Thanatos13

1. You have no proof of that analogy, I would like to see studies instead of just your words. The awareness can easily be tricked by saying that something bit you. Everyone else with then “grow conscious” of something biting them. It’s easy to fool awareness. 2. A drunk person is conscious but doesn’t remembe anything after the fact. Just because consciousness is mysterious and poorly defined/understood doesn’t mean we can make claims about more or less conscious. I see you are using the argument from dictionary, so there isn’t much point in reasoning with you. You claim to have done hours of research but don’t site anything to prove your claims. The “neurons” fire together wire together is a reductive statement of a the complexity behind neuroplasticity. Practically anything can rewire the brain and the degree to which it can is debatable, but spiritual types like hasty answers since they struggle for evidence. The effects of video games on the mind seem to be overwhelmingly positive, when not consumed in excesss. But that can be the same for anything really. Distractions is a subjective term. Just because you find something a distraction doesn’t mean others do. I see no harm in using the internet for entertainment. You know you have lost the argument when you start qualifying “fun”. It’s not a waste of time if a person only wants to game and TV. On the death bed they will say “it doesn’t matter anyway but I had fun”. Seems like the only one bothered by that is you and not them. It seems to me that the people hear are quite dogmatic and narrow for spiritual types. Life isn’t a contest. If people enjoy the time they “waste” then it isn’t wasted. In the grand scheme of things, everything is a waste of time.

Existence and non existence aren’t the same thing. Nothing to say about that. You can’t assign a value to non existence because it does not exist. It’s not a paradox but a simple resolution. We cannot fathom non existence so the point is moot. We cannot know what an objective viewpoint is, for it is simply colored by our beliefs of what it is not. What you said doesn’t prove existence and non existence to be the same. Something either exists or it doesn’t, it cannot be both and they are not the same. We we like to believe all things are equal in objectivity, but that’s merely human projection as to what that is. If I were to guess I would say that all things are not equal from an objective sense. Why do humans assign fairness to objectivity. But hierarchies do exist, you see it in nature and in humans. Choosing to gloss over them doesn’t make it any less so. Also humans don’t derive meaning from the meaningless (something existentialism has already covered, it’s hardly what I would called head exploding). It’s rather we give meaning to things. So it’s wrong to call something meaningless for as long as someone exists to give it meaning then it has it. It could be argued that without humans to give meaning it would not exist, but there isn’t a way to test that theory.

That’s not raising your consciousness. That’s like saying having more shoes gives you more walk. You also cannot amp you sensitivity to something by focusing on it. You dont actually ally get dumber through the use of the internet. You cannot blame the tool for the issues of yourself. It merely depends what you use the internet for. As for for wasting time, there is simply no such phrase. It doesn’t exist. If you enjoy the time then it isn’t wasted. Pure and simple. One could argue self improvement is an addiction, and a bit conceited as well.

There is no such thing as raising your consciousness. Me I just think of the internet as a tool. I could go without it, but it’s just so practical in this day and age.

Because he literally spent two hours saying nothing about self deception. He keeps saying we are being deceived but fails to prove his case. To claim deception you would have to know the truth, but then that calls into doubt how do you know such truth? It’s pretty much amounted to “this is what reality is and if you think otherwise you are deceiving yourself”. It’s the same as anyone with an opinion who expounds on it. I think the whole “paradox” argument is a cop out. Experiencing something for yourself doesn’t make it true or real because the sense can be fooled and don’t tell the truth or lie. It seems like Leo gets a free pass on everything he spouts. If you don’t know what he meant is because he literally said nothing about it. It’s like an informercial telling you to stay tuned to something great but it never gets there. Be like the Pyrronhists and suspend judgment on all nonevident matters, and this is as non evident as it gets.

The “beauty of life” is something that those with the luxury of basic needs taken care of can speak to. Millions starve and die from disease. More are born with body deformations. To call life beautiful seems terribly naive and privileged. Not to mention it’s entirely subjective and doesn’t make it so. I used to think life life was worth it, then I realized that no sane individual would actually choose to be born, we can only say that because we live in a developed world (the fact that you have internet access sort of negates your point). Buddhists recognize life to be suffering, most religions do. Antinatalism seems to counter your points about “worth it” pretty well.

