Видео

@@eatdapewpews ruclips.net/video/BIi41kvbb5I/видео.htmlsi=FoCg-J86yIFeQBk1

Interesting. Can you find any notable examples of atheists that believed gods exist and decided not to believe in them because they found them not worthy of worship? Because if there aren't any, then I'm not sure what you're arguing

scientists (often atheists) believe in dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, string theory, etc, and they think they have the evidence for it, while theists believe they have the evidence too. We're deep in belief on both ends

@ If you believe that there is a god or there are gods you aren't an atheist by definition. You can't really decide what you believe. But what you believe can change based on your experiences, knowledge, and your willingness to question your beliefs. You can however decide if you worship any deity. If you believe that there is a god but you don't think they are worthy of worship you are still a theist.

@@Kingswood-qv7sr thanks. How should i approach him? Just comment on a randomly picked video?

@ptyl.dragon yeah he post stuff alot he reads all comments he will respond

@ptyl.dragon or u can email him if question is to crazy for the public lol

@gnusch3109 The possible but not necessary existence of supernatural entities is not enough for theism. Theism requires these entities are worthy of worship. According to this theory, these entities aren’t worthy of worship, which therefore defeats theism.

@ okay, Eism it is then!

@@Kingswood-qv7sr In previous videos i already argued that memory is bodily, which is why a smack on the head could result with (temporary or terminal) loss of memory and consciousness. This theory argued that only experience (or alternatively only the sense of being) is fundamental, not consciousness. According to this theory consciousness isn’t fundamental

@@Kingswood-qv7sr out of body experiences don’t challenge the theory

@ptyl.dragon have u engaged in Theurgy it's called many names

@@IYouLikeCheeseI only you can confirm that you believe what you say you believe. There’s no necessary relation between something communicating with you and it being a creator. According to this theory we are all creators, cramming into a single shared wakeful reality. Whomever communicates with you may, too, be a creator, like you are a creator. You therefore don’t need a connection with something that is not you to connect with “a creator.” Still, when everyone are creators of the same world, then everyone is limited. This theory doesn’t judge you or your conviction to be sober, brave, and non political. Whatever works for you

It definitely needs an audit

@@Jay-xw9ll element - a part or aspect of something abstract, especially one that is essential or characteristic - the “something abstract” in this case is metaphysics.

I don't understand at all why you're so sure about your position, how you prove that first there is consciousness, and only then you get to have experience. It would suggest that sometimes consciousness can exist without experience Can you give me an example of consciousness without experience? Because I can give you examples of experience without at least some of the properties of consciousness: 1. Intense pain, when thought stops and it's just "hell" 2. When waking up from a dream and you have no memory (and often no awareness either, definitely no self awareness) 3. In meditation, when thought stops 4. While dazed/confused/overwhelmed so much that thought simply doesn't "happen"

@@joeolson6085 i explained it briefly here ruclips.net/video/z4M40lLKvw0/видео.htmlsi=_x6hQY0TrGzW3txj

"How could you have an experience, any experience, if you weren't fist conscious". I think you somehow didn't hear what I mean by the term "experience" (although I did repeat it many times). It doesn't denote notable sensations, such as, say my memory of going on a roller coaster when i was 8. I use the term "experience" to mean the sense of being in the present, in first person. I also argue that other things (say, the objective substrate of particles) exist too, but because I don't perceive them in the first person, they aren't my experience. The reason I mention them here is so that you could make the analogy: You should have less trouble accepting that particles exist, but aren't conscious. Well, experience, too, can exist, even if it doesn't satisfy all capacities that conscious agents have, such as, say, think, remember, be aware of what it is aware of. I'm arguing that it isn't that you have a sense of being. I'm arguing that that sense of being is your existence - and that other than that sense of being - there isn't anything that exists as "you."

@ word salad

@@joeolson6085 Fine, be rude.

@@zachvanslyke4341 why do you say that? I don’t believe matter exists or that wakeful physical reality exists, and I don’t believe the laws of nature produce experience.

@ thanks for your sincere reply. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Did you not say that you don’t believe that consciousness (or presence or immediate experience or awareness however you choose to label it) is fundamental?

@@zachvanslyke4341 i argue experience is fundamental, but consciousness (which includes experience but also includes awareness and memory) isn’t fundamental.

@ I really can’t disagree with that. The only thing I might say is that semantics and personal definitions of the words consciousness can get a little murky and subjective. I would guess that an amoeba is having experience without consciousness, and that “merely” being a rock is an experience without consciousness, perhaps. It’s ironic and a little comical though that all of our definitions are only included in our respective consciousnesses, though. Perhaps our definitions are just arbitrary illusions that help us pass the time 🤣 Take care, and thank you for the brain workout 🦾 🙏🤍🙏

@ The definition don’t matter. they merely clarify the argument, and when they change, the argument changes.

@@tommyheron464 that’s multidimensionality.

@@zipt5 that’s right, and i argue that you experience these through the intersection of experience with elements that are not experience

@@joeolson6085 i am not arguing you have experience at all. I’m arguing you are experience.

@ ok just try to be honest with yourself. Now how would you know you were having an experience if you’re were not first conscious

@i don’t need to know i have an experience to experience it. I don’t need to be aware of the fact i’m anxious to be anxious. Specifically, that’s what makes anxiety so damaging, the fact i experience it without being able to step outside of myself and understand that it is “anxiety,” and instead, think it’s, say, a heart attack

@ listen it’s been sort of interesting to communicate with you but you don’t to be able to grasp some basic stuff. You may not need to know that you’re having an experience to experience it but you most certainly have to be conscious. I would suggest to begin looking into the latest theories about how and why consciousness is fundamental. There’s a lot of info out there about it. Enjoy

​@@joeolson6085 If I understand correctly, you seem to argue that I need to first be conscious (i.e. aware, thinking, remembering), and only then can I experience things. Well, I disagree. Yes, when the causation goes from experience to awareness, thought and memory, it changes a lot, but it solves a whole lot more. That said, of course, there's a lot to unpack there - hence the book. I know this isn't what latest theories say, and my argument is that that this is where they are wrong, even while making otherwise accurate arguments. If you detail specific arguments that compel you to believe consciousness is fundamental, I can tackle them. Or we can end this here.

@@joeolson6085 awareness suggests a cognitive detachment that doesn’t exist when in truly intense pain

@@joeolson6085 i just defined it

If my awareness of an atom is the essence of an atom, then that’s solipsism. As i explained, I reject solipsism axiomatically. It’s my decision. Solipsism is a consistent metaphysical theory, but as many philosophers already argued, and i wouldn’t try to better them, it’s also a dead end.

@@joeolson6085 what do you mean by consciousness?

@@joeolson6085 i think you mean experience and you don’t recognise that many other people use it to say more than that

Like a computer exists without being conscious

Consciousness can mean many things. It can mean "experience and nothing else," (or alternatively "the sense of being and nothing else") and if that's what it means to you, then I say, let's just use the term "experience." Conversely, it can also mean a property of "things" that can exist even when they aren't conscious, a property that emerges when they meet certain conditions, say, through computational complexity, through biological or physical processes, when god "breathes a soul" into a body, take your pick, at which case, it isn't and can't be fundamental - it is being produced by something that isn't it, and that thing that produces it is what's "actually" fundamental. So I'm saying, a term like that: "consciousness," a term whose meaning can change like that, can only confuse, and so I recommend abandoning it. Not sure what you meant by "even before consciousness" but i hope that answers your question

No it does not answer anything. Nothing is without consciousness. Period

How can anything be if there isn’t consciousness first

@ there are people who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenal property of elements or system, that they being conscious or not doesn’t change their physical or biological functions. Most scientists think that, actually

Tell me the names of a few scientists that think that

Hi! This is for wakeful union ruclips.net/video/KIHASyJqBbg/видео.htmlsi=mr9TqH2fZXB9u_EY and there's of course the book, specifically the chapter “Biblical”. I don’t think “prophecy” works in the terms of this theory, and I’m not arguing this is the realisation of biblical prophecy

@@joeolson6085 i’ll answer that in a video

@@jeffmunkynutz1568 i have to admit I don’t know what that is

This is a question I've dealt a lot with in the book. Computation doesn't exist on its own. It's a derivative of an experiential agent interpreting the computation as meaningful, absent which the atoms in a pebble would have been equally computational, and therefore equally viable for experience to manifest through. The question is actually, will a physical organization of elements in space that produce computation, imply an objective substrate on which experience would want to "reflect" and "become it." The answer to that is yes - of course - that's how we make babies, but of course, that's not a satisfactory answer. The answer you're looking for is whether there can be something that it's like to be what already looks like an intelligent machine. I don't think so. An artificially intelligent machine (e.g. a computer) works by making all its decisions through physical manipulations. It doesn't leave experience anything to do, and consequently, experience would find "being it" undesirable. It would just "skip being it," the same way it skips being a pebble. Can we build computers that would make experience want to "be them"? I'm sure we can, but note that what you'd get at the end of this process is an artificial brain, not artificial intelligence - something that works only when it's alive (i.e. intersects with experience), and is incapable of doing much absent its experiential counterpart

@@eatdapewpews I can’t see how there could be. Experience is the first person manifestation of existence, without which there is nothing (“nothing” is not an option, because of something i call an “inconsistent paradox.” that’s a topic from my previous book).

To the extent that consciousness is ghost, then yes, i argue that there’s a shell, a body, a physical custodian of memory, in the ghost, and we need to stop thinking in such terms

@@Crocalu I agree there are things evolution science can’t explain, but my argument is coming from the complete opposite direction. If I assume that only experiential time exists, meaning that the past doesn’t exist, and if I conclude that experience changes reality in a way that the laws of nature cannot, then it becomes a question: should i still find any value in evolutionary science? And as I argued here, I believe the answer is yes

Elaborate