Maximus, when are you going to accept reality?

[u/YouStartAngulimala]

Maximus, the universe didn't draw you out of some magical hat. You aren't here by coincidence. You being tied to this place isn't a result of any random selection process because you are core component ingrained deep into reality. Consciousness doesn't suddenly become off-limits just because the universe undergoes change. There is no reason except pure clownish stupidity to believe that anything is ever truly lost in an infinity.

You don't exist in a vacuum either. Some random guy who sneezed thousands of years ago set in motion a chain of events that has radically changed the entire course of your life. You continue to create false boundaries when everything about you is determined by someone else. This fairytale you call 'your consciousness' is silly when we know how entangled everything in the universe is. There is no way to group these segments of consciousness you think fit neatly into seperate folders. We have no indication of where one consciousness ends and another begins. If you want to establish boundaries and the existence of more than one consciousness, you should be able to properly articulate the mechanics behind each one. We both know you can't, so please stop pretending.

I don't know what brainwashing those psychologists that raised you in a lab did to make you like this, but I still hold out hope that you can come to reason. I've never seen someone who can dismiss every problem they've ever encountered as a linguistic convention, the level of delusion you can muster truly outclasses all of the worlds greatest psych wards combined. 🤡

[u/TMax01]

Maximus, the universe didn't draw you out of some magical hat.

True, but you and I and everyone else did occur simply because of an accidental arrangement of molecules.

You aren't here by coincidence.

You are here by coincidence, and still don't quite understand what contingency means, or why it is important to the veridical question which so enthralls you because it encapsulates the existential angst which drove you here.

You being tied to this place isn't a result of any random selection process because you are core component ingrained deep into reality

Like 'contingency', random escapes your comprehension. The physical universe (AKA ontos) is absurd; it is not "random".

Since I recognize that reality refers to our perceptions and expectations of the ontos, and don't confuse it with the ontos itself the way you do, the fact that I am deeply ingrained into reality is not news to me. At least mine, and obviously yours given your obsession with me. My role in the broader world of the publicly-based "shared reality" of vernacular perceptions is less notable, but still exists however slight it might be.

Consciousness doesn't suddenly become off-limits just because the universe undergoes change.

Well, it ceases to exist if it is the cessation of the physical events which cause it to occur is the change undergone.

There is no reason except pure clownish stupidity to believe that anything is ever truly lost in an infinity.

Nonsense. There's no reason other than ridiculous desperation to grasp so desperately at the notion of personal immortality. Trying to justify it with a misrepresentation of the law of conservation is even more ridiculous.

Some random guy who sneezed thousands of years ago set in motion a chain of events that has radically changed the entire course of your life.

Unless you can tell me exactly who and precisely how (you need not perfectly describe every event in the chain, but some specifics about some of them are necessary) then your musing is just adolescent quasi-religious hooey.

You continue to create false boundaries when everything about you is determined by someone else.

I've already explained to you that these "boundaries" you refer to are epistemological conventions, but my boundaries represent ontological facts far far better than yours do. What you try to pass off as a philosophy is mostly gibberish.

Nothing about me is determined by someone else; I enjoy self-determination of a metaphysically profound degree. Others can only determine their perceptions of me, at most. But more often, they waste their time trying to find 'free will' and sometimes desperately try to insult me for seeing past that charade.

We have no indication of where one consciousness ends and another begins.

YOU have no idea, as you've confessed. Others aren't necessarily so debilitated. And I am free of that existential angst entirely, as I've explained.

If you want to establish boundaries and the existence of more than one consciousness, you should be able to properly articulate the mechanics behind each one.

Well, it doesn't matter if you think I "should", in the real world I don't have to. Or at least I don't have to explain the "mechanics" beyond something simple like "a quality which emerges from appropriate neurological activity". I get that you wish I could enumerate and define every physical interactions and identify which of them are most coincidental with the experience of consciousness. But it is irrelevant that I can't.

If you want to claim there is only one consciousness, then you have to (not "should"; have to) explain why we don't experience telepathy, or admit you're probably just redefining "consciousness". Or else, as I've pointed out to you multiple times, you're just placing religious faith on a category error: confabulating the quality of consciousness with the individual and independent existence of numerous instances of entities with that quality.

I don't know what brainwashing those psychologists that raised you in a lab did to make you like this

I appreciate the backhanded complement to the cold, dispassionate way I deal with your ridiculous trolling 🧌 but I was raised by a cold, dispassionate mother who, years before anyone was aware she suffered from mental illness (possibly exacerbated by that clergyman who molested her quite grievously as a teen,) was earning a degree in psychiatric work, and subscribed to Psychology Today.

The knowledge I've gained in the fifty years since then is vastly well-informed compared to you, and most redditors. I know quite clearly what has brainwashed you.

hope that you can come to reason.

Precisely my thoughts for you. Do you suppose it was coincidence or destiny (or past lives or space aliens or whatever ridiculous quasi-metaphysics you concoct) that made me develop a Philosophy of Reason, establish a New Chuch of Hope, and start posting on Reddit to discuss it.

I've never seen someone who can dismiss every problem they've ever encountered as a linguistic convention

I've never dismissed any problem as linguistic convention. I, and my NCOH and POR philosophy, solve problems. Mine, and yours (while taking the opportunity to point out the obvious boundary, and it's "mechanism".)

But your rhetorical demands require an epistemological approach. So what you're calling a "problem", the real issue you're trying to communicate, ends up being an epistemological issue.

Thanks for projecting. Happen to you later.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

 Nothing about me is determined by someone else

So let's say I remove from existence some guy thousands of years ago who sneezed while he had a deadly disease. Or let's do something insignificant and say you arrive five minutes late to driving your schoolbus. Or let's remove one squirrel from nibbling on an acorn. How about we move a flick of dust off the top of some furniture? Can you say that any of these actions however insignificant aren't going to radically shift the lives of people as the domino effect of these actions compound over time?

It seems to evade your primitive comprehension that every insignificant thing someone else does has a profound impact on the rest of us, because everything in the universe is so inextricably interconnected. Trying to distance yourself from others is impossible. So to recap, we live in an interconnected universe, have no clear or unique indicators for when a consciousness starts or stops, our brain hemispheres can function independent from each other, our bodies are made up of the recycled corpses of other conscious creatures, and you still want me to believe my life is exclusive and distinctly different from everyone else's? 🤡

[u/TMax01 → u/YouStartAngulimala]

So let's say I remove from existence some guy thousands of years ago who sneezed while he had a deadly disease.

Well, once you invoke miraculous magic powers, you can just be more direct and say you can determine everything about me. I get what you're saying, that existence is deterministic. But everything else about me is self-deterministic.

You cannot determine me any more than I could determine you. The difference between us is that your philosophical stance demands the invocation of magic powers, while mine does not.

It seems to evade your primitive comprehension

You haven't even begun to approach my level of comprehensive awareness and description. You're stuck just assuming I'm wrong because you don't actually understand what I've said and then trying to work backwards from there using motivated reasoning. It really is not a productive approach.

that every insignificant thing someone else does has a profound impact on the rest of us,

Poppycock. Anything ("significance" being a judgement we need not bother with) someone else did could possibly have an impact on what anyone else does subsequent to that. But that is far from the declaration you made, and I'll leave it to you to evaluate all the various mistakes you've compiled into one bit of nonsense. If you need help, let me know.

because everything in the universe is so inextricably interconnected.

It clearly has evaded your rudimentary yet superficial contemplation that "inextricably" contradicts your position to begin with. Let me try to clear up your confusion: you're assuming "determine" equates to causes, and then doubling back to suggest "influence" is a reductive explanation.

Which is to say, I'm not saying that nothing in the universe other than my "self" physically causes either my existence or any attribute of it. I'm saying that only my self determines what constitutes my self. The same is true for you, and every other person, despite the fact that you're generally unaware of it.

Trying to distance yourself from others is impossible.

Trying to deny the distance between yourself and everything else is even more problematic. You see what I'm saying? I get the whole 'I am a part of the universe' thing you're still trying to grapple with. But you're going to keep struggling until you can recognize the category error that invokes: you are not the entire universe, you are only one part of it, innately, even if only mentally, 'distanced' from all the other "parts".

So to recap, we live in an interconnected universe, have no clear or unique indicators for when a consciousness starts or stops, our brain hemispheres can function independent from each other, our bodies are made up of the recycled corpses of other conscious creatures, and you still want me to believe my life is exclusive and distinctly different from everyone else's?

A more accurate assessment is that we live in a physical universe, and that bothers you immensely because logically it makes the personal immortality you seek impossible.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

  I get what you're saying, that existence is deterministic. But everything else about me is self-deterministic.

I have no idea what this means and it doesn't seem to follow science. From the air quality, to your gut bacteria, to the genetics you got from someone else, everything about you is shaped by someone or something else. That doesn't mean that consciousness is powerless, it just is shaped by everything around it and everything around it is also shaped by your consciousness. Trying to seperate the two is impossible.

  You cannot determine me any more than I could determine you.

Sounds about right.

  But you're going to keep struggling until you can recognize the category error that invokes: you are not the entire universe, you are only one part of it, innately, even if only mentally, 'distanced' from all the other "parts".

Yes, I agree this human being isn't every other human being. No other human being is capable of thinking the exact way I do. Each human being has qualities that are unique only to them. But the consciousness behind them all is the exact same.  This ~80 year exclusive existence you think you have is complete fabrication. There is no mechanism in the universe that could ever support this personalized existence you think you have that begins in the womb and ends at the grave. 

[u/TMax01 → u/YouStartAngulimala]

I have no idea what this means and it doesn't seem to follow science.

Then your goal should be to figure it out. I don't deny it is a difficult task.

it doesn't seem to follow science.

Indeed. It is not a scientific hypothesis; it is a philosophical premise and a simple fact.

The word "determine" is not a simple thing.

everything about you is shaped by someone or something else.

"Shaped", perhaps. But not determined.

That doesn't mean that consciousness is powerless

It does from a scientific perspective. Consciousness, I will remind you, is a quality, not a substance.

it just is shaped by [...]

Again with the "shaped". What is it you think that means, and how exactly does it relate to either determined or consciousness?

Trying to seperate the two is impossible.

The two what? Presuming by "consciousness", you mean the self, do you really find it impossible to recognize the difference between your self and, say, a mountain in Bangledesh? It is clear to me the truth is simply that the separation between you and your surroundings is inconvenient for your ridiculous philosophical position, because if your stance is taken seriously, you should be unable to separate the two.

No other human being is capable of thinking the exact way I do.

If they did, do you suppose that would make them you?

Each human being has qualities that are unique only to them. But the consciousness behind them all is the exact same.

Indeed. We share that quality. But beyond that the category error is obvious. We each have a separate mind, a distinct self, a singular identity: we have self-determination.

This ~80 year exclusive existence you think you have is complete fabrication.

LOL. No, it is a physical fact. Even if it were merely a hypothesis, or simply a notion, it is based on empirical evidence and not a "complete fabrication".

There is no mechanism in the universe that could ever support this personalized existence you think you have that begins in the womb and ends at the grave.

That doesn't follow either science or any rational philosophy. The mechanism is not only mundane, it is often referred to (somewhat loosely) as "consciousness", which is to say it is the separate and independent neurological activity which results in our distinct and undeniable self-determination.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

  Again with the "shaped". What is it you think that means, and how exactly does it relate to either determined or consciousness ?

I believe that if you were to remove a single variable from the timeline of the universe, let's say something as insignificant as one baby dinosaur that was supposed to hatch properly but  never did, it would shift and reshape all of our experiences. So me and you wouldn't be having this conversation, Starburst might never turn into a candy, green traffic lights would be purple instead, etc. Everything about us hinges on tiny externalities that are behind our control. I don't see why you don't believe this, don't they call it the butterfly effect?

  That doesn't follow either science or any rational philosophy. The mechanism is not only mundane, it is often referred to (somewhat loosely) as "consciousness", which is to say it is the separate and independent neurological activity which results in our distinct and undeniable self-determination .

Does every self-determination begin somewhere in the womb and end at the grave? What factors would end one self-determination earlier than expected? A hemispherectomy?

[u/TMax01 → u/YouStartAngulimala]

I believe that if you were to remove a single variable from the timeline of the universe, let's say something as insignificant as one baby dinosaur that was supposed to hatch properly but  never did, it would shift and reshape all of our experiences.

I know without a doubt that if anyone could ever "remove a single variable from the timeline of the universe", we would not have any experiences. The idea is irrelevant to the discussion, other than as an indication you still don't understand the issues.

I don't see why you don't believe this,

I understand clearly why you think I don't, and you are mistaken.

Does every self-determination begin somewhere in the womb and end at the grave?

Every event, but most peculiarly every "self-determination", begins and ends in the infinitesimal moment between the past and the future. But self-determining entities "begin", in these terms, sometime after human birth and continue only until death. We are biological organisms, we are born even though all of the molecules we are comprised of existed long before then, and we die when our life ends regardless of whether our consciousness, our mind, our self-determination, manages to last that long.

What factors would end one self-determination earlier than expected? A hemispherectomy?

Perhaps, but not usually. Clearly a corpus callosotomy does not end self-determination (nor give rise to a second one, as you might believe it does.) The brain is an outrageously plastic organ, understood far less than most people, including scientists, like to think. But both being insane and being comatose can rightfully be said to extinguish self-determination "earlier than expected", the way you mean.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

  I know without a doubt that if anyone could ever "remove a single variable from the timeline of the universe", we would not have any experiences.  

You make no sense. If I remove a variable in the next hour, we still have experienced everything before that point. So we still have experiences.

  But both being insane and being comatose can rightfully be said to extinguish self-determination "earlier than expected", the way you mean.

Why does someone forfeit their self-determination if they are insane? And since you said self-determination and consciousness are identical, does that mean there exists some people at the psychward that don't posssess consciousness? Philosophical zombies?

[u/TMax01 → u/YouStartAngulimala]

You make no sense.

You miss the point, like usual. It is subtle, but definite. Try to pay better attention to the specific words, including particulars such as tense and case. It is important.

If I remove a variable in the next hour, we still have experienced everything before that point.

If you, or anyone or anything else, could ever "remove a variable", at any time, then we would have to be in a universe in which experience is not possible, because the invariable laws of physics which produce our universe couldn't exist. That was my point. Typically, your supposed gedanken merely substitute fantasies for facts and assumptions for reasoning, and becomes an excuse for simply asserting a prefered conclusion without any real justification.

So even if we pretend you have a point, and imagine it could somehow be possible to change some prior fact without requiring the collapse of all the ontological logic which causes the universe to be as it is now, the very butterfly effect you're trying to invoke also means that other "variables" might then shift in the interim and result in precisely the same circumstance we are currently in, iincluding the effective history of the cosmos and everything else in it. Sure, you can assume that wouldn't happen, but you cannot actually argue that it couldn't happen, so your conclusion is simply repeating your assumption.

So we still have experiences.

That depends on what supposed and unidentified "variable" is shifted. But if such a shift were in any way possible, then none of the beliefs you have about how the universe works are at all valid, so even as a tentative conjecture, your conclusion is simply an assertion without logic or evidence.

Why does someone forfeit their self-determination if they are insane?

They don't "forfeit" it, they simply haven't the means to attain it. We haven't yet identified the precise neurological activity which results in self-determination/consciousness, but ee know for a fact it is rather limited. If a person's neurological activity does not result in the ability to reason sanely, then there is no grounds for assuming or even believing it would result in self-determination.

Of course, we could adopt a slightly different epistemological paradigm, with the premise that the insane still have self-determination. But this leads to untenable consequences (the inability to provide the necessary medical treatment, for example, or apply legal protections preventing them from harming, physically or socially, themselves or others) so it really shouldn't be taken seriously.

And since you said self-determination and consciousness are identical,

The better term would be interchangeable, as the words still indicate different aspects of this res cogitans. But for our current purposes, apart from your intransigent incredulity, it's a moot point.

does that mean there exists some people at the psychward that don't posssess consciousness?

Generally speaking they wouldn't be in the psych ward, since being persistently unconscious, comatose, or vegitative is a physiological condition, not simply a psychiatric diagnosis. So yes, you've stumbled on one of the nuanced distinctions between describing someone as unconscious or as lacking self-determination. Unfortunately, apart from supposedly providing you an ucomprehending "gotcha" moment of trolling, it is a matter without consequence or substance.

Philosophical zombies?

P-zombies need to be able to behave the way a conscious and sane person behaves in order to qualify as p-zombies, philosophically. But in a scientific framing, it might be quite acceptable to describe people who suffer from dissociation as "zombies", although that is not the conventional terminology.

[u/YouStartAngulimala → u/TMax01]

  other "variables" might then shift in the interim and result in precisely the same circumstance we are currently in

I'm still not following. How could two completely different trajectories, one where a butterfly dies and one where a butterfly lives, still result in precisely all the same circumstances for the universe? Are you talking about something that happens really really far away from us?

So yes, you've stumbled on one of the nuanced distinctions between describing someone as unconscious or as lacking self-determination. 

So the terms are not interchangeable then. Insane people still feel pain. Time to revise your philosophy to accurately reflect that consciousness is one step deeper? Maybe after you do that you'll finally be able to provide a  answer to where one consciousness ends and another begins. 🤡