Jolt Country

I guess the point is this...

We believe that consciousness is the tool with which we experience the world. In this, three things are implied. The subject/experiencer ("me"), the external world, and the consciousness allowing one to experience the other. Me and the world are considered the real, objective truths, and consciousness an abstract concept used to link the two.

This interpretation is taken, from a very early age, as fact.

In our actual experience, though, it is ONLY consciousness and its contents which are ever experienced. It is that which is the one truth we absolutely know, the one thing that truly ever exists, the only thing that is ever truly real. In fact, it is the "me" and the "world" which are the abstract concepts, and the consciousness itself which is the only real thing that has ever, or could ever exist.

And in fact, we cannot even say the there is consciousness and its contents, for such a separation can also never be found in reality. There is only ever the seamless appearance of consciousness. Ultimately, there is only ever that appearance which could ever have any fundamental reality to it. It is all that ever is.

That we discard that which truly exists as merely a means to an end in service of an imagined, unreal self in an imagined, unreal world is mass lunacy. The belief in the existence of these things is exactly as wild a leap of faith as the most fanatical religious devotee's utter assurance in the existence of his chosen God.

Get real.

And the "so what" is:

Your conviction in these utterly unfounded beliefs can be measured in direct proportion to the amount of psychological suffering you endure.

Now I know why they say ignorance is bliss. I didn't understand any of that, but I just finished a piece of birthday cake and I am happy. Did the cake go into the real me or some some ethereal version of me that only exists in my own consciousness? I don't know man, but I had a corner piece with a lot of icing and it was pretty dang good.

I'm not sure cake is the best solution to suffering for, ahh, some of the... some of the other users here.

Listen. If they ever prove that we're all living in some sort of computer simulation, or that nothing we're experiencing is actual reality, or that none of this exists, my head will explode.

And if my head's going to explode. I'm going out with a stomach full of cake.

Flack wrote:Listen. If they ever prove that we're all living in some sort of computer simulation, or that nothing we're experiencing is actual reality, or that none of this exists, my head will explode.

I appreciate your whimsical approach. However, saying things like this is going to make Paul think that's what I'm actually asserting, and then he's going to post a wall of text and legal precedent, and I think we've all had enough of that.

Words have consequences, Flack.

According to my bathroom scale, so did the cake. :/

Flack wrote:Listen. If they ever prove that we're all living in some sort of computer simulation, or that nothing we're experiencing is actual reality, or that none of this exists, my head will explode.

No, it won't and it shouldn't even matter.

I believe I gave a declaration of the absolute minimum things (axioms) that must be accepted.

1. The person exists (otherwise everything else is nonsense).
2. Our senses are more or less reliable (same).
3. There is a world around us (A. With nothing in your brain you would not have anything to imagine the world; B. Even if part of your brain was simulating the world that part would be that which exists).
4. We have to accept that world as real (if it is real and you violate its rules, e.g. step in front of a moving bus and you will be painfully injured or killed). The cost of guessing wrong is just too expensive.

Given the above, were axiom 4 wrong, then there are two possibilities. Someone shoved you in here involuntarily, or you chose to get on this ride.

So, the end of the ride comes up and you end up in "real" reality, having been forced. So now, just to spite the person who did this to you, you're going to commit self-immolation. Yeah, that's really going to punish them.

Or, you chose to take this ride, then it comes to the end and instead of either deciding you were disappointed with this ride, or you liked it and want to try it again, you're going to kill yourself.

I don't see either scenario as likely if you discover you exist afrer this world ends for you and discover this world was an immersive simulation.

Remember what Morpheus said in The Matrix: "What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply, electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

This one's on you, Flackeroonie.

pinback wrote:I appreciate your whimsical approach. However, saying things like this is going to make Paul think that's what I'm actually asserting, and then he's going to post a wall of text and legal precedent, and I think we've all had enough of that.

I don't know about your philosophy, but your prediction skills are spot on.

Flack wrote:

pinback wrote:I appreciate your whimsical approach. However, saying things like this is going to make Paul think that's what I'm actually asserting, and then he's going to post a wall of text and legal precedent, and I think we've all had enough of that.

I don't know about your philosophy, but your prediction skills are spot on.

Oh really? What legal precdent?

I made the argument very simply that he's talking nonsense. I note that nobody made any comment to say my reasoning or logic was wrong.

I follow a general rule espoused by Matt Dilahunty: I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible. Unless you like the idea of living in a world of fantasy I would think you would want to do the same.

You have the absolute right to believe anything you want or to express your opinions, but if you express something that can be evaluated as a fact there is a risk you will get called out on it where it can be shown to be provably in error.

Tdarcos wrote:I made the argument very simply that he's talking nonsense. I note that nobody made any comment to say my reasoning or logic was wrong.

That's because any attempts to introduce you to any new perspectives are completely futile, and probably have been since the 1970s. To speak to you on this topic would be akin to pressing a "PAUL WALL OF TEXT" activation button, and it's pointless.

Just when you think he's not paying attention...

Please to photoshop that Airplane sight gag picture and replace Ted Striker with a beloved assburger sufferer