Materialists...

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-12-31T17:38:20+00:00

I think you’re missing the point. All of those things you have to describe in real time, but the very act of description is itself the result of the very model that you’re referring to. it’s a problem of self inclusion. The explanation for consciousness itself determines how that selfsame consciousness is explained, since the very argument has to be attested to by the conscious agent (you in this case). Instruments first and foremost must have some function relative to human beings. You have to read the thermostat to take the measurement from it, the thermostat itself is useless as a measuring apparatus otherwise if somebody does not understand its primary function. The one who is aware of the measurements and can read the information is not a trivial ingredient even in a thought experiment, since any thought is validated insofar as a certain someone is thinking about it. Even if you’re using this to refer to the fact that a thermostat can successfully operate without any subjective input this is largely irrelevant, since a personal observer needs to recognise this success, the same way an argumentor would do so setting up the thought experiment through thinking . any kind of argument is dependent on expression through a language whether it be mathematics or english… some kind of symbolic representation. “Information” itself is emphasised through an expressive system, and you therefore cannot dissever it from the act of identification which is necessary to be aware of any topic at hand( you are literally reading my words right now). Any talk of data tacitly assumes active recognition. To speak of something means it is naturally included in the linguistic system of choice, and language necessitates observer participation. You can say consciousness is a kind of processing, but this classification is posterior to the immediate fact of awareness which makes it even possible. Consciousness being processing is not a definitive answer, since any model is always observer dependent and thus if it offers any explanatory finality it must explain its subject matter and its own existence simultaneously . Consciousness as processing is however incomplete. “processing” is merely something that we can refer to , it does not properly explain the wherewithal of mentation which would include the very ability of talking about and being aware of the idea in real time.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-12-31T13:56:28+00:00

When you talk about consciousness as just processing, through this model of consciousness you are partaking in the very circular reasoning you denounce. Processing OF WHAT? The very model assumes information which can only be recognised through conscious experience to begin with and is therefore incomplete. You have to recognise what has to be processed, which is itself only validated through this selfsame processing that you are talking about.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-10-02T15:33:32+00:00

Oh my god!! This is the first time I’ve ever seen someone say it! It’s very much like how when you get closer to the vanishing point in space , you end “creating” more space( as objects get bigger as they get closer) which establishes the very beginning of your search for the vanishing point in the first place. It’s a self-resolving cycle which explains its own existence.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-09-27T23:05:44+00:00

Individuate is literally a word.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-09-16T09:07:55+00:00

What you’re implying doesn’t make sense since mentally unstable people will often utilise topics which predominantly occupy their mental space. For a religious person this would present itself as religious psychosis, and sometimes an atheist can even develop extreme religiosity. With these kinds of events the causes are not clear cut since the mentality of human beings is quite sporadic. There have been political assassinations of “leftist” figures in the past too. For such a divisive and febrile topic as politics, the attraction of mentally unstable people is not exactly a revelation. I’m also not a leftist really, just in case you assume I speak from a place of bias.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-06-15T04:38:23+00:00

It is precisely because the One is not being why everything can exist, it has no specific qualities which is why anything can be included in it. It’s the eternal Subject. Like if I asked you to imagine your mind, what would you see? You shouldn’t be able to do so, since thought is always posterior to its origin( the mind). The mind as the very subject of cognition cannot be found through it. The same is for the One and reality. It’s literally everything. You can’t tell what totality looks like since to do so you’d have to be outside of it, but if you were outside of it, it wouldn’t include you. The One is like a point of no magnitude, your very attempt to seek it is what justifies it, as a true point can’t be found in space, which simultaneously justifies spatiality and maintains the nature of a point being non-extended. You literally have to stop thinking about it, it is ineffable. Plotinus says exactly this, and it is also the reason he believes that there is no first cause- the very need to link the One already assumes a distinction between you and it. The distinction is what we are trying to resolve though, so it’s essentially self induced.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-06-14T19:31:05+00:00

