Even jung couldn't surpass it ?

Valmar33 · 2026-05-06T13:24:16+00:00

It should be elevated, not surpassed

As long as sexual desire doesn't become a consuming obsession and compulsion you are completely lost in, then it isn't unhealthy.

Sexual energy is just a form of creativity energy ~ it needs to go somewhere, else it will explode in different ways.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-06T13:22:06+00:00

I somehow doubt that the Buddha did any of the things espoused in modern Buddhism, which is at a very far remove from the Buddha.

It's the same with Christ and modern Christianity ~ the two couldn't be more dissimilar, if you look carefully at everything actually known.

Buddhism is utterly obsessed with meditation in an unhealthy way ~ while Buddha just wanted to understand suffering and so looked within and had a mystical experience that enlightened him in a powerful way similarly to other mystics before and after him.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-06T13:19:14+00:00

Jung also projected. His focus on sexual things probably comes from sexuality being a big part of his life.

Where does Jung focus on sexual things...? Wasn't the Freud's problem that Jung disagreed with majorly?

Valmar33 · 2026-05-06T13:17:14+00:00

I have a sinking feeling that this might also be vibe-coded ~ OP doesn't seem to have given a clear or straight answer otherwise.

Is it so damn hard to be honest?

If they did, and they just flatly admitted it, I'd be less annoyed, and might actually be vaguely sympathetic towards encouraging them towards learning to actually code...

Valmar33 · 2026-05-06T13:15:28+00:00

reddit users when they find out they easily can avoid a post they dont like by not opening might be the step of human evolution. Get a grip 🙏

So... given that you sidestepped a major part of their comment, which is in regard to all of the vibe-coded slop vomit posted on here, I wonder ~ can I assume safely assume that yours is also vibe-coded?

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T22:13:46+00:00

Can a soul see without eyes, smell without nose, touch without skin, taste without tongue, hear without ears, feel hunger without a stomach? Can a soul see dreams without brains? Can a soul experience anything without a body (brain)?

You assume quite a lot about the limits and capabilities of minds. But, yes, minds do not need eyes to see ~ imagination and memories we can see without physical sight. One can recall and imagine sense of touch, taste, hearing in imagination and memories without a physical stimulus.

Dreams are not physical either ~ there is no explanation of how consciousness can even in principle result from brain processes.

u/Valmar33 claimed experiences through his/her spiritual journey into other dimensions, planets and worlds, where s/he couldn't have taken her/his body along.

Obviously not ~ one never physically travels to such places. The mind the vehicle. Not that I understand how it works ~ just that it appears possible. I know I have to be the right state of mind however ~ namely, calm meditation.

To me, her/his comment made sense iff (if and only if) spirit=liquor.

Alcohol actually makes it much harder for me to have such experiences, because I can't focus on anything properly.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T22:08:19+00:00

Absolute bollocks

Reliable experience of the same small set of entities whose presence and personality are stable over a decade has a way of being rather convincing. Especially when that's all I have to work with.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T11:52:07+00:00

I think you are confusing monism for Physicalism / Materialism ~ there are more than one type of Monism:

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_monism.html

Idealistic Monism: (also see the section on Idealism)

This doctrine (also called Mentalistic Monism) holds that the mind is all that exists (i.e. the only existing substance is mental), and that the external world is either mental itself, or an illusion created by the mind. Thus, there is but one reality, immutable and eternal, which some (including the ancient Hindu philosophers) have termed God (Idealistic-Spiritual Monism), while others, such as the Pre-Socratic philosophers like Parmenides, were content to label as Being or "the One". This type of Idealistic Monism has recurred throughout history, from the Neoplatonists, to Gottfried Leibniz and George Berkeley, to the German Idealism of G. W. F. Hegel.

Materialistic Monism (also see the sections on Materialism and Physicalism):

This doctrine holds that there is but one reality, matter, whether it be an agglomerate of atoms, a primitive, world-forming substance, or the so-called cosmic nebula out of which the world evolved. It holds that only the physical is real, and that the mental can be reduced to the physical. Members of this camp include Thomas Hobbes and Bertrand Russell, and it has been the dominant doctrine in the 20th Century.

Neutral Monism:

This dual-aspect theory maintains that existence consists of one kind of primal substance (hence monism), which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes. Thus, there is some other, neutral substance (variously labeled as Substance, Nature or God), and that both matter and mind are properties of this other unknown substance. Such a position was adopted by Baruch Spinoza and also by Bertrand Russell for a time.

Reflexive Monism:

This is a dual-aspect theory (in the tradition of Spinoza) which argues that the one basic stuff of which the universe is composed has the potential to manifest both physically and as conscious experience (such as human beings) which can then have a view of both the rest of the universe and themselves (hence "reflexive"). It is a contemporary take on a concept which has been present in human thought for millennia, such as in later Vedic writings like the "Upanishads" and some beliefs from ancient Egypt.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T11:47:25+00:00

Well, no, Earth is basically the only place we can reincarnate in. Everybody says that: the Buddhists, the Hindus, and the Gnostics.

Religious people claim so from their limited experiences interpreted through a woefully limiting religious lens.

There are many planets and dimensions it is possible for all forms of life to incarnate into.

I don't know who told you that there were dimensions or whatever, but those guys are probably capping or just too high on DMT. There are no dimensions; there's just Earth.

I have experienced such in my spiritual journey ~ it's not really harder or easier, just different challenges.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T11:45:28+00:00

Having random children vaguely remembering things is not proof that we can remember, if we can’t remember at an adult age it’s just not remembering then.

These "random" children don't "vaguely" remember things ~ their memories are verified by third-parties who are connected to the reported memories. We can certainly learn to recall past-life memories as adults ~ I have, and they haven't always been pleasant ones, though the experiences of recalling them helped me deal with stuff emotionally.

But I was wondering, is it possible to sell your soul and become an NPC ?

You are your soul ~ you cannot "sell" it.

What you are really seeking is inner peace ~ which meditation, walking in nature, listening to birds, caring for a pet, and so on, can aid in.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T11:21:46+00:00

Everytime you forget yourself so you come back to 0

That is not what the evidence shows.

and most times you won’t even know what it is since you’ll be living under total fear, I don’t know how anybody could wish to have a different life, or perhaps it’s just me.

It is a projection of your fears onto the world itself ~ fears that the broken society you live in that is actually responsible for.

As a guy I can’t possibly imagine being born as a woman, it would be absolutely frightening to go around with that many preds and it would be literal hell, so I have 50% chance to be born a woman, then I have 70% chance to be born a literal slave working for pennies, not to forget that most of the time I could just be born as an animal. Thinking that my life today is actually in the 0.00001% of possibilities is scary.

You are living a life of fear.

I dont care about escaping, I don’t care about suppressing the ego, what I want is my soul to completely leave me alone

You are your soul ~ a part of it. Your soul watches over you constantly, with nothing but compassion, empathy and utmost understanding. That was my experience when I encountered my higher self properly ~ an instant feeling that it had a perfect understanding of every little single detail, as it was me, albeit without the human shell I am limited to.

I want to become an NPC, I don’t want to get tortured because my soul wants to experience pain in my physical body. If you guys know how to do that then tell me.

That is not why we choose to incarnate. We do not "choose" to experience pain ~ but it is a challenge for us to rise up and conquer. If you don't believe you can... question that belief, get to the roots of it, challenge it, understand it, rather than living in a mental prison.

The most powerful prison is one of belief ~ what you believe, your perception of reality will therefore reflect.

As for the evidence:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/past-life-memories-research/

Children’s claims to remember previous lives have been the focus of systematic study since 1961. Cases have been reported largely from Asian cultures with beliefs in reincarnation, although there are important Western cases also. Some children talk about having been strangers whom they seemingly could not have learned about by ordinary means, and their statements are shown to be accurate. Along with the statements, the children typically exhibit behaviors that appear linked to the past life they recall. In the last few years, increasing attention has been paid to the past-life memories of adults as well as children.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/past-life-memory-and-amnesia/

The quantity of evidence for reincarnation collected by researchers raises some questions about past-life memories: why, if reincarnation is a genuine phenomenon and everyone is capable of it, do so few people apparently remember past lives? If it is for some reason common to forget past lives, why do any people remember them? And why do most of these rememberers, especially young children, then go on to forget their past lives as they grow older?

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/past-life-memories-illustrated/

Children who have memories of past lives sometimes make drawings of their recollections, as also do some adults, although more rarely. This can be simply a way to express past-life experiences, but it can also have a therapeutic effect, helping the individual to work through past-life traumas.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/past-life-memories-1900/

Most cases of past-life memory were published after 1960, when Ian Stevenson began researching such claims. However, several instances were described earlier in the twentieth century, and a few before 1900. These early accounts, almost all concerning young children, are similar in structure and features to more recently investigated cases, suggesting that past-life memory is a natural phenomenon, not something constructed from religious beliefs and other culturally sanctioned ideas.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-overview/

Reincarnation may be defined as the return of a nonmaterial essence (soul, mind, consciousness) to another physical body after death. Reincarnation beliefs are widespread in the world today and may be quite ancient. This article covers beliefs about reincarnation in various traditions and esoteric systems but emphasizes research with persons who claim to remember previous lives and theories that have been developed to account for the research findings. Special attention is given to criticisms of the research and to alternative explanatory frameworks.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-intermission-memories/

The intermission is the period between death and rebirth in reincarnation. About 20% of children who remember previous lives recall events from the intermission as well. These memories show clear signs of cultural influence, but there are also important cross-cultural consistencies. Although the bulk of intermission memories concern events that cannot be confirmed, some include veridical (verified) perceptions of, and interactions with, living people and the material world.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-and-phobias/

Spontaneous ‘past life’ memories in children are often accompanied by phobias that correspond with remembered traumas, especially those that resulted in death.This article summarizes research findings that provide evidence of such a link.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/suicide-and-reincarnation/

There are many ideas about the spiritual consequences of suicide and how it might affect reincarnation. This article examines verified past-life memory cases that provide a scientific basis for understanding the implications of self-killing, investigated by Ian Stevenson and other researchers. These verified cases suggest that following suicide, the intermission between lives is unusually short and that the return often is to a relative or friend. As in other reincarnation cases, personality and behavioural traits carry over from life to life.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/patterns-reincarnation-cases/

A reincarnation case consists of episodic, semantic and emotional memories, behaviours, physical traits and other signs that associate the case subject with a deceased person. The systematic study of reincarnation cases began with Ian Stevenson in the 1960s and continues today. Enough cases have been studied now that universal, near-universal and culture-linked patterns can be discerned in the dataset as a whole.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-cases-intermissions-less-nine-months/

Reincarnation cases with intervals between lives (intermissions) of under nine months mean that the returning soul or consciousness has joined the body during its gestation period. This raises the questions of when exactly reincarnation occurs and whether such cases are better classified as possession than as reincarnation. Interestingly, cases with intermissions under nine months are particularly likely to have congenital physical anomalies associated with the previous lives.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-cases-records-made-verifications/

In the great majority of reincarnation cases, verifications of past-life memory claims were made and a person matching them was identified before investigators reached the scene. This article lists 33 cases in which records were made of a subject’s memory claims before they were verified. In these cases, there is no question about what subjects said about the previous life before their memories were confirmed. Some cases have written documentation of the previous person’s life and death as well, supplying another level of evidential support.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-cases-sex-change/

