this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2026
38 points (89.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

40021 readers
826 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:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. 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
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. 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
 

Say, let's admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.

Then say this process only goes "forward" when our time coordinate increases. Just like an egg gets cooked when it's temperature coordinate increases, but it doesn't get more or less cooked when it's temperature coordinate decreases.

This would mean that going back in time doesn't result in any perceptible change, since your consciousness hasn't evolved from it's "former" state.

Thus making it possible for us to be travelling through plenty of dimensions in varied directions, only ever experiencing the brief times when you happen to be moving in increasing time. Or whatever combination of movement along varied dimensions makes it possible for you to be conscious.

TLDR: i need to take shorter showers

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] klymilark@herbicide.fallcounty.omg.lol 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, no. I think your showers need to be longer. You might be onto something.

[–] polotype@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

Thanks for coming to my ted talk, i will be coming back tommorow with a conclusion to my thesis

[–] AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

"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.

Also consciousness studies are very much a thing

https://scienceandnonduality.com/videos/donald-hoffman-consciousness-and-the-interface-theory-of-perception/

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 points 19 hours ago

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.

[–] polotype@lemmy.ml 2 points 22 hours ago

Yeah, when i wrote

Say, let's admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.

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

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AnDoLiN@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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".

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

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.

My understanding of pasta salad is a result of how couscousness works.

[–] cosmOS@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This actually reminds me of the theory of quantum immortality (the idea that you’re immortal because your consciousness will always continue on in branches of reality where you survive). It kind of fits with your description of awareness “moving forward” only along certain coordinates of time or possibility.

[–] polotype@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

Ooh indeed, didn.tthink of combining this with the multiple worlds theory to get an even spicier one

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

But seriously, this is a good one

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago

There is no time. There is just the state of now, which is ever changing. (imo)

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

I think I understood this and agree. Last night was a bit of a bender, so maybe I haven't recovered yet, but damn.