Nemra

Interesting.

You haven't seen your brain but only the brains of others or depictions of brains, which you use to think about your brain. Let's say there is some technology that allows you to see your brain. That also happens in your direct experience. The brain is not something that exists outside your experience that produces your experience independent from the experience. The brain can't imagine itself if you say that it includes everything and is also something inside your skull at the same time. However, I would say that the brain is something that has huge control of your direct experience.

If by "self" you mean a separate conscious experience inside your direct experience, then you are imagining it; otherwise, that "self" must not be limited to being a human at all and contain EVERYTHING that you experience, which means things that you say "not me" are "me". I'm also having a hard time understanding what that "self" implies. I know that people here will call it God. However, I would rather not pretend that I'm conscious of it. I have had an insane mystical experience, which I barely remember, but now in my current state I can't and don't want to conclude stuff as I have to go beyond my state.

@Sugarcoat, by direct experience, I also mean that you are not having or you are imagining a separate conscious experience with other humans. Notice that you are choosing what "myself" is in your direct experience, like your voice, face, touching sensation, eyes, etc., believing that if you have more control over them, they are more likely "you" than "other". You are not even sure if you are really in control, but as long as you have some direct control, you believe you have full control over them. So, what you believe you have direct control over, you consider "myself". However, if you are conscious that everything is in your experience, then concluding that you are some separate thing inside it is missing the point.

Your experience is not inside a skull. You have never seen your skull but a representation of it, or you might have seen others' skulls, which you can use to imagine that yours might be like that. Furthermore, that representation of your skull is inside your direct experience.

@Leo Gura, he's so meticulous in his observation.

Almost all of the philosophical and political stuff I started learning through your videos. You have gone to a better school.

I was taught Islamic prayers when I was a kid at school. The words Mohammed, Allah, and Shaitan are the most memorable to me. There doesn't have to be iconography to worship those things.

I bet it is just hypnotic trance.

Basically it is religious hypnosis.

Falsehood has to be itself to be falsehood which means that it has to be true. If falsehood is false then it isn't falsehood in the first place. If someone is lying to you, you would recognize the lie as a lie when you see that it's true.

Falsehood has to be true inorder to be falsehood.

That also has to be true in the end.

Do you see what you did there? 😏

@Leo Gura, sorry, I misinterpreted then.

How are you confused if you know what you find appealing to have by looking at another sex? I also think that those things can have a huge influence.

@Leo Gura, I didn't get the last part for that case. It seems to me that you are saying that suffering is necessary to determine whether it's legit or not.

Ralston calls out Teal Swan for not pursuing truth and for creating a cult following. Watch the video beginning from the 37:57 timestamp.

@Leo Gura, so, if a person finds it appealing to have some or all characteristics of another sex regardless of whether they are suffering or not, it's because of genetic neuro-divergence?

@Salvijus, I misread your response to @Davino. I was trying to show you that you treat the issue as if they don't have good and legit reasons to do what they do, and you think of yourself seriously when you need to while ignoring others' seriousness.

@Salvijus, you are using your so-called God to justify your dogma. If God created everything, then it must have created the suffering so that you can change yourself.

@Clarence, I'm happy for you.

@The Crocodile, maybe epistemic dishonesty?

RFK Jr. starts pushing a debunked cell phone health conspiracy theory.

RFK Jr. told that he didn't have a clue about his donor, who was also Trump's donor, and other lies.