I agree with several things the author states but I would assert certain things I consider facts:

"Value" is a myth, it is neither objective or subjective but fiction. As is "need/necessity". As are "rights" and "duty/responsiblity/obligation/owing". As is "importance". As is "authority" and "legality".

The author mentions "keeping “the good” and “the right” in their separate categories". I agree with the statment but in an opposite way. Morality is not about right and wrong (i.e. accurate and inaccurate, 1+1=42 is not immoral), it is (to simplify) about good and evil (rape is not inaccurate, it is malevolent hence evil hence immoral).

Also, I feel the author is a bit... disingenious when pointing out that "ought" is illogical yet feels that a comprehensible public term "should" inform "our ethics and political authority and legal ontology". "Should" is a myth, we're free to nuke the planet like it's the '60s over the Cuban missile crisis.

He could still be a moral man, it depends on other factors. Is he planning on doing more than just keep imagining?

We can't judge a man for fantasies, no matter what they are. In that sense Batman Begins has it right, it's not who we are inside, that changes a little every day.

>You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Are you conscious i.e. perceiving? Yes. If you did not exist you would not be doing anything e.g. perceiving i.e. being conscious. If you were a non-conscious thing, e.g. a rock, you would still exist. You cannot be a conscious rock that doesn't exist or a conscious person that doesn't exist because consciousness spawns from existence and not the other way around.

>Also implying "necessarily" is a myth?

I did not imply, I stated. "Necessity" is a myth we made up. It is a fictional relation. If you chain me up and tie me to the Titanic on the ocean floor, I can want air in order to breathe air and I can want air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse. I cannot "need" air in order to breathe air and I cannot "need" air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than a drowned corpse can "need" air in order to breathe air, "need" air in order to avoid becoming a living person or "need" air in order to become a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation or "need" air in order to avoid becoming a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation.

"Necessity" affects nothing except via the imagination, it never exists outside our imagination. It's just ego that the universe revolves around us so when we're chained to the Titanic we can do more than just want to survive, we can SOMEHOW "need" to survive. Reality is we never "need". We are all like a 120 year old man on his death bed riddled with cancer and we are all like an outwardly healthy-looking child diagnosed with terminal cancer.

>What ISN'T a myth?

At least seven things that I know of, six of them I can recall. I would remember the seventh but I have memory issues.

>Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon?

Everything. You yourself gave four examples; coherence, your memory, the consistent world around me and your body itself. If you're trying to ask how doubting works, I've already covered that: That's us looking at patterns and consequences and meaning. That's consciousness perceiving. That's you going "What does this mean? What does this entail? What are the consequences here? What does studying the patterns reveal?"

>That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

No, (in that regard at least) not a different definition. But, as I go into above, there is more to it than simply stating "meaning is the base for doubting". Also, you're contradicting your earlier thinking about "an unmeaningful world" since you've essentially just agreed to part of what I've been trying to explain: Doubting cannot be doubted hence meaning cannot be doubted.

>Depends on what you mean by me.

No. The fact that you'd be trying to quantify it like that proves it is yes. If you did not exist it would be simply be "No, in no way, shape or form do I exist."

>does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable.

The answer is yes, you do exist. You're conscious (to be perceiving) as part of you existing, not the other way around (hence me calling it nonsense).

>Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)?

I did not ask about those things and that you think I might proves you haven't understood what I've been trying to explain.

EDIT: To clarify, I have consistently held that the self is "the doubter". Suggesting that I am talking about memory, about things like molecular activity and gravity or about the physical body is arguing in bad faith.

>I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes.

"Necessity" is a myth. It is a fictional relation, like you saying another person is your "property" i.e. that you "own" them. It has no reality,

>In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not,

There is no such thing as an unmeaningful world. It cannot come into existence.

>you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning,

No, that goes against what I've been saying: I know meaning exists becaue it's one of the seven things that (to simplify) without I would not exist in the slightest.

>which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

So you are trolling me. You either have no interest in understanding my conclusions or you do understand and pretend otherwise. Note I say understand my conclusions, not agree with them or accept them as infallible or take it on faith that I'm smarter than you since I'm sure a troll would start acting as if I was.

EDIT: To clarify, that I call something nonsense does not mean I am saying you are to agree without discussion.

Yes, you go that wrong. I gave you an example above: Your eyes respond to certain patterns (the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum) but not to other patterns (the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum).

That is itself a pattern; Your eyes do not "randomly" respond to different parts of the spectrum or to electromagnetic fields, they function consistently hence you can see which is a reliable means for you to examine your surroundings for patterns within the patterns your brain instantly interprets for you.

Can that be represented mathematically? Possibly, maybe, probably, but in terms of this conversation, I wouldn't care if it can't.

A key thing to note above is that your eyes reacting "randomly" would mean confusion. There's a "relation" to keep in mind: confusion and patterns. Bringing in mathematical representation is redundant

​

Clarification: I put "randomly" in quotes because as far as I can tell (while not being an expert on quantum physics etc.) objectively there is no such thing.

Do you exist, yes or no?

Then what was that nonsense?

>The sun existed for billions of years before we became conscious. If our entire civilization would be wiped out tomorrow, the sun would still continue to exist for billions of years without a conscience to validate it.

In the sense of "We are not held in illusion", yes, absolutely.

Are you trolling me?

@jankram >I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness.

But that argument I have already discounted elsewhere; Even a single consciousness existing proves that at least six other things exist as well. The five I remember are patterns, consequences, meaning and the truth (i.e. what is reality and what is non-reality/illusion/fiction/deception) and concepts.

None of these five exist only to the single consciousness.

>In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies.

I do not see what you mean by this. Let's say you are real and I am just an illusion and pretty much everything around you (matter etc.) is an illusion. What is death? With none of the five things I mention above, how would death have any existence? Death would be a change of state, how can you have that when you have no patterns and meaning and the truth and consequences as these are all involved in another state even being a potential? And without the existence of concepts what were you conscious of before death? If your existence involved having no concept of anything, how were you a consciousness?

>I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who?

That is a very strange notion of what a pattern is, focusing on a "middle dot" like that. Kindly elaborate on that for me.

>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,

No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.

>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,

Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.

>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.

I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.

>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.

I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?

>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.

Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.

You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?

>Let's think of the universe not in terms of the observable universe, rather the potential universe, no just what Is, bit what ever could be in all dimensions, since it is logically the same thing if you take your subjective experience out of it, in what way ever does it resemble where we live that universe? Infact in what way is it differentiated from absolute nothing, if there is no observer which "rules the earth" in announcing to himself what is meaningful pulling a concrete ground in utter chaos.

There is no such thing as "chaos". "Chaos" would have zero patterns and thus no existence. It's kind like you saying there is a molecule that has zero atoms, I can have a concept of that in my head but it makes no sense.

Your "observer announcing to himself" is irrelevant. Every tiny detail of the universe (past, present, future, alive or dead) plays its role in making this universe this universe and not just a similar potential one, and that is meaningful. The distance between the Earth and the Sun is such a detail and it played a role in you and I having this conversation right now and your "announcing observer" has no say in that.

>If it doesn't center around you then what does it center around, nothing?

That's misunderstanding what I mean by it not revolving around us organisms, bordering on strawman argument. I simply mean that if we had nuked ourselves into extinction in the 1960s or if this planet had never sustained life then the universe would be just as valid as it is now. Just as this universe is valid without 8 billion green Martians living on Mars at this time.

Yes, I can. I know I exist. I can't HAVE existence without patterns so patterns exist. That is a consequence (one thing existing thanks to another thing's existence) so consequences exist.

That we can apply our mind and see consequences proves that this is so. Even if our MIND is ILLUSION it wouldn't change that fact because our self can use it to go "Hm, this is pattern A. This is pattern B. A consequence of that could be that my mind is an illusion but I do not want to leap to conclusions. I will investigate further."

>A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly.

Much more accurate than what? And what do you mean by "relations"? You're being very vague.

​

>But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.

Now you're confusing yourself. What I am myself is one thing and that is simply that I do exist.

My mind, on the other hand, is, just as you point out, questionable as to not being illusion. You are correct that I had not yet addressed that but you are incorrect that what I've just described is made irrelevant. I described patterns reaching the eyes and the patterns reaching my brain and the brain working with patterns and the person consciously and subconsciously engaging with those patterns and make the decision to move the eyes to the left or to the right.

Now... The eyes, the brain, the conscious and the subconscious, even the "free will" decision to move the eyes left or right can all be illusion. That can all be AI magic designed to trick you into thinking you're a free person and not a machine "puppet" (this is exactly what Gary Oldman was doing in the awful reboot RoboCop movie). What I cannot stress enough is this: What cannot be illusions is you (what the AI magic is tricking) and THE PATTERNS (what it was tricking you WITH).

Well, everything becomes about patterns in the end and you're not wrong that logic becomes about patterns quicker than most things as its academic in natute, but also, logic goes into arguments and testing and things so it's not this "Patterns exist so the ancient wise ones applying logic mapped out a rigid picture for us that's either 100% the truth or 100% false!" as you imply.

You say you are conscious but without patterns how do you figure a consciousness would have any... existence to it (for lack of better terms)?

I'm also curious what you meant by saying consciousness "shouldn't" exist since "should" is what doesn't exist, it's a myth.

"Value" is a myth, it never exists outside the imagination. Nothing is "perfect" or "imperfect", that is also myth.

And you can make a star last longer with sufficient technology but no amount of technology can make something more "perfect" or more "imperfect". We can't even make a "perfect" sphere, the closest we can get is make it the most spherical sphere ever.

