No, no trust me I am trying to understand. I have been thinking about this discussion for a lot of today actually.

You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?

Also implying "necessarily" is a myth? As In we established there is actual ground reality? Isn't this what this is about? What ISN'T a myth? Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon? That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.

Depends on what you mean by me. does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable. Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)? I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes. In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not, you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning, which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns

How is it nonsense? It's a hypothesis, one which I find very convincing, I would actually really appreciate it if you can tell me how it doesn't hold, If I could know that, I would be enlightened compared to now!

Okay I might have wildly misunderstood what you mean by patterns, I think of it as mathematical pattern, as In any thing that can be represented mathematically would be a pattern, have I got that wrong?

No?

there is no such thing as existing, however In consciousness there is existence, so consciousness doesn't exist, but rather, existence is that which is being known with consciousness

I argue that consciousness is the only validator possible, since it's probably v a validator by definition, think of it as, something doesn't exist until it's validated by a consciousness, and when it does, it only exist to that consciousness. In other words if (and if it's possible) a consciousness dies the universe which it validated dies. I think you are saying something exists to the extent of it's relation to other things since that's what a pattern is, but I argue, says who? Without validation there is no existence. Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding

Yes I agree that the self is outside all of that, and that if we can be sure of anything, is that it exists, at least one knows he himself exists. Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept, but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all, in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists. How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there. Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Let's think of the universe not in terms of the observable universe, rather the potential universe, no just what Is, bit what ever could be in all dimensions, since it is logically the same thing if you take your subjective experience out of it, in what way ever does it resemble where we live that universe? Infact in what way is it differentiated from absolute nothing, if there is no observer which "rules the earth" in announcing to himself what is meaningful pulling a concrete ground in utter chaos. If it doesn't center around you then what does it center around, nothing? That doesn't mean it's all encompassing that just means it has no center even if it wanted, infinite potential is basically the same as nothing, but our existence as experiencing beings makes it so the infinite potential universe is disproven individual tho as it may by if anything can call itself individual the maybe that's great enough for the chaos to bow down and revolve around what it never had.

I think you are just building on a basis that's heavily supported by the top. In the trying to understand something out of nothing you have to somehow prove from no basis, now, you use the word "know" as if we have established that it even exists, but does it? How can we know that we know? Were in all of this is the concrete ground? Because you can't just assume the "knowing" and the build up to the self which is what "knows"

A much more accurate word is "relations" If I understand correctly. But I think you are addressing only the outside of yourself being relevant, but I don't think it tackles what yourself is at all, for example you say the mind could be experiencing an illusion but that wouldn't change what the mind is or is doing. However I don't think you are addressing of the mind itself isn't a part of the illusion.

That's I subject I am very interested in and have been for a long time, and so far I've come to the conclusion that consciousness is a logical fallacy, it simply shouldn't exist, yet if I can know anything for sure it's that I am conscious (no way to truly know if anyone else is in this example though) and the that automatically leads me to believe that consciousness is fundamental over logic, and patterns presupposes logic, is that not what patterns are?

Also consequences emerging from patterns, is a big leap and seems to be predicated on rather shallow observation based analysis. I might be wrong but that's how I understand this

Now I actually hold the point that consciousness is fundamental at least over material and pattern, and at least until proven or assumed otherwise.

On what basis are we saying that the self consists of patterns? How do we know anything, let alone that the mind and senses consist of patterns?

What are those seven things? I am unfamiliar

When did YOU learn this? Was it not from the day you were born until now, making observations in your lifespan? Are you saying that's real at all? Infact I think it's more accurate to say that you left no association between whatever is observable and the objective. You are saying everything is a lie so essentially that statement in of itself is a lie, no?

I don't see a reason to assume anything at all is outside of imagination, do you?

Well everywhere? Be careful? Is there meaning in heroin? Maybe you think that I just want you to understand that you think that. Also if we have no need for meaning is statement that can only be paired with "we don't have need for anything" otherwise is necessarily false.

Ascribing everything to a comedy. Surly the must be a great deal of meaning in comedy in that interpretation. Since consciousness in turn spawned comedy again.

Something I never understood is why place any value on survival at all, what presupposition am I missing? Infact wouldn't death just be an easy just as meaningful way out? Honestly sounds a lot easier than trying to survive! Just kill all your desires then yourself? Well the reason I think the authors keep doing this is because of the core concept of pride, which ties in to the whole "make meaning out of suffering" ordeal.
if you think consciousness as a wild sea representing all the possibility, you can cope by 1- closing your eyes. 2- anchoring so that effectively the available part of the sea is a lot more manageable. 3- going with the flow of the tides, that's distraction and hedonism. 4- stand in place at the ocean floor refusing movement, now I argue that's pride, specifically the type that comes before the fall, thinking the ocean can't break you when you are body deep seems extremely absurd, because it obviously won't work, and, wait why are we doing this in the first place? Why are we deciding that we need to cope with ocean? If nothing else wouldn't it simply be better to let it break us? I guess we are too prideful for that!

Now the part about the creative endeavor angers me the most! If it's the thing that should be held at the highest place shouldn't it be clearly defined? What art? One can say "it's art because it's unidentifiable" then how is it different than the ocean? It's the exact same! And I say either 1- it's the ultimate distraction. 2- you believe it is pointing to something higher, above the ocean, you hold that view if you say "art is trying to define something other than itself" pointing at an objective principle!
If I got something wrong I would love corrections

Yes, I realized midway that I could just keep on explaining and would need to stop at some point too early, so I stopped at the conclusion waiting for questions.

Of course, we will need some common ground here, that would be:
1- god is what's on top of any value structure. for all intends and purposes to an individual relation that would be god.
2- reaching the top of a value structure requires measured steps measured by how far the are able to move in that structure, after accounting for the changes to the structure done by the movement.
3- everything that can be called "art" definitely has commonality, hinting at the existence at an intrinsic object of pure art, all seems to culminate into the input of the receiver (that would be a conscious being) through a medium (those would be the senses) such mediums are majorly visual, sound and literature (literature could be under a broader term of logic or pattern but would then take a large part of the visual and the sound spheres) and I would argue logically there is a perfect art, (I would even call prayer) that is fully non related to the input medium, and only later it diverges into the different art mediums.

Now on those assumptions or conclusions what are the disagreements?

Hey, here is a though I have been having, it about art, and the "age old question" of what exactly it is, and this is definitely a relevant topic now with the emergence of freaky good ai art, the best of which isn't even popular at all right now by the way.
My thesis goes something like this: art Is everything that reaches for god. That's it...
I can go into detail of why I think that but with just this definition, how satisfactory do you find it?

If it's a true utopia we, by definition, will survive it won't we?