Post Demon Attack v.1

Don’t know how these photos got lost in my previous posts. This is when we died after being surrounded by demons after turning the headlights of the car off for about 2 seconds in pitch black darkness in some scary woods at 5am-ish. This was the first place we went to after we died.

Q&A

Q: I thought the idea of reality conforming to (or perhaps being created as a result of) one’s thoughts especially interesting, though I don’t like the phrase “time-dependent.” To me, “time,” as the word is typically used, means a measurement of change. (One second is determined by a particular unit of change in the physical world.) This would imply that reality changes as a result of thought changing, which is sort of what you’ve described but not quite. I think a better word to use would be “moment,” such that reality is “moment-dependent.” In this case, reality would simply conform to whatever the thought is, and not the difference between thoughts. Both interesting ideas, but I think the latter is actually a more accurate, valuable description of your perspective. I say this because, as you have contemplated, our conception of reality may be different now than at any time before or after now, emphasizing the importance of the individual moment.

A: I think this is coming down to more of an argument of definition/choice of word than meaning. When I say time, I’m talking about an instant in time, not an increment of time. Of course this is all idealized, and I don’t know if it even makes sense to talk about “instants of time”, but I think what you are getting at by “moment-dependent” is exactly the what I mean by “time-dependent”, unless you don’t mean “instant in time” by “moment”. i.e., if “r(t)” is a time-dependent function that outputs the state of reality at time “t”, the “t” we are looking at is a number, not a difference between numbers, and I think calling it “moment” could raise more confusion in definition because it is not as commonly used a word as say “time”.

On second thought, I think a more appropriate way of putting it is just “thought-dependent” reality, in which each thought may or may not have anything to do with time at all. Time may or may not exist, each thought may or may not exist in a distinct instant of time, and so forth. All we’re assuming is that different thoughts exists, which give rise to different realities, so there - thought-dependent reality!

Q&A

Q: Why do I think probability is irrelevant when it comes to things like the existence of God and other peoples’ consciousness? Why is this talk of “likelihood” or “probability” meaningless, and why should I not be justified to say that it is more likely that individual consciousness of others exist than to say that God exists from an “evidential” standpoint?

A: So there are two things we need to get straight* here: probability and evidence. First of all, what is the probability of something? It is the number of a certain type of outcome divided by the number of all possible outcomes. What does it mean to talk about the probability of God existing? I would say it’s the number of possible models of the universe where a god exists divided by the number of total possible models of the universe. As for “models of the universe”, of course there are unfalsifiable ones as well as falsifiable ones - both of which there are an infinite number of. We disregard the falsifiable ones because they must all be false if they are falsifiable** and look at the unfalsifiable ones. Because there are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable models for universes in which God either exists or doesn’t, it doesn’t seem to make sense to talk about probabilities with regard to this question. Same reasoning for the existence of other peoples’ consciousness.

Ok, now you’re going to say that there is evidence for the existence of others’ consciousness, and there is no apparent evidence for God’s existence. What do you mean by evidence? Is there really any evidence from which we can infer directly the existence of others’ consciousness or God? Behavior does not count! Sure, you can try and make an indirect inference, but you have to realize that you will never be able to find any sort of direct evidence for the existence of others’ consciousness unless you are that person (which defeats the point anyways). And then you might say that at least there’s indirect evidence of the existence of others’ consciousness, but there is none for the existence of God. And again, what are you counting as “evidence”? (Also see the real vs. imaginary people post.) Also more importantly, any talk of evidence vs. no evidence regards models that are falsifiable, and by virtue of the incompleteness theorem***, we already said that any sort of falsifiable model cannot be a complete model that describes the universe if we are describing it as an inhabitant inside the universe, so it’s unclear whether there is even a point in discussing “evidence”.

*I am always hesitant to bring in “definitions” because they mess things up a lot and turn things into war of words rather than meaning, as you know.

** Think about it. You can’t describe anything in its entirety from the inside (which is where we’re at, in the universe). i.e., incompleteness theorem.

*** The incompleteness theorem is indeed a wonderful thing, but we cannot forget that the validity of it as applied toward consciousness and/or the universe is entirely dependent on whether consciousness and/or the universe can be described as a formal system. The incompleteness theorem is a mathematical theory, and there is no reason why we should simply assume that anything can be described as a formal system.

construction

Random Thought

Incomprehension is incomprehensible once you comprehend.

Understandings, Arguments, and Have Some Respect (for your own brain)

I think there are many similarities between astral projection and lucid dreaming. For one, what you practice and build on is very similar - the ability to remember and recall your experience in dreaming or in OBE’s. I’m still in training for astral projection, so I wouldn’t be a very good judge about this, but as of now I feel as though OBE’s could be a subtype of lucid dreaming, considering that you can basically do whatever you want in lucid dreams.

It’s still frustrating to see how many people react negatively with ridicule towards things like astral projection, or more general things like ESP, but not so much, let’s say, empathy or dreaming. I have a problem when people openly criticize things blindly thinking that they know what they’re talking about when they really have no clue. I have no problem if people choose not to believe in something, choose not to pursue something, but I cannot stand when people do not respect something only because they do not understand. 

Yes, it is very dangerous to mention things like ESP in “academia” because you risk seeming like a fool while people condemn you with the “that’s not scientific” are you kidding, in your face. This is very sad. First of all, I already mentioned the whole theoretical models view of the universe from a limited perspective from consciousness, which classifies science as a model, just like religion or any other “model” of the universe (i.e. objective truth is an absurd thing). Secondly, sure I get it you’re a scientist (or whatever), I am too, but can you at least make your argument in such a way that shows your through understanding of the subject, and then make a good argument based on scientific views?

In some ways it is unfortunate that ESP has gained popularity through pop culture views of it, associating it with a number of things that it really has nothing to do with. One thing that people argue it the irrational in people who believe that they have “special powers”. Where on earth does it say that ESP is “special” powers? If you talked to anyone who has developed their abilities in any way at all, no one is going to tell you that these are rare gifts that only they have that no one else does. It’s really more like we all have the ability, it’s part of the way we are. But how much of that ability we can use is dependent on practice. Kind of like drawing - anyone can do it and improve with practice, some people may have a natural flair, but that doesn’t make it “supernatural” (in an eerie way as commonly perceived, that it).

And just saying, I would love to have a debate with you about the validity of psychic abilities, but please, please make sure you actually know what you’re talking about, okay? I’m sure if someone tried to argue against science without knowing what they’re talking about, you’d feel reasonably frustrated as well - especially when they’re talking to you like they know it all and you’re the lunatic. Give your mind another chance, will you? Why is it so hard for people to not take things at face value?

***And finally, closing words that may or may not seem obnoxious: I speak of your need to “understand” things, to try and perceive things differently outside of your own ways of perception in order to see more, but at the same time I have no understanding of what it’s like to “not” understand, do I? So I’m just as blind as you are when I’m frustrated that you don’t understand, and perhaps I shouldn’t judge you so much by virtue of my own argument. Like I said, incomprehension is incomprehensible once you comprehend - just like anything else in the universe, isn’t it? Funny.

Time Dependent Existence?

Is my existence time dependent even when I think I’m alive?

Reality, the Strange Loop

Today I was thinking about the possibilities of demons again, but Sandy reminded me that I shouldn’t start believing in demons if I haven’t already been believing in them. This is very true, and although this has always been my take on reality - that what you believe in is what reality becomes, and that there is no objective “truth” - it is nonetheless still difficult to appreciate at times after being conditioned (somehow? by what?) to believe certain things about reality for so long.

Well, for some reason I have been conditioned to have faith in the idea that people who I observe outside of my consciousness also have consciousness despite the complete lack of direct evidence. Why is this so? Why was I not conditioned to believe from the very beginning that no one else had a consciousness, and that my mind was the only thing that has ever existed - in which case, the former would seem extremely absurd (in contrast to the absurdity currently perceived in the latter).

Well, for one thing, I have constantly been approaching these thoughts in a “trying to figure out” kind of way, which is ironic because the act of “figuring out” pre-supposes that there is an objective truth without the necessity of one. I haven’t really stopped to suppose that the universe and reality may be a “morphing” thing, that is, it changes instantaneously with whatever I happen to come to believe at the moment.

I’ve run into this thought before, at which point, terrified to be “God”, I stopped, but it seems to make a lot of sense as I think about it now, even though it may not be the most “ideal” and/or “comforting” possibility, but those things are arbitrarily emotional anyways, so I should disregard. But that thought I have is this: For every instant that I believe or have ever believed that people outside of my mind actually exist (i.e., they have their own conscious minds), then they do. But as soon as I go back to supposing that they don’t exist, then they don’t. And the universe is basically only this weird ever changing thing that morphs into whatever I believe at the moment, because beliefs are not consistent all the time, and neither is reality. That is what is implied by the belief that “reality becomes whatever I come to believe” - it is a time dependent belief in the sense that my beliefs change with time.

And as you see, this belief clearly only seems to make sense in a very circular way, because that belief cannot always be true, otherwise it would constitute as an “objective truth” which violates its own statement. So that belief must not always be true, but only when the perceiver perceives that belief to be “true” but again true in a time dependent sense, or rather, a belief/consciousness dependent sense - that truths, just like realities, universes, and consciousnesses are amorphous and self-dependent in a circular way. This does not exclude the possibility of other realities, universes, and consciousnesses existing independently with different principles outside of any given reality, universe, or consciousness, but it also doesn’t prove it.

Hmm… I think this bemused euphoric sensation that I derive from running into more and more questions and questions and answerless questions about reality is what “people” would generally call “trippy”. Why does it have to be a drug-related sensation (not that there is anything wrong with drugs)? Shouldn’t this be a pretty regularly experienced normal feeling that people get on a day-to-day basis if they’re at all capable of thought? I don’t understand how people could just ignore these things and “live”, but I guess that’s an irrelevant question because at the moment I don’t believe that any of them really exist.

Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrödinger

I like it when theoretical physicists start realizing things about reality and consciousness beyond what is immediately materialistically apparent. (Well, philosophical realization in physics? It’s inevitable, obviously, unless you’re just like, dumb or something.) I don’t like it when physicists become obsessed with the “power and beauty” of science so much so that they think science is the best thing that ever existed - those, the tard kind.

Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrödinger