http://www.collective-ev...in-or-a-receiver-of-it/

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness.
Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
~ Max Planck

Thoughts?

Note that I'm not posting these all in the same thread because I think they're not all quite the same. But, if a mod feels they are, feel free to merge the threads into one.

Chicken-Egg-Chicken-Egg-Chicken-Egg-Chicken-Egg-Chicken-I-am-sofa-king-we-todd-ed

I think, therefore I am [a snooty 20-something American philosopher]

I agree with Max Planck. Consciousness is fundamental. The dream and the dreamer are the same. Or put it differently: reality is digital, and it runs on consciousness. The "computer", the "computer language", and the "user", are one and the same. It's a self-organizing fractal system.

Exactly. However, instead of "digital", would "binary" be a better descriptor?

There is, essentially, Yang, the Observer, and Yin, the Observed, or more simply, Subject and Object.

This may seem like a duality, but really, it's not. It's more like... Polar Holism, where Yin and Yang, as One, eternally blend with each other. Hence, Spirit, Soul, Mind, and Body are all aspects of Oneness, the unfathomable Tao, if you will.

Thoughts?

FFS just read Kant's Defense of Pure Being. It will answer all these questions far more clearly than >>>99% of all Nexians could

Somehow, I doubt Kant has answers that could satisfy everyone's curiousity.

Did Kant ever take psychedelics?

No; but he did spend 80-odd years of his life ruminating & writing upon this very same subject, and explained it very well in his writings; psychedelic or not, The Song Remains The Same.

One cannot definitely state that Kant wouldn't answer all their questions until they have read & contemplated all of Kant's works.

I don't realy want to defend Kant (not a fan), but why would that be relevant?

On the one had you're constantly arguing AGAINST materialism and saying that counsciousness shouldn't be seen as material in any way...while on the other hand you now seem to imply that enlightenment is nothing but a substance.

Speaking of Duality,

http://jsmyth.wordpress....eedom-the-soul-and-god/

https://site.douban.com/...5911418/note/274057246/

http://plato.stanford.ed...tries/kant-development/

Because materialism has failed to produce any substantial answers for explaining the origins of existence, let alone consciousness.

I'm not saying I have the answers of what consciousness truly is, but after considering the answers materialism posits, and after having had some deep psychedelic experiences where I've encountered disembodied entities who've more than proven their existences to me, I can only certainly conclude that consciousness is not something produced by the brain. Plants are conscious and they don't have brains. Bacteria are conscious, as well, in some way, and they don't have brains... consciousness is the most difficult mystery any being will face.


No, I never implied such a thing. I just asked whether it was known whether Kant took psychedelics. They certainly could have pushed him down the path he blazed much more quickly than without, and in directions he probably couldn't go without them. That said, he was still undoubtedly a remarkable philosopher.

However, no philosopher has all of the answers, not that I'm claiming you meant that, though. Buddha didn't. Lao Tzu didn't. Plato and Aristotle didn't. But, they, and other great minds like them, including Kant, had certain answers that can certainly help us find our own paths to blaze. To provide inspiration for developing our own philosophies.

I've found certain inspirations in all of their philosophies that have helped shape my own understanding of Reality, which is no way close to any definite answer. I have something, though, but I don't really understand what that is, or how to even remotely put it into words.

OK, sorry for misinterpreting you. I thought that with the question "did he ever take psychedelics?" you meant to dismiss him.

Many people i look up to have never taken any psychedelics (as far as i know).

I must say that i'm not fully convinced by materialism either. I do find however, that neuroscience is realy interesting and valuable, and that we can learn a lot from it.
Because regardless of how little we actually know, we can at least say by now that what's happening in the brain seems to reflect pretty acurately what's going on in a persons mind.

I don't know how the brain is related to counsciousness exactly. As long as we don't know, i think it's good just to be open to every good theory, materialist or non-materialist.

Can you give me some excerpts you find interesting?

Indeed. However, we shouldn't hold the brain as most important. The mind, whatever its nature, is more important than the brain.


Seems to... but does it always turn out that way? Or have the nueroscientists pumped up their science's importance in order to gain more and more funding? Money has deeply corrupted science to the point where a lot of very shoddy, shitty science gets promoted as important, when more often than not, it may just be a dead end. There is a ton of very crappy research out there that gets pumped up as "important" and as a "breakthrough", while a lot of very interesting, genuinely useful scientific research gets filtered out by the gatekeepers of the respective scientific fields that want to protect their reputations and belief systems. Physics is a major example of this, sadly.

I find Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock's works to be most fascinating. Even more so, since TEDx, a supposedly respectful institution, decided to censor them somewhat, because their views don't accord with the materialist and / or official politically correct worldview being pushed by most of mainstream scientific institutions.


What makes a "good" theory, though? Maybe I'm just too cynical...

Thanks, Godsmacker!

Rather interesting, I think.

Kant is considered the most important philosopher, and it's possible that he got it right. What I have an issue with, is your statement that he could answer "all these questions far more clearly than >>>99% of all Nexians could". Kant is the most difficult to read from all the philosophers. In fact, among modern philosophers, there's a saying: "it's not about how much Kant you read, it's how you read Kant". So I seriously doubt that Kant is where the average person should be looking at for easy understanding. Precision of words, yes. But understanding Kant is not easy.