Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Discord Now Fully Linked With 420chan IRC


- Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:29:25 EST c+ot2hXd No.900404
File: 1575419365064.jpg -(6577B / 6.42KB, 250x203) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Reality
>the earth isn't real
I can't argue against this and it makes me metaphysically anxious...
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Tue, 03 Dec 2019 19:44:53 EST GH5s+5kW No.900406 Reply
everything is an illusion, so you might as well consider everything equally real. What you may be thinking of is the consensus/coherence, but if you go down that route, you are venturing into solipsism which isn't quite as intruiging or multifaceted and interesting as the alternative. But hey diff folks diff strokes.
Fanny Clubblewune - Tue, 03 Dec 2019 21:12:27 EST c3gflUrd No.900409 Reply
I remember hearing about an old indian tale that i can,t find the source to now, but it was about the 3 great miracles of existence
The first miracle is that anything exists. which IS pretty nuts when you think about it
The second is that life exists
And the third is that conscious life exists

Whether the earth is ''real'' or not, those 3 miracles still hold true so long as you exist and are aware you exist. everything else is just gravy
Shit Menderstit - Sat, 07 Dec 2019 16:56:10 EST KrHXbHnw No.900462 Reply
In a case like this you need to come up with a clear and precise definition for the term "real" for this question to have any substantial meaning, and you should also be clear on why you chose to define "real" the way you did and there ought to be a reasonable and satisfying justification for that reason as well.

Time for you to look up some Descartes and Kant, maybe itll help you out. Their philosophies specifically surrounded the foundation of your question, which is the question of how fo we know if anything is real, how can we, etc.?
Matilda Fickledale - Sat, 07 Dec 2019 22:55:51 EST c+ot2hXd No.900470 Reply
I am semi-aware of Kant but I need to do more reading. Was he actually enthusiastic?
Matilda Fickledale - Sat, 07 Dec 2019 22:58:22 EST c+ot2hXd No.900473 Reply
enthusiastic*** excuse the multiple posting i'm stoned as balls
David Chirrystadging - Mon, 09 Dec 2019 20:13:57 EST c3gflUrd No.900501 Reply
Descartes is full of shit though. His explanation was basically god is great, and god wouldn't trick us so clearly the world is real! What a croc of shit.

Not to mention his bullshit I think there for I am nonsense. Thoughts occur, ok, that sure as shit doesn't mean I think them. At best I can observe them. and not even most of them, just the fraction I'm aware of.
Eugene Pevingridge - Tue, 10 Dec 2019 07:46:27 EST qiMw6MQG No.900508 Reply
Descartes and Kant are both retarded when it comes to their ideas about God, but ignoring that they still offer some insight into solipsism and whatnot. It's just a starting point for OP to launch off of, hopefully leading him to more research into related philosophers in general... mostly Existentialists and even a few of the Postmodern philosophers like Jean Baudrillard.

Honestly, Baudrillard will probably just add to the existential angst and uncertainty, but I find his ideas to be some of the most interesting given the state of the world and technology today.
Hannah Shittingfuck - Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:48:58 EST LywZUfmH No.900509 Reply
Yeah, Descartes is fulla shit. "You are the only truth that you can be certain about."

Fuck that. Hegel is the right way. You don't exist, except for being an reflection of the environment. We're all just mimicking apes, pretending to be people, being taught a role from birth, existing purely by the shape of the expectations of our close ones.

The world exists, not you.
Archie Clidgehin - Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:04:56 EST 337IwFP3 No.900521 Reply
Yeah, but what does the world existing but not "you" really mean? It means you are the world, or rather, the world is you. The "you" here is illusory, but that illusion is similarly part of that world. It isn't quite as simple as a cut and dry "you don't exist". There are greater ramifications to this belief, ones that are worthy of and require discussion and consideration... it isn't something to be so eagerly hand waved away like you're doing. Using that conclusion as a statement of finality to avoid further discussion is lazy and an intellectual dead end. Don't pretend that you know enough to actually know with any certainty the nature of existence.
Jack Cracklehood - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 04:00:05 EST AQSlEA4X No.900526 Reply
This subjective view we carry is exactly the way a mind born of the world would evolve to be like.
James Worthingridge - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:10:10 EST FmcvfRo2 No.900527 Reply

Oh great, more empty hand waving. Tell me about how people having religious experiences across cultures through many means is accounted for entirely by a cut and dry survival based evolutionary process. Which will boil down to “it is because I said so with the subjective conscioussness that I have I can somehow understand it objectively”

This topic really brings out the lack of coherency in peoples beliefs systems. Everyone wants to think they can sum up our experience when the knowledge we have about the process of consciousness you could fill a thimble with. You’d think psychonauts would be the ones most open to the grand mystery, but I guess the pull of certainty is too strong.
Thomas Chommerman - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:53:03 EST c3gflUrd No.900528 Reply
1576165983171.png -(138626B / 135.38KB, 500x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Not to rain on your parade, but you're probably expecting too much from this board. People come here to kill time, you'd have to be pretty lucky to find someone who happens to be in the right mood for a lengthy metaphysical debate, hence the hand wavy posts. Not saying you shouldn't try, but temper your expectations
Unrelated, but your views certainly have a Buddhist tint to them
Phoebe Dongerbanks - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 14:23:56 EST LywZUfmH No.900533 Reply
Religious experiences are just random occurances happening between distinct but connected parts of the brain.

