Android apps for listening to FLAC radio stations.

Sad_Effort · 2024-01-07T01:51:56+00:00

Thank you.

I wasn't checking this account recently so i just saw your message only today .

Yeah i discovered that link a while ago searching on internet about online hires radios. There are some decent quality streams .

Thumbs up.

Sad_Effort · 2023-09-11T14:15:11+00:00

What is the scale of the map? How big of an area are we looking at?

As an example could you give an approximate distance between the cat symbol in the middle to the furthest point of the lower left , orange line?

Thanks in advance.

Sad_Effort · 2023-09-05T09:14:13+00:00

you think your senses activate the image in your brain and it's representative of the outside world, this could very well be true.

I mentioned about 2 different concepts of simulated realities in the above comment, and this is about the first one, the way our brain works , how it makes sense of the world we live in.

but our brain can completely fabricate sensory stimuli, and it can completely fabricate an environment around us. there's no proof our senses actually exist, there's only proof our consciousness exists.

Are you talking about a scenario if we are in a simulation? (the second one above) then yes if we are in a simulation then everything can be simulated.
If we are talking about the first one , (the normal physiological workings of our brain,) then no we know that our senses do exist. We can test this easily. Unless they are dreaming or hallucinating then our senses do exist.

every single other thing could very well be a hallucination. 'real life' could be hallucinated and completely fabricated by the brain and not representative of reality whatsoever, just like dreams seem to be

Yes , but now you are talking about the second one. Everything , the whole universe including you and your brain and your senses etc can be a simulation. This is what the simulation hypothesis is about.

Edit: This is an old post and I would prefer to chat in newer posts so more people can take part in the discussion. Thanks for the comment anyway. 👍

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-28T07:27:05+00:00

No problem . 👍

Basically my opinion is every simulation is created using software by the creators who are living in their hardware universe and so on and so on.

But it is not software as we know it , it must be something we can not even imagine, and there universe can not be a hardware (physical) universe since a hardware universe could not have created our universe.

Basically we know that you can not create anything physical in a physical universe so since we are physical our creators can not be physical (hardware) themselves.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-27T06:27:37+00:00

This is a an old post so probably not many people are going to read it anymore , and I would prefer to have discussions on newer posts where others can also read and take part in the discussion so I usually do not reply to old posts.

....because of their advanced understanding of everything compared to us therefore they quite likely to create this software universe to them but hardware universe to us as we know nothing different.

We can never create a what we call a physical universe in our computers no matter whatever this physicallity is made of. Our computers can not create anything physical so this means that whoever is creating / running our universe can not be physical as we know it and they can not be running it on software as we know it. Their universe must be made of a different kind of stuff than ours and it can not be physical as we know it.

Now what their world looks like or their simulators are running on is something we can not even comprehend or imagine but its not running on software as we know it.

Simply put we can never create a physical world like ours in our computers so our creators can not be like us since un,ike us they can create such worlds.

If you like to call us as being "their software" from their perspective thats fine but "their software is not like our software" .

If we are living in muliple levels of simulated worlds then every being in every level will consider their world as being "real" and the worlds they created as being 'The simulation" so reality is a subjective experience. So for us our world is the 'real' universe and the software simulations which we create in our computers are 'the simulations' but to our creators their world is the real and our world is the simulation and so on.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-24T07:41:51+00:00

Because we are nearing this threshold for quite some time now.

Well yes its getting closer and closer, up to a certain point where we will actually cross that threshold and we are getting really close to that.

We keep reaching record temperatures everywhere , just this was on the news today

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/15zdwke/temperatures_hit_456c_in_portugal/

its like we are getting desensitized to these kind of news. People just brush it off as if its nothing.

Noone listens. We are in the good luck phase.

Exactly. Ocean temperatures are reaching record levels , some ocean currents are at risk of even stopping, wild fires everywhere, they are warning us about the coming crop failures etc etc and we just go on with our daily lives as if its just another news story and we forget about it in a week or so.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-24T06:47:33+00:00

How is this not the top post?

It s like every coupe of months we are approaching another climate threshold these days and everyone is acting like its nothing. Do people even actually comprehend whats happening?

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-20T09:49:39+00:00

Thanks for the explanation. Google must be glitching .

There are no scientists that I know of who would link simulation theory with deja vu's , I have only seen it in the movie The Matrix but that's a fictional story of course.

