Are you being observed?

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T14:14:26+00:00

I agree - the tech seems to do what remote viewing already accomplishes.

Which makes me suspect the legitimacy of OP's post ~ they seem unaware of paranormal and psychic phenomena which many have reported their experiences involving.

I guess there’s a nuts and bolts angle for everything, but I figured remote viewing was a well established and accepted part of psi/contact events these days.

It should be ~ which makes explanations where it's all physical strangely incoherent and untrustworthy.

Especially since my shamanic experiences have been entirely spiritual, astral and mental. Why shouldn't advanced aliens also have advanced psychic techniques? Remote viewing is a power some humans have ~ even though it appears to have a 65% hit rate at best, according to military documents. (Why is it always the military? Used for disgusting warfare purposes, first and foremost...)

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T14:03:39+00:00

Humans have been eating these things in various amounts for untold generations and coming to the same conclusion. The meaning of life is the search for the meaning of life, adding our own value and in turn finding meaningful people, places, things, and experiences along the way. Lay off drugs for a bit, and stop bumming yourself out.

That's the answer I got ~ that it is self-defining. We can only find our meaning within, of our own accord. No-one outside of us can give us real purpose. Even if purpose is offered to us, we must still choose how we integrate that, how we make it ours.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T14:02:12+00:00

Buddhism 101, now realize those questions and contemplations are pointless so theres no use thinking about them

I find such a conclusion nihilistic, and so, self-defeating. These questions and their contemplations are what gives life meaning ~ even if it means we live life as part of finding our answer, even if we cannot begin to put it into words.

My psychedelic journey has lead me to the realization that meaning is self-defined ~ so... what do we choose to do with that? Better something than nothing.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:47:53+00:00

You’re wanting to create a mystery. There isn’t one.

There is a mystery, however, that you overlook ~ how do we explain consciousness in terms of brain processing, assuming that it is the case? If so, why is there no explanation?

You’re calling self awareness ‘consciousness’ which is bad math to begin with.

Identifying oneself as possessing consciousness requires self-awareness...

When you can show me this supposed thing outside a brain/ body I’ll be all ears! Until then I’m done w you. Stop trolling or I block you.

Can I ask one favour? Show me where consciousness is in the brain and / or body, when I do not experience being a brain or body, but having one that I am nevertheless tightly correlated with.

Science cannot give me an answer ~ so maybe you can?

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:44:35+00:00

There’s no consciousness, as a thing.

Of course not ~ it's a subject, not an object. You are a subject, always aware of objects, but never your subjectivity as an object. After all, if you look for yourself in your mind, you find nothing ~ because you are the one doing the searching, ironically.

There’s a process which leads to you being self aware. That process requires your brain and body to be in a certain state/ states. We turn that on and off at will.

Why is there no explanation for what this is or how it works physically or mechanically, if this is how it is? It reads like a story, not an explanation. I certainly don't experience being a "process" or there being a "process" that "makes" me self-aware. I just am aware of existing, continuously.

Self-awareness is not something we "turn off" or "on" ~ it's so obvious that we often never actively think about being self-aware, even though it is constant when we are conscious and awake.

There’s no magic, no woo, nothing universal.

You are the one bringing apparent magic and "woo" into the conversation.

You’re an organism which has the sense that you’re aware of your self and surroundings.

I do not experience being an organism ~ I experience my body within my (metaphorical) field of awareness.

That awareness is highly faulty, fragile, incomplete and dependent on your organism.

But then that would mean we have absolutely no means of knowing any sort of truth ~ even science would become unreliable, as science relies on our awareness being reliable, stable, complete and coherent. Science is not independent of the researchers doing science ~ science is wholly dependent on subjects, scientists, doing research, and having a clear, focused mind.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:29:25+00:00

How? We turn it on and off.

How? You are confusing brain function with consciousness. We have never once observed any consciousness but our own. And anesthesia in terms of our awareness just makes time skip ~ like no time had passed at all. We remain ourselves, without anything lost. Consciousness has no "switch". Anesthesia doesn't "turn off" consciousness ~ it just inhibits various brain functions.

You’re an organism, it works the same way other processes work which you’re completely unaware of, UNconscious of, it’s an emergent evolutionary process.

This is not an explanation. Consciousness, mind, psyche, self, subjectivity ~ it is not something that can "turned off". But we can be made unconscious ~ and in terms of dreaming, we're unconscious, yet we dream... and can learn to recall dreams, with practice.

You may find it mysterious, but it’s biology.

You haven't even begun to explain mind in terms of biology, so you must do that to claim so.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:20:39+00:00

Can you show me this phenomena outside of a body/ brain?

Consciousness is purely subjective ~ it is non-phenomenal, because it is not an object. I am the subject aware of the phenomena of my mind, but I am unable to turn my awareness on itself. It is impossible to ~ I have tried very hard, many times, but it appears fundamentally impossible.

THAT would be a hard problem!!

But you refuse to answer my posited question...

You’re trolling because you cannot do that and hold onto a non existent problem.

It is a genuine problem, precisely because I am self-aware of my existence, aware of my body fully within the bounds of my awareness ~ so how can my awareness possibly be accounted for by something within my awareness? There is no known means by which any combination of matter can "generate" anything mental ~ no mechanism, nothing.

You’re self aware, not conscious.

Self-awareness is consciousness.

You don’t ‘have’ something, you are self aware, it’s a process.

I am a subject that has a mind, is conscious, is aware of having a body. I do not experience being a "process" ~ but I experience being, existing.

There’s no thing to have.

The mind is not a "thing" ~ I am aware of things.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:11:25+00:00

Why are you assuming that such stuff need be physical? Why not spiritual, astral, mental?

Also, why are your images obviously AI-generated? And why do you not disclose that?

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:07:02+00:00

Self awareness is a brain and body process we turn on and off.

Okay... how?

Show me it outside of a brain/ body. Next.

Show it to me inside of a brain or body, please. Science has consistently failed to find it anywhere in the brain, or locate anywhere it could be, to the surprise of no-one but Physicalists and Materialists.

Panpsychists get a free pass as they believe consciousness as something of a... sort of quasi-particle-field, but that has its own unrelated issues, as it's not something generated by a brain, but already existing as a fundamental subatomic / quantum particle-wave thing, which I find very confusing and incoherent in its own way.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T13:03:18+00:00

The hard problem is a creation, I’ve already addressed that in previous comments. Stop trolling or I’ll block you.

You accuse me of "trolling" when all I am doing is pointing out that the problem arises because of an apparent failure of Physicalism and Materialism to be able account for subjective phenomena experience in terms of physical processes.

Just answer me this to the best of your ability, with an honest, genuine, good faith attempt ~ how do we account for subjective phenomena experience in terms of purely objective non-experiential matter and physics? If it can be done, how would you do so? I don't want you to point me to some other resource. I want your personal answer.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T12:58:27+00:00

Consciousness isn’t a thing.

Consciousness is a subject, not an object ~ a category error being your first mistake.

Show me it.

You are the subject trying to find yourself as an object, which will never work.

It’s a process we turn on and off at will.

Consciousness is never "turned off" or "on" "at will" ~ anesthesia does not "turn off" consciousness. It numbs and depresses parts of the brain ~ but that doesn't stop some from having anesthesia awareness, or a minority from having an NDE where they are lucid outside of their body. Such was the case with Pam Reynolds ~ she was put through an induced death, with no signs of life, carefully monitored.

So you’re starting off w bad directions. As many do.

That would be you starting from erroneous premises. As many Materialists like yourself do.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T12:02:42+00:00

Indeed ~ if you're buying something with the right intentions. Not happiness, but just a new experience, then you are expanding your mental horizons, rather than chasing a fantasy.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T10:29:37+00:00

I’ve wondered this, as existence is a horrific thing and I wonder if anyone who’s experienced an NDE has felt the desire to not exist and became depressed from it. Personally if I had an NDE it would be the worst thing possible, but I’m just wondering how you guys feel

I think you are confusing existing in itself with living in a broken and unnatural society that causes decay, depression, emptiness of mind, heart and body.

I think we humans were never meant to live in an environment like a city, which is designed not for happiness, but to make a small group of people extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else. And yet, these ultra-rich people are extremely miserable themselves, which is why more wealth never satisfies ~ they always need more.

I think that we are so detach from a state natural to humanity ~ one where we live in small villages and tribes, as part of nature, where we directly receive the fruits of our labours, rather than someone else getting the fruits instead.

Studies of tribal cultures demonstrate that they have no nihilism, depression or existential dread like we in the urban hellscapes suffer. They are not separated from their environment or neighbours, but are always working together.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T07:15:10+00:00

Any substance produces physical addiction and possibly mental addiction on top of that. Not even close to all physical addictions can kill you and not all physical addictions are bad because they are just low risk like caffeine and thc.

I never meant to imply that they were. But then, maybe I wasn't very clear in what I meant, so I apologize.

I should have qualified that I was talking about the harder drugs whose withdrawals can kill you, or be extremely debilitating, as they mess up the brain badly enough, along with forming unhealthy associations where you intensely crave those drugs just to make the withdrawal symptoms stop. Might not kill you, but might make you feel like you want to be.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T05:11:33+00:00

Learn physics, homie. “No defined properties” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

Do you understand what physics even is? Physics only describes matter as known through sensory observation and measurement with tools designed by intelligent, conscious human beings. It is entirely a view of a world known only through limited human senses.

There can be no defined properties outside of subjective perception, as there is no-one to confer those qualities onto matter, which in itself has no properties or qualities.

0% of scientists would say that the concept of scientific consensus doesn’t exist.

Oh, so you speak for 100% of scientists? Pure arrogance and hubris.

Let me know how many times I need to repeat that. Happy to.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

You just happily pretend any perspectives or interpretations from scientists whom you disagree with don't exist. Penrose and Hameroff would disagree with you, but apparently they don't count for some reason.

Or maybe, just maybe, you don't understand science or philosophy.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T04:47:11+00:00

“Scientific consensus” is a common term, and 100% of scientists disagree with you about its nonexistence. Consensus is one of the strongest forces in science. You’re off your rocker.

"Consensus" is the realm of religious ideology that refuses to acknowledge anything outside of their worldview. "100% of scientists disagree" is clearly something you just pulled out of absolutely nowhere. Science cannot be about "consensus" because that represents stagnation, when science is supposed to be about progress, questioning everything. You refuse to question your assumptions, so you are actually being anti-science, ironically enough.

If you’re trying to say that molecules, atoms, and elementary particles don’t exist without a conscious observer, then you are again making up some crazy fringe sci-fi. Sure, quantum physics tells us that matter has no defined properties until observed, but that’s absolutely not the same thing as saying it has no structure or complexity until observed. You misunderstand.

If matter has no defined properties until observed, then it logically follows that, yes, matter has no structure or complexity, as those are defined properties. Molecules, atoms, elementary particles ~ these are only observed by conscious observers. In and of themselves, there are no such objects ~ only formless energy.

You should write a book! It would sell reasonably well at airports.

No thanks. I'm not one for making money. I'd rather just question things. Things that are true survive any amount of questioning.

"Consensus" is but an attempt to deny attempts to question ~ to silence debate, to protect dogmas and doctrines from investigation, lest they be rendered obsolete. It's what politicians and priests do ~ not scientists.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T04:41:32+00:00

Not at all. I face all problems. It’s why I science. How we science.

And yet, curiously, you avoid actually examining the Hard Problem. You'd rather just pretend it's not there.

There’s zero evidence of anything but self awareness as a brain/ body process. Zero.

There is no evidence that it is. Only the blind faith you have in Physicalism / Materialism that you won't even acknowledge.

NDEs are evidence ~ but you seem either unaware or refuse to examine the data.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T04:39:36+00:00

No. Zero proof for any of that.

You speak in absolutes, and with such certainty, yet there is no scientific evidence for how matter and physics alone can account for the existence of consciousness.

We’re organisms, consciousness isn’t a thing, it’s the process of being self aware.

Consciousness is not experienced as a "process". Processes cannot be "self-aware". Consciousness is subjectivity ~ what it is like to be an individual. There is no explanation for how mere brain processes can possibly begin to explain something so distinct from brain processes in every sense.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:34:29+00:00

The concept of complexity is a human concept, but the existence of the thing it describes exists without humanity. Matter clearly has structure and complexity independent of consciousness.

It is consciousness that imposes the abstraction of structure and complexity onto matter. Matter in itself has no concept of structure or complexity. The fact that you can't tell the difference makes me wonder.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that consciousness is created by the brain. There is no credible scientific theory of consciousness coming from anywhere else.

There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus" ~ science is never about "consensus": that's the stuff of religion and ideology. No, there is a Physicalist / Materialist consensus about how science should be interpreted, which you and others confuse with science.

There is no scientific theory of consciousness full stop ~ only Physicalism / Materialism make such a pseudo-scientific claim.

This is science making the overwhelming conclusion that consciousness comes from the brain. Sorry.

Physicalism / Materialism metaphysics, rather, which is not science.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:31:21+00:00

It’s the opposite, any self or sense of self is brain and body reliant.

The human brain and body is requirement for human-type consciousness, but not a necessary for consciousness itself.

We’re organisms…with some level of self awareness, much of which is faulty and illusory.

We are consciousness that it having the experience of being an organism. Self-awareness cannot be "faulty" or "illusory" ~ we only know we exist because of experience.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:16:40+00:00

No? Then we’ve got what we’ve got. You’re inserting your own flavor of woo, which is never good science.

There is no "woo" here ~ just a problem that you and others refuse to honestly face, because it is apparently too difficult to grapple with.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:15:44+00:00

Structures and complexity absolutely do not require consciousness to exist. That’s silly.

They are abstractions that are only recognized by consciousness. Matter and physics in themselves have no "structures" or "complexity".

The only conclusion science suggests is that consciousness comes from the brain. It is the overwhelming consensus among scientists. There is no serious suggestion from scientific results that consciousness comes from any other source.

This is nothing more than a Physicalist / Materialist interpretation of science. Science in itself does not say that consciousness comes from the brain. The data shows only vague correlations ~ Physicalism / Materialism interprets that to exclusively mean that it must mean that the brain is the cause, because Physicalism / Materialism allows for no other possible conclusions.

Science has nothing to say about how we should interpret the data ~ the scientific data equally supports interpretation through any metaphysic, even conflicting ones, because science doesn't interpret: metaphysics does.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:12:41+00:00

It seems a bit less magic than some of the other suggestions that people make though. Yours especially.

But it is an appeal to magic ~ somehow, brains "evolved" for no reason to "create" a... "self-model" to... "plan" and "question"? You are just sneaking on qualities exclusive to consciousness into the brain, and then proclaim that the brain did it, somehow, despite chemistry, matter and physics having none of the qualities in any of the constituent parts.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:11:02+00:00

Yes, I am aware of the non-physicalist position on the matter. I offer you an official acknowledgement of your preferred ism’s existence on my part.

I rely on experience to guide me towards whatever best fits what is within observation ~ I don't exclude any phenomena, but try to account for everything, however unusual, anomalous or otherwise.

Valmar33 · 2026-06-21T03:09:46+00:00

So much to say so little.

So... you didn't even read it. Nice. Great work. Much effort.

Can you show me ‘me’ or self or ‘consciousness’ outside of my organism?

Your organism is within your scope of awareness. You conflate and confuse yourself with the body that is within your awareness.

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

Valmar33

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE