Both.

It is true that intrinsic thinking comes from experience and also true that in thinking something you can have an extrinsic experience.

The order in which an event happens (the structure of the world) can cause logical structure. Logical structure (the way a plan is ordered) can construct the world.

Simple as that really, but when you try to get to visualizing it takes a ounce of creativity to do so -something I intended to leave undone due to time.

"The empty I" ____ yes, it does seem like an open set : {_}. The subject kind of falls into the emptiness of the cup.

What is self-consistency? Does self-consistency exist without identical identification? So say, I identify myself now as a person sitting, can I identify myself later as a person laying? Seemingly, yes I can. The states change but the "reference point" is identical.

A long time ago I read a book called "The Fourth Way." It was recommend to me. In this book the Author illustrates that there are various different "I" functioning within the "collective self". I don't remember much more, but I think that may be a book that could get one started on better understanding the multiplicity of self.

That sounds intuitively sound. I notice that my inner voice is nuanced yet the awareness behind it has not changed. Its like painting a canvas. The canvas remains the same (a canvas) no matter what you paint on it. I think E.Tolle did a stint on consciousness using that metaphor.

""{IT} return(s)to itself identically in reflection." That is the unity of consciousness rather than the multiplicity of it, I would gather. There should be a single term for such an amazing summary of what you state here. Because there is some sense of similarity between self now and later there is "unity of consciousness" maybe even "coherence of consciousness"??? However, does it mean, "I" or "self-reference"? I think it does. I think Hume and James were both onto it. Its temporal bond, and "what bond" (see: "what" flow, brain streams)

Now that we can deduce that much, it must be possible to reference the "multiplicity of consciousness" more thoroughly. Do you have a elaborating words on that subject, anyone?

I think it has to be continuous and discontinuous, both have to be aspects of consciousness. I am not really sure how to clarify the two or how to understand how both exist together. The mind permits for both, though.

I thought I'd add some thoughts to this discussion.

The generation of new ideas and the discovery of technology is a kind of harmonious union between mind and nature.

I recently had a dream wherein I saw objects existing in multiple circular chambers. They would move so each object could exist next to each other object. Than a voice said something like "this is how the mind works." Its cycles within cycles, synthesis.

I think the discovery of electro-magnetism is a prime example of how unity or synthesis results in new scientific findings.

It really is a clear way of looking at it. Creativity is synthesis.

I'd advise you to search on Hume and Reference and on Hume and contingency.

Material conservation permits for the conservation of memory and what it references.

What else is one to base morality on? Even religion originates within the fine tunings of evolution. To take evolution out of any equation entirely is a mishap.

If your belief causes human harm, than that belief can have real life consequences, for than it is a breach of human rights and a breach of state law. Beliefs can turn into actions, and actions have real life consequences. If it weren't for certain beliefs murders and atrocities in history would never have happened. There are other beliefs that fall into the category as neutral, they have little effect on the integrity of a human believer.

The concept of God is maximally abstract and minimally concrete. Why? Look at paganism (Hinduism) as the main reason. A god can be invented to describe any force or natural occurrence in the Nature.

Well, the primordial objective is seemingly survival. You come into the world with impulses to survive, as does almost every other animal. as they have for millions of years. Though, I don't think there is a known equation for survival.

Is there a proof such that x can not be found without an equation? Don't know of any. Even though we might not be able to find survival within a mathematical equation, it is a fundamental and primordial feature of life.

You might also like to read some Schopenhauer, as his views of the purpose of life may even go further than survival itself.

The thing that really is set in opposition to this idea is that we will eventually live off planet. But for the sake of discussion we could say we are living in a finite world. i.e. a world with limitations.

"What will happen to the economy when the Earth runs out of resources?"

The easiest solution to this is to make everything regenerative and all materials used recyclable. If this is done even to the smallest degree it will allay the problems of "running out of resources." Meaning, we won't be running out of cows or plastic any time soon.

Oil on the other hand is a great example of a resource that could be depleted, but if we apply the first rule as stated here, than we should be able to utilize other forms of energy to give us the mobility we so require.

"Is depression inevitable?"

Not sure, but I would say that there are factors that bring it about. In an unstable economy recession and inflation are a double edge sword. Finding solace in the middle is most desirable, and should be on the mind of the main regulators of the economy, i.e. the banks and the federal government, daresay the 1%.

The "world" can exist without duality in that some things do not have opposites. Some other things are naturally polar or symmetrical.

You can focus on one side of magnet but it doesn't actually eliminate the natural polarity of the magnet.

A one-sided, non-polar, view or being could be had in actuality, in the world, or only potentially as in More's Utopian work and those like it.

To expect such things as "Being Happy all the time" isn't realistic in this world. Our world is naturally polar when it comes to emotions.

So your question is, "Can perception of time be non-simultaneous?" Or, "Does the insect experience time slower or at a different rate than the human?"

I don't think there is a way to know this for sure, because it requires that we take the place of multiple minds/perceptions rather than just one's own, but I do think that if you are seriously interested in the perception of time you try to run a rope around Einsteins theory of relativity. I am not saying the theory can tell us if a bug experiences time at lower rates than human's but it does have some explanatory power over the nature of time itself.

I'd like to add this thought,

That when there is a probability of something happening its as if the laws of determinism have been bypassed. Considering that probabilities are not 100% certain at all time, the universe must somehow than be non-deterministic. Meaning, whenever there is a probability involved, there is a proof that the universe is not behaving deterministically. What do you think about this?

Its really a hard problem.

There is one thought experiment out there, that I know of. Teleportation!

If person A exists with an particular and certain atomic configuration for their body and mind, do they remain the same when reconstructed at another point in space-time? Some say it would be the same person, other's claim that they would not be the same.

Really there is only two possibilities here.

I think the provided experiment gets at the consistency of the self, just as the idea of biological consistency does.

If it weren't for memory, would person B be the same person ten years after all their cells and atoms where exchanged?

I don't think a materialistic explanation for entanglement is possible.

What do you propose? Just leave it as an "unknown"? When particles become entangled they than communicate non-locally. What happens to particle a, happens to particle b. What is missing here, you think?

I am convinced that reality is energetic/elemental/substantive (ontology) undergoing causal change (teleogoy) understand by the mind (epistemology). Do you propose another domain?.Spirit? As some do? What is its ontology? Do your propose its teleology is non-local communication?

You're into physics right? So you would know that we have already done major research into the existence of all possible particles. If the standard model (SM) is correct than there are no other interactions besides which already have been discovered.

If however, it is missing some key variable of particle interaction it leaves itself open to the possibility of other particles existing. If this is the case there could be other energies that can cause invisible but apparent interactions.

The four situations you have listed don't seem to achieve any logical proof of a non-material reality. If there is a non-material reality it should in some way interact with this world effecting its phenomena. If you can give an example of this interaction, and make that example a demonstration/experimentation than you will have proof of a spirit realm.

Does such exist already?

Perhaps it does. There are several reliable experiments in paranormal research that provide us with some semblance of proof of a spirit world. But who is doing the research into its existence at a particle level? I have found none. Thus, such 'beingness' is currently non-reducible, and therefore unfit for the SM.

"Reading the Laws of Nature." I just finished that book.last month. I think I would have to buy it to get the best results from it. I didn't take many notes or get much from it. Its a solid book though.

I haven't picked up the Trivium or Quadrivium yet. So I've got nothing to say on those.

I just finished reading "Cosmosapiens." Its thesis is built on the Anthropic principle.I found it in the history section of my local library. Wonders never seize.

I think philosophy is more perspectivism than it is empiricism. Now we live in a bind with scientific experimentation to prove hypotheses. For some time there was little of this but rather a kind of free writing and free thought, not really taking the demonstrability of ideas to be very significant. Science is about finding the correct perspective, as best as they can, where as philosophy is for offering multiple perspectives. Science might sometimes have a multi-theory perspective, such as in cosmology or the understanding of the possible origins of life on earth. Each is so scientifically "correct" based on the proofs and falsifications of the given hypotheses. In philosophy some ideas are correct as they are logical, reasonable, and deductive/inductive. Each man can search the breadths of philosophy, science, and even religion, and if he does enough he will either be convicted to a certain view or tend towards open-mindedness. In this, it is a case of conservatism vs. pluralism; to which I wish not to digress.

There's little doubt that Hitler thought he was the Nietzschian Superman. Hilter's ideas of "master race" may have been prompted by Nietzschian philosophy, but to what extent is unclear in reading history and comparing Mein Kampf with any of Nietzsche's work. A comparative analysis of the works should lead one to WHERE the men's ideology overlapped. I haven't done much of that as a school assignment or as a informal study, but such is possible.

