it is a bit wild to me that the mind can experience so much more than what exists...
explain the evolutionary reason for that, atheists

@Alex i'm talking about altered states of consciousnesd

@shmibs ngl that's a sophistic explanation that doesn't address my point at all. what is the mind compressing? its experience of reality, of sense-data? are "aberrations" of thought merely a failure of input to output? that's perverse. a loss of data or of precision doesn't explain the existence of novel dimensions of experience, which are often parsed sensorially as mutations of reality but in terms of consciousness can transcend them utterly. tell me when you've experienced that.

@Lucretia-Matt why would brain evolve from environment and be capable of processing something radically foreign environment. what is the explanation for sublime and eldritch states of consciousness. is it an atavism? sacred-profane urreligion?

@Arcana @Lucretia-Matt not incompatible no, but at a certain point i think compatibility is forcing it and consciousness-substrate dualism is the most parsimonious explanation.

@shmibs altered consciousness thrives in sensory deprivation

@shmibs i'm not talking about the world or about sensory data, i'm talking about consciousness itself. you have made this all about aberrations of perception because your argument is loaded with a denial of consciousness as its axiom. strong AI denies anything in the brain besides input and output, you believe mind is computer, so of course this is all you have to work with, alterations in consciousness as deviant internal-world-states and sense perceptions.

@shmibs i mean consciousness in many ways. as an emergent property of the animal brain (but not computers), as a mind brain dualism, as an effulgent and infinite universal network separate from and transcending its medium. latter is most fanciful ofc. your description doesn't use evolution, which is a well established theory wrt governing the human organism, it uses computer software, which is spuriously connected.

@ARCONITE @shmibs i think its possible to build a mind, an intelligence, but not a consciousness. a simulacrum.

@ARCONITE @shmibs lots of things, mostly esoteric, the subject of this post is an example. for a mechanical mind there is nothing inexplicable hidden underneath.

@ARCONITE @shmibs lmao yup

@shmibs dualism is entirely coherent in my worldview just as brain is just computer is in yours. faced with the limits of computers you say "there are theoretically no limits". because you don't believe in things not consistently demonstrably observed, and therefore assumed an inherent property of the world substrate, whose composition and movement you call truth. you call the brain general purpose where the specific is perception of observable, quantifiable, explicable reality, and useful emotions and states of consciousness. what then is the general purpose? why is there an epistemological pool larger than our world itself? have you considered that is not a degeneration but a world of its own?
as for future telling oracles, this and other time/space/causality defying phenomena have been reported in varied cultures all over the world. but because it is not consistent you'd surely reject it.

@shmibs i never said both A and not A dualism means a separateness. that is, consciousness is not matter.

@shmibs this is just perverse

@shmibs no it doesn't although many incidences of dualism resolve at a unity. literally just look it up

@shmibs you're thinking of a hypostatic union

@shmibs yes this is just the same conversation as "how can God be not a part of the universe and also affect the universe". you engage from such a tiny apportioning of common human artifacts, let alone your own... you should try dreaming..

@shmibs
initial difference can be reconciled by clarifying the meaning of universe... i assert the existence and precedence of the unmanifest apart from the manifest cosmological object. perhaps you call everything real the universe which is true, but you don't know its implications. strict materialism is emotional as is magical thinking, and they are both rooted in pattern-seeking.
i am familiar with chaos theory and find it beautiful... a promise of infinite becomingness... why do you think there is beauty in the mundane? why is there something instead of nothing?

@shmibs the idea is that consciousness alone remains without a universe, whether you call the universe the gross or both the gross and subtle ... that there is a thing that can involute and the universe would cease to exist to observers because everything would be in it and nothing out, only subject would exist and there would be no objects. only intention can adequately justify there being a something, because only consciousness can possess will. its unfalsifiable and fundamentally unprovable by its nature. but so are many other things...

@shmibs it's just a matter of semantics, if you redefine a word to mean what you want then you can assert anything. but i don't think that is how most people would use the term "universe"... we speak of the universe beginning with a big bang, of multiple universes, of the heat death of the universe, of the holographic universe. even if you define the term as "everything that is" universe is a limiting term for traditional understanding of god-consciousness (monad/brahman) which is not a circumscribed thing consisting of discrete objects, it is a singularity of complete fullness itself, and void in perfect stasis but containing infinite potential. according to some schools of thought it is the only real thing, and the world itself, the universe, is like a dream.

@shmibs i'm entirely aware of cosmogeny and cosmology as understood by modern physics lol. hence my usage of the terms substratum and universal medium. (which is as broad as your use of "universe" and also frontloads my personal cosmology as you do yours) "universe" itself is a word attaching itself with facility to numerous ontological and epistemological objects (over thousands of years). by referring to its usage i was clearly speaking of how the word universe is used in contemporary english, hence it being a semanticist's folly. as for your prescription that one definition be used, you deem yourself tautologically correct when you supply your own principles to start with. for example saying the universe is mindless, that consciousness is an emergent property of it and not the opposite. ultimately you'd prioritize object over subject, because to you subject is an object, hence appealing to science which describes the things unified in its consistent observation by different consciousness and in doing so purports to also describe consciousness. my intention in providing these examples of "universe" was that universe is always a bounded term, as you noted, whether boundedness is attributed accurately or inaccurately... the universe is everything that manifestly is and nothing that isn't. and since you presume to know what is, and science is what is and everything real is science, of course you arrive at your desired end where the universe is equivalent to everything science determines or can determine is real (by observation/effect)-- it is ultimately circular. you don't understand why anyone would disagree with you because you are agreeing with yourself.
could the monad be called the universe? as i said earlier, sure, but it shouldn't. i think nuance is important, and so i would personally refrain from using words at such a linguistic register where they are subject to the whims of popular descriptive variation and prescriptive complexity as "universe".

as for the appeal to mathematical objects such as ratio pi, i'm not sure if you're trying to describe a property of the universe or a property of god or both i guess?? as boundedly infinite??? is this the sort of philosophy under the guise of metamathematics lending itself to mathematical platonism? it reminds me of how cantor thought set theory was divinely revealed while others reviled it as blasphemy... anyway it is just as irrelevant as then and just as sophistic as describing the human brain as a graphical rendering engine.

you agree with yourself and are self-satisfied, thinking it free of emotion (which is impossible to pry from human thought in actuality)... but it is not...

@shmibs hmmm well it's meaningful to me... consciousness. it's a trope but experiencing certain altered states makes you believe in foolish things. which is also an unjustifiable starting point but it was the premise of OP...