u/Noillax

no like i don't really mean any offense here. i'm genuinely just interested in learning yall's big bad villain origin stories

im serious

like, genuine question yo

an interesting case for the advocacy of a panpsychist or a panpsychist-adjacent stance could be something like the following:

consciousness, or qualia, is real. the universe outside of our stream of qualia (our present subjective experience) is also equally real, except we just simply can't verify its existence with undying certainty due to qualia constraining itself to... itself. now, the experience of sight and the experience sound (or smell, or touch, etc. etc.), are all different forms of qualia, but we can conclude that there is a property shared by each of them because, well, they're all qualia and hence fundamentally similar in some way; let's call it property x. and we can conclude that property x definitely does exist because all forms of qualia certaintly do have something in common—experientiality.

the primary assertion that i've been building up toward is that because all forms of qualia share property x, and they're all real—and reality outside of qualia is real—it's fairer and more reasonable to consider the reality of qualia as evidence in itself for the reality outside of qualia being fundamentally similar in some way to qualia, solely because both qualia and the world outside qualia share the same property of being real, than to assert that they're fundamentally different in some way.

the idea of property x (the shared property that makes all qualia fundamentally similar or experiential) is important because, say, in the future, upon studying consciousness meticulously enough that we're able to pinpoint the reason why different forms of qualia all have something in common (which is, in essence, proving the existence of property x), and if we discover that the same property exists in the world outside our immediate subjective experience, then we're essentially empirically demonstrating panpsychism, or at least one form of it.

is this a coherent argument or proposition? because it's 5 am right now and i feel drunk. can someone point out some of the unsound logical leaps i might've made?

like i genuinely wanna know

What are its genuine merits and flaws? are r/antinatalism and r/antinatalism2 a good representation of its original philosophical formulation?

https://preview.redd.it/0a7khov3bg0h1.png?width=793&format=png&auto=webp&s=23e3894f925ae0ea4ca67cd6313a854a9684a7b1

And how do they measure the percentile scores as opposed to simply the raw scores? Is there a set of mean scores based on pre-website test results from different test-takers, or is it just the average scores of everyone who took the test online after it was created?

View Poll

i think people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the kind of "social essence" trump imbues. he isn't some conservative "make-america-great-again" saviour his cult perceives him to be; the aura he gives off isn't even like that of this era—he's a sharp-suited con man from 1970s' new york, but this time instead of engaging in his deceitful little projects in some professional business setting or some grand ballroom filled with the wealthy, he's manipulating an entire nation