The Absurd Courage of Choosing Life– Albert Camus

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T02:09:54+00:00

Anytime, thank you so much for reading :D

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T01:47:43+00:00

I was a hardcore Christian who then delved into the abyss.

Life = shattered for me.

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T01:35:46+00:00

You missed the point of his philosophical thesis.

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T01:35:27+00:00

L'Homme Revolté is great. Good luck.

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T01:34:31+00:00

In brute honesty, I did not enjoy what little i've read from The Meursault Investigation. It tore away some of the main points. He made it about race and prejudice, and went entirely beyond the scope of Camus' philosophical work and what he intended– pitiful, really.

Daoud said: "Ever since the Middle Ages, the white man has the habit of naming Africa and Asia’s mountains and insects, all the while denying the names of the human beings they encounter. By removing their names, they render banal murder and crimes. By claiming your own name, you are also making a claim of your humanity and thus the right to justice."

Note: I'm not white either.

planetbyter · 2016-10-03T00:15:33+00:00

Wait I thought we were already best friends....

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T23:47:14+00:00

pls read his works I beg of you pls pls pls

All his works, Especially The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel are absolute masterpieces.

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T23:46:47+00:00

Anytime <3

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T23:46:38+00:00

Correct! He would classify himself as an an artist!

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T21:52:59+00:00

Down-vote to your pleasure and move along, move along.

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T20:55:47+00:00

I'm glad someone understands his genius. Armed with only a Masters degree in Philosophy from an small Algerian university, he was able to challenge the titanic academics of philosophy spurred from the Ecole Normale Superiore.

I honestly don't know how he was able to accomplish so much in his short life.

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T19:47:38+00:00

Dogen, Founder of Soto Zen on Birth and Death:

Birth and Death by Eihei Dogen Translated by Arnold Kotler and Kazuaki Tanahashi. "Because a buddha is in birth and death, there is no birth and death."

It is also said, "Because a buddha is not in birth and death, a buddha is not deluded by birth and death." These statements are the essence of the words of the two Zen masters Jiashan and Dingshan. You should certainly not neglect them, because they are the words of those who attained the way.

Those who want to be free from birth and death should understand the meaning of these words. If you search for a buddha outside birth and death, it will be like trying to go to the southern country of Yue with our spear heading towards the north, or like trying to see the Big Dipper while you are facing south; you will cause yourself to remain all the more in birth and death and lose the way of emancipation.

Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death. It is a mistake to suppose that birth turns into death. Birth is a phase that is an entire period of itself, with its own past and future.

For this reason, in buddha-dharma birth is understood as no-birth.

Death is a phase that is an entire period of itself, with its own past and future. For this reason, death is understood as no-death.

In birth there is nothing but birth and in death there is nothing but death. Accordingly, when birth comes, face and actualize birth, and when death comes, face and actualize death. Do not avoid them or desire them. Birth and death as the experience of nirvana.

This birth and death is the life of buddha. If you try to exclude it you will lose the life of buddha. If you cling to it, trying to remain in it, you will also lose the life of buddha, and what remains will be the mere form of buddha. Only when you don’t dislike birth and death or long for them, do you enter buddha’s mind.

However, do not analyze or speak about it. Just set aside your body and mind, forget about them, and throw them into the house of buddha; then all is done by buddha. When you follow this, you are free from birth and death and become a buddha without effort or calculation. Who then continues to think?

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T19:29:52+00:00

Glad you are here as well, of course :D

planetbyter · 2016-10-02T19:18:51+00:00

I would have committed suicide a long time ago, but Camus reminded me that I have goals and ambitions. I have a reason to live and to create. When I feel like life is not worth living anymore I read A Summer in Algiers or I read upon his Lyrical and Critical Essays collection– specifically Nuptials, The Right Side and the Wrong Side, etc. Death in the soul is followed by a love of life. A tender kiss, the fluttering butterflies and angst whilst waiting to see someone you love– Camus reminds me that amidst depression, OCD, ADHD, severe social anxiety and bipolar– that there are things worth living for.

Whenever I think about suicide as an option to this day, for several years– I muse upon Camus' writings. He reminds me that I have so much left to do in this short life of mine. For this I am forever indebted to him and his work.

I would not be alive today were it not for Albert Camus.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T22:41:40+00:00

Not burn. Life still isn't actually a burning building. It's a metaphor.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T21:07:06+00:00

I have 6 songs that I've been listening to religiously for about 3 months. Each song has a certain motive or story behind them for me, I guess.

Everyday. On repeat. Only instrumental music, no words (because that's too distracting)

OCD is commonly comorbid with ADHD.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T20:23:15+00:00

Life isn't a burning building.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T20:23:04+00:00

Why is the goal happiness itself?

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T19:47:07+00:00

But essentially the wish to not be reborn in another life is to want to get out of Samsara, no?

Also if you want to get out of Samsara, couldn't all that time be used to find cures, put money into international relief funds, build infrastructure and improve scientific progress?

All progress on Earth is fueled by desire. Our world has alleviated lots of suffering by the drive and intellectual prowess of those that have come before us.

The problem of suffering will never be extinguished, as suffering is greater than the will of the psyche.

Many Buddhist countries live through human trafficking and poverty because they don't take advantage of their resources for capitalistic gain.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T19:15:55+00:00

But the "goal" of "no goal" is liberation from Samsara correct?

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T16:47:38+00:00

His two part video series on Zen is 100% spot on: Disciple of Zen, Part 1

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T14:57:34+00:00

No need to decompose if you've been turned to ashes.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T14:53:08+00:00

hooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooly shit i'm getting cremated.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T14:50:05+00:00

Meh. Not interested.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T14:42:14+00:00

Ah interesting.

I think this is what I mean by not being able to practice "both" at the same time– as in, you might have to re-interpret the doctrines and beliefs of the Christian perspective to incorporate both practices simultaneously. More specifically you acquired Eastern Christian orthodoxy and those doctrines, whereas it would be incompatible with perhaps Catholicism or Protestantism.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T12:47:45+00:00

To be honest I had no idea that people on the fence of theism thought about this question of adopting a theistic religion so much.

If there is a God, it isn't in the Abrahamic religions.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T12:34:54+00:00

Exactly. Well said.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T02:40:54+00:00

I went from being a Christian to being a Zen Buddhist.

It's not quite possible as the goal in Buddhism is to leave Samsara through enlightenment. The concept of heaven in Buddhism means a rebirth as a God, and Gods in Buddhist thought are still within the cycle of Samsara.

Heaven or hell in Christianity is the place you go after you die. Those would be considered in the realm of Samsara in Buddhism and you would want to transcend the realm of the Gods, the Hell realm etc in order to be a fully enlightened Buddha and reach parinirvana. A Buddha is seen as above a God, as even a God has desires and clings to such desires and delusions.

Note: This is the Theravada view.

In Mahayana practicing Christianity and Buddhism also can't go hand in hand, as the reliance or desire to go to heaven is an attachment, and it hinders you from attaining Buddhahood.

So no, you can't practice Christianity- otherwise it will hinder your Buddhist practice, and vice versa.

Why would you think you can practice both? Buddhism and Christianity have two entirely different goals.

planetbyter · 2016-10-01T00:15:04+00:00

Just saying, you can't be. It's not mutually beneficial. One practice will suffer.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T22:42:26+00:00

Are you lost? Follow me and i'll show you the way home.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T22:41:05+00:00

There is no answer.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T21:22:05+00:00

Exactly. Case closed.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T20:59:12+00:00

How can you be sure i'm lying?

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T20:52:53+00:00

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T20:48:22+00:00

Where do you return?

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T20:19:15+00:00

I've met Huangbo before.

I killed him.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T19:13:08+00:00

Where is your heart?

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T18:43:08+00:00

You can't be a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T15:49:23+00:00

But there is no 'I' to have this experience 'again'.

This is exactly what i'm trying to point out– that since there is no inherent "I" to my own conscious being, and that consciousness is a phenomenon that arises due to the emergent properties of the brain, that it's very likely that consciousness is a cycle of becoming and re-becoming, without ownership– all beings are one.

Because if there is no inherent soul that is keeping me from being conscious again and again in a cycle of life, then that imply that all life on Earth inherently has no self– therefore, death is merely an illusion. That since this body once contrived consciousness as an experience without deriving an inherent self (no soul) isn't it logical that, since there is no soul, that conscious experience is a universal phenomenon? That since there is no inherent self to be conscious, that after death and before life, we have just been "the universe experiencing itself" so to speak. That consciousness perhaps is an emergent property of the brain but since there is no ownership of consciousness, it's a cyclical formation of the becoming, declining, and re-becoming of awareness.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T14:32:40+00:00

It implies no such thing. Without consciousness, you wouldn't even have the illusory 'I', what you could also call 'identity'.

So who is conscious if there is no "I" to be conscious?

There's also no way you can know whether or not your experience of consciousness is shared with other humans, let alone other animals.

Consciousness is merely the state of awareness. Even insects have a baseline fundamental awareness that doesn't have to use self-identification.

This is completely unverifiable. To be frank, it's a baseless assumption.

It's only an assumption due to that there is no inherent perceiver that is conscious. If there is no soul, then the conscious experience of "self-identification" that arises through my brain is just as falsifiable as anything else. If there is no self, then there is no non-self.

But now you're completely bypassing the fact that both consciousness and the 'I' are created by the brain. They're a singular experience exclusive to the meatbag that holds the brain. Consciousness does not exist independent from a brain.

Exactly! But since you're conscious even at all, there should be no problem to have conscious experience again. Also, since there's no inherent self and memory can never be transferred from body to body, the re-becoming of consciousness could have occured ad-infinitum without you eve realizing.

You cannot separate consciousness from the brain.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T14:11:20+00:00

It's not a religious context. The Zen monastery was a school.

Also Yunmen wasn't initiated in the community and the first time he went to the Zen monastery the master/abbot chased Yunmen out of the monastery grounds and closed the gate on his leg by accident and broke it. It's not a "high" level of training if you're literally uninitiated and this happens.

planetbyter · 2016-09-30T01:33:24+00:00

Definitely. I have a history of obsession and I always feel anxiety. Could possibly have BPD or Bipolar as well as i've noticed various signs– not too sure at the moment though.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T20:08:03+00:00

The punchline is where I die and come back as a cat in 800 CE where I get chopped in half.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T20:01:59+00:00

You never stop having problems. You just don't attach yourself to those problems.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T19:26:23+00:00

I guess what I mean by "Rebirth" is that there's no self that is reborn, but rather there is consciousness coming and re-becoming ad-infinitum across all beings, and that all beings share "the same seeds of consciousness".

If we could be conscious once, why couldn't there be another conscious phenomenon that "I" (in quotes because the self is contrived) would experience after death? I think it seems somewhat plausible at least, given our current knowledge of science.

Also I do have to say that digestion as a process in the body isn't quite like consciousness. We contrive identity and an idea of a self through consciousness, yet we literally cannot be the perceiving subject because there is no one or nothing there to inherently to perceive at all. Digestion is a process and it doesn't require much, the same way jellyfish are merely a bunch of nerves that have no consciousness.

I think a lot of philosophers really negate the who is looking part. If there is no inherent I then consciousness must be an illusion, but here "I" am– conscious.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T18:19:13+00:00

Anyone want to explain here on reddit? I don't have much time today to read outside sources.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T14:09:25+00:00

Exactly. Ever read Albert Camus? He's a true bastion of the human experience.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T13:25:11+00:00

Want to hear something really New Age? (Not really new age)

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T12:34:40+00:00

I study historical Zen. What are you referring to?

Ikkyu frequented brothels, wrote poems about sex and vaginas, and was an alcoholic. Ryokan despised sitting meditation and instead wrote poems about life. Huangbo burned statues of Buddha and Buddhist texts in the fireplace. Nansen cuts cats in half. Huineng says original mind is pure morality. Zhaozhou smacked his master in the face and called him a shitstick. Huangbo praises intellectualization. Huineng disparages intellectualization. Wumenguan says the gate is Gateless. Dogen says the gate is repose and bliss. Mazu yelled and smacked his students around with a stick. Dongshan had his students smack him occasionally. Bokushu closed a gate door on Yunmen because he asked an idiotic question and ended up breaking his leg. Tozan said Buddha is three pounds of Flax seed. Unmon said Buddha is "dried up shit."

So what "Zen" are you talking about?

Trying to classify Zen as a strict set of teachings that cannot be adopted by people regardless of their beliefs or nonbelief is simply falsifiable by a remotely decent study of the Zen texts.

If you studied Zen at all you would know that there are no strict beliefs.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T11:58:22+00:00

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T10:59:09+00:00

In essence, there is a consciousness that emerges as a result of physical phenomenon. Consciousness of one's surroundings, and awareness that can only be contrived from the senses.
Secondly I'm trying to figure out "what gives rise to the conscious experience"

For example, all of us– in essence– have been dead before this current life that we are living. Unless, there is distinction between Void before life and Void in death.

In this sense, I am trying to come to a reconciliation of "The Ability to Become Conscious" through our 5 senses and neural capacities and the "The factors/building blocks that constitute and create the elements that allow consciousness to arise in the first place". If there is no "I" (no soul), who is this "being" that occupies this space and is using this consciousness?

I am asserting that consciousness (or the elements that contrive to create it) are universal in experience. Consciousness merely is self-awareness. Individuality is self-awareness + subjective qualia.

From this understanding, the consciousness that is being experienced by a dog or a bird are fundamentally, in essence, the same. Subjective consciousness/Identity is limited by our biological prison. I cannot experience consciousness through your body due to my own biological limitations, but if consciousness– in essence– is merely awareness, I can only assume that consciousness in this sense is a universality rather than simply something that one takes ownership of, or something that dies at the end of biological life.

Under the assumption that we don't contain souls– the "I" contrived by my 5 senses and my brain are inherently illusory. I am not saying that my own "consciousness" can be generated in a different perceiver. Rather I am saying that consciousness as defined:

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Is fundamentally universal in this nature– across all living organisms, and that subjective qualia that derive from the interconnections of the brain within our 5 senses constitute identity and not consciousness itself.

This has to be taken under the assumption that:

There is no "I" (there is no soul)
Consciousness as defined above is different from identity at a baseline level, but can include identity.

Since there is no soul or "I", there is nothing that inherently takes ownership of this consciousness, and that essentially implies that my own experience of consciousness is universal; that essentially consciousness is merely broken through different beings as an experience of reality, and are interpreted differently through their own subjective brains. This brings the possibility for consciousness in these analyses, to be "re-experienced" again through a brain that is 100% different from the brain that we possess now since there is no inherent "I" that perceives the world beyond self-identification.

Many arguments against ideas similar to this essentially point out the apprehension of subjective qualia, and how diversification of such a magnitude argue against a universal experience of consciousness, but I feel as though my argument closes those gaps by denoting a separation between conscious experience and identity.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T10:53:37+00:00

Nietzsche and the Existentialists wanted to find life beautiful despite everything, and embrace all the ups and all the downs.

One must imagine Sisyphus to be happy.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T03:05:35+00:00

Best Riven NA.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T02:56:16+00:00

Thanks a bunch!

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T02:38:53+00:00

Asserting life is meaningless and ultimately unfulfilling is nihilism, no? Or a form of it at least?

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T02:35:30+00:00

Not to be crude, but don't we prefer not suffering over suffering? "Good looking" people over "average" looking people? Favor a middle class lifestyle over a life in abject poverty? Desire knowledge and craft over ignorance and lack of skill?

I get that attachment to desires is bad, but desires aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves.

I'm professing a Zen tradition belief rather than a traditional Theravada one, so there might be a discrepancy. But "not craving anything" to me is more akin to "being dead before you are already dead."

Why live life the way you will live in death?

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T02:16:34+00:00

"Not existence" is in the realm of existence.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T01:19:00+00:00

Well most people (out of Zen) in Buddhism believe in a a literal liberation, as in, literally not being born again in the next life. Not to burst your bubble or anything. I subscribe to what you say from the Zen perspective, but I know the greater Buddhist community believes in literal release from being born again constantly.

planetbyter · 2016-09-29T01:17:35+00:00

I guess I need to go through a lot more cycles then for me to become dispassionate. I absolutely love life, and regardless if there's suffering with my current mind I don't think i'd ever want to leave it. There's so much beauty– so much wonder, and so much left to do and to see. Life is greatly beautiful to me– the cycle in itself is the journey; a horrifyingly beautiful tale that continues to tell its story.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T23:26:33+00:00

I wouldn't say that I want suffering, but what are the highs without the deep lows, you know? At a realistic level, I wouldn't say that I want to suffer, but if i'm reborn again within the cycle of Samsara I also potentially get to see and live life with a lot of good things, correct?

Like, I wouldn't necessarily want to stop the cycle of rebirth, but rather within each life teach myself the truths of Buddhism to placate suffering.

But would I want to be "reborn" in a different life? Hell yeah.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T23:13:57+00:00

In essence, there is a consciousness that emerges as a result of physical phenomenon. Consciousness of one's surroundings, and awareness that can only be contrived from the senses.
The second way I use the term is to denote "A mind before self awareness". (not exactly "mind", i don't know how to describe this completely. EDIT: I mean "what gives rise to the conscious experience")

For example, all of us– in essence– have been dead before this current life that we are living.

In this sense, I am trying to come to a reconciliation of "The Ability to Become Conscious" through our 5 senses and neural capacities and the "The factors/building blocks that constitute and create the elements that allow consciousness to arise in the first place"

I am asserting that consciousness (or the elements that contrive to create it) are universal in experience. Consciousness merely is self-awareness. Individuality is self-awareness + subjective qualia.

