I just woke up in a very lucid state and was randomly inspired by this thread into coming up with an idea that is not whole. It doesn't really fit with the context that provoked it at all, so I'm looking for an alternate way of getting it out of my head. Here goes.

first, some backstory. I'm a huge proponent of the effectuality of perception, and believe the natural result of strengthening the ability to communicate information and interpretation to oneself is a heightened receptivity to experience: the capacity to have experiences of progressively greater and greater profundity, essentially via a more cohesive integration of data.

I don't think I've mentioned here how I'm subject to this phenomenon I tend to call "future memories," primarily due to their possessing elements characteristic of rememberance. In reality, what I do is I envision prospective happenings; with every instance of divergence between events I envision the effects differentiations will have and whatnot, essentially mapping out avenues of possibility. Granted, this in itself is not particularly unique, but it always struck me as odd simply because of how real I've seen these imaginings be. I recently discovered there is some feedback mechanism going on -- which is completely unbeknownst to science, I might add, but very real -- from which the authenticity of these prospective imaginings can be verified by sheer merit of their own contents, depending on how well I am able to intuit their natures.

anyway, I know this ability I've developed is a direct result of my competency in communicating data to myself, primarily data the brevity of which simply cannot be experienced through my senses at all, and can only be expressed as associations between associations, complex structures of language and logic, and so forth. Rather, this competency necessitates this ability: anyone who attains this competency will develop it similarly.

I am very confident there is an underlying truth to reality, so to speak, the understanding of which can contextualize the workings of literally anything, and the limited grasp of which I possess now is directly responsible for any heightened sense of intuition I may currently possess. Furthermore, I believe all traits inherent to the formation of individualized sentience, from one's ability to recognize oneself to one's spontaneously developing the ability to love or parent, for example, are limited but definitive manifestations of familiarity with this same truth.

in following these assumptions to their natural conclusions, I can only surmise the end point of this process -- the progression of which is inherently interlinked with our existences for as long as we are aware -- is the ability to intuit literally anything; to experience all phenomena as intimately as if it were our own selves: essentially, the emergence of God consciousness.

there are two things I imagine may happen as a result of this event reaching full fruition, and believe it or not, it is only here where my ideas become loopy enough to begin confusing me, and to warrant requesting feedback. If you have any, share it.

stand by for loopiness.

first of all, I am almost completely positive that as this scenario unfolds, all quantum superstates, which exist now by virtue of their current irreducibility, will actualize as understandings develop, reality manifests, and probabilities proceed to collapse, resulting in the entire universe returning to a state of unconditional singularity.

while that prospect on its own is rather outrageous, there is an elaboration on this idea I've been entertaining almost entirely via intuition, and that, as such, adheres to very little logic, in itself. This idea is that the particular manner in which actual reality is differentiated from the currently prospective quantum reality will be determined by phenomena traditionally relegated to the territory of the intangible, such as will, imagination, and other "behaviors" currently only associated with "consciousness."

I am able to conceptualize this via the assumption there is a functionality determined by entirely physical, quantifiable parameters responsible for the exact role and behavior of every consciousness at all times, with which, depending on configuration, the equally quantifiable reality of quantum superstates can be altered and manipulated in completely logical ways. Elaborating on this any further will dilute the content of this thread, but I detail the process of coming to accept this assumption here.

I am aware this is beginning to sound very schizophrenic. What is most schizophrenic of all is that I feel the very workings of my head in their totality -- conceptual, associative workings, not physical ones -- serve as a near-perfect microcosm of the totality of what logic necessitates these realities, and that this plane of reality through which this logic is contextualized and that microcosm both exist in parallel as a reciprocation between two complimentary waves, each determining the shape of my discovery of the other identically, and further propagating the manifestation of its own self in ways identically proportionate to the other's. In short, I am inclined to believe that not only may I single-handedly make all of this happen, as single-handedly as any individualized expression of a singular state can, by continuing on this path, but that I may have already done so, in the future, and am developing the ability to continue onward in present day by sheer virtue of my aptitude in reverse-engineering this process, which, in turn, evolves parallel to my ability to experience my own self.

I don't intend to give myself utmost credit, here, and I in fact deem the prospect of my furthering this scenario myself completely irrelevant, considering I believe, as inferred by this post I cited above, that beyond the idiosyncracy inherent to our experiences as individualized beings in separate physical bodies, we are all the same consciousness, the emergence of which is identically necessitated by the same quantifiable, physical law. That consciousness -- which, all things considered, I consider indisputably God -- is who is doing this.

on that note, I thus understand that my involvement, in itself, is not necessitated by the implications of these formulations at all; I only tend to assume I am involved for simplicity's sake, as I cannot possibly imagine any other person being on this same ridiculous quest. I try to veer away from giving that particular notion too much credence, then, so as not to jeopardize myself or my mental well-being any further than I am already risking doing. The rest of what I outlined in this post, though, I do believe, almost completely.