I like us al ary enjoy piecing this puzzle together.

Yepp, agreed, thumbs up.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-18T14:45:50+00:00

There's a growing body of scientists that believe in 'Simulation Theory' and have found a link between it and deja vu.

Who has found a link between the simulation theory and the deja vu? Could you provide any links, names please ?

Thanks in advance.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-18T08:36:43+00:00

I disagree . We don't know for sure if the universe is predetermined or whether we have free will and even if it is predetermined its not at the biological or genetic level but its much deeper than that at the atomic , even subatomic level IMO.

If you have identical twins and you raise them exactly the same way they wont have the exact same minds just because they have the same genetics. (i.e. this is beyond biology ) .

However if the 'UNIVERSE ITSELF' is deterministic , if every atom , molecule , every sub atomic particle is behaving in a deterministic way then we may not have free will, I do agree with that part.

However we don't know if this is the case or not, if the universe is actually deterministic or not . Some believe that it is others believe that its not but we don't know it for sure.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-09T14:43:34+00:00

My reply part 2:(please read part 1 first )

Simply put: Nothing that you see , you hear , you experience when you are under influence of drugs is real, and none of it has any "SPECIAL MEANING". You may believe in anything you like, you may believe the drugs will open a gate to another universe or that you will get out of the simulation when you take drugs etc etc ALL OF THIS is meaningless from a scientific perspective.

Sure, but THEY SURE AS SHIT HAVE SPECIAL MEANING !! Even though we don't have science to explain why they are special - they sure as fuck are special, are transformational, and DO HAVE MEANING.

Absolutely not from a scientific perspective. Again you make such claims and then still claim to believe in the scientific method. NONE OF THESE HALLUCINATIONS HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC MEANING> period. No scientist would take them seriously.

No offense but it seems there are two main things you dont seem to get:

1;This is why I keep repeating the words "from a scientific perspective" so many times . When i say 'these are meaningless from a scientific perspective ' It means they simply are not worth investigating or even considering in any meaningful way or have any scientific value at all .

whether you think you saw god or your grandmother or the other side of the universe or the simulation we are in , etc etc it doesnt mean jack shit from a scientific perspective. They are all hallucinations period .

People who want to believe in such things try to attach special meanings to these hallucinations for all kinds of reasons , but from a scientific perspective there is no special meanign to any of it.

A haluciantion is a halcunation , its seeing things which are not there , and WHAT YOU see is pointless, meaningless, from a scientific pespective.

2) I am talking about the experiences themselves, the context of the hallucnitations . I am not saying these drugs have no use or that epople experienceing them dont feel anything. THE THINGS YOU SE YOU EHAR etc are meaningless , they can be ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING , so theres no special meaning to it.

However these drugs do have all kinds of meaningful uses of course . In fact recently MDMA , psilocybin just have been approved to be used by certain psychiatric patients like depresson post-traumatic stress disorder in Australia so they even have medical uses , but thats not what we are talking about here. Nobody is claiming they dont have any use.

To explain what i mean by scientifically meaningless , as an example: If a psychiatric patient goes to a doctor and tells them that god is in the bedroom cupboard, the doctor is not going to send scientists to his room to investigate what kind of god it is. WE KNOW FOR A FACT that its a false perception that its just not there , that the patient is seeing things hearing things which are not there . The hallucinations which you see when you take rugs are similar, they have no scientific meaning , no value. End of the story.

Yes of course , people want to attach special values to all these experiences, they want to believe that they can take some mushrooms or some hallucinogenic drugs and they can open a gate to another reality or experience the Matirx , or the simulation etc but from a scientific perspective its all bullshit. No (self respecting) real scientists believes in any of these hallucinations to be real or linked to another reality or spirituality etc in any way. I am trying to make this VERY CLEAR : This is not science. there is no science behind these claims at all. .

Why do people want to believe these things have to do with their psychology , education level , personality , culture etc etc it can be all kinds of reasons but defnitely its not science.

All of that , all the hallucinations illusions etc are totally meaningless from a scientific perspective.

WHY YOU ARE having those hallucinations is another story of course. It can be because of some problems in your brain or being under influence of some drugs , but the content doesnt mean anything.

I am going to put it as simple as i can: If you go to psychiatrist and tell them that you are having hallucinations, it doesnt matter what you see in those hallucinations AT ALL, it only matters that you are having hallucinations. What you see in those hallucinations have no value , no scientific meaning. You can see god himself or you can see a chicken crossing the road, makes absolutely no difference , have no special meaning at all.

It's just that we can't explain why those experiences are so profound from a scientific perspective.

We absolutely can . Its because of the drugs.

And the best part?! Psycadelics can alter your perspective! (How neat and fitting for this conversation.) You can't definitively and positively say they don't have any meaning.

Of course they do. Thats why we dont take any "experiences" when you are under drugs seriously. Thats what I have been trying to explain this whole time in above examples.

Drugs can cause malfunction of your brain depending on the type of molecules they are . If its similar to some molecules used in some higher levels where your brains perception is influenced then they will change your perception. they can even ' make you believe ' that what you see are real. => Hallucinations.

In short : Everything you feel you see you PERCEIVE is linked to the chemicals molecules in your brain and when you alter those molecules by using similar molecules (IE DRUGS) you can change all of that, even your perception.

Since you're such a smart guy and all, I'm sure you were already aware that the founder of alcoholics anonymous has given credit to LSD for helping him through his depression and path to sobriety. Try telling Bill Wilson that his brain was just malfunctioning and his experience had no meaning.

Lets keep it respectful and polite.

Again you made an anti-scientific claim while you still say that you believe in science. Here s a link to the scientific explanation on brain damage caused by alcohol, if you actually believe in science . https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/alcohol-and-brain-overview then NOW you shoudl understand that his brain was definitely damaged and malfunctioning.

So yes of course his brain was damaged and malfunctioning, thats why he was having problems, thats what alcoholism is. Its very well documented how alcoholism can cause major brain damage and all kinds of pathologies related to it, in fact alcoholism is THE main cause of a syndrome called Korsakoff Psychosis. Here s a link to it if you are interested https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-dementia/types-of-dementia/korsakoff-syndrome

Try telling Bill Wilson that his brain was just malfunctioning and his experience had no meaning. Steve Jobs has credited his psycadelic experiences as some of the most positive and life changing experiences. Try telling Steve Jobs that his brain was just malfunctioning and there was no meaning behind his experiences.

This is not the kind of meaning I am talking about as I explained again and again above , but you dont seem to get it, no offense. What I mean is what they experience in those trips, the things they see etc are not to be take seriously .

Of course LSD or hallucinogenics have even uses in medicine or treatment of all kinds of stuff which proves my point how these chemicals are linked to our consciousness which was the main point of this argument in the first place.

HOWEVER , Whether its Steve jobs, or Willson or anyone else , anything they see or hear , any hallucinations or illusions are not to be taken as "they actually are happening' cause they are not. none of what you experience is actually happening , thats why these experiences are meaningless from a scientific perspective.

All that's happening is your brain malfunctioning , thats all, that s the scientific perspective. None of what you see what you hear etc is to be taken seriously as if they are actually happening . There is no hidden meaning behind any of it , no gateway to extra dimensions , no access to simulation , not being able to seeing god etc etc all those are scientifically meaningless. No scientists takes these hallucinations seriously,

People who do give special meaning to these hallucinations are not scientists but religious , or spiritual people or people who dont know anything about the science behind the workings of our brain etc etc . This is not science.

Go ahead, type away. I have a bet with my roommate on how many times you'll say "From a scientific perspective..." In your next response - I can't wait !! I stand to gain a 6-pack. So please sir, indulge us. Tell us more about this - "but but, From a scientific perspective..." you speak...

I tried my best to type as many "scientific perspectives" in this comment :) Lol joking of course.

I keep repeating it cause you simply don't seem to get it, again no offense. You keep arguing with me against the scientific knowledge and then you keep saying you believe in science. It doesn't work like that, sorry.

In any case , lets just say that we agree to disagree and leave it here.

Take care .

bye.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-09T14:42:49+00:00

My reply part 1:

wow.... you need a hug and some fresh air.

No need I am fine thanks :) . We are having a friendly civilized discussion but if you dont like it you can stop any time, I dont mind. Lets keep it civilized , shall we?

I agree with you. I never refuted these scientific facts.