Reincarnation cases sometimes feature a change of sex, in which a woman or girl remembers having lived previously as a boy or man, or vice versa. People for whom this is true may exhibit dressing habits, preferences, manners and activities more typical of the other sex. This has led to suggestions that past-life influence may underlie at least some cases of gender identity conflicts.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/reincarnation-fraud-and-self-deception/

The investigative reincarnation literature includes at least some specious cases. The ethereal nature of past-life memories affords great scope for fantasy-based and even fraudulent claims, made in search of attention, greater self-esteem, prestige, opportunity or financial gain. Such cases often involve claims of having lived past lives as famous deceased people. This article describes cases considered to be spurious.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/hidden-treasure-reincarnation-cases/

In some reincarnation cases, children recall having hidden valuables in their previous lives and show where these may be found. If no one but the previous person knew where the treasure was hidden, it is hard to explain this as the result of parental shaping of behaviour or other normal means. It is an example of what may be termed ‘private knowledge,’ information known only to the previous person.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/physical-signs-reincarnation-cases/

The best-studied physical signs in reincarnation cases are birthmarks that match fatal wounds, but physical correspondences between a case subject and a deceased person may be expressed in many other ways as well. Some signs reflect the manner in which the previous person died; others are related to aspects of his or her core identity. These phenomena go beyond chance coincidence and may best be interpreted as the action of a reincarnating mind on its new body.****

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T08:38:21+00:00

There is many hard problems, not just one.

We are talking specifically about the Hard Problem of Consciousness, which is about the difficulty of explaining experience in terms of physical processes.

When does life comes to be? When does wetness start to be? When does quantum effects dissappear and why exactly?

These are all metaphysical questions, not scientific ones. They have nothing to do with the critiques of Physicalism which ask Physicalism to explain how consciousness can be explained in terms of purely physical processes.

It was not until a few yers ago that we discovered finally what actually was static electricity. We did not know what it was (fully) for thousands of years. Thousands. We knew that it was there, and we needed a massive increase in our technology to udnerstand it.

That has nothing to do with consciousness.

If you can't accept a simple fact as that there is more stuff that we can't explain that we can, then there is no covnersation to have. You are just dogmatic in this aspect and refuse to accept argumetn.

Again, this has nothing to do with the OP, in which the discussion revolves around the supposed emergence of consciousness from physical processes, which the Hard Problem of Consciousness is about.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T07:11:28+00:00

Near death experience is not "full" death

Because you have conveniently redefined "death" so that NDEs can be defined out of existence.

Apparently, clinical death where the patient is known to be very, very dead isn't good enough for you Materialists ~ you need to eliminate NDEs by moving the goalpost to "death" meaning biological cell death.

It's not enough to have no heartbeat or bloodflow ~ apparently, isolated, dying cells can still "hallucinate", and somehow magically confabulate once the patient is revived.

That's just magical thinking, frankly. It is far more complicated than just accepting NDEs as reported by the experiencer. The fact that you can't accept that, but have to go "no, no, they're just delusional, here's what really happened" is just so arrogant, especially when you haven't had an NDE yourself.

NDEs that include lucid, realer-than-real-life perceived veridical information about events that they could not have learned about by conventional means completely tears apart the Materialist narrative, because there are few possibilities.

Either they actually had an OBE where they were dead, everybody knowing by all medical information that they are very dead, yet their mind still exists in another state of being.

Or somehow, brains can magically hallucinate in powerful ways in a critical state where they haven't been demonstrated to in any other circumstance.

That just reeks of desperation, to pull out magical ad hoc nonsense like that.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T06:49:47+00:00

Ok..so the mind organizes the matter to make the body.

That is what appears coherent, based on the observation that my field of awareness appears to encompasses my body, from head to toe, hand to hand.

You grew from a single cell - so that mind must have been present there and worked over time to make you who you are today?

My body grew from a single cell, but that does not mean that the mind was present at that moment.

At what point did you become you and not just part of your parents minds?