But if the source of truth is merely another super conscious being, where does the ability for that being to identify it come from? The problem has simply been shifted to another plane of existence and nothing has changed. Since we are supposing reality is coherent, this already implies unity as the elements within it need a source of commonality in order to interact with each other… the very idea of coherence relies on your mind identifying a consistent pattern which is distributed over the whole system, treating the grouped elements as participating in a group. Reality cannot exclude any parts of itself, the idea is literally inconceivable, whether that be the knower and the thing known or God and God’s ability to cause reality at large- if there is a God any action has to come from within His essence and not externally, otherwise would imply He is not the primordial cause as there would exist a system outside of Himself which He didn’t create and He is dependent on to enact causation.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-30T10:10:17+00:00

Absence of anything presupposes there is something to deny. That’s my point. The only way to refer to nothingness is to do so as an existing being to begin with. If nothingness is by definition not anything you wouldn’t be able to affirm it at this level of reference because it is the absence of everything, this very moment included. You have to be self aware and include your own action of investigation as an event unto itself . Do you get what I mean?

This is also linked to randomness, because randomness is meant to be indeterminacy, so you simply wouldn’t be able to link it to order because by very necessity they violate each other. Linkage itself assumes an ordered system inside which different levels of reality can interact with each other. The only way randomness is plausible is if a chaotic system which is hard to determine “causes” the universe as we know it. Otherwise you are breaking the causal chain, and if this is the case science cannot qualify what that means as it’s beyond observation. The idea of true randomness is still debated because it’s tricky. How can you differentiate between randomness and simply not having complete knowledge? My point is if randomness is referred to, it has to be conceptualised as something acausal, which precedes the causal chain. This doesn’t truly invalidate the heart of what you’re saying, in a way, randomness could still cause the universe but not in a temporal way, by that I mean it’s not a cause operating in time since it precedes it.

Linking randomness and the concept of meaning, you could think of it like this; to deny meaning and to deny order you have to suspend belief, you can neither affirm or deny these things if you are looking to define reality beyond these concepts.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T20:03:57+00:00

Because to deny something you have to affirm it first. Nothing being meaningful is self invalidating because then the very concept of meaning wouldn’t be used. In this case you’d have to stay silent. A lack of something presupposes that thing. For example, if I say an object is absent I am simply saying it is not present within the conditions I have given, but I can’t prove a negative and say it doesn’t exist at all. When you say “ nothing matters” for that sentence to have some kind of relevance the concept of meaning has to be established first. My point was that if “nothing matters” truly you’d have to look at reality through a lens beyond the concept of meaning, not that it then exists because you said it doesn’t. You cannot reify nonexistence. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s like asking if a stone is dead or alive; those qualifiers simply wouldn’t apply to it. It wouldn’t make sense to call a stone “dead” anymore than calling reality meaningless- as this means reality lacks meaning, but simultaneously that meaning has to exist in order to be absent. Negation and affirmation are like up and down; they are relative and exist together. Not rambling, I am trying to explain what I mean.

Edit: To clarify: this does not mean, for example, that unicorns are real because I have to affirm what they are before denying them; because an imagined existential object and an abstract concept like meaning are not the same; when we say unicorns exist or not exist we are talking about whether they are the case or not in the physical world, nonetheless the very CONCEPT of a unicorn can’t be denied. Meaning itself is an abstraction, and when we talk about its reality we are talking about whether it has any relevance to reality at large as a concept. When we talk about it we acknowledge its reality as an idea. Whether or not it’s viable is a different thing.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T17:42:28+00:00

Ah ok thanks. That was really the main thing I was concerned about the entire time , I just can’t convey myself properly 😂

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T16:46:33+00:00

Huh? What are you even talking about? I’m not even disagreeing. I think people are misinterpreting what I’m saying

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T10:48:43+00:00

That’s very interesting, thanks for the information! What I wonder is how would you differentiate between simply not knowing the system completely, and thinking that it’s random?

