![giphy[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/jbVyV4R.gif "giphy[1].gif")
What makes hallucinations less real than anything else? We can observe other people's hallucinations, but not our own. After all, everything you see is just your mind trying to interpret your surroundings - hallucinations are just what we think are failed interpretions, but if that's the case, what makes them less real than what is real?
If spirits don't exist, why does it matter? If you feel like they exist and they exist for you... Don't they exist? Just like your thoughts are real, so are your hallucinations.
Discuss.
>We can observe other people's hallucinations, but not our own.
What planet are you from?
>>17381952
Reality, and our experiences within it, are totally subjective.
/thread
>>17381958
What I meant was that we can see that other people are hallucinating or acting strange, but we can't be sure we aren't hallucinating either. You can see a woman talking to herself and thinking that she's a schizo weirdo, but you can't know that you aren't hallucinating too.
>>17381952
Yes, we can't know anything, we might be a brain in a vat, we might be a bacteria living in cthulhus asshole, i might be the only conscious brain in the universe. But then what? Does that entitle me to use that to validate magick and santa clause based on wild metaphysical speculations?
>>17382010
>santa clause
>>17382018
>>17381971
Reality isn't subjective, only interpretation of it is.
If you drive off a cliff into the Grand Canyon in a car, you will die. It doesn't matter how much you believe that your car will sprout wings and fly, this will happen.
If you actually believe that reality is subjective, you'd have no problems with such foolishness, and will eventually win a Darwin award. The only way to avoid such a fate is to maintain a contradiction (acting differently than your claimed beliefs) or inconsistency (selectively applying this belief based on feels.)
>>17382010
>we can't know anything
>we can't know
>we
Can you stop projecting your filthiness onto me please? Jesus christ
>>17382049
>If you drive off a cliff into the Grand Canyon in a car, you will die. It doesn't matter how much you believe that your car will sprout wings and fly, this will happen.
have you tried this while truly believing your car will sprout wings?
if not then i need a reliable source to confirm this information.
>>17382063
you don't know anything
>>17382063
They're right though. You can't know for sure if you're just a brain in a vat, plugged into the matrix. You can't know for sure if what you experience is just an illusion and this isn't he 'real' world.
>>17381952
>If you feel like they exist and they exist for you... Don't they exist?
Yea, it's called 'subjective reality'. The danger come when you conflate subjective and objective reality, like you do.
>>17381952
There is the uncreated (God), the created (everything that exists), and the unreal (hallucinations and things that do not have proper existence because they are distortions of created things). We are created, so we we know what that means (more or less). If you are relatively sane, then you know what is normal and the way that things are supposed to be (more or less).
Whenever you depart far enough away from that normality as you know it, you are either getting closer to God, which is even more real than you already are, or else you are getting further away from reality into what is less real.
Reality is permanent and independent of you. It is what God knows, and (to lesser extent) what every holy person knows. It is eternal and does not change, existing outside of time.
What is not real is extremely impermanent, like a form that appears in blowing smoke that disperses and never reappears. In other words, it is extremely bound to time. It is quite difficult to get more than one person to see it, and it is deeply impersonal and irrelevant even to the one person who temporarily thinks that it is important. Thinking that it is important will drive you away from God, away from beneficial connections with other people, away from reality, and out of your mind.
Everything that is created derives its existence and its reality from what is uncreated. But what is uncreated is as different from what is unreal as day is different from night. It is like the difference between being awake and being asleep. Thinking that there is no difference, or not caring about the difference, is a symptom of being asleep. It is a delusion. There is nothing more important than reality.
But try telling that to a delusional person! They will not understand, and they will not listen. It is a compounding problem. The deeper you fall into delusion, the harder it is to get out. But it is possible to get out, at least up to a point, as long as you are still looking for reality.
Nothing is real. Everything is fake. All of this is just a dream. Literally and figuratively
![blooddiner-735x525[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bDPWFZ5.jpg "blooddiner-735x525[1].jpg")
>>17381952
The human brain works tirelessly to keep things as simple for you as possible so you can live normally from day to day
Without your brain functioning sequentially, logistically like it does, it could still function but you would go nuts, hallucinating, not being able to think straight, etc. That would defeat the purpose of the brain existing so it realizes it needs to simplify itself in order to exist physically in a 3-D world.
When we dream or hallucinate we are witnessing our own reality in its relaxed state, chaotic. I do feel bad for schizos though.
The sad thing is that dreams and hallucinations are nothing more than random memory patterns encased in neurons bouncing around in your head. Sometimes they don't just bounce, they meld together then split apart again. Like when you dream of being in a house that's a combination of two or three houses you lived in before.
They are as less real as music in your mp3 player set on shuffle play. That music was once recorded and mixed in a studio in actual reality. The music you hear, like the dreams you have are just binary patterns/residue sucked into the vacuum of your mind.
Nothing is ever truly forgotten, but if your brain let you remember everything you've ever experienced all at once, you'd go insane.
>>17382049
>Reality isn't subjective, only interpretation of it is.
Reality is pseudo-objective; it is generated by subjective observation creating propagating probabilistic quantum waveform collapse. Our interpretation of it is irrelevant.
>The only way to avoid such a fate is to maintain a contradiction (acting differently than your claimed beliefs) or inconsistency (selectively applying this belief based on feels.)
The only way to avoid the fate of death in general is to apply pseudo-objective collapse through subjectively-defined observational methods on eigenstates and eigenvectors of quantum energy fields.
Although even that is irrelevant, since Consciousness is an Information Field which only uses the brain for sensory event processing anyway, and data can't be deleted, since that would violate the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Charge (and more complexly given its nature, also the Laws of Conservation of Momentum).
>>17381952
I wouldn't know; observers aren't allowed any real hallucinations.
(This is a time travel joke.)
>implying we don't all live in different universes and any and all interaction between each other comes from the subconscious connection we have to have with humanity in order to not be alone.
the person i see, and the person you are.
i want to know the difference.
>information exchange is our only hope.
>>17384540
haha.
>>17381952
>We can observe other people's hallucinations, but not our own.
This is the answer to your question: consensus. The difference between reality and hallucination is that everyone else agrees an object or event exists/happened.
This is what causes the Mandela Effect - when lots of people have the same incorrect knowledge, that consensus makes the fantasy no different than the reality.
For a lot of people, Mandela DID die in prison. It's only until the consensus is broken (i.e. - the look up the facts) that this is no longer true.
>>17381952
Reality is relation between creation and Creator.
Everything else is state of consciousness - or manifestations for the Creation to interact with the Creator - mediums for it to develop in love.
The ultimate purpose of existence and everything else is for a creation to exist - the creation will be bestowed with boundless joy.
Problem is we humans as creations failed the Creator and downgraded our beings and reality around us - because we were the Crown of creation - totally linked to it - creation had to also manifest to support us - support our death - which is the price to pay for abandoning God plan or receiving eternal love and evolution towards Godhood by grace.
There was a plan since the beginning to save man from God righteous judgement - it was Jesus Christ sacrifice.
>>17384856
If God's plan was Jesus' sacrifice, then it was ALSO God's plan that man fall away from Grace. Because without that abandonment, there would be no need for Jesus' sacrifice.
So either God WANTED Eve to eat the apple, or Jesus' sacrifice was a correction, which means something God actively strove for didn't happen.
>>17384870
No it wasn't - God plan was to give man absolute freedom so man got it.
Man could've also not fallen and saints Adam and Eve would've evolved in listening to God towards the complete development God wanted them before giving them Godhood.
>>17384894
>Man could've also not fallen and saints Adam and Eve would've evolved in listening to God towards the complete development God wanted them before giving them Godhood.
So at what point in this does Jesus die for our sins? Because that is what you said the plan was.
>>17384902
The moment Eve took the bite - all the plan was already designed to save man.
God is source of righteousness so the price had to be paid - else God wouldn't be God.
Trough the apple tree, disobedience and woman death came to man life.
Trough wood ( cross ), Virgin Mary and submission eternal life comes.
>>17384921
>The moment Eve took the bite - all the plan was already designed to save man.
I'm talking about the very beginning, when God created everything, BEFORE Eve was tempted - did He have Jesus' sacrifice planned?
If that is true - then it was God's plan for Eve to eat the apple.
If Jesus' sacrifice was NOT planned BEFORE the fall of Man, then God's plan WAS ALTERED, meaning something happened against God's direct will.
>>17384937
This is a problem of catechism you need to study it yourself.
It is not possible for us to understand the "mind" of God - we just got His plan and our history revealed.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx
What is the line between existence and reality?
Can reality exist if it cannot be perceived?
>if a tree falls in the forrest and it cant be heard, does it make a sound?
The common logic would say yes, it makes a sound because sound waves are created from the impact with the ground and we can make measurements of these waves.
But a human listening to the recordings isnt really that different from one being there and watching the event first hand. A human still needs to experience the sound to verify its existence, all that has been done is distance the human from the sound spacially and temporally.
No, I dont believe there is any reality without conscious experience. Nor do I believe there is any way of proving-disproving this, it is inherently un-knowable. Reality is like a television playing in a dark empty room with no one watching it, an empty audience.
>>17381952
There is true reality and perceived reality.
Hallucinations are a precieved reality, but not the true reality.
Now majority of us humans interact and view the world in a certain way.
We make judgements and theories based off of our preceptions.
The majority precieved reality is usually the closest thing to true reality.
However there are times where the majority is shown to be incorrect due to better evidence that a person or minority is closer to the true reality.
Now unfortunately true reality is in a state of perfect chaos and perfect order so discerning what it truly is might be impossible at our current levels of intelligence and perception.
Hallucinations are real in sense that someone is perceiving them.
However since the hallucinations aren't seen/percieved by a large enough group and can be associated with drugs/brain functions/etc. they end up losing credibility as a stable reality.
Now however to an alien species the whole entire human race might seem like we are hallucinating and insane as our perceptions might be completely different.
They could percieve us, but maybe we can't percieve them.
We could be face to face with one and we wouldn't even know it because the way we interact with reality could be inferior/different /superior.
Unfortunately we won't be able to find this information out until we have contact with multiple sentient lifeforms.
Elephants/Dolphins/Great Apes/etc. All give us insight into different perceptions and so does our understanding of other forms of life including microbial life.
>>17384953
>you need to study it yourself.
It's more honest to just say "I don't know."
I'm not trying to understand the mind of God. His reasons aren't relevant.
And your link - despite the contradictions in its reasons - answers the question just fine.
>God brings the primordial man into existence to be a priest of the entire visible creation.
This was the plan.
>It reveals that evil entered the world not by the will of God but by fault of humans
This is the will of God being thwarted.
>The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him.
Jesus was Plan B.
Jesus' was a correction of God's plan. Things went against His will, thus your God is not omnipotent.
You know I've thought very hard lately or rather every day about reality. I can't seem to ever stop questioning whether it will be repeated again even, when you die then I overthink things to much and end up fucking myself over. But at the end of the day I think maybe we where here to just live a plesent life. Regardless if it's good or bad but, I won't stop questioning the way I see it is even if their isn't any god there's something out there. It doesn't have to be living be rather an object that binds all this together or should I say life I've felt very uneasy for a while but, I come back to my senses I'll seek my own answer's.
>>17381952
This is the fucking truth right here. Reality is what it is, reality. Due to biological functions we can perceive a portion of it but of course, things that we cannot sense do exist as well. There are no spirits. Dying is just the cease of organ functioning. You lose that perception and are lost in the eternal void. Hallucinations and all that are things interfering with our normal biological functioning. The people here at /x/ refuse to believe in what I am saying but the truth remains the same. You can choose to accept my rational views or you can choose to dismiss them and believe in your false reality, but it is what it is. Call me a nihilist virgin fedora tipping faggot but I stand by this belief as it is the most rational belief.
