Posts by mistyfox812

You’re totally hitting the nail on the head with how you're reading Descartes. I was actually just arguing on a different thread that cogito basically means self-awareness... and honestly, it's not even just my own weird take on it. There are legit philosophers out there who have translated cogito ergo sum as I am aware, therefore I am. The tricky part is that cogito is actually a verb. Descartes uses it to kickstart some kind of action, not just to sit there and soak things up... but we don't really have a verb to go with "awareness" or the adjective "aware"... maybe something like I am awareness-ing, therefore I am. 😁 😁

Regarding those people who are basically just reacting to random triggers without even thinking—yeah, I'm with you. The less conscious someone is, the less "real" they actually are as a person.

William Gonzalez3 said:Or was it some other kind of torture?

Back then, I was obsessed with stuff like the relationship between living and non-living things... like, is the order in nature actually objective or just something subjective we make up? Is time itself real or just a perception? And what even is information? Like, if information is tucked away inside matter—like in our DNA—is that info physical or something else entirely? Could there actually be a "Theory of Everything," and if so, would physics be it? Or could physics *be* the Theory of Everything? Plus, how much does language matter? Does all knowledge have to be verbal, or can you have this non-verbal kind of knowing? Man, I can't even remember all the rabbit holes I fell down back then...

Then I started reading Nietzsche and it just absolutely wrecked me... Same with Lao Tzu. It totally broke me. I couldn't quite put my finger on why, but every single time I picked up those books, I’d just... feel something happening to me. 🙂

William Gonzalez3 said:but what about the actual answers?

did you actually find them through philosophy?

or did you just stop looking, making philosophy more like a way to prep for whatever the future throws at you?

Honestly, mostly I just realized I was asking some of my questions all wrong. I did stumble onto some answers here and there, sure. But man, it just opened up a whole new flood of questions. 🙂 Biggest takeaway though? I learned that the questions are just as cool as the answers themselves.

relativity said:Does anyone have a link to that story about the cat in the box, maybe explained a bit better? I've stumbled onto it a few times now but I still don't totally get where the cat actually is.

Look, I'll break it down for you—honestly, this is probably the clearest way to put it. 😁 If anything's still fuzzy, just ask. And if you think I'm making this up, just search Schrödinger's cat on Google.

So, when we're talking about the microscopic world, we usually can't actually see what's happening—like, you can't just "see" an electron or whatever. Instead, we have to make educated guesses about the micro-world based on experiments we run in the macro-world, which is the stuff we can actually perceive.

Which basically means that old Zen koan—you know, "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, does it make a sound?"—actually becomes a huge deal in quantum physics. A perfect example is this thought experiment from one of the pioneers of quantum theory, Schrödinger, which is why everyone calls it Schrödinger's cat.

Basically, you take a cat and some radioactive material and put them in a box. You use just a tiny amount of that radioactive stuff, so there's a statistical chance the cat survives. You close the lid and let some time pass. Then, you wonder about the cat's state before you open the box.

Common sense tells us: the cat is either dead or alive. Sure, we don't know which one it is yet, and we won't find out until we peek inside—basically after the act of measurement. But we still assume it was in one specific state, either living or dead, before the measurement happened and regardless of whether we looked or not. It feels totally nonsensical to claim that only our act of measuring (opening the box) is what forces it into that state.

But here's the thing: according to the standard interpretation of quantum physics, it works differently. We have to view the cat's state before the measurement (before opening the lid) as a sort of mixture—kind of a "living-dead" potential state. It’s only our act of measurement that "locks in" one of those possibilities. Opening the box is what makes it either live or die. Before that measurement happens, it doesn't even make sense to say the cat is "alive" or "dead."

It's the same deal with microscopic things, like electrons and all that. It doesn't make sense to imagine them existing as little solid balls independent of us observing or measuring them.

Now, per most physicists' interpretations, this only applies to microscopic objects. For this to even count as a quantum mechanics problem, you have to be dealing with something radioactive (not, say, just regular poison). See, we can't predict exactly what a radioactive sample will do—we can only guess using probability—and radioactivity belongs to that micro-world that we can only ever observe indirectly.

William Gonzalez3 said:So, what actually pulled you into philosophy?

