quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr. Chips
Everything is metaphysical. All of our notions, all of our thoughts, all of our perceptions come via transducers known as senses and some juxtapositioning and synthesis based upon those observations and influences. No one has direct knowledge of universe. Science, properly addressed, deals only with confidence factors. IMHRO (In My Humble Relative Opinion), to the best of my knowledge, the debate as to whether or not a person or their perception of their self is wholely physical or requires some metaphysical component(s) is ridiculous. We are spirits in a spiritual world. A "thing" is only as it seems because a viewpoint that recognizes it is as it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactamundo.

In otherwords there is no such thing as the physical, it is all just thoughts in our heads. (When I say thoughts in our head it is used as a common expression and does not imply that exactly.)

What we label as physicality is a patterning of thought, so to speak.

See this simple fact and you are no longer bound by the limits of physicality.

It's all in your head....so to speak.

_______________________

ARGUMENT FOR MENTAL MONISM

In a nutshell: Terms that denote physical things are defined in terms of
each other (mass, volume, etc) in a closed discourse. Such terms do not
have any ostensive definition to real things. Terms that denote mental
things do have ostensive definitions (e.g. defining red qualia). Hence
physical terms fail to have any referential meaning, whereas mental
terms succeed in doing so. Therefore physical things are fictional and
do not really exist. On the other hand, the existence of mental things
is proven in every moment of awareness. Ergo reality is mental.
QED no. 1.

A good argument but how do you explain the ostensively defined pain that comes from kicking an inferred rock?

Or do you mean that the physical does exist, but that it is ultimately epiphenomenal on consciousness?

If everything is metaphysical, a kind of software, run on the "processor" of consciousness, how come that there a not any mistakes? Death could represent such a mistake, but it seems too structural. I would prefere a kind of mistakes where ag. a car on the streat dissapears for a moment and then it apeares again but in a different collor. This shortage of foults seem to support the real reality theory, don't you think?

I agree that we can only speak in terms of 'confidence factors,' but our confidence factors have gotten pretty freaking big. Once a confidence factor is big enough it becomes almost indistinguishable from certainty, and it becomes absurd and foolish to doubt it.

So there is not physical reality? In that case, how do you think? Are you an energy being, wihtout any physical reality? How can I verify that you have thoughts? So, if the physical is alll in our heads, I look forwards to seeing you walk through walls and fly.

but how do you explain the ostensively defined pain that comes from kicking an inferred rock? (canute)

hallucinations (or dreams) can provide an vivid experience without the need for a material substrate?

If everything is metaphysical, a kind of software, run on the "processor" of consciousness, how come that there a not any mistakes? (procop)

psi phenomena comes to mind. 10 thousand year old yogis, bermuda triangle, ghosts, blah

I look forwards to seeing you walk through walls and fly.

there is a rap about the functions and purpose of the "metamind" in the link below.

lloyd (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/pa00.htm)

infinitethoughts (lifegazer?)

In otherwords there is no such thing as the physical, it is all just thoughts in our heads.

Using your own logic, it's not possible for you to construct an argument against the physical - an argument requires the physical in order to be valid.

LOL

http://www.supremebeing.com/bucky2.html

what is that?

I'm not sure, just exploring it myself, and your link. Interesting stuff, ty.

Originally posted by Canute
A good argument but how do you explain the ostensively defined pain that comes from kicking an inferred rock?

Or do you mean that the physical does exist, but that it is ultimately epiphenomenal on consciousness?

Consciousness creates the parameters it calls "physicallness".

By itself the physical doen'st exist.

Originally posted by ProCop
If everything is metaphysical, a kind of software, run on the "processor" of consciousness, how come that there a not any mistakes? Death could represent such a mistake, but it seems too structural. I would prefere a kind of mistakes where ag. a car on the streat dissapears for a moment and then it apeares again but in a different collor. This shortage of foults seem to support the real reality theory, don't you think?

You are assuming the "processor" has something "outside" itself to compare to, and hence make a "mistake". What I was talking about is, it is a function of awareness to think a certain way, and this way of thinking then creates this seemingly "solid" world.

Any basic book on quantum theory will tell you the world's not solid.

Originally posted by guthrie
So there is not physical reality? In that case, how do you think? Are you an energy being, wihtout any physical reality? How can I verify that you have thoughts? So, if the physical is alll in our heads, I look forwards to seeing you walk through walls and fly.

We are energy beings that --thru the way we think, create the illusion of a solid reality.

Reality is not solid.

Originally posted by (Q)
infinitethoughts (lifegazer?)

In otherwords there is no such thing as the physical, it is all just thoughts in our heads.

Using your own logic, it's not possible for you to construct an argument against the physical - an argument requires the physical in order to be valid.

Nooooo. You keep thinking I'm someone else.

Maybe I'll start doing the same thing to you. Q (Tony?)

---
Sure you can, if you truly believe in your mind, that the "physical" exists.

"I look forwards to seeing you walk through walls and fly. "

Hmmm, think doors and airplanes.

Think I'm just taking you too literally? We experience and realize physical relationships, certain laws and restrictions on our manifestation in order to make the game worth while. We have chosen a universe of apparent immutable law because there is no place for concepts like freedom, compassion, success or failure in a universe where anything goes.

Amazes me how people can not get it. I think I understand though. I used to have this hard and purposeless sense of reality that made me fodder for the machinery that cajoles and fools many into being the cannon fodder for the little minds who find so-called physical wealth and power as their unquestioned goals. My break with that lump of coal in my brain started when I realized that truth is ultimately beyond words.

In a spiritual universe spiritual quests are what its all about. We are here to feel. Check out that URL I post above. I am enjoying the music there. Took me on a bit of a roller coaster when he brought in concepts I could not agree with and then quite quickly clarified things in ways that make sense to me. Nice to see I'm not alone. Feels good.

Truth can be quite enticing.

I feel there is a perfectly good argument to say that consciousness gives rise to the physical (I believe it anyway) but it doesn't seem to make sense to say that the physical isn't there.

Infinitethoughts - You might like to check out the Buddhist view - that the phsyical is perfectly real but that at heart it is empty of anything noumenal.

In western philosophy this idea surfaces in the well known 'problem of attributes'. This problem concerns what the phsyical really is. If you take away all the attributes (appearances) of an object one by one then by time you finish there is nothing left. It's bemused philosophers for a long time, but is solved by accepting that the physical is nothing but appearances.

In Roger McGinns autobiography (recommended) he recounts being a teenager and sitting trying to figure out what a letter box (old fashioned English kind) is once you take away its redness, roundness, hardness, etc. He couldn't see how to do it, and most philsophers struggle with this problem.

That all things are inherently empty is is very close to your view but logically stronger, since it doesn't deny the physical, just makes it dependent. It also allows your view that consciousness creates the physical world, but by a very long term shared evolutionary process.

Why should (simple) consciousness percieve a difficult world?Why it is not like a baby in a woomb? (because it comes against a structure (mental or physical - doesn't matther) which is more difficult than itself) You can ignore the sizes and shapes in "real" world in order to simplify the experience to the low level of consciusness. Consciousness reads the world and understands only partially what it reads: possibly the book is longer than the capacity to remember it: endless return of the same where forgotten old is called new.

Yes, ProCop, which is what I was getting about in the thread that led to this one http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30463

All that is needed for a next moment is that conditions are similar enough to be recognized as the next moment. It doesn't actually have to be any kind of some physically consequential thread :) . Consideration of such would bring us to look at the idea of "free will" as a possibility.

Originally posted by infinitethoughts
We are energy beings that --thru the way we think, create the illusion of a solid reality.

Reality is not solid.

I hate to break it to you, but if we are beings of energy then there is still quite distinctly a physical world, as energy is physical!

The idea that there is no physical world is absurd, in such a world there are no constants, and no externalities, take a look around you and you'll see that these things quite clearly exist. Also anything at all would be possable, we could all bust up with some mad kung-fu like Neo, and fly around and shit, but we can't do that either. Also any common point of reference would be next to impossable. Luckily reality forces us into a common frame of refference and so communicating with and understanding one another becomes possable.

1) First I must dispose of time as co-existing element of space. Imagine a film box in which a role of film is rolled in. The movie which it contains is made from the beginning to the end and is now printed in plastic and will not change. You cannot see it all at once – but if you follow the tape with a small light (your brain?) all the way through you will experience the movie. You need time for that experience, but the movie itself doesn’t need time. It is ready and done.
2) Imagine a box of some size which is densly filled with miniscule points.They are structured similarly as the cells of my computer screen but they have the third dimension of depth. The box is now a (3d) structured quantity of points. These points are capable of taking on different qualities similarly to the computer screen cells which can take on different colors. Imagine the movie from the previous paragraph in 3D version.
3) Translate this image of 3D box to include the Universe.
4) Step yourself into this box en mingle with the points there. In such a way you wil became an actor in this movie. Your body has translated itself into points, and your mind watches (the movie) the Universe from the inside: your are the part of its structure which is made from the points.
5) Points can take on any form possible (in the way the mind experiences them).
6) The structure of points contains all possibilities of what CAN happen. Points are the vehicle for these happenings and mind experience these happennings.
7) Imagine the movie is a DvD (not analog but digital). You actulaly don`t need the points for your world to happen. There is a sense giving sequence of two numbers: 0 and 1 (encoding a POSSIBLE world like a DvD movie). Such sequence of numbers (a numerical string) can exist without space and time. There is then a THEORETICAL universe to be experienced as real (in a digital to analoog proces).
8) Mind reads the strings of numbers.
9) Mind is a string too. (String reads string)

"Hmmm, think doors and airplanes.