>>17384986
I have an opinion but it's from catechism - I respect the view of orthodox church - I do not have a personal opinion so I cannot give you my opinion.
In essence evil does not exist with God - so the fall of man was not planned - the potential of it was the option the likeness to God brought to man. Absolute freedom of choice.
Man was not evil by nature, he was good - becoming evil was just an idea, an temptation but not a natural state.
We know God is atemporal so sure He knew man will fall but also God knew man wouldn't fall - both situations could've existed - so it would be sadistic to say that God in his omnipotence hadn't already a plan for salvation in the situation of fall.
>Things went against His will, thus your God is not omnipotent.
God is omnipotent because He saved man from His judgement.
- His will was for man to have absolute freedom - if God wanted man to be a machine without will - that could've happened and man would've never fallen. God wanted unbound, unconditioned love - for that he bestowed man with boundless joys in a eternal life with the possibility to evolve in love towards what God is by being but by grace.
>>17384986
>Jesus' was a correction of God's plan. Things went against His will, thus your God is not omnipotent.
Not even a christfag but your whole argument is built upon the idea that god would experience time the same way humans due. I dont think God has the same simple, linear, "thats what happened this is now and this is whats gonna happen" view of time that we do but rather is completely caught up in the infinite of the now.
Time is only relative to humans because our mines are finite as well as our lives. To an infinite being with an infinite mind, time is meaningless, the 'future' is meaningless and doesnt exist.
>>17385017
>the potential of it was the option the likeness to God brought to man. Absolute freedom of choice.
The catechism disagrees. Free will is inherent in all reasoning beings.
>Every reasonable living creature, whether angel or human being, possesses free will: the right to choose between good and evil. Free will is the property of everyone so that we can, by practicing good, become an ontological part of that good.
It also disagrees with the idea that God didn't have a desired choice for Man to make.
>However, He forbids them to taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because ‘to know evil’ is to become party to it and to fall away from bliss and immortality.
This also brings up the question of how was Man possessing the right to choose between good and evil, if he was forbidden from knowing what evil is?
>God is omnipotent because He saved man from His judgement.
This would make Him magnanimous, or merciful, not omnipotent. But even still - you're saying God is compelled by some other being to alter His actions.
>>17385048
This does nothing to absolve the problem. In fact it makes it worse because now the timeless God created a plan that He KNEW would fail. A plan He was CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING fail.
>>17385055
>The catechism disagrees. Free will is inherent in all reasoning beings.
What do you mean - what did you understand?
>It also disagrees with the idea that God didn't have a desired choice for Man to make.
God is good by being sure his desires was for man to approach good. But having free will is a good trait.
>This also brings up the question of how was Man possessing the right to choose between good and evil, if he was forbidden from knowing what evil is?
He was forbidden and there's where he had to obey God will - until a point where God decided he is developed enough to know what evil is - at that point the evil would've not influenced him as man could've reached Godhood.
>>17385055
>This does nothing to absolve the problem. In fact it makes it worse because now the timeless God created a plan that He KNEW would fail. A plan He was CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING fail.
Timeless God did not need man - He made a creation capable of being like Him - being eternal for no reason - that creation would've only enjoyed existence... but for it to truly enjoy living it had to have absolute freedom.
In the same line of Christian logic - every soul that will be saved or is saved - was planned and existed since forever with God.
Paul was planned, his works were planned, but not destiny... Good comes by the hand of God trough people that approach God. Evil comes trough man that choose the temptation.
God just arranged everything for people that He knew will choose Him - long before they existed in this world, as they existed since eternity with Him.
Adam was saved - he was restored and he is a saint now. God will still prevailed - man reached Godhood.
>>17385055
B-but you keep talking about the future like
>it actually exists
It doesnt. The world could and all exist could vanish tommorrow and time would go right with it. We just assume moment to moment that its gonna keep going, but the reality is that the present is the only truth, the future never comes and the past is but a shadow.
Again its only our primitive human psychology that holds time in this way as a straight line going foward, because we are mortal.
Its like a ruler. A ruler has a start, an end, and equally-spaced incremental measurements. Time is a measurement, and our lifetimes are the rulers by which its measured.
But if the ruler were infinite, and had no start or end, measurements would lose all objective meaning and would be approximations at best.
>>17381952
fear and pain
>>17385072
>What do you mean - what did you understand?
It's in the catechism.
>He was forbidden and there's where he had to obey God will
So no absolute free will.
>>17385089
>Timeless God did not need man
This is irrelevant.
> for it to truly enjoy living it had to have absolute freedom.
It was not absolute freedom. He was forbidden from eating from that tree, and from "knowing evil."
>In the same line of Christian logic - every soul that will be saved or is saved - was planned and existed since forever with God.
So you're saying that not only did God plan for Eve to eat the apple, He planned for everyone who ISN'T saved throughout history to suffer punishment.
>>17385092
Irrelevant.
>>17385110
It was absolute freedom in good, it was not absolute freedom in evil even tho he had the option - and he took it.
From not eating the fruit man trained his obedience...
As long as he took the bite it means it was absolute freedom - because if it wasn't as you claim God should've instantaneously destroyed man - or a magic shield should've protected the tree...
Man had no obligations or destiny or mission - he was free to do w/e whenever he wanted - and that's what he done.
>>17385243
Please look up the definition of absolute.
But again, this is beside the point. We're talking about whether this action was in God's plan.
Since someone will try the "outside time" thing again - it is irrelevant because WE experience the plan linearly. So no matter how God experiences things, the plan - to US - will either include having Man fall from the beginning, or having to change at some point.
And if you say it changed, or that there were contingencies already in place as per >>17385017, consider what that implies.
God's plan changed once (or had a backup) - who's to say that won't happen again?
What's God's plan in the event the Anti-Christ wins?
>>17385278
Because we experience the plan linearly the explanations from our point of view are provided in simple manner in the Pentateuch and further explained in deeper meaning in the gospels.
Everything else would have to be revealed by the grace of God - else it would be just plain opinions.
We cannot tap into the mind of God, nor understand what it means to live outside of time - it must be similar to living now of course because this is what it means to be in the image of God - to be alive, to have the sense of continuity and integrity.
So please don't try to find logic outside the direct revelation because it's a domain that I won't tap into - as I want to stay loyal to my faith and dogma as it is required.
I am also sorry that I'm slowly losing coherence - I haven't been sleeping for over 24 hours.
Also there is more catechism - try to find it yourself, maybe there's a book somewhere to cover it fully - the website I provide sums up things very quick and very limited in total amount of information.
Most of the aspects and implications of the divine plan were already explained by saints and bishops - you just have to have patience in trying to find where exactly to find the information.
I personally never approached this exact question - I will look forward into it, study all the books on the subject and come later on - starting a thread here on the subject we discussed. I promise this.
If anti-Christ would've won then it would've been mentioned in the gospels as they server as support for revelation of dogma and as a "training manual".
Satan would also know this and will only try to cause more damage, more evil and more disturbance across making - and hence we have the apocalyptic scenario in the book of revelation.
But Satan was and is - will also remain eternal even after final judgement on which we have no revelation and no knowledge of what will happen and what the ultimate fate of each soul is.
Reality is all that is experienced.
>>17383333
Quads plus a nicely written post.
And it gets no attention.
This is how I know /x/.
Mostly sadness with a rare diamond hidden inbetween.
>>17385304
>If anti-Christ would've won then it would've been mentioned in the gospels
>Everything else would have to be revealed by the grace of God - else it would be just plain opinions.
>We cannot tap into the mind of God
You have no idea if God has a contingency or not. God's plan has changed several times, it will most likely change again.
>>17383333
Namaste.