Honestly, there were just so many massive, unanswered questions left hanging. I figured maybe blending physics, biology, and psychology might actually crack something open... you know, like those quantum consciousness theories afriend was talking about earlier, or that whole autopoiesis stuff... total rabbit hole territory. But then it hit me—what I’m actually looking for in philosophy is just the stuff I've been obsessed with my whole life. I just didn't realize it was called "philosophy" back then, so I spent way too much time studying the wrong things. 🙂

Nancy Fowler61 said:You aren't teaching me this in school. I won't even touch Philosophy until my senior year. Ouch. 😢

Look, I'm not actually teaching philosophy here—just whatever's in the title. 👋

William Gonzalez3 said:The girl is just sitting at home, all worked up and waiting for the call.
Too damn proud to actually send the first text.

Oh man, William Gonzalez3... honestly, you could probably use a little philosophy lesson. Seems like you spent your whole college years just grabbing beers instead of hitting the books.

soto said:Look, I dig all of THIS

but you really think she’s gonna say yes to an ice cream date or a movie?

???

🙂

Man, I’d totally call her right now if I wasn't literally twice her age. Give or take a year.
And honestly, I might even be teaching her at school, so that would be super awkward.

soto said:Look, sweetie,

There’s probably some guy out there you're totally crushing on, but he's just too shy
to ever make a move on you.

Just ask him to catch a movie and grab some ice cream

🙂

Otherwise, you'll never think of these little "moves," and you won't be

😢 😢 😢 😢 acting

Yeah, good luck with that!
🙂 👋

I mean, what part of this don't you get?

afriend said:Look, let's be real—quantum theory is just as mind-bendingly confusing as basically everything else in this world.

Nah, I don't think so. Look, I’ve studied the basics—Newtonian mechanics, quantum stuff—and let’s be real, they aren't even in the same league when it comes to being confusing. It’s not just me, either. I don't know a single person who finds quantum physics easier to wrap their head around, but I know plenty of people who totally get Newton. Besides, Bohr said it best: if your head isn't spinning after you hear about quantum mechanics for the first time, then you clearly didn't grasp a damn thing.

A friend said:Seriously, that whole experiment with Schrödinger’s cat basically proves it: reality isn't even a solid thing until we actually look at it. One sentence, man. That's all it takes.😲

So, it really just comes down to how you choose to look at it. Honestly? Schrödinger probably wouldn't have bought that interpretation at all. And Einstein? No way. Even Bohm would've had some serious issues with it.
So, Schrödinger is basically cooking up this experiment to show how totally ridiculous it is to claim a cat could be both "alive" and "dead" at the same time based on some random probability. It’s just absurd, honestly.
It’s like... I don't know, it's almost like some weird, half-alive state? Like everything stays stuck in this limbo until the exact second we actually look to see if the cat is okay. Then it finally snaps into being alive or dead. Super trippy.

a friend said:So, picture this: there's a cat locked in a box, right? And it’s hooked up to this crazy quantum setup that’s tied directly to a dose of poison. If the quantum system hits state A, the poison gets released. If it stays in state B, nothing happens. But here's the kicker—until someone actually peeks inside or tries to measure what's going on mid-process, that system isn't just A or B. It's basically both and neither at the same time. Wild, right?
So... what's the deal with the cat then? Is it actually dead or is it alive?

It’s like, if you start using terms like "radioactive material" instead of just saying "poison"—kind of like how Schrödinger would put it—then yeah, we are definitely playing in the realm of quantum physics.
Look, we’re dealing with a classic case of toxic fallout here. Honestly? It’s probably better to just dodge the whole argument entirely and just go ahead and load in the radioactive material instead.

a friend said:Honestly? It’s neither. Neither one.
It’s like, once we finally crack that box open, we’re just gonna be staring down one of two realities. There's no in-between.

Yeah, that’s true, but honestly? The whole thing about the cat's actual state before you crack open the can is more of a philosophical headache than a physics one. You could have a bunch of different physicists all looking at the exact same data, running the same experiments, and crunching the same equations, yet they'll still give you totally different answers because their interpretations clash. Or—let's be real—most of them don't even bother with an interpretation at all.

a friend said:Think of it like this—it’s like hitting a brick wall. It's that total dead end you run into when you stick to that closed-off, agnostic, materialistic way of looking at the universe. You know, the one where everything is just mindless matter and we're just these conscious beings wandering around inside it? It creates this massive gap between what we think is true and what's actually happening. Honestly, it wasn't even much of an issue until the twentieth century hit us with all those wild new discoveries. Everything changed.
So, what even are feelings? Like, are they actually real? If they aren't, and we can totally feel them, then what the hell is left that's actually real?
Look, if we aren't gonna get bogged down in endless philosophical debates, we really have to start treating consciousness phenomena as something real, even if they aren't physical.
Does that put them out of reach for science? Maybe. But just because science hasn't grabbed them yet doesn't mean we can't experience them firsthand.
Besides, who cares what mistyfox812 thinks about it anyway.

Oh, yeah. 😉

delija said:...So, while I was doing that work, I basically made these energy—well, more like mental—connections with Memories living inside MEMORY FIELDS (kind of like hard drives, you know?) that are woven right into the energy grids formed by strings. It’s basically how the cosmic Internet is built.
(If you want to look up the whole string thing, just search Google for string theory).

And the fact that these Memory fields actually exist? Even Leibniz talked about them—he called those fields monads. But modern scientists? Man, they just totally brush him off. Like, "Who cares what this guy thinks? Monads? Please, give me a break." 👎

Anyway, to keep it short—my material consciousness is essentially "plugged into" the Cosmic INTERNET, even if it wasn't my choice.
That's why I always say a lot of the info I have isn't really *my* material consciousness talking; it's stuff I'm picking up from the High Sphere.

(178)

But wait, these memory fields... can you explain that a bit more? Like, how do those "records" actually get created? Are they just... there, since forever? And are you just "reading" these fields, or can you actually "write" to them too?

dehaer, you didn't freak out over those units, did you? 😉
Just kidding. 😁

I just wanted to point out that your whole red-green-dark gray trinity concept totally lines up with the traditional God-man-world.

Arthur Grant4 said:...So, there are some pretty wild implications you get when you run those famous thought experiments involving Schrödinger's cat.
Just type "quantum theory of consciousness" into Google.
There’s some seriously cool stuff in there.

Honestly, it feels to me like we're just trying to explain one mystery—consciousness—using another mystery—quantum theory. It's like, okay, let's use the confusing thing to explain the even more confusing thing.

And what's the deal with Schrödinger's cat anyway? Like, how does that even tie back to consciousness?

hiddenviper9 said:mistyfox812—aka "-- & 0"—the old man himself, says: Well, thanks, dear, I’m honored you’ve lumped me in with those two legends who basically got their wisdom via direct downloads from higher beings...

OBVIOUSLY—it’s just what a ton of people do; they don't actually read what's on the page, they just read whatever they want to hear.
Because... seriously, why doesn't big "-- & 0" use his "superhuman" intellect to "point a finger" and show me where, in any of my posts (you know, my articles, my printed books, or even here on this forum...), I ever claimed to get my knowledge from Higher BEINGS.

And one more thing:
Looks like you totally mixed up the High Sphere with higher beings.

Seriously though, if you actually knew that the cosmos is DIVIDED into TEN levels, and that strings (around our solar system) are formed in FIVE levels—you definitely wouldn't have BLUNDERED like you did.
At least when it comes to me.

(142)

My bad, I guess I totally misread the situation.
From what I can recall, you were describing an experience with something (trying not to mess this up again) that wasn't just some random earthly creature, but something from a higher plane, or something like that.
Since I honestly don't know anything about these levels and strings, I probably phrased that wrong too, so I'll wait for you to clear things up.
I just assumed most of what you know came from that encounter (or encounters, if there were more than one).

zhabotinsky said:Honestly, one of the absolute best American movies from the 80s.

Totally. 👍

dehaer said:Now I’m just sitting here waiting for Ljub, hiddenviper9, mistyfox812, and the rest of that crew to jump me with some high-level nonsense I won't even be able to wrap my head around.

Alright dehaer, I'll take it as a compliment that you're grouping me in with those two legends who basically got their wisdom via divine revelation from higher powers, but seriously—when have I ever written something you couldn't understand?
And dropping that on me in the thread about Paar/Schips... man, that actually stings.
Kids these days, I swear...

dehaer said:...better quality than those cheap Chinese Christmas lights where if one bulb goes out, the whole string dies 🙄 ...

You gotta be kidding me... basically useless (1) and you really need to go back and actually read what Paar/Schips wrote. 🙂

Just watched this again on TV last night: honestly, even better the second time! I already figured out the twist at the end this time around, but man, it didn't make it any less gripping.
A total masterpiece! 👍

Basta said:It just won't work as a series. You'll lose what makes the movie strong, that whole sense of connection between the stories.