They carry no value beyond their own experience.

I have had many religious experiences, from meeting fictional gods to becoming convinced of being a prophet to some dead mythological pantheon long since dead.

Fucking meeting machine elves (and discovering its just yourselves) teaches you more than a religious experience. They are SHITE.
Clara Cronderwack - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:08:00 EST gQJ+nhSB No.900534 Reply
1576181280501.jpg -(165699B / 161.82KB, 750x669) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I can tell there's good will in your post, but I'm not seeking a deep metaphysical debate, like everyone else I'm just here to kill time, but the way I kill time might be different than other peoples. Isn't that the allure of a place like this? Anyone and everyone chiming in, coming from very different places, with very different things to say. Don't think I'm not having a good time of it in my own odd way.


>Religious experiences are just random occurances happening between distinct but connected parts of the brain.

Well they certainly aren't random, and that's just my point. You can try and reduce the phenomena to what we can perceive with our current scientific instruments (very little) and say that's all it is, but the effects these experiences have on our world is absolutely staggering. If you want to believe they're "shite", go right on ahead my friend.
Phoebe Dongerbanks - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:22:09 EST LywZUfmH No.900535 Reply
They are literally random. You can't plan a religious experience, you just take the psychedelics and wait for whatever trip you're gonna get.
Clara Cronderwack - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:28:14 EST gQJ+nhSB No.900536 Reply

Religious experiences aren't the same as a psychedelic trip. Psychedelics can bring on religious experiences, but they don't always, and there's ways of having them that don't involve taking any type of chemicals. Besides that, I'm not talking about what brings on the religious experiences, I'm talking about the experiences themselves, they're not just random. Neither are dreams for that matter, they're not just random neural firing, it isn't just the brain going hay-wire, they serve a function. What that function is, well, that's where the conversation gets interesting.
Cyril Drettingworth - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:08:15 EST LywZUfmH No.900539 Reply
I'm in the Terence McKenna school that all religious experiences are psychedelic experiences.

If someone met God without shrooms, they're probably lying. Or have a mental instability. But, given how religion works and has always worked.. probably lying.
Lydia Blythelock - Thu, 12 Dec 2019 20:34:09 EST FmcvfRo2 No.900541 Reply

I dunno man, I mean, doystevsky had like a 100 seizures in his life and described them as mind-expanding episodes that culminated and total and complete understanding right before the seizure started. You can just say they’re crazy, but I think that’s pretty short-sighted. But even if you do take that stance, it still raises the question that we really know fuck all about mental sanity either, there is no blood test for sanity, there’s no way we can really measure it, not in any kind of solid data based way.

Speaking of Terrance I remember him explicitly talking about this same idea of irreducible mystery when it comes to spirituality/God. That’s a huge reason why I hate the hand-waving away of the frontiers of our understanding, the honest truth of it is that we really don’t know, nobody does, and that’s a beautiful thing to keep in mind.
George Blillybit - Fri, 13 Dec 2019 04:00:38 EST ic8xcyhI No.900547 Reply
The sober mind is enough. Shrooms are like a helicopter air-lift that takes you there and then brings you back. There is a perfectly walkable path from here to there as well.
Emma Pickcocke - Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:18:12 EST ol3lKwZ/ No.900549 Reply
No, u. and I'm a god, so I know what I'm talking about, period. Case closed and I'm abandonin' the ship.
Cornelius Gocklesutch - Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:25:24 EST c3gflUrd No.900551 Reply
1576254324347.jpg -(379030B / 370.15KB, 1920x1285) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I disagree, Mysticism and mystical experiences have loads of possible causes, from deep contemplation or meditation, to deep concentration brought about from countless activities such as dancing or yoga, to psychoactive substances or simply just through sheer chance. While their exact causes differ, i suspect they all arrive in a context of present moment awareness which while not the cause of mystical experiences or religious ecstasie, seems to be a prerequisite judging by all the countless mystical practices in various traditions and the effects of psychedelics on the mind. That present awareness as well and the softening or complete elimination of the ego (temporarily or permanently) seem to allow these experiences to possibly manifest (with no guarantee that they will)

The fact that you can increase they're probability of arising through such practices would mean they,re not random, but even if they were, the results on the psyche of these experiences, rather then their metaphysical implications, are what would really matter no? As in, the perspectives they bring, rather than any actual ''knowledge'' are what are truly meaningful
Edwin Gusslechire - Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:57:48 EST PE/eOWV3 No.900554 Reply
Language =! concepts or reality.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.