I intuited the majority of the content of this post prior to my even beginning to write it, and only understand it now as a result of the complimentary relationship between that past intuition and my presently actualizing it. This is all completely true.

please comment.

I couldn't understand any of that but it sounds interesting. I'll read it again when I'm not so exhausted.

But could you please elaborate on the "future memories"?

You remind me quite a bit of the book VALIS.

quote: foodeater

But could you please elaborate on the "future memories"?

"future memories" is a misnomer. I only realize now that I began referring to them this way because the means through which I affirm their legitimacy and differentiate them from mere imagination or hypothetical calculation are identical to the process through which I, personally, verify the reality of my memory.

I know everyone experiences the recollection of memory differently, and some ways are simply less reliable than others, so let me state that when I do so, specifically, I do so by experiencing the context of a memory as one singular unit. For example, to remember a term or a definition, I will look back and recall the very experience in which it was revealed to me, and every intricacy of such I was conscious of at that time. Doing so, then, infers my recollection as valid, at least contextually, proportionate to the validity of my perception in itself.

in order to understand the functionality of these "future memories," then -- which are not future memories at all, but rather intuitive deductions -- you will need to understand the validity of the inferences made via the relationship between one's present perception and this particular brand of memory. I have tried to illustrate it to you as an analogy through which key associations can be drawn and not explained, because honestly, that is the only way I am able to understand it myself.

that said, good fucking luck. I am nuts.

quote: aphemix

OP [...] I only tend to assume I am involved for simplicity's sake, as I cannot possibly imagine any other person being on this same ridiculous quest.

That was one of the most beautiful posts I've experienced so far during my time here at INTPc. I do not understand all of what you are expressing but for some reason I want to fool myself into thinking I do.

I want to reply but i'm not quite sure on how to approach it, yet...

For now, I will address the point quoted: I imagine you to be on the same ridiculous quest as I am.

Funny, I had a very strange dream last night as well. My theory is that our conscious is literally copied from the "junk" or non coding portion of our genes. Scientists are in a bit of a debate as to why only 5% of our actual genetic code is actually coding for something. But I believe it selves a very special purpose, and I believe it solves a very important problem. The first being how to we create memories in our heads. I don't believe that neurons themselves are the transistors as in a computer, but rather that each neuron is in its self capable of reading and writing it's own information on an RNA type molecule. What this means is that god is literally in us all, and we don't even know it.

The purpose of part of the junk DNA is for it to be read back to us in our neurons. So is it possible that there is a mysterious force guiding us all. I think it's highly probable. But I think it's solely bound to this planet. It's up to us to spread it throughout the cosmos. And who knows... perhaps it already has and we're just one step.

In your dream were you on a hill, or rather in one at any point?

edit: dna can be edited as well, in fact there are proteins that serve the purpose of "checking" DNA for mutations, but if it's junk DNA what does it matter? Viruses are active carriers of genetic information, could it be possible for them to actually send information?

hey me too, but I usually just call it my "life"

quote: aphemix

please comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mania

quote: Deckard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mania

Mania and psychiatric diagnoses in general are just boxes for sticking complicated people in once it's gotten too difficult to understand them.

So yeah, that situation would probably apply here.

Can you reword the gist of some of what you(aphemix)'re getting at, possibly by means of analogy, so that we might be able to better understand you? I edited in a reply to the post you linked a little while back, but I have no idea if I ended up getting anywhere in terms of figuring out where you had gotten yourself conceptually.

quote: Bongmaster General

Mania (and psychiatric diagnoses in general) are just boxes for sticking complicated people in once it's gotten too difficult to understand them.

No. Mania (and correspondingly, depression) are well defined medical conditions that are highly correlated with Bipolar disorder, aka manic depression. It's really quite interesting. I brought it up because what aphemix describes sounds a lot like a manic episode, which can be characterised by creative association, elevated mood, delusion, unusual thought patterns, etc. I'd be curious to hear what aphemix thinks of this.

quote: Deckard

No. Mania (and correspondingly, depression) are well defined medical conditions that are highly correlated with Bipolar disorder, aka manic depression. It's really quite interesting. I brought it up because what aphemix describes sounds a lot like a manic episode, which can be characterised by creative association, elevated mood, delusion, unusual thought patterns, etc. I'd be curious to hear what aphemix thinks of this.

There's actually a lot of debate over whether psychiatric diagnoses ought to be considered "medical conditions." It is the trend nowadays for sources of information to label psychiatric diagnoses as "medical conditions" or even "brain disorders," when in reality there is not nearly the kind of evidence available to confirm this as there is for calling, let's say, Parkinson's Disease a "well defined medical condition" and "brain disorder."

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there not only is another side to this debate but that the side of the debate you present isn't even supported by much evidence-- it's just widely accepted by a psychiatric community which has proven itself time and time again to be comprised of corrupt as hell pharmaceutical whores.

EDIT: Here's a really good ongoing blog written by a journalist/diagnosed former bipolar patient who has a good middle ground view between the extremes of flat out anti-psychiatry and the complete acceptance of psychiatry as it stands today as a perfectly valid field of medicine:

http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html

EDIT 2: Somewhat unrelated, but I fucking hate when people talk about serotonin and how depression is a "chemical imbalance." I'm not saying depression isn't real, but I am saying that there is absolutely no good evidence supporting the serotonin/neurotransmitter theory that gets thrown around like fact, even by a lot of reasonably intelligent people. I had a professor last semester make the claim that people only commit suicide because of "chemical imbalances" in their brains. Here's a good debunking article for starters:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/01/washing-the-numbers-selling-the-model/

I do experience mania to a degree. However, the symptoms exhibited in this post, beyond the actual enthusiasm to write them out and elaborate on them, are pervasive all throughout my life, irrespective of mood.

I am growing less interested in, and less mindful of, the ever-present possibility I may be delusional, though, as my ideas are further worked through to completion and my ability to refute them diminishes. The more conceptual wholeness they embody, the more difficult it is for me to rationalize against them. Definitely something I need to brainstorm how to combat before I do anything outrageous in regards to my beliefs.

as far as actually elaborating on the content of this thread, you guys are welcome to cite specific assertions you have issue with or would like further explained, and I'll see if it's something I can do with relative ease, but all in all, posting this exhausted me. Not trying to do anything particularly difficult atm.

quote: Deckard

No. Mania (and correspondingly, depression) are well defined medical conditions that are highly correlated with Bipolar disorder, aka manic depression. It's really quite interesting. I brought it up because what aphemix describes sounds a lot like a manic episode, which can be characterised by creative association, elevated mood, delusion, unusual thought patterns, etc. I'd be curious to hear what aphemix thinks of this.

"Well defined"...? I don't know. I don't think you are appreciating the intuition of what aphemix is saying. But perhaps you are after-all.

To me, well defined means it is defined by all of what it is not. To me, you are not appreciating the singularity of aphepmix, you impose relativity on him. and I think it would only make sense for aphemix to accept your imposition onto him becuase that will only become the new input which feeds his intuition.

It sounds like hypomania would describe me fairly accurately.

quote: aphemix

as far as actually elaborating on the content of this thread, you guys are welcome to cite specific assertions you have issue with or would like further explained, and I'll see if it's something I can do with relative ease, but all in all, posting this exhausted me. Not trying to do anything particularly difficult atm.

Here's that post I mentioned where I edited in my issues in trying to understand the post that you linked in your op for this thread:

quote: Bongmaster General

EDIT: An attempt to tackle aphemix's post: Ok. The language is a little dense for me to get through, but what I gather so far are the ideas that: 1) Consciousness itself is a strictly nonphysical phenomenon having arisen from associations of associations (pure abstraction) which in turn had arisen from associations of physical events with physical responses and that 2) Consciousness (which is inclusive of metaconsciousness (consciousness of consciousness)) and sensory data comprise a level of awareness through which information is collected and either help give rise to or are given rise from (confusion of meaning here is addressed below) an additional level of awareness by means of the unconscious comparison of sensory organ stimulation with the results found in the aforementioned first level of awareness. The second idea is where I run into some problems with my understanding (assuming I hadn't misunderstood anything before that point). Sensory data should follow the input of sensory organs, yet the output of consciousness (which appears to have been paired with the input of sensory organs) must follow the process of consciousness (which appears to have been paired with sensory data). What I end up with in my understanding of this description are two levels of awareness which are each dependent upon the other in part as results, which would be different from your end claim that one is supervenient on the other. If I've completely misunderstood the description, at the least my misunderstanding might open up further discussion from yourself and/or others on the topic.

quote: CaptainFantasy

That was one of the most beautiful posts I've experienced so far during my time here at INTPc. I do not understand all of what you are expressing but for some reason I want to fool myself into thinking I do. I want to reply but i'm not quite sure on how to approach it, yet... For now, I will address the point quoted: I imagine you to be on the same ridiculous quest as I am.

I had the same thought process....its like were the same personality type or something.. ...Weird


I think he said it. Im not quite sure what it is yet. But definatly just rang the doorbell.

quote: Bking8785

I had the same thought process....its like were the same personality type or something.. ...Weird I think he said it. Im not quite sure what it is yet. But definatly just rang the doorbell.