The Sun is neither "perfect" or "imperfect" nor can it ever be either. You can do whatever you want with it, make it last longer or not last as long, but it won't change that all the stars are just stars.

The same goes for organisms and the entire universe.

>Yes, yes, those are things. But why do they matter to you at all?

That's now how 'why' works. 'Why' is asking for a fellow organism's motive. You don't ask a rock why it is affected by gravity or the Sun why it emits deadly radiation in your direction or a thermonuclear explosion why it can come from something as small as atoms splitting or the Earth why it formed in orbit around the Sun. Those are questions of How (physics) and How It Came To Happen (history).

>And see, you're making meaning- humans are stupid. There's your meaning for you. Do you think a cat would agree, or a rock?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's my meaning for me? Are you thinking in terms of like "What's YOUR truth, dear friend? Here, have some ganja while you ponder."

>it's a creation of humans.

​

The myth of "purpose", yes. The myth of "importance", yes. The myth of "value", yes.

​

Meaning? No. Because none of those things are what meaning is. Meaning is intrinsic in the world. You cannot make the distance between the Earth and the Sun "meaningless" even if you invent a time machine and some means to make organic life existing on Earth impossible and go back in time with the former and use the latter on an Earth still forming because guess what? The distance between the Earth and the Sun plays a role in the Earth now never giving birth to life via your time traveler existence. This is what meaning is. Meaning exists as an intrinsic part of existence, even in a universe that yields no stars or planets this would reman unalterable fact.

​

Meaning is among the most real things there are. It is the basis of a dinosaur sensing danger. It is the basis of trees changing with the seasons. It is the basis of your eyes reacting to some parts of the electromagnetic spectrum rather than all of it. It is the basis of you even having a mind to even doubt its existence.

​

>Then what are people doing when they consider there to be a point to things- the things they do and the things all people do?

​

Being egomaniacs trying to make the universe revolve around them, that's what they're doing. Makes me wish mankind had gone sterile a very long time ago and rid the universe of such stupidity.

>When did YOU learn this? Was it not from the day you were born until now, making observations in your lifespan?

Of course but I fail to see what you're implying.

>Are you saying that's real at all?

In what sense? That I exist and draw conclusions? Of course I exist, that's one of the half-dozen things I know I even can 100% know to be real.

>Infact I think it's more accurate to say that you left no association between whatever is observable and the objective.

I don't know what you mean by this. Are we talking in a "The Earth orbits the Sun and we live on the Earth." sense or a "How do I know I'm not an entity living in an illusion fed false data?" sense?

>You are saying everything is a lie so essentially that statement in of itself is a lie, no?

How am I saying everything is a lie? Because I say "value" and "should" are myths? Because the latter is just me not being an egomaniac trying to make the universe revolve around us.

I would say that is incorrect and that "perfection" and "imperfection" are two sides of the same myth.

I didn't say consequences emerge from patterns, I'm more saying that we know consequences exist since we know patterns exist. Kind of like saying you know life exists if you know humans exist but it's not that humans brought forth life, humans could be just a recent addition to many lifeforms you are unaware of.

Consequences exist (just to give one aspect of it) because you, as the self ("the doubter"), can look at patterns and not just follow them as they are (trace them with your finger), you can apply your mind and see the consequences (e.g. this pattern exists in this thing consequentially a similar pattern may exist in this similar thing I only glimpsed at but have yet to examine as closesly as this thing). The fact that you can do this proves that consequences exist like a "layer" of "potential" over patterns (that are not potential in nature but actual).

In this sense consequences are the basis of the mind we usually mean by "our imagination". Because potential is not a pattern.

I don't follow. I didn't mention anything material. And you say consciousness is "fundamental over pattern", how would that work? To me that's like saying... I don't know... "Molecules are fundamental over atoms" or "Heat is fundamental over energy" or something.

What other attributes does the self have? That's rhetorical since any answer you give would just prove you haven't pondered the nature of "patterns".

What is the one thing your eyes do? They react when certain patterns 'hit' them (the visual part of the spectrum) and they don't when other patterns 'hit' them (the rest of the spectrum).

The mind gets these reactions and, since these reactions have patterns, the mind runs them in its own pattern and this results in a pattern that it can run in another part of itself in its own pattern. This is Sherlock Holmes walking into a room, opening his eyes, his brain gets impulses and forms a "picture" which his conscious and subconscious can play with and be the basis of where he will move his eyes around the room.

That Sherlock Holmes may in fact be a naked man in Jello in a a robot-womb fed an illusion by Agent Smith so there is no room is just outside circumstance.

But there is no "the point" of anything.

Are you thinking of the myth of "purpose"? Cats and ants aren't egomaniacs like humans are so yeah, they don't reflect on that myth.