Readit Newskruasan commented on Ask HN: What do you think is all this? (this reality, existence, space-time, us) · Posted by u/Zakuzaa
I found asian philosophies very interesting in this regard. There is an interesting Hindu philosophy about 4 states - awake, sleep, dream and turiya. In below video, lecturer explained them very beautifully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGKFTUuJppU
Also you might enjoy Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid where author tried to explain self-referential systems.
If you pick up any interest in asian philosophies, try https://www.amazon.com/Who-Am-Sri-Ramana-Maharshi/dp/1537599... and https://www.amazon.com/I-Am-That-Nisargadatta-Maharaj/dp/089...
Yes, it's called Advaita Vedanta. Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures are always a great source of knowledge about Advaita.
So Advaita is about you, that is, about consciousness. You are consciousness. And then it goes something like "you're not your body and you're not your mind, you are the "pure subjectivity" present in any qualia, you are Sakshi." Or Atman, also a popular term. Also there's that equation that Atman = Brahman (brahman being the universe/existence itself? [1] but I don't buy it, maybe I don't understand what that means yet) And all of this supposedly is ought to make you feel better about your own problems or suffering, idk? I'm not sure how tbh, I just have a metaphysical interest in this topic. It didn't help me with my problems.
So in every qualia there is the content of experience, and then there is the very first-personal givenness of whatever is subjectively given [2]. Experiential presence. But it's only a conceptual difference, not a real nomological/metaphysical one. There's just qualia. There cannot be qualia without an experiencer, an experiencing that is happening. We wouldn't even call that "qualia". Similarly, there cannot be just this abstract quality of first-personal givenness, mere subjectivity without contents. We wouldn't call that an experience.
So in Advaitic terms: consciousness = subjectivity = Sakshi (just a laconic term) [3] = experiential presence = immediacy of experience = mineness = for-me-ness = the first-personal givenness of experience = the real metaphysical "I". So contrary to popular nowadays philosophers of mind, quale is not consciousness. Qualia consist of 1) consciousness and 2) contents of consciousness. And these two are inseparable, I make only a difference in words to explain what it is, on the level of concepts. In nature there are only experiences going on.
Advaita says that you are that which experiences. Whatever you experience — that you are not. This is a useful phrase to remember. A distinction. You observe happenings of your mind just as you observe your body and the outside world and everything else. (the mind is even sometimes called as "the subtle body" by Advaitins)
You are singular, only one. Experiences - many
You - never change, but experiences come and go
You are very simple and propertyless, but your experiences and feelings are complex and can change
There is no seer and the seen, there is only a process of "seeing", and you are that. Also from this follows that I am you and every conscious person, animal or being is the very same subjectivity, instantiated in different contexts (locations, times). This is also sometimes called Open Individualism theory of personal identity (term coined by Daniel Kolak) [4] [5] [6], or sometimes Universalism by Arnold Zuboff [7] [8], or as in writings of Edralis [9] [10].
There's also that concept of self-luminosity (svaprakasatva), that self-consciousness is just consciousness. Light reveals many other objects but simultaneously reveals itself. You don't need another source of light to see light. For advaitins, light is a metaphor for you, for consciousness. [11]
Also the mistaken identification of yourself, as consciousness, with your mind is called Adhyāsa (superimposition) [12]. There's a technique for grasping this concept intuitively called Drig Drishya Viveka, Swami Sarvapriyananda often talks about it [13].
References:
1 // https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab023
2 // The I: A dimensional account https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-020-09697-9
3 // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakshi_(Witness)
4 // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_individualism
5 // http://digitalphysics.ru/pdf/Kaminskii_A_V/Kolak_I_Am_You.pd...
6 // https://opentheory.net/2018/09/a-new-theory-of-open-individu...
7 // http://nsl.com/misc/zuboff/zuboff1.htm
8 // https://philpapers.org/rec/ZUBOST
9 // https://edralis.wordpress.com/2020/07/24/mineness-and-person...
10 // https://edralis.wordpress.com/2020/07/24/i-could-have-been-s...
11 // Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta, p.36 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3678791-consciousness-in...
12 // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhyāsa
13 // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dṛg-Dṛśya-Viveka
Further reading:
// Prakāśa. A few reflections on the Advaitic understanding of consciousness as presence and its relevance for philosophy of mind https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11097-020-09690-2
// Galen Strawson - What is the Relation Between an Experience, the Subject of the Experience, and the Content of the Experience? chapter 6 of https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6689029-real-materialism
// chapter 5 & chapter 10 of https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/33357091
Mario Montano's youtube videos:
// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WKqO16mkGE
// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF5dVjRgXeU
// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uz6anwm47g
// Complex Numbers - We, 22nd Century. Electronic opera (english version) https://youtu.be/zC1o9CjeefI?t=1025
// https://www.naturalism.org/philosophy/death/death-nothingnes...
// http://web.archive.org/web/20210121121148/https://vitrifyher...
The speed of light (or compensated with very long travel time) is limiting, though. Much less volume within reasonable, for your definition of reasonable, reach both for ourselves and others. The universe, to put it mildly, is ginormous.
This is true, we can travel only up to 8.2 billion light years (radius of the affectable universe/2) which is the largest completely causally connected region, in the sense that every point can observe and reach every other. 8.2 billion light years is the furthest distance that we could reach and then return from at the speed of light. And it is much smaller than the radius of the observable universe (46.4 billion light years)
I make jazz piano music and funky electronica, drum & bass occasionally. My most representing albums are The Box of Unusables, Nightly Blues, Gematria. All available for free download on bandcamp:
- https://kruasan.bandcamp.com/
When I am angry, frustrated and disappointed or depressed, I think of the pale blue dot every single time. It helps me put things into perspective. Our little knotted lives and our petty concerns are meaningless and inconsequential in grand scheme of things. Just let it go. Enjoy what little time we have here!
That's naive. Why would I let it go?
Firstly, contrary to Benatar, our lives are not "meaningless", even from a cosmic perspective. Our personal problems, concerns, relationships, and feelings are in no way less significant merely in the virtue of the size of the (multi)verse. Your feeling of pain is still pain, whether the universe contains billions of galaxies, or is just 10 light-years across. Same with joy, same with health, everything.
Secondly, our lives are certainly not inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The whole future of the Sun depends on whether humanity's descendants exist long enough to develop the technology to stop it from going nova and gather its energy. If Earth is indeed the only planet in the observable universe to contain life, then our lives are of tremendous significance. Either we live and hopefully, build grand Kardashev IV-utopia among the stars changing the universe completely, or we go extinct.
kruasan commented on This Website Will Self Destruct thiswebsitewillselfdestru... · Posted by u/boh123
Someone posted this, whatever that means:
𐐌 𐑊𐐴𐐿 𐑉𐐴𐐻𐐮𐑍 𐐮𐑌 𐑄𐐮𐑅 𐐻𐐯𐐿𐑅𐐻, 𐐮𐐻 𐑊𐐳𐐿𐑅 𐐿𐐭𐑊. 𐐶𐐲𐑉𐐿𐑅 𐐼𐐮𐑁𐐲𐑉𐐲𐑌𐐻 𐑄𐐰𐑌 𐑅𐐻𐐰𐑌𐐼𐐲𐑉𐐼 𐐬𐑊𐐼 𐐢𐐰𐐻𐐲𐑌 𐐰𐑊𐑁𐐰𐐺𐐯𐐻, 𐐺𐐲𐐻 𐐲𐐻 𐑄 𐑅𐐩𐑋 𐐻𐐴𐑋 𐑁𐐫𐑉𐑋𐐼 𐑁𐑉𐐲𐑋 𐑄 𐐢𐐰𐐻𐐲𐑌 𐐰𐑊𐑁𐐰𐐺𐐯𐐻. 𐐆𐑋𐐰𐐾𐐮𐑌 𐑄𐐮𐑅 𐐺𐐨𐐮𐑍 𐐲𐑅𐐲𐐼 𐑁𐐫𐑉 𐐹𐑉𐐰𐐿𐐻𐐮𐐿𐐲𐑊 𐐹𐐲𐑉𐐹𐐲𐑅𐑆.
𐐡𐐰𐑌𐐼𐐲𐑋 𐐼𐐭𐐼 𐐮𐑌𐐻𐑉𐐨𐑀𐐼 𐐺𐐴 𐑄 𐐔𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 𐐈𐑊𐑁𐐰𐐺𐐯𐐻 .
As Greg Egan in "Permutation City" once put it:
Supporters of the Strong AI Hypothesis insisted that consciousness was a property of certain algorithms -- a result of information being processed in certain ways, regardless of what machine, or organ, was used to perform the task. A computer model which manipulated data about itself and its "surroundings" in essentially the same way as an organic brain would have to possess essentially the same mental states. "Simulated consciousness" was as oxymoronic as "simulated addition."
. . .
Paul had rapidly decided that this whole debate was a distraction. For any human, absolute proof of a Copy's sentience was impossible. For any Copy, the truth was self-evident: cogito ergo sum. End of discussion.
Further reading:
1 // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
https://qz.com/925630/feel-more-fun-in-french-your-personali...
Chen et al 2010, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014616721038536...
Chen et al 2013, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopy.12040
Athanasopoulos et al 2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02643294.2020.17...
M. Keith Chen 2012, https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...