The reality of death can be useful to appreciate life, but I don't believe it is necessary. I think a better way to look at this is by accepting that impermanence and change is woven into the fabric of the universe. We call the impermanence that leads to the cessation of the physical body 'death', but impermanence happens all around us all the time at many levels.

f anything, I think that we don't live long enough to learn what this life is all about. If we became immortal we would be given the time to wonder just what the eff is going on out there, or in our minds, until we have achieved some sort of resolution (enlightenment, in the Eastern traditions) and that is what truly leads to wisdom.

Explanation about our beliefs about consciousness rhat is independent if it...that's something else.

And it's conceivable an entity has intelligence but no subjective experience. So you can explain what strawberry tastes like till you're blue in the face. It doesn't grasp the concept of taste.

An observer who doesn't know pain or subjective experience can just note you are making a lot of noise. You can tell them you're in pain - how could they ever understand what thst is?

And yet Christians are obsessed with death to the extent of burying heads in sand. That’s the whole thing about atheism, it’s taking life cold turkey, no opiates involved to placate.

Atheists see christianity as a death cult, because if this life is of so little value, there’s no reason not to advance to the afterlife right away.

It’s a worldview exemplified by fear and one that devalues and renders our actual lives meaningless auditions.

Hi Find JESUS Fine LIFE.

[removed]

>Neural activity doesn't inform the observer that it feels like anything at all.

Why not? They know you feel pain because you are screaming right?

> here is a correct explanation of our beliefs about conscious-ness that is independent of consciousness

How can that possibly be? How can you have a belief without consciousness?

The p zombie argument is bogus because the p zombie doesn't know it's a zombie. It believes it's a person just like you do. As an observer you also don't know whether or not the subject you are talking to is a zombie. They act as if they are not, and if you ask them they say they are not.

It's a weird and invalid exercise.

That assertion is false. Why can't we infer taste, eyesight or hearing without experiencing then?

We know eagles have better sight than us without needing their eyes.

We know bats hear better than us, and use it for sight without that capability ourselves.

We know migrating birds have mechanisms for navigating that we do not posses. Even though we have not pinned down exactly what, we know it exists and we don't need metaphysics for it.

The more we know about how each thing works the less we need to be able to experience it ourselves to understand it

That’s the thing though. I don’t find consciousness to be profound or significant, just the navigation system we’re stuck with.

I don't follow what you're getting at or asking. Yes, consciousness evolved. What do you mean by applying it out of context? The point is simply that significant phenomena may exist like that which in principle we couldn't detect any less than we can infer what taste, eyesight or hearing is like without experiencing them. These significant phenomena may just as well evolve or be constructed, they needn't be states of matter...

Well we won’t be able to solve death entirely because of entropy. I think most of the research now is on extending healthy years.

We have an observance system because it has demonstrated an evolutionary advantage.

Applying such a concept out of context requires justification to do so. We do not see the universe alive in the same context as we are. What is the justification to apply such a concept to vast empty space, gasses, solids, liquids, and metals out in space?

That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination. Metaphysical claims have no current mechanism for such a test.

I find it brain-tickling and profound based on how profound and significant cosciousness is. But to each their own. :)

Yes, it really not that profound. We’re liminally bound. There are obviously the possibilities and even likelihoods of phenomena present in the universe we are not aware of or only aware in part of, even our instruments just being a way to extend our senses.

The solutions you’re speaking of aren’t really any different from the pattern detection we seek in the universe through our empiricism to begin with. If we can’t find direct effects, sometimes we settle for looking at downstream or indirect effects.

The blind speculation though I can do without. There may or may not be other phenomena we’re familiar with. I’ll worry about it when they have an interaction with reality that is within our ability to study.

Nothing you said takes any real issue with my central point. We take your "observance system to process input" and we ask ourselves are there other cool phenomena in the universe that would require a specific process like an observsnce system to process input? Since by simply observing the universe it doesn't seem like we can infer this input feels like anything.

It has little to do with Ockham's razor also. And it also has nothing to do with the mysterianism position in philosophy of mind that you seem to imply it does.

Because you can't prove what you just asserted is true.

Have you read the post? Here is what chatGPT said based on the summary:

It is an interesting idea that there may be other significant phenomena in our universe that we are not currently aware of. This idea is based on the idea that consciousness is a unique phenomenon that is only knowable through our own subjective experience of it. If this is the case, then it is possible that there are other phenomena in the universe that are only knowable through some other unique process.

One way to explore this idea conceptually would be to consider the ways in which we currently know about the universe and the phenomena within it. We know about the universe through our senses and through scientific instruments that allow us to observe and measure it. However, our senses and instruments are limited in their ability to perceive and measure everything that exists in the universe. It is possible that there are phenomena that exist outside of the range of our senses and instruments, and therefore outside of our current knowledge.

Another way to explore this idea would be to consider the ways in which we might be able to detect these other, potentially obscured phenomena. One possibility is that we might be able to find hints of their existence in the behavior of known phenomena. For example, if there is a phenomenon that influences the behavior of particles in some way, we might be able to detect its presence by looking for patterns in the behavior of those particles that cannot be explained by known physical laws.

There are several objections to this idea that are worth considering. One objection is that our current scientific understanding of the universe is comprehensive and that there is no room for additional, unknown phenomena. However, this objection is not necessarily true. Our scientific understanding of the universe is always evolving, and there is always the possibility that we will discover new phenomena or new aspects of known phenomena that were previously unknown.

Another objection is that if there are additional, unknown phenomena in the universe, we have no way of knowing what they are or how they would behave. This is a valid concern, but it is also true of many other aspects of our scientific understanding. We do not always have a complete understanding of the phenomena we do know about, and we often have to make predictions and develop theories based on incomplete information.

Overall, the idea that there may be significant phenomena in our universe that are currently unknown is an interesting one, and it is worth considering further. Further exploration of this idea could involve looking for patterns in the behavior of known phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific theories, and developing new theories and experiments to test those patterns. This could potentially lead to the discovery of new phenomena and a deeper understanding of the universe

Has anyone spent any time with any of Reiner Schurmann's work?

Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't. Consciouness is simply an observance system to process input.

It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.

As an examples, you can have a sub system in a computer that monitors the computer. Our monitoring system just has actionable capabilities. No metaphysics required.

Can we start applying occam's razor here please? We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.

In this context it reads as a direct attack, just FYI

[deleted]

I mean, you can’t move through space faster than light, but there’s still stuff like Alcubierre drives that could at least theoretically work. We simply can’t know what we don’t know- that is, we can’t know how much knowledge we have yet to attain.

Plus, there’s, to my knowledge, nothing about our current understanding of physics that explicitly rules QA out anyway.