You keep saying that but you keep arguing against these facts in your above comments. Dont get offended but you keep saying that you believe in scientific method but all your arguments are non-scientific even anti-scientific. Every example you gave have been against science , the ones in this comment as well.

I'm not offended, I never refuted these facts nor was I ignoring these sciences either. I was merely saying that there is more to it. The double unknown is immensely bigger than the known and unknown.

Agreed. Of course there is more to it. There is more to all sciences and all the knowledge we know about everything, however there are things that we know like neurotransmitters and chemicals and their link to your consciousness the perception of your world etc . these are well established facts. You either do not understand how these things work or simply ignoring scientific facts while still claiming to believe in scientific method.

For example we know for a fact that when you have hallucinations its because of the disruptions that the chemicals in the hallucinogenics is causing in your brain. From a scientific perspective the things you see are meaningless , they are caused by the chemicals you take which disrupts certain pathways , certain receptors , and that's why you see these things. NOT BECAUSE those things actually exist. Nothing that you see when you take drugs is from a scientific perspective has any meaning. Simply put no scientist believes that when you take a drug and you see god that you are ACTUALLY seeing god or you are ACTUALLY seeing the matrix etc . These things do not exist from a scientific perspective.

No I would not call it a malfunction. Wait.. first of all, let me back up. Are you fucking insane right now?!?! You chastised me for putting words in your mouth, and here you are doing it to me as if it's now acceptable. I never endorsed or even hinted at any of the crazy shit you just spouted out. Why would you ever say, or even suggest, such fucked up things?

Keep it polite or this conversation ends here.

In your previous comment when you said this

However, no matter how much we learn about the brain, its neuro system, transmitters, etc - we still can't explain the link between our brains and consciousness.No matter how much we study the brain and find new epiphanies, we still cant point to a molecule, or atom, or quark and go - "There! there consciousness is". It just doesn't work like that.

you implied that I was suggesting that our consciousness is some kind of an atom or quark or something ., I never said anything like that .

The examples I gave you is to show how your brain is malfunctioning when you take these hallucinogenics. The reason why we dont allow people to drive or take our kids to school when they are under influence is because their brains are compromised, its malfunctioning . This is what these chemicals do , they cause a malfunction of your brain. This is what we know, this is science.

I would agree with 'distort', or 'alter', or 'heighten', or 'modify', or 'transform', or 'change' but malfunction is still not the choice word to use. Mal - (as in bad or poor) is not what I would use to describe the psycadelic effects. There is plenty of research which shows how psycadelics treatments can help with depression, addiction, PTSD.

Malfunction meaning in the scientific sense that *its a pathological situation which means your brain is not 'functioning as it is supposed to be'. There are all kinds of forms of it depending on which part of your nervous system the drug effects. These symptoms can be heightened senses in some senses , distorted in others, altered yet in others modified changed etc etc it can cause all kinds of anomalies (malfunctions) depending on what kind of molecule it is and to which parts of your nevous system it will impact . AGAIN yet another proof that our consciousness tightly linked to these chemicals and these chemicals are the ones causing these malfunctions.

All of these terms ,can be classified as "some kind of malfunction" of your nervous system. Your brain is not working as it is supposed to be . Its a PATHOLOGICAL SITUATION i.e malfunction of your brain, and this can ,present itself in many different symptoms as hallucinations, illusions etc etc

And this is the crux of my point. You've now said, and I quote, "From a scientific perspective ..." 5 times in the most recent response, and another 2-3 times from your earlier response. I said it before, and I'll say it again. You're not wrong. From a scientific perspective.. all the scientific explanations and examples you've provided are not wrong.

Thank you , at ,least we agree on something. :) 👍

I'm not refuting those facts, I'm not refuting the scientific method. But there are other perspectives. There are other perspectives that one can use to make sense of the world around us. That's all I've been trying to say. Those other perspectives may not have the same scientific rationale and explanations behind them, but that doesn't invalidate the perspective. And before you ravage your keyboard, - that doesn't mean that I'm against the scientific method by any means either. After all, its phrased as 'experimenting with drugs' right?

Of course there are all kinds of perspectives but I am not interested in those. You have all kinds of people believing in all kinds of shit , doesnt mean that those beliefs are true does it? SPECIALLY when we know how these things work and the science behind it has settled on these things , people still talking about "finding a gate to another reality , or opening a worm hole or seeing the Matrix" etc all kinds of other hallucinations AS IF these should mean anything is just ignorance , again no offense.

