this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
38 points (89.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
40155 readers
1448 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Say, let's admit consciousness is the result of a physical process."
Let's not. I don't have any proof of that. Everything obviously exists inside consciousness. Why should I believe it arises from matter? Even a brain cell under a microscope exists inside consciousness. You'd need to have some kind of an objective view that exists outside consciousness that can show matter creating it. But then you wouldn't be able to know about it because it's outside consciousness. Everything you know must exist inside consciousness. Else you wouldn't know about it.
We obviously don't know but I'd say that it's still a pretty good starting assumption to say that consciousness is an emergent feature of information processing which is a physical process happening in out brain.
Yeah, when i wrote
It was more of like in math with unprovable statements, you can say let's assyme it's true because it leads to all these interesting consequences. All the while being very much aware that it all requires for this perticular to be true
We don't have proof that consciousness is the result of a physical process. But there's no reason to think it isn't. You can make up anything and say it's unknowable, and nobody can prove this false; but it's pretty much useless. Sure you can stick with 'I think therefore I am' as the only knowable thing, but it won't get you very far. The physical world as science has self-consistently explained has been shown to be very practical, specifically with prediction of observation. Consciousness seems different, but there's no real reason to assume it is.
Thing is that science cannot prove matter is prior either, yet that is taken as the core assumption that all other assumptions must align to.
This is the scientific version of Christians saying "god is real, says so in the bible, and because bible was written by god, it must be true".
Science can't prove anything. It seeks to build comprehensive models that agree with observations by disproving those that don't. It is specifically built in a way that uses predictions based on theory and then tests them. This process is used to avoid making useless and unknowable additions. That, and its inherent nature to question everything, is what makes it fundamentally different from religeon. However, it is based on an assumption that the universe makes sense as a physical construct. And that is because there is no other useful starting point. You can try to build a model of the universe based on any gibberish of feelings, but it isn't useful in any way.
Useful to what end? The very idea that you need to build a model is based on believing in a system that thinks the model is important.
A model is an understanding of how it works. It allows one to predict how things might react in different general cases, which can be very useful for innovation. You don't need to try understand things if you don't want to, but it's a bit ignorant sounding.
"Models work because they help us make better models, and we know better models work because... they’re better models."
I think maybe you misunderstand what a model is in this context. It's any way of mapping observations to a theory of how things work. I would say a good model is one that can create useful testable predictions. This tests the accuracy of the model, and it also provides for innovation. You can have a model based on a random sky fairy magically doing stuff and writing a book about it. But that model is untestable, and useless.
Again, define useful/useless? To what end do you create these models?
Again, to understand our observable reality and make predictions.