30.4.12
Einstein Quote
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed."
28.4.12
Real and Imaginary People
Just because something is imaginary does not mean that it does not exist. It would seem absurd to say that thoughts do not exist even though we clearly experience them. Perhaps more surprisingly however, just because something is real does not mean that it exists either.*
People, grown-ups in particular, have lived in and experienced reality the way they have for so long that they forget, or don’t even understand how to question and interpret through questioning what they experience anymore. General consensus of belief makes this even more difficult.
Let’s say the people who we perceive in real life every day - friends, family, strangers on the street - we can all agree that they are “real”, that is, they “exist”. And now lets say I decide to create certain “imaginary” people in my mind, that I know are not “real”, but that I know exist because I can think about them. In both cases, I can attempt to communicate my thoughts with them and also receive responses, but in the real case, I hear a response concretely through sound waves, through my ears, and in the imaginary case, I hear a response through the form of “my thoughts”.
“My thoughts”. What does this mean? Yes, any lay person could simply dismiss all of this as ridiculous because I have obviously “made up” in my mind all of the responses from my imaginary people that I have created, and they are not the ones that are communicating with me; I am communicating with myself, they don’t exist. Sure, but what really is a “thought”? Yes, I perceive it through my head. Yes, it seems so be associated with intention, and I seem to be the underlying reason why they are appearing, but how do I know that? I perceive them, but how do I know that I’m not also just perceiving intention as well? That there is actually no underlying causal relationship between what I perceive as “intention” and what I perceive as a “thought”? So there is indeed no way of knowing whether these responses that I get from my imaginary people are from the imaginary people who do exist, or I “made them up”.
Now, there is a more fundamental difference between real and imaginary people that does not have to do with whether I can physically perceive them and their behavior or form of communication, and that is their own underlying intentions and thoughts. We perceive the behavior of real people, but we do not perceive their thoughts. We believe we may know what their thoughts and intentions are, but we do not and cannot perceive that.
But - it seems like we do and can perceive the thoughts and intensions of our imaginary people. We perceive their consciousness directly from the inside as if it were part of our own. It most certainly “exists” - we may not know how exactly it exists, but we know it does because we can directly perceive it, rather than just infer it. Well, shouldn’t this make the consciousness of imaginary people be more “real” than “real” people? And yet not at all - this is exactly what makes them imaginary. That is, you can only be “real” when you don’t directly perceive it. And when you do directly perceive it, you somehow… are no longer “real”.
So, which do I choose to be the “real”? Which one is really the “imaginary”? Obviously there is no answer because there is no “truth”, there is just what I believe in - again and again it’s the same answer, it’s so obvious, just because of the nature of unfalsifiable things… But how am I supposed to know what to believe? Well, I wouldn’t know. I wouldn’t know, again. I’d be worried if I knew, wouldn’t I? Yes, Indeed.
It is 5:08 am again, and I can never find myself living in the reality that “everyone else” does.
*We could go into the definition of existence and raise books and books of arguments, but they would only be arguments based on definition and language, devoid of actual meaning, so I don’t want to go into that.
People, grown-ups in particular, have lived in and experienced reality the way they have for so long that they forget, or don’t even understand how to question and interpret through questioning what they experience anymore. General consensus of belief makes this even more difficult.
Let’s say the people who we perceive in real life every day - friends, family, strangers on the street - we can all agree that they are “real”, that is, they “exist”. And now lets say I decide to create certain “imaginary” people in my mind, that I know are not “real”, but that I know exist because I can think about them. In both cases, I can attempt to communicate my thoughts with them and also receive responses, but in the real case, I hear a response concretely through sound waves, through my ears, and in the imaginary case, I hear a response through the form of “my thoughts”.