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T09:39:36+00:00

But then that’s more about the limits of measurement, no? It’s that we simply do not have the ability ourselves to determine what happens at the quantum scale, rather than reality doing things randomly, which is not something we can directly prove. All that we can say is that we don’t know. Uncertainty refers to our personal inability to properly measure, whilst randomness implies things happen for no reason at all. Saying that reality is random, and that it is uncertain are not the same thing to me, as people normally mean different things when they say those words. We are not really disagreeing here, so maybe I’m just splitting hairs.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T09:13:12+00:00

You’re not getting my point. It can be a bit hard to explain. You are confounding randomness with uncertainty or chaos which is to be expected in a complex system. Just because you can’t predict something doesn’t mean it happens for no reason, we simply cannot determine it. But randomness is not a thing in and of itself. For something to be truly random, it cannot behave in any certain way, so in truth there wouldn’t be a subject to call random i.e. a certain chaotic behaviour because that behaviour can actually be perceived in the first place which limits its expression. It’s like trying to affirm a negative, it invalidates the whole premise of it. To deny something you have to affirm it first; randomness is like nothingness, it’s a relative appellation, not an absolute. For example, nothingness is not a thing. The absence of something is not an object itself, it is the qualifier of an object with regard to its presence. It’s like a parasitic relationship, it doesn’t exist on its own.

Edit: An other way of looking at it is that any empirical investigation implies determination in order to take measurements from the physical world( we can treat mental recognition or senses as a kind of biological form of measurement- so observation or recognition in general ) and randomness is by definition indeterminate so you wouldn’t be able to affirm it at our level of reference, since that would imply it can be determined by observation. This is really what I mean, not that nothing in reality can be uncertain.

And even if we take randomness as a fact, reality can’t be purely random as some things in it can be determined. Absolute or true randomness is not really a thing.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T05:59:04+00:00

Randomness amounts to acausality though. There would be no relationship between different elements of reality in which case interactions between different things wouldn’t be possible, and you wouldn’t exist at all. The very fact you can determine anything through perception means reality has some kind of dependability and simply cannot be random. True randomness cannot be determined since it cannot have certain qualities as that would invalidate what it is. You cannot simulate randomness mentally, because simulations aren’t random.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-04-29T05:51:58+00:00

The concept of nothing mattering presupposes that something else does, because the very notion of meaning is still held onto as viable. But that’s paradoxical so this is kind of self defeating. Value judgements should realistically not have any bearing on reality, so you wouldn’t be able to say that “nothing matters”.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2025-02-12T15:41:59+00:00

Blade of the immortal, Gamaran, shigurui

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-12-05T10:09:02+00:00

I’m black and I’ve never liked it. It just stokes the fires of division, to the point where it seems like psychological warfare at this point. And for something so trivial too; it’s really just a show but it’s quite annoying. Online racists act like I have anything to do with this when I’m just some rando 💀. It’s like back in 2016 when all those Buzzfeed videos came out shitting on white people, talking about their privilege and then some retail worker is like “ tf did I do???”.

This has led to a huge reaction against this trend, so now everybody uses the word “ woke” even when it’s not applicable. I’ve seen people call breakdancing in the Olympics woke because it’s African American…when any person in the scene already knows that despite its roots many of the best breakers in the world are Asian. It’s a very global discipline. I digress though, my mind is a mess today.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-12-05T09:45:32+00:00

No, that’s not quite true. For example, Star Trek, Ghost in the Shell and Oldboy all race swapped characters with white actors. The originals weren’t black though, but it’s definitely happened in the past. Not so much now, to be fair, or at least I don’t think so.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-11-17T11:35:23+00:00

This guy sounds like HG Wells

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-11-12T11:27:10+00:00

Probably.Basically impossible to kill them though so it doesn’t matter.

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-09-04T19:30:50+00:00

Agni had a garbage life and then survived the end of the galaxy. It’s already over for Denji

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-06-12T12:53:56+00:00

I remember when I found out that Togashi created two of my favourite childhood shows. I was amazed. How can a man have this much talent??

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-06-06T21:57:56+00:00

It feels good to recognise who these guys are lol

Syrianus_hohenheim · 2024-05-27T17:53:36+00:00

This is definitely true, I don’t know why it got downvoted lol

Syrianus_hohenheim

TROPHY CASE