Posts by steelridge58

Sandra Murphy33 said:🤣

If we’re saying EM waves equal thoughts, then that isn’t "imaginative"—it’s just a fact, right? 🙄
Ever since I read Drago Plečko’s theory about how you can't actually produce a thought if your jaw is completely relaxed (déjà vu, I know, I think I’ve mentioned this before...), I started testing it out. Now, I literally feel sudden bursts of thought-sentences firing into my brain like an (unwanted) EM surge. It doesn't even have to be a negative thought; it just feels like a sudden strike, complete with all the physical stress markers—heart racing, blood running cold, the whole deal.

The interesting thing is that these clear, sentence-like thoughts usually hit during those brief moments when I'm confused about something; they arrive as suggestions or instant solutions. I listen to them because, frankly, I don't have much choice, but later on, it turns out they were just some kind of "sacrifice" or the path of least resistance. They aren't the actual solution...

Am I just stuck with a clueless guardian angel?... 🤔

😂

Man, that really gave me a good laugh

hiddeneagle98 said:I’d argue that the distinction matters because you don't have a homogeneous, amorphous blob of matter sitting in your skull doing the thinking and feeling; instead, you have this incredibly intricate, highly organized network of neurons. It feels like a massive stretch to suggest that this structural difference is irrelevant—to claim that consciousness is just an inherent property of everything, implying my keyboard is somehow self-aware and contemplating how I'm tapping away at it.

On the flip side, I’m convinced there has to be "something"—this underlying mechanism that dictates why everything is the way it is, determining where every particle lands and how it behaves in the next moment based on its relationship with every other particle.

When you look at how that "something" governs a system as uniquely complex and deeply interconnected as the human brain, you start to see how consciousness emerges as a sophisticated form of resolution—essentially a high-level calculation of particle movement.

Moving a photon through a vacuum is a relatively straightforward calculation, but managing the behavior of a massive, diverse swarm of particles—especially heavy ones—requires a much more intense, qualitatively complex set of "math."

To put it simply: how does a particle "know" (or calculate, or perceive, or sense) which direction to take? In that very same space or domain where the particle is performing that calculation, consciousness appears. It acts as a collective computation for a vast number of intertwined particles whose behaviors are interdependent. Because solving such a system isn't trivial, consciousness emerges within that domain as an advanced, non-trivial method for resolving the movements of that entire cluster of particles.

This complex web of particles, contained within its own self-referential "bubble" (which arises as part of the computational method used by this interconnected system), perceives this process as self-governance. That's the gist of it, anyway... I'm struggling to find the right terminology because we lack the vocabulary to describe something that exists entirely outside our own cognitive domain.😁

The more I dwell on this, the more certain I become that this is essentially the Occam's Razor of existence.

Could we draw an analogy here to how sperm cells seem to "know" exactly where they need to go—navigating toward an egg to fertilize it at precisely the right moment?
If that's the case, can we actually talk about...
absolute knowledge?

Anyway, we're all just sitting around waiting for the jellyfish to show up and start untangling the mess.

James Lee77 said:We can get even more creative here: if everything materialists say is true—that our thoughts and experiences are "really" just electromagnetic patterns in our neurons—then why couldn't electromagnetic patterns somewhere else be thoughts and experiences too? Like, why couldn't the electromagnetic patterns of the Sun actually be the Sun's own thoughts and feelings? And if that's the case, maybe the Sun is basically some kind of solar god influencing people on Earth through the Earth photon path?

Alright, come on, give me something way more imaginative than that.

Following that logic, it would imply that energy is inherently mental, which would mean the Sun is essentially a mental entity, potentially aligning perfectly with the theory of a panpsychist universe.

Fine-tuned Universe
🙂

Terry Martinez10 said:Given that's the case, I'm really not sure why I should even bother attempting a response when it's painfully obvious that I'm operating on a level far beneath her expectations....

You really aren't, and please, I'm asking you, try not to take this all so personally...

🙂

Amanda Jackson5 said:"Here’s the bottom line: critical thinking, much like actual science, sits far above friendship, private or group interests, and ideological leanings."

Saša Ćirić

Sure, it's possible. It's just as possible that the entire universe was constructed by people from the future, or perhaps by the descendants of self-replicating machines—since we don't really have a better term for them yet—operating on a timescale where our concept of time becomes totally irrelevant.

Yeah. 👍

I don't think critical thinking has to be superior to friendship; the two can actually coexist quite easily. Besides, I know you're perfectly capable of offering a critical perspective without being condescending or looking down on the views of your fellow members here on the forum.

Sandra Murphy33 said:What truly keeps me up at night is the growing possibility—and it’s looking more plausible with every passing year—that humans aren't actually at the top of the food chain. I suspect there might be species, likely invisible to the naked eye, that subsist on our emotional energy.
In this scenario, they would essentially trigger the very manipulations we see playing out in society every day, even if we can't identify the true source.
Most of these entities would likely feed on negative frequencies, specifically fear and anger.
It’s as if we were biologically hardwired to exist in a state of perpetual anxiety. We start with a primal fear of death, and from there, we spend the rest of our lives constructing a million different, highly imaginative phobias that build upon that initial dread. It creates a feedback loop where we constantly generate new anxieties, effectively fueling ourselves indefinitely. It's a strange paradox: we strive to do good, yet we end up committing wrongs we never intended. Quite a fascinating split in the human psyche, wouldn't you agree?

Given how insane things have become lately—where we are essentially watching the most absurd sci-fi novels and graphic novels come to life in real-time—this concept doesn't even sound that crazy anymore.

If that were actually true, I honestly think I'd just want to have an invisible
fat and skinny

Laurel and Hardy
🙂)

😁

I honestly couldn't care less about potential aliens, because if you ask me, we should be much more worried about us humans

Terry Martinez10 said:If I were ever forced to choose between putting my faith in God and Jesus versus believing in aliens, I’d go with the former without a second thought, really. Because if there’s any truth to the whole alien theory, then we’re essentially just sheep in a pasture, waiting around until it’s finally harvest time.

But the real kicker here is the word
- choose

👍

addx-ova reply is really more of a response to a different comment made on the thread, so I’m going to move it down into the comments section since I just don't see how it works as a direct answer to the actual question being asked here.

This is our space to talk about round six

Sigmund, I have to say it again—huge congrats on having your response picked as the winner in the last round.
The latest question he’s thrown our way
is just so strange and intriguing and honestly quite brilliant, and I have to admit that it immediately
really struck a chord deep within me...

Amanda Jackson5 said:If you've got any thoughts on how to tweak this, some ideas for streamlining things, or just general questions, please try to get them in by 9:30 PM.

Well, 😉) I actually already posted it
and we can all jump into a brand new thread specifically for discussing the sixth round

Honestly, I wouldn't change a single thing about the question—I'm not looking to add or subtract anything myself—but if the rest of you want to dive in, feel free to go ahead
(you can do that in the comments)

Amanda Jackson5 said:Thanks, thanks. Everyone deserves their five minutes of fame, right? Honestly, my win just goes to show that you don't actually need an ounce of originality or creativity to come out on top in a competition. You need something else entirely—something that even Baba Yaga lacks and probably never will. 😁

What's the deadline?

Tonight
🙂)

If there's any way at all, I'd love to get this wrapped up by midnight.
😍

Sigmunde, huge congrats!

🎉

We actually have five different people here all agreeing that your answer was easily the
best one yet.
🙂))

So, if you're up for it, would you mind throwing a new question our way?

Alright.
We've got eighteen people participating here, yet I've only seen eight votes come through so far.

😳

I guess we’ll just hang tight for another ten minutes or so before we officially announce the winner.

The poll is officially live, so feel free to jump in and cast your votes whenever you're ready

It lines up perfectly in terms of meaning.

ruggedraven36 said:There aren't any Hegelian quotes in that post—except for the one I already brought up.

The quote does mention Hegel, and you can find that exact same passage right here:
http://uwe-mortensen.de/Schnaedelbac...sLehre1993.pdf
on page 6.

ruggedraven36 said:Which quotes? I only saw that one single bit that ties back to my point.

I actually laid all of that out way back in post #32.

ruggedraven36 said:The reason I used parentheses is because in this specific quote God represents the absolute. If you swap out "God" for "the absolute," the whole meaning stays exactly the same.

"Only the absolute represents the true correspondence between the concept and the reality of all finite things—but all finite things carry a layer of untruth, possessing a concept and an existence that fails to align with how they are perceived."

Exactly.

And I think you’ve realized by now that this is the exact kind of meaning we see pop up in those March 28th quotes.

ruggedraven36 said:Exactly. By the end of his logic science, Hegel argues that art, religion, and philosophy are just different ways the absolute idea perceives itself. Philosophy is the highest path, though—simply because it operates through pure concept.

Let's try to "shake things up" a little bit here

ruggedraven36 said:Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.

So, we're talking about different modes, even if they're labeled with different names here—you even put that distinction in parentheses yourself, just so we wouldn't get
lost in translation
😉)

By the way, I think John really hit the nail on the head with that realization..

ruggedraven36 said:Besides, God himself has to carry every single lie within him—otherwise, he'd be missing something entirely. By definition, the absolute can't have anything existing outside of his own being.