From this understanding, the consciousness that is being experienced by a dog or a bird are fundamentally, in essence, the same. Subjective consciousness/Identity is limited by our biological prison. I cannot experience consciousness through your body due to my own biological limitations, but if consciousness– in essence– is merely awareness, I can only assume that consciousness in this sense is a universality rather than simply something that one takes ownership of, or something that dies at the end of biological life.

Under the assumption that we don't contain souls– the "I" contrived by my 5 senses and my brain are inherently illusory. I am not saying that my own "consciousness" can be generated in a different perceiver. Rather I am saying that consciousness as defined:

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Is fundamentally universal in this nature– across all living organisms, and that subjective qualia that derive from the interconnections of the brain within our 5 senses constitute identity and not consciousness itself.

This has to be taken under the assumption that:

There is no "I" (there is no soul)
Consciousness as defined above is different from identity.

Since there is no soul or "I", there is nothing that inherently takes ownership of this consciousness, and that essentially implies that my own experience of consciousness is universal; that essentially consciousness is merely broken through different beings as an experience of reality, and are interpreted differently through their own subjective brains. This brings the possibility for consciousness in these analyses, to be "re-experienced" again through a brain that is 100% different from the brain that we possess now since there is no inherent "I" that perceives the world beyond self-identification.

Many arguments against ideas similar to this essentially point out the apprehension of subjective qualia, and how diversification of such a magnitude argue against a universal experience of consciousness, but I feel as though my argument closes those gaps by denoting a separation between conscious experience and identity.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:58:22+00:00

Animal consciousness, or animal awareness, is the quality or state of self-awareness within an animal, or of being aware of an external object or something within itself. – Wikipedia

Based on this definition yes. My dogs are aware. My dog Bentley nudges me when he wants a bone, or water.

Almost all animals are also cited to have awareness. Even Jellyfish that have no brains, have a very amall form of awareness and decision-making capabilities.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:26:45+00:00

You literally cannot.

There are philosophers that argue that reality is an illusion. Others argue that reality is real. Others say that consciousness is an illusion. Others say that consciousness creates reality.

You can turn to science for inklings of evidence, as many philosophers do (Non-materialists quote Quantum Physics, Materialists quote Darwin, etc) but at the end of the day science itself can't apprehend the absolute truths behind many of these philosophical musings.

For example even scientists argued against many different things within their own profession. Neils Bohr– one of the greatest physicists, believed reality was inherently an illusion– that the moon didn't exist when we weren't looking at it. Feynman, Einstein and Shrodinger concluded similarly.

Physicalists akin to Neil Tyson, Michio Kaku, Dawkins etc describe reality in very physical, concrete concepts.

There are a plethora of ideas even in scientific terms that aren't necessarily drawn to a consensus even in the scientific community– so i'd be wary in placing 110% of your trust in physicalist science for all the answers.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:15:32+00:00

Exactly. You have to start somewhere with any philosophical analysis. We can't just keep guessing at these concepts. Building frameworks around the concepts and ideas help humans to garner the truth.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:10:47+00:00

They aren't wild speculations. It's legitimate, logical philosophy– not some random spurting out wild claims about a magical demon in the sky based on pure, devout faith.

Philosophy is for the most part outside the scope of science. Science can't even begin to understand some of the more complex underpinnings that philosophy is apprehending, yet those concepts surely exist– but outside of the realm of scientific investigation.

The largest "evidence" could be Ian Stevenson's research. But I don't attenuate to that for my philosophical study.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:04:49+00:00

Isn't that inherently against life, though? That seems to affirm Nietzsche's view of Buddhism being "Life Denying". Shouldn't we want to further ourselves in life in order to benefit all beings? Why would we want to selfishly stop the cycle just for ourselves and leave everyone else to suffer?

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T21:03:02+00:00

You think there is no difference between something that has never existed and something that once existed but no longer does? Also what void? I am not aware of any void that has ever existed.

Voidness is what death supposedly is. Nothingness.

Voidness is also what precedes life, apparently. Which is nothingness.

How can you discern the Void that naturally is before Birth and the Void that happens after we die? They are clearly the same thing– nonexistence / removed from existence.

How can you discern between the two?

If you can not demonstrate anything why carry on after I explicitly asked for a demonstration?

The only reason why you're asking for a demonstration is to make a point that my assertions cannot be proven– and they never will be able to be proven. What happens beyond life is far out of reach in the scope of the human sciences, but not out of reach of human philosophy.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T20:59:24+00:00

Yes... And no.

Satori is exceedingly rare to accomplish without formal Zen training.

That being said, many people outside of the tradition are able to attain a Kensho experience (Seeing into one's true nature), but perhaps may not necessarily Awaken.

I think people who cultivate a similar mindset/practice surely can attain Satori. I think Yogi's or Philosophers can have the potential mindsets that allow awakening.

The Dharma is not confined by words or religion, a Buddha has no fixed form.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T20:46:35+00:00

After we are alive you are positing that we cease to exist. What is the difference between Void and Void?

Also "show me evidence" is a cop-out answer in philosophy that no real philosophers use. Philosophy doesn't show evidence, it gives logical arguments within a certain framework. Evidence is for science, philosophy is for philosophy. There is no hard for anything in philosophy– otherwise it would be a hard science, which philosophy is not.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T20:18:01+00:00

In essence, there is a consciousness that emerges as a result of physical phenomenon. Consciousness of one's surroundings, and awareness that can only be contrived from the senses.
The second way I use the term is to denote "A mind before self awareness". (not exactly "mind", i don't know how to describe this completely. EDIT: I mean "what gives rise to the conscious experience")

For example, all of us– in essence– have been dead before this current life that we are living.

In this sense, I am trying to come to a reconciliation of "The Ability to Become Conscious" through our 5 senses and neural capacities and the "The factors/building blocks that constitute and create the elements that allow consciousness to arise in the first place"

I am asserting that consciousness (or the elements that contrive to create it) are universal in experience. Consciousness merely is self-awareness. Individuality is self-awareness + subjective qualia.

From this understanding, the consciousness that is being experienced by a dog or a bird are fundamentally, in essence, the same. Subjective consciousness/Identity is limited by our biological prison. I cannot experience consciousness through your body due to my own biological limitations, but if consciousness– in essence– is merely awareness, I can only assume that consciousness in this sense is a universality rather than simply something that one takes ownership of, or something that dies at the end of biological life.

Under the assumption that we don't contain souls– the "I" contrived by my 5 senses and my brain are inherently illusory. I am not saying that my own "consciousness" can be generated in a different perceiver. Rather I am saying that consciousness as defined:

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Is fundamentally universal in this nature– across all living organisms, and that subjective qualia that derive from the interconnections of the brain within our 5 senses constitute identity and not consciousness itself.

This has to be taken under the assumption that:

There is no "I" (there is no soul)
Consciousness as defined above is different from identity.

Since there is no soul or "I", there is nothing that inherently takes ownership of this consciousness, and that essentially implies that my own experience of consciousness is universal; that essentially consciousness is merely broken through different beings as an experience of reality, and are interpreted differently through their own subjective brains. This brings the possibility for consciousness in these analyses, to be "re-experienced" again through a brain that is 100% different from the brain that we possess now since there is no inherent "I" that perceives the world beyond self-identification.

Many arguments against ideas similar to this essentially point out the apprehension of subjective qualia, and how diversification of such a magnitude argue against a universal experience of consciousness, but I feel as though my argument closes those gaps by denoting a separation between conscious experience and identity.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T18:59:03+00:00

From your write up, I get the sense that "consciousness" is being used in two ways rather interchangeably.

Yes. I realized that too.

In essence, there is a consciousness that emerges as a result of physical phenomenon. Consciousness of one's surroundings, and awareness that can only be contrived from the senses.
The second way I use the term is to denote "A mind before self awareness". (not exactly "mind", i don't know how to describe this completely. EDIT: I mean "what gives rise to the conscious experience")

For example, all of us– in essence– have been dead before this current life that we are living.

In this sense, I am trying to come to a reconciliation of "The Ability to Become Conscious" through our 5 senses and neural capacities and the "The factors/building blocks that constitute and create the elements that allow consciousness to arise in the first place"

I am asserting that consciousness (or the elements that contrive to create it) are universal in experience. Consciousness merely is self-awareness. Individuality is self-awareness + subjective qualia.

From this understanding, the consciousness that is being experienced by a dog or a bird are fundamentally, in essence, the same. Subjective consciousness/Identity is limited by our biological prison. I cannot experience consciousness through your body due to my own biological limitations, but if consciousness– in essence– is merely awareness, I can only assume that consciousness in this sense is a universality rather than simply something that one takes ownership of, or something that dies at the end of biological life.

Under the assumption that we don't contain souls– the "I" contrived by my 5 senses and my brain are inherently illusory. I am not saying that my own "consciousness" can be generated in a different perceiver. Rather I am saying that consciousness as defined:

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Is fundamentally universal in this nature– across all living organisms, and that subjective qualia that derive from the interconnections of the brain within our 5 senses constitute identity and not consciousness itself.

This has to be taken under the assumption that:

There is no "I" (there is no soul)
Consciousness as defined above is different from identity.

Since there is no soul or "I", there is nothing that inherently takes ownership of this consciousness, and that essentially implies that my own experience of consciousness is universal; that essentially consciousness is merely broken through different beings as an experience of reality, and are interpreted differently through their own subjective brains. This brings the possibility for consciousness in these analyses, to be "re-experienced" again through a brain that is 100% different from the brain that we possess now since there is no inherent "I" that perceives the world beyond self-identification.

Many arguments against ideas similar to this essentially point out the apprehension of subjective qualia, and how diversification of such a magnitude argue against a universal experience of consciousness, but I feel as though my argument closes those gaps by denoting a separation between conscious experience and identity.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T18:25:30+00:00

Yes.

Wetness is an illusion just as much as weight. Wetness is only a perception, and not true to reality. A brick that weighs a pound on Earth is conversely weightless in space. The same goes with the supposed logical fallacy of the mind.

For example, does the brain the bike or does the body ride the bike?

You cannot ride the bike without the brain, the brain cannot ride the bike without the body.

Similarly you cannot have consciousness without the brain, and you cannot have the brain without consciousness. The brain is the perceiving subject, but the "mind" (no English equivalent for what I'm trying to say here) has no perception without the brain and is not the perceiver.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T18:09:09+00:00

Okay let me rephrase what I mean.

The elements that constitute consciousness inherently have to be in every form of matter, otherwise the self awareness of consciousness denotes a subject/object duality when, in essence, the atoms that comprise our brains are fundamentally the same that are within things that are inanimate.

That being said, consciousness may not be the correct term. What I mean is that perhaps the "Mind" fundamentally has no essence or form- that it is not a perceiving entity, unlike the brains that actually do perceive.

It's similar to computers. Computers can calculate, see through webcams, analyze data etc but they don't have self awareness due to the lack of senses and brains that we do. That being said, they do in fact comprise of the same exact atoms (inanimate in nature) that we do, just in a different arrangement that strangely do not give rise to consciousness or a "mind".

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T18:02:43+00:00

But even the person typing this is illusory. There is no I, so when consciousness arrived in a brain, who is that person experiencing consciousness if there is no "I" to experience consciousness?

In my view, consciousness is not infinite or finite, but merely the construction of what is observed in the brain.

But who is the "I" that experiences when, inherently, there is no "i"?

To say that "I wouldn't be the one experiencing" it would denote a soul- a fixed self that fundamentally and intrinsically separates one from all beings.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T17:26:57+00:00

Consciousness cease due to the decomposition of structure, it is unlikely that the particular structure of my brain and other relevant biological features will be organized in such a way to be identical as to how they are currently organized, furthermore, if we adopt that properties are tropes and not universals, then we have reason to believe no two structures can ever be identical, but only closely resemble each other

You're implying that consciousness is the observer. Consciousness gives rise to perception but consciousness is not the perceiver. Does the brain "run" or does the body run?

is not organized but just collected, or organized in a different fashion then way it is now, however, if this is the case then the matter will not have such powers. Take the example of a two collections of matter which are identical (in the sense that they have all the same parts). The first is a pile of biochemical, the second a person. Both collectives have the same parts, yet only the second is organized in such a way that it confers its organization on any new material added to the piles

You also seem to be making the mistake of coalescing consciousness with identity. Tell me, what specific atoms are used to create the brain? Are we not all created from elements that comprise the Earth, the Moon and the stars? How does consciousness and identity occur if they "belong" to the individual? Unless you believe in a soul, which, I hesitate to agree with.

Consciousness does not create color, to create it would mean we need to endorse emergent forces, which are problematic. Rather, color is the result of particular lightwaves reflecting and retracting off particular surfaces and then proceeding to interact with particular structures (eyes) in a particular context/environment, which then interact with other particular structure (brains). If we think color doesn't exist outside our designation of it, then one can endore the vew that color is a higher-order predicate, but that higher-order predicates do not correspond to higher-order properties. They only describe resemblance features of particular (lower level) predicates and properties.

Nothing exists without observation. If there is no consciousness, the universe and everything in it is subject to a state of non-apprehension. You need senses to discern a Form of an object, and without that discernment nothing can objectively exist. Phenomena is dependent on mind, Mind is dependent on phenomena.

Consciousness does not equal "soul" or "brain". The brain gives rise to subjective self-awareness and various qualia. Consciousness allows the brain to discern, but it is not the subject discerning external objects. The brain is.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T17:19:01+00:00

Then what is consciousness? Where are your test results, observations and peer-reviewed data? You're projecting definitions onto the concept that have not been agreed on.

The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Then don't ask what's stopping "me" from experiencing consciousness again after I die. Once that construct ends, I have no reason to believe it will return.

Yes because there is no inherent "you".

Pain is not illusory at all, it's a real, measurable reaction

The body doesn't feel pain. The brain does. Look at people who cannot feel pain, the feeling contrived in conjunction with the notion of pain is inherently illusory.

Unless... You believe atoms and inanimate objects experience pain as well (Because you are made up of trillions of inanimate objects and atoms that in themselves don't "experience" pain)

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T17:02:33+00:00

Reincarnation denotes inherent properties that transfer from life to life.

Everything that makes a human inherently unique and subjective in nature derives from qualia discerned from the brain and the 5 senses. Once those physical qualities decay, those inherent qualities dissipate and cannot transfer from person to person.

Unless you believe in a soul, which no one can prove.

Reincarnation is only falsifiable by logic based on our current understandings of science and the nature of the mind.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:51:48+00:00

It's fine. I hope I've at least opened your mind to some new possibilities! I don't want to put myself on a pedestal or anything, I just want to share new information.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:45:51+00:00

What is consciousness?

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Every animal in the entire universe that is alive is aware. All you need to constitute consciousness is awareness.

If you run at a Crow. It will make a decision-- fly away or stay in place.

That's consciousness, and all consciousness is fundamentally the same. Perceptions of reality is all that differ between animal to animal, human to human.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:44:01+00:00

Consciousness demonstrably differs between species and individuals. The consciousness that inhabits my cat has different qualities from mine, just as the consciousness that inhabits me differs less but is still different from the consciousness that inhabits my wife.

You're separating "Consciousness" from actual biological interpretations of perception.

If a cat, a fish, a man, and a dog all look at a tree, their consciousness observes the reality in front of them.

The difference is that their individual brains perceive and interpret information differently.

But that's biological perception, not consciousness.

The same "I" generated by the emergence of the physical matter of my body. Once that physical matter changes, be it by adapting to new circumstances or by losing its emergent property, "I" no longer exist and never will again.

There is no "I". The I is a construct of the 5 senses and biological interpretations of reality. It's the same thing as if someone hits you with a baseball bat. The pain is inherently (not actually) illusory, yet your brain picks up on signals that contrive a subjective reality and feel pain.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:32:04+00:00

No. It's more akin to saying:

The body runs
But the brain doesn't "run" (The Brain has no limbs)

Similarly

Consciousness allows the ability to percieve
Consciousness doesn't perceive (Because it has no faculties to percieve)

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:27:54+00:00

I also don't mean to be rude but I did specifically specify that in this theoretical framework i'm asserting that consciousness cannot be both the perciever and what allows perception simultaneously.

Consciousness in a very logical framework cannot belong to "you". Consciousness theoretically allows the subject to perceive objects, but isn't the perceiver themselves.

Furthermore, I also contrive that consciousness between every being is inherently the same, and that the only differences are subjective qualia that arise from experiences contrived through the 5 senses and the brain. However, being "conscious" is universally fundamentally the same.

Consciousness in this sense must be separated from identity-- there is no inherent "I" because the soul does not exist-- so who is this "I" that owns consciousness?

There can be no logical differences between your consciousness and my consciousness, as that would denote an inherent soul that "owns" their consciousness.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:23:54+00:00

Consciousness allows perception. Consciousness isn't the perciever. The perceiver is conscious but the perciever themselves isn't consciousness.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:20:20+00:00

To me, there is no transferring of a self-- but rather, the ability for consciousness is contrived almost in thin air. Consciousness isn't the perceiver, consciousness is the "thing" that allows perception to occur in the first place.

Consciousness inherently doesn't belong to you nor I, it is only the expedient means that allows any form of perception to occur. I'm not talking about a transference of consciousness, but rather I am touching upon the assertion that the perceiver is separate from the consciousness. Since there is no inherent "I", (no soul) I can't logically conclude that I myself own my own consciousness-- but that I use consciousness to perceive and interpret reality through my subjective 5 senses and cognitive ability.

