Entropy and the anthropic principle have nothing to do with it.

Regards.

And it's still helpful. What wouldn't be helpful is to just go along with everyone else and act like there's no such thing.

Don't be so sure of that.

I can't explain. It diminishes the fact. Anyone who has an eye for truth can see the plain truth of it. Or you can go the way of the OP and insist everything is bullshit. You don't function that way, though, do you? Wonder why.

Everything is golden and eternal. It does matter. You just don't want to believe it matters.

And I believe this is true, because I've seen evidence.

The theory is that all times coexist simultaneously and our perception of linear time is an illusion.

So you're going to act like time is a well-understood phenomena? It's been posited by no less than Albert Einstein that it's a fourth dimension, and that we live in some kind of mysterious block universe.

You're right, consciousness exists in spacetime. That's kind of my whole point. If time isn't strictly linear, and consciousness cannot exist independently of it, then you have to explain what that means for consciousness.

If you haven't explained how consciousness relates to time, you haven't explained consciousness.

Yes, I do.

I honestly don't see how some people don't reason that life is ultimately mysterious. Some people simultaneously have certainty while they're trying to figure everything out. How is that?

The truth is, no matter how eloquent the communication, the raw experience is always what was real.

Things seem much different when you realize your consciousness in the present can interact with people in the past.

Mysticism to me is just the difference between the abstract and the mundane. One really can't say which is which when it comes to the essential nature of things. It's all just preference. Some people think it's perfectly normal to be a human being; I think it's completely bizarre.

It's also a matter of experience. Experience is fundamental and fundamentally defines itself better than the second-hand report of language ever could.

Some people see a cloudy day. I see the stereotypical, mystical dimension.

Awareness isn't a sensation.

You are your cells and atoms. How are you constricted by you?

You all seem to gloss over the notion of identity. It's a real thing. You don't choose it, but it is you. It isn't determined, either.

The body isn't encapsulated in the brain.

It's obvious that brain states aren't the same as experiences, for the sheer fact that we are more than our brains.

I'm too old to be childishly terrified of death, yes.

Yabba dabba doo!

Wonder is too young to understand. Wasted words.

Psychism is just what happens when anything encounters a foreign environment. The subtle distinction between what you are and the information that is interacting with you. This is the creation of mind, and every particle has it, as they are all forced to distinguish themselves from outside interference.

I am a panpsychist, as I believe all matter is aware on this subtle level...that all matter distinguishes itself from all other matter. I believe this creates an awareness.

I just find it kind of asinine to claim you're being perfectly objective despite the fact that you're experiencing things no one will ever understand. "This sentence is in English" is essentially a meaningless statement, as far as I can tell.

It's okay to not be an asshole. Try it sometime.

She was old, and you're a goddamned fool.

You seem determined to die, so I'm not going to waste my time.

Honestly, we have no conception of the shape of the universe, and we're all seriously putting the cart before the horse.

But if it were a ball, and we were inside the ball, we'd be so small no one would ever find us in infinite years, except by chance. We are virtually invisible.

No, I don't miss her. She was/is a reality. A fact. So are you. So am I. Facts are beyond time.

Once alive, always alive. The universe can't dispute this.

I dispute that the naming of things is being fully objective about them.

If you want to be convinced, just watch an old movie and fully ascertain that the people you're watching, in the present - though dead - are fully convinced that they are alive.

Don't be so sure of yourself.

The night my cat died, she came to me. There were no indications that she was going to die. But she just sat at the foot of my bed and stared at me. I had no idea I truly meant anything to her, and I just laughed and thought it was absurd, the way she was staring at me.

In her sleep she began running, and I laughed again. Silly cat. In the morning she was lifeless, still in the pose as if she was running.

Do I honestly need to point out that even if you're watching a film about neurons, it's still composed entirely of internal images?

Everyone recognizes that characters in books are fictional. Trying to convince us that other people are fictional is a different matter. Yes, people can get creative with themselves, but that doesn't mean they're a character that some foreign event is responsible for.

To try and split the identity from one's own brain is nonsense. It isn't some foreign author creating a story. It is literally a part of us.

What people have a problem with is that it isn't the whole story. Our physical form, our surface, plays a role, too. And that isn't internal. It belongs to the external world.

The idea that none of this is happening defies all of the evidence that it actually is happening. If we can't trust that it's even something, surely we can't say the brain creates the illusion of something, as our experience of the brain would be illusory, too. That's not just a hard problem; it's an impossible problem. You can't just grant the brain the magical ability of being infallible, no matter how much you want to understand.

If the objective of a game is to have fun, then you're a success if you have fun and a failure if you don't. And Truth or Dare can go either way, which is why it's a game. It's a matter of personal success or failure. You can feel brave and win, or you can chicken out and lose.

Even though no one says "You lost the game" you still come away either with satisfaction or anxiety.

I would say truth or dare can be a game. And termed as such is still a matter of success or failure, yes. There is an objective. It's kind of a foggy objective, but an objective nonetheless.

It's still a matter of feeling like a success or failure. I suppose completely embarrassing yourself would be a failure, as opposed to successfully surviving the truth or dare.

I can't accept it as a counter example. I can accept it at times as a game (sometimes just practice,) but then there is still the objective of catching the ball. No one is keeping score, necessarily, but the success or failure still lingers. That it's posited as a game guarantees that.

A game can be something where you fail yourself as well, I suppose. But if you consider something a game I can't imagine a scenario where it's not a question of success or failure.

Questionable if that's really a game. I say it is, though. In a loose sense the child has the objective of retrieving the ball, and if he/she doesn't it's a failure or a "loss " I do believe all games have a common feature.

This discussion doesn't really revolve around the fallibility of the word "game," though.

You can't act differently, but only because you are you. You're not some standard human who will always make the same choices given your body.

I see a tendency towards disassociation here. Your identity includes your body. No, you can't entirely choose your identity, but if you accept that is who you are, then your choices are wholly your own.

There's no time gap where you could choose an alternative. And you can't choose your environment. But you aren't abstract from it, either. You know you make choices. They may not be "free," per se, but they are personal, and the personal is real.

So maybe not "free" will...we are constrained...but personal will is real.