Posts by Sandra Wilson68

PLANINAR

Look, I was just trying to point out that you’re acting like a spokesperson for an "ism." You're basically promoting a cult-like ideology, which totally contradicts your claim that you don't belong to any specific group.

Wrong. I’m not pushing some "ism." I’m pushing cognitive science—specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. It’s a field the world hasn't even seen yet. Sure, right now it might look like just another "ism" to you and everyone else, but that's only because people haven't actually grasped the core of this Science and realized it's legitimate, not just another fad.

So, what's the actual link or difference between this Science and all those other "isms"?

The similarity is that every "ism," including this Science, tries to tackle the big stuff: consciousness, life, matter, nature, and how they all work. They all try to explain how nature is organized, or how human society and labor should function.

But here’s the kicker: no other "ism" can back its claims with hard scientific data. They can't prove their views are absolute Truth. That’s why they all eventually turn into nothing more than sets of beliefs and dogmas. People end up using their "democratic freedom" to just pick whichever flavor of ideology they feel like joining.

When we’re talking about verifiable, provable science that anyone on Earth can wrap their head around—like how everyone knows 2+2=4—there isn't room for guessing. You can't have people arguing that 2+2 equals 6, 8, or 100. It's just not how it works.

Basically, without knowing the Truth about matter, life, and nature, every person is free to believe whatever they want. They get to choose their own version of reality or their own little "ism." It’s their right to choose their own lie.

But when it comes to Science, we aren't talking about lies; we're talking about Truth. And once you have the Truth, nobody has the "right" to their own lie anymore. Not because lying is illegal, but because you can't trick someone who actually knows what's up. It's like trying to tell someone that 2+2=7. You can't pull that on them. Unless you're dealing with toddlers, I guess. And honestly, most people today are acting like toddlers. They're easily manipulated by all sorts of ideologies and lies because they don't have the tools to debunk them. They lack the cognitive science—the Science of Self-Preservation—which is the fundamental force governing everything in the universe. Once people truly understand this, the era of being lied to is over. Anyone who tries to BS someone will just get hit with a "GTFO." That's my shorthand for when you catch someone trying to play you. It means: "Cut the crap, buddy, I know how the game is played."

DAVMLA:

I didn't bother clicking those links you sent to see what you're peddling, but if you want to give me the SparkNotes version, go ahead. Besides, there’s no such thing as a universal truth. I think some other reader already pointed out to you that you're talking about neutral monism.

If you were too lazy to actually dig through the material I linked—which, by the way, is right there—fine. Here’s my attempt at summarizing that exact same stuff (in about 10,000 words) over in the thread "Why some people struggle to accept we're just animals." Check out post #1177 here: Just keep in mind this isn't some rant; hopefully, it's a decent attempt at putting the whole consciousness versus matter debate on actual scientific ground.

PLANINAR

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were one of the more dangerous "isms" in my book. You used an ant colony or a beehive as a model for humanity, which is just pure collectivism. It’s dangerous because it threatens individual freedom for the sake of some grand ideal or the total freedom of the collective—leaving the individual completely subservient to the group.

It is honestly wild how much ignorance regarding "collectivism" and "freedom" you just dumped in those first two sentences. Collectivism doesn't mean stripping away individual liberty; it’s actually the exact opposite. Look at the human body as the ultimate example of perfect collectivism. It’s made of billions of cells and about 42,000 different parts and organs. Compare the benefits of life that a human organism provides to those cells versus the life they would have if they were just isolated individuals—like amoebas floating in some swamp or a gutter. Then ask yourself what true freedom is for them: Is it living within a perfectly organized collective where they can maximize all their biological needs and desires? Or is it living in a swamp where they can achieve nothing as lone amoebas? Or maybe ask this: did those amoebas spend four billion years evolving, working, and learning just to build a human organism as their collective, only to lose their individuality? Or is it the reverse—that through the human organism, they reach a higher, almost divine form of freedom?

Also, just answering the thread's question here: I think it’s impossible and unnecessary to strip a person of ideology (whatever "-ism" it ends up being). Humans need to create or follow an idea to guide them. That guidance is essentially politics—even if it's just personal politics—and any idea that functions as politics is, by definition, an ideology.

Your take is a textbook example of human ignorance. Why? Because it assumes a society where everyone has the right to their own idea and their own "-ism," plus the freedom to live out that idea independently from everyone else. And what do we get from that kind of "freedom"? We get the unfree world we live in right now. We live in a world where nobody can truly live by their own ideas because they end up infringing on everyone else's. No one can realize their own vision without needing help from others, which inevitably means clashing with other people's visions and freedoms. All this leads to a fractured world split by ideologies, intolerance, hatred, exploitation, wars, terrorism, casualties, laziness, failing economies, poverty, hunger, and misery. So, with this "democratic" view of the world as a way to achieve freedom, we end up achieving the exact opposite. We limit ourselves in countless terrible ways, creating UNFREEDOM instead of liberty. No matter how you spin it, the final conclusion on the easiest way to achieve freedom is this: COLLECTIVISM. Not some random ideology, but a system based strictly on the Science of Self-Preservation. This science offers the best, most natural, and universal solution for maximizing good and avoiding evil. That solution is always a social and economic community—an organism like the human body or a beehive—built on the fair division of labor and its results. The evolution of the entire universe is moving toward this specific form of organization and freedom. Of course, that's assuming you aren't part of the foolish human society that still hasn't a clue about these universal laws of self-preservation and free living.

Gerald Hill:

Quincy:

You promoting something? I get it. No point in me wasting my time reading any further.

Yeah. I'm out here promoting this. I’m pushing for a Science of Consciousness that actually makes sense—something grounded in logic and real-world experience, specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. I'm out here promoting the Truth, not some fake, manufactured nonsense.

Look, I don't care if you're refusing to read it. You aren't the first person to pull that move, and you won't be the last. There are endless little cults and ideologies out there, each with their own fanboys ready to fight tooth and nail to protect them. They’re terrified of any Truth that might threaten their precious little worldview. Honestly, these people would spill blood just to cover up the facts, all to make sure their lie keeps breathing—because without that lie, they wouldn't even exist.

DAVMLA:

There’s no such thing as 100% truth. Nothing is ever proven as an absolute, definitive fact.

The consciousness studies—or the Science of Self-Preservation—that I push is 100% Truth. It's definitive and eternal. Every single point can be proven through experience and explained with pure logic. It just makes sense.

That's where I stopped reading. If you claim to promote something as "truth," you're just joining an ideology. That's how it works. If someone asks if you believe in God and you say no, that's atheism. It's just another ideology.

And I already pointed out that anything qualifying as science—meaning stuff that's empirically verifiable, logically sound, and actually makes sense—can't be labeled an ideology.

It’s not being a fool. He respects the opinion because he doesn't want to start a fight. Not respecting it would mean accepting something else instead.

We live in a world ruled by a mess of different ideologies rather than science. It's just a pile of unproven assumptions, theories, and beliefs. All the chaos and conflict we see globally? That's the direct result. In a world like this, nobody escapes the fallout of those conflicts, regardless of which "ism" they belong to. Once we finally get actual answers to the big existential questions based on science, and once everyone understands that science, all these ideologies and global conflicts will vanish. We already have that science right now. It's consciousness studies—specifically, the Science of Self-Preservation. Consciousness, or the instinct for self-preservation, is the only natural force in existence. Everything in the universe exists and operates according to its laws. Only someone who fully grasps this Science, and chooses to live by these universal laws of Self-Preservation in how they treat other people and nature, can truly claim they don't belong to any ideology.

DAVMLA:

What kind of "ism" describes someone who doesn't have a backbone and just respects everyone?

That IZAM is called IDIOTISM or STUPIDITY. Every single one of these modern "isms" is nothing but a load of garbage and lies. They don't help humanity; they just cause massive damage. And anyone who actually respects this nonsense is an IDIOT and a FOOL themselves, because sooner or later, one of those stupid ideologies is going to come back and bite them right in the ass.

Google:

To start with, any philosophical take on the nature and ontology of consciousness ends in "-ism"—that's why we call them physicalism, idealism, or dualism.

Wrong!

Open my book and look at the subheadings: "neuroscience," "The Science of Self-Preservation," "ethics," "theology," and "Eternal Truth."

So, in this case, we’re talking about SCIENCE, not some random "-ism." When we're dealing with TRUTH—specifically the Truth regarding consciousness and the drive for self-preservation that can be empirically verified, logically explained, and actually understood—it isn't an "-ism," it's SCIENCE. And when something is science—an absolute Truth that anyone in America or anywhere else can verify and grasp—it shouldn't be used to split people into groups based on whether they accept it or reject it. You can't build organized political ideologies, religions, class systems, or national institutions around it, complete with leaders at the helm.

On the flip side, "-isms" are always just made-up, half-baked truths or outright lies. They can't be empirically or scientifically proven. Instead, you just have one set of unprovable lies pitted against another similar set of illogical nonsense. Then people act like they're at a flea market, picking "this one" or "that one," using those choices to divide themselves, build their little institutions and temples, choose their leaders, and compete over whose belief system looks prettier. That competition breeds hatred, which inevitably leads to intolerance, conflict, violence, wars, genocides, collapsing economies, poverty, and misery.

So, what's the actual point of the "LAW OF EXISTENCE," or the "SCIENCE OF SELF-PRESERVATION" I'm putting forward?

The whole purpose is to use it to tear down every single "-ism" in existence. It provides answers to all the fundamental existential questions that modern science, philosophy, and every major religion in the world have failed to answer to this day. These are answers that are empirically—meaning scientifically—verifiable and completely logical. The end result should be the dismantling and fading away of all those global ideological, political, national, religious, and class divisions and institutions. We're talking about a unified world, both socially and economically, and lasting peace on Earth. Because when something is SCIENCE, there's no "I want this" or "I don't want that" guesswork involved. You accept it without question. There’s no dodging it or trying to wiggle out of it unless you're a complete idiot or totally insane.

DAVMLA:

Is there anyone out there who doesn't belong to any group?

Hell yeah there is! That’s me. I have zero respect for national, religious, political, or class divisions. They've been the root cause of every major war, terror attack, genocide, and bout of poverty in history. Honestly, they're just pure evil. Because of that, I built my own worldview centered on global unity—basically by stripping away all those labels people cling to. I base all of this on discovering a single, universal law governing matter, life, and nature, which I laid out in my book:

THE LAW OF EXISTENCE.
http://ul.to/50ibd5tn (US)
http://ul.to/ebhuaye7 (eng)

Amanda Jackson5:

Nah, you're messing with me. That's straight out of Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."

I haven't read that one. Still, I'm curious about what that number forty-two actually means in the book. I'm not positive, but I think that number—or some version of it—shows up somewhere in the Bible too.

Nancy Chase2

If our physical manifestation—our actual shape, all our movements and actions—isn't actually "us," then what's going on if there's only one single reality?

How are we anything other than the sum of our physical faces and actions if there's just one thing existing?

How does a runner realize they have the ability to run, if running itself isn't the runner?

Solid questions. Looks like you actually paid attention to my previous posts.

Our physical form and every single physical action we take are ONE. You can't separate an action from the person doing it. But our PERCEPTION of ourselves—and how we perceive all those physical and mental actions—is a different story. We use different methods to know things.

We experience ourselves as the "doer" through non-sensory means, deep inside us (as a "thing-in-itself"). What we find that way is our inner core, our CONSCIOUS SELF. That's the entity driving and causing everything we do. This kind of knowing is called "self-knowledge." This specific type of internal realization—where we experience ourselves within ourselves—is something known only to us and absolutely nobody else.

On the flip side, we experience our actions through our senses, as our outward reality. Anyone can observe those actions through their senses; they are public knowledge.

The problem—the mistake we make when chasing the "Truth" with a capital T—is that we lean too heavily on our senses. We rely on empirical science, treating it like it's all-powerful, but all it does is let us observe the external side of things. We end up seeing space only as a series of actions and consequences, while the actual cause and driver behind those actions remains a total mystery. For the "Truth" with a capital T, that simply doesn't cut it. You need a method to uncover the internal reality of the world and space itself—to understand space as a "thing-in-itself." We need to know what space actually is deep down, rather than just how it appears to some observer looking at it from the outside.

Take science (physics), for example. It's long since been established that "the movement of matter is self-movement." But that's just a statement—a sensory observation of dry facts. You can't call that the "Truth" with a capital T. It lacks the explanation needed to answer the real questions: how is it possible that matter moves by itself, what exactly is inside it that makes it move, and what even *is* matter, or why does it exist at all? You aren't going to get answers to those using empirical methods alone, because the question is about what matter is in its essence, as a "thing-in-itself."

How are we, as a "thing-in-itself," supposed to discover and learn this ability within ourselves?

I've already touched on this in my last two or three posts.

First off, it’s worth noting that Descartes figured out a long time ago which method a person can actually use to prove the existence of their own CONSCIOUS SELF as a "thing-in-itself."

It's possible through the physical and mental actions that our conscious self has the CAPACITY to perform. One of those actions is thinking. That's exactly why Descartes could tell himself, "I think, therefore I am," effectively proving his conscious self exists within him.

Our conscious self, as a "thing-in-itself," possesses seven distinct physical and mental abilities. They are: exertion, movement, perception, feeling, memory, thought, and understanding.

These abilities of the self are more than enough for our self to exist entirely on its own—eternally, without any outside help, not even divine intervention—acting as both its own cause and its own effect. No person on Earth should have any trouble discovering, proving, or realizing these abilities within themselves.

But what about discovering, proving, and actually grasping how all that "stuff" outside of us even exists? Does the material, physical world we can touch—and everything it’s made of—possess those same faculties humans have? And does it exist independently, just like we do, through those same actions and abilities?

Answering this isn't rocket science. You just need to look at matter and space through a scientific, empirical lens. We have to determine if matter and the universe, much like humans, engage in acts of tension, movement, perception, sensation, memory, and reasoning. If we find they do, then it’s proof they hold those same capacities required to exist independently, just like people. Because if we establish that these actions "exist"—meaning they play out as physical and psychological processes—then it proves the CAPABILITIES to perform them exist, along with an actor who wields those abilities as the cause of it all. At the end of the day, humans aren't some special exception to the rest of the stuff making up space; we're built from the exact same building blocks. So, if a human has the tools to exist on their own, why wouldn't the universe?

Modern science already shows us that what we call energy or matter has the capacity to carry out all seven of these physical and mental actions—actions like tension, movement, perception, sensation, memory, thought, and reasoning (if that weren't true, our computers and all the tech based on electronics wouldn't even function), and there's really no need to prove it further. Therefore, it's a known fact that matter and space possess these same capabilities and exist as "things in themselves," just like we do.

And that would be it—the "Truth with a capital T." A truth rooted in experience, easy to prove, and completely logical and understandable.

It becomes especially easy to wrap your head around when you use your own experience of existing—your self-preservation and your sense of self—to analyze the link between physical and mental actions. That's when you easily uncover the LAW by which this SELF-PRESERVATION eternally unfolds. But hey, that's a whole other conversation.

Nancy Chase2,
Quincy:

"Who am I?" is basically just wrestling with things as they actually are. Your physical existence is nothing more than the answer to that question—it’s the result of constantly asking it.

I don't buy the idea that our physical presence or what we actually do defines who we are. Our physical shape, the way we move, the stuff we get done—that isn't "us." We’re something else entirely. We are the ones who possess the CAPACITY to move and act, using that movement to basically sculpt a physical persona. Think about it: running isn't the runner. The runner is the entity that exists and possesses the CAPACITY to run. You can study the mechanics of a sprint all day long, but you aren't going to learn anything about the runner by looking at the run. It's the same deal with science. You can study the material space through empirical observation all you want, but you'll never grasp the actual cause behind it.

Look, physical shape and how something acts? That’s just an "attribute" or a "property." We can observe that stuff through our senses or run scientific tests on it, but it doesn't touch the level of what we call the "thing-in-itself." If you want to talk about the actual "thing-in-itself," you have to look at CAPABILITIES. Those are the underlying powers a thing must possess just to be able to manifest any kind of physical shape or property in the first place.

Look, I'm not saying you can't stumble onto those abilities through empirical means, but let's be real—it’s never going to be direct. You're only ever getting there indirectly.
What does "indirectly" even mean?

So, what you're saying is we can only really prove someone else can think by looking at them and comparing their actions to our own. We see ourselves thinking and creating, then we watch someone else act, draw a parallel, and go, "Okay, they must have that same mental gear running too." It’s all indirect. You can't just peer into someone else's brain and verify their consciousness. You can only experience your own physical and mental abilities as a "thing in itself" directly. Everything else? It's just an educated guess based on observation.

It’s the exact same deal with space—it's the only thing that actually exists. We can basically hack our way into understanding its true capabilities by looking inward. If we study ourselves as a "thing in itself" until we hit the limit, we find a shortcut. Since we're just tiny pieces of this massive cosmic puzzle, we can compare our own patterns to how the universe acts. If we conclude that the universe behaves just like we do, then we've cracked the code on what it truly is. It's how we uncover the big "Truth."

Just a heads-up for our research: let's stop blurring the lines between "properties" and "abilities." They aren't the same thing. Properties can be infinitely diverse—it’s what makes everything in space unique and what actually builds the whole mess of reality. But abilities? There are only a handful of those, and every single thing in space has to possess them. Even space itself has to have them; otherwise, it couldn't even separate itself from its own existence to create anything at all.

It’s like an alphabet. You take maybe thirty letters, and suddenly you can churn out infinite words, sentences, or entire libraries of science and literature. Same deal with us. With just a handful of core abilities—specifically seven physical and mental ones—you can build basically anything. We're talking endless material forms with endless different properties. If we actually bother to deconstruct and master those seven abilities, answering the big questions becomes easy. What, how, and why does anything even exist? That's how you find the "Truth" with a capital T. It's how you figure out what everything in space actually is at its core.

Gregory Nelson

This kind of thing reminds me of Plato’s *Parmenides*—which, let's be honest, is a total brain-melter if you try to read it for fun. It basically obsesses over the concept of "The One." The whole argument boils down to two main premises: if the One exists, or if it doesn't. From there, it spirals into this madness where everything is simultaneously existing and not existing, appearing and not appearing, all at once. Total headache. Plotinus leaned much harder into Plato’s idea of The One, but even if we actually wrap our heads around it, what's the point? What are we supposed to do with "The One"? In this messy, chaotic world we live in, that singular unity isn't even useful. Even the concept of God involves a split into three distinct persons. So yeah, one single thing just doesn't cut it.

My take on "THE ONE" isn't some flimsy philosophical concept you can compare to anything else out there. I’m not basing this on some abstract logic puzzles or endless mental gymnastics. This is grounded in actual scientific experience. When I talk about THE ONE, I’m talking about something concrete: SPACE-VACUUM-NOTHINGNESS. We’re talking about that specific void where empirical science can't prove there are any particles or objective properties at all. It’s called "ONE" because it isn't divided into twos, threes, or anything else. There’s nothing inside it to distinguish one part from another. In terms of both quantum physics and philosophy, this Space is everything. It's the source code. Out of this void, the entire Universe emerges—all those physical things with actual shapes and properties. It’s the origin of all that "stuff" we can actually count, moving from the singular One into the plurality of two, three, four, five, and so on.
This entire space defined by the ONE is what matters when we talk about the "Truth" with a capital T. Why? Because it’s the only thing that actually EXISTS. It’s the only real answer to the question of what's actually out there. Everything else—all that objective, physical, energetic, or material junk that pops out of this space—can't even be called "existent." They're just tiny fragments of that same self-moving space. Even when it starts moving, it’s still just the ONE that exists. The only difference is that once it gets going, it takes on physical shapes and properties. When it's sitting still, all those "objective" traits just vanish. It’s like running—once the runner stops, the act of running is gone. All you're left with is the CAPACITY of that space to exert itself and move. That’s the line between the SPACE itself and the "stuff" it spits out. The space doesn't have physical traits or a shape; it just has the CAPACITY to move, and through that movement, it creates its own form. Those forms can be infinitely diverse, so honestly, wasting time trying to find some Big Truth in them is pointless. You gotta focus on the space itself and its CAPABILITIES.
To kick things off, we’ve already pinpointed one of his GREAT ABILITIES—that knack he has for actually stepping up and making things happen. We can pretty much chalk that ability up as a core piece of the "Truth of Power."
Look, this ability isn't the only thing Space has up its sleeve. It’s definitely not enough on its own to just morph everything into the Universe—all those physical shapes like subatomic particles, atoms, stars, cells, plants, animals, people, you name it. Space has more tricks than that. If you're actually interested in this stuff, try to dig deep and figure out what else it might be capable of. I’m talking about abilities you might know from science or even just your own life experience. We need to wrap our heads around these powers if we ever want to answer the two big questions that make up the core of the "Truth" with a capital T: HOW does this ONE thing exist, and WHY does it exist?

Gregory Nelson

Whatever. Just keep in mind that there's a specific kind of "whatever" we’re talking about—the stuff we actually know exists. That kind of whatever? It exists twice over.

The single biggest blunder in philosophy—honestly, maybe even in how we process reality itself—is this delusional assumption that "everything" actually exists.

There’s no such thing as "everything"!

There is only ONE existence. Everything else—all this "stuff" we see around us—is just that ONE thing transforming itself through a long, grueling process we call "evolution." Why do we still act like there's more than one thing? All this "stuff" is just how that ONE thing manifests itself physically. These things pop in and out of existence all the time. They are nothing more than the physical, synchronized movements and actions of that ONE entity. Because they are just actions, they can start and stop whenever they feel like it. And because they are just movements, they don't actually possess "existence" on their own. Only that ONE thing has the capacity to move and perform those actions. Think about it: a runner sprinting down a track in New York City isn't the same thing as the act of running. The run is just an action; the runner is the reality. This rule applies to the entire universe and everything you can touch or see—from subatomic particles and atoms to planets, cells, plants, animals, or humans. They are all just different, rhythmic movements of that ONE thing. They cycle through beginnings and endings, but they don't hold the weight of existence. Only that ONE thing, acting from the core of everything, actually exists. That ONE thing never changes; it’s eternal. Only its movements change. It's simple: the ONE is the cause, and everything else is just the effect.

Even Hegel gets this right when he dives into his logic of existence. Here’s the gist: if something exists as a FIRST state and then evolves into something ELSE, that "else" isn't actually a new thing. It still exists—it’s just the FIRST thing shifting its shape or moving into a different phase.

Physics is basically trying to tackle the exact same headache, though they haven't cracked it yet. The only real difference is the angle. They aren't asking "What exists?" instead, they're obsessing over "What is the universe actually made of?" The current takeaway is that matter isn't even a thing—it’s just energy. Everything is built from energy, which, if you strip it down, is nothing more than movement and work. But here’s the kicker: physics still hasn't answered what that fundamental "thing" is—the entity that actually *exists* and possesses the capacity to move and work, thereby building the entire universe and everything in it. All we know is that this thing—this core existence—has the power to move and act. When it’s at rest, it has no physical properties, no shape, and to any observer, it looks like empty space or a field. It looks like nothing. It’s only when it starts moving and doing its thing that it takes on objective, physical, perceptible qualities. But there's a massive catch. That physical, energetic stuff we can actually see and feel? That isn't the actual entity that started moving. That's just the byproduct of its action. We're seeing the work, not the worker. The "He" at the heart of that action remains invisible and unknown to everyone else. He stays known only to Himself and to the action He is performing.

How does philosophy even run into this mess? It happens when people try to hunt down the Truth—the big "T" Truth—aka "the thing-in-itself." Basically, you realize that if we could actually grasp the Truth, we’d finally understand what everything in the universe actually *is* on its own. Not just how things look to us observers, but what they truly are in their own skin. Because let's face it: what we see is always just a projection. To an outsider, things are always something different than what they are deep down. I think Schopenhauer spent the most time banging his head against this "thing-in-itself" problem. And honestly? He failed. He just slapped the label "transcendental" on the whole area of knowledge and called it a day, without ever giving a straight answer as to what "transcendental" even means.

In this light, if we actually want to uncover the "Truth with a capital T," our first move should be asking WHAT EXISTS? We need to tackle "things as they are" head-on. Without answering that, we’re just spinning our wheels—we won't ever truly grasp what actually exists or what the "Truth with a capital T" really looks like.

Look, I’m convinced we already have all the individual pieces of this massive puzzle called the "Truth with a capital T." What we're missing is the big picture itself. You don't see the whole mosaic until every single piece is snapped into its rightful place. Honestly, I don't think it's that hard. If there are people here actually interested in chasing the "Truth with a capital T," we can finish this if we follow the path I'm laying out right now.

The Truth with a capital "T" boils down to answering three core existential questions:

1. WHAT EXISTS?

2. HOW DOES THAT STUFF EXIST?

3. WHY DOES ANY OF IT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?

We actually already know the answers to these three questions. That means we already hold the Truth with a capital "T." Our only problem is that we haven't been smart enough to actually ask them yet. And obviously, since we haven't asked, we haven't even bothered trying to find the answers.

Give it a shot and see for yourself.

This whole thread, and honestly this entire discussion, is just a massive pile of assumptions and questions without any actual answers... basically just a bunch of "what if" scenarios!

Here are the facts:

1. Time isn't a thing. What we call "time" is nothing more than events—past, present, and future. Think about it: you could tell the entire story of existence without ever using the word "time." People would still get you, because you’re just describing things that happened, are happening, or will happen. If someone tried to argue that "time" exists as its own entity, they’d be stuck. How do you prove something exists in an eternal void where there are no events, no movement, and no presence? There's nothing to measure it against.

2. Everything we call the "material universe" doesn't actually signify "existence"—it signifies "occurrence." Using scientific terms, matter itself is irrelevant; it’s all about energy. Matter implies a state of being, but energy is defined by motion and work—by things actually happening. Energy doesn't have a cause or a purpose; it only has consequences. This means the entire universe is nothing more than a chain of consequences. That’s all our senses can actually pick up on.

3. Then there’s the part our senses can never detect, and never will, even though it's undeniably real: the actor behind all these occurrences. It’s basic logic—events don't just spontaneously happen on their own. There has to be a force capable of acting, moving, and doing. The universe begins when that force exerts itself and starts working, and it vanishes when that force relaxes and stops.

I'm just saying, if we actually want to find the truth about the world and our place in it, we need to start with hard facts and scientific reality, not just guesses and blind faith.

What’s the deal with essence and being?

I think it makes more sense—and honestly, it's just more logical and easier to wrap your head around—to ask what the cause actually is. Because whatever lies at the core of everything is also the cause of everything. It exists before anything else, even before Jesus. Just like it exists before anything else in the world, even some random pile of trash on the side of a highway in Chicago.

That’s why, if we want to find the truth about anything that physically manifests or has any kind of characteristic, it isn't enough to just know the essence of that thing. You have to understand the essence of essence itself. In other words, you need to figure out what specific capabilities that essence *must* possess to be able to cause everything we see, because only those universal abilities can truly define its essence.

I'm going to list those capabilities right now and then I'm calling this thread done.

Essence, or "being," possesses exactly seven physical and mental capabilities. These are: exertion, movement, perception, sensation, memory, thought, and understanding.

So, now that you know which capabilities essence needs to have in order to be the cause of everything, why don't you try to figure out for yourself who or what that essence is? What is the ultimate cause?

Just one thing: please don't drag Jesus into this. He has nothing to do with it, just like you and I have nothing to do with it. Because Jesus, you, and I are all equally just consequences of essence and its physical and mental capabilities.

Forgiveness can happen for a million different reasons, but let’s be real: you don't get true peace of mind until you get revenge. And even then, it’s never quite enough. Giving a killer ten years for murdering a woman and her three kids isn't a sentence—it's just a fast track to an early release. That's what every victim feels deep down, and I'm just calling it like it is. All those social norms, international treaties, laws, and "morals" applied to crimes like this? They're a completely different story. Look at the high-ranking war criminals the Hag drags into court; in the worst-case scenario, they just get life in prison. Is that actually justice? Is that real retribution for mass atrocities? Not even close. What kind of victim looks at a sentence like that and feels satisfied enough to actually offer forgiveness? Nobody. Real justice is defined by what the victim feels is right, not by what society dictates. Society is just a cold, detached bystander that’s ultimately complicit in every crime committed. Laws and social morals should exist to shape people so that crime doesn't happen in the first place. But we all know that in a world still fractured by religion, nationalism, and politics—a world practically infected by hate—that's just not happening. This kind of world is constantly begging for crime and always looking for ways to hide perpetrators, protect them, give them slap-on-the-wrist sentences, or force forgiveness.

Later

Revenge—or let's call it "justice"—is the only thing that actually gives people any sense of closure. A criminal needs to actually learn from what they did. They need to grasp the weight of their actions. And honestly? That only happens when they experience the exact same hell they inflicted on someone else. If they don't feel that same pain personally, they’ll never truly get it, and they'll just be back out there committing the same crime again without a shred of remorse.

Then there's the question of who anyone—be it an individual or society at large—has the right to forgive on behalf of a victim. Only the victim holds that power. That’s why it's right for a killer to face the ultimate penalty, sending them to the afterlife where they'll have to look their victim in the eye and beg for forgiveness. Society should always be the one stepping in to deliver the judgment and carry out the sentence.

When we're talking about mass atrocities (like that situation in Rwanda mentioned in the thread, which was clearly part of a larger slaughter), the perpetrators aren't just the guys on the ground; it's the leaders pulling the strings. First step: those leaders need to be punished appropriately. Since the masterminds are almost always politicians, if we really wanted to prevent mass crimes, we might as well just take out every politician on the planet the moment they decide to enter politics. And priests too—religious leaders. Mass atrocities often take on a religious flavor. These two "professions," politics and the clergy, haven't done a damn thing for humanity besides causing misery. It's always better to stop evil before it starts than to try and fix it later.

Okay, obviously I'm joking about killing them off, but seriously, if we want crime to vanish and actual peace to take over, we should just abolish both positions worldwide.

And this whole idea of "my neighbor killed my wife and kids, but I'll forgive him to find peace in my soul"? That's childish nonsense. In the real world, that's impossible. If a society has laws that encourage that kind of "forgiveness," rest assured those are just political or religious rules cooked up by leaders to dodge responsibility for their own crimes. That neighbor, that murderer in Rwanda, is probably some powerful politician who uses his influence to force the victim into forgiving him, all while pushing through laws that say "no punishment if the victim forgives."

Later.

Brian Gonzalez9,

You can't be a patriot and a socialist at the same time. It makes zero sense. Socialism is built on equality. Like you said yourself: "let's all be equal, even if we're all broke." So, socialism implies this kind of uniformity—this oneness where everything is undivided. Patriotism doesn't work like that. Patriotism thrives on division and inequality. It relies on being split up so an individual can actually make choices—saying, "I like this more than that" or "I prefer this over what they're doing." In socialism, you basically say everything is equal to me, everything is part of me, and I love it all as much as I love myself. But with patriotism? You can't think like that. There’s always a divide between "us" and "them," "ours" and "theirs," where "ours" is always loved more—if not outright hated.

The reality we live in, where we're split into "us" versus "them," isn't the true, natural way things should be. It's artificial. It's unnatural and distorted. These political, national, and religious divides aren't organic; they're manufactured, and they don't serve anyone. They exist only to cause harm, which is why they're so twisted. There’s no logical reason to love something evil or to be a patriot for it. We should love everyone on this planet equally, because all people are ONE. You should even love the ones who hate us, those who feel separated from us or think they're somehow different when they clearly don't realize we're all one. We're all just cookies made from the exact same dough. Eventually, everything gets crumbled, eaten, and folded back into the same dough again. Even plants, animals, and the entire inorganic world are equal to us. Organic life rises from inorganic matter, only to eventually return to it.

When you step back and look at the big picture, patriotism—just like nationalism or religious fanaticism—is usually just a product of ignorance and primitivism. All of it is the root cause of every kind of evil. And who needs evil? NOBODY!

Later.

The brain is intelligent; the ass is just... an ass. The brain possesses consciousness and a soul, while the butt has neither. One is divine, the other is purely material. The brain understands the concept of time, whereas the butt doesn't have a clue. Everything the brain does is conscious, while the butt just acts on instinct. To me, that’s all the proof you need for the duality of mind and matter—and living proof that God exists.

Later