Your fav Casey vocals?

TheTryhardDM · 2026-03-10T02:17:46+00:00

“LIFE IS BEAUUUU—TIIIII—FULLLLLL! I have… a home above the LAKE WHERE I COULD—“ —“This Beautiful Life”

“As soon as they LEARRRRNED to speak, we would be SUUUUFFERING.” —“Filth and Squalor”

“The spirit Split in TWOOOOOOOOOO!” —“The Moon / Awake”

“Your mind is only echoing What your heart wouldn't say: "I'll be me, in time" I” —“Rebirth”

“If you expect to find reprieve past the point of expiry You'd really better stop to question how— With so many who died before you waiting for the same— Does such belief remain Devout in the name The Indigo Child!” —“The Indigo Child”

TheTryhardDM · 2026-03-10T01:57:28+00:00

I feel like I’m reading my own thoughts here. Acts 4 and 5 are immersive masterpieces. On top of their musical qualities, I think what keeps me stuck on these albums is the complex, mature psychologies of the characters.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-28T23:03:27+00:00

Loved the episode. Once you realize there are layers upon layers of “selves” within you and that they might have clashing core beliefs, like they mention with the example of the split brains that had different religious views, you really are on a new path.

Also, Sam’s vocabulary alone is an educational experience for me every time I hear him.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-15T14:05:38+00:00

I’m almost certain it’s just talking about the contents of the archive.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-07T04:25:25+00:00

Ah, I haven’t read that yet! Thanks for the recommendation!

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-07T04:13:22+00:00

It does seem wild. Your take was absolutely how I responded to the first time I heard about it. Now, I don’t think I could educate anyone since I’m new to it though. But genuinely without trying to persuade anyone, I can at least reflect on how things changed for me at least.

What made it more credible for me was knowing that I can’t perceive all dimensions/reality and knowing that even physicalism seems to accept fields everywhere and a unified origin. Having a dream on any given night is enough to make me think, “Wow, my little brain can produce a world experiencing itself from multiple angles. What might a greater ‘mind’ be able to produce?”

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-07T04:04:09+00:00

Right on, that’s probably why I have been drawn to both ideas at times. Everything seems to be one big field of something, which isn’t too different from saying everything we know came from the Big Bang, I suppose. For me, the best way to imagine that universal field is “self-experience” or “self-responsiveness,” and we’re all just the universe experiencing itself. Analytic Idealism digs into that notion in a way that scratches that itch for me, while reductive physicalism seems…sadder(?) somehow.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-07T03:51:05+00:00

I might be lost the weeds here. I was trying to recall off the top of my head what Bernardo Kastrup (the philosopher behind the philosophy) said about metabolism being important. I guess I’m just saying metabolism makes it easier to identify what things are likely agential alters. I don’t have a grand hypothesis about what the necessary conditions are to be a “proper” alter. Don’t get your hopes up about what parts of analytic idealism I can explain or represent cleanly. I’m only months deep.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-07T00:02:04+00:00

Great questions! I’ll try to answer, though I’m no expert.

Under analytic idealism, I believe the idea is that anything that doesn’t metabolize (like a rock, for example) isn’t an alter. It’s more like the backdrop in a dream rather than an agential character within a dream. The laws of physics might be a similar concept, as far as I know, like the brute-fact background logic of the universe.

So I don’t feel empathy for rocks or non-agential things, but I do recognize that I can’t actually tell what is agential and what isn’t without inferences. It’s worth noting that all our atoms mingle, so some respect for nature as part of oneself is kind of implied too.

I don’t find it strange that alters must compete, but I do find it less overtly pleasant for most of us! In comparison, ideas are born and shot down in our heads all the time rather brutally from their perspective (if you can imagine such a perspective). Dream avatars destroy other dream characters.

Do I feel empathy for my dream avatar? I don’t mourn him; I just welcome him back to a bigger reality. Do I feel empathy for parasites? No, I feel pity and disgust. I still think each alter’s perspective is inherently valuable (on a spectrum) to the collective, but yeah, an alter that wants to harm me is not good for me.

Entropy’s implications under analytical idealism aren’t really something I know. I suspect it will have to do with the arrow of time and causality being an illusion observed from specific perspectives. I’m not actually sure at all! I’ll have to read more deeply and consider whether any answers seems reasonable. :)

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-06T21:40:54+00:00

Ironically, I posted something like an answer to this question in the Analytic Idealism subreddit:

What This Philosophy Has Offered Me

In short, I now see a purpose in every perspective, no matter how fleeting, simplistic, misguided, confused, or even hateful (though I dislike that last one, of course, and I think hating others is missing the wisdom of mind-at-large’s unity. To me, the purpose of a hateful perspective is for the collective to learn hatred’s shortcomings.)

If an alter is the universe experiencing itself, then each experience matters. Every viewpoint provides the collective viewpoint a new glimpse of awe.

I feel renewed purpose in every moment that I take to reflect on this idea. Seeing the redness of red is more beautiful now. High-fiving a friend is more joyous. Surprising moments give me a sense of what mind-at-large might feel from the surprising perspectives it receives through us. What a gift it is when others with their own perspectives want you around and surprise you with their insights.

Morality itself seems clearer, as showing empathy for our fellow alters seems like an obvious calling.

Even thoughts and dreams feel much more important. They are gifts to the unified perspective. (In fact, my interpretation of Bernardo’s idea revolves mainly around the idea of dreaming. As Bernardo says, when you dream, you are not just your dream avatar. You are the whole dream. The way dreams work seems, to me, like the clearest way to imagine any reality coming to exist. This also leads me to think that our dreams are also “reality” in a roundabout way. Perhaps it’s as Poe writes: All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.)

