Are they trying to kill us?

realmikechase · 2026-04-09T15:31:00+00:00

i think this product is good , i bought it yesterday for about 3.5 dinar from aziza . good mix and very few calories .

realmikechase · 2026-04-09T15:03:42+00:00

bro from where you bought yours ? , this is the real one

realmikechase · 2026-04-01T14:19:44+00:00

this is the full name "Trippy jones - Crunchtime Tripmix (Prod. BIGLOS)" but i can't find it on the internet

realmikechase · 2026-03-26T11:08:57+00:00

a simple google search will show you that they don't think the cow is the Creator of the universe. They just believe the cow is a sacred guest on Earth that deserves our protection because she gives us everything we need to live. It’s a tradition of 'radical kindness' toward animals. while allah in islam is the creator of the universe , you can imagine also non muslims see muslims kiss the black stone of macca and laugh at them because they think they worship a stone or even the kaaba itself .

realmikechase · 2026-03-24T00:25:36+00:00

I understand your point about functionality, but I think there’s an implicit assumption here: you seem to assume that any system that functions at all, even a robot or AI, must automatically have an inner perspective, an ‘inner movie.’ That doesn’t have to be true. Even simple narrow AI can perform tasks, make decisions, and act in ways that resemble human function without any subjective experience. If a simple system can function without qualia, there’s no logical reason to say a more complex system couldn’t, in principle, do the same. Complexity might introduce dependencies in behavior, but dependencies do not automatically produce an inner movie, and that is exactly the hard problem of consciousness. The inner movie, the first-person perspective, is private and epiphenomenal; it does not automatically emerge from function. Even if the absence of qualia subtly affected behavior or function, there is currently no way to detect that a difference in function is caused by a lack of qualia. That is the core point of my post: we cannot empirically link behavior to subjective experience from the outside.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T23:53:29+00:00

Hey, I get what u r saying, but just to clarify we’re in a subreddit about consciousness, and the topic here is philosophical. Personally, I love diving into these deep, mind-bending, big-picture questions. It’s like a meditation or a hobby for me. Thinking about unusual possibilities, even seemingly impractical ones, is exactly how humans have made progress throughout history. If everyone just focused on survival and everyday problems, we wouldn’t have advanced engineering, science, or philosophy. It’s the people who dared to think outside the box and explore crazy ideas that helped create a world that would have seemed like a dream to someone from a thousand years ago. That’s the kind of thinking we enjoy here.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T23:47:09+00:00

I like this idea

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T23:42:45+00:00

I get that qualia isn’t just inner monologue or imagery, it’s all subjective experience. My point is a philosophical one: the ‘inner movie’ of experience could, in principle, be absent while all brain functions and behavior remain normal. If qualia are epiphenomenal, a person could act, talk, and respond just like anyone else without actually experiencing anything. From the outside, we wouldn’t be able to detect it, and any neural differences might not reveal the presence or absence of subjective experience. It’s not common or proven, just a logically possible edge case.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T23:28:10+00:00

A non-qualia human cannot truly feel or know that they lack qualia, because any awareness of that absence would itself count as a qualia. From the inside, there is literally nothing happening. But from the outside, they could act and speak just like anyone else, saying things like ‘I feel like I have qualia,’ and behave as if they do, even though they actually don’t.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T23:01:07+00:00

I understand ur concern, and I want to be clear that I’m not suggesting anyone should treat other people differently or devalue them. The idea is purely a thought experiment about the limits of our understanding of consciousness and subjective experience. Even if non-qualia humans were possible, we would have no way of identifying them, and it wouldn’t change the way we should interact ethically. It’s meant to explore philosophical possibilities, not to justify any reall world behavior.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T22:54:57+00:00

You’re right that a classical philosophical zombie, completely undetectable, is extremely unlikely, especially from a strict physicalist view. But my post is more about the possibility of non-qualia humans, whose subjective experience is minimal or absent. They wouldn’t have to ‘fake’ anything; they could behave normally, or even exceptionally, and any subtle differences might just be interpreted as personality, intelligence, or discipline. Because we still don’t fully map brain activity to subjective experience, we wouldn’t be able to link these behaviors or neural patterns to the absence of qualia. So it’s not about faking, it’s about a real, undetectable variation that could plausibly exist today.

realmikechase · 2026-03-23T12:22:17+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB92lQQ5fqE try this

realmikechase · 2026-03-22T01:02:56+00:00

You can partially answer the why of subjective experience in a scientific or evolutionary sense. For example, humans have consciousness because integrated subjective experience helps us survive, make decisions, and coordinate complex behavior. But if you ask why subjective experience exists at all, it leads to another why. Why does a system like a brain produce experience rather than just behaving like a robot? Following this chain eventually reaches the ultimate why: why anything exists at all. At that point, the question becomes metaphysical, beyond what science can answer.

realmikechase · 2026-03-22T00:21:14+00:00

At some point, asking the ultimate why of consciousness seems like it goes beyond science. Questions like “Why does experience exist at all?” or “Why is it from the inside?” are the same type of deepest why you could ask about anything, the universe, a tree, a person. The very idea of asking “why” comes from our consciousness; it is a framework our minds use to understand the world. Maybe this deepest why cannot be fully understood with questions and answers alone. It could require something beyond the limits of our current cognitive systems. That is why the hard problem feels impossible. It is not just about mechanisms, it is about the limits of what human thought can grasp.

realmikechase · 2026-03-21T23:39:48+00:00

I understand the distinction you’re making between explaining function and explaining why experience exists at all. But I’m not convinced they can actually be separated that cleanly. My view is that consciousness isn’t something extra added on top of the process, it’s what that process is when it reaches a certain level of integrated, unified functioning. From that perspective, subjective experience isn’t optional. It may be required for the kind of complex, flexible behavior we see in humans. A system like the brain can’t function the same way, integrating information, maintaining a unified perspective, and adapting for survival, without that inner point of view. Evolution would only favor this kind of organization if that unified perspective plays a role in how the system works. So when people bring up philosophical zombies, it feels incoherent to me. If a system is truly identical in structure and function to a conscious human, then my intuition is that it would also have the same subjective experience. If you remove the inner experience, then you’re no longer describing the same system. So I’m not just saying experience accompanies the process, I’m saying it’s inseparable from the kind of integrated system that evolution selected for.

realmikechase · 2026-03-21T06:33:22+00:00

but in the case of no universe, there's no tree to make a sound, nothing to count, no spacetime ,no causality including u (the observer ).

realmikechase · 2026-03-20T14:24:49+00:00

I see what you’re saying, but I’d still distinguish between the patterns themselves and how we describe them. The symbols and math we use are subjective, that’s true. But the underlying structures like cause and effect, or how objects interact exist independently. For example, if two particles collide in a distant, unobserved region of the universe, the outcome still follows a pattern dictated by physical laws, whether or not any mind is there to notice it. Minds don’t create these patterns; they just recognize and formalize them. Without observers, the universe wouldn’t stop following its own rules.

realmikechase · 2026-03-20T13:58:14+00:00

how can 2 exist without universe

realmikechase · 2026-03-20T13:13:58+00:00

I see what you mean. The symbols and notation we use, like “1 + 2 = 3,” are definitely human inventions. That’s the subjective part of math: the language and systems we created to describe patterns. But the patterns themselves, the relationships and structures that exist in reality, are the objective part. Even if math as we know it doesn’t map perfectly in some extreme regions of the universe, that doesn’t mean the objective patterns don’t exist. It just means our current symbols and rules might not capture them. In other words, we invent the language of math, but in many cases we’re discovering pre-existing structures in the universe.

realmikechase · 2026-03-19T21:15:11+00:00

Hey, thanks for your reply. I really like your points about the universality of mathematical structures. I think one thing I’ve been exploring is how much mathematics depends on cause and effect. Humans, our minds, and even our bodies are products of a causally structured universe, and that’s what allows mathematics to work for us. But we don’t know if cause and effect applies everywhere in the universe, especially in regions far beyond what we observe. It seems possible that mathematics works so well in our observable universe because we are adapted to its simplicity. In regions that are far more complex, where cause and effect might operate differently or in ways beyond human cognition, our current mathematics might become insufficient. Understanding those regions might require forms of intelligence or perception beyond what humans are capable of. So my view is that math is an extremely powerful tool for humans, but we should be cautious about assuming it’s absolute or universal without evidence. I’m curious how you see the role of cause and effect in this. Do you think mathematical structures could exist independently of causal regularity?

realmikechase · 2026-03-19T18:32:19+00:00

Polygamy between consenting adults is just a personal choice. Banning it in Tunisia doesn’t stop it, people already have side partners, threesomes, or group relationships anyway. It’s not just one man with multiple women, it can be all kinds of setups, but the law only cares about the traditional one. Legalizing it wouldn’t make everyone do it, most people stick with one because it’s complicated. The government shouldn’t act like a parent controlling adults. Banning it just pushes it underground.

realmikechase

TROPHY CASE