To me, it's just that one can't extrapolate anything from the qualia of the brain. It's fleshy; it's gray. But one isn't immediately struck: Hey, that's life! That's consciousness!

The physical brain and consciousness aren't parallels. There's no way in which matter ever will "seem" like a sufficient explanation. It just can't happen.

Memories are stored outside of the brain in the events that transpired.

Well, you're right about one thing: reality is and shall remain a mystery. And if you can't give credence to an ineffable surface of things, your opinions are absolutely worthless, verbose as you may be.

You might as well have never lived as suffer the indignity of being you.

Thanks 180. You may not be a supporter of life sublime, but at least you're honest.

If we don't acknowledge the living past, there will be no progress, because that's truly how it is.

I am just captain obvious, pointing out that we persistently witness the past, deluded, believing...nay, convinced and absolutely correct that it is real.

Universe's, the child is always the one who diminishes. Many children are more genuine than you. Your identity is in being contradictory, right or wrong, but we've been through the looking glass seventy odd years. I'm slightly ashamed that I'm after clout, pointing out the obvious.

Things are ultimately their own finest definitions. If you're not speaking as an aside to the ineffable, you're confused and wrong. There simply cannot be a satisfactory, ultimate explanation.

The dilemma resides I'm humanity's pride

The true issue is, how do you observe the human brain and invoke the totality of everything?

There is no there there. Nothing about gray matter that is ever going to seem like consciousness.

And that's right.

Humans aren't an exception. Were just abstract and bizarre as anything.

The universe actually is utterly bizarre. But you refuse to color outside the lines, and then feel entitled to proof of the abstract.

[reply="Tom Stmaturation.

Oh, are we highly aware or our ignorance? Or do we have so much pride we can't believe we're asinine?

I feel it's the latter. We are so satisfied with our progress -- we think so ridiculously highly of it -- that every fool is a wise man by virtue of possessing the human form.

We can't get to truth due to pride that denies reality.

The hard problem is just more masturbation.

Oh, really? Because I had my hopes on you being convinced.

Let's face it: The only things you find convincing are mundanities.

It's more an issue of pride than reason. I fear most are partial to humanity. I have never been.

Our pride should come from our ability to persevere. Not our success, because we haven't succeeded. As it is, the cart is way out in front of the horse.

We think paradigms have shifted towards ultimate wisdom, but, just like our ancestors, human beings will eventually look back and call us fools.

I don't know if I'm smarter, but I am more privy to actual reality. And still too foolish to assert myself.

I have seen many things. Things "smart" people have never seen. So, just trust me? Haha. That'd be a first.

The blind lead the blind. We trust the blind because they're like us, blind. It'll probably take centuries, but the more the proliferation of truth, the more bizarre we will become. That's nature, not cowardly conformity

I'm not a nihilist. I'm just a realist. The facts of humanity just aren't that optimistic.

We are so, so dumb. It's always the final paradigm.

You can make assertions about consciousness all day. The thing is, to know what is, one must be knowledgeable about the environment in which it exists. The two things are coefficient. We've only had lightbulbs for a hundred years. We're just a stone's throw away from sleeping on hay.

Don't fool yourself into believing that the first thing about the environment of consciousness is understood.

Also, I'm not saying that because all events are essentially real that they're only real in essence. I'm saying anything that occurs is fixed as real.

If I took your approach, nothing would be real, realness defined as sameness, as nothing has ever been the same.

How does saying "we" have no proof time isn't linear aid in obtaining proof that time isn't linear.

"We" in quotes, because I have witnessed the proof.

I would think it common sense that the past doesn't exist apart from the essence of reality.

Once real, due to the quality of being real, forever factual. Linear time is irrelevant.

Time isn't linear. That's what I'm getting at. The knowledge that one is real can't be altered by anything, even death.

And the parameters of reality have never made anything unreal. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cohesively, there is one reality with all its various parameters.

But what's fascinating is that the past is convinced it's real now. The passage of time can't diminish the nowness of past events.

That's what I mean. A trait of being real, to truly define reality, is that it's a fact. Time and circumstance have no authority on the "realness" of anything. To be real is a permanent condition.

Otherwise you're saying that facts become fictions.

I don't know why you've addressed me with this question, but to be a fantasy in flux doesn't diminish the youness of you. You still don't exist exclusively in your brain. A body is a whole person, random as it may be, and one is the totality of all their forms.

There is cohesive form. And it exists out of one's mind. We are already outside of the subjective.

Isn't a quality of "realness" that it's immutably real, though. I would say so.

Everything exists in and affects the present.

A person is a body, not a brain. Out in the universe, not in a prison of subjectivity. And the spirit of all things it has effected.

Just dicking around in contemporary pop reality, surrounded by atheist crybabies who substitute a lack of faith for an abundance of intellect.

Well, to be repulsively blunt, there has only ever been one now, and all moments are of the same now.

This is a pure fact many are desperate to escape. But it makes sense of everything.

Everything is an example of this. There is a surface that defines itself perfectly accurately, yet doesn't explain itself.

We get lost in each other's minds. But a chair is not best defined by the word "chair" for instance. A chair is really just an abstract extant "thing."

Would anyone disagree that all things define themselves better than humans ever could?

I'm just correct. It's gonna be years before people catch on, though. Such is the need for power.

We forget there's an ineffable surface to everything, and that we're always on the surface, which ultimately best describes itself.

The honest answer is that temporality comes with the territory of fantasy.

There's a good reason we have conflicting physics, a good reason for principles of uncertainty: because the word most like what reality is is fantasy.

It makes sense for the universe to make no semantic sense, but it'll unfortunately be five hundred years before we figure that out.

The truly insurmountable problem is that one can't just magically endow consciousness with the ability to finally perceive itself as an object.

It really is not possible to prove what consciousness is, not free from assumptions, anyway.

The human spirit is abjectly in opposition to fluke, unless life can happen any time, anywhere.

Good luck to those who insist our whole realities are a fluke, less than nothing.

I shouldn't be against the ropes in proposing fucking life isn't a fluke.

Consciousness can't be understood from a conscious perspective without the assumption we are privy to reality.

A materialist source of awareness can't possibly be found. It is essentially pointing at this and claiming it seems like that. Can't be done.

Not saying neuroscience is futile, but it shouldn't be extrapolated into a solution for everything. Consciousness depends on factors other than our everyday experience. Doesn't even matter if the brain is an important factor, which it is. That still doesn't root us in "materialism" which is really a misnomer.

The fact is that each and every one of us is precious.

Just like a faucet "creates" water.

It doesn't matter if consciousness is fundamental or not. It matters how it relates to reality and especially the dimension of time.

You can't come from the perspective of an observer and analyze what consciousness is unless you make the bold, glaring, and stupid assumption that your awareness is adept at that.

We don't see reality for what it is. Period. No question about it.

Of course they were going to find uncertainty at the quantum level. I don't trust anyone who doesn't realize the world, as man knows it, is a phantasm.

We don't know the first thing about reality.