That’s what I thought too, honestly, but maybe there's a chance. I actually just finished the first episode and... man, it was even better than I remembered.
I’m guessing that opening scene stays the same for all three episodes—that drive over the ghetto from Angel's perspective.
And yeah, N. Ivanković actually feels way more convincing to me this time around than she did during my first watch.

Can't wait for the next episode. 🙂

William Gonzalez3 said:Philosophy...
it doesn't have some external goal.
The whole point is just being itself.
One of my favorite ways to look at it is comparing philosophy to friendship. A friendship is only real, deep, and honest if it exists for its own sake.

If we only become friends with someone to get something out of them, that connection is stuck being limited by whatever selfish motive we started with. It’s not real, it isn't deep, and it’ll basically die the second that benefit disappears—just like that fake friendship dies along with the utility.

Look, obviously people get something out of friendships, just like they get something out of philosophy, but that "something" shouldn't be the reason we start the relationship. If it is, then the whole thing is just forced and totally superficial.

Spot on. 👍 🙂

The moderator actually split the debate about material vs. non-material stuff into its own thread: Is there anything non-material?

Jonathan Brown6 said:I totally get it. I know exactly how that word is used and what it actually stands for.

Now we're talking. That's way better. 🙂

Jonathan Brown6 said:Man, you’re talking like "utility" is some kind of mystical, deep concept or something. If that's how you're gonna play it, then we don't even have anything to talk about. You could basically use that excuse for any word just because you don't get it and someone tries to explain it to you. Look, if you aren't 100% sure what "utility" actually means or how it's used in this context, just grab a dictionary and look it up. Simple as that.

It’s just like you said—words don't really mean anything until they're actually stuck in some kind of context. You can take the exact same word, throw it into two different situations, and it ends up meaning something totally different. Heck, you can even find contexts where the word just makes zero sense at all.

So, sure, "usefulness" makes perfect sense if we're talking about something like a 401(k) or a retirement fund. Totally straightforward. But I mean, does that word even work when you’re talking about philosophy? Like, if it does, what’s the point? Does it even carry any weight there? I don't know, man. It feels weird.

Jonathan Brown6 said:I honestly look for a practical payoff in everything I think about—whether I’m just spiraling into deep philosophical territory or trying to solve a specific problem. It's how my brain works. So, I gotta wonder... will all this insight actually stick? Like, is it gonna help me when I move on to a totally different topic? Will it be useful down the road when I'm sitting down to write a book, or maybe a poem, or even just trying to get my thoughts out on paper? I feel like there's so much room to use this kind of thinking—explaining stuff to people, journaling, whatever—but I really hope this mental heavy lifting pays off when I need it later.

If you think writing a book—you know, actually putting your thoughts on paper and trying to explain your take on deep philosophical questions to someone else—is what makes philosophy valuable... then you're basically just saying philosophy is useful for itself. Like, cool, but it doesn't actually serve any other purpose. That’s all you're really saying.
If we're talking about poetry or some other kind of book, then yeah, philosophy is huge for art. Honestly, I'm totally with you on that—philosophy definitely gives an artist something to chew on. But it makes you wonder... what's the actual point of art anyway? What good does it do us?

So, let me try to wrap this all up—it might get a little deep and abstract, but I really hope I'm making sense here.
Look, if you’re arguing that any human action—let's call it A—only matters if it serves some other purpose, B... then you're stuck in a loop. Like, once you say "A is useful for B," you immediately hit this wall: "Okay, but what is B actually useful for?" You end up in this endless cycle where either B is just useful for its own sake, or B is just a stepping stone to C. It's a total rabbit hole.
And so on.

You just gotta get there eventually.
Or we just end up at some "Z is only useful for itself and nothing else" kind of dead end.
So, you end up just spinning in circles, right? Like, you loop all the way back to "Z is useful for A," but then you’re stuck asking why that whole damn loop was even necessary in the first place. And just like that... boom. We're right back at square one.
Or it just stretches out forever, right? Which brings us back to the same old question... what's actually the point of an infinite sequence like that anyway?

So, here’s the big question: is there actually anything that isn't just useful for some other purpose? Like, does anything exist that's just inherently valuable on its own? Or maybe—and I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking this—would it be better to say "good" instead of "useful"?