“My thoughts”. What does this mean? Yes, any lay person could simply dismiss all of this as ridiculous because I have obviously “made up” in my mind all of the responses from my imaginary people that I have created, and they are not the ones that are communicating with me; I am communicating with myself, they don’t exist. Sure, but what really is a “thought”? Yes, I perceive it through my head. Yes, it seems so be associated with intention, and I seem to be the underlying reason why they are appearing, but how do I know that? I perceive them, but how do I know that I’m not also just perceiving intention as well? That there is actually no underlying causal relationship between what I perceive as “intention” and what I perceive as a “thought”? So there is indeed no way of knowing whether these responses that I get from my imaginary people are from the imaginary people who do exist, or I “made them up”.
Now, there is a more fundamental difference between real and imaginary people that does not have to do with whether I can physically perceive them and their behavior or form of communication, and that is their own underlying intentions and thoughts. We perceive the behavior of real people, but we do not perceive their thoughts. We believe we may know what their thoughts and intentions are, but we do not and cannot perceive that.
But - it seems like we do and can perceive the thoughts and intensions of our imaginary people. We perceive their consciousness directly from the inside as if it were part of our own. It most certainly “exists” - we may not know how exactly it exists, but we know it does because we can directly perceive it, rather than just infer it. Well, shouldn’t this make the consciousness of imaginary people be more “real” than “real” people? And yet not at all - this is exactly what makes them imaginary. That is, you can only be “real” when you don’t directly perceive it. And when you do directly perceive it, you somehow… are no longer “real”.
So, which do I choose to be the “real”? Which one is really the “imaginary”? Obviously there is no answer because there is no “truth”, there is just what I believe in - again and again it’s the same answer, it’s so obvious, just because of the nature of unfalsifiable things… But how am I supposed to know what to believe? Well, I wouldn’t know. I wouldn’t know, again. I’d be worried if I knew, wouldn’t I? Yes, Indeed.
It is 5:08 am again, and I can never find myself living in the reality that “everyone else” does.
*We could go into the definition of existence and raise books and books of arguments, but they would only be arguments based on definition and language, devoid of actual meaning, so I don’t want to go into that.
Mystics and Truth
I am not religious or atheist, I do not believe in any inherent truth of the nature of reality. The only belief that I believe is that no belief can be proved or falsified as “the truth” of the nature of reality simply because of the closed-interior-view of conscious perception of reality. From within consciousness there is no such thing as an “objective truth” and so the only truth is the one that you believe in - whether you are consciously aware of this or not.
Most people hold a belief of reality which they believe is the truth that should be applied to all of reality, from the perspective of any given person. They go to great lengths to defend themselves and to try and convince others who are not in line with their own beliefs that they take to be “the truth”. But there can be no “truth”. It’s only a matter of what you believe in - that is your truth but supposing that it is or is not the truth is completely irrelevant.
It is difficult to communicate ideas about reality to people who have not thought about this and come to this “conclusion” for themselves. Sometimes it seems like no matter how hard you try and explain it, not only will they not understand, they will also believe that you are mistaken, and try everything they can to “correct” you. This is when you change the topic. You plant a seed, and people have to figure things out themselves. That’s the only way you can ever gain an understanding of anything.
Most people hold a belief of reality which they believe is the truth that should be applied to all of reality, from the perspective of any given person. They go to great lengths to defend themselves and to try and convince others who are not in line with their own beliefs that they take to be “the truth”. But there can be no “truth”. It’s only a matter of what you believe in - that is your truth but supposing that it is or is not the truth is completely irrelevant.
It is difficult to communicate ideas about reality to people who have not thought about this and come to this “conclusion” for themselves. Sometimes it seems like no matter how hard you try and explain it, not only will they not understand, they will also believe that you are mistaken, and try everything they can to “correct” you. This is when you change the topic. You plant a seed, and people have to figure things out themselves. That’s the only way you can ever gain an understanding of anything.
27.4.12
Imaginary People
They’re here and there and everywhere! No one ever believes they’re imaginary, because of course imaginary people aren’t going to believe that they’re not real - or maybe they do, they’ve known all along, they just act like they don’t for some reason. You look out the window, into the streets, in the classrooms, in the dining halls, and they are always there. Everyone sees them, but no one (no one? anyone? who? how?) knows who is real and who is not, who is alive, who is dead, who has died, who has not. They’re everywhere, and they seem to think they’re real. But I guess it doesn’t really matter what it seems like though, does it? The only thing that really matters is what I believe, what I’m able to believe, what I want to or would like to believe, for one thing. But what can I really believe?
Displaying again my Lights in the Rain photo dress from the Present Collection of •SPACE SHEEP• (collections inspired by the nature of time) by elliy.
Displaying again my Lights in the Rain photo dress from the Present Collection of •SPACE SHEEP• (collections inspired by the nature of time) by elliy.
Uncertainty in the Tomorrow
Yes, when you exist as a living person with a closed form of conscious perception, of course there is complete uncertainty in what happens after death. But what makes “death” so special? There is already complete uncertainty in what happens tomorrow (let alone death)! And obviously I don’t just mean there is uncertainty in what I might do tomorrow, who I might talk to, what I might eat, what might happen in my future, etc. (that would be a retarded discovery, wouldn’t it?) What I mean is, how do I know I’m going to wake up and perceive reality the same way I think I’ve always done through out my life? How would I know if I’m perceiving the world completely differently tomorrow if my perception in that way would by nature not allow me to be able to think about or experience in any way whatsoever “the way I perceive reality today”?
Well, I wouldn’t. That’s the whole point. The same way every child probably wonders how many times they have already died or lived, over and over again, how would you know? The trick is just that your memory gets reset every single time. But why? Why so arbitrary? Well, why not? How can you not be arbitrary? What is arbitrary? Well, why should anything have a reason to it? Isn’t that just the most arbitrary thing of all?
How should I know that yesterday and my whole life before I wasn’t living in a 2-dimensional world, but all of a sudden (quite arbitrarily), I woke up this morning, today, and I suddenly started perceiving the world in three dimensions? My brain would have been reset, so that everything of course makes sense, but that doesn’t mean it had to have made sense yesterday or tomorrow. Time always makes things strange like that. I’m not just talking about the problem of induction applied to physical things and the perception of them - whether or not the sun will still rise tomorrow (despite its rising for the duration of earth’s existence, or what I think is that anyways) is a lower order (i.e. less meta, haha) question than whether I will be perceiving the sun rising and everything in reality the same way I am today.
And there is definitely no reason why I should be arbitrarily choosing a “day” as my time frame for extraordinary changes in perception of, or simply, reality. I could say hour, minute, second, or whatever, but as you know, those are all arbitrary measurements of time anyways (don’t try and argue with me about the sun and Egyptians and all that non-metaphysical stuff that’s not what I’m talking about), and as far as I know, there isn’t an infinitesimal “smallest increment” of time (well, maybe in quantum mechanics, but QM has a lot to do with consciousness and conscious perception, so it gives us loops and stuff, and we’re not going to look into that too much at this point, but would be worthy in the future), so I may as well be just perceiving reality in wildly different ways throughout every nanosecond, every day, my life, my death, none of which were or will be the same. There would be no “constant” fixed way of perception of reality, it’s always changing, always will be changing anyways, but I wouldn’t know.
“I wouldn’t know.” That’s just always the answer, isn’t it? Well yeah, I think it would be problematic if it weren’t. “I think”? Haha
Well, I wouldn’t. That’s the whole point. The same way every child probably wonders how many times they have already died or lived, over and over again, how would you know? The trick is just that your memory gets reset every single time. But why? Why so arbitrary? Well, why not? How can you not be arbitrary? What is arbitrary? Well, why should anything have a reason to it? Isn’t that just the most arbitrary thing of all?
How should I know that yesterday and my whole life before I wasn’t living in a 2-dimensional world, but all of a sudden (quite arbitrarily), I woke up this morning, today, and I suddenly started perceiving the world in three dimensions? My brain would have been reset, so that everything of course makes sense, but that doesn’t mean it had to have made sense yesterday or tomorrow. Time always makes things strange like that. I’m not just talking about the problem of induction applied to physical things and the perception of them - whether or not the sun will still rise tomorrow (despite its rising for the duration of earth’s existence, or what I think is that anyways) is a lower order (i.e. less meta, haha) question than whether I will be perceiving the sun rising and everything in reality the same way I am today.
And there is definitely no reason why I should be arbitrarily choosing a “day” as my time frame for extraordinary changes in perception of, or simply, reality. I could say hour, minute, second, or whatever, but as you know, those are all arbitrary measurements of time anyways (don’t try and argue with me about the sun and Egyptians and all that non-metaphysical stuff that’s not what I’m talking about), and as far as I know, there isn’t an infinitesimal “smallest increment” of time (well, maybe in quantum mechanics, but QM has a lot to do with consciousness and conscious perception, so it gives us loops and stuff, and we’re not going to look into that too much at this point, but would be worthy in the future), so I may as well be just perceiving reality in wildly different ways throughout every nanosecond, every day, my life, my death, none of which were or will be the same. There would be no “constant” fixed way of perception of reality, it’s always changing, always will be changing anyways, but I wouldn’t know.
“I wouldn’t know.” That’s just always the answer, isn’t it? Well yeah, I think it would be problematic if it weren’t. “I think”? Haha
An Untitled Story
“You are an explorer. When you get there, you’ll notice all sorts of things, things that you’ve never ever seen or imagined before. You’ll learn and document them, find patterns, discover associations, and live as though you were everything you discover.”
“But that all sounds terribly difficult - how should I be able to find the patterns, learn them, and live them all at once?”
“Well, actually it’s not at all. In fact, usually people become so good at it that they forget that the patterns were once completely unusual, arbitrary, “meaningless”. They forget and live as though everything were always the way it is, as though there were nothing to question at all, nothing bewildering at all.”
“How odd. Why?”
“But that all sounds terribly difficult - how should I be able to find the patterns, learn them, and live them all at once?”
“Well, actually it’s not at all. In fact, usually people become so good at it that they forget that the patterns were once completely unusual, arbitrary, “meaningless”. They forget and live as though everything were always the way it is, as though there were nothing to question at all, nothing bewildering at all.”
“How odd. Why?”
25.4.12
Hello
The first thing I want to make clear is that while I obsessively engage in thoughts about “reality”, this is not all about what you may call "philosophy". Yes, what I think about every day, all the time, it’s most certainly “philosophical”, but in the sense that it will have little practical (“practical”, if you will) relevance to what you’d call “real life”. But I have absolutely no interest in raising “philosophical arguments” (in the academic sense, I guess) - to try and “prove” the validity or soundness of any given idea that happens to appear in my mind.
Arguments based on “definition” and “logic” as a way of interpreting “meaning” are a waste of time, and become either a debate of definition, which is just a problem of language, or circular at best (although there is most certainly nothing wrong with circular logic). I have no interest in perspectives that attempt to answer my questions on different, less than fundamental levels altogether due to differences in definition and interpretation. What I want is questions, not answers! Answers entail no understanding at all, they’re just clever (but uninformed) ways of avoiding the real questions, the real understanding, which is to not. You have the freedom to completely agree or disagree with me and/or think and/or believe that what I write is entirely ridiculous.
Arguments based on “definition” and “logic” as a way of interpreting “meaning” are a waste of time, and become either a debate of definition, which is just a problem of language, or circular at best (although there is most certainly nothing wrong with circular logic). I have no interest in perspectives that attempt to answer my questions on different, less than fundamental levels altogether due to differences in definition and interpretation. What I want is questions, not answers! Answers entail no understanding at all, they’re just clever (but uninformed) ways of avoiding the real questions, the real understanding, which is to not. You have the freedom to completely agree or disagree with me and/or think and/or believe that what I write is entirely ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)