Think I'm just taking you too literally? We experience and realize physical relationships, certain laws and restrictions on our manifestation in order to make the game worth while. We have chosen a universe of apparent immutable law because there is no place for concepts like freedom, compassion, success or failure in a universe where anything goes."

Of course, airplanes and doors are proof of a physical world, else what holds you up in the sky, and why do you need doors?

Once upon a time there was this totally omniscient being, at least relative to our perspective. There was no surprise, no adventures, no wonder, nothing new for this being for it knew enough to know what each new moment would bring. It knew enough to keep death totally at bay. This existence was a totally boring and meaningless tedium. Good and bad were always indistinct as one required the other. There were no deeds to do, no emotions to feel. In order to continue to exist, to give itself purpose and direction this being spread itself across the universe with a set of conditions that made evolution a happenstance. Then, as thinking life evolved, it had surprise. It had things to learn. If had often clear ideas of what was good and bad despite the propaganda machinery that coevolved in the beginning of its civilization that fostered and fed upon preservation of ignorance and servitude. It set itself the task to learn all from scratch again with some of the trickiest scenarios you could possibly imagine replete with alienated and existential diehards who denied their central position, who denied the sanctity of life and consciousness, within their own universe.

We have doors and airplanes because this is my universe and I have chosen it to be that way.

tho the scenario is commonplace, it sounds like another bible in the making

No way. Nothin' bible black here.

If mental monism is as you suggest, that the only reality is that of the mind then this makes the physical also a reality of the mind. As solid as it is it is still a construct of the mind.

Why then do we share so much together this construct called reality?

Is it simply that we share the same mind but from a different perspective allowing us the subjective nature of our existance.

In the main we all think about reality in similar ways only our individual perpectives ( locations etc) offer diversity of thought.

May I suggest that all of us have a mental monistic state that in the main we share.

Multiplistic mental monoism ( a mouthful for sure)

The point I think I really wanted to get across is that argurments about the solidness of reality are really moot.

Solid it is. This is true. A construct of the mind. This is true.

The solid quality of the physical is not diminished just because it is a shared mental construct.

Why should it be less than it is? Physical. solid, real, illusional maybe but by golly it is one hell of an illusion and a very very clever one at that.

Ah, YES! Kind of tricky the way society is often counter to the idea of sharing. I think this begins to explain why this "multiplistic mental monoism" is so hard to grasp for many.

In the final analysis, success depends on how well we share not on how much we own.

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/moody-blues/95741.html

Mr Chips

I liked your account of creation. But how do you explain where the original being came from?

Evolution

Evolution from what?

First of all this is all hypothetical. Can't be proved, can't be disproved. The idea is of a cycle. From one to many to one to many ad infinitum.

Originally posted by Mystech
I hate to break it to you, but if we are beings of energy then there is still quite distinctly a physical world, as energy is physical!

The idea that there is no physical world is absurd, in such a world there are no constants, and no externalities, take a look around you and you'll see that these things quite clearly exist. Also anything at all would be possable, we could all bust up with some mad kung-fu like Neo, and fly around and shit, but we can't do that either. Also any common point of reference would be next to impossable. Luckily reality forces us into a common frame of refference and so communicating with and understanding one another becomes possable.

"Energy is physical".
Interesting comment but false.

But if we follow you're line of reasoning it leads to the physical being aprori, as coming first. If that's the case then thought does not exist, if thoughts don't exist, then you don't exist.

Any argument for the physical leads to the demise of a being, which curiously enough seems to be the objective of this reality.

Originally posted by infinitethoughts
Consciousness creates the parameters it calls "physicallness".

By itself the physical doen'st exist.

:rolleyes:

You can convince yourself of whatever you like, but you should probably ask: Is it reasonable?

I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that the physical world doesn't exist. If nothing else, the illusion must be given credence.

I believe a much more profound statement is: By itself the physical has no meaning.

And of course consciousness creates parameters it calls physicallness or however you'd like to put it, but that doesn't mean that the physical doesn't exist.

If you don't avoid car coming head on at 100MPH, your illusion still ends. I'd the peeps gotta give physicality its props damnit. Ultimately if or if not it is an illusion is completely inconsequential.

Right.
Think of the internet. Everyone is "here" but not "here".
Wait until VR becomes the absolute norm, and everyone is at their computer, but at the same time inside a "physical" reality.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
If mental monism is as you suggest, that the only reality is that of the mind then this makes the physical also a reality of the mind. As solid as it is it is still a construct of the mind.

Why then do we share so much together this construct called reality?

Is it simply that we share the same mind but from a different perspective allowing us the subjective nature of our existance.

In the main we all think about reality in similar ways only our individual perpectives ( locations etc) offer diversity of thought.

May I suggest that all of us have a mental monistic state that in the main we share.

Multiplistic mental monoism ( a mouthful for sure)

The point I think I really wanted to get across is that argurments about the solidness of reality are really moot.

Solid it is. This is true. A construct of the mind. This is true.

The solid quality of the physical is not diminished just because it is a shared mental construct.

Why should it be less than it is? Physical. solid, real, illusional maybe but by golly it is one hell of an illusion and a very very clever one at that.

/"Energy is physical".
/Interesting comment but false.

Energy is a concept. The physicality of that concept can end you.

/But if we follow you're line of reasoning it leads to the physical being aprori, as coming first.

I don't see what's wrong this that.

/If that's the case then thought does not exist, if thoughts don't exist, then you don't exist.

I believe that short sighted on two accounts.

So maybe you're merely a physical amalgum of chemicals. Does that make you any less real? Some would say it makes you more real.

I believe that mind is abstract and abstract is in and of itself another spacial dimension... inward. If true, you still exist.

So on either account you have not shown how my thoughts don't exist.

/Any argument for the physical leads to the demise of a being, which curiously enough seems to be the objective of this reality.

That's quite a bold statement which I believe to be wrong. That is NOT an objective truth of this reality.

Originally posted by wesmorris
:rolleyes:

You can convince yourself of whatever you like, but you should probably ask: Is it reasonable?

I don't think that it's reasonable to believe that the physical world doesn't exist. If nothing else, the illusion must be given credence.

I believe a much more profound statement is: By itself the physical has no meaning.

And of course consciousness creates parameters it calls physicallness or however you'd like to put it, but that doesn't mean that the physical doesn't exist.

If you don't avoid car coming head on at 100MPH, your illusion still ends. I'd the peeps gotta give physicality its props damnit. Ultimately if or if not it is an illusion is completely inconsequential.

Is it reasonable to believe the physical is all there is?

You see the illusion you are no longer bound by the erroneous views. Simple as that.

/Is it reasonable to believe the physical is all there is?

That is not a valid conclusion from my points.

/You see the illusion you are no longer bound by the erroneous views. Simple as that.

I disagree, simple as that.

In other words, it's not as simple as that. I see your point and to an extent it is valid, but I disagree you have failed to recognize what I've pointed out. Basically, the important aspect here is to realize that the idea of "illusion" is ultimatley pointless.

You have input. You process your input to the best of your ability and output your actions. Within this cycle you are bound to the circumstance of your "illusion" as you put it. Tell a child with cancer that it's just an illusion.

Originally posted by wesmorris
/"Energy is physical".
/Interesting comment but false.

Energy is a concept. The physicality of that concept can end you.

/But if we follow you're line of reasoning it leads to the physical being aprori, as coming first.

I don't see what's wrong this that.

/If that's the case then thought does not exist, if thoughts don't exist, then you don't exist.

I believe that short sighted on two accounts.

So maybe you're merely a physical amalgum of chemicals. Does that make you any less real? Some would say it makes you more real.

I believe that mind is abstract and abstract is in and of itself another spacial dimension... inward. If true, you still exist.

So on either account you have not shown how my thoughts don't exist.

/Any argument for the physical leads to the demise of a being, which curiously enough seems to be the objective of this reality.

That's quite a bold statement which I believe to be wrong. That is NOT an objective truth of this reality.

"So maybe you're merely a physical amalgum of chemicals. Does that make you any less real? Some would say it makes you more real."

Choice.
If you are a mixture of chemicals...no choice.

"/Any argument for the physical leads to the demise of a being, which curiously enough seems to be the objective of this reality.

That's quite a bold statement which I believe to be wrong. That is NOT an objective truth of this reality."

You die, don't you?

"So on either account you have not shown how my thoughts don't exist."

That was not my argument.

wesmorris, you seem to be implying that something that could cause one to die is proof that the physical world is real. Have you ever known death? I think you are only working with conjecture and not knowledge. I do believe we can witness the death of others but since I have never witnessed my own death, I can not in all reasonableness and logic, in a purely scientific manner, consider my death to myself as a given.

/Choice.
/If you are a mixture of chemicals...no choice.

Why? Why can't a mixture of chemicals have choice?

/You die, don't you?

I suppose I am in the process of doing so, sure, but I'm not dead yet. I don't see your point.

"So on either account you have not shown how my thoughts don't exist."

/That was not my argument.

But you said: "If that's the case then thought does not exist, if thoughts don't exist, then you don't exist."

Are you lying or confused? I suppose it's me?

/wesmorris, you seem to be implying that something that could cause one to die is proof that the physical world is real.

then you miss the point. it is merely proof that if or if it is not an illusion is completely pointless. it does not matter whatsoever if it is or is not illusion, you are still subject to it.

/Have you ever known death?