That’s not true. There just isn’t a plausible or logical reason to carry on. One has to “make” life worth living, which speaks negatively as to the state of life. Death requires nothing. There isn’t a reward for a “life well lived”. Religion just used the punishments for the afterlife to stop people from suicidinng to heaven and the like. Buddhism made it up to get around their noble truth that life is suffering.

It is actually rather selfish to ask someone to stay for other people. This isn’t some utilitarian world where life is about being useful. Also you show know that making meaning is part of the reason doing so is meaningless. Its not like writing half a book because there is no story to tell. The end is when you die, that’s it. Some stories end abruptly. But I think vague spiritual nonsense like “you’re already dead” (not true) is just a way for humans to resolve their death anxiety.

The ego does not lie. That’s just an assumption. Sure you you may not choose what you believe, but that doesn’t make what you believe false or true either way. People seem to toss “personal truth” around a lot on here. There is no deception, you learn that in high school or any basic psychology course. The brain interprets sensory data. In other news the sky is blue (or appears to be). Even the mind not choosing is old news due to modern neuroscience. Although telling people they don’t have free will seems to be rather damaging. And you are incorrect. The nervous system is only seeing what the senses see which is but a small fraction. Even under psychedelics (which is debatable as to whether they enhance anything) it doesn’t widen much. Our senses only pick up a small amount and the mind creates based on that. It’s not picking up everything, just a small amount.

You do know that holding something doesn’t make it true, right? Nor does having a name like truth give you weight. Its not an escape per se, more like not seeing a reason to go on really. It’s not sadness, more like logic. The question IS “why go on”, not why end it. That seems to assume that life is a good thing to cut short. You cannot escape desire, they are always with you. It’s a matter of what kind of weight you give them. Without desires humans would literally do nothing. But that’s not the point here. It seems like you assume there is an enemy to fight or a contest to win, perhaps that is the fatal flaw of the spiritual types. From a truly objective view, I would assume that choosing life or death doesn’t really matter. But that’s an assumption. Im not position to end desire, merely attempting to show the holes in the thinking around here. It’s part experiment and part finding an answer to the insight I have. People assume life to be good, otherwise why live? You pass many judgements for those who claim no ego. I have found more balanced responses from materialists and atheists. At least they admit they don’t know, instead of just arguing through assertion. Life isnt a contest or a race. There aren’t any winners or losers. Whatever one chooses is “right”.

Direct experience is the most flawed testimony of all, even the ancient skeptics knew that. You can use that line to justify literally any claim in existence, it would even negate anything you are trying to say to someone just because their experience is different. Even then there is no way to know that what you experience is truth. Just because it feels so doesn’t mean it is. Its also rather fallacious to use the cell analogy with the body. You cannot assume there is something greater.

But that doesn’t prove that it’s a trickster. You just assume that. Literally nothing you have said is proof that the mind is a trickster (that would assume intent as well and some kind of personality). It could be the truth and what you think is the truth could be a trick. As as I have said, you assume too much.

You actually can stop what flows. It happens to streams. How do you know that we are part of a greater intelligence? What’s the evidence for that? Unlike a cell (which we have evidence for being part of a larger body) there isn’t anything to suggest we are part of a greater intelligence. The fact that we experience subjectively (assuming other people exist) is more a feature of the body rather than a purpose. To grow and expand is what all life does, but that’s not a purpose either.

That doesn’t answer the question. It assumes that the mind is lying when you can’t really know. It also assumes that the truth is when you don’t identify with your mind (also debatable and still doesn’t answer the question of how can you know). It sounds to me like picking and choosing what you want to believe is true and false. If people did see his video on skepticism then I doubt this conversation would be taking place. Too much is being assumed here with no justification.

I get that there is no point in either direction, but that doesn’t really address the issue. Its funny how you seek refuge in the “bullshit” of the mind, but how do you know it’s bullshit? What if it’s telling you something and you just don’t like what it has to say? There isn’t evidence to suggest that I’ll remember anything, so I cannot operate under that assumption. If that were the case, then I feel sorry for those who were murdered brutally. You seem awfully certain that the mind is deceiving. But how can you know? So far the only bullshit I have seen is from spirituality once you turn skepticism on it.

Because contrary to any logic I have for it, suicide is very difficult to perform. The brains and body have survival mechanisms that prevent us from offing ourselves. If i see it that way it’s because I haven’t discovered sufficient evidence to believe otherwise. Or I haven’t heard an argument to counter mine. Science teaches that pure certainty is a myth, so no I’m not certain. But I am fairly confident in the likelihood of it. I just wanted to address the holes in the videos.

Actually the “dystopia” I live in is the truth, whether or not you want to accept it is your own doing. The rallying cry of personal truth seems to be a desperate attempt by spirituals to feel good about living. Not to mention there is a good deal of evidence to back it up. Not prove it, mind you. But the conclusion seems likely. Overall I’m content so far with what I have seen. I know life owes us nothing and gives nothing. Existence doesn’t bend to human concepts of fairness. That our lives don’t really matter and what we do will be forgotten quickly. Purpose and fulfillment seem like tricks of the mind to prevent despair. It was like when Leo said to do something that is emotionally difficult, but that could be anything. It could even be murder, rape, or stealing. So what then? Does one still do it?

I’m going to have to stop you there. The “purpose” line is one I have heard many times in the past with no evidence to back up. It seems more like an illusion we wrap ourselves in to feel better. Based on the prevailing evidence it doesn’t appear that humans or anything living has a purpose, it merely lives. The cycle of pain and birth exists so long as life does. If if I grant there is a purpose, which means there must be some intelligence behind it, I would not be interested. For what kind of sadist would allow life to exist for many years in a cycle of eating and birthing. From an objective standpoint, one could argue that life itself was designed by something that enjoys pain.

Again, none of this addresses my statement. Life isnt “about anything”, it simply is. Anything assigned to it is human bias or “ego” in your speak. How can I trust insights into life in a certain state? What makes that state more valid than others? How do I know such a state isn’t deception? For people who criticize everything else you know you seem to leave certain things untouched. I dont even think the suicide is about depression anymore, it’s more like logic. I’m not bound by any contract to live, it’s optional. I won’t remember anything I did, so why bother doing it? Whatever I decide in life I will forget when I die. Doesn’t seem to be much reason to live to be honest. Seems easier to die, not having to deal with existing anymore.

1. Life is not a contest. Selfish or selfless are both viable options. There aren’t any rules to abide. 2. Enlightenment isn’t killing yourself. It’s a bit more complex than that. 3. “Deception” is a subjective judgment, not objective. The minute I read Leo saying “objectively good” I questioned his reasoning. Every philosopher knows there is no such thing as objective good. Why should I help others? Wasn’t removing should statements on of the videos?

That doesn’t make much sense considering that you don’t have to or need to do any of that. That isn’t the point, because there is no point. There isn’t a difference in dying sooner than you will, you can’t take anything with you and you won’t remember anything that happened. Having a fulfilling life (if there is such thing as fulfillment) only really makes sense if you are obligated to stay alive.

But killing yourself does fix it by ending it.

Death is actually a physical process. The body breaks down, all your processes do. It’s the end of the body. It’s not a mental process at all. No ego doesn’t mean no death, just no “you”. But if there never was you then you can’t really die. Technically there is a “you” though. But it’s rather complicated as to what that is. Spirituality likes to sweep that under the rug to cope with what happens when the body stops. Much like what you are doing.

I can easily say the same things about you. So many statements about what reality IS, but they are all ultimately groundless. It also seems typical for the “spiritual” to try to pass vagueness as wisdom. I think you are far too certain in what you believe. As to the above, part of it is depression. Yet depression is rooted in some truth. Things don’t need to live, yet they do. Wiping out all life would end future suffering. Antinatalism seems to suggest that stopping reproduction would prevent future suffering. Id like to think nihilism is the truth that has some backing by Buddhism. The emptiness of existence. How we cry for meaning into the void only to have nothing return the reply. That nothing we do matters or lasts. We will be forgotten. Our legacy lasting only as long as humanity does.

But how do you know what is true or false? To have such claims would be to contradict the Pyrrhonism video. How do you know that the mind is deceiving you? How do you know the truth is the truth? What if the mind isn’t deceiving you? What if it tells the truth? So many assumptions being made as to the truth of things.