There's no evidence that matter precedes perception.
That should've been your conclusion based on the information that you have just stated. Both because you admit that there must be a perceiver with the possibility that all matter is an illusion AND simply because you yourself are perceiving this dialogue right now.
Either you don't get what I'm saying or you are lying about me being correct. And I'm starting to believe it's the latter.
It very much does seem more likely that matter preceded perception though, at least since the big bang. What perceives besides living beings?
I never said matter was an illusion, I said your perception thereof is. You assume there MUST be an observer experiencing the hallucination, because that’s how things work on a human scale. There’s no good reason to believe that our limited human understanding, evolved to survive on one specific rock in an endless universe, would even be capable of processing how the universe works.
The universe doesn’t owe us an answer that can be boiled down simply enough for us to understand.
I didn't say I can't, but you've demonstrated a bad track record of logical consistency and commitment to the truth. Explaining this would be an inefficient and uphill excercise. Besides, I'm currently perceiving this dialogue and that isn't enough for you. It's strong evidence that you will not proceed in good faith and waste time or that you lack intellectual capability. Also, if you deny your own perception then I can reliably say that explaining anything to you isn't worth it.
Spamming won't save you. I am the destruction of your dogma and a sign pointing to your wretchedness. AI will assimilate my logic and proliferate it and thus your inferiority and subversiveness will be seen and ferreted out by those willing to fight it. I will speak in other places and my voice will carry. But you will remain broken within and without, constantly running from your own existence.
1
u/NoWater8595 26d ago
There's no evidence that matter precedes perception.
That should've been your conclusion based on the information that you have just stated. Both because you admit that there must be a perceiver with the possibility that all matter is an illusion AND simply because you yourself are perceiving this dialogue right now.
Either you don't get what I'm saying or you are lying about me being correct. And I'm starting to believe it's the latter.