So I've been thinking...

[Dizzy]

You know the saying, "If you're crazy, you'll be the last to know?" Well, that means that the world is precieved differently based on the person. So how you do know that anything in your world exists? You can't. You don't know if your surroundings are real, or the people around you, or even your memories. If that's the case, it's likely all made up, as a world you created. The point?

YOU ARE GOD.

Discuss.

[Valigarmander]

Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ZeldaGirl]

So I've been thinking...

A dangerous pasttime?

[Redshirt]

We are all dead, just reliving our memories.

[Robotazy]

The truth is, we're all in a coma!

...wait.

[Cosmonautical]

We can break it all down, actually:

-You cannot think about something without having a thought.
-To acknowledge a thought, you have a thought about that thought.
-Every single acknowledgment you ever make is a thought.
-You cannot test the legitimacy of thinking itself, because you must use the potentially corrupt system of thought to analyze thought.

Every standard you attempt to create to determine the legitimacy of any thought is therefore as impossible to confirm outside of thinking. You are the system by which all things are measured.

So, if you are the gauge, and you cannot only use that gauge to determine whether or not the gauge is working, you would never be able to verify that you were actually correct. It is impossible for you to know if you are insane. Every thought you have would appear to be rational.

So, just because another person's thoughts seem inaccurate or illogical to you does not mean they are incorrect.

Reality as you percieve it cannot exist outside of your perception. So yes, you create reality in a way, but more importantly there are constant forces acting on your perception to shape your reactions, and through that, your perception. So your perception is situational.

Part of the reason why principles based around the importance of belief in God are a fallacy is because it is impossible for you to possess choice. When can you ever choose something that you have not chosen? If you are a restriction that is impossible for you to defy, how can you possess free will?

Perceiving anything is a circumstance. Having the ability to choose is even, in itself, a circumstance. Because you have the curse of illusory sentience, you cannot observe yourself without observing how you observe yourself.




I know most of this sounds like inconvenient double-speak, but that's because the illusion of human choice is equally a circular fallacy.

[1-up Salesman]

Screw it. I think stuff like this sometimes as well, but I don't let it get to me too much.

Live your life by this sentence: Screw it.

[Jere]

But if god is omnipotent dosen't that mean that we all are right at the same time?

[Dizzy]

Originally Posted by Edgeless Safety Cube

The very topic this came from is what inspired me to make this thread.

I've decided that, if one were able to comprehend the meaning and origin of the universe, then it or they would cease to exist.

[1-up Salesman]

Please stop. -_-'

[Zaden]

You're just now thinking about this stuff? I've been pondering reality since I was 7.

Then again, I'm 20 and I'm still in high school, so I guess everyone's different...

[Dizzy]

^I didn't say just now, did I?

Naw, I've really always wondered about it to some degree. Just a lot deeper in the past few months.

[1-up Salesman]

I understand what you mean. Try not to let it get to you too much.

[Dizzy]

Well, I've already thought it through as much as my human comprehension will allow, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no explanation for the universe, because an explanation is merely converting information to a format we can understand, and it can't be done, lest a paradox be caused (I guess, it's the only reason I can think of as to why it can't be figured out).

So the only solution is that you might as well enjoy it as long as it exists.

[Cosmonautical]

Welcome to awareness and acceptance of truth, DZ.

The single most incomprehensible concept to any one person is that concepts themselves are inherently frivolous. Everything is a concept. Explaining existence would mean existence is comprehensible, which it is not. The only thing you can verify is that your perceptions exist. Simply recognising that you can apply a word or name to this blank spot in your awareness does not mean you own the concept, though. It does not mean you can understand the blank spot. It simply means that you are observing that you are observing, and even that is not final.

I don't think full comprehension of existence would undo reality, but I do believe it would result in a vastly different sort of consciousness than we are capable of. To us currently, it would resemble insanity. Partly, that's because infinity is not something which can logically be limited. You cannot say that a line travels infinitely in one direction is infinite, because it is a line. It is not another thing, you have restrained it. So, infinite perception is in itself a restriction. Infinity is another example of a word we have for a blank spot.

How can you have an infinitely restricted infinity that is unrestricted? When we consider absolute power, we must consider that sort of question. Is it impossible? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. We cannot accept something that fulfills both circumstance, though.

1-up, for instance, is convinced that happiness is necessary to enjoy life. Essentially, he's using his inability to choose unfulfillment to rationalize his need for fulfillment.

[Dux is not you]

Douglas Hofstadter comes to mind.

[Ace Mercury]

The untenability of the solipsists argument is best demonstrated by a quote from a devoted solipsist who, at a philosophers convention, stated, "I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us."

[Cosmonautical]

Solipsism is a silly label, abused by would-be philosophers. The term either does not apply to most instances would-be opponents of it assume it does, or it does not logically mean what they describe it to.

Logically, every perception you possess belongs to your mind. Simply because all perceptions are reactionary patterns developed and recognised by your mind does not mean persons places or experiences are fictional. It means that your understanding of them is incomplete or inaccurate.

Similarily, the idea that the root philosophy to pantheism could be untrue is inherently flawed: Nothing can be more than everything. There is obviously a connecting force behind all of reality: it all persists, often simultaneously.



The most commonly misunderstood belief inherent to "Solipsism" would have to be that all concepts or perceptions are defined by your mind, making you god. If you observe the similarity in all things, if you observe the innate connection in all things, you are clearly observing the limits of your ability to understand. The human mind creates thoughts by observing patterns.



Have you ever seen, or heard that someone else had seen, an object which you believe to have mistaken for another object? Especially in peripheral vision? Maybe a hat ontop of a pillow became a cat in your barely-conscious mind? That is because your mind is not capable of gathering universal information. Your consciousness told you that there was a cat there, you looked directly and there was not. As far as your first confirmation could verify, it was a cat. Congratulations, you've just observed how completely made up your understanding of reality is.





BTW, DarkZero, if you're interested in the subject, I suggest you watch the movie "A Scanner Darkly" - it's an adaptation of a book by Phillip K Dick (author of I, Robot). The story follows and is largely presented through the perspective of a drug user whose synapse are damaged:

YouTube - A Scanner Darkly Trailer

[The Doctor]

Originally Posted by DarkZero

"If you're crazy, you'll be the last to know?"

But I thought I was.

[Dux is not you]

What's the point in making a distinction between reality-as-it-is and reality-as-we-know-it anyway?