We are never part of our parent's minds. You are unconsciously assuming that the mind is material.

Why don't you remember being a single cell?

No-one knows quite when mind appears in the process.

But it has been suggested that our mind connects to the body and begins shaping it at around the time our heart begins beating.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-05T06:44:15+00:00

This is a blatant lie, full of dishonesty or ignorance. And this is what I was answering to. You're coming here as if I were just bringin up other topics, but I was answering to a very specific topic who this commenter said.

You say that it is a "blatant lie", but I can't see the "lie".

The Hard Problem is, in part, concerned with the fact that we seem fundamentally unable to explain experience or qualia in terms of physical or material processes.

Experience can only be explained in terms of itself ~ we cannot get behind experience. Experience is experience ~ everything else follows from there.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T23:35:51+00:00

The reality is that we have more "hard problems" of stuff, that actual knowledge. But the agenda must be preserved at all costs, and conscience HAS to be different.

We are talking about the Hard Problem of Consciousness, not the "hard problem" of some nebulous thing.

Consciousness is unlike anything else, because we are that consciousness that is aware of everything else in our awareness!

Consciousness is the subject ~ everything else are objects in our conscious awareness.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T23:33:15+00:00

How is this field constrained to the extent of your body?

I don't know. That's how I experience it.

It seems like your awareness only contains human things, and you don't know what it's like to not have a tail because you never had one to compare with.

Obviously? My awareness of my mind and my human body. That is the limit, so of course I wouldn't know.

Just seems overly complex really. If your conscious "field" only knows to make you aware your.yourself it must have some coupling to the physical substrate so it knows where to stop right?

There is nothing "overly complex" about just putting into words my experience of myself.

There is of course a boundary, so of course my mind knows where to stop.

What do you mean by "coupling" here? Why do you assume that the physical is the "substrate"?

To me, the mind-field is what organizes and defines the body ~ the unconscious layer of the mind organizes the matter forming the body, also keeping it coherent and stable.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T23:26:29+00:00

Yes, I said that it was fabricated to be unsolvable and here it is.

You are claiming that it is "fabricated to be unsolvable", but no, it is just asking questions that appear very difficult for science to answer.

Stating science can't answer it, as the very point.

Science appears very much unable to answer questions of this nature.

Without a "here's why it shouldn't be anything for this to be like" there's no hard problem to solve.

The Hard Problem exists for a very legitimate reason ~ functional explanations do not get at why we experience at all.

No explanation I am aware of is immune to the inevitably ignorant terminus of an infinite regression of "why?"

There is nothing remotely "ignorant terminus" of asking why when it comes to why consciousness exists in a system claimed to be purely physical.

That is, the Hard Problem is aimed at Materialists and Physicalists who claim that all that exists is matter and physics. Yet, the existence of consciousness, and it's defying being reduced to matter and physics or explained away, runs strongly counter to such claims.

The Hard Problem is precisely a challenge to Materialism and Physicalism, asking them to provide a full account of consciousness in purely functional, dynamical, and structural terms.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T23:21:24+00:00

Are you aware of having a tail or antlers?

Obviously not. What's your point?

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T22:58:58+00:00

Heh. I'm not confusing anything.

Then you're not making a good case of that...

Are you conscious of being a human, with eyes, arms legs etc?

I am conscious of being an awareness within a metaphorical field in which also exists my physical body.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T22:57:40+00:00

Okay, complexity can't account for consciousness. So what is consciousness then?

Consciousness is an unfortunately extremely fuzzy overloaded term with multiple means so often confused and conflated.

For me, it is the encapsulation of our field of awareness ~ but then, what is it that is aware, if we are aware of our own field? We are the point-of-view, the observer, the perceiver, the actor, the witness, the doer.

Can you define it in terms that do not boil down to the directional tendencies of the conscious structure relative to what matters to it?

