We can only perceive in 3 measly dimensions, so I doubt it does get the whole picture of reality.

Open up a brain and look inside it? Do you see any accurate reality in there? haha

Good question, there's essentially no way of telling. The brain both could and may not see itself accurately.

Obviously, it's impossible to tell by using your brain to look at it.

Basically: Fuck the weak. We're chosen by nature.

Which is essentially Nazism.

To their defense, women are recklessly and needlessly cruel to those with mental problems or general insecurities.

It goes beyond just it being their choice who to be attracted to, too. Too often these days women are demoralizing towards the weak.

I think it's really a matter of the (bad) philosophy of so-called "Darwinism," which really has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution, but it has been mangled into something very dark, callous, and cruel.

It can't, logically, ultimately be explained, because first and foremost it is experienced.

In addition to that, there's no possible way of determining whether it's abstract or mundane.

The chemicals that make up the brain also cannot explicitly be trusted to relate a 100% detailed and accurate version of reality or events.

So, no, there's no hope whatsoever of this place being fully understood, ever, period. But we should describe what we can.

In a sense, the Earth is both flat and round. On the surface of any sphere, there are flat (at least reasonably speaking) areas. If you're standing on the Earth, you will literally always be, technically, standing on a flat surface. Or on the very curve of it, which seems counterintuitive...

But I also suspect that, holographically, or in another dimension, what appears to us as round could literally have four corners and be flat.

Though I do give credence to our reality, where the Earth is a sphere, being just as valid.

So I say the Earth is round. And it is flat.

I dunno. I think "I am that I am" is ultimately more profound than "I think, therefore I am." For one thing, I occasionally just stare, and I still AM. "I think, therefore I can reason that I was and am" would have been more to my liking.

As to consciousness, we're trying to encapsulate inner experience. A big problem with that is that, typically, inner experience is largely part in partial with external phenomena, and the two truly can't be extrapolated.

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as brains. We clearly aren't. We need to see the wholeness of what we are: these bodies (or souls) or we aren't going to get anywhere.

But key here is the insight that things which can't possibly be known to be false tend to be true.

Also, just because something can't possibly be known to be true (unless there's a God) doesn't mean that it's false. There could be unicorns on the outskirts of the universe we'll never know to exist, if we're the only ones who can know what is true from what is false...they're still, in fact, true.

It can't be possible God doesn't exist, because I just proved God definitely does exist.

This is what I came up with:

1. It's possible God exists.
2. Therefore, it's possible to know all things that are true and false.
3. If something can't possibly be known to be false, it must be true.
4. The existence of God can't possibly be known to be false.
5. The existence of God must be true.

To conceive is to exist, though. It'd be an oxymoron to conceive of nonexistence. I disagree that you or Sam Harris have ever conceived of anything but that which exists. You've conceived of others' ignorance, yes, but not of your or their own personal lack of cognizance...!

I just find it kind of simple, because the brain, as we know it, is a phenomena experienced through the brain...as we know it...and we don't know it.

Brains in vats is nothing...do we even exist? Or is this how it seems to a string of information vibrating in a void somewhere?

So it's not even restricted to "materialism," because that's a description of reality. But reality is first and foremost self-descriptive.

Matter? We don't even understand what matter is...

What the hard problem really is is a problem of the primacy of direct experience (qualia) over language, which is secondary.

A hard truth for some people to accept, but very much a reality.

What I'm saying is that what is immediate is the ineffable, and what is secondary is any description of it. This matters very much.