Carl-Richard

Why call it a room if it's just concsciousness?

Yes, the room is within consciousness, but the room is a sense perception.

Yes. Np.

It is. https://www.actualized.org/forum/guidelines/

I'm just saying there is a distinction between sense perceptions and consciousness.

But have you experienced anything you're talking about?

My eyes vs. your eyes? Isn't that a distinction? It's not that distinctions don't exist. It's that distinctions are from the absolute perspective One.

Brains are within consciousness, not the other way around. Brain activity seems to correlate with certain sense perceptions (seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.), but again, sense perceptions are not consciousness. As for there being an external physical world, the way certain sense perceptions seem to appear along fairly consistent patterns (described by concepts such as space and time) can compel you to use the description of "external physical world" (e.g. when you go to the store, your house is still there when you return), but it's still all occuring within consciousness which doesn't have an inside or an outside.

They're very much the same thing, my guy. It's just that cessation is when you let the effects run for longer without interruption and maxing them out. Consciousness is pure being/knowing, and perceptions (seeing, hearing, smeeling, etc.) arise secondarily.

How big is the spike in cardiac deaths in athletes?

Fuck it. This is my music journal.

How to not waste my early twenties being a child.

@AtheisticNonduality New favorite girl singer? ?

The more abstract the quote, the worse. What does "conscious being" mean? Also, if you're infinite consciousness, then when did you "become sentient"? Hasn't consciousness always been here? How can consciousness vanish when you die? The only thing that vanishes when you die is your human form and the sense perceptions associated with it (thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc.). Besides, I already responded to a quote from that article. Are you saying there is a logical inconsistency in the article?

I know, but it does to people who write about solipsism, which you told me to read about. Because you are not a thought, feeling, emotion, experience, object, sound, shape, color, or sensation. You are consciousness. Solipsism is when you take something which is not consciousness and identifying it as yourself and making deductions based on that. "My body is in the center, therefore no other bodies have a mind". If you're trying to say that consciousness is primary, forget bodies, forget thoughts, feelings and emotions. Those things are not inherent to consciousness. Consciousness is fine without them.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/problem-of-other-minds "Thinking" and "feeling" are sense perceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds "Behavior" and "mind" are sense perceptions. As for "justifying other minds", i.e. presenting an analytical philosophical argument justifying other minds, I've not really been doing that here. To understand the primacy of consciousness, you have to become directly conscious of it. That is what consciousness is; pure phenomenology. The same with my play example. It's not a philosophical argument either. It's an appeal to the phenomenology of social interactions and emotional empathy.

Please point out the contradiction. You can't, because thoughts, experiences and emotions are sense perceptions.

Being critical is not being rude. Maybe the joke was rude, but not the points. And I'm not the only one driving the Leo critic bus. You just keep laying yourself under the tires.

One joke and everybody loses their shit If you want some perspective, I think this confusion of terms is causing real world harm, and when someone comes to the defense for such things, I'm sorry, but I guess I became a little emotional and made a joke for once.

Some fun insight on relativity: when you're in free fall above Earth (granted a vacuum), your movement can be described as an acceleration (~9.81 m/s^2). But when you're in free fall, it doesn't feel like you're accelerating in the same way as if you were driving a car and pushing in the gas pedal (no feeling of inertia). So why does writing it as an acceleration work as a model for describing the movement induced by gravity? Well, you have to think about it as not you being accelerated towards the Earth, but as the Earth being accelerated towards you I guess the proper way to describe it is that when on Earth, gravity is a constant force acting on your body, and that attaining the acceleration associated with free fall just requires removing whatever force is keeping your body at rest (e.g. your feet on the ground). Simply removing a force that is acting on you doesn't lead to inertia. It's only when a new force starts acting on you that there is inertia. So we're really always falling, but we've just gotten used to keep ourselves up

Omg! Opeth finally started performing "Black Rose Immortal" after 27 years. As Mikael describes in the intro, It's a 20-minute long melodic death metal song with influences from progressive and black metal. I've always wanted to hear this live

I've never seen people have a cardiac event live either, but let's look at some numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_cardiac_death_of_athletes#Incidence One athlete every three days, that means about 122 athletes every year in the US alone, based on numbers from 2012.

I know. It's just not the main deal imo.

I saw.