See likes

See likes given/taken


Your posts liked by others

Pages: [1] 2
Post info No. of Likes
Re: Introductions Hi everybody! i grew up as a christian until my late teenage years when i saw too many problems with monotheism. i turned to satanism because satan stands for many of the things i honor and prize. i am not a levayen, though i think levay's books are worth reading. right now, i have been a satanist for about 3 years. my beliefs were wide, partially conflicting, and not well defined because i ran into some problems which made me go back to the basics. the reason was that it goes back to the problems of consciousness and the mind/body problems, and trying to figure out if consciousness can survive after death or if there are some types of consciousnesses that don't need a body, or even if the subconscious survives and the consciousness dies, i am not worried about what happens after death, but i think inquiring into it shapes religious views and can provide a more accurate picture of the divine. currently, i am trying to figure out the best way for me to view the divine and i got it narrowed down. i am leaning on the idea that the universe was created by from a sea of infinite possibility (or very large amount of possibility) by many gods. this seems reasonable because there is room for both order and disorder, randomness and causality, and it can even take into account and possibly combine the ideas and teachings of both hermeticism, monotheism, and polytheism without going to the extreme and saying that everything is one. in my free time, i study philosophy, physics, play the violin, and go scuba diving. i don't practice magic since we live in a world governed by causality, which to me, means the only purpose for magic is to get into the right mindset to achieve goals which meditation and hypnosis can easily do that. although, i think determinism must be true to some degree because causes do creates effects, but i think that there must be room for possibility and will and the seemingly randomness of QM. hope everyone has a good day!!!
August 03, 2019, 10:49:58 pm
1
Re: Simulation Hypothesis
Thanks for the clarifications!
I still don't see why the holographs or that pixelation would point to a simulation, though.
It might make things easier to simulate I guess than if they are a continuum, but I'm not that sure about that - storing a function to draw a curve typically takes less storage at least than storing every pixel of that curve.
But just because it would make it possible to be a simulation it doesn't mean it is, or even just that it would be likely.

your welcome. i suppose everyone has a different understanding and because of that, it may be more or less difficult to understand other people's perspectives and their reasons for what they conclude about the world. you're right about what you said it taking less storage to to store functions and about about the possibility of it to be a simulation and in fact, i read something (i can't remember where) that says everything is possible, just not probable.   

August 20, 2019, 04:51:48 pm
2
Re: Simulation Hypothesis reality is much greater than what first meets the eye, and because of that,
things may not always go "according to plan" (look at quantum mechanics for example).
hence, i believe that generation, going from one state to the next, is not always procedural,
or adhering to a plan. there may be some rules, guidelines, principles, etc. that things,
when viewed as a whole, would follow, but on an individual scale, things behave differently
than they would as a whole. as for the storage of information, i don't think there is a need for the universe to store its information since things get created and destroyed all the time, making it pointless for the universe to store its information. does this help?

August 21, 2019, 10:11:17 pm
1
Re: What are you doing right now? i was going to pack my scuba gear and go diving and catch some lobsters this weekend, but the charter got canceled, and so now i am using the rest of the day to play my violin, read, and meditate.
August 23, 2019, 09:48:31 pm
1
Re: Would you follow a Satan similar to the one from christian mythos? jehovah has killed more people in the bible than satan and satan has never killed anyone. so i would rather follow satan than jehovah.
August 25, 2019, 12:14:01 am
1
Re: How do you define morality? sadism is something considered very immoral, which makes it a good example to use. so i think it can give us some insights. for example, if everybody in the world were sadists, then who would object to the idea of sadism? no one since everybody would agree with it and thus it would be considered morally right. yet, if everybody was non-sadist, then everyone would object to the idea and sadism would be morally wrong. so  perhaps what is considered moral is just an average of what everyone in society thinks is moral. thus, if there are more sadists than non-sadists, then sadism would be deemed acceptable since there are more people in support of it. but on an individual scale, what is considered moral is based on subjectivity. yet, it would be advisable to obey the laws of the land rather than wind up in jail.
August 29, 2019, 09:46:59 pm
2
Re: Simulation Hypothesis

This is the communication fallacy.  If "I" can either exist or not exist, and the oscillations between those dualities are the basis of my being, than consciousness in thought (thinking I am) begets a chosen observation of that existence. I am. I exist. You must think this. This is you.

the act of thinking establishes my existence


It a complex thing to explain, It may require a dedicated post, but if you can pick up on what I'm eluding at here, thought is achieved by grouping experiences (not just events but also their components. Here we define experiences as everything "I" store for later use. Both concious and subconcious "I" . Previous states of "I" which exist by these same methods, originating from the birth of your conciousness.) Into patterns via ASSOCIATION, something learned through repeated observation. At base levels, association becomes very abstract and will driven. How we WILL to recognize these associations (will something complicated to analogize) creates patterns of experiences (as used above) that the concious and subconcious aspects deem either preferable or non preferable. Imagine we made the descision objective and non opinionated (the "opinion" of preferable being determined by various aspects of the self to include overall personality. Some call this ego, psyche, it boils down to "who I am [right now]".) Wecould then imagine it instead as "up (1)" or "down(0)" in a simulated reality. That clustering of information forms the self, and the movements of the associations via will and either concious or subconcious (or anywhere between) direction compose what you are. A hypercluster of associations, or a spirit, that form neural connections between points in a brain. But in more aspects than just that single physical aspect.

i think what is said here is that sensing leads to memory (only in organisms where the information from the senses is retained).
then, repeated remembrances of the same things produces experience, which is where retained information, or memories, is unified into a (perceived?) whole.
relating experiences with new information acquired from the senses, with the use of certain processes, defines a paradigm, worldview, mindset etc.
these processes are like patterns that detail how the new information is organized, stored, and merged into a set of experiences.
depending on the the type of worldview, the way the worldview is created,
and the ways a worldview can change would determine the conscious and subconscious response to incoming information.
the response is a reaction the conscious makes as it relates incoming information to already established worldviews.
if it can easily relate, then a connotation is assigned and the response is labeled as a 1 and
if it can't easily relate, an opposite connotation is assigned and the response is labeled as a 0 (what if it were to be labeled as a qubit?).
the personality is then a series of 1's and 0's (for example, i find this pleasing. pleasing is the response and it's denoted as a 1 since pleasing has a positive connotation)
that denotes what is currently liked, disliked, pleasing, distasteful, interesting, etc.
the personality is thus the current state of the self.


You are also mind, the observer of sensory perceptions of the body which mirrors them within and casts images upon that landscape containing replicas with altered outcomes(thoughts) so that you may know what the O.U looks like when you use your hands to mold it into the shape of that contained image. The origional image and the O U are the same. Using some simulation jargon, your hardware (body) manipulates the origional image using connections in the mind.


in other words, there is the original images (the OU).
 the bodily senses manipulates and inwardly projects a replicated version of it and assigns an image to it depending on the type of information it contains.


The movement between the ones and zeros, the things that spawns from the acquisition of connections uses those connections after it has built enough of them, to come into being. It is an aspect of you. It is experienced through the brain in the O.U and as thoughts in the S.U. that only you can directly experience. the ability to distinguish reality from delusion on a level of base existence then says that the totality of "I" both exists in the O.U and doesnt. In a simulation we wouldnt be N.P.Cs, we would be Artificial Intelligences.

i am not entirely sure what you are saying here. is the aspect of me the movements or the ones and zeros?
and what is the "it" that is experienced in the OU through the brain? the aspect of me? the connections?


All else clears up once we bridge this gap. The O.U isn't non existent in a simulation, it is non material. It is a fractal of gates of ones and zeros, dual in nature, and existing only when it is being perceived, causing it to generate around us. When we do not perceive it, it may favor non existence to create the duality necessary for existence.


basically, observation creates, or causes the OU to favor existence to create necessary dualities and that the OU is information in the form of 1's and 0's.


The O U is not non existent in a sense, existence is non material, a perception of ones and zeros by several artificial Intelligences who came into being within it from clusters of information. But that's the trick, the ones and zeros are being generated by some complex machine. We are not hardware being tricked by software, everything is freaking software.

existence is just ones and zeros being perceived by ai's and the ones and zeros are generated by underlying algorithms.

September 02, 2019, 05:22:12 am
1
Re: Hate Isn't the way of the Satanist if a person always causes you trouble, instead of hating them, just stay away from and forget about them, you don't need that kind of person in your life and having someone like that in your life can cause you to be distracted. you can hate this person, and it might be a good thing if the hate is tampered by logic and reason since it can help separate you from that person and thus allowing you to recognize good people from bad people. but constantly hating the people who cause you trouble wont help you achieve your goals since your attention is focused on those people and not on your goals. therefore, there is no long term benefits for hate and it should not be used as a way of life.

love, should be given to people who deserve it. people who deserve love are people that help you and want you to succeed, and bring you happiness. people who cause you trouble don't deserve love, unless they make honest efforts to change. however, this doesn't mean that you should treat everyone that you don't know with hatred and disrespect because by doing so, it prevents you from making friends and takes away good opportunities to learn other people's understanding of the world. as a result, your own understandings and worldviews become limited and narrower.
but you shouldn't try to love everyone simply because there are a lot of people and trying to love everyone is a lifelong process and all that effort and energy is best spent on achieving your goals.