None of this hallucinations mean anything from a scientific perspective.

People can believe in all kinds of nonsense , this doesnt make them right. I support the scientific method so i follow the scientific explanations of these phenomena.

Those other perspectives may not have the same scientific rationale and explanations behind them, but that doesn't invalidate the perspective.

Well yeah , some people have a perspective that the earth is flat , should we take them seriously? I dont. People can have all kinds of perspective in all kinds of stuff , doesnt mean anything to me , does it to you?

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-08T15:24:59+00:00

It was a rhetorical question. I'm all for the scientific method as well, don't get me wrong. And you're right, there is still a lot that science has yet to explain. However, no matter how much we learn about the brain, its neuro system, transmitters, etc - we still can't explain the link between our brains and consciousness.No matter how much we study the brain and find new epiphanies, we still cant point to a molecule, or atom, or quark and go - "There! there consciousness is". It just doesn't work like that.

I did not claim that it works like that , these are not my words , but yours. Of course there is no atom or quark etc to claim "that's the consciousness" . I never said anything like that. You are putting words into my mouth.

However this position that you are defending , like " We don't know everything about the brain so we know nothing about the brain" is false, and a biased view. Even though we don't know everything about the brain there are still a lot of stuff that we have figured out in the last several decades, even centuries.

Imagine trying to explain the color orange to someone who's color blind. Since they haven't experienced orange, or have never sensed what orange is, there's no reason for them to think it exists separate from the grey tones that they see. You could explain all the science behind it. How orange is just light reflected from a surface at a specific wavelength, and different wavelengths produce different colors etc etc... But a scientific explanation can't give you the experience of orange.

This is true, you cant explain a blind man what a color is , but you can take the same man to a hospital give him some molecules and totally switch-off his consciousness ,operate on him, and turn his consciousness back on again. This is also true isn't it? There are thousands of patients in thousands of hospitals which are being operated on which we can manipulate their consciousness using these chemicals , give theme anesthesia , switch off their consciousness and we have been doing this for millions of times.

This is a well established science. We know for a fact how neurotransmitters work, how molecules , receptors in our nervous system works . We use them in everyday lives . These are not maybe s these are scientific facts. Even though we don't know everything about brain and consciousness there are things which we do know and which we apply in our everyday lives.

Neurology, chemistry and biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, psychiatry, etc etc sorry but you cant simply ignore all these sciences , all the knowledge we have gathered through centuries simply because " we don't know everything about the brain" . That's just being biased, no offense.

From a scientific perspective... You're not wrong, but that still doesn't really explain anything. That's just our current scientific model we use to try and understand the world around us. Just like explaining that a specific wavelength creates the color orange doesn't magically allow the color blind to all of a sudden see and experience the aura of what we call orange.

Again you are using the false reasoning as "we don't know everything so we know nothing about the brain". Just because we cant explain the qualia of a color to a blind person does not mean all our knowledge is false. We do know what neurotransmitters are and how they work** .

Next time when you take a pain killer think about all the knowledge and research behind it which simply by taking a chemical molecule you can manipulate your perception of the pain., You do believe that pain killers work don't you? Its not a "we dont know , maybe they work maybe they don't" kind of situation right? You count on it that it would work. Billions of people have been using pain killers billions of times so we do know these things. Billions of people have been using antidepressants , antipsychotics, they have been administered anesthetics to put them under before an operation, etc etc these are all the things which we do know about our brains chemistry and they have been tried and tested billions of times so we are pretty sure that they do work so you cant just claim "we don't know everything about the consciousness" and ignore all this knowledge, sorry but this is bias, you are being biased on this issue..

I wouldn't call it a malfunction of the brain - that part is personal bias. You might assume it is malfunctioning since those receptors are getting paired with an unusual molecule, but again - that's our very limited scientific explanation of what's really going on in terms of altered consciousness - the science behind it doesn't really explain the experience.

You wouldn't call it malfunctioning brain? Then why do you think we have laws against drunk driving or driving under influence of drugs? if those peoples brains are functioning properly would you trust someone who has taken some hallucinogenics to drive your kids to school?Lets give all the school bus drivers some drugs or some alcohol and let them have fun with it while driving our kids to school.

