Johnny Rotten

Every once in a while, I consider the stock-and-trade topics of philosophy; the existence of God, free will, euthanasia, the Matrix, altruism, homosexuality... but every once in a while, I'm stuck at the root of the problem--that you can be sure of precious little. I might not have existed the moment before I finished typing this sentence. I might exist only as a tool in someone or something else's device, only aware of myself in an illusory way, in a functional way that is only a sliver of true being. Sure, we've all considered this at one time or another. The world might be some form of Matrix.

But every once in a while I'm afraid that I'm the master of my domain but am unable to muster the ability to do anything godlike because of how I've been conditioned to be a face in the crowd. Every once in a while, I'm afraid that life as I know it is a puzzle that I have to unlock to reach higher ground, else stay here for another turn of the wheel.

Occam says to not multiply uneccessarily. So what's the simplest explanation? I suppose that depends on whether you're the practical type or a little stoned and listening to OK Computer, like me. But I think it also depends on our knowledge of the situation. Before factories came along, a windmill was the best way to grind grain into flour. Nobody could think of a better way to do for a long, long time. A 12th century Norman couldn't even conceive of such a thing. Likewise we cannot imagine what devices it would take to simulate a reality for the problem of the individual. Any factory owner would tell you that his idea is much more efficient and profitable than a bunch of windmills. Than billions of them, given a million factories.

Come to think of it, reality occlusion culling is a great way to save on processing power. Randomness (within rules) is a great way to save on storage space. So is instantiation, where I only exist as a set of rules before being summoned to appear. But as there is nothing necessary about my being alone here in my room typing away and listening to Thom Yorke whisper sweet nothings in my ear, I must be real. As there is nothing necessary about my self-awareness, I must be real. I've stumbled into Descartes. It's pretty crowded in here.

So I am real and, with existence considered as a computing device, there is no strict reason for anything beyond the realm of my senses to physically exist. The world around me, as rulesets waiting to be summoned, with me being the X factor, the representative of entropy that generates glitches like spirit hauntings, deja vu, and strange Ouija occurences. Maybe the cultural picture we have of the abducting alien is really my own face reflected back to me through millions of eyes, so I don't forget.

This explains why there appears to be no other intelligent life in the universe--a large given for many to swallow, but it's my personal conundrum--no aliens because there don't strictly need to be any. A culled occlusion. For now, at least. Just make sure they're not curious enough to ever find out for sure. Build failure into the system so that the program will if-then destroy itself if it finds out that it's alone, instead of asking the questions that break the illusion. That would generate insurmountable instability.

Since the future does not have to exist beyond our ability to guesstimate it, the present and the past don't have to lead towards a specific destination. There does not have to be a purpose beyond mere persistence of existence. Only one entity, the anomaly, has to be present. Only as much timespace as needed. Just enough to falsely convince the entity that is not alone.

You/I will not know which one is The One until the system has run out of neccesary lines of code. Given my reasoning, probability reaches one when the descendants of the human race become convinced that there is only one ultimate origination of self-awareness. That does not look like it will happen any time soon. The ability to view all of time and space at once is impossible from within the system, but it takes only "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a jury to send the defendant to the chair.

But what I'd really like is to be convinced of is that all of this is nonsense.

ARTelevision

What I find very convincing - as regards our existence - is that we are deluded about its nature to an extent that we have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

__________________
create evolution

d*d

you already mentioned descartes - he concluded that the only thing we can truly justify is that we exist beyond that cannot be trusted, his analogy that we could be brains in a bucket stimulted in different ways is what you are using with your matrix (I'm a little bored of that being used as an example now) analogy. I can't prove to you that your reality isn't in some way contrived - but it is what you have so why does it need to be any more complicated than that (that would satisfy Occam's law) you could drive yourself onto a paranoid mess looking for curtains hiding some ultimate truth.

zen_tom

I like some of the flavours you conjour up there, but am not sure what your point is. I've an idea, but I may be wrong - please correct me if I am.

Is it that you suspect that possibly you are the only one 'here' and that everything you experience is the result of some system or program in which you are installed, all alone?

You refer to Occam a number of times, and yet, doesn't the idea that everything you experience has been created so as to fool you seem more improbable than the notion that your senses have evolved over billions of years so that you are able to experience what IS there? Doesn't that explanation pass the Occam test more readily?

If the world is some form of constructed illusion, who constructed it? Someone else? (Which solves the problem of an-other right there) Yourself? If you made it yourself, for what purpose? Out of what? What or where is the real you? Since you have no chance of answering these questions, and equally no chance of ever being able to convince anyone that they are valid, why not allow Occam his way, and accept what is presented to you?

Sure there may be hidden machinations below the surface of what is visible, but essentially things appear to work pretty well. Serves you right for listening to Radiohead, try some Pink Floyd (The Meddle Album is my personal favorite) or mix a coctail, slide back and switch to some kind of Cuban, or Brazilian Bossa Nova style music which will put you in touch with your schmoove side for a while. Lay off the drugs. Seriously dude.

flstf

Probably best to just accept the fact that we are a somewhat evolved naked ape without the wisdom and brain power to truly understand existence? We have no idea what the universe is all about and our brains cannot even comprehend basic concepts like finity/infinity. We are like goldfish in a bowl, there must be a god, someone feeds us and changes the water. Maybe if our species evolves for another million years or so...

And when the old man opened the book of knowledge, the youth was suddenly blinded.

Coppertop

I think it is closer to say that our senses have evolved to protect us from reality, enabling us to deal with life so that we may function: live, breathe, reproduce, etc. More akin to Plato's analogy of the cave.

zen_tom

Coppertop, I'm a HUGE fan of Plato's cave, and yes, I'd have to agree with you, though I do think the difference between my senses having "evolved...to experience what IS there" and yours having "evolved to protect us from reality" is splitting hairs somewhat.

If there is something there, then it follows that we might need to be protected from it, hide from it, react to it, chase it, or even hit it with a stick and eat it. All these things are requirements for survival, even if they are just shadows dancing on a cave wall. What Plato missed out is that the shadows can bite, and if we miss our shadow footing, we still fall down the shadow stairs and break our shadow necks.

The process of training ourselves to take our eyes from the cave wall will help us understand what creates these shadows, and mastering them, maybe even allow us to play shadow-puppets ourselves one-day, but after we have achieved the most incredible magics, we are always going to have to return to eating our shadow bread and drinking our shadow milk and living our shadow lives.

Coppertop

Maybe this is just the former chemical-user in me speaking, but I've always seen it as our minds shield us from reality by only allowing us to directly experience the shadows. Were we to spend all day in the sun, we wouldn't be bothered to procreate or do anything really. We'd be basking in the light and be content. Obviously the species cannot survive this way, hence the cave.

But we can experience it, taste it so to speak. Some try to reach it and call it enlightenment. Some get a glimpse through chemicals. It is there, and it is good, and I believe all will be revealed when I die, so I do not fear death but instead look forward to it.

*edited (as always) for typos

Zeraph

I'm afraid you're partially right. This is God, it's just you and me pal.

-G.

antisuck

If we are all merely shadowy potentialities waiting to be instantiated for the convenience of maintaining your personal illusion, then why are you asking us?

zen_tom

Coppertop, I know where you're coming from, but you have to remember that our minds are made of the same material stuff as is in evidence around us. i.e. it too is a shadow, trapped in the shadow world, except for its ability to imagine, (possibly percieve?) as you say, tastes and glimpses of what lies behind.

Master_Shake

Well, assuming that we were all brains in a vat, what would you do differently? Examining all those other theories of reality, which of those would really make you behave differently?

I try to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. I would try to do that in any system. That I do it as a brain in a vat or as a line of code is irrelevant. I feel pleasure or pain (I may not know the cause, but I know that I do feel it). Go to the pleasure, stay away from the pain.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

ravenradiodj

I am reminded of a quote from Aleister Crowley:

"The only thing we can say for sure is that there appears to be such a thing as consciousness."

________________________________________________________________________

Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

Johnny Rotten

True, but my contention is that Occam's Razor points towards only one entity being strictly necessary for the system, while the rest of the cast members, so to speak, can be simulated when needed. The postulation, for me, serves as a probable alternative to the Judeo-Christian model. And instead of wondering whether or not there is a divine Creator, I wonder if, like Bill Hicks said, this is all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. And I think that is more likely.

zen_tom

Why didn't you just say that? Also, I suppose you are saying that this one intity IS the system, and that we are all manifestations of it?

But hold on a minute, these simulated cast members, who are they? Why are they simulated, who for, who by and for what purpose. Uh urrr, sorry, it's starting to get over-complex again. The problem with your contention is that there has to be some conspiracy, which suggests others, once those others are involved, along with their histories and motives, Occam's razor starts looking as though its been weilded about pretty haphazardly.

Master_Shake

"there is no strict reason for anything beyond the realm of my senses to physically exist."
"this is all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. And I think that is more likely."

A little membrane (M) theory there, perhaps?
Even if we are all subjective experiences of the same consciousness, I don't see how that should fundamentally change my behaviour. If the ultimate consciousness has no noticeable effect on me, then it might as well not exist, and I am free to disregard it.

If subjective experience A kills subjective experience B, does that effect the ultimate consciousness, and in turn effect subjective experience A?

If subjective experience A is completely unaware of subjective experience B, and B dies in a horrible corn husking accident, does that in turn effect subjective experience A?

How can we possibly hope to measure such effects, considering that we are all within the system?

This also reminds me of a great physics idea I read somewhere, (sorry, I can't remember where from). The gist is that if a particle is able to move backward through time as an anti-particle, then resume its "forward" momentum and repeat, that particle could be in more place than one at any particular time-point. Given enough energy to do so on a large enough scale, every particle could simply be manifestations of the exact same particle at different time-points, i.e. everything is made of the exact same particle.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.