Don’t like me? Don’t interact with me. Block me. It really is that simple. I have no interest in the feelings of people who themselves come yapping at me and then get upset by what I have to say.
Wow. You really actually believe that? You actually equate non-dual ideology which necessarily posits a non-hierarchial ultimate reality without absolute good and evil with the bullshit of theistic religions?
Damn I have seen the memes about Marxists thinking they’re way smarter than they are but I thought they were exaggerating.
For someone harping about science, you certainly fall for logical fallacies a lot. You keep pointing at the extracted brain, textbook appeal to the stone.
You are pointing to contents of consciousness to try to prove matter comes prior.
Maybe take the hint that you don’t understand the argument (and aren’t willing to try) and thus aren’t really equipped for this conversation.
Op made an public question I answered. I however did not ask anyone’s opinion.
Because all your proof hinges on matter being real and prior.
regardless of who is percieving it.
And since we require perception to say anything about matter, what does that say about which comes first, matter or consciousness?
Consciousness is a material, measurable process
Again, prove it. It is YOUR system of thought which requires that every claim must be backed with objective proof. Where is the objective proof of matter? All the rest you’re saying hingest upon that being a fact. But if you can’t prove it as a fact, all you have is an unverified belief that you insist everyone else should have. Which, again, makes you exactly the same as any other oppressor. In your own system of thought. And before you parade some scientists in front of me, ask yourself if you can know that they know what they are talking about, or do you just believe them because they share the same core belief system as you?
Oh you were SO CLOSE to getting it.
Why can’t materialists prove it though? By all their own rules, they should.
The ideas of people like Kastrup and Hoffman rely on consciousness being distinct from matter, and not a product of matter.
Yes. Good. You got it. Now definitively prove that consciousness arises from matter and not the other way around. No, brainwave scans exist in consciousness. Everything you say exists in consciousness. Prove to yourself that ANYTHING exists outside your consciousness, prior to thought (as thought is only a reflection of what is, like an image in a mirror but it’s not the thing itself).
Else, you are just insisting that your beliefs are the correct ones without proof. All I need to prove consciousness is be. You’re the one insisting on extra steps. You’re just taking materialism as a fact because that’s what you’re used to doing. You put the block of materialism at the bottom and use the blocks you put on it to try to prove it. This is called circular reasoning.
Can’t do it huh? For all your talk of science, you sure are ready to take the belief in materialism for granted. Just another belief you demand others have, demand others have the same thoughts as you. The road towards fascism is short indeed.
Unless you can provide scientific proof, I have no reason to subscribe your belief system and neither does anyone else. Go read https://www.bernardokastrup.com/ or https://bradleyhook.com/donald-hoffmans-concepts-simplified-understanding-reality-and-perception/, debunk them and you probably have grounds for your ideology. Else, it’s just another house of cards built on a foundation of fiction.
Nice strawman equating nonduality with flat earth and other materialistic religions. Top critical thinking, very science and logic.
If you are so sure of your stance, prove to me that matter exists outside consciousness. And good goddess, at least try to do better than pointing at an extracted brain will you? Nonduality has been around for thousands of years and it’s yet to be debunked despite there being a very clear criteria for it.
Tell me you don’t know shit about spirituality without telling me you don’t know shit about spirituality.
I said Zen Buddhism is a start. Not the end.
Aw, did your brain just go “nooo I need others to think how I think”. Congratulations, you just unlocked tyranny.
Get into non-dual spirituality. Zen Buddhism is a good start. Stop thinking you can win the cycle of suffering by spinning the wheel a little differently.
Marxist nonsense will succumb to the exact same human frailties as capitalism. Greed, tribalism. It’s the same thing, they just demonize a different group of people and thought. They’re still creating a division and separation. No system of thought that’s not grounded in what can be said to be inarguably TRUE is free from tyranny - the only way out is to release your attachment to anything that could be used to control you, to force you to act unlike you truly feel called to act.
Materialism is the ultimate means of oppression. And it’s something you’ve been conditioned to believe in since birth. Socialists, communists etc. still rely on materialism to drive their ideology and somehow think they’re better because they make nice noises about equality. Childish. At least capitalism is logically consistent with it.
Unless you are willing to take a really fucking hard look at your core beliefs about the nature of reality, you will not change anything. You’re just giving the leash of materialism around your neck to a different master.
I’m going to make a guess that majority of people looking at this question have grown up in countries with Christian cultural background. Meaning even if they aren’t religious, their more or less subconscious believes about the nature of reality may involve some vague ideas about souls, absolute good and evil and so on. Separate entities in a hierarchical world. From that perspective, reincarnation is never going to sound anything but magical.
But if you drop your belief in you as a separate entity, literally everything is a “reincarnation” of you, if you want to use that word. But it’s not the “you” that you think you are. Reality is prior to your thought about it, as thoughts are just imperfect reflections of reality.
You get a disconnect when you try to take a concept like reincarnation from a thought-framework such as Buddhism, without being REALLY FUCKING INTIMATELY STEEPED IN IT, and then try to fit it into whatever dualistic worldview you’re likely holding in this largely Chisto-capitalistic world that is hell bent on making sure you always feel separate, alone and not enough.
It really is like taking a power plug from the EU and then being surprised it doesn’t fit in the socket in the USA. And then going off about what a stupid design EU has while not ever even considering if the socket is even meant to receive that kind of a plug (because in YOUR opinion, your socket must be perfect in every way and could never ever be questioned).
Get Waking Up by Sam Harris… Or read Adyashanti, Rupert Spira, Loch Kelly, Jayasara, Kiran Trace, Christopher Wallis, Bernardo Kastrup, many more. It’s all available out there but unfortunately a lot gets dismissed because “nooo muh materialistic worldview that is required for the current capitalistic hellscape that’s slowly destroying our world can’t possibly be wrong”. So many people are pushing the collective cart towards doom, complain about the doom and the cart but never question what they so deeply believe that they won’t just stop pushing.
Reasons vary between people. It’s not important. If you want to know, ask the people in question.
Don’t think everyone SHOULD be doing it like you. If you feel like being upbeat, be upbeat. ACCEPT not everyone is but they don’t get to force their view on you either.
It’s naive to think one way is more “right” than the other.
That’s one of the many issues with expecting a collective resolution. Question is: why do people feel they need to be able to discuss issues way beyond their understanding and personal experience online with others who also don’t know much about it? If actually done well, moderation is a full time job but nobody is interested in paying a bunch of online jannies to clean their space.
That’s why I favor individual responsibility, and opting out of the possibility of being exposed to (or perpetuating) misinformation. Maybe in the future we can have forums for verified experts of a field, where regular people can have discussions with them and ask questions etc. But these would be moderated places where you do need to bring proof and sound arguments, not emotionally charged headlines.
The stories and information posted on social media are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted as fact.
If we want to go the route of the Responsibility of the Individual: Resolve to not get your political etc. news from social media. Draw a line for yourself: cool to get gaming news from random influencers online? Probably. News about global events? At this point might be better for most people’s mental health to ignore them and focus more locally. However, read how to read a book, make your best effort at finding a reputable news organization and check those for news if you must have them. On same vein, if you don’t read at least some article about an event being discussed on social media, DON’T COMMENT. Don’t engage with that post. If it really grabs at you, go find an article about it from a trusted source, and depending on how much it animates you, try to get a bigger picture of the event. Assume that vast majority of ALL CONTENT online is currently incentivized to engage you - to capture your attention, which is actually the most valuable asset you have. Where you put your attention will define how you feel about your life. It’s highly advicable to put it where you feel love.
Responsibility of the Collective: Moving in hierarchies, we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible. Try to only join communities that have mods that do this. Failing that, demand social media platforms prevent misinformation. Failing that, we can demand the government does more to prevent misinformation. All of those solutions have significant issues, one of them being they are all very incentivized to capture the attenttion of as many people as possible. Doesn’t matter what the exact motivation is - it could be a geneinly good one. A news organization uses social media tactics to get the views so that their actually very factual and dilligently compiled articles get the spread. Or, they could be looking to drive their political agenda - which they necessarily do anyway because desire to be factual and as neutral as possible is a stance as well. One that may run afoul of the interests of some government that doesn’t value freedom of press - which is very dangerous and you need to think hard for yourself how you feel about the idea of the government limiting what kind of information you can access. For the purposes of making this shorter, you can regard massive social media platforms as virtual governments too. In fact, it would be a good idea in general.
The thing with misinformation is that many people who talk about it subtly think that they are above it themselves. They’re thinking that they know they’re not subject to propaganda and manipulation but it’s the other poor fools that need to be protected from it. It’s the Qanon and Antivaxxers. But you know better, you know how to dig deeper into massively complicated global topics and find out what the true and right opinion about them is. You can’t. Not even if we weren’t in the middle of multiple fucking information wars. You’d do well to focus on what you can know for sure, in your own experience. If you don’t like the idea of individual responsibility though, because “most people aren’t going to do it” - your best bet at getting a collective response is a group of individuals coming together under the same ideal. It’ll happen sooner or later anyway and there’s going to be plenty of suffering before either way.
Here’s a conundrum: what if most people wanted to organize the society in a certain way? They are doing what they want. Are they not allowed to do that? People who make complaints about not being able to do what they want rarely seem keen to grant others the same privilege.
Also, the guy in the comic is doing exactly what he wants - it’s just that he probably wanted a job more than he wanted to not wear pants. The issue isn’t not being able to do what one wants, the issue is that people don’t want any inconvenience for doing so. The more you learn to tolerate inconvenience, the more free you are to do whatever you want. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.