"_The Atlantic: When Hearing Voices is a Good Thing by Olga Khazan"

Its true. The negativity may be the result of such things as our guilt ridden religions and our social class separations. There are probably other contributing factors as well, absent in some more primitive societies. I've read some stories on shamanism and schizophrenia in tribes. Its very interesting research.

"Is hearing voices the same as hearing your own thoughts?"

Sometimes, as Wallows says, "Voices are perceived as occurring outside one's own head". Sometimes I identify with a voice, other times I tell myself that this is not the way I think, not the way I know myself to be.

All sound has a location, either in your head or outside your head. It gets really confusing when your sitting eating a sandwhich (happened to me...) and you suddenly hear the strangest comment coming from an empty chair. Like what the heck man!

That is what is called Non-Doing in Taoism. In chinese it is called Wu-Wei. I did a brief part on it in the following lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOD21h2_5vw&t=71s

Silence is often the answer, as any arrogant fool knows.

I keep notes when discovering by thinking. I than take those notes and try to get other people to comment on them, so I can think more clearly and develop my thoughts further.

Here is my yahoo (an example of what I do with my ideas): https://answers.yahoo.com/activity/questions?show=D477Q6AXUM2UPV4MDHSY2Y6RKY&t=g

Now if you check out my 1000+ questions on this account alone, you will find that I don't really have much of an regular audience answering me. Which is....too bad? xD But I can always go back there and find my questions and look at any answers and see if they can be added on.

I use whatever question function helps me get from point A (ask what, where, when, why, how, relates?) to point B (I think this about that). First I don't know something, than I get curious about it. Its not like I am trying to be an engineer and understand all things mechanically, I am more prone to metaphysics and introspective revelation.

If you have some background (like we all do) that background will affect how you think.

For some time my intellect has been my own devising. Consciousness moves from one thought to another, entering and exiting, but it is my mind that makes a decision to follow some line of inquiry.

Discovery is different than ordinary thought/self inspection. Discovery comes about through inquiry into something you know that you don't yet know. And if you can ask a question that leads to discovery that no one knows, you may have potential literary pay-off.

I am all about putting effort into becoming a wise old man, and I think I am on the right track, but things could be going much better.

...Good luck on your journey from wherever your from to wherever your going...

In my opinion they should be coexistent. The universe is an integral system made of parts. Its monist and pluralistic.

I think the Matrix is an idea of how far we can really go with fantasy, it resulting in deep immersion -- conjoining mind to with computer

You may be interested in my article:

https://progressasconvergence.blogspot.com/2012/07/future.html

And may find some interest in my TechNET -- Which is a poorly designed web for understanding civil advancements.

https://taoofthepsyche.blogspot.com/2012/11/source.html

I look at the universe and I think of it as outcomes and their causes. Elon Musk said recently, in so many words, that he imagines the future branching out into many outcomes and than he thinks of which one are likely to occur.

I have been interested in Futurism and Transhumanism for some time now. I think we are getting better at predicting the future than ever before, but there will always be events that we can not predict. For example, the motion of gases is far less predictable than the motions of solids.

So we can conclude that somethings are just more predictable than others.
Your parents loved you for periods of time t(n) and the more time that passes with them loving you the more likely that their love will continue (represent that mathematically).

However, throw in other variables and that probability function becomes more alterable, and less predictable.

Good choice of inquiry, mate. I do look forward to it get going somewhere, where though I do not know.

;) xD

I think there is a positive feedback between reading and writing. I think it comes with a third variable, that feeds into it, which is one's own interest. I find that my newest ideas come to me when I am:

1) Reading and questioning what I read
2) Thinking and questioning what I am thinking
3) Discussing and questioning what others are thinking.

_I am an Author, {essays} "On Being and Consciousness" various other essays, vlogs and poems.

When I first started writing I read various articles on how to write better and the book series, "How to write a Damn Good Novel." I wrote two novellas and most of my essays after being armed with that critical thinking arsenal..

So an anti-belief (i.e. "there is no god") cannot exist without there being something to reference back to it, to contradict it (in positive conjecture i.e. "there is a god")? Please do go on.

"The absence of thought" isn't exactly ignorance, but I think it could be termed unknowing. All unknowing has an unknown. Quantum mechanics was not ignored, but rather unknown to 17th century physicists. They could deny it because they had no knowledge of it. They had an unknowing. From this conclusion, I still arrive at the same argument, just in similar terms, "unknowing is atheism." I am sure you have heard the argument that we are "born atheist". This runs perpendicular to my conclusion, supporting it again.

What they're are tendencies. One could even claim statistical averages (they) are a bias, and how harmful that bias is, would have to be a sum of other statistical data....it probably carries on like that, all these analytics depending on one another. It can get confusing if your kind of dumb about these things to begin with; as I am with no formal education in statistics.

As far as I know the laws of logic, the rules of syllogisms, an introduction in deduction and induction are not taught in primary school, and because of this I think a lot of people don't know how to reason or use logic well.

Personally, I run into problems that logic has. But if you know modus ponus, for example, you can reduce the errors in your logical thought processes. If you didn't know them however, logic could lead you into confusion and conclusions that are not substantiated by deductive validation.

I really do think if we gave primary school classes on logic there would be less religious participation. This is of course a hypothesis, a logical argument on its own. Our logic skills correlated with religiosity? I digress.

I did enjoy reading the ideas of some people here about non-classical logic. I will not get into that in this reply.

I have for some time thought that Athiesm is not just the denial of god, like the denial of the property red, but rather the absence of thinking of the color red, not thinking of a god. Maybe there is another term for this, with a definition more fitting than Atheism.

I really liked your water and ice metaphor for self-existence and separation of the self. Very well constructed.

Our brains are electromagnetic field oscillators. Whose to say that almost all other living things (be they alien or not) aren't experiencing their own existence as a small part (mind) of the total/universal electromagnetic field?

I have for many years, wondered if their is some kind of connection between one life and another, besides material connection. I have yet to understand very well. I think your idea here is materialistic rather than spiritual, and that you might consider leaving your mind open to the idea that there are physics on some other level that might be linked to death and rebirth, as I have for years. This of course comes from my light fanaticism with Buddhism. Are their spiritual laws, or only physical, governing the universe and death and rebirth? Is Karma and Dhamma explanation enough?

Not only is Atheism older than theism, it is far more ubiquitous in the animal kingdom.

Once you can achieve a sentient state where you can question, "who made the world" you can rightly, though not necessarily, conclude, "a being did this". Who this being was and is today is no more than a built construct of the supposed being.

You can have so many different forms of theism, so that there is a god for nearly the source of everything in the world.

Dawkins put it right in his idea/meme, "god of the gaps." When you do not have an explanation for something, you may excuse it to be caused by a higher being. Schopenhauer said, doing this is, "Explaining an unknown with an even more unknown." There's really no sense in it. To just simply admit, "I don't know" was not enough for the myth makers in our civilization.

Oh boy have I had some experiences with different medications! I was one halodol for nearly a year and was continuously restless. Zypraxia, has less of this affect for me. Studies show that switching between medications to lower agitation, adverse effects, is beneficial. See: Managing drug induce akathisia.

"Do you have bad negative symptoms, like anhedonia, apathy, and such? How have you dealt with those issues?

Not really. Lately I have been highly elated, smiling and laughing too much. I think its the zoloft. I am on 150mg. NTS I think I'll ask the doctor to cut back some. He increased it to fight off anxiety, but I still notice about the same levels as anxiety as when I was on a lower dosage.

I actually take the same meds as you, olanzapine and sertaline. I also take a PRN which is called Lorazpam. I take this last one if my symptoms become severe. The medication has been working wonders for me. I haven't visited a hospital in two years now!

One is an antipsychotic. It works by inhibiting dopamine receptors. The other is an antidepresssent, increasing serotinon levels. I am into understanding neurology, but my understandings are shallow at best.

I am not sure what isn't phenomological in nature. I do think that it is a psychological issue.

I was thinking about this last night, and what you are referring is role playing, a kind of fantasizing. There is probably plenty on the "psychology of role playing" that can be found online.

Personally, I haven't read much into it, but there is a step you can take. :)

I wonder how hallucinations differ from dreams

As do I.

The images I hallucinate aren't as vivid as dreams.Though I suppose that many people who suffer with hallucinations feel like they are "in a waking dream" because of vividness of their hallucinations.

The audio is just as audible as those in dreams, but less coherent.