I woke up one morning convinced that dreams are equivalent to death. I don't believe that now, but did I know death? I have seen death, does that mean I know death? I am not dead nor have I been personally, no.

/I think you are only working with conjecture and not knowledge.

And I think you're judging what I'm saying before really understanding what I'm saying.

/I do believe we can witness the death of others but since I have never witnessed my own death, I can not in all reasonableness and logic, in a purely scientific manner, consider my death to myself as a given.

Then why don't you go jump off the empire state building with no parachute? Would you like to explain to me about how you fear your illusion?

wesmorris: "then you miss the point. it is merely proof that if or if it is not an illusion is completely pointless. it does not matter whatsoever if it is or is not illusion, you are still subject to it."

Yes, I find that I am having a difficult time understanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps if you either get some more schooling in grammar and punctuation you could make yourself more clear. It's possible that you have had such education and that what is happening here is that for some reason this subject touches you in a way that causes your emotions to flair and cloud your abilities to communicate.

If I were to attempt to jump off a building, I'd probably get stuck in the rigging of a biplane that was licensed for some spectacular movie to fly close to the building and end up in a hospital with great pain for a great deal of time. Such possibilities are enough for me to want to avoid attempting suicide. I fear pain, at least long term pain, for myself and for others.

/Perhaps if you either get some more schooling in grammar and punctuation you could make yourself more clear.

Perhaps you can avoid being a pompous ass? If you can read you should be able to follow what I said even though it's a bit of a grammatical mess.

/If I were to attempt to jump off a building, I'd probably get stuck in the rigging of a biplane that was licensed for some spectacular movie to fly close to the building and end up in a hospital with great pain for a great deal of time. Such possibilities are enough for me to want to avoid attempting suicide. I fear pain, at least long term pain, for myself and for others.

What do you care, it's just an illusion right? :rolleyes:

The point is quite simple: The issue of "physicality being an illusion" is wholly moot, as you cannot escape your dependence on that which you'd consider physical.

You have nothing else to go by but your input. If you are in the matrix, you don't know you're in the matrix. As such, the illusion or lack thereof is inconsequential. You go by your input. If you have reason to suspect you are in the matrix, you're still in the matrix and until you can show otherwise, the illusion IS reality. So it is unreasonable to attempt to separate them, as you simply lack the means until you are provided them.. can you follow?

So while you're in a sense correct that "all is illusion", that's really a misnomer because "illusion" is moot. If "the physical" can end you, then it's real enough that it would be unreasonable to consider it illusion.

You have to go by your best impression as to what IS real. If you decide that it's not real to shoot yourself in the head.. well, 'nuff said.

Maybe I'm overdoing it here. It's really very very simple it's just so subtle that people tend to miss it. Hell I had it for a second and now it's gone. *thinks*

You cannot separate yourself from your experience, as YOU are IT. You can think it whatever you like, but it is still you. Illusion, reality, blah blah blah. Your experience is nonetheless what it is AND apparently subject to limitations similar to that of all the other experiences that apparently exist apart from you. There seeems to be a common medium. Regardless of its nature, it's commonly referred to as "the physical". If you classify this common medium as "an illusion" it doesn't keep you from dying from cancer or whatever stuff happens beyond your means of control.

Originally posted by wesmorris
/Choice.
/If you are a mixture of chemicals...no choice.

Why? Why can't a mixture of chemicals have choice?

/You die, don't you?

I suppose I am in the process of doing so, sure, but I'm not dead yet. I don't see your point.

"So on either account you have not shown how my thoughts don't exist."

/That was not my argument.

But you said: "If that's the case then thought does not exist, if thoughts don't exist, then you don't exist."

Are you lying or confused? I suppose it's me?


1) When you mix chemicals together, do you create a self aware being?

2) I said "If thats the case your thoughts......." to a situation where ONLY the physical would exist, which I believe you were impying.

I'm noticing you sort of scramble ideas a little bit ??

/1) When you mix chemicals together, do you create a self aware being?

No, but maybe if you order it in a particular fashion.. ? I'm saying you don't know. I don't either. It's not impossible nor wholly unlikely as far as I can tell.

/2) I said "If thats the case your thoughts......." to a situation where ONLY the physical would exist, which I believe you were impying.

I never said "only the physical exists" or implied it. I'm saying that your quesiton is moot.

I'm noticing you sort of scramble ideas a little bit ??

Hehe, I'm sure it can seem that way but it's perfectly clear to me damnit. :)

wesmorris, if you must resort to name calling, I pity you and find reason to not consider your posts of much merit.

You definitely appear to find this subject quite alarming and personal. Could you explain why this bugs you so much that you lose the ability to seek communication and resort to confrontation?

Call me curious. I have my suspicions. Are you a used car salesman, maybe an arms dealer or some other occupation that strives to take advantage of others' ignorance?

then you miss the point. it is merely proof that if or if it is not an illusion is completely pointless. it does not matter whatsoever if it is or is not illusion, you are still subject to it.

what is subject to death? your physical body that is also an illusion or that which is doing the observing? doesnt it also follow that this imagined death is also an illusion?

Originally posted by wesmorris
/Perhaps if you either get some more schooling in grammar and punctuation you could make yourself more clear.

Perhaps you can avoid being a pompous ass? If you can read you should be able to follow what I said even though it's a bit of a grammatical mess.

/If I were to attempt to jump off a building, I'd probably get stuck in the rigging of a biplane that was licensed for some spectacular movie to fly close to the building and end up in a hospital with great pain for a great deal of time. Such possibilities are enough for me to want to avoid attempting suicide. I fear pain, at least long term pain, for myself and for others.

What do you care, it's just an illusion right? :rolleyes:

The point is quite simple: The issue of "physicality being an illusion" is wholly moot, as you cannot escape your dependence on that which you'd consider physical.


You have nothing else to go by but your input. If you are in the matrix, you don't know you're in the matrix. As such, the illusion or lack thereof is inconsequential. You go by your input. If you have reason to suspect you are in the matrix, you're still in the matrix and until you can show otherwise, the illusion IS reality. So it is unreasonable to attempt to separate them, as you simply lack the means until you are provided them.. can you follow?

So while you're in a sense correct that "all is illusion", that's really a misnomer because "illusion" is moot. If "the physical" can end you, then it's real enough that it would be unreasonable to consider it illusion.

You have to go by your best impression as to what IS real. If you decide that it's not real to shoot yourself in the head.. well, 'nuff said.

Maybe I'm overdoing it here. It's really very very simple it's just so subtle that people tend to miss it. Hell I had it for a second and now it's gone. *thinks*

You cannot separate yourself from your experience, as YOU are IT. You can think it whatever you like, but it is still you. Illusion, reality, blah blah blah. Your experience is nonetheless what it is AND apparently subject to limitations similar to that of all the other experiences that apparently exist apart from you. There seeems to be a common medium. Regardless of its nature, it's commonly referred to as "the physical". If you classify this common medium as "an illusion" it doesn't keep you from dying from cancer or whatever stuff happens beyond your means of control.


Ok, now that was clear what you said.

So you think the issue of the physical being an illusion is a moot point?

Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

I'll leave it at that.

/wesmorris, if you must resort to name calling, I pity you and find reason to not consider your posts of much merit.

Fuck you.

/You definitely appear to find this subject quite alarming and personal.

No it's not alarming, I just understand. I enjoy understanding and attempt to enhance my understanding via communicating with the other humans.

/Could you explain why this bugs you so much that you lose the ability to seek communication and resort to confrontation?

You're pretending you're not acting like a pompous ass. Stop it, be real and we can have a nice conversation. Until then, fuck you.

/Call me curious. I have my suspicions.

Why do I care?

/Are you a used car salesman, maybe an arms dealer or some other occupation that strives to take advantage of others' ignorance?

LOL.

What is wrong with you man? ROFLMAO. What makes you think I'm trying to take advantage of someone's ignorance? I did have the afterthought that maybe english is a second language for you and considered it, but then decided I hadn't been harsh enough to warrent it. Hehe. Punkass bitch, get your shit together, stop sucking yourself off and let's converse.

Pardon, but if you have some actual input to the conversation at hand we might make some progress, until then I will call you names and generally insult you, because you're acting like a stupid bitch.

Originally posted by infinitethoughts
Ok, now that was clear what you said.

So you think the issue of the physical being an illusion is a moot point?

Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

I'll leave it at that.

In that case, I hope your knowledge about your illusion keeps it from prematurely ending. I'll leave it at that.

:rolleyes:

/what is subject to death?

You are, as far as can be distinguished by the evidence around you. Note that practicality requires this limitation. I'm not even sayign that there's no afterlife, or that it isn't some sort of illusion, but your knowledge is inherently limited to your exprience (including sprituality, imagination, blah blah).

/your physical body that is also an illusion or that which is doing the observing?

Okay so kill yourself.. ? I mean if it's just an illusion why not eh? Might as well get on with it!

/doesnt it also follow that this imagined death is also an illusion?

Well sure unless it isn't.

Originally posted by infinitethoughts
Ok, now that was clear what you said.

So you think the issue of the physical being an illusion is a moot point?

Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

I'll leave it at that.

I guess I won't leave it at that because I had the following thought and felt compelled to share:

I assure you my brother, to all practical extents the world around you IS NOT an illusion. I think the whole death thing is a pretty practical example of this. Further, it doesn't matter if it ISN'T because you're not stupid enough to die for this argument (in other words, the only way you can prove that you're right is to die and then you could only potentially prove it to YOU, I would still be here, thinking "man I can't believe that dude killed himself to make a stupid point and turned out to be wrong" (as I wouldn't know the results of the experiment from your perspective as you'd have no means by which to communicate your results to me).

In all likelihood though, your impression of reality is an illusion.

You are, as far as can be distinguished by the evidence around you.

you fail to comprehend that topic in this thread begins by rejecting a materialistic ontology

Note that practicality requires this limitation. I'm not even sayign that there's no afterlife, or that it isn't some sort of illusion, but your knowledge is inherently limited to your exprience (including sprituality, imagination, blah blah).

tell that to a yogi or any other that claims paranormal attributes. an individual's inabilty to realize an "assumed" or "idealized" potential can hardly be the defining paradigm to the nature of being. there is a large body of lit that refers to the mystical side of being. one's inabilty to comprehend this angle says absolutely nothing about its validity

Okay so kill yourself.. ? I mean if it's just an illusion why not eh? Might as well get on with it!

ah, the time honored comeback to this particular line of thought. do you not understand that even an immaterial world and its various expressions have a rap associated with it? (see chips "account of creation")

Well sure unless it isn't.

heh
in that case...on with the discussion

/you fail to comprehend that topic in this thread begins by rejecting a materialistic ontology

I know it seems that way, but it's not. Let's assume I'm speaking about "the illusion" eh? How about the illusion of someone starving themselves to death? How about the beholder of the illusion starving themselves to illusionary death.

/tell that to a yogi or any other that claims paranormal attributes.

Uhm, okay?

/an individual's inabilty to realize an "assumed" or "idealized" potential can hardly be the defining paradigm to the nature of being.

I don't follow you.

/there is a large body of lit that refers to the mystical side of being. one's inabilty to comprehend this angle says absolutely nothing about its validity.

Where did I imply otherwise?

/ah, the time honored comeback to this particular line of thought. do you not understand that even an immaterial world and its various expressions have a rap associated with it? (see chips "account of creation")

well sure. I understand the whole out but that's a panzy route. you either have the balls to back up your shit or you don't. you either believe that it's an illusion or you don't right? either that or you find the question moot. see why I'm there? I suppose you can remain undecided or change your mind back and forth but if you're going to take a position.. take one. Mine is that the question is moot. I think I have a pretty strong argument as to why. I do have problems trying to express it directly sometimes though.

/heh
/in that case...on with the discussion

whatcha got?

an almost empty bag of weed

bummer

Originally posted by spookz
an almost empty bag of weed

unfortunately, mine has been empty for several days. this is most disconcerting.

Wes for once I absolutely agree with you.....almost:D

Seems to me the problem is with the word 'illusion'. Some people use it to mean 'not really there' and some mean 'epiphenomenal'.

Most people here, when they call the physical world an illusion, seem to mean epiphenomenal. Nobody suggests, as far as I can tell, that it doesn't exist or it isn't real, just that it is not fundamental.

All that is being said is that donuts are not as fundamental as quarks. Donuts are, in a sense, an illusion, since human beings made them up out of their imagination, and if humans became extinct it would be as if donuts had never existed. Quarks, however, make us up. Perhaps they would go on existing without us.

The idealist argument is that consciousness creates everything else, that everything is epiphenomenal on consciousness. But everything else is still completely 'real', at least as far as anything can be said to be real. If the physical world wasn't real then nobody could claim that consciousness made it up.

There are grey areas though. Without consciousness there would be no such things as sounds, colours, plans, beauty, arguments, knowledge, pleasure, baseball, insurance, sciuk, science and philosophy, mysticism, theism, wheat, fiction, the stock market, the war in Iraq or you and me. Does this mean that these things don't really exist? I suppose it depends on your point of view, (which also wouldn't exist without consciousness). These things are all dependent for their existence on the existence of consciousness, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

I think in my view that say all consciousness ceased through out the universe the universe would also cease to exist quarks and all.

Multiplistic mental monoism suggest this as a reality of consciousness.

The universe and the donut both exist only for consciousness at a collective or shared level.

A donut here is able to be witnessed if the technology permitted also from the "other side" of the universe in that the donut exists as a shared reality for all conscious beings or life.

Approximately half the universe is asleep thus unconscious (
assumption based on sperical planets thoughout)

If the whole universe was asleep at the same time I would suggest that there would be nothing to wake up to. ( although maybe an over statement)

The universe is dependent on consciousness to exist. And consciousness is dependent on the universe to exist. IN that with mental monoism the universe is actually a reflection of your self or your mind.

Multiplistic monoism is a multiplist reflection of ourselves.

The other thing is that we often regard the word illusion to suggest some sort of fraud or trick thus diminishing the strength of reality and this I think is in need of a shift. It is no fraud

Speaking of donuts, I've drawn up a simple diagram of universe as a toroid. Consciousness is at the center with the biosphere making up the rest of the hole, altogethor, a force field. "May the force be with you."

http://home.pacbell.net/chipl/LifeForce.GIF

well sure. I understand the whole out but that's a panzy route. you either have the balls to back up your shit or you don't. you either believe that it's an illusion or you don't right?

why? i am pretty good at compartmentalizing knowledge. at my current level, in this particular mode. i have no choice but to accept the reality of this illusion. perhaps additional knowledge might find me transcending this "illusion". quantum processes form the underbelly of our newtonian reality but so what? as far as my reality is concerned. the table is there whether i am looking at it or not. it is a simple issue of practicality. (i still wouldnt mind getting caught up in some quantum time warp that transports me into the future)

I suppose you can remain undecided or change your mind back and forth but if you're going to take a position.. take one.

cmon wes, no need to be a hard ass. you imagine a static world? evolution has halted? constantly revising your supposedly fixed position might be a bit more time consuming that merely acknowledging a few probable ontologies. in any case it is a false choice because as canute said.....everything is epiphenomenal on consciousness. i buy into that spin

ARGUMENT FOR MENTAL MONISM

In a nutshell: Terms that denote physical things are defined in terms of
each other (mass, volume, etc) in a closed discourse. Such terms do not
have any ostensive definition to real things. Terms that denote mental
things do have ostensive definitions (e.g. defining red qualia). Hence
physical terms fail to have any referential meaning, whereas mental
terms succeed in doing so. Therefore physical things are fictional and
do not really exist. On the other hand, the existence of mental things
is proven in every moment of awareness. Ergo reality is mental.
QED no. 1.

I do not believe that the conclusion, "therefore physical things are fictional and do not really exist" follows from the argument so presented.

While it is true that the reality is a manifestation of the mind, it is also true that this manifestation exists solely to provide a meaning to us. In essence, a solid exists as a solid in your mind simply because it is how you make meaning of it. A blind person's conceptualization of reality would differ from us simply because they are without sight. Therefore their interpretation of anything experienced exists without what we consider colour. The sea might as well be considered plywood; the characterization itself is irrelevant. In order words, that which we consider as "physical" is merely the mental interpretation of that which exists as our environment/experience. That interpretation does not allow itself to a conclusion about the "nature” of that experience outside our experience. So for us, reality exists only in our minds, but that it is physical or not is irrelevant and unreachable from our perspective.


Another view:
I believe the conclusion that "reality" is mental can be reached only when one takes the position that our subjective experience is all that can be said to truthfully exit. If one however accepts that multiple POVs exist, then the perception of an object in the same manner or even similar manner with another POV suggests in itself that this particular object exists.

While interviewing a psychiatric patient in an institution cafeteria I was looking at another patient. As I watched I saw his fork leave it's plate and fly across the room at high velocity free of any visible effort by the patient concerned.

The patient looked up at the nursing staff and said " did you see that, did you see that,? It's happened again!!!"

The nursing staff assumed he had picked up the fork and thrown it across the room and chastised him for telling them that it did it on it's own. They thought he was joking, insane or both.

So arguements about solidness to me are in some ways amusing because as I witnessed it can at times be quite fluid.

The patient appears to have a certain ability that he can't control and is absolutely terrified of and rather mystified of as well.

Originally posted by Canute

---SNIP----

There are grey areas though. Without consciousness there would be no such things as sounds, colours, plans, beauty, arguments, knowledge, pleasure, baseball, insurance, sciuk, science and philosophy, mysticism, theism, wheat, fiction, the stock market, the war in Iraq or you and me. Does this mean that these things don't really exist? I suppose it depends on your point of view, (which also wouldn't exist without consciousness). These things are all dependent for their existence on the existence of consciousness, but this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Actually without consciousness, nothing would exist. It takes consciousness to "bring it about" so to speak.

It is an "optical Illusion" of the mind, thinking things exist without consciousness.

Like all "optical Illusions" tho, to see this.... ...takes perseverance and effort.

Originally posted by thefountainhed

Another view:
I believe the conclusion that "reality" is mental can be reached only when one takes the position that our subjective experience is all that can be said to truthfully exit. If one however accepts that multiple POVs exist, then the perception of an object in the same manner or even similar manner with another POV suggests in itself that this particular object exists.

Except....... if both parties agree to believe in the illusion, for whatever reason, being a "game", a "challenge", an "experiment", etc, etc.

Reality is mental, thru and thru. Physical reality does not exist, it is only a product of the mental.

One "proof" out of many could be what Mr. Quantum Quack
witnessed.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack

While interviewing a psychiatric patient in an institution cafeteria I was looking at another patient. As I watched I saw his fork leave it's plate and fly across the room at high velocity free of any visible effort by the patient concerned.

If the physical were the "cornerstone" of existance, mind would not be able to achieve things like that.

Physical reality does not exist, other then what mind dictates.

Of course if your whole life you've been told otherwise, of course you're not gonna be able to do anything extraordinary.

You're gonna have to jump out of the "box". But of course the "box" is "well padded" .........so to speak.;)

Me thinks there must be a scientific explanation for what Quack observed. The physical realm may be an illusion, but it is a damn good one and for a reason. I don't need nor want any miracles. I do know that there is much that escapes the current pretense at science in a world where tokens rather than knowledge rules.

Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

I'll leave it at that.

So far, that appears to be the entire crux of your argument; unfounded assertion.

Physical reality does not exist, it is only a product of the mental… Physical reality does not exist, other then what mind dictates.

Repeating over and over your assertions does not an argument make.

So, when you close your eyes and fall asleep, does the universe disappear?

a new improved one appears. platters of fresh fruit, abundant hallucinogens and hot young bitches inhabit mine

is it not the same for you?

Q: "So, when you close your eyes and fall asleep, does the universe disappear?"

Yup. Sure does seem to be the case.

http://www.mcskins.com/music/r/end.html

Originally posted by (Q)
Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

I'll leave it at that.

So far, that appears to be the entire crux of your argument; unfounded assertion.

Physical reality does not exist, it is only a product of the mental… Physical reality does not exist, other then what mind dictates.

Repeating over and over your assertions does not an argument make.

So, when you close your eyes and fall asleep, does the universe disappear?

There's nothing for me to argue, Quantum physics is finding it out just fine. At the quantum level, there is no such thing as objectivity. The observer influences the observed. This does not sound to me like physcial matter has its own 'reality'.....does it?

----
Hehehe...as spookz so elegantly puts it, yeah "the", or better said "your" universe does disappear, and you make up another one.

At the quantum level, there is no such thing as objectivity. The observer influences the observed. This does not sound to me like physcial matter has its own 'reality'.....does it?

It sounds more like you have no idea what quantum physics is all about.

There's nothing for me to argue

Agreed.

Hey Q. Look before you leap. Seems some quantum physicists have virtually the same idea as infinitethoughts.

http://www.scienceintegration.org/Quantum.pdf

I realize things are not as cut and dry as on that little pdf file I link to above. The following site seems to offer a good deal more insight with current recognized physicists. Seems to be a bit of a splitting of views with some adherents to the philosophy of Ayn Rand seemingly taking an opposing view to what has been termed "subjectivism," "silopsism" or the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics."

Seems to me that those who ascribe to material wealth as their main goal deride the idea of their consciousness playing a pivotal role in how universe behaves. Seems that it is only natural for those who would base their behavior on exploitation rather than conciliation to minimize the idea of personal responsibility or accountability.

http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/207/207transcript.html

You guys are hilarious.

The implication that the human mind controls reality is a major misinterpretation of quantum mechanics, and is in essence, pure quackery. Quantum physics is completely consistent with all scientific observations, materialistic in every way. There is no evidence to the contrary whatsoever.

Q: "Repeating over and over your assertions does not an argument make."

Q, do you think? Do you ever make choices and do things in response to your thoughts to change your environment?

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
Wes for once I absolutely agree with you.....almost:D

Not very absolute eh? Make up your mind damnit. ;)

/why?

well cuz I thought was the nature of a position, to actually say "this" or "maybe this, maybe that" or something. each case cums with its own obligations based on context right? if I say "maybe this then maybe that" then I'm not saying "this" or "that" so I can't say that I am or my argument changed damnit. MEH.

/i am pretty good at compartmentalizing knowledge.

i don't believe you stoner. hehe.

/at my current level, in this particular mode. i have no choice but to accept the reality of this illusion.

that's basically my entire point. thanks for making me look like an asshole by saying it in like 1/10th the words. you bastard, i hate you.

/perhaps additional knowledge might find me transcending this "illusion".

perhaps additional knowledge cannot transcend this "illusion" as it too, is part of the "illusion" eh? perhaps not.

/quantum processes form the underbelly of our newtonian reality

sure.

/but so what?

how am i supposed to know? you brought it up.

/as far as my reality is concerned. the table is there whether i am looking at it or not.

my point is entirely practical. you can pretend it is or isn't, but your pretending doesn't really change whether or not there is or isn't a table there in terms of where you can put your dished ya know?

/it is a simple issue of practicality. (i still wouldnt mind getting caught up in some quantum time warp that transports me into the future)

exactly, the extended point is that practicality in this case is an inescapable limitation and directly impacts your ability to continue pretending whatever bla blah.

/cmon wes, no need to be a hard ass.

i felt like it, get off me.

/you imagine a static world?

how do you take the world to be static because you are limited by practicality? i didn't mean to imply that.

/evolution has halted?

Uhm... huh? No, it hasn't as far as I know.

/constantly revising your supposedly fixed position might be a bit more time consuming that merely acknowledging a few probable ontologies.

you can fantasize and postulate all you want but you are still limited by the previously mentioned practicality.

/in any case it is a false choice because as canute said.....everything is epiphenomenal on consciousness. i buy into that spin

i'm not sure if I buy it or not, as I'm not sure exactly what he means. i have to look that word up and I'm still not sure how he means it in that context.

sorry wes
i guess i need to be on my toes with your ass!

ps: have you seen my girl gendy? i miss her

now what shall i bring out? the steamroller? or the bulldozer

Originally posted by spookz
now what shall i bring out? the steamroller? or the bulldozer

I'd think the choice obvious. :rolleyes:

whats the point tho
flattening your ass is gonna be illusory anyway

but you are still limited by the previously mentioned practicality

expand on this. what limitations do you place on yourself.
my position? i buy into the whole psi stuff. (note that if one does so, it make a mockery of the current view of reality)

Originally posted by (Q)
At the quantum level, there is no such thing as objectivity. The observer influences the observed. This does not sound to me like physcial matter has its own 'reality'.....does it?

It sounds more like you have no idea what quantum physics is all about.

There's nothing for me to argue

Agreed.

Actually "Q" I know a hell of alot about QM (Quantum Mechanics.) Studied it for 15 years at MIT.

Now do you want to tell me where exactly in the QM fields it does not say what I just said about the Observer effect. (Look it up "Q". Use any Search Engine you wish.)

(Be VERY careful how you answer Q, I have years of reference at my disposal.)

Q... I get the impression you don't like it when people might know what they are talking about. Am I right?

My question again is: You show me where QM has not shown conclusively that at the Quantum level the observer affects the observed.

(Any effort to change the subject or not answer the question, will show me the the direction this discussion will end up.)

hmmm sounds like we have a challenge happening, I am taking bets now on who will win or are we all losers here.

I'd say at this stage it's an even bet but probability law will probability me in to a rather risky position.

So at this point it's a free for all and wow away we go......again

I like David Lindley's comment.

“Pragmatically, physicists understand measurement just as lawyers understand pornography and philistines understand art: they can’t define it, but they know what it is.” (pp72/3 “Where does the Weirdness Go?” Vintage 1996 London)

Isn't this the issue at the heart of the problem of observation?

Originally posted by Canute
I like David Lindley's comment.

“Pragmatically, physicists understand measurement just as lawyers understand pornography and philistines understand art: they can’t define it, but they know what it is.” (pp72/3 “Where does the Weirdness Go?” Vintage 1996 London)

Isn't this the issue at the heart of the problem of observation?

That's part of it, but it actually gets even weirder at the sub atomic and quantum levels. The subatomic world reflects the observer, there is no truly objective measurement, no "certainty." --- Part of the Uncertainty Principle by Heisenberg.

The problem is all discussions in the world invariably are based on Newtonian physics.......which is old, archaic and completely incorrect, but unfortunately a pesistent & nasty way of thinking that refuses to die.

Our "modern" educational systems are part of the problem. Newtonian physics is still taught at the High School level and up.

---
Knowledge is power.
The world is an illusion.

Actually "Q" I know a hell of alot about QM (Quantum Mechanics.) Studied it for 15 years at MIT.

Yeah, sure you did. :rolleyes:

I doubt you've taken any physics courses.

Originally posted by spookz
[B]but you are still limited by the previously mentioned practicality

expand on this.

[QUOTE]exactly, the extended point is that practicality in this case is an inescapable limitation and directly impacts your ability to continue pretending whatever bla blah.

/what limitations do you place on yourself.

I am limited by what I percieve to be my experience. I am further limited by physics or whatever. Be it quantum or newtonian, it is integrated with me in such a manner that if I attempt to exceed its limitations, my ability to continue doing so can be at a minimum altered and at maximum - ceased. Hence, from your perspective, there is an aspect of the illusion of which you have no direct control. To me the direct implication is that "reality" and "illusion" are superfluous distinctions in the context of the scope of your being or "reality". You are simply privy to x amount of input and have y amount of choices regarding it.

So basically I put limitations on myself according to what my experience and thought process dictates that I can survive. So do you. If what you think you can survive doesn't jive with the aspect of the illusion that is beyond your control.. well, I've said enough.

/my position? i buy into the whole psi stuff.

I don't buy into it nor do I think it impossible.

/(note that if one does so, it make a mockery of the current view of reality)

Heh, no, just YOUR current view of reality. Well and people who agree with you. Many people (like cris i believe) do not at ALL buy into the psi stuff and your current view of reality makes a mockery of theirs so to speak.

Originally posted by wesmorris
That is why I insist on "the abstract" as the inner dimension where meaning lies... and consciousness itself is the phenomenon that acts as a gateway to that dimension.

you are now, .....master of the universe!
you just dont know it yet

:D

When one looks at oneself and asks two questions.

What do I believe?

and

What do I know?

I did this many years ago and even now try to keep this question constantly in mind.

When you ask these two questions and dig deep, you will find that what you believe is much and what you actually know is very very little.

Just about all arguement so far is based on belief, either arrived at by the individual or gained from someone else.

We tend to think that belief may lead us to knowledge but invaribly it tends to lead us to just more belief.

Like perpetual gambling we take on board belief in the hope of finding knowledge. But if you look closely you'll find that it is the belief that actually (in most cases) that stops the achievement of knowledge. By creating preconceptions that are sometimes very difficult to remove. Thus the pursuit of true knowledge is made that much more difficult.

For instance I could use the famous works of Albert Einstien as an example.

Science holds to the belief that his work is the way of true knowledge about the universe. And whilst maybe this is in a lot of ways correct it may also be our greatest obstacle.

Einstien knew his theories had probems and yet we believe so strongly that we are prepared to over look them and even try to justify them with other beliefs.

I use the motto as a rule of learning.

"True knowledge is not a question of belief"

As I find belief an easy way to achieve a state of delusion.
(delusion being a falsehood)

When Wesmorris stated:

I don't buy into it nor do I think it impossible.

He was and is stating that he takes a position of unqualified unknowingness and I think states also that when he does know he will know.

This is a position of not allowing belief to distort his perception of reality and this is I feel is a wise path to tread.

We are so superstitious as a race that we love to remove our fear of the unknown buy constructing a security blanket called belief.

It takes enormous courage to stand up and steady and say in the face of every one elses strong beliefs " I don't know and I will stay ignorant until I do know"

This takes great courage and for me deserves respect.

So I give the challenge:

What do you believe ?
and
What do you know?

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
When one looks at oneself and asks two questions. What do I believe? and What do I know? etc...
Couldn't agree more with your advice. It seems the only sensible way to proceed.

So I give the challenge: What do you believe ?
and What do you know? [/B]
What I know is that you wouldn't believe me. :p

I don't believe that you know I wont believe because I believe in what I know that was once what I believed in what you knew:D

I wouldn't be so certain of that if I were you.

Originally posted by (Q)
Actually "Q" I know a hell of alot about QM (Quantum Mechanics.) Studied it for 15 years at MIT.

Yeah, sure you did. :rolleyes:

I doubt you've taken any physics courses.

Somehow I knew you wouldn't answer the questions. Remember what I said.
(Any effort to change the subject or not answer the question, will show me the the direction this discussion will end up.)

You're wasting my time, Q.

Now do you want to tell me where exactly in the QM fields it does not say what I just said about the Observer effect.

I was referring to your ridiculous conclusion:

This does not sound to me like physcial matter has its own 'reality'.....does it?

Quackery. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You're wasting my time, Q.

I could care less considering the nonsense you’re spouting and the whoppers you’re telling – MIT indeed. What, did you work there as a janitor?

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
When one looks at oneself and asks two questions.

What do I believe?

and

What do I know?

I did this many years ago and even now try to keep this question constantly in mind.

When you ask these two questions and dig deep, you will find that what you believe is much and what you actually know is very very little.

SNIP---

What do you believe ?
and
What do you know?

This is gonna be a controversial answer, but in the physics fields all big "discoveries" are all fiercely believed in, until one day they were then backed up by "evidence".

Same thing is going on right now with the M theory, (the next step in the string theory.) All it is right now is theory but there'll come a time when someone will come along and "prove" it.

This was written about years ago in the book The Crack in the Cosmic Egg by Joseph Chilton Pierce.

He suggested reality is like a train on a track, but the big difference is the tracks are being laid as the train is moving.

In my opinion it seems belief is more powerful then knowing.

The universe is set up as a gigantic "feedback" machine. So all you thoughts and emotions all combine to create your next upcoming events.

This is gonna be a controversial answer, but in the physics fields all big "discoveries" are all fiercely believed in, until one day they were then backed up by "evidence".

Crap is not controversial, its just plain crap.

You really have no clue.

Q, you continually deny without any citations, without any references that we can look at ourselves and yet that is what you have claimed those posting here with a different opinion than yourself are doing even though they give you references and citation. You seem to deny that humans, yourself included I suspect, go about changing our world via at least partly through our thoughts and thinking and how we manifest such with our actions. And then you have the audacity to claim that one who has given you more data than you have even begun to cite, one who has attempted to share their qualifications while you give none, as clueless? Appears that there is at least one clueless person here, (if not more than one, hi Wes :p ). Will wonders never cease.

Fantastic job Q, congrats on a job well done ! :)

Looks like you've successfully shut down this discussion by not inputting any intelligence whatsover, on every single one of your posts. Amazing.

But that's always how it goes.....idiots come along and flame the hell out of anything that is remotely interesting.

THEN people get fed up of continually going to a thread.......and seeing stupid remarks.

Once again Q, good job !

------
I got a 50 spot that he will flame again. Anyone else feel like betting ????

Come on Q, don't let me down, I got a fifsky riding on you.

The art of discussion?....hmmmmmm
The art of argueing?
The art of flaming?
The art of ignoring?
The art of idiocy?
The art of self defense?
The art of finding interest in something boring?
The art of removing boredom?
The art of expressing ones low self esteem?
The art or farting?

Everything has an art and there is an art to everything:D

Infinitethoughts wrote:
Actually without consciousness, nothing would exist. It takes consciousness to "bring it about" so to speak.
Given your belief that nothing exists other than thought, how would you, for example, explain today's airline tragedy in Egypt? Would it make sense that all the 148 passengers and crew aboard this doomed aircraft simultaneously decided to stop thinking thoughts? If conscious beings continually lay down their own tracks before them, I wonder what would have prompted an aircraft of tourists returning home from their holiday to simultaneously lay their tracks to lead a thousand meters below the ocean's surface instead of back to their homes in France?

Does anyone remember the Alaskan Airlines flight that crashed off the coast of California a few years ago? It was later discovered that the pilot lost control because of a worn nut on the aircraft's stabilizer jackshaft. Given that most of the passengers aboard hadn't the slightest idea what a stabilizer jackshaft is, then how could they have simultaneously imagined its failure? But if everything that exists, exists exclusively as thought, then who was it that imagined that stripped nut on the control jackshaft? In fact, nuts wear-out on stabilizer jackshafts regardless of whether they're observed or not, and disasters regularly occur precisely because nobody is conscious of a danger.

If it were true that this world were a product of my consciousness then how could I explain the presence of other conscious beings in it? Should I think of them as physical things (and products of my creation) or should I think of them as independently conscious beings; themselves engaged in a similar process of creating this world? If the second case is true then how might I explain the fact that six billion people have imagined a nearly identical world? What prompts each of these independently conscious creatures to create a world where Madrid is south of Paris?

That said, I believe that we don't merely inhabit a world; we create one as well. For example, my love for my wife is as real to me than anything else in this world, even though this love only exists in my mind. But it goes without saying that even though I create my love, I obviously didn't create the woman that I love, I simply met her! She existed prior to my having known anything about her. It's the same with this world. I create a life - my life - from the pieces of a world that existed prior to my having been conscious of it. How we choose to fashion our life is at least as important as what materials we have available to us (for which Stephen Hawking makes a fine case-in-point).

The infant that became me gradually became aware of having consciousness. I think it was Daniel Dennett who remarked that as infants we lie in our cribs watching our legs bobble about, only to one day have it dawn upon us that we are doing the bobbling. I've often remarked that this world comes to us in kit-form, minus the assembly manual, and it follows that you and I live in different worlds despite the fact that we are bound by the same physical constraints.

"The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man." Wittgenstein, Tractatus: 6.43

Regards,
Michael

some times it worth looking at the issue as this AND that rather than this OR that.

I think the truth is a combination of both.

It's like saying that 90% of our universe has already been created and 10% is what we make of it or create from it etc..

it is true that we can create our world to a degree but surely not all of it.

I think that you're right Quantum Quack. A similar debate, whether essence preceedes existence or whether existence preceedes essence, has had a long history in western philosophy. J.P. Sartre, for example, pushed the notion that existence preceedes essence a bit too hard, in my opinion. He believed that we turn up with an absolute freedom to make ourselves into whatever we choose. And along with our absolute freedom, he believed that we incur an absolute responsibility for what we've become. Whereas, I believe that we have a limited freedom to fashion ourselves and we bear a limited personal responsibility for what we become.

Human infants arrive in the world as a generic bundle of limited possibilites. It's always bothered me to hear adults tell children that if only they work hard enough then they can reach any goal they set for themselves. Such advice, literally heeded, ends more often in despair than in satisfaction. For example, no amount of effort could have given me the mathematical competence of an Euler or a Gauss. No level of training intensity would have permitted me to capture the heavy-weight boxing championship of the world. We are free to fashion ourselves, but our freedom resides within certain constraints.

Another philosophically pertinent debate concerns free-will versus determinism. Given what I've said here, you won't be surprised to learn that I believe that we've neither a perfectly free-will nor are our lives absolutely determined. My beliefs aside, I'd no more wish to be perfectly free-willed than I would wish that my responses were entirely reflexive.

What would it mean to have an absolute free-will? It would mean that all of my actions derive from mental directives that originate entirely from within me. In fact, no perfectly free-willed agent is permitted even the slightest response to an external stimulus. Observed from a normal human vantage-point, the actions of a perfectly free-willed agent appear entirely random. Human behavior that approaches the free-willed end of the spectrum has always been characterized (and rightfully so) as tending towards insanity.

What would it mean if our thoughts and actions were absolutely determined? If this were true than we'd be no more than automatons. Given any set of identical input conditions two humans would invariably produce the same response. In fact, not only do humans often respond differently to the same stimulus, but a single human often responds differently to the same stimulus applied at different times!

It's my belief that our human thoughts and actions are a complex mélange of responses into which a pinch of randomness has been tossed. Thus, our behavior is generally neither entirely unexpected nor entirely predicatable. Isn't that wonderful?

Kind Regards,
Michael


There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now...

The smallest sprout shows there is really no death,
And if ever there was it led forward life, and does not wait at the end to arrest it,
And ceas'd the moment life appear'd.

All goes onward and outward, nothing collapses,
And to die is different from what any one supposed, and luckier...

Did you fear some scrofula out of the unflagging pregnancy?
Did you guess the celestial laws are yet to be work'd over and rectified?

I find one side a balance and the antipodal side a balance,
Soft doctrine as steady help as stable doctrine...

This minute that comes to me over the past decillions,
There is no better than it and now...

Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

orthogonal,
you state your case well.
I think we often loose our way with the use of absolutes out of context.

Is free will absolutley free? No.
Is free will absolutely self determined? No.

Does free will exist? Yes but not in absolute.

How absolute is free will self determined ...not very....if you see what I mean...an absolute is just that absolute. So the response of "not very" is inappropriate.

Originally posted by orthogonal
[B]I think that you're right Quantum Quack. A similar debate, whether essence preceedes existence or whether existence preceedes essence, has had a long history in western philosophy. J.P. Sartre, for example, pushed the notion that existence preceedes essence a bit too hard, in my opinion. He believed that we turn up with an absolute freedom to make ourselves into whatever we choose. And along with our absolute freedom, he believed that we incur an absolute responsibility for what we've become. Whereas, I believe that we have a limited freedom to fashion ourselves and we bear a limited personal responsibility for what we become.
I agree. But it turns out to be very difficult to prove that Sartre is wrong, although it takes a lot of imagination to see how he might be right.

Human infants arrive in the world as a generic bundle of limited possibilites.
Again I agree. But I think that Sartre would argue that we chose to become that infant, even if we were unaware at the time of what that infant would become. This is where Sartre's idea of being raises the ideas of Karma, rebirth and so on. These things seem implausible to most people, but it's very difficult to prove that they're implausible. Sartre might still get the last laugh.

We are free to fashion ourselves, but our freedom resides within certain constraints.
I wonder. Is it possible that those constraints are of our own making?

What would it mean to have an absolute free-will? It would mean that all of my actions derive from mental directives that originate entirely from within me. In fact, no perfectly free-willed agent is permitted even the slightest response to an external stimulus.
I take it you mean that no freewilled agent is allowed even the slightest automatic response to a stimulus? That makes sense. But a freewilled agent is surely allowed to respond quite freely to stimulae.

Observed from a normal human vantage-point, the actions of a perfectly free-willed agent appear entirely random.
I think I know what you mean, and its seems true in a way. But a free-willed agent with sentience will hold beliefs about his or her world, and those beliefs will determine its actions and reactions. As Karl Popper argued, insofar as we hold beliefs those beliefs determine our behaviour. If those beliefs are non-random then our frewilled behaviour will be non-random.

At the same time it seems true that if we do have freewill, full on 100% freewill, then our behaviour will appear to be random at least to the extent that we do not act in accordance with our own beliefs. If we do not act in accordance with these then there will be no underlying deterministic logic guiding our actions.

Our behaviour will also be random, (in the sense you meant it above), to the extent that our beliefs, which inevitably guide our behaviour, are 'randomly' chosen, irrational or inconsistent. If with complete freewill our behaviour can only be non-random (logically consistent) to the extent that our internal belief system is non-random (logically consistent), as Popper and others argue, then if we can think clearly enough we can, in principle at least, make our behaviour totally non-random. (I assume that at the limit this would involve believing only things that are true).

Therefore in theory having total freewill can lead both to totally random behaviour or totally ordered behaviour. Our real freedom lies not in our ability to act, but in our ability to freely choose the beliefs that will determine our actions, and our freedom to act according to them or not. (I believe that this is actually true).

Human behavior that approaches the free-willed end of the spectrum has always been characterized (and rightfully so) as tending towards insanity.
Sometimes yes, but only where there has been an absence of any rational and consistent belief system to guide that behaviour, to place logical constraints on it. Freewill doesn't entail randomness of behaviour unless it is excercised in the absence of sound and logical guiding principles, or a lack of adherence to them.

What would it mean if our thoughts and actions were absolutely determined? If this were true than we'd be no more than automatons. Given any set of identical input conditions two humans would invariably produce the same response. In fact, not only do humans often respond differently to the same stimulus, but a single human often responds differently to the same stimulus applied at different times!
True. But it is not an argument against determinism. It could be argued that these differences in responses to the same stimulae are due to minor differences in our brain wiring. In fact this is exactly what is argued.

The problem for physical determinism is how to explain the physical mechanism that turn these differences in individual brain wirings into individual belief systems. It just doesn't seem possible without getting unscientific about it.

It's my belief that our human thoughts and actions are a complex mélange of responses into which a pinch of randomness has been tossed. Thus, our behavior is generally neither entirely unexpected nor entirely predicatable. Isn't that wonderful?
I agree completely. But I also agree with Gurdjieff, who argued that for the most part we act as machines, our thoughts and behaviour narrowly determined by ill-considered and often irrational belief systems, and that we could do a lot better.

(Enjoyed the poem).

Originally posted by orthogonal
Infinitethoughts wrote:

Given your belief that nothing exists other than thought, how would you, for example, explain today's airline tragedy in Egypt? Would it make sense that all the 148 passengers and crew aboard this doomed aircraft simultaneously decided to stop thinking thoughts? If conscious beings continually lay down their own tracks before them, I wonder what would have prompted an aircraft of tourists returning home from their holiday to simultaneously lay their tracks to lead a thousand meters below the ocean's surface instead of back to their homes in France?

It happened in the thought realm, which we, thru our Socio parameters label as "physical".

The classic example is always when dreaming, the participants are not able to recognize it is a dream, which is based on a thought realm.

Every participant in this current "dream-play" is responsible for their thoughts, and hence the repercussions of these thoughts.

It also looks like their could be certain "plans" set up before one comes "down" to this dreamplay. Dying at a certain time is one of them, seems like.

Question is can you change the plans while "down" here. I don't see why not.

If it were true that this world were a product of my consciousness then how could I explain the presence of other conscious beings in it? Should I think of them as physical things (and products of my creation) or should I think of them as independently conscious beings; themselves engaged in a similar process of creating this world? If the second case is true then how might I explain the fact that six billion people have imagined a nearly identical world? What prompts each of these independently conscious creatures to create a world where Madrid is south of Paris?

Well how do we really know there are six billion people, and what I mean by that is because this life is a "game" so to speak, this could be part of the parameters. Sort of like within your visual sphere you see certain things, but then there is always the possibility, that beyond what you see it is formless mass, waiting to be activated so to speak. Of course I'm not suggesting it is that extreme, but hopefully you get the idea.

That said, I believe that we don't merely inhabit a world; we create one as well. For example, my love for my wife is as real to me than anything else in this world, even though this love only exists in my mind. But it goes without saying that even though I create my love, I obviously didn't create the woman that I love, I simply met her! She existed prior to my having known anything about her. It's the same with this world. I create a life - my life - from the pieces of a world that existed prior to my having been conscious of it. How we choose to fashion our life is at least as important as what materials we have available to us (for which Stephen Hawking makes a fine case-in-point).

I'd say you created her, by first wanting the emotion and then that version of her that is harmonious with you, coming to you from one of the multiple versions of her AND multiple universes that exist.........and she is doing the same thing towards you.

Experiments done with awareness shows interesting occurances.

If you really watch your thoughts, you start to notice the things you thought about "earlier" start popping up in your current experiences.

We live in a very strange reality......

Hi Canute,

It's nice to hear from you. You wrote:
But I think that Sartre would argue that we chose to become that infant...
Yes, in fact I was amazed when I first understood the degree to which Sartre was prepared to take his notion that each of us is ultimately responsible for our world. I mean, it's an incredibly gutsy thought that I am responsible for my own birth (I always admired Sartre's intellectual courage).

Nevertheless, I would argue the point with him. Sartre maintains that my choice to live makes me responsible for my own birth. But let's suppose I had elected to commit suicide at my earliest opportunity. How would slitting my own throat with shards of glass from my baby bottle erase this responsibility? Hitler's suicide, for example, did nothing to erase his responsibility for his actions. In choosing to die nobody escapes culpability for their actions made whilst they live. But what sort of responsibility is this that we can neither avoid nor make amends for? What Sartre imposes upon us is more original sin than it is culpability for an action.

That I consciously choose to draw the next breath does not automatically confer upon me a responsibility for the sufferings of a world. My position today is that at a minimum, "ought" implies "can." My choosing life over suicide does not, for example, burden me with a responsibility for the suffering of an alien species dying of famine on the opposite side of the universe (Dennett made a persuasive case for this in the chapter, "Information, Technology and the Virtues of Ignorance," from his book, Brainchildren).

As usual, I'm barely scratching the surface of what is vast subject matter. These days, I make a distinction between personal responsibility and social responsibility. In many cases, society is almost obliged to hold individuals responsible for actions that I, as a reader of moral philosophy, would be inclined to overlook. Please see, for example, "Moral Luck"

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15099

Canute, you brought up a number of interesting points (i.e., definition of an automaton, the distinction between a response and instigation made by a hypothetical perfectly free-willed agent, etc.). I wish I had the time today to address them. Alas, I cannot.

Best wishes for the New Year,
Michael

Originally posted by orthogonal
[B]Nevertheless, I would argue the point with him. Sartre maintains that my choice to live makes me responsible for my own birth. But let's suppose I had elected to commit suicide at my earliest opportunity. How would slitting my own throat with shards of glass from my baby bottle erase this responsibility? Hitler's suicide, for example, did nothing to erase his responsibility for his actions.
I don't understand the relevance of this. You can't undo something you've already done. That is, to say that you're responsible for your own birth is not an accusation of irresponsibility. WWII wasn't caused by Hitler's decision to be born (if he made one), it was caused by, among other things, his actions as an adult. (Assuming freewill).

Canute, you brought up a number of interesting points (i.e., definition of an automaton, the distinction between a response and instigation made by a hypothetical perfectly free-willed agent, etc.). I wish I had the time today to address them. Alas, I cannot.
Shame. You have some good thoughts.

An interestng idea occurred to me last night and reading the preceding discourse hasa prompted me to post this.

If we consider free will as absolute, say we draw a circle or should I say a sphere and with in this absolute sphere is our free will,.
Out side this sphere of free will exists a multitude of choices that with in this sphere we can freely choose from.

If outside this sphere of free will there exists only three choices then freely you can choose from these.

(1)To go on living, (2) to decide later to decide, (3) to suicide now.

Conceptually free will is the awareness of choice and alternatives to these choices and the ability to choose freely between thos choices.

So it could be argued that absolute free will is possible but the choices available to choose from are absolutely determined.

There for both can co-exist.

I think possible the most important choice we actualy have is the choice to choose or not to choose. In other words the choice to do nothing.
It is this choice that actuallly gives us the freedom to choose.

Hmm.

I dunno.

Seems to me that our only rational recourse is to deal with how things seem.

To me, it seems like that has to exist a "physical" which actually means absolutely nothing. Thought exists as a facet of the physical the is allowed by the dimension of reality that allows a being to reflect upon itself (to integrate its experience into its current awareness and to "be aware" in the first place).

I probably said that before. Just another stab at it.

Regardless of whatever idea floats your boat, this reality/illusion will affect you the same way it always has and will continue to do so.

Therefore, if illusion is your 'woop' it will be indistinguishable from a reality.

Baseball bats to the forehead will always leave a mark.

:D

Originally posted by (Q)
Baseball bats to the forehead will always leave a mark.

:D

LOL.

That's just it really.

What does it matter if you baseball bat a baseball bat? None unless someone puts it there. The arrangement of matter doesn't mean shit unless there's someone there to bitch or praise about it.

Infinite thoughts wrote:

We live in a very strange reality...
Dear Infinitethoughts,

I think I could write for some hours about that statement (I promise not to). Taken as question, it’s philosophically as rich as they come. Is this world a strange place? Used in this context, I take the word “strange” to mean unexpected. With this substitution the question becomes: “Is this world unexpected?”

Do you think it’s likely that a being so rich in imagination that it could entertain philosophical questions could be the product of a trivially simplistic world? That is, do you suppose complex thinkers would be the likely inhabitants of a radically undifferentiated reality? Of course, this is the so called anthropic argument; the very fact of my being already insures certain features about the world that I inhabit.

Imagine for a moment, a world that consists of a singular undifferentiated entity. I’ll call it “The One.” What sort of philosophical questions would be entertained by The One? None, for we’ve already said there is nothing in this world other than The One. Said another way, if indeed we did allow The One to ask a question, then the world of The One would consist of The One plus its question; which is already one entity too rich for the world of The One. My thesis is that only complex worlds can contain beings of sufficient complexity to ask complex questions. This world would be far more strange (perhaps impossibly so) if the answers to our complex questions were trivially simple. The fact that you and I can entertain deep philosophical questions already says something very important about this world. In summary, it isn’t strange that this world appears strange. I would find it more strange if it were less strange than it is. (I’m reminded here of the Jim Carey film, “The Truman Show.” Truman became suspicious partly because his world was too straightforward.)

I believe that my world depends upon my consciousness of it , but I’ve never been tempted to believe that your world depends upon my consciousness of it. Generally speaking, my world depends entirely on the fact that there is a me, but the world will continue blithely on, long after my world has disappeared. By the time I've finished writing this post some hundreds of humans will have died and roughly the same number will have been born. If my being is contingent upon the facticity of any of them having consciousness, then I'd never have been able to begin, much less finish this post.

I wonder, Infinitethoughts, if your solipsism might have come from having read too much into the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM? I accept the finding that the outcome of quantum events depends upon their having been observed. Human minds, however, aren't composed of isolated quantum particles; they are vast assemblages of interconnected particles, which is another thing entirely. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, and the Law of Large Numbers says that probabilities approximate to certainties where large numbers of events are involved. It’s not possible to “scale up” quantum events as a direct explanation of “human scale” events, for the very act of scaling up changes the outcome of the experiment. The classic experiment indicating quantum duality (the one where photons are passed through a double-slit apparatus) also works with atoms instead of photons. It even works with “Buckyballs” (largish carbon molecules), but it fails entirely if baseballs and beach balls are used instead of molecules.

You have no world unless you are personally conscious of it. The same is true for me. But in order that your world should overlap my world there must be a common world. I inhabit a world along with other people and I believe that you have a consciousness very similar to mine. John Searle remarked that it’s as likely that your brain and your consciousness are entirely different from mine as it's likely that you kidney functions differently than mine.

In fact, my ethical sense originates from the notion that you aren’t merely a prop in my personal Truman Show. My compassion for you stems from the fact that I recognize that you likely value your life in the same way that I value mine. A common human compassion is the headwater of all ethics. Ethicists have long tried and failed to derive “ought” from “is.” Here, I am aligned with J.P. Sartre:

”Sartre believed that only a hypocrite, acting in bad faith, or an ignoramus can believe in given standards of conduct and moral values.” J. Collins, The Existentialists

And in his Existentialism and Human Emotions, Sartre wrote:

”Man cannot find an omen in the world by which to orient himself, because...man will interpret the omen to suit himself.....It is distressing to the Existentialist that God does not exist, because man may make no excuses for himself, and all values arise from man....”

Writing this, I can’t help but remember an incident from last summer. While hiking alone in these Vermont mountains I came to a high, steep precipice. I must have been in an unusual mood that day to have gone to stand for a time at the cliff‘s extreme edge. I remember closing my eyes and feeling the eddy currents of air push me from side to side. The physical sense of equilibrium coupled with a purely conceptual sense that my life mattered was all that prevented my from having swam the air to the base of the cliff. The equilibrium of a life balanced on the edge of a precipice is an interplay of internal and external factors. Our everyday lives generally depend on these same conditions; my standing on the edge only served to sharpen my awareness of them.

Sartre famously said, “Man in condemned to be free.” I had exactly this foreboding sense of freedom standing on the cliff. It’s the same dread of freedom one feels when a mother places her tiny infant your arms. Of course you know that you're not going to drop it...then those little doubts come-creeping in; But what if I did drop it? That ghastly thought alone is sufficient to cause my arms to tremble a bit while holding such a precious thing. Standing on the cliff’s edge, I knew I had no pressing reason to want to die. But again, the rawness of such a situation has a way of magnifying even the smallest of doubts. There’s an odd (irrational?) sort of satisfaction to be had in placing oneself in a precarious position; in saying, “Okay, what’s it gonna be”? Philosophy at the edge of a cliff has a certain edge to it that armchair philosophy is hard-pressed to match.

As usual, I’ve just come ‘round to realize how far I’ve gone off-topic. Sorry about that. Infinitethoughts, I don’t want to dissuade you from your philosophical path. In objecting to your ideas I’m not saying that they are wrong; I’m only saying that I disagree with them. In fact, there’s a well-worn historical path leading to the philosophical well of Idealism. You might, for instance, enjoy reading a wonderful piece by the contemporary British philosopher, A.C. Grayling, titled, “Berkeley’s Argument for Immaterialism”

http://www.acgrayling.com/Berkeley/Brklyp1.html.

Regards,
Michael

Edit: several typos

Dear Infinitethoughts,

I think I could write for some hours about that statement (I promise not to). Taken as question, it’s philosophically as rich as they come. Is this world a strange place? Used in this context, I take the word “strange” to mean unexpected. With this substitution the question becomes: “Is this world unexpected?”

Do you think it’s likely that a being so rich in imagination that it could entertain such questions could be the product of a trivially simplistic world?

Hang on, you are assuming, because the question is complicated and requires a complicated being to ask it, that the world is complicated. There's two problems with that.

1. It's very difficult to define what 'complicated' means when it comes to fundamental principles in science or metaphysics.

2. We perceive the world as being very complicated, as you say. However if the world is to any extent created by consciousness then one can argue that it might be very simple at the level of reality, and that it is just our conception of it that is complicated.

That is, do you suppose complex thinkers would be the likely inhabitants of a radically undifferentiated reality? Of course, this is the so called anthropic argument; the very fact of my being already insures certain features about the world that I inhabit.

And the reverse, which is less often mentioned.

Imagine for a moment, a world that consists of a singular undifferentiated entity. I’ll call it “The One.” What sort of philosophical questions wo