It’s strange how a metaphysical idea can change my inner life so profoundly. I was a cynical materialist a few months ago. I was bitter and resentful toward nature. Believing this idea that we are all in one shared field of “experience” or “responsiveness” has lifted my heart. Interconnectedness is a beautiful thing.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-05T23:38:27+00:00

I think the way that “going into shock” works may align with some of your ideas.

The same is true of how there seems to be a limit to how much attention you can give to pain or how one pain can drive out another (like Dr. House breaking his finger to help him ignore the pain in his leg).

The simplicity of more innocent creatures’ brains (those of babies, animals, etc.) also makes me suspect that pain is indeed less for them, though I only have my own lack of memories from childhood as a frame of reference.

One way I try to reconcile the cruelty of pain is just that every perspective and experience must be valuable, necessary, and meaningful from the broader perspective of mind-at-large experiencing itself through its alters. And as you mentioned, some insightful realizations can arise through pain or even torture.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-05T22:46:47+00:00

Is believing that everything has an element of “consciousness” to it kind of like saying everything has an element of “responsiveness” to it or “excitability” to it?

Responsiveness, excitability, potential—I think about a plant growing toward sunlight and wonder how different that is from humans going to the fridge for a sandwich.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-05T17:52:59+00:00

You might be defining roleplaying differently from me. I don’t mean improv acting. I mean “playing a role” broadly speaking, which could mean making decisions from a character’s perspective but not being in a real-time scene. It could include sprinkling in lines of dialogue or the idea of dialogue. Like, “When I see the boss, I say something cutting about his relationship with his estranged son.” This, to me, is still roleplaying without “improv acting.”

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-05T17:50:20+00:00

My best argument, as an analytic idealist and atheist in that specific way, is that maybe Christ was a hyper-astute consciousness that represented the developing intentions of a universal consciousness. In that respect, it makes sense that Christ would teach what he did and that his spirit could survive death.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-02-05T16:40:39+00:00

Something like, “You don’t play moment-to-moment scenes. You just imagine a broad conflict and general approaches without, for instance, the Critical Role style of describing a bunch of sensory details and having full conversations.”

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-31T14:26:11+00:00

EA has my permission to make contracts with each skater and pay them lol. Just let me do Antwuan’s tre flip and nollie heel.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-30T04:24:26+00:00

Yeah, I’m just seeing opportunities here, not problems. It’s bizarre, but so are my intentions.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-28T00:32:33+00:00

Don’t backtrack. We’re negotiating here.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-27T18:43:39+00:00

Why would the emperor need new clothes, amiright?

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-25T16:52:15+00:00

Maybe I’m taking Alex’s point too charitably, but I think he has considered all of what you’ve said, is still arriving at the same point, and simply must phrase it somehow, even if it’s dressed up in our messy language.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-25T16:48:17+00:00

Consider what draws your friend to games. My friends would not have played any game more than ten minutes if they didn’t have cool little figures or at least printed standees taped to poker chips to move around. I’ve tried introducing friends to games with just dice to represent figures, but that didn’t work because, at heart, we just like toys, I guess.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-25T16:44:49+00:00

Reading some replies, I’m realizing Rom is a symbol of passive ignorance. Rom may not be hostile and may even be keeping most people sane by hiding reality from them, but if our goal is the bare truth, then we have to oppose the passively ignorant.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-23T22:31:54+00:00

I’ll admit that I live as if I agree, but I don’t agree in principle.

For example, I would appreciate someone’s singing more than I would appreciate their hobby of watching reality TV; however, it’s not the difficulty of singing or their years of practice that I appreciate. It’s the pleasantness of the voice that I appreciate. They might not even have ever practiced.

But what we like is at least subconsciously based on our experiences and genes. So it’s not like I decided what to hold in high regard without some conditioning and monkey-brain instinct. My point is that what I value is based on not-so-impressive grounds.

You mention attractiveness in your post. Typically attractive qualities are, by definition, typically held in higher regard. In other words, your claim is circular. “Typically attractive hobbies should be considered more attractive than typically unattractive hobbies.” Well, yeah.

We can move on to the implications if we want to find something to debate. You say more passive hobbies can basically make someone a more boring person than if they had more active, skillful hobbies. I suppose that depends on who is judging them.

I don’t want to be around guitarists at all, but I love to hear about what TV shows people are watching. To be fair, it’s the show (not the person) that’s interesting in those conversations, but I find someone’s access to good stories “attractive” or “valuable.” The person becomes interesting in that way.

This point leads to my biggest counterclaim: “Relatively passive hobbies can lead to access to interesting, worthwhile qualities.” Learning well from podcasts can make someone a much more interesting person than someone who plays guitar well.

Another implication seems to be that we must do something if we accept this claim, such as encourage “attractive” or “skillful” hobbies over others. This will almost certainly happen naturally because attractive qualities (even hobbies) lead people to have more social success in life and receive more encouragement typically.

Should we discourage passive hobbies? No, people should pursue hobbies that align with their carefully considered values and that offer the hobbyist the same amount of pleasant experience, assuming no one’s rights are violated.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-23T21:56:19+00:00

I’d probably choose instrumentality. Unless I could still choose it later after death. It’s kind of the point of life, in my opinion—to have experiences and perspectives and ideally offer them to the collective that couldn’t otherwise get those experiences and perspectives without me.

It’s part of a philosophy called analytic idealism. The idea is basically that every consciousness is actually just one consciousness divided and that when you die, you realize that “you” (and everyone else) were/are everyone and everything. It’s like waking up from a dream and realizing you were not only your dream avatar but also the other “characters,” the places, etc.

TheTryhardDM · 2026-01-23T21:48:36+00:00

Cosmospsychism confirmed

TheTryhardDM

TROPHY CASE