This is what i'm fucking talking about. I feel like going into a mania induced rant. But there is real connection here. On the forum i definitely relate to some people more than others. And all these people, they don't seem to be making the best of themselves, and they know it in their hypomania-like ways. Like, it would be fine for some people to do just do what they do and get through life and know its hard but get through it anyhow. The hypomaniac perceives no problems but problems are made for him. The danger is falling into full blown mania. But a good idea I've come across recently is that history has been ruled by the unknown, 'the dangerous'. So if we had mastery over what it is, over danger (and from my perspective mastery over what is can only be a relative concept, although it can appear absolute), we would rule history. Such a thing to do -to rule history- would be impossible if we believed we were alone on this ridiculous quest..... I better stop here before I get thrown in the looney bin.

@Bongmaster: Yeah, I realise it's heavily debated, but that's probably for another thread. My view is that the distribution of psychological symptoms in a population is a spectrum, and most people will experience mild symptoms of several psychological disorders over their lives. The difference between that and a diagnosable case is severity and frequency of those symptoms.

quote: aphemix

I do experience mania to a degree. However, the symptoms exhibited in this post, beyond the actual enthusiasm to write them out and elaborate on them, are pervasive all throughout my life, irrespective of mood. I am growing less interested in, and less mindful of, the ever-present possibility I may be delusional, though, as my ideas are further worked through to completion and my ability to refute them diminishes. The more conceptual wholeness they embody, the more difficult it is for me to rationalize against them. Definitely something I need to brainstorm how to combat before I do anything outrageous in regards to my beliefs.

This is kind of why I suggested mania: the undertone of delusion. It would seem more rational to remain skeptical of your intuitions, particularly since you are still unsure of how it all fits together, and because of how "crazy" it sounds. You seem very quick to commit to believing your intuitions on this, which is unusual for an INTP. There's no reason why you can't work through these ideas from a skeptical perspective.

There is a lot that should make you very wary of the truth-content of your ideas, aside from the fact that most of it is comprised of a series of unverified intuitive leaps, and intuition isn't always right. Specifically: the grandiose aspect, and the "chosen one" aspect.

As to the content of what you wrote, some of it seems to touch on ideas of bringing the conscious mind closer to reality - seeing things as they really are - which reminded me of buddhism. You also seemed to be talking about the symbolic language of the subconscious, and being able to access it more directly from the conscious mind. Besides this, there were a bunch of leaps that I didn't follow the logic of, and those stereotypical delusional themes I mentioned. It sounds like it might be somewhat internally consistent, if you work out the kinks. But then, most long-term delusions held by intelligent people are going to be internally consistent. I think there's a lot to be attracted to in these ideas, and I think there are a few romantics in this thread who want to believe.

Just to clarify, i'm not badmouthing your ideas, i'm just worried you're committing a little too much to them. There are some stereotypical delusional aspects to this that should be setting off alarm bells in your head. You might go over the deep end if you don't take a few steps back.

quote: Deckard

Just to clarify, i'm not badmouthing your ideas, i'm just worried you're committing a little too much to them. There are some stereotypical delusional aspects to this that should be setting off alarm bells in your head. You might go over the deep end if you don't take a few steps back.

before I say anything else, I know you're right, and I know your perspective is sound. Just for the record.

that said, you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from. In fact, you probably are. I do believe a lot of the things I've mentioned here, but when I say that, I'm talking about a very conditional type of belief that, as an INTP, I'm sure you're already familiar with. If x basis is true, y elaboration is legitimate. So on and so forth. I like my ideas; I like them a lot. But I don't like them enough to keep them from crumbling into nothing the instant their foundations are refuted. They are like a house of cards. I am still a thinker.

it's hard to balance like you wouldn't believe. There are definitely alarm bells that ring so pervasively through these ideas that the two may well be considered synonymous. One huge, budding conceptual whole of alarm bells. Just because my ability to afford them credence seems to be waning does not mean it will disappear. Hopefully not, anyway.

I suppose my natural inclination to take my postulations seriously can be attributed to, first and foremost, a steady conditioning into accepting the validity of my intuition, separately, and secondly, the undeniable usefulness of conviction, in itself. I try to keep it on a leash, but my intuition is my primary sensory mechanism by an absurd margin. I cannot cage it.

I imagine that as this all grows into a progressively more dangerous monster I will go to greater lengths to assure I'm not doing anything unwise. I only discovered how to communicate a lot of this stuff by writing it down and posting it here. I've never explained it so dedicatedly before. Feedback definitely helps; that's why I put it here instead of confining it to a less intelligent audience liable to treat my word as gospel.

all that considered, I can't step back. I am really, really fascinated. Even if this is total madness, I want to see it. You know what I mean?

You should start a cult. One star.

What the fuck?

quote: Robotron

You remind me quite a bit of the book VALIS.

Don't ever insult Valis like that again.