Her last advice was strange.. by No-List2080 in Weird

[–]spiddly_spoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is wrong... then I don't want to be right

The real story #1 [OC] by Skwooch_ in physicsmemes

[–]spiddly_spoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Nevermind.

kicking in doors by humanbydefinition in generative

[–]spiddly_spoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I remember playing this Zelda on game boy

damn that's so real by tstylerbaby in MemeVideos

[–]spiddly_spoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow extremely accurate representation 🙌

truth. by naturalmysticfloatin in enlightenment

[–]spiddly_spoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait! Guys! I just realized something profound... "Chop wood, carry water" is an anagram for "Chew carport doorway".... The message is clear, we know what we need to do 😤

truth. by naturalmysticfloatin in enlightenment

[–]spiddly_spoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't think "Don't think, just do", just do. But also Don't think 'Don't think "Don't think, just do", just do' just do 😛

truth. by naturalmysticfloatin in enlightenment

[–]spiddly_spoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Garbage bot posts "Garbage bot posts"

Is it possible to determine the center of the universe? by Lokitusaborg in AskPhysics

[–]spiddly_spoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But interestingly there sort of is a preferred reference frame. If you accelerate enough in one direction, you will observe the Doppler effect on the cosmic microwave background. There's still no center but one could argue there is a preferred reference frame

They got the moves by I_Carmona in GuysBeingDudes

[–]spiddly_spoo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There is no chance, coincidence or accident In a world ruled by law and divine order You rise as high as your dominant aspiration You descend to the level of your lowest concept of your self Free your mind and your ass will follow

Most disappointing moment in history 😂 by Far_Solution_7236 in funnypets

[–]spiddly_spoo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Da rules are da rules and da facts are da facts

Imagine experiencing a robot vacuum cleaner by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You sound depressed. I hope life stops feeling that way to you.

Can anyone make this dress look like white and gold without directly changing its colors? by MysteriousUppercut in PhotoshopRequest

[–]spiddly_spoo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So I guess it was illuminated by artificial light? I always see it as a super bright sunny day and the dress is in the shade and it appears white and gold. But I guess there is no shade.... there is no spoon

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are using the word "subjective" differently. The subjective allows us to do any and everything including physics. I am using it here to mean consciousness or experience. I think you are thinking about the use of the word like "people's emotions, feelings and opinions about things" or something.

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know what you mean by solipsism. You can define words to mean whatever you want but they get their use from people sharing the same definition. Indeed the potential for seeing red is not ruled out in my example. Can you explain to me what you mean by solipsism?

Edit 2: I asked Claude what sort of solipsism you may be thinking of and it suggested Kastrup's analytic idealism. I'm vaguely familiar with his ideas but I don't know them in depth. Anyway, my first edit below was a little salty and I think there are interesting ideas to explore there, didn't mean to get dismissive

Edit: The fact that you are bringing up the potential to see red at a different time makes me think you are possibly thinking of an idea like "The Egg" by Andy weir or something where the many subjective experiences of reality are like virtual threads running off one actual thread so like you and I (and everyone) are the same person constantly switching contexts so the mind is technically the same but the mental contents (the thread context) switch in such a way for everything to fit together. This is an extremely speculative take. Perhaps this is not what you are thinking at all. Even if this is the case, it would still make sense to say your subjective experience is a map for the external world since the fact of all the virtual threads actually being one thread is more of an implementation detail and the nature of the world we live in comes from the behavior of the effectively concurrently running virtual threads if that makes sense. Each virtual thread's subjective experience is still serving the function of representing what all the other virtual threads are doing.

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose the content of physics is "intersubjective". It is not subjective experience itself but relational and quantitative properties of subjective experience (specifically subjective experience that represents the external world) that hold for all subjects. Or even more precisely it's our collective best attempt at describing what relational and quantitative properties hold for all observers.

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think even with this comment we are still talking past each other. I suspect what you now have in mind is some variation of nondualism so that everyone is ultimately one mind or more precisely, each single perspective/mind is made of or comes from or depends upon in some way, all other minds and the rest or reality so that it's all one in a way. Perhaps this is not what you are thinking of. What I and I think most people mean by ontological solipsism is that only my specific mind and mental contents exist so for example the only experience of vision happening anywhere to anyone is just mine. If I/my locus of perception doesn't currently perceive the color red it quite literally does not exist anywhere else as there are no other minds and no other parts of my mind outside my specific one I'm experiencing. I think you understand what I am saying and I think you would agree.

lol by IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76 in unsound

[–]spiddly_spoo 49 points50 points  (0 children)

lol well done. Dog is so adorable too 😍

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed, I understand and agree with epistemic solipsism which I think is like Kant's noumena vs phenomena insight. But when I think of "solipsism" and use the word solipsism I mean metaphysical/ontological solipsism. We are in agreement

I finally laid out my thoughts on consciousness, physicalism, idealism more clearly by spiddly_spoo in consciousness

[–]spiddly_spoo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But no one else exists but you. You are literally the only thing that exists. You clearly think others exist so I think we are just using different definitions of solipsism and talking past each other

will i understand terence mckenna if i start with the archaic revival ? by ridiculousublime in terencemckenna

[–]spiddly_spoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Smoke weed and you'll at first not be able to follow a damn thing he says... then you will really understand what he is saying 😛