metaphysics, existentialism, & subjective consciousness

im going to just lay it out: i think you people are crazy.

now, that doesn't necessarily mean your opinion on the earth is wrong (or that your really are crazy). i consider myself to have a pretty open mind. i understand that anything is possible.

i want to discuss why it's a possibility that neither your theory, nor the traditional theory are actually true.

here it is in rhetorical question form:  could it be that the physical things we observe and experience, don't actually happen/exist? is it possible that matter doesn't exist, and all humans are, are merely consciousness? if this were true, it would mean that science is only a widely accepted belief, and the scientific method is only proving things to be "true" that only seem to be true. in short, what if nothing (besides our consciousness) really exists?

here it is in statement form: what you see doesn't really exist. you project what you believe. matter does not really exist. gravity does not really exist.if you wanted to, you could fly. you make things happen in your so-called "life", by thinking them either consciously or subconsciously. you never really sleep. you're never really awake. hell, you're not even really alive. everythin you experience and observe, is a projection of your personal belief.

assuming this is true,[list=1]

• what limits our minds while we are "awake" and/or "alive"?
• how does death fit into the picture? some believe an afterlife exists. the afterlife, is of course an extension, or a release, of the mind from the observed universe. but what about those who don't believe in the afterlife? where does their consciousness go? is their consciousness itself destined to non-existence?
• what are dreams? could they be the only time when our mind is completely free of itself, allowing us to do anything?[/list:o]

Once upon a time, Chuang Tzu dreamed that he was a butterfly, flying about enjoying itself. It did not know that it was Chuang Tzu. Suddenly he awoke, and veritably was Chuang Tzu again. He did not know whether it was Chuang Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly, or whether it was the butterfly dreaming that it was Chuang Tzzu. Between Chuang Tzu and the butterfly there must be some distinction.

is that your way of showing you agree or understand with my post?

I think you need to get off the drugs

I think you need to get off the drugs

i dont take drugs.

so, rather than insulting me, get involved in the conversation at hand.

are you a FE or RE?

RE

RE

now, what about my independant theory do you disagree with or not understand?

i think you are crazy

i think you are crazy

for what reason? explain yourself.

You sound like you have been smoking something *pulls out deathstar*

*deathstar*



 :shock:

while you make excellent points, and your points do technically apply to everything, they aren't really the reason people come to this forum.

anyways, on to the philosophy stuff!
In the whole idea that everything only exists in our mind, we are limited while awake by what we perceive, that is, we further the illusion we have by observing that very illusion, and the more we observe, the more ingrained in it we become, the Matrix is most easily referenced here due to it's popularity, and that is when they tell Neo they don't free people after a certain age, it is too much for the mind to handle.
While asleep, we are limited due to inactivity, it is perceived as a time to rest, so we perceive ourselves into a state where we stop practicing the observation of our world, and we, except for dreams, stop practicing our concious thought. In that sense, we are less mentally limited while asleep because we are not perceiving our reality, but we are still thinking, although not necessarily consciously.
Death is strange, for all of our perception involves our existence, so imagining our non-existence is contrary to all we have ever perceived. However contrary it is to our perceptions, however, we still believe that our time living and perceiving is limited. Perhaps this stems from us perceiving things before our existence, so we imagine that things will probably also happen after our existence, and we draw the conclusion that our existence must end for reality to exist after our existence.

There is also the question that, if reality only exists in my/yours/our mind(s), is it really right to say it doesn't exist? For existence in the mind is all that anything could have, and if it had that, it seems wrong to say it doesn't exist. Therefore, matter, gravity, life, other consciousnesses, all really do exist

You sound like you have been smoking something *pulls out deathstar*

well, i havent.

please, id liek to get you honest opinion on my post.

is that your way of showing you agree or understand with my post?

I understand your post.  I don't agree.  I somewhat trust my perceptions and I think that a real world exists outside of our perceptions.  I'm an existentialist I guess.  I was quoting the famous Taoist story because it somewhat agrees with you.  Tao is very interesting and I think you would enjoy it and indeed most Eastern philosophy.

Your questions are hard ones but I will do my best to anwer them:

1.  What limits our minds while we are "awake" and/or "alive"?

I would say that it is our minds that limit our minds.  We have these perceptions that our brain treats as true won't allow our minds to alter from those perceptions.  This falls well into Taoism as we should bend with the wind instead of standing against it - if we want to find "the way" we need to discard our so called "knowledge" and open our mind completely - away from knowledge and thought and speculation.

2.  How does death fit into the picture? some believe an afterlife exists. the afterlife, is of course an extension, or a release, of the mind from the observed universe. but what about those who don't believe in the afterlife? where does their consciousness go? is their consciousness itself destined to non-existence?

Death defines life.  Without death we would not have life.

The Whole world recognizes the beautiful as the beautiful, yet this is only ugly; the whole world recognizes the good as the good, yet this is only bad.
Thus Something and Nothing produce each other,
The difficult and the easy compliment each other,
The long and the short offset each other,
The high and the low incline towards each other,
Note and sound hamonize with each other,
before and after follow each other.
Therefore the Sage keeps to the deed taht consist in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words.
The myriad creatures from it yet it claims no authority;
It gives them life yet claimes no possession;
It benefits them yet exacts no gratitude;
It accomplishes its task yet lays claim to no merit;
It is because it lays claim to no merit
That its merit never deserts it.

Tao Te Ching - II

Essentially we need death to define life.  I don't know where death fits in apart from its importance to life.

3.  What are dreams? could they be the only time when our mind is completely free of itself, allowing us to do anything?

I don't really know what dreams are.  Today my boss was supposed to call me at 12 to let me know if I was supposed to be working at 1 or 5.  I had asked to work at 1 because at 6 tonight I wanted to go to an event at the museum.  I had a dream that I was talking to my boss and we worked out exactly what I was going to do (which was work at 1).  I then was woken from that dream at 12:45 by my phone ringing.  While my dream was not really accurate (I'm going to work tomorrow at one and not work today at all) - it was interesting that I dreamt of a conversation and then was woken by the beginning of that very conversation.  I would say that dreams are our thoughts without being hemmed in by our conscious mind - they are our irrational unconscious side.

I say dont worry about it..just live ffs

There is also the question that, if reality only exists in my/yours/our mind(s), is it really right to say it doesn't exist? For existence in the mind is all that anything could have, and if it had that, it seems wrong to say it doesn't exist. Therefore, matter, gravity, life, other consciousnesses, all really do exist

hmm, a paradox!

I say dont worry about it..just live ffs

A very good philosophy and indeed I feel that this is an essential part of Tao.  Worry comes from a fear that our desires will not be met (in this case a desire for knowledge).  If we have unfulfilled desires we will be unhappy.  If we have no desire we have no worries.  It is only through giving up our desires and being satisified with our lives as they are that we can be satisfied and happy.

At least that's my understanding of Tao.

there is a difference between worry and skepticism.

No doubt.

Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful.  Good words are not persuasive; persausive words are not good.  He who knows has no wide learning; he who has no wide learning does not know.
The sage does not hoard.
Having bestowed all that he has on others, he has yet more;
Having given all he has to others, he is richer still.
The way of heaven benfits and does not harm; the way of the sage is bountiful and does not contend.

Tao Te Ching: LXXXI

i studied taoism a few semesters ago in a religion class. most of my other theories are either based on it, or coincidentally share some of its ideals.

A favorite quote of mine is "I's not always easy to distinguish between existentialism and a bad mood."

This isn't really about the shape of the earth, so I'm moving it to "Alternative science."

Finally!  A good philosophical topic.

I've been pondering this very subject for some time now.  In the tradition of The Matrix, I have developed an idea about the nature of the universe that may be applicable here.

I believe that I began thinking about physical laws of the universe.  At the same time I was thinking about the movie.  What I concluded was that it may be possible that our "universe" (as we know it) is actually only a supercomputer (or a computer program).  Computer programs operate under certain rules, restrictions, etc. just like our universe.  If it is ever possible for our technology to create artificial intelligence we will be able to create a program (a "universe") that operates under certain rules and we'll be able to create A.I. beings within that program.  These beings would be, essentially, exactly like we are (looking to the cosmos to try and figure out the meaning of it all).  So it could be that we are simply "beings" in a computer program that was created by a "higher being."  The problem is, what if the creator is simply an artifically intelligent being too?  And the creator of the creator as well?

To me, this idea of the universe is not too far-fetched.  I guess time might be able to tell--as long as we can figure out how to create our own "universe."

im going to just lay it out: i think you people are crazy.

now, that doesn't necessarily mean your opinion on the earth is wrong (or that your really are crazy). i consider myself to have a pretty open mind. i understand that anything is possible.

i want to discuss why it's a possibility that neither your theory, nor the traditional theory are actually true.

here it is in rhetorical question form:  could it be that the physical things we observe and experience, don't actually happen/exist? is it possible that matter doesn't exist, and all humans are, are merely consciousness? if this were true, it would mean that science is only a widely accepted belief, and the scientific method is only proving things to be "true" that only seem to be true. in short, what if nothing (besides our consciousness) really exists?

here it is in statement form: what you see doesn't really exist. you project what you believe. matter does not really exist. gravity does not really exist.if you wanted to, you could fly. you make things happen in your so-called "life", by thinking them either consciously or subconsciously. you never really sleep. you're never really awake. hell, you're not even really alive. everythin you experience and observe, is a projection of your personal belief.

assuming this is true,[list=1]

• what limits our minds while we are "awake" and/or "alive"?
• how does death fit into the picture? some believe an afterlife exists. the afterlife, is of course an extension, or a release, of the mind from the observed universe. but what about those who don't believe in the afterlife? where does their consciousness go? is their consciousness itself destined to non-existence?
• what are dreams? could they be the only time when our mind is completely free of itself, allowing us to do anything?[/list:o]

You sound pretty monist about your metaphysical beliefs.  This actually sounds like you delve in to a little Descartes as well with epistemology and the "mind body problem".

At some point, I believe you must come to accept that because[/i] you can never really know.  Ockham's Razor plays a role in this, as I will touch on later.

Let's consider this:  Within the assumption that mind and body is separate (as it seems to be the case here), one aspect of our "existance" is our mind.  As our mind, we are completely blind, deaf, mute, and detached from what we THINK is the physical world.  Our senses as we know them can only exist in a physical manifestation:  our body.  You could almost say in this case we are puppet masters.  We can be the greatest puppet masters in the world, but with no puppets, we cannot do the show.  In such a case, however, since a body is required for senses, is there a connection there between ourselves which we think is the mind and the physical manifestation?

I believe so.

Our experiences, memories deal with sounds, images, tastes, touch.  These all come from the body.  If we had no body, we would not be able to decipher, much less comprehend, such senses.

So how does this tie in to your metaphysical points?  The way it ties in is that the only way we know of the world is through our body.  It is our only link to the physical world.  Most of our experiences revolve around these senses and really we have no reason to assume that our senses were created to simply fool us.  While that commits an informal fallacy of arguing from ignorance, there is some point where we accept the information given to us as reasonably correct so that we do not have to go in to a state of nihilism (as Kant graciously delivered us out of).

As Humes put it, how do you know that a certain room exists?  You can go into it 999 times, but how are you sure that the 1000th time it will still be there?  The fact is that we are not sure.  We are 99% sure or 99.9% sure or however you want to put it, but we are not 100% sure.  As far as I'm concerned, however, I think 99% is good enough.

I believe for all intents and purposes, reality is what you make of it, as in it's only what you're interpreting information as.

Take someone's personality for example, they don't have a personality without anyone to interpret it as such. Another example would be color. while light waves are most certainly distinct in their wavelengths, the way we perceive them seems to be an interpretation of the human mind.

What I'm getting at is a large portion of what we define reality as is simply from our own mind, and has no physical existence.

Could one go as far to say matter doesn't exist if there's no one to observe it? It all depends on how you define 'exist'

How do you define exist

Edit: I think I just said what Mephistopheles said pretty much, I just didn't do it like a professional author >:(

Regarding being part of a computer program I think that really raises the question - what's outside this universe?  If we're just a computer program then the computer must be in another universe.  Is it too, part of a computer program?  How many levels are there - a set number or an infinite number?

in my opinion, existence is defined as being aware of ones self. with this definition, a body, nor other forms of matter, are needed.

Regarding being part of a computer program I think that really raises the question - what's outside this universe?

That's the beauty of it.  It could essentially be multiple levels of virtual reality.  Actually, it's essentially the same 'idea' of a God-creator of our universe.  If God did create our universe, then who created God?  And who created the creator of God?  If you buy into this type of story (computer program), then you basically are buying into the God story.  But the God (our creator) would just be an intelligent being.  This being would have complete control over our universe (just like God...hmmm...).

The problem with the story is that it isn't really falsifiable (or at least not easily).  It makes as much sense as any other story (that includes religious and scientific stories), in my own opinion.  But really, the real problem with this subject as a whole is the fact that no religion and no science will ever be able to answer the question: "Why do things exist?"  I even contend that no being ever will have the answer to the impossible question.

Maybe there isn't an answer to that question.

"Why do things exist?"

I mean obviously we can answer that on a shallow level but I think what you're really asking is what is the purpose of existence?  I would argue that science shows us that there is no purpose.  Things don't happen because they want to - they just happen.  I think it's hard for humans not to personify things, but that's a problem with us, not reality.