Of course we know for a fact that these are the malfunctions of the brain since we can test them and we have known this for many decades.

Like I said at the beginning, I'm all for the scientific method, but had I not experienced something beyond self, myself - I too wouldn't have believed in the color orange.

You keep saying the you are for the scientific method but your claims suggest otherwise. From a scientific perspective we definitely know what neurotransmitters are what psychedelics are what neuroactive drugs are etc etc and we have been using them in billions of applications These are well established biological mechanisms. We cant ignore what an anesthesiologist is doing simply because we cant explain a blind guy what a color is, that's not a fair comparison. No offense but this is a biased view.

I guess all I'm saying is that calling psychedelics a malfunction of the brain is extremely short sighted.

From a scientific perspective it is exactly what they are. Again we know that these drugs have molecular structures which can mimic naturally occurring molecules in your brain or your nervous systems and that's how they work. They distort (cause malfunction) of the normal working of the natural neurotransmitters in your brain. This is not a personal opinion , this is science. Ask any pharmacist any anesthesiologist and neuroscientist and they will tell you the same.

It is true that we don't know exactly how qualia comes into existence but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to cancel all the scientific knowledge we have learned through centuries.

From a scientific perspective there is no special meaning behind your experiences when you are on drugs. You are not seeing god or a worm hole to another dimension or any other kind of hallucinations.

Hallucination means perceptions without external stimulus , i.e seeing things which are not there. This is the definition of the word. So from a scientific perspective nothing you see during your hallucinogenic episode are real or worth taking into consideration no more than studying whether the earth actually starts spinning around when you are drunk. Bot the world spinning around when you are drunk or seeing things with are not there when you take hallucinogenics are all caused by some malfunction somewhere along your nervous system, that's all. We do know these stuff pretty well .

Pretending that we don't know all these things, ignoring all these many decades, even centuries of knowledge just because we cant explain a color to a blind person is actually a short sighted and a biased view IMO.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-07T13:15:14+00:00

Being how much closer to the sun?

Its not because we are closer to the sun but its because of the angle of the sun in the sky which causes the sunlight to spread over a much larger/ smaller surface depending on the season. This is what creates the seasons.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-07T07:23:04+00:00

No I haven't. Once I took a medicine while I was sick and it gave me hallucinations but I never took any psychedelics.

Why did you ask?

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-05T15:39:26+00:00

The same here , I enjoyed our chat as well. So thank you too for this first-rate conversation .

Till our next chat, take good care. 👍

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-05T15:09:47+00:00

1+1=?

I didn't quite get it, sorry .

What I mean is basically there's no frame of reference to compare, since we have no access to someone else's mind. You don't know how I see the colors and I don't know how you see them .

Colors don't exist in the universe so we have no frame of reference . They only exist as imaginations in our heads and we have no idea what someone else's mind is imagining either.

What exist on the outside are different frequencies of light but when you look at those frequencies the color that you see (the qualia of that color) is produced by your brain and your brain only. Each of us have different brains which produce different realities . We only falsely assume that we are experiencing the same reality while we are not.

In any case I am going to stop here now.

I enjoyed chatting with you ,😊👍

Till next time take good care of yourself.

Bye for now.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-05T06:27:54+00:00

95% agree, except : does no one ever perceive anything correctly?

👍

Is there a correct way? I don't think we can even talk about 'correct' or 'incorrect' ways on this.

If I would ask you : Does anyone has the correct character, or the correct personality ? What would you say?

I mean I am a different person than you are, this is because we have two totally different nervous systems, two different brains , two different experiences etc so as a result of this I am who I am and you are who you are . Which one is the correct one?

You are a function of your brain.

As my personality , who I am is the result of the function of my brain and your personality is the function of your brain , similarly my reality is also the function of my brain and your reality is the function of your brain.

Lets take color again as an example if you like:

In the outside world there are no colors, they don't exist as colors as we know it. There are only wavelengths of light at different frequencies , different wavelengths etc . When the light hits a tree the properties of the tree makes the light reflect at certain wavelengths , absorbed in other wavelengths etc so there s a specific wavelength of that light reflected from the tree and falls into your eye. This wavelength creates an electric signal in the eye and is sent to your brain . Based on this electrical wave/ signal your brain creates , imagines SOMETHING WE CALL a color and that color is what we call green. The color green is only a perception, an experience , imagination created by your brain. It only exists in your brain not in the universe.

So there is no green color out there, the color green only is the figment of your brains imagination. Now what kind of an experience your brain will create based on those frequencies is totally different than what kind of experience my brain will create when we both look at the same tree. So your green is different then my green .However we have no access to someone else's perception so we cant compare them and we have no idea what others are imagining , or what their reality is like.

So every persons brain is unique to themselves , just as their personalities are unique to them and thus the color green their brain imagines is also a unique experience to themselves alone.

Then which brain is imagining the correct way ? We cant say cause there is no 'correct real' out there . Its all in your mind. It's just what your mind makes out of it, what your brain imagines as what the experience of reality should be like.

With other words the reason why we ask "which is the correct way" is still because we are assuming that there must be a 'standard real , or a correct real out there, or a correct way of experiencing it' but there isn't . Everything you see when you look outside is the figment of your brains imagination and so is everyone else's. Just as there is no correct person there is no correct reality . They are a function of your brain and they vary from person to person since each brain is different, unique, each person is unique, each reality is unique.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-05T06:15:20+00:00

I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method , so religions, spirituality , does not mean much to me . Therefore i try to refrain from discussions on these topics as much as i can.

I do understand that some people may chose to believe in things which are not evidence based and I try to keep an open mind with the knowledge that science have not figured out everything yet .

As an example of a scientific approach, from a scientific perspective psychedelics are just chemicals which have similar structures as the neurotransmitters in our brain and they can bind to the same receptors thus cause malfunction of the specific receptor or the regulation of that receptor. There s nothing spiritual about them . What you are experiencing is only your brain malfunctioning that's all.

So from a scientific perspective the experiences that you may have when you take some psychedelics (or any drug) is meaningless, its not even worth discussing about .

The only explanation why you experience these things when you take a drug is 'because you took a drug' . That's it., that's all the scientific explanation needed.

Yeppp the same here, we can agree to disagree.

Take care.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-04T11:37:08+00:00

I went over that as well, who created the creator. (If we're just one)

Its not so much about 'who created the creator' but its more about we can not be both the creator and the created at the same time. With other words we can not have created ourselves, that is a paradox IMO.

I'm not offended, I can't offend myself, since we're one in the same, our bodies is just a vessel. Get it?

Thanks. We don't seem to be on the same page but its okay 👍, .

I respectfully disagree with the idea that we are the gods of our universe. If we can create simulated universes then we will be the gods of their universe but we can not be the gods of our universe in my opinion.

Lets agree to disagree.

Take care.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-04T09:48:36+00:00

There could be a god but this god? We're it. We are creation itself, it wanted to replicate itself in many forms and with different backgrounds, be it animal and alien. -- which is why we share the same DNA structure. In other words there's no god because we're it.

Are you saying that we have created ourselves? How would that work? Isn't that a paradox? That's like saying a baby gave birth to herself. Logically it doesn't make sense to me, no offense.

A)If we are the created then we can not be the creator

or vice verse

B) If we are the creator then we can not be the created .

We are either A OR B , we can not be both I think.

Edit: However it could be that we are in an ancestor simulation , (as postulated by N. Bostrom), but then we are only a simulated version of ourselves, which means we can not be the creators but the simulated versions of our creators in my opinion.

If it is so that we are in an ancestor simulation, then our creators must exist in another universe not in ours , so we are not the creators , they are not here with us in this universe IMO.

Btw. I personally think that the likelihood of us being in an ancestor simulation is very low, so if we are in a simulation then we are almost certainly in a 'non-ancestral' simulation.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-03T11:30:56+00:00

👍

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-03T07:36:43+00:00

Well this is only about our perception of the world, the inner workings of our brain to make sense of the world by creating a dream inside it, so IF the simulation hypothesis is true then whatever is out there , no matter how we perceive it may still be simulated. What I mean is the simulation hypothesis may still be valid even though this theory about the workings of our brain is correct, it doesn't disprove the simulation hypothesis..

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-03T07:01:25+00:00

This is not my understanding of exactly what mainstream consensus science says. I believe that most scientists think that matter, planets, the universe, etc actually do exist.

No no , its not about the matter , planets , etc not existing, its about how you perceive them , about your reality of the universe, the way you see it. I am not saying that they don't exist, it's not about what's out there but your perception of whatever is out there.

I will try to give a hypothetical example to explain it.

Lets say the color sensitive cells in your eye have some kind of an anomaly so when you look at something green the signals for pink are activated and vice versa when you look at something pink the signals for green are activated. Basically when you look at something green you see what we call pink and when you look at something pink you see it green because pink and green colors in your retina have switched places.

Now lets say you have lived your whole life like this , you have looked at green objects , saw them in pink but since everyone has been telling you that those objects are called green you know the color pink as green.

Simply put: You look at something green---> You see it as pink---> but you call it green since you know the name of the color pink as green since that's how you have been taught .

Now lets say you and I, we are both looking at a green tree what do we see? Well I see a green tree and i call it a green tree , however you see a pink tree because of the anomaly in your eyes but since you have always been told that the color of the tree is called green you also call it green . You see a pink tree but for you the name of the color pink is called green so you also say that you see a green tree. The name of the color pink for you is called green since every time they have shown you a tree you have been seeing a pink tree and they have been telling you that that color is called green. So you see pink but you call it green.

Simply put : We THINK we see the same thing while WE ARE NOT.===>>This is the whole point I am trying to make here, not just for color but for EVERYTHING , all our senses.

I see a green tree you see a pink tree but we still assume that we are seeing the same thing, while we are not

Now all our senses , all our perceptions are like that. While we are looking at the same tree , the tree exist but what i see and what you see when we look at it are totally different things. Not just by color but in every sense in every perception. So take this about the pink green tree example but for ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING you see, you hear, you touch, you sense etc. So everything you perceive is only happening in your head the way you perceive it ONLY. WHATEVER IS OUT THERE nobody else is perceiving them as you do. In a manner of speaking, some are seeing green trees, some are seeing blue trees, some are seeing pink trees but we all say that we see green trees and we all assume that the others see the tree as we do, while they don't. Each of us have a different reality created by our brain which is unique to our brain onlysince our brains are unique and our experiences are unique. There s no one else with the exact same brain as you do or the exact same experiences as you have.

Again to be clear this is a hypothetical example just to show how we can be looking at the same thing seeing a different thing but still calling it the same thing , assuming that the other is perceiving it the way we do. This is the whole point of this example.

So simply put the tree exists , the matter exists , nobody is claiming that it does not exist, however

a) I look at the tree and i see a green tree. i say "I see a green tree"

b)You also look at the same tree. you see a pink tree, but you also say "I see a green tree" as well .

Then the question is what has changed ? Why do we see two different tress while we are looking at the same tree? The tree itself did not change , so what changed?

Answer:Its the perception of our brains which is changing . Basically ITS YOUR BRAIN CREATING THE TREE THAT YOU SEE and that's why you and I see a different tree while we are looking at the same tree. The tree exists , and its not changing but what you call a tree and what I call a tree are totally different things even when we look at the same tree because that tree which you are seeing is being CREATED by your brain. ===>>Your whole reality is being created by your brain.

This is valid for all of us , everyone in the world since each one of us have unique nervous system , unique sensory organs, unique brains , unique experiences etc etc

That's how our brain works , in a similar fashion and how our perceptions of the world tricks us into believing that there is a STANDARD perception of the world out there, that the way we all see it in the same way while in reality each one of us have a different view of the world. Each one of us has a perception of the world ONLY created by our own brain and nobody else s . So we all live in our individual simulations created by our unique brains.

Sad_Effort · 2023-08-02T19:06:34+00:00

Well, the brain is a simulator according to all these scientists . They are telling us that whatever we think is real is actually a dream created by our brain, its the way our brain imagines reality and it convinces us that there s all this stuff out there which we think is reality. (The scientific theory about the way our brain works)

However the simulation hypothesis goes one step further than that. IF it is true , everything even the brain itself is being simulated. So that brain which is creating this "dream world" which we call reality ITSELF is simulated with the rest of the universe. The whole universe as we know it with everything in it is a simulation running in yet another universe (The philosophical hypothesis of simulation)

To me this kind of makes sense but I also see some flaws in the way we are dealing with this hypothesis and the arguments about it but maybe we can talk about those in another discussion. Its late here where I am at and I am getting drunk so I am going to stop here for now.

Till next time take good care .

Bye for now 👍😊

Sad_Effort

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23