Message from @hemi
Discord ID: 498402101517484042
may i post research?
there is plenty
because deterministic chain of causation for impetus of neuronal firing or whatever you're looking at has no overall basis
yh hemi is rightt though
20 yrs of it
it is merely a fractional analysis of a dialectical approach
and devolves into relativism
which doesn't bring you any knowledge
brain scinec will btfo vedics
it only further dissects information into blocks
no its called orchestrated objective reduction
consciousness is not emergent
mind is
ok wut budy
yea .
it's not objective, because you're taking subjective arbitrary points and creating a dialectic upon which you operate between these two
that literally implausible
it's the same thing you do metaphysically when you both affirm and deny metaphysics
this is why modern science fails
no there is an actual physical phenomena occuring in the microtubulin substructure of the neuron
seeing you get laughed out of a science conference by atheist chads feels goodman
@hemi No, because again you cannot link the deterministic chain
and the hypothesis involves the copenhagen interpetation
and if you play the atheist "brute fact" card then you'd be denying causal logic
this isnt atheism
you can't state that consciousness is a physical process because you'd run into the problem of determining from where impulse is ultimately tracked to the beginning of the universe
upon which you have two options
negentropy
you either reduce into absurdity and reject causation itself with the infinite regression pov
or you must accept the theistic pov
its negentropy breh
which ultimately explains consciousness without a physical component
and yes i amm theistic about my negentropy nom nom
no consciousness requires orchestration
@hemi again you're affirming and denying logic
@Thule-Gesellschaft [☩] hey Thule, sorry to bother, but do you happen to have "On Combat" pdf by Dave Grossman?
negentropy or reversing entropy is rejecting the law of repeatability of outcome
atheism is consciouness evolved from matter but is not matter
which depends necessarily on metaphysics
which you reject with your materialist conclusions