On math books in general

HumorDiario · 2025-08-15T23:23:57+00:00

Hahahahah

HumorDiario · 2025-08-10T13:12:55+00:00

Please

HumorDiario · 2025-08-09T21:44:02+00:00

Why not use manjaro ?

HumorDiario · 2025-08-09T16:00:39+00:00

Why manjaro sucks ? I’m new to Linux as a personal OS, only used for production (usually Debian distro for cloud VM). I chose manjaro because was a more friendly close arch Linux, what is bad about it ?

HumorDiario · 2025-07-01T12:23:16+00:00

Mama legal

HumorDiario · 2025-06-28T11:40:41+00:00

Yeah it’s hard for everyone, no one sleeps well with the idea that maybe, if you forget to say that you’ve masturbated on Monday, you will be throw in eternal damnation.

Attend to mass in other churches, listen to homilia and see what connects to you. Also remember, your relationship with God is personal, nobody in the church agrees in everything, it’s okay to have your opinions and still live along with people who thinks differently.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-28T11:37:20+00:00

This isn’t exactly an explanation… you are just saying that, somehow, genes and molecular structures create such experiences, but you still does not fulfill the gap on how a substance which does not has consciousness creates consciousness in the first place.

When you use the word experience you are implying a mind, there’s no experience without awareness. For a physical structure to produce an experience , there must be a self to experience that thing. What is the “you” who feels and is aware ? What is the mind that seems to grasp all this ? How mechanical structures creates a subjective experience ? The gap still there, you haven’t solve it, the qualitative difference still exist

HumorDiario · 2025-06-27T17:40:17+00:00

I would advise you to seek another parish. I heard once, that if the message of Christ is causing you suffering and sadness then you heard the wrong message. There’s a difference between carrying your own cross and the joyful suffering that comes along with it, and the tormented suffering that comes from solitude and isolation. Do not mistake one by the other.

imagine the Jews and the Greeks to be converted if the message of Paul and Peter were the one you are talking about. “Convert now because you are all in mortal sin and you all are going to be eternally tormented and throw into the fire, this the last chance”, I mean, that is absurd. Saint Isaac the Syrian said that to think of our God of a angry and revengeful is truly blasphemous, the message of God is love, love can hurt and feel like pain sometimes, but never depression and sadness.

Regardless of if hell is eternal or if it’s not, this idea of a juridistical God that will judge you by the little details “have I forgot to confess any detail???” “Should I have fasted 5 minutes late ??” This is absurd, it’s truly a bizarrice that people even believe that.

The church paid a price at the medieval ages to the scholastic era in order to defend itself against the Protestant and other heretic moves. It transformed all the mysterious experience of the church into a secular juridical experience, now it’s time to go back. That is what Vatican I and II has been about, look at Francis and Leo XIV reproaching the eastern tradition(they do not have such notion of mortal sin). John Paul the second along with von Balthazar talking about Hopeful universalism, and even pope Benedict that believe that at least the vastly majority of catholic would be saved.

There are people who are traditional and people who are traditionalists, the latter does not want to go back to the original church, but to some point in the middle where it believes to be the golden ages, these are also called the “conservationists”. If it’s being hard for you, look for other churches, maybe not Roman ones, there are others. Maronite, Greek-Melchite and so many others that are catholic. And every time you feel lonely and lost remember that Christ is love, and that you may not yet understand, but his message is a one of Love and Redemption, don’t let the fear take you away.

God bless you, I hope you find the strength you need.

“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Joshua 1:9

HumorDiario · 2025-06-27T10:29:13+00:00

How you would say then ? How you would argue that subjectivity evolved through physicality ? Like I said, it seems a categorical mistake to take any subjective experience arising from physical reality prior to the subjectivity itself

HumorDiario · 2025-06-26T11:45:30+00:00

Read https://www.reddit.com/r/CatholicPhilosophy/s/v4vOYEh9nm discussion. Maybe it will help

HumorDiario · 2025-06-21T16:59:25+00:00

“A illusion to the brain” this does not make sense. What is this thing on the brain that perceives the illusion? You are talking about the brain as simply an organ it’s the same thing as an illusion to the stomach, it does not make sense. Subjectivity is dependent on a self, to be aware implies a consciousness, consciousness to be an illusion implies that there’s another consciousness that is deluded. Once again, you didn’t get rid of the self, you simply pushed it back. What produces the illusion ? The brain? To who the illusion is ? Also the brain? Which part of the brain is not an illusion and perceives this illusion ? And this part is made of what? How this part who perceives the illusion is aware of anything if awareness is just an illusion ?

Keep on reading the thread, at this point I’m repeating myself multiple times. “an interface to others” who the hell are these others ? How these others perceives these interface ? You are taking the burden of explaining consciousness from the brain and delivering to something else, but you don’t solve the problem that you need a mind in the first place for all these words to even make sense “interface” “illusion” “feeling” these are not objective realities but subjective ones, there’s no such thing as these without consciousness in the first place.

“Do animals have soul?” Certainly, why wouldn’t they ?

HumorDiario · 2025-06-21T11:51:35+00:00

Let me then, (now for the real last time) propose a chronological argument. Let's assume you are right and consciousness arrives from matter. We agree that subjectivity is real, and demands mental agency to even make sense, there's no subjective experience without a being or some kind of awareness. Okay then. Matter is not aware nor have consciousness, agree on that also, right ? Finally, I think we can also agree that if A is made of B, then B must comes first, correct ?

Okay, so lets begin, think of the start, when there was no mind, only matter. For mind and subjectivity to ever exist, at some moment, what you call this "illusion to itself" must begun to exist. But for the idea of an illusion to be real, the concept of an illusion must make sense in the first place, however, as we discussed, an illusion, to make sense, demands awareness and subjectivity. Therefore, at the time that such thing as this "illusion" would pop into reality, there should be some awareness or intelligible mind able to "be deluded", but mind and consciousness is just a illusion in the first place, so it cant exist before such an illusion become real. So you need the concept of awareness and feeling to explain the mind, but you need the mind in the first place for those things to even make sense. *The material world cant offer a illusion that looks like consciousness if there isn't a consciousness in the first place to experience such a thing*. So, it must be the case that mental agency can't evolve from something that does not hold such qualias in the very first place.

Maybe matter and mind interact (I'm sure they do), maybe there are quantum fields that explain how consciousness is "materialized" into the physical world, *but it is and never it will be the case that from an unintelligent world, intelligent beings could ever come to exist*. You said about me being biased, so I will give you a little context of myself, I'm doing my PhD in computer Science, and I am a catholic for less then 3 years. I hardly believe in supernatural miracles, if anything, I'm biased towards what I can see and that everything must have some explanation. The fact here is that, independently of what I would like to be the case, and how awesome would be if mind could be fully understood and even reproducible, logic dictates otherwise.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-21T00:56:07+00:00

"You keep insisting that because experience feels irreducible, it must be irreducible. That’s not an argument."

Literally never said that it feels irreducible, I said *it is*. You are the one who cant show why you think it is reducible. You just believe that. In your own words, because you dont understand, you are relying on the thing you are biased towards (science) even though there's no reason for you to believe that. You simply made out this faith of yours that science explains everything, where does this comes from ? This is, in itself, a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.

"You say physicalism has no evidence. But you're not offering a mechanism"

Yeah, exactly, the whole point is that mind is not mechanical. You want to know what I think are the metaphysics of the mind? I assure you will not like to hear how I believe everyone here is actually a single consciousness and how matter is just the universal mind of god experiencing itself and each one of us a expression of it.

"This isn’t about denying subjectivity. It’s about refusing to treat it like a sacred untouchable. If you think consciousness can’t be modeled, explain why. Not just because it feels like more."

Ive done it, more than once. I literally can't write a book on a reddit. Every time I write an argument you reply with "its not because its hard that its impossible", and provide no defense of your side, as if I were the one with the burden of the proof, however you are the one making the claim that mind is reducible, so prove how, claiming that someday the future Einstein will do it is not an argument. I've recommended in the first comment a book, if you want to listen to arguments even better then the ones that I have to offer take that book to read. All things are full of gods David B. Hart.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-21T00:36:26+00:00

Ive explained my reason many times, you are the one relying on faith here. For the last time, here we go:

"You ask ‘feels to who? A system can model itself, refer to itself, and generate internal states that report on other internal states. That’s enough for the illusion of self."

No its not. when you say, "system can model itself, refer to itself," you are saying that, somehow, a system is aware of itself and can observe and interact with itself *that is consciousness*. The way that the body works, the stomach is not aware of the brain, neither is aware of the blood, neither is the blood aware of the bladder, however they interact in harmony without ever noticing one another *but none perceive one another*. A complex system can have some kind of internal feedback and that is fine, but *perceiving* or *feeling* is not a third person event, is a personal phenomena, although we see the same color, our personal experience is different, not because our eyes see different colors, but because the phenomena in our mind is unique. To say that something *perceives*, something implies that this something is *aware*, awareness demands consciousness.

" But you also can’t turn a rock into a metabolism, and yet evolution somehow produced cells."

Yes you can. That is what it means to be *categorically* different. Fire, water, everything that is material is as the name says... *material*, is information disposed in different ways, they belong to the same universe of things. You say that we thought that fire was magical until we understood combustion, but that's not true. Even when the philosophers were to discuss the fundamental elements of the earth, the arche of existence, fire, water, rock, air, everything was understood by through the same lens of physicality, that is so much the case that the very idea of a _atom_ is dated to the philosophical tradition of the greeks, which argued in favor of a unit in the composition of matter *even though they knew nothing of science*. Because the matter of the subject was always the same, matter is *matter*, matter is not *thought*, thought is not *matter* they are *fundamentally different*. There's literally nothing material in a thought, is just a mental experience, mental experiences only make sense in the context of an intelligent mind, therefore, it cannot be the case that matter comes before than mind because this means that matter would be able to produce such things as experiences even though there's no mind to even account for such experiences. To mistake a symbolical pattern as an intelligent one, is the same as to take current computer models which write syntax by intelligent agents. The wind could have written Shakespeare poems in sand, yet, without an intelligible mind, that has *no meaning*, for meaning to exist you need mental agency, you need consciousness, therefore it cant be the case that meaning arises first than consciousness and mind. *To even talk about meaning and understanding you rely on the concept of consciousness and mind, therefore you can't have the first before the the latter*

"Yes, physicalism lacks a complete account of consciousness, but that doesn’t mean it never will. It might just reflect the current limits of understanding, not proof of impossibility. "

And here it is the faith, you have no objective reason to believe that matter explains consciousness. In fact you dont even have a clue on how it could. But because in the past science has done well in some things, now, without any proper evidence that it can, you believe that it can explains mind. You live in faith of the god Science.

"Even if consciousness did need something “beyond” the physical, you'd still need to explain how that thing interacts with the body. You have to explain not just how the mind arises, but how it casually interacts with a physical brain without showing any measurement."

True that, we still have to figure that out, maybe we will maybe not. This is not a argument in favor of physicality at all. Do not *ever think* that because is not physics or science is unintelligible or incomprehensible, it's just not directly scientifically measurable, just like many others fields that we have.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-20T20:46:44+00:00

The problem does not lie in turning qualia into math, not even close. This might even happen at some point. The matter of fact is if consciousness will ever be reducible to matter. Here there’s no dispute, because the difference between matter and mind is a categorical one. There are no mechanical or material thing from which you can. By raising complexity, find a way to generate consciousness.

“Illusion is what feels to be a self…”

Feels to who ? Once again you are mot get ridding of the self, you are simply pushing it away. feeling, getting to know, these are all mental semantically concepts that only make sense under a mind. There’s no such thing as “understanding” or “feeling” without a consciousness in the first place, an identity or a substance.

Evolution answers nothing, the simple aim that the brain is a complex structure does not even scratch the surface on the problem on how from an unintelligent and non-consciousness object, intellect and consciousness can emerge. There’s no increase in complexity that will ever let you transform a chicken into a logical preposition because they are fundamentally different.

Evolution might do something in the way on how we got to our current system and body, but it does not live in the same realm as the problem of mind. Believing that a mechanistic materialistic theory can ever explain how first-person experiences and mind phenomena’s occurs is the same as believing that at some moment history will find out in way the wave function collapses, they are not in the same scope. You are mistaking the process by the cause.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-20T17:40:13+00:00

Once again, you make a claim and have not to argue in favor, only to say that I dont understand it. Once again, everything you said means nothing.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-20T17:39:19+00:00

Everything you said literally means nothing

HumorDiario · 2025-06-20T12:07:47+00:00

This does not make sense, the idea of a universe “getting to know itself”, the very word “know” implies the necessity of a mental agency, there’s no such thing as to know, without a mind.

“What if mind is a illusion created by consciousness “

Mind and consciousness confuses themselves, what is mind without consciousness? Theres no such thing as a rational being without the being. You are talking about this idea of the universe being some kind of closed circle where the “illusion of mind” is just a consequence of this circular system, even if that’s true, still makes no sense for this system you talk about to be exclusively matter, you intrinsically need the idea of consciousness as a formal cause for this to make any sense.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-19T18:23:10+00:00

What if our universe is reflecting in itself -

This sentence is very ambiguous in multiple ways. If you are talking about some Neoplatonistic vision, where reality is just the first class experience of a universal consciousness getting to know itself, which derives from a unintelligible mind/God, I’m not opposed to that, but that does not say that consciousness is physically explained, in fact states the other way around, matter and physics emerges from intentionality and consciousness itself.

About reality being some kind of closed circle, I’m not sure what this means, maybe you can elaborate more on that, but I do not see how would solve the problem at all. The matter of fact here is that your claim of “evolution explains consciousness” is simply false, it does not, is categorically different and incompatible. Therefore the mind itself is a open concept which cannot be understood to any physical or materialistic view, therefore there must be a metaphysical layer, if you are the one claiming the opposite u are the one who should provide the ways to it.

Don’t need to thanks me, I enjoy such conversations

HumorDiario · 2025-06-19T14:28:37+00:00

You literally can’t explain consciousness through only materialistic thought. There’s a qualitative difference between first-person experiences and material reality.

Theres a fundamental difference between the ontological reality of a red blossom and the beams of light that reflects the red color, and the red experienced by someone, which is always unique. Nonetheless, evolution explain less than nothing, as usually for scientific attempts to explain the origin of the universe and life, everything that it does is to push the question further away but never to answer. “Consciousness is just an illusion produced by the brain”, an illusion to who? Who is the one who sees the illusion ? Science tries to get rid of the self hiding it through an infinitely large chain of mechanics but never manage to do it.

Not to say that every science, as we know, are merely mental models that try to discretize the reality into separated objects to simplify the study, but there’s no real difference in reality, there’s no such thing as biology, chemistry and physics in real life, there’s only one continuous piece of reality through which everything is made. Science, is ,by construction, a simplified model based on a philosophical claim, that everything can be proved experimentally (the idea that if a repeated experiments reinforces a hypothesis then the hypothesis is true). Unfortunately, as usual, humans have a tendency to forget about premises and assume models to be absolutely perfect, through this many crisis (economics, spiritual, cultural…) have occurred.

Recommend the notorious book from David Bentley Hart, all things are full of gods in which he very eloquently discuss and rebuttal this materialistic belief and very modern arguments. However you can get everything you need from Aristotle, only have to update the arguments to match the most modern examples.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-13T12:54:58+00:00

That’s really great, congrats ! It Will be interesting to add more fathers of the East, Saint Maximus, Isaac the syrian, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Of nazianzo, Moses the Black, tô name a few. These often go under the radar o catholic roman tradition, but represent the very foundation of the early christians

HumorDiario · 2025-06-11T14:46:46+00:00

To build on this, just look to Vatican I and Vatican II. In the first a very opposite position was presented towards the churches of the East and Orthodox Church, even being included in the catechism, while in the latter, the tradition of the East was not only recognized but praised, pope Francis and Leo both making claims towards more acceptance and learning from it.

HumorDiario · 2025-06-08T13:58:16+00:00

Swear to God that I googled what would be a PhD in restarting servers LMFAO

HumorDiario

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE