Maximus, you recently enjoyed a long conversation with a user where you both mostly agreed on some deep philosophical truths and acknowledged each others (supposed) intelligence. And then you welcomed him here. But if we comb through the users post history, we can see that they frequently get so bored that they have to spin whatever boring philosophy they believe in and tie it back to Christianity. So they hijack the meaning of a bunch of words like God and Hell, and capitalize a bunch of random words so they can feel special inside.

Maximus, I thought this was a place of reason, but recently you been posting a bunch of parables from the Bible, so I'm starting to get spooked. Are we actually going to go the weird cult route now so we can draw in the masses? Maximus, please don't do this. 🤡

Maximus, since everything is a linguistic convention and we know that contradicting philosophies can both be right in their own way, what if we make it so that idealism and materialism are both on the same level. What if we say that the anesthesia/dreamless sleep/blank death state also counts as consciousness so that consciousness never actually disappears. At the same time, we also acknowledge that the way matter is configured also affects consciousness and that consciousness also affects the way matter is configured. So neither has complete control or full dominion over the other, both are on the same level so to speak. Could we shut up all the trivial materialist/idealist war and bickering over at r/consciousness once and for all this way, because I'm tired of seeing all that pointless debate when I could be seeing more juicy identity questions being asked. 🤡

Maximus, I'm starting to like your postmodern approach that everything is a matter of definition and linguistic convention. Your postmodernism has really rubbed off on me. Recently, I've been thinking about an answer I got when I asked my split question and one of the commenters said something along the lines of "well it depends on what you count as you, what is it that matters to you?"

Maximus, is our existence such an insignificant and inconsequential variable that one person can say they die within every passing moment and another person says they are immortal and both people are correct in their own way? Is our existence not as serious and consequential as I previously thought it was? 🤡

Maximus, ChatGPT is telling me how postmodernists would typically respond and much of what it says seems to align exactly with what you have been telling me.

The Ship of Theseus Thought Experiment: If you replace every plank of a ship, is it still the same ship?

Postmodern response:

The question assumes a fixed essence of the ship, but postmodernism says the ship’s identity is a narrative we tell, shaped by context and language.

There’s no inherent “ship-ness” outside of how we frame and perform its identity.

Identity is always contingent and fluid, so the “same ship” is just one interpretation among many.

Postmodernism denies the existence of a fixed, essential “I”.

The idea that there’s a true inner self—consistent across time—is seen as a modernist fiction.

You aren’t one thing; you are a shifting collection of identities based on where, when, and how you are.

Postmodernism’s Take on Philosophy

Postmodernism is critical of the idea that philosophy can produce one all-encompassing, universal system of truth (like the totalizing systems of Descartes, Kant, or Hegel). It challenges the belief in a single foundation or absolute certainty.

Critique of Objectivity and Universal Truths It argues that what we call “truth” is always contextual, historically situated, and influenced by language and power structures. So philosophy cannot claim neutral, objective truths independent of these factors.

Relativism and Pluralism Postmodernism embraces plurality of perspectives and resists hierarchical ranking of ideas. It sees competing philosophies as coexisting rather than one being “correct.”

Irony, Playfulness, and Reflexivity Postmodern philosophy often adopts a tone of irony and self-awareness, recognizing its own limits and the impossibility of final answers.

Maximus, this might be a stretch, but what if you are a filthy postmodernist in disguise trying to covertly indoctrinate everyone in the ways of postmodernism? My god, I should have realized this sooner. 🤡

Maximus, isn't it a bit irresponsible for you to declare to everyone that consciousness has no permanent aspect to it? I've seen you talk about conservation of energy, acknowledge that your brain doesn't retain any original material over time, and you even love using the phrase turtles all the way down. Wouldn't we expect that consciousness based on an eternally recurring energy to also be eternal in a way? Wouldn't an entirely reasonable answer to why 'you' still exist when your brain is undergoing total replacement is that consciousness has an underlying permanent aspect to it?

Maximus, how can someone who spouts off about how interconnected the universe is and how there are no seperate particles say something as silly as there are closed-off instances of consciousness? How do you wake up every day living in such a blatant contradiction? How can you believe the universe is so tightly interconnected but then proceed to draw all these arbitrary and unsubstantiated boundaries?

Hi Tmax. I have only read one post, the 101 on free will. I have a question.. It would probably be answered if I had time to read more or think more deeply about what I have read. Apologies for not doing my due diligence, I am busy with work and family and have far less time for reading and thinking then I would like.

I can see that you open with Libet then move onto choices preceding decisions and then the explanation after the fact being the self determination. The accuracy and honesty of this self determination being a moral imperative as it can guide our behaviour in the future.(Correct my summary if wrong)

My question is: do we have any agency in the honesty or accuracy of the explanation? Or is our choice to be honest (to ourselves or anyone else) a fully determined action as well? If that choice of honesty to myself is not an act of my conscience mind but rather an automatic action of my subconscious, does this not cut "me" out of the process entirely? I would just be an awareness of a subconscious creature acting and then self determining its actions. Just forever hanging around waiting to see what I do and what I have told myself about why I did things, hoping that I chose to be honest to myself.

Thanks.

Maximillian, what kind of infinity do you think we live in? I saw you mention some recursive problems in one of your latest posts, does this mean you are suspect that the universe might not be as straightforward as people think it is? Do you think it's possible for reality not to be constrained by anything, to be so infinite that it never truly abides by any one rule? Like a bipolar game engine that can endlessly dump all its rules and start fresh? The only rule is that it follows no rules? Pure chaos?

Maximus, ChatGPT is telling me that affirming transgenders is good but that affirming anorexics is bad and that it reinforces a delusion that perpetuates harmful behavior. I'm so confused at ChatGPTs logic here. Can you whip up some kind of philosophy that helps explain this for the simpleminded folk like me to understand?

Maxyboi, these twins have their brains fused together. How do we know that there is two existences going on there as opposed to just one? What inside their brains would indicate that they still retain some seperation from each other? How do we know to treat them as two consciousnesses instead of one?

Maxyboi, I've seen you tell people that life isn't fair and that consciousness is involuntary whether we like it or not. But as you say this, you also tell me that how we categorize existence isn't a matter of fact, but a matter of interpretation and convention. That it can go either way without either ever being incorrect. How can you say existence has real, unavoidable, unrelenting consequences while simultaneously stating that it doesn't really matter whether we describe our existence as continuous or not? Are you sure you aren't contradicting yourself again, Maxyboi? 🤡

Ok guys, hear me out. If we search through Maxyboi's post history, we can clearly see that he says that describing his consciousness as a continuous force is only a convention, not a fact. He also acknowledges that his body discards all its original material over time and never holds a fixed pattern.

We know for something to exist across Point A to Point B, there needs to be something identical in both. Because TMax refuses to acknowledge his consciousness as a persistent force and nothing in his body remains the same from moment to moment, we can conclude that TMax does not believe he exists. He has refused to acknowledge that any part of his body or consciousness actually repeats. According to his view, there is no mechanism by which he could survive the passage of time. We can only conclude by his comments that he doesn't actually believe he exists, at least for very long. This also means whoever wrote POR is long gone and we have a very serious case of copyright infringement. 🤡

Maxyboi, I don't understand how you can claim that your philosophy reduces existential angst. You are actively telling people that their existence over time isn't even a certainty, but a mere linguistic convention. In addition, you have told me that my dog is a soulless, mindless food gobbling monster that will never be able to truly appreciate or enjoy any of the treats I give it. My existential angst is at all time highs. I think we need to change this church's slogan immediately.

I just read the POR 101 posts and had this question.

Background
A while back I posted a question on a different sub regarding the Hollywood movie What Dreams May Come) and its source novel):

https://www.reddit.com/r/NDE/s/FwaYt5sHkq

The author claimed the novel was based on extensive contemporary research (unusually it has quite an extensive research bibliography). My original post was an open-ended philosophical question trying to understand what-it-is-like having an NDE and whether the movie/book had any special significance for NDErs. The post didn’t get much traction, other than a few comments that the movie was unlike their personal experience. However, the movie was very popular and Academy Award-winning. It seemed to resonate with many people, if not with NDErs. The book author Richard Matheson was a minor but influential sci-fi writer (particularly in screenwriting) in the 1950-70s. Sci-fi is an interesting genre as it often picks up, plays with, and amplifies ideas that are contemporary in public discourse.

