The Reflections Theory of Memory

When you close your eyes and open them again, you are most likely not shocked by your immediate surroundings. Why? Because there is usually nothing out of the expected, that is, you remain in the time and place where you would have expected or believed that you last left off before you closed your eyes. But what you do not question further is why and how you came to expect the continuation of your existence in this particular point in spacetime after opening your eyes – not just your existence in this particular point, but also your existence as you.

The key is that you cannot prove or disprove the state of existence of anything or any event unless you are constantly perceiving it and/or direct evidence of it. Assuming you could not possibly perceive every and any event simultaneously forever, there always exist an infinite number of possible alternate events that could have happened, are happening, or will happen outside of your perception. Therefore the way you choose to interpret, invent, or interact with your memory of the past dictates the way you exist in the present. But what is memory exactly? And what is its relationship with reality?

How do you know if what you remember as having happened actually happened in reality or whether an alternate story happened instead that led to the same exact outcomes? Or perhaps you only ever came into existence in the present moment with your memories pre-installed into your mind? And what about a moment into the future when the present will inevitably become the past? Depending on the level of skepticism you raise toward your continuous existence from the past to the present moment in such a particular time and place as such a particular person, however, you have varying degrees of ultimately unlimited freedom to manipulate the reality of the state of your existence depending on what exactly you are able to convince yourself into believing.

There seems to be an obvious but inescapably circular relationship between the perception of memory and the reality of the past. Compare the reflections of physical objects through mirrors with the recall of events through memories. A real object serves as an initial source of light that is then reflected onto a mirror and then into the perceiver's eyes. If the mirror is perfectly flat, then the image transferred from the mirror will be a perfect mirror-imaged representation of that object. However, if the mirror is warped or colored, then the image reflected off of that mirror into the perceiver's eyes will not be of accurate resemblance of the real object.

The only way to know whether an image reflected by a mirror were an accurate representation of the original object would be to directly look at the original object and compare it with the reflection, just as the only way to verify the accuracy of a memory of an event would be to look at a recording of the past. But the point we revisit is that unless we constantly perceive the original object or the recording of the actual event in the past, there is no way of proving or disproving the true state of anything outside of conscious perception. In other words, if you closed your eyes and stopped all your sensory perceptions, then the external state of reality may as well be the equivalent of the internal state of your mind.

What's more, even if not on a metaphysical level, the encoding of events in human memory is already contaminated with all sorts of secondary information that form the subjective human realm of experience, such as emotions or thought – if memory were a mirror, it would most certainly not be a flat one. Also our recall of the past is not usually a direct remembrance of an event through one memory, but instead through the memory of a memory of a memory and so on. The farther away from the original object or event, the more mirrors, the more room for manipulation of the reflection of an image, since any or all mirrors along the set of mirrors reflecting light from the original object to the eyes of the perceiver could be warped. 

In the end, what reaches the eyes of the perceiver is not an image of an event but a reflection of a reflection of reflections which may or may not bare any accurate resemblance of the event that actually happened. So memory does not teach you anything about your current state of existence by giving you accurate information about the past – it's not a matter of knowing about the past; it's purely a matter of believing what you think you know about the past. No matter what may have happened in the past, it is only through recalling them in the present moment through perception that they even begin bare any existence at all. And for that matter, any memory is as good as another, so long as they lead to the same outcomes.

On the other hand, changing the past to affect the present and ultimately the future may not be a matter of changing the outcomes, but changing what you choose to believe as the reality of the process. Existence and identity are never dictated by the past since they can only ever be defined by how you choose to perceive your past within the present moment. In a circular way then, the past seems to be dependent on the present as much as the present seems to be dependent on the past, at least theoretically - but in a world where there are no true or false answers, what difference would it make? In a subjective universe where the exact way any given set of events happened in the past can never be objectively proven, all that could ever matter is how you actively perceive that set of events as having happened in the present moment. 

Here is a list of questions to constantly consider:

Who was I yesterday?
Who will I be tomorrow?
Who am I today?
How many times have I lived my life?
How many times have I lived the same exact life?
How many different lives of different people have I already lived?
Have I ever actually lived, or have I been stuck in this very moment for all eternity?

In a universe where nothing can even seem to exist objectively without first being subjectively perceived, it matters not what anyone else tells you they perceive; it matters not what you think you have perceived; it matters not what you think you perceive. All that matters is what you believe you perceive.

Laws of the Universe

The universe is not governed by the laws of nature! The laws of nature just happen to be one of the infinite possible models that attempt to describe how the universe exists! Can’t psudo-scientists get anything straight!? Science does not deny religion nor does religion deny science; each only offers a simpler alternative explanation from its own perspective. Is that really so hard to understand? And please, stop thinking that you’ve found answers to questions that you’ve never even realized you’ve never understood.

Ignostic's Interpretation of Religion

An over-asked question - if religion teaches us to love and accept, why does it seem to cause so much conflict? From my own ignostic perspective, I think that what any religion attempts to teach is ultimate acceptance with the goal of ending all suffering, giving meaning to life/what we encounter in life, and providing answers to questions. In my opinion, all that you need to know/understand in order to be able to “accept” unconditionally is this: 1) There is no good or bad, only thought makes it so. 2) The finger that points to the moon is not the moon.

However, this is not what most religions seem to be interpreted as. Any religion comes with its own set of specific beliefs, strict rituals that must be followed, and rules that must be observed at all times. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about any of these activities, and their purpose is to help the one who caries out the actions be able to accept and find a meaning to their life. So everything is fine if you understand that, but it becomes problematic when you do not realize what your belief is trying to do for you on a deeper level (acceptance), but instead overemphasize what seems to be conveyed on the superficial level of language and human interpretation (the finger that points to the moon).

Belief becomes the origin of conflict when one side believes that what they belief is the objective/absolute truth, and the other side believes that as well. Both think that they are only trying to do the other side “good” by “enlightening” them to the “truth” and the “real path to liberation”, does not understand why the other side just won’t understand what the first side does, but completely miss the whole point of acceptance - “there is no right or wrong”, “the finger that points to the moon is not the moon”.

Consider how musical notes on paper help you interpret a piece of music, but the notes are not the music - nor are the combination of notes played by an instrument, nor even the interpretation of melodious sounds by the mind. You can play the same piece of music with whatever instrument in whatever way you like and listen to it however you like, and no one would ever say that it’s “right” or “wrong” to play or interpret the music a certain way, and there is no “inherent meaning” in the music aside from what arises from the interpretation of music on a personal level, whether from the original composer or someone else.

There is no way to know how any other person interprets the same piece of music, let alone know whether your interpretations are the “same”. There is no way to know what the “music” “actually” is, and all you can ever know is that the music is what you’ve interpreted or perceived for yourself. This does not mean that any interpretation can never be a “real” interpretation but that the term “real interpretation” is just rather strange. Any interpretation is just as meaningful as another (or just as “real” if you will), and no interpretation is ever “meaningless” or “false”.

The bottom line that you realize though, is that even “there is no right or wrong” and “there is no objective truth” are ultimately still views, which become beliefs. The more you believe in one certain set of beliefs, the less readily you will be able to understand (if at all) any other set of beliefs, which is the problem that I’ve realized that I’ve run into - I’m afraid I’ve taught myself to become so strictly ignotic that no matter how much knowledge I ever gain of another religion - or better yet, of anything at all - I will never understand anything at all - there comes the paradox (that scientists hate the most): that you’ll never understand anything unless you believe it, but when you believe you no longer understand.

ཐང་ཀ་ (Thangka)

I am teaching myself Tibetan, trying to understand the Bardo Thodol. Buddhist art also fascinates me.









(click for sources)

(quoting myself)

You have way too much imagination? That’s like having way too much intelligence.

Ignostic Eclecticism

Despite my hostility toward definitions and their meaningful meaninglessness, it makes me quite content that I seem to have found a couple words that seem to define my religious perspective reasonably adequately - Ignostic Eclecticism!

(Wikipedia is such an incredible source of joy, thank you.) An atheist would say “I do not believe God exists”. An agnostic would say “I cannot know if God exists”. An ignostic would say “I cannot know if God exists if cannot know what is meant by “God exists”“.

But what would you call someone who would say “I cannot know whether I can know if God exists if can know neither what is meant by “God exists”, nor what is meant by “to know”“? And what would you call another someone who would say “I cannot know whether I can know what is meant by “I cannot know whether I can know if God exists if can know neither what is meant by “God exists”, nor what is meant by “to know”” if I cannot know what is meant by “meant”“? More comprehensibly, what would you call someone who would say “How could I possibly know whether I could know what is meant by anything at all (if I could not know whether I could know)^∞ what is meant by anything at all”? Most concisely, “(… uncertain certain…)^∞ uncertainty”.

And Eclecticism - I do not think it is in conflict with the concept (and/or definition) of Ignosticism to “use elements from multiple religions, applied philosophies, personal experiences or other texts and dogma to form beliefs and ideas, noting the similarities between existing systems and practices, and recognizing them as [internally] valid”.

Q&A

Q: "The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it." is this necessarily true? what about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or "awareness" of it? The field of mathematics, the numbers, concepts or sequences and series that infinitely exist, are we creating the patterns or do you think the patterns exist and we discover them?"

A: “The only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it.” Is this necessarily true? What about all of the concepts that seem exist prior to our discovery or “awareness” of it?

In short, something that exists now or in the past or future “exists” and therefore does not “not exist”. For something to “not exist at all” means that it never existed and never will exist, so math and the like that you’ve mentioned simply do not fall under this category. But of course that’s just another “definition” with zero relevance to “necessary truth” whatever that means, and right now I’m only arguing for the sake of the definition of “non-existence” I’ve created, which is in the grand search for meaning, supremely pointless, although not necessarily uninteresting.

On the other hand, whether mathematics, logic, and the like are “discovered” or “invented” is up to personal interpretation. There is no way of proving it, and since proof is based on logic, what it the point? Ever if we were to assume they were “discovered”, how do you know with certainty that they “existed” prior to discovery? The whole point is the existence of anything outside of awareness, whether in the past or future (or that would be non-sensical anyways because does time really exist outside of awareness anyways?), cannot be proved or disproved.

Perhaps you could try and distinguish things this way: that which has been “discovered” and exists in the present moment exists or does not exist with uncertainty in the past when it was not yet “discovered”. But in order for something to not exist definitively, it must not exist in any time, not in the past, now, or future, i.e. if can never “be discovered” because it does not exist, and in order for this to be true, no one must ever be able to think of if. So I suppose a slightly better way of trying to word it might be “the only way for something to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever thought of it or ever be capable of thinking of it.” - which includes not only its possibility of existing in the past but also in the future.

I guess some people argue that the only things that “exist” are the things that exist in the “present moment”, but I don’t know what that means because I have no idea what “present moment” means or if it’s possible to have an infinitesimally small increment of time or if time even exists, and the existence of time outside of human perception can neither be proved nor disproved so long as you’re perceiving as a human. And of course this once again becomes a debate about what the word “exist” is defined as and the many other problematic words with definitions that it comes with.

Q: Why is it that various geologically isolated cultures “created”/”discovered” the same abstract patterns?

A: How should I know? Maybe it’s a property of the brain? Maybe we’re all aliens? Maybe we’re just all the same person? Maybe those things existed somewhere in the universe before? Etc., etc., I could come up with as many theories as I desire, but none of them could be “proven”, could they? And even if they could, what is the point of “proof”? What is “proof”?

Sets, Fractals, Whatever You Want to Call Them

In summary: The set of “existence” contains the set of “observed existence”. The set of “observed existence” may include less elements than the set of existence, or it may include the same number of elements (i.e. they are the same set). We set of “observed existence” contains the set of “human perceived existence”, and likewise the contained set may contain equal or less elements than the set that contains it (as well as the set that contains that set). Exceedingly simple. 

The one and only question are these all sets that contain more subsets and are contained by broader sets, or are they all the same set? What is the set of all sets? Think Mandelbrot Fractals. It is just that simple, and that complex. The inclusion of fancy and irrelevant words just complicates the story in an unnecessary and meaningless way - that is, if you assume they’re just elements of (part of) a set.

But in the end, anything is just a way of trying to make sense of things - a theory, no more, and no less - please, please don’t confuse a theory with what is or could be, don’t you realize how meaningless and at the same time all-meaningful that is?

Q&A

Q: "Im no empiricist, very feasible field of thought, but believing that "all i ever see is all there will ever be" is again making the assumption that I have Godlike ability to manipulate the fate of realities existence. One's existence or human functioning may be contingent to the creation of an objective something. Without an objective ideal there is no progress. even within the conception of subjectivity there is the assumption that all is objectively subjective. So there may be meaning."

A: It’s ok, I don’t know what “empiricist” really means anyways, but I’m afraid you seem to be interpreting a lot of which was not meant to be stated in the words - another problem of language, I suppose, so let’s dissect this first:

“All i ever see is all there will ever be” - I think you might have gotten that from this “Once you observe something, it intrinsically changes from unobserved to observed, and unless I simply assume that such universes without my conscious observance do not exist, and thereby not think of then, then they cannot exist as universes without conscious awareness.” Let me clarify again that the only thing I assert about existence is that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that you do not perceive. This makes absolutely no assertion that nothing “can exist” outside of my perception, simply that it remains unfalsifiable.

What is meant by the second quotation (what I said previously) is simply this: Once I observe any given universe (whether it it through pure thought or physical manifestation or whatever), then conscious awareness exists in that universe. There was no attempted reference to anything about unobserved universes (which I emphasize again, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of). What I was trying to convey was that the only possible way for anything to “not exist at all” is for no one to have ever even thought of it, since once you think about it, it exists in the form of thought (in the realm of the universes of your mind or whatever you want to call it). Simply put, if something does not exist, then it must not be observed, but if something is not observed, that does not imply it does not exist, i.e. observed existence is a subset of existence. Or more efficiently, I said “if not B then not A”, which implies “if A then B” but not (as you seem to have assumed) ”if B then A” - simple first order logic.

The paradox does not like within the faulty application of logic though. This presents a different level of inquiry, that is, where does the set of logical applications lie? If it’s merely a set with in the set of all possible existence, why should I care whether its rules are applied correctly and whether this has any relevance to whether something exists or not? i.e., if I showed with logic a consistent theory of what I intend to call existing or not existing, then all I did was that - it has nothing to do with any further nature of existence, assuming that there is more to meaning than definitions and man-invented premises.

Ok, so now even if you did assume that I implied “if B then A” (if existence, then observance) why is that the equivalent of “making the assumption that I have Godlike ability to manipulate the fate of realities existence”? Why did this just become a discussion on a more superficial level of “ability”, “God”, “fate”, “reality”? The only thing we were talking about was the relation between “existence” and “observance” nothing else. Nowhere was there ever a mention of “human functioning” or any sort of limited human perception. Perhaps it’s just difficult to convey exactly what is meant by “observance”? All that it meant by that is the act of conscious perception, with no reference to human perception in particular, but only awareness.

Lastly, “one’s existence or human functioning may be contingent to the creation of an objective something […] even within the conception of subjectivity there is the assumption that all is objectively subjective.” - what does this mean? What is meant by “objectively subjective”? I feel like all that is really trying to be said is that there exist things outside of observance (a.k.a. conscious subjective perception). Yes, as implied by what I said in the first place (if not B then not A), existence is a set that includes the subset of observed existence (it is not true that if not A then not B).

Q&A

Q: "Elevated self importance in that the natural human tendency to relate all to one’s personal existence. Can you really assume your omnipresence? it seems that a major component to your conception of reality is the ability for there to be a manipulation in the space-time continuum or the fabric of some sense of reality as a result of human mental manipulation (hinging the reality of a phenomena {observed=unobserved} on the presence/lack thereof of your sense perception. also,The thing is about paradox’s is that they do not defy existence so much as they defy the reasoning made in the deductions prior to, My pointing out of the paradox was more of a means of making you question the conclusion in that single theory, can every possible chance (in the same multi-verse) exist at the same time? is there a line to be drawn on that separates the realms of reality if, by this reasoning, their existence contradicts? Non-existence is hinged on existence, you cannot have the concept of existence without the concept of non existence because with no contrast or polar opposite one can not know of either side. ( ex. We dont know what Cold is without measuring the amount of heat, vice versa, you dont know what light is without the existence of darkness) Parallelism may not be feasible because one can not know the outcome of said probability unless all other possibilities never happened. or to stretch even further, The existence of one universe may be hinged on the non existence of all others, or our knowledge or existence in one universe may be hinged on our non existence in others."

A: To clarify, all I assert is you cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything that is not consciously perceived by yourself. This has absolutely nothing to do with how or whether “human perception”, either sensory or mental is capable of experiencing whatever happens to exist. So no, I don’t believe “elevated self importance” according to how you’ve defined it is at all a key to what I posit - again, all I’m saying is whatever you do not “perceive” (through thought, imagination, comprehension or whatever other form of non-human perception that cannot be understood through human experience), its existence can neither be proved nor disproved. There is a big difference between simply “observing” something, that is, to consciously perceive it in one way or another and to “observe through human perception” - to assert that all that could ever exist lies within the set of the latter would obviously be short-sighted, and is not what I posit. In other words, by supposing that that which cannot be perceived cannot be proved or disproved to exist, it does not in any way exclude the possibility of experience that has not yet been experienced or comprehended previously.

You cannot know what light is without knowing darkness, but there is a very important distinction to make that involves “conscious” perception or awareness of what you are perceiving. That is, a person who has been blind from birth supposedly “perceives” darkness for his whole life, but you cannot say that only darkness exists for him and not light, not because “objectively” (whatever that means) darkness can only exist with light, but because he has never been consciously aware that this perception of absence of light was in fact a perception. For him, the existence or non existence of light can neither be proved nor disproved, but only understood theoretically and not experientially, and the problem of existence again becomes simply a matter of what you are willing to define as existence.

Your question - in a single theory, can every possible chance exist at the same time? - Why not? Is this not at the heart of quantum mechanics? In the absence of the act of “observation” (perception, consciousness, whatever you want to call it), all possible outcomes exist simultaneously, and yet upon observation the wave function collapses altogether leaving only a single outcome. It seems like the debate you are raising is only a matter of what to define as “reality” - only the collapsed wave function because it is not within the human realm of comprehension to understand what it means to have all possibilities exist simultaneously? Is this not the very supposition you were arguing against when you question the absurdity of “elevated self importance” in the set of all possible universes? On a grander scale, probability itself is just another human-comprehensible theory. What has whether or not something is consistent with “probability theory” as comprehended by man got anything to do with the vast sea of other possibilities that cannot be comprehended? Why should comprehension be a premise of perception?

Q&A

Q: "I'm not sure the sci-fi depiction of reality is feasible. What if there are billions of universes that exist in the theoretical realm, (the realm of perfection as plato called it, of the fibinacci sequences nature, and time) their existence is arguably just as real as ours, simply the collision of probability and predestination and manipulation by man(free will) determines the path of the reality we perceive subjectively."

A: What exactly is “the sci-fi depiction of reality”? Infinite universes already exist in the theoretical realm, and their existence as “real” depends entirely on your definition of “real” which becomes quite a meaningless distinction. Does “objective perception” have any meaning at all? To perceive is an inherently subjective act unless of course you suppose that all you perceive is all there will ever be, which can neither be proved nor disproved, but in the case that it’s true, there would be no distinction between objective and subjective, would there?

Q&A

Q: "It seems that you have this conception of elevated self importance in your multi-verse theory. Why is it that one's self has to permeate through all layers of the multiple universes? (multiple realities of one's self) In your theory it seems that parallelism and adjacent universes is key, but in a system of billions of different possibilities is parallelism even possible? ex. A "universe" where a multiverse exists, being parallel to a universe where there is nothing but singularity=a paradox."

A: What do you mean by “elevated self importance”? And what does “one’s self” mean? True, it would be absurd if my “identity as a person” had to permeate through all possible universes, but unless I am consciously aware in that universe, I cannot know that it exists. Of course I could suppose that there are infinite other universes where I am not consciously present, but once I think about the existence of that universe, am I not then present and part of that universe which exists in my mind? Once you observe something, it intrinsically changes from unobserved to observed, and unless I simply assume that such universes without my conscious observance do not exist, and thereby not think of then, then they cannot exist as universes without conscious awareness - obviously a paradox. But what does it mean to be a “paradox”? What is wrong or right about being a paradox? Why must being paradoxical entail non-existence?

In a system of “billions of different possibilities” but not infinite, how should I know whether parallelism is possible or what that even means? Why would it? Why wouldn’t it? But in an infinite set of possibilities, obviously it must.