September 22, 2019, 07:34:53 pm
1
Re: "Satanism" cheat sheet i always thought that satanism is the worship of satan and that figuring out who or what satan is is what makes satanism individualistic. for example, some say that satan is the natural forces of nature and the carnal nature of man and according to this view, satanism is the worship of these forces and the carnal nature. another example is that satan is a spiritual force of some kind and according to this view, satanism would be the worship of this force. there are many more examples, but in general, there is some thing (it could be a god, a spiritual force, forces of nature) that people recognize as satan. worship in satanism would be dependent on how satan is viewed, making it more individualistic. for example, if satan is viewed as a force of nature and man's carnal image, then worship would certainly not include acts of praying, invocation, etc. but instead, it would consist of an honoring and prizing of the natural force and man's carnal nature and holding them with respect. if satan is viewed as a god, then worship would include acts of praying and rituals that focus on admiration and devotion. this is how i understand satanism in basic terms.
September 22, 2019, 08:53:13 pm
1
Re: Beliefs and Arguments September 2019 even if consciousness is produced by the brain, it is still different since it is a product of the brain and the product comes after the thing that produces it. so yes, i would say that they are different, even if consciousness is mere electrical signals and chemical reactions. i never see my own consciousness (what does it look like? how big is it?). what i can see and observe, however, is my own mental phenomena and being able to observe this shows that i have awareness and that the thing that does the act of observing, the perceiver or observer (also called I, ego, and a whole lot of other names), must exist, else the act of observing is impossible. i am not sure how consciousness fits in since there are many different meanings that are attached to it.


with this said, it seems that consciousness and the brain are different. however, brain damage, lobotomies, and drunkenness all show that physical changes to the brain alters consciousness while on the other hand, hypnosis and the placebo and nocebo effects show that consciousness and mental phenomena alters brain states. therefore, consciousness and the brain are both interdependent, one can't survive without the other. thus, what produced consciousness and the physical world, can not be itself physical nor conscious/mental but of some other substance that is neither physical nor mental, but gives rise to both mental and physical phenomena. this view is called neutral monism and i am inclined to accept this (i am also inclined to accept the idea that the universe was created from a sea of infinite, or a very large amount of, possibility by many gods since such an idea allows for the coexistence of order and disorder, randomness and causality, and can even allow for monotheistic, hermetic, and polytheistic teachings without going to the extreme and saying that everything is one since the monotheistic aspects of it would be the sea of possibility while the polytheistic aspects would be on the existence of many gods). if neutral monism is true, then a god, and also a spirit or ghost, would be this neutral stuff that isn't conscious, nor physical.

however, i have a couple of objections to the argument i have just presented. this argument assumes that all consciousnesses must be interdependent with material world, we must be careful not to assume to early that all consciousnesses are the same. with that said, maybe human consciousness is the same as the human brain, but the consciousness of some other organism may not depend on the physical world. so, for some organisms, consciousness does continue to live after death, and as for a human, it does not. therefor, the existence of gods and goddesses is more possible if we make sure to distinguish between different types of consciousnesses. as for my last objection (more like something i am uncertain about), what of the subconscious? is it dependent on the brain? i always here about the brain altering conscious states but hardly ever do i here about it affecting the subconscious mind. the physical body seems to be more dependent on the subconscious than the conscious since the subconscious regulates blood pressure, core body temperature, etc. (unless if this wasn't true). so maybe the consciousness dies with the body and the subconscious lives on. if so, then perhaps a god or goddess would be a subconscious entity rather than a conscious one.

and one question i have on the nature of the divine (here, divine means the nature of the existence of god and/or gods and goddesses) and the gods and goddesses. the divine is what it is and not what it is not. so must there be correct ways and incorrect ways to view the divine? and how is it that some experiences of the divine are mutually exclusive to other experiences of the divine (for example, how is it that some experiences are of the "oneness" of everything whereas some experiences are of there being a distinction between gods)?


September 28, 2019, 12:52:02 am
2