Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science.

It's totally intentional. You don't understand society if you think it's not. The poorer we are, the richer they feel. And they don't want to help: it's not on their agenda. It would be so easy to help, but, being the society of Karens that we are, there's no such thing as a free meal.

I mean, golly gee, what would happen if some dickhead had a home. Pretty soon everybody would be dickheads and we'd have to help them all. We'd go broke.

There isn't class warfare only because of the hopelessness of the situation. The poor have foregone hope.

No one should be poor in a nation this wealthy, but we aren't really a nation -- not in the most meaningful sense of the word.

And, yes, a big part of the joy of being elite is to have as many people beneath you suffering as much as possible; that's what gives your privilege substance. Of course they don't want us to be happy. The goal is to keep us only as subjugated as humanly possible without a revolution.

Lift us up, put us down, lift us up, put us down. And we're so saturated with media bliss, we don't even realize how wrong it is that so many of us truly live lives of fear and desperation. We feel alone; everyone else is happy. Most people are so desperate to be positive, because they want so badly to escape their personal hell, they'll even convince themselves everything is okay.

But yeah, this is no nation. We're divided at the core of what makes us human. For the people at the top, "America" is just PR. They feel no allegiance to this country (which is its people, not its resources.)

I think it is, though it's typically done for less than noble reasons (apathy, laziness.) But it can be because one feels they can't, in good conscience, endorse anyone with such significance.

I think everything is golden.

I wish I knew how to quote everything so I could answer more succinctly, but I don't (and these buttons are too small on my phone.)

By linear progression of consciousness I meant what becomes of consciousness after what we call death.

I won't explain how, but I have seen evidence of a living past, so let's just say I firmly believe in that, though it's a pretty well-established theory among physicists anyway, so I don't see why it so seldom pertains to discussions such as these.

I personally believe in a cosmic feedback loop where brains do produce a non-local field of consciousness that in turn creates things like brains. Outside of linear time it's all self-sufficient.

If we're always going to think in terms of our experience, there's no way we're going to cut to the truth.

But even as simply a theory of Einstein's, there should be more thought given in such discussion to the idea that all time exists at once.

This is certainly akin to what I believe, though I readily admit I have no idea what happens to consciousness after death, but I think the two are related.

As I say, I've witnessed things that cause me to believe that the past is alive and well, and I don't know...maybe better minds can wrap theirs around what consciousness is really like in relation to a block universe.

I really do think thinking in a framework of non-linear time, despite all the inherent difficulty thereof, is the path forward. And I can vaguely see how it would be self-sufficient and incorporate both physicalism and spiritualism.

I mean, it probably is true that brains generate consciousness, but that doesn't speak to how consciousness interacts with all perceived dimensions of reality, if we're to be honest. I think they are truly timeless and generate a non-local field.

But it has been too much for me to wrap my mind around. Doesn't mean it's not the way forward, though.

This is pretty self-evident when you think about it. What's outlandish is the popular conception that each passing moment stands on the foundation of that which no longer exists. In which case, what is reality but a hallucination anyway?

So you can have it either way. Either we're essentially a phantasm with no living past, or our perception of linear time is insufficient. I believe it's both. And to me, if you want to discuss the progression of consciousness through time, the time has come to address this.

You can only die in time. Where there is no time, there is no death.

I know that the past is alive, and so believe that life is something permanent, though I can't reckon with why we don't experience the past, present, and future all at once, and have no idea what the linear progression of death means when there is a living past. But this non-linear understanding of time, which is at once part of my understanding and incomprehensible to me, is vital to understanding the fixture of consciousness in the universe.

There is no beginning or end, and consciousness is a permanent fixture of the cosmos, and most likely exists as a non-local field. But if you limit your perspective to linear time, as virtually everyone does, there can't be any intellectual progression, because as it appears is certainly not as it is.

NDEs can be correlated to brain chemistry and still be indicative of a profound underlying reality. The physical world isn't distinct from the spiritual.

We're a bizarre abstraction of ultimate truth.

It's all just equally happening. Truths and falsehoods are real.

Bartricks moronic philosopher.

My philosophy is to not analyze things to death.

No. The perception of past events has some component that reaches across time and space and can and does influence past events. The events themselves don't change, but you, in the present, always influenced them in the way that you did.

The future already exists, and the past exists in the future. The present obviously influences the future, but the past has a future as well.

You are a space phenomenon. You also have an identity. But really all you are is a phenomenon of space. Objectively speaking.

This all is just some weird thing this space phenomenon does. It doesn't see itself clearly. It's just some space that eats space.

To speak of time is to speak of the soul. Not only is everything animated in it, but it animates everything. It's such a vital part of reality that nothing can be completely disassociated from it. Everything is time, and everything is the soul, and it's all one grand idea in the mind of God, which is our own minds that dream.

What I'm trying to say is that time is the thing that causes time. It's illusory, but not an illusion. Appearances are always deceiving.

I don't define existence as such. Certainly not something that can be measured by an instrument.

The one fundamental reality we can be sure of is that we're all experiencing something. It should be held in somewhat high regard, therefore.

But what you're experiencing can't be measured/dissected. There are different emotions, and there are different experiences, but there is a larger arena of experience that remains whole in the now. This I call asperience. It is a whole that can't be divided. It is one. It is you and I.

All I know for sure is that the present, or consciousnesses in the present, can influence consciousnesses in the past. I know, because I've achieved this.

So it should be perfectly obvious to you that nothing that exists transitions into a state of "non-being." You'll be fine.

Zzzzz

There are variables we don't understand which make this discussion pointless. Understand that. We are so tiny we're invisible, pretending to understand the bigger picture. Get a grip.

Depends on the butterfly. I don't think all butterflies change the course of history. Pick the right one, though...

I just think that science can be reckless with its authority. Every day there's a new scientific study that dazzles your average layman, and with a little perspective anyone could see is bogus.

Because notoriety means you're intelligent.

I don't see what the big deal about rocks being conscious is. They are a cohesive whole which must distinguish itself from everything else. Of course rocks are aware.

It isn't a black and white matter. People can relax. They choose not to, because they're horse's asses. The individual suffers for other people's vanity, which comprises the state. It's all utter bullshit.

"His own good" LOL

The greater good revolves around the good of the individual, though the state would prefer you believe otherwise. So long as you're not dead and still working, the state is satisfied. But the individual might as well be dead. I recommend mass suicide.

Nevermind, my post is all kinds of fucked up.

Suffice it to say, even given climate change... Well, people are gonna have to be boisterous about Joe.

Because I see right through him. It's our society, like it or not, that needs to change.

In fact, I don't see how an effort to stop climate change is feasible given "human nature." Republicans will line the streets with automatic rifles if we do what it takes. And Biden's not going there.

Like I said before, it's just one dystopia vs. another. It's hard, really hard for me, to cast a vote for anyone I plainly see leading us into the dark. Lots and lots of people think the dark is the light, though. A conscience isn't something most people put stock in.

Bryant enough that I'll vote Joe. But it's so, so begrudgingly. That I doubt I'll bring myself to do i

Yes, maybe the climate is impo

I don't exist. I just formanimbulcate.

You're all fucked.

Both paths lead to dystopia of different varieties. Most people can't see that. As for the ones who do, what is the point in choosing one over the other?

Neither side is about being your brother's keeper. Though the Democrats look better on paper. It's just about the prestige of victory. Americans' general narcissistic attitudes won't change.

And they don't want to change. They find the idea of taking care of each other naive and even somehow "unscientific." Biden can't unite the country; he's just another corporate Democrat.

The working class doesn't win. We may live longer, as Trump may tell us coal is food, but we'll live our lives on our own. Celebrities' wares will continue to grow exponentially cheaper, as will corporations', and we'll all be told the elites' lives of luxury are a reflection of ourselves while we live paycheck to paycheck. And I'm supposed to vote for this, because otherwise Trump and everything that entails.

I just think you're all screwy. If you enjoy the kool aid, though, by all means drink up. This country has a much deeper problem than any president, besides Bernie, could have solved.

I'm not looking forward to Trump or being told "crisis averted" when the crisis is staring me in the eye.

How much does an effective mask cost? Forty dollars? Sorry, we're not all rich.

I really don't know.

Prove it.

Conversely, maybe meaningful synchronicity is a real thing. And where will we be if we never realize this, and always attribute uncanny coincidences to some pattern making machine in the mind? Where will we be if there is a higher order to life in the universe, but we reject it in favor of "common sense?"

So the past "present" is still the present?

Because I know/knew the so-called past to be the present with utter certainty, whereas I know nothing of the past except for remembering that it was the present.

I'm not sure what recursion is in a computer. But I believe there is one present, only it isn't just my experience now.
I believe what happens now can interact with consciousness in the so-called past, making it still the present in a sense.

Sure there are leftovers, but that doesn't mean bert1 is Sammy Hagar.

How can you be objective about anything if you don't know what anything is? And we lack the perspective to know what anything truly is. We know there is something, but we can't ascertain the quality of its essential nature.

Is the simple naming of things the same as being completely objective about reality? I don't think so.

Just because we agree to acknowledge something as real doesn't mean we're objective about it.