I think I have found the truth

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » I think I have found the truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 10:17 pm
Not really... but this is certainly more palattable than anything else I've heard so far... this has come out of a lot of thinking and I want to hear your thoughts on it. It is sort of mix of solipsism, Freudian psychology, eastern philosophy, with the same Judeo-Christian and scientific influences we all know so well.

Our brains are very similar to chimpanzees' brains. Yet we have this extensive consciousness and sentience, they do not. How can a little extra gray matter account for this? Many have wondered, where is our consciousness amongst the lobes and neurons? Theologicals argue, it isn't there, it is the supernatural, proof of a soul. Scientifics argue, with faith in their system, that it is in there somewhere, we just haven't figured it out, but rest assured it is contained only within the physical.

Well.... I am somewhere off the map in that debate. I believe I live an imagined life in this imagined universe, but that it is all coherent and effectively real. The true "reality" is a void of nothingness, wherein my consciousness is contained. All matter and physical and temporal concepts are imaginary constructs of this great mind. Now, since my current consciousness in my body is not actually aware of these goings-on (I have only guessed at them), there is another super-consciousness responsible for all that, still part of my consciousness, but out of my reach. I cannot know it, nor control it. It is my highest mind, the opposite of a sub-conscious. It is what has fabricated this world in which I live, and it is what controls the way my life plays out. If you will, it is equivalent to the part of your mind that controls the dream as you experience it. It is this super-consciousness that exists in the void, and is the only true existence, and is the true manifestation of myself. Since it is a higher being of sorts and has created all constructs of this life, it is reasonable to call it God, but irresponsible to think that I actually am God. It is merely analogous to God, nothing more. It is possible that our sub-conscious is aware of the super-conscious and has manifested this awareness in an age-old belief in God. Or perhaps this belief is exclusively the work of the super-conscious. It is also conceivable that I am not the only being or lesser consciousness living out this fantasy in this universe, that some or all other humans have also been manifestations of the larger mind... which possibly accounts for pantheistic beliefs, God is one, all are God, God is everything, everything is God. Neither is it impossible that there is alien or animal intelligence which is similarly manifested.

Furthermore, I believe that when I and possible others die, I (my super-conscious) creates a new fantasy, most likely totally different from this one, in which I then live a new life, and in which everything is different, down to the lowest basics outside our comprehension, like the nature of time, physics, matter, life, birth, death and the universe as a whole. I would not remember anything from this existence, however. It is possible that our reincarnation beliefs stem from this.

So in this way we or I would live on forever, never aware, always in a new existence. God, or me, or the super-conscious, or whatever you want to call it, would continue on, existing in this void, the very manifestation of empty space, of nothingness. It needed no creation because it is the sum of nothing, nothingness is what it is made from, nothingness is what it is. It needs no start date because it exists outside of time, in the timeless void.

Now before you tell me to go to an institution, just imagine it.... its possible isn't it? And hardly depressing, either. In fact it largely satisfies every worldview, pantheistic, monotheistic, atheistic, agnostic, and reincarnate.

When this philosophy is applied to life here, it results in a rather nice existence. You'll find my belief leads to a lovely acceptance of the observed world, combined with healthy yet unorthodox (scientifically unorthodox) skepticism, while still being very tolerant and respectful of any other belief, yet still having allowance for observance and even true belief in any organized religion.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 05:21 am
@Thucydides,
Thucydides,

Nicely articulated, and yep; until we know everything, everywhere and for all time we must concede that such things are possible. I find it neither more nor less plausible than any other metaphysical/theological/god concept. I get the feeling you've put some good thought into this and applaud your sharing.

Good luck!
 
Thucydides
 
Reply Thu 12 Mar, 2009 10:14 pm
@Thucydides,
If only I knew that you actually understood. But that's another philosophical topic entirely.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Fri 13 Mar, 2009 05:22 am
@Thucydides,
Thucydides wrote:
If only I knew that you actually understood. But that's another philosophical topic entirely.


Hey ya,

Yea I've read this over again and it seems relatively straightforward. But no, I don't claim to completely understand; I can only related to the words given.

Still, it's nice to have a framed belief system such as yours. Good luck!
 
re turner jr
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 06:54 am
@Thucydides,
Religion should seek to answer four basic questions that we all have.
Origin - Where did we/I come from?
Meaning - Why (are we/am I) here?
Morality - What's right and wrong?
Destination - Where are we going?

To the questions of origin and destination you have given good, well thought out answers (I disagree with them, but thats not the point). I think the answer to meaning can vaguely be found in your Original Post, but needs to be fleshed out a little. And I don't see how your OP gives any answer to the question of morality.

But all the same, it seems a good start, and echoing Kheth, "Good Luck"
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 08:56 am
@re turner jr,
Alot of us ponder on this subject and i have certain similar thoughts but we must not get carried away that it is the final truth. It is merely musing nothing more nothing less.Look for the footprints first..
 
Thucydides
 
Reply Tue 17 Mar, 2009 04:33 pm
@Thucydides,
Haha the title is more of a joke. I don't pretend that this is really, certainly, the truth, it just might be.

As far as meaning... well, the meaning, I would argue, is derived in understanding what is happening to us and finding connection with the super-concious. That with some combination of enjoyment, anyway.

As to morality, I see nothing wrong with simply following the moral codes laid by society, but this is a personal choice; I deem it proper, though others may not. I don't think morality quite plays into my beliefs, but then again, the super-concious could indeed have laid down morals for each universe, but I cannot be sure of what they are and will go off the morals of society as a substitute.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 12:46 am
@Thucydides,
Have you ever looked into phenomenology? Many phenomenologists would describe actual BEING as a bit similar to your idea. They have a fundamental respect for the subjective experience, and treat each individual person as a radically different existing world/reality. Due to the varying biology, historicity, and current situations of each person, we are each inherently experiencing alternate realities. Your idea would simply be reincarnation, as if any of us reincarnated into any other animal, we would radically have a different perspective of reality.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 02:39 am
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;125371 wrote:
Have you ever looked into phenomenology? Many phenomenologists would describe actual BEING as a bit similar to your idea. They have a fundamental respect for the subjective experience, and treat each individual person as a radically different existing world/reality. Due to the varying biology, historicity, and current situations of each person, we are each inherently experiencing alternate realities. Your idea would simply be reincarnation, as if any of us reincarnated into any other animal, we would radically have a different perspective of reality.


Even if they were right, we are not experiencing "alternate realities". We are having alternate experiences of the same reality. How does it follow from the premise that we have different experiences, that what it is we are experiencing is different?
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:22 pm
@kennethamy,
That is the mode of thinking in which phenomenologist attempt to avoid. Most people assume that one objective reality exists somewhere, but in reality, what's truly real are these multitudes of subjective perspectives, which in turn constitute radically different worlds. It is hard to explain in one post, however, I will just add that the whole phenomenology movement rejects the totality of modern scientific empiricism, and attempts to develop a more descriptive science that looks at what is truly foundational (human experience) as what to build any knowledge upon.

As Maurice Merleau-Ponty would put it: "We must not wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must, therefore, say the world is what we perceive."

If each person is, therefore, perceiving different worlds, there are in fact many existing alternate realities existing right now.

It's just a different way to look at things.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:33 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;125483 wrote:
That is the mode of thinking in which phenomenologist attempt to avoid. Most people assume that one objective reality exists somewhere, but in reality, what's truly real are these multitudes of subjective perspectives, which in turn constitute radically different worlds. It is hard to explain in one post, however, I will just add that the whole phenomenology movement rejects the totality of modern scientific empiricism, and attempts to develop a more descriptive science that looks at what is truly foundational (human experience) as what to build any knowledge upon.

As Maurice Merleau-Ponty would put it: "We must not wonder whether we really perceive a world, we must, therefore, say the world is what we perceive."

If each person is, therefore, perceiving different worlds, there are in fact many existing alternate realities existing right now.

It's just a different way to look at things.


They may attempt to avoid it, but what does that matter unless they cannot do so? Obviously, the world is not what we perceive because, in that case, there would be as many worlds as there are perceivers, and that is absurd. Every time a new perceiver is born there would be another world.

It is not only a different way to look at things. Since it has absurd consequences, it is also an absurd way to look at things. I thought the idea was to "bracket" the world, not to collapse it into phenomena.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 01:54 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;125486 wrote:
They may attempt to avoid it, but what does that matter unless they cannot do so? Obviously, the world is not what we perceive because, in that case, there would be as many worlds as there are perceivers, and that is absurd. Every time a new perceiver is born there would be another world.

It is not only a different way to look at things. Since it has absurd consequences, it is also an absurd way to look at things. I thought the idea was to "bracket" the world, not to collapse it into phenomena.


The idea is to avoid brackets. Modern tendency is to attempt to bracket consciousness, which in the opinion of phenomenology is the truly absurd task.

I would also argue that the current perspective which most hold concerning the objective world has created its fair share of consequences as people have become reducible to their biology and observed behavior, thus rendering consciousness merely an effect of what others perceive as reality.

Whether or not something may seem absurd at first glance doesn't entail anything about its validity. Evolution once seemed an absurd construct; however, now it is all but scientific law.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 03:11 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;125495 wrote:
The idea is to avoid brackets. Modern tendency is to attempt to bracket consciousness, which in the opinion of phenomenology is the truly absurd task.

I