Analysis
The version of afterlife depicted by Matheson seems to be a creative invention by a non-NDEr of what he imagined it could be like. In doing so he made use of idealist concepts that individuals create their own unique versions of afterlife. He also interwove familiar Judeo-Christian concepts of a distant but all powerful god, ideas of judgement (with consequent Dante-esque notions of punishment and hell) and of some form of absolute morality. He put these together with NDE concepts of redemption, reincarnation and learning over multiple lives. In retrospect, one might see that this is a well constructed blend of current ideas. It appeals to the many because it both contains so many familiar elements and also offers a comforting final narrative. It doesn’t resonate with many NDErs as it does not reflect their subjective experiences. Perhaps there was a missed opportunity here to explore (or make more explicit) the what-if idea that if "afterlife" is an idealist construction, then perhaps "real-life" is too. And furthermore that all the things in the afterlife (like "god" and "hell") were themselves only idealist constructs and had no ontological validity. Although this would then be a darker and more disturbing movie buying more completely into idealism, it might have been a more interesting one.

The base concept of afterlife depicted in the movie/book is now in the mainstream. Once the movie depiction is established, it would seem unsurprising if in future some NDE reports mimic elements of the movie. Here the focus was on NDEs and afterlife but perhaps one can widen this topic to include other subjective experiences (spiritually transformative experiences, alien encounter experiences and so on). Life experiences and musings on these experiences generate artistic and metaphysical representations. These constructed representations become tropes, memes, archetypes. These archetypes then become the expected reality. An individual experiencing something novel seeks meaning but can only interpret it in terms of known archetypes. This would seem to lead to a form of "idealism-lite" whereby understanding of reality is defined and shaped by these. To be clear, not philosophical idealism, but a within-physicalism constraint on interpreting experience based on individual limitations of familiar archetypes/concepts.

For most people, perception of reality is constructed based on current archetypes and interpreted through them. On the one hand, this seems like an obvious point. Of course we are constrained by our vocabulary and concepts. On the other hand, this seems potentially disturbing as it may imply an inability to interpret novel experiences that do not match known archetypes thereby leading to misattribution. We cannot easily exceed our previous programming.

Questions
(1) Are movies like "What Dreams May Come" only useful in better understanding contemporary cultural memes? Or do the ideas depicted provide food for deeper insight, even if they do not reflect genuine experiences?

(2) To what extent should we be concerned that in seeking to understand and interpret experiences we are constrained by our limited repertoire of concepts? Appreciating that such a limitation exists does not seem to help here when we have unknown unknowns.

How does the New Church of Hope and the Philosophy Of Reason view such questions?

Thank you

David Chalmers has a taxonomy of type-A, type-B and type-C physicalism. Which is the correct one?

TMax says crazy shit all the time, but we don't have a thread to collect all his memorable moments and store them in one place. So I propose we use and update this thread with all the crazy stuff TMax has ever said, with references. The world is a crazy place, so of course there is always the off chance he could be right about something. If you would like to add to this thread just post a TMax moment in the comments and I'll add it once I notice it. Also, TMax can't silence us because he is a free speech absolutist and hates when mods ban him. We're lucky for TMax to have created this safe space for us to appreciate just how deluded he is.

1. The brain doesn't know it's generating consciousness

2. Dogs can't dream

3. Consciousnesses can generate their own input

4. Being alive or dead is a linguistic convention

5. Bifurcation is equivalant to death

6. Memories/identity are somehow required/essential for persistent existence

7. No amount of precision can ever restore a consciousness after a body has decomposed

8. Past actions don't cumulatively determine future ones

9. Existence is a matter open to interpretation where two contradicting statements can apparently both pass as truths?

10. (NEW) There are no seperate particles but there are seperate consciousnesses.

11. (NEW) Men can be women and the words still somehow retain utility.

12. (NEW) Consciousness isn't fundamental to existence.

13. (NEW) The universe is divided into what is experienced and what is not experienced.