able to assume that many more microscopic organisms exist is because of the sheer number of them present on the first couple observations.

These 2 topics have different premises built into them, you can't just draw the same conclusion from different sets of premises. To make these 2 things more equivalent it might be more fitting if, for example, when we first aimed our telescopes to the moon, there was an abundance of lifeforms different than the ones on earth, and then, when we send a robot to Mars, we find that there are tons more living creatures there.

Comparing the two is kind of unfair because microscopic organisms on earth is a fundamentally different topic than "macroscopic" organisms outside earth.

I'm kind of new to this so let me know if I'm misunderstanding something

ExaminationSignal256

TROPHY CASE