[Harolinho]

We don't see through our eyes. We see behind our eyes, several inches in to back of the brain. What we 'see', our hands, end of the nose (for some of us), hair above and world around - are all projections created from electrical impulses that travel through our brain. The only that we are able to perceive the world is through the senses, which are - once again, projections of electrical impulses. In other words the world we perceive is absolutely a projection, it is a creation of the mind, an attempt to recreate the information the brain receives. Nothing more and nothing less.

This is interesting, but not new to anybody. It's something science has known for a long time, and it's not so hard or difficult to figure out.

The question is: How would you view of the world be if you knew it was absolutely fabricated? That the brain itself fabricated the world and you are a lone consciousness, existed in the weird. Everything you feel to exist is nothing but a falsification caused by failed electrical stimulus. In other words, the world does not exist - only you. You are aware of this knowledge, but you still see the world in the same way that you do know, how do you react? Is life worth living?

The second question is: What do you think of the idea of the universe being contrived by generic electrical signals sent by external stimuli. As if the human brain is in a box somewhere, hooked up to a computer, perceiving this world as the signals tell it to. What is your reaction this time? How do you live?

Sorry if it's a bit Red Pill - Blue Pill, I just felt like starting a thread and found this an interesting topic.

[HotfireLegend]

Then you could also argue that if we can think whether life is worth living or not, someone has 'pressed the button' to make you make this topic and throw doubt into our minds. what would be THEIR reasoning for this, and how would THEY be controlled? If we were part of electrical stimuli from an external source, WHAT controls us? Who or what made the 'computer'?

It's an interesting concept, but to be able to solve it, one has to think outside of the box. If this computer I'm typing on is not real for example, and only part of my consciousness, how is it that you are receiving this message?

[Spicey]

Now I'm really depressed.

I guess I would say enjoy life while it lasts I think it doesn't matter whether or not it means anything, I'm just going to try and enjoy whatever 'life' is.

[zcanf]

You say science has proved this, yes? They've proved it on many different people so what does that mean? That we all see the world how we all, together, wish to see it?

Reply to Q1: I think if i was to find out that everything is false except myself. I wouldn't be able to cope as you know you're in control, yet nothing is in your control at the same time. I'd begin to question everything and anything about the world which i have created, it will be a world full of denial.

Q2: the reaction is the same in the sense that nothing is in my conscious control, whose to say that this computer you speak of isn't just the life God has created for us which he is omniscient about, knowing everything which will happen to us.

Although i've given 'reactions', i honestly don't think you'll fully know your reaction until it happens; it will be something you won't be able to deal with.

[Brap4k22DivideBy2]

Better lay off the green stuff now and then.

[isp]

Spoiler:

Show

YOLO

[Arusa01]

(Original post by isp)

Spoiler:

Show

YOLO

Second this

[Above.The.Empyrean]

Because if the world doesn't exist, then neither do you. Ergo, your opinion has no significance, as it doesn't exist.

[MonkeySee]

jeeez stop wasting your life with such crap

[Nistar]

(Original post by isp)

Spoiler:

Show

YOLO

I knew that would be in the spoiler before I even clicked it...

[Harolinho]

(Original post by HotfireLegend)
Then you could also argue that if we can think whether life is worth living or not, someone has 'pressed the button' to make you make this topic and throw doubt into our minds. what would be THEIR reasoning for this, and how would THEY be controlled? If we were part of electrical stimuli from an external source, WHAT controls us? Who or what made the 'computer'?

It's an interesting concept, but to be able to solve it, one has to think outside of the box. If this computer I'm typing on is not real for example, and only part of my consciousness, how is it that you are receiving this message?

I don't believe this - FTR - because I appreciate that there probably is a logical chain of though that could lead to the ultimate understanding of everything - but our logic as a species, and mine as a mediocre member of it, will never be able to reach that very-high-indeed bar. However, I will of course, argue from this perspective or at least 'throw a few Ideas into the mix'.

One chain of thought could lead to the argument that all consciousness is connected, it is ultimately one under the unified field and thus I'm able to receive this message, as you are to send it, because our consciousnesses are in fact one and the same. Who is pushing the button? And what are they made of? The only way I can think of to create an answer to this very fine question is to suggest that if we assume our universe is a fabrication then we also assume the way in which we understand creation and existence to be false, as we are observing false nature. Therefore it is impossible to rationally quantify 'what' or 'who'. It's an unsatisfactory answer in terms of contentedness, but is one that is vaguely rationally sound.

[rj1990]

Stop wasteing your time with this. People who think like this are people who end up losing the plot, and ending up 40 years old, singing out loud to themselves while walking down the street, you know the type of people I mean.

Chill, who cares if it is real or not. Look at all the things you can do.

[pinda.college]

Morpheus?

[Harolinho]

(Original post by MonkeySee)
jeeez stop wasting your life with such crap

Irony is sound.

(Original post by zcanf)
You say science has proved this, yes? They've proved it on many different people so what does that mean? That we all see the world how we all, together, wish to see it?

Reply to Q1: I think if i was to find out that everything is false except myself. I wouldn't be able to cope as you know you're in control, yet nothing is in your control at the same time. I'd begin to question everything and anything about the world which i have created, it will be a world full of denial.

Q2: the reaction is the same in the sense that nothing is in my conscious control, whose to say that this computer you speak of isn't just the life God has created for us which he is omniscient about, knowing everything which will happen to us.

Although i've given 'reactions', i honestly don't think you'll fully know your reaction until it happens; it will be something you won't be able to deal with.

It's knowledge of neuroscience that allows us to understand this yes. But we don't necessarily all perceive the world in the same way - in fact the oposite is very much true.

And I totally agree about reaction

(Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
Because if the world doesn't exist, then neither do you. Ergo, your opinion has no significance, as it doesn't exist.

I don't think you got the point. The concept is of the existence of the mind but not the matter (to an extent), it was my mind which formulated an opinion and therefore that would exist as it is not necessarily material.

[callum9999]

(Original post by HotfireLegend)
Then you could also argue that if we can think whether life is worth living or not, someone has 'pressed the button' to make you make this topic and throw doubt into our minds. what would be THEIR reasoning for this, and how would THEY be controlled? If we were part of electrical stimuli from an external source, WHAT controls us? Who or what made the 'computer'?

It's an interesting concept, but to be able to solve it, one has to think outside of the box. If this computer I'm typing on is not real for example, and only part of my consciousness, how is it that you are receiving this message?

Who says they're receiving the message? Maybe your brain has fabricated their existence and has guessed how someone would react to that message. We've all had dreams where we've been able to interact with other people as if they were real humans.

I have no idea what the reasoning for that could be though! Maybe it's not fully sentient but is learning and starting to consider it's existence?

[Akbar2k7]

(Original post by rj1990)
Stop wasteing your time with this. People who think like this are people who end up losing the plot, and ending up 40 years old, singing out loud to themselves while walking down the street, you know the type of people I mean.

Chill, who cares if it is real or not. Look at all the things you can do.

this is how I think when I lose faith.

[98DS11]

this is toophilisophicalfor me

[Above.The.Empyrean]

(Original post by Harolinho)
Irony is sound.



It's knowledge of neuroscience that allows us to understand this yes. But we don't necessarily all perceive the world in the same way - in fact the oposite is very much true.

And I totally agree about reaction



I don't think you got the point. The concept is of the existence of the mind but not the matter (to an extent), it was my mind which formulated an opinion and therefore that would exist as it is not necessarily material.

If your mind exists, but matter doesn't, does that mean your mind is a metaphysical paradigm to the Universe? That it's somehow the marrow or matrix of all matter? But if matter is analogous to the envisaging of the mind, then the whole world is premised on the notion of opinions. If that's the case, then everything is mere fluctuations of what we see, not a global view.

Your view is convoluted as it pertains to the postulation that the mind (which is the tangible brain) forms opinions. How do you know that your brain is forming opinions about forming opinions? What happens if the opinions you are forming at this current moment about what you're thinking about is, de facto, fallacious?

The problem is, is that questions such as these have indeterminate answers and can't be rejoindered unless you're highly skilled in Philosophy; which I am not.

[Vian]

For Question 1: I don't know how I'd react. I suppose I'd feel quite alone and empty if I was the only "real" being in the universe.

Question 2: In this situation, odds are that everyone else is also a "real" person that's hooked up to this universe, so it would change nothing. So what is this computer isn't real? The people I connect with and talk to are, and that's all that matters at the end of the day.

(Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
Because if the world doesn't exist, then neither do you. Ergo, your opinion has no significance, as it doesn't exist.

I advise to look into the following quote,"I think, therefore I am". Besides, You=/=World.

[Redolent]

You can't possibly argue life isn't "real", to do so can only be to misunderstand what "real" really is. Science doesn't tell you what's real and what isn't, because "objectivity" doesn't really exist (it can't be experienced, it can't be ascertained) - it simply makes no sense to doubt the mind over things you have learned through the mind. Our minds are everything, we are trapped within them from birth until death, and any obscure impossible-to-experience "objective" world is irrelevant to the nature of existence as a subjectively conscious being. Our minds come first, always, they should be the first thing we look to when determining what is real to us.

In short, you can't meaningfully talk about the objective without first accepting your subjective mind is an accurate representative to some degree - otherwise the science you're talking about could be just as nonsense as the world you see through your mind.