In this sense, I assert that consciousness is not merely individualistic in the sense that there is a transmigration of any sort, but rather that if consciousness or the mind is an emergent property of inanimate matter, "who" or "what" fills this consciousness? Who is self aware in this body when there is no self? Who or what is the perceiver that utilizes this consciousness?

I definitely want to stress that I am NOT talking about reincarnation, that's a falsifiable theory. What I am asserting, is:

Consciousness doesn't belong to the individual organism experiencing.
Consciousness is the object that allows perception, but is not the perceiver itself.
That if emergent properties create the brain (that are non-conscious, presumably,) why do we believe that consciousness cannot be contrived once again as an individualistic experience through a different perceiver once more?

This would then muddle with some of the (very well thought out) arguments you made against reincarnation, which is not exactly what i'm arguing for. Since there is no inherent self, and consciousness is not the perciever, then it would be theoretically possible for the consciousness that allows you to perceive to abide in the faculties of a biological brain once more- since it cannot be the perceiver and the means of allowing perception simultaneously.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:20:00+00:00

I don't believe my experience is on the same level as that of a crow.

Of course not. Not the experience but the consciousness. The crow is alive, understands its alive at a very very basic level, and can perceive reality. At a fundamental level, consciousness is the same in every being that is alive.

To me, there is no transferring of a self-- but rather, the ability for consciousness is contrived almost in thin air. Consciousness isn't the perceiver, consciousness is the "thing" that allows perception to occur in the first place.

Consciousness inherently doesn't belong to you nor I, it is only the expedient means that allows any form of perception to occur. I'm not talking about a transference of consciousness, but rather I am touching upon the assertion that the perceiver is separate from the consciousness. Since there is no inherent "I", (no soul) I can't logically conclude that I myself own my own consciousness-- but that I use consciousness to perceive and interpret reality through my subjective 5 senses and cognitive ability.

In this sense, I assert that consciousness is not merely individualistic in the sense that there is a transmigration of any sort, but rather that if consciousness or the mind is an emergent property of inanimate matter, "who" or "what" fills this consciousness? Who is self aware in this body when there is no self? Who or what is the perceiver that utilizes this consciousness?

I definitely want to stress that I am NOT talking about reincarnation, that's a falsifiable theory. What I am asserting, is:

Consciousness doesn't belong to the individual organism experiencing.
Consciousness is the object that allows perception, but is not the perceiver itself.
That if emergent properties create the brain (that are non-conscious, presumably,) why do we believe that consciousness cannot be contrived once again as an individualistic experience through a different perceiver once more?

This would then muddle with some of the (very well thought out) arguments you made against reincarnation, which is not exactly what i'm arguing for. Since there is no inherent self, and consciousness is not the perciever, then it would be theoretically possible for the consciousness that allows you to perceive to abide in the faculties of a biological brain once more- since it cannot be the perceiver and the means of allowing perception simultaneously.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:15:30+00:00

Again, i'm not talking about a transmigration of a soul. There is no inherent self that is being contrived in a different body.

To me, there is no transferring of a self-- but rather, the ability for consciousness is contrived almost in thin air. Consciousness isn't the perceiver, consciousness is the "thing" that allows perception to occur in the first place.

Consciousness inherently doesn't belong to you nor I, it is only the expedient means that allows any form of perception to occur. I'm not talking about a transference of consciousness, but rather I am touching upon the assertion that the perceiver is separate from the consciousness. Since there is no inherent "I", (no soul) I can't logically conclude that I myself own my own consciousness-- but that I use consciousness to perceive and interpret reality through my subjective 5 senses and cognitive ability.

In this sense, I assert that consciousness is not merely individualistic in the sense that there is a transmigration of any sort, but rather that if consciousness or the mind is an emergent property of inanimate matter, "who" or "what" fills this consciousness? Who is self aware in this body when there is no self? Who or what is the perceiver that utilizes this consciousness?

I definitely want to stress that I am NOT talking about reincarnation, that's a falsifiable theory. What I am asserting, is:

Consciousness doesn't belong to the individual organism experiencing.
Consciousness is the object that allows perception, but is not the perceiver itself.
That if emergent properties create the brain (that are non-conscious, presumably,) why do we believe that consciousness cannot be contrived once again as an individualistic experience through a different perceiver once more?

This would then muddle with some of the (very well thought out) arguments you made against reincarnation, which is not exactly what i'm arguing for. Since there is no inherent self, and consciousness is not the perciever, then it would be theoretically possible for the consciousness that allows you to perceive to abide in the faculties of a biological brain once more- since it cannot be the perceiver and the means of allowing perception simultaneously.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T16:11:07+00:00

Phew such a detailed response.

Let me post something I have contrived in order to further a point:

I don't necessarily posit that conscious in itself transfers, but rather re-becomes. Since inanimate matter creates the brain which is the placeholder of an individual's consciousness, I can only assume that the mind does not inherently belong to this individual that occupies this body.

So if your consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and inanimate matter, then consciousness itself doesn't belong to this "I" that is falsely contrived through our senses and subjective perception.

What i'm implying rather is that consciousness is more akin to a state of matter (perhaps not literally, but bear with me). Since the brain is property of emergence, and the brain inherently is finite in nature, and the fact that consciousness itself doesn't belong to this contrived "I" that "I" experience through this body. I assert that consciousness, rather than being "individual" is moreso, as you say, is a property that is is there.

Consciousness is not inherently personal because this contrived biological mass that I constitute as myself is finite and somewhat illusory, so in effect, how can my consciousness only belong to me?

NOTE: Consciousness and individuality are two distinct things that I'm separating. Everyone has a distinct individuality but the a priori of this argument is that the consciousness of a fish is the same as a human or a dog etc.

To me, there is no transferring of a self-- but rather, the ability for consciousness is contrived almost in thin air. Consciousness isn't the perceiver, consciousness is the "thing" that allows perception to occur in the first place.

Consciousness inherently doesn't belong to you nor I, it is only the expedient means that allows any form of perception to occur. I'm not talking about a transference of consciousness, but rather I am touching upon the assertion that the perceiver is separate from the consciousness. Since there is no inherent "I", (no soul) I can't logically conclude that I myself own my own consciousness-- but that I use consciousness to perceive and interpret reality through my subjective 5 senses and cognitive ability.

In this sense, I assert that consciousness is not merely individualistic in the sense that there is a transmigration of any sort, but rather that if consciousness or the mind is an emergent property of inanimate matter, "who" or "what" fills this consciousness? Who is self aware in this body when there is no self? Who or what is the perceiver that utilizes this consciousness?

I definitely want to stress that I am NOT talking about reincarnation, that's a falsifiable theory. What I am asserting, is:

Consciousness doesn't belong to the individual organism experiencing.
Consciousness is the object that allows perception, but is not the perceiver itself.
That if emergent properties create the brain (that are non-conscious, presumably,) why do we believe that consciousness cannot be contrived once again as an individualistic experience through a different perceiver once more?

This would then muddle with some of the (very well thought out) arguments you made against reincarnation, which is not exactly what i'm arguing for. Since there is no inherent self, and consciousness is not the perciever, then it would be theoretically possible for the consciousness that allows you to perceive to abide in the faculties of a biological brain once more- since it cannot be the perceiver and the means of allowing perception simultaneously.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T15:47:32+00:00

I don't necessarily posit that conscious in itself transfers, but rather re-becomes. Since inanimate matter creates the brain which is the placeholder of an individual's consciousness, I can only assume that the mind does not inherently belong to this individual that occupies this body.

So if your consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and inanimate matter, then consciousness itself doesn't belong to this "I" that is falsely contrived through our senses and subjective perception.

What i'm implying rather is that consciousness is more akin to a state of matter (perhaps not literally, but bear with me). Since the mind is property of emergence, and the brain inherently is finite in nature, and the fact that consciousness itself doesn't belong to this contrived "I" that "I" experience through this body. I assert that consciousness, rather than being "individual" is moreso, as you say, is a property that is there.

Consciousness is not inherently personal because this contrived biological mass that I constitute as myself is finite and somewhat illusory, so in effect, how can my consciousness only belong to me?

NOTE: Consciousness and individuality are two distinct things that I'm separating. Everyone has a distinct individuality but the a priori of this argument is that the consciousness of a fish is the same as a human or a dog etc.

Consciousness to me isn't shared, exactly, but that consciousness is merely the process of being aware of externals-- of things that begin to contrive a subject/object duality.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T15:45:12+00:00

Not exactly. I want to appease to Materialists who come on this forum by using their arguments as well.

I don't necessarily posit that conscious in itself transfers, but rather re-becomes. Since inanimate matter creates the brain which is the placeholder of an individual's consciousness, I can only assume that the mind does not inherently belong to this individual that occupies this body.

So if identity is an emergent property of the brain and inanimate matter, then consciousness itself doesn't belong to this "I" that is falsely contrived through our senses and subjective perception.

What i'm implying rather is that consciousness is more akin to a state of matter (perhaps not literally, but bear with me). Since identity is property of emergence, and the brain inherently is finite in nature, and the fact that consciousness itself doesn't belong to this contrived "I" that "I" experience through this body. I assert that consciousness, rather than being "individual" is moreso, as you say, is a property that is is there.

Consciousness is then not inherently personal because this contrived biological mass that I constitute as myself is finite and somewhat illusory, so in effect, how can my consciousness only belong to me?

NOTE: Consciousness and individuality are two distinct things that I'm separating. Everyone has a distinct individuality but the a priori of this argument is that the consciousness of a fish is the same as a human or a dog etc.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T15:41:42+00:00

I don't necessarily posit that conscious in itself transfers, but rather re-becomes. Since inanimate matter creates the brain which is the placeholder of an individual's consciousness, I can only assume that the mind does not inherently belong to this individual that occupies this body.

So if your consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and inanimate matter, then consciousness itself doesn't belong to this "I" that is falsely contrived through our senses and subjective perception.

What i'm implying rather is that consciousness is more akin to a state of matter (perhaps not literally, but bear with me). Since the mind is property of emergence, and the brain inherently is finite in nature, and the fact that consciousness itself doesn't belong to this contrived "I" that "I" experience through this body. I assert that consciousness, rather than being "individual" is moreso, as you say, is a property that is is there.

Consciousness is not inherently personal because this contrived biological mass that I constitute as myself is finite and somewhat illusory, so in effect, how can my consciousness only belong to me?

NOTE: Consciousness and individuality are two distinct things that I'm separating. Everyone has a distinct individuality but the a priori of this argument is that the consciousness of a fish is the same as a human or a dog etc.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T15:41:16+00:00

I don't necessarily posit that conscious in itself transfers, but rather re-becomes. Since inanimate matter creates the brain which is the placeholder of an individual's consciousness, I can only assume that the mind does not inherently belong to this individual that occupies this body.

So if your consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and inanimate matter, then consciousness itself doesn't belong to this "I" that is falsely contrived through our senses and subjective perception.

What i'm implying rather is that consciousness is more akin to a state of matter (perhaps not literally, but bear with me). Since the mind is property of emergence, and the brain inherently is finite in nature, and the fact that consciousness itself doesn't belong to this contrived "I" that "I" experience through this body. I assert that consciousness, rather than being "individual" is moreso, as you say, is a property that is is there.

Consciousness is not inherently personal because this contrived biological mass that I constitute as myself is finite and somewhat illusory, so in effect, how can my consciousness only belong to me?

NOTE: Consciousness and individuality are two distinct things that I'm separating. Everyone has a distinct individuality but the a priori of this argument is that the consciousness of a fish is the same as a human or a dog etc.

Also I don't believe reality can exist without perception. Similar to Neil Bohr's argument that the Moon doesn't exist when it's being looked at.

planetbyter · 2016-09-28T15:39:53+00:00

thx bby ily

planetbyter

TROPHY CASE

daily reddit gold goal