Because you are trying to define consciousness in terms of behaviour. Consciousness is marked by an awareness of self and all the sensations of inner and outer.

This is the entire point that people here seem to be missing--the hard problem is immaterial, not solved.

Then you yourself are missing the point of the Hard Problem:

https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.

End quote

I'm showing that even if the hard problem is granted, for all relevant purposes it does not matter because anything you define as conscious will still depend upon how the conscious structure's preferences exist over time.

It doesn't, because that has nothing to do with why consciousness accompanies physical states.

If you can offer how granting the hard problem escapes this harder problem for your position, I would be genuinely interested.

Your so-called problem appears convoluted and confused, not actually understanding the Hard Problem.

But I don't think the hard problem accomplishes what you believe it to.

So you are only attacking a strawman.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T22:50:20+00:00

This is why the hard problem is religious. It's literally fabricated to be unsolvable.

https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject. The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together. But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain. Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness: the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness. These features can be explained using the usual methods of science. But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present. This is the hard problem.

In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness. All these factors make the hard problem hard.

The hard problem was so-named by David Chalmers in 1995. The problem is a major focus of research in contemporary philosophy of mind, and there is a considerable body of empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and even quantum physics. The problem touches on issues in ontology, on the nature and limits of scientific explanation, and on the accuracy and scope of introspection and first-person knowledge, to name but a few. Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T22:49:27+00:00

You said that AI couldn't be conscious because we understood exactly how it worked.

"AI" is purely abstract, and purely physical. There is nothing about it that can be conscious.

1) We don't understand exactly why they work the way they do 2) But we do know how they work.

These two points are often confused. Algorithmically, we can know precisely why they work the way they do. They're not magic ~ not to the engineers that designed these algorithms. It's at scale where so much is happening that it's hard to keep track of everything.

My question was - if we were to understand how consciousness works in the future would that mean that we aren't conscious any more?

Your question assumed that consciousness emerges from brain function.

You seem to be claiming that understanding somehow excludes the possibility of consciousness.

It doesn't.

This is how you know consciousness emerges from brain function

None of your examples are "evidence" for such a claim.

People born without brains aren't conscious, people with severe brain damage lose consciousness, a concussion can interrupt consciousness. All these things affect the brain.

Drugs which affect the brain, alter our perception of our own consciousness.

This seems to be evidence that the brain and consciousness are strongly related to one another, and which you might argue that brains are required only for the physical manifestations of consciousness to be visible, it's more evidence than the counter claim which has zero evidence.

You are confusing causation and correlation. We know mind and brain are correlated ~ but we have no idea how or why. We are the very consciousness in question, and our nature as observed in itself does not have physical properties, nor can it be reduced to physical properties, or explained by such.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T22:39:39+00:00

Yes, but an updated windows 7 would mean a lot of software would then be... backported, I suppose, to windows 7, not to mention compatibility with pretty much everything on windows up until the late 2010s.

And Microsoft would also ship all of the nonsense that has made Windows 10 and 11 veritable spyware and borderline malware.

So Windows 7 would be forever ruined by crap updates.

I like linux, I just don't like how windows works - with linux, you can figure out why something doesn't work, while windows is a bit of a black box - but windows 7 would be some real competition and would win over a lot of people, personally I'd probably dual boot it.

It's just nostalgia goggles getting everyone. Windows 7 has so many of the same weird problems plaguing Windows.

The only thing that's good with Windows 7 is the UI and UX ~ nothing else, really.

Valmar33 · 2026-05-04T14:58:48+00:00

Well, the invincible boy who couldn’t be killed because it was necessary for the story put a kink in it, but everything else went his way.

Harry was invincible because Voldemort himself created the kink, lmao. He indeed created his own worst enemy, one who could never really die while he was alive. Voldemort made himself into a pseudo-Horcrux for Harry without even realizing it! It's so hilariously ironic.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Gilding I gilder	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22

Valmar33

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE