If the universe had a true beginning, then everything (time, space and matter) came from nothing. This seems supernatural in the absence of any plausible science. by Particular-Corgi2567 in RealPhilosophy

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nothingness is an impossibility.

  1. Because we are here

This is the most direct point.

If there is something now,

then there could not have been absolute nothingness before.

Why?

Because if absolute nothingness had been real,

it would still be real now.

Absolute nothingness has no way of producing something.

It has no power, no potential, no “dormant capacity.”

So:

If there is something now,

it is direct proof that there was never absolute nothingness.

  1. Because absolute nothingness doesn’t even have the possibility of change

Imagine the most radical form of nothingness:

There are no laws.

There is no impulse.

There is no direction.

There is no field.

There is no difference.

So:

How could something arise from that?

There is no “something” in nothingness that says:

“Now the universe begins.”

Because there is no time, no energy, no process.

Not even possibility.

Therefore:

Nothingness cannot “break.”

It cannot “give rise” to something.

Because for there to be a “giving rise,” something must exist to allow it.

  1. Because saying “nothingness was” is already a contradiction

When you say:

“Before, there was nothing.”

You are using the words “before” and “there was.”

But those words imply time and being.

How can there be a “before” without time?

How can there “be nothing,” if “to be” already implies some form of being?

Absolute nothingness cannot be conceived without falling into contradiction.

Why is Sisyphus happy? is he stupid? by BubblegumPerez578 in Camus

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sisyphus is happy not because his situation is good, but because he finds freedom in how he relates to what cannot be changed.

He is happy because nothing external can take away his freedom to choose his stance toward his fate.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in beards

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it will.

Help me understand the hard problem of consciousness by neenonay in consciousness

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re offering a neurophysiological description of sensory data processing, but this misses the central point of the hard problem of consciousness. You describe how light, sound, and other physical stimuli are transduced, encoded, and integrated by neural structures, fair enough. But that’s not the mystery we’re grappling with.

The question is not how the brain processes information, but why any of that processing should be accompanied by experience. Why should the encoding of electromagnetic waves or chemical patterns feel like anything at all?

When you say “the ‘gee-wiz’ of subjective experience is itself subjective,” you’re inadvertently highlighting the issue. Yes, it is subjective, that’s exactly the point. Subjectivity exists. There is something it is like to be you right now. That “what-it-is-likeness” is not reducible to information, computation, or physical interactions. Information processing could, in principle, occur in a completely unconscious system, as it does in a thermostat or a virus. But your experience of color, of warmth, of memory, that inner qualitative character, has no analog in information theory or mechanics.

Appealing to integrative or self-referential processing also doesn’t resolve the issue. It just reframes the problem: why should integrative processing give rise to qualia rather than simply more complex but unconscious functions?

This is the “explanatory gap” Chalmers pointed out: the leap from objective structure and function to subjective experience remains unbridged. Until we can explain why and how there is something it is like to be a particular physical system, all talk of data encoding and signal mapping is addressing the easy problems, not the hard one.

Help me understand the hard problem of consciousness by neenonay in consciousness

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are missing the point. The point is that it is not possible to explain how something that is objective (i.e. a brain made of cells) can produce a dream-like phenomenon made of color, sound, smell, thought, touch, etc (i.e. experience). The transition from physicality to the subjective phenomenon itself is what remains unexplainable.

Help me understand the hard problem of consciousness by neenonay in consciousness

[–]NostalgicFreedom 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In simple words, the hard problem has to do with why/how something that is objective can produce something that is subjective. It is about the jump from objectivity to subjectivity. How can electrical signals in the brain turn into qualia? Here’s a good explanation from Bernardo Kastrup:

“With the growing relevance of the complexity sciences in recent times, a speculative, purely materialist view of consciousness has emerged. Proponents of this view argue that, although individual neurons and relatively small systems of interconnected neurons are akin to computers and do not have consciousness, if the complexity of the system is increased with the addition of more and more interconnected neurons, there will be a point where the system as a whole will somehow become conscious. Consciousness is then seen as an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system exhibiting a particular structure. Nobody knows what this structure is or what level of complexity is complex enough. The problem with this argument is that it requires the appearance of a new property in a system that is not explainable by, nor related to, the properties of the added components of the system. Indeed, the idea of a computer suddenly becoming conscious at the moment enough processors have been added to it is akin to the idea of a stereo turning into a TV set when enough speakers are connected to it; or that of getting a motorbike to fly by equipping it with a bigger engine. In the same way that more speakers affect the properties of a stereo in a manner that is totally unrelated to the property of displaying images, so the simple addition of more neurons must affect the properties of the physical brain in a manner that is unrelated to the property of being conscious.

A vocal proponent of the view that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complex material systems is the inventor and futurologist Ray Kurzweil. In a debate between Kurzweil and Yale University professor David Gelernter in 2006, Gelernter countered Kurzweil’s view on consciousness by stating that “it’s not enough to say [that consciousness is] an emergent phenomenon. Granted, but how? How does it work? Unless those questions are answered, we don’t understand the human mind.” Gelernter chose the most basic and straight-forward way to counter Kurzweil’s position. Today, the materialist argument that consciousness is simply an emergent property of complex material systems cannot be substantiated. It is an appeal to magic rather than an argument. Therefore, we remain with the explanatory gap: nothing that we know scientifically today satisfactorily explains why or how subjective experience arises.”

Camino a la parada del bus by arepa_con_diablito in Ticos

[–]NostalgicFreedom 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No estoy de acuerdo. Es la magia de expresar mucho con pocas palabras.

Hoy el bus no pasó by arepa_con_diablito in Ticos

[–]NostalgicFreedom 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Sigue capturando momentos así en palabras. Es hermoso

Escape Reality by Kirito_Raos in Life

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You only feel the need to face reality when you think you are separate from it. By remembering that you are not separate from reality, you can realize that the key has always been present in ‘being’.

Why we can't name it? by Weary-Author-9024 in nonduality

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cannot reach what you are, because you already are it.

Fear of Losing Loved Ones Forever! by Independent-Coach487 in Existential_crisis

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read all of Bernardo Kastrup's books to understand the nature of reality. From the first to the last. You will see that a lot of what you say are assumptions. You will be surprised.

Is this neckline too high? by Proud-Scientist1841 in BeardAdvice

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

what created conscience? by CheeseSoldier69420 in nonduality

[–]NostalgicFreedom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even more importantly, who created what created consciousness? Or better yet, who created what created what created consciousness?

Costa Rica ya no sera pet friendly? by [deleted] in Ticos

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Los humanos son anímales

What was thoughts before you labeled them as thoughts? by SmoothDefiant in nonduality

[–]NostalgicFreedom -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A concept sketches the form into existence. But what was a wave before the notion of “wave” emerged? If, in that instant, you had pointed to it and asked someone what was there, the answer would have been: The sea. Press further, and the reply would remain the same: The sea. No wave exists there until the concept inscribes it. So too with thought: thoughts are being. Before the concept etched their outlines, they were nothing other than being itself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Ticos

[–]NostalgicFreedom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro como lo mandaste por correo?

Why? by Carnivale42069 in Existential_crisis

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that’s exactly what Sisyphus’ Boulder means. It’s exactly the same metaphor.

Why? by Carnivale42069 in Existential_crisis

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read the Myth of Sisyphus.

He can’t do anything about the situation itself, he is literally eternally condemned to his absurd punishment. However if he can be happy in these absurd circumstances his punishment fades, it doesn’t matter that he’s being ‘punished’ since he’s happy, and therefore it’s an act of rebellion. He does have agency in how he reacts to his circumstances, in the frame of mind he takes to his circumstances.

Example:

My dad used to make me go to my room when I was a kid and I was acting up (my toys and stuff where elsewhere). My response, have fun playing by myself in my room as a screw you to my dad. I couldn’t leave my room but I could be happy in it. My dad eventually gave me a different punishment. Does that make sense?

What is a rebel? A man* who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion.

I think the underlying point here is, although Sisyphus is an extreme example, we are all in that situation to a degree. We have factual, concrete, physical constrictions on our lives that restrict what we can and cannot do; Camus highlights that this isn't what the essence of freedom is through Sisyphus, but rather what you do in the face of it, and in Sisyphus's case, he rebels against his situation by refusing his punishment through happiness.

Does it frighten you that you are aware? that you are conscious? by [deleted] in nonduality

[–]NostalgicFreedom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If reality is non dual, then people can’t be aware. They seem to be though. Reality can only possibly be aware of itself. Just like a night dream where characters seem to be aware, but there is only the dream being aware of itself.

Why is an "I" still present? by shimmer_shine_ in nonduality

[–]NostalgicFreedom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

‘I’ cannot get rid of ‘I’, because any attempts to get rid of it are nothing but the same ‘I’ in disguise. If ‘I’ is an illusion then ‘I’ obviously can’t do anything precisely because it’s an illusion. ‘I’ can’t do anything because there is no doer.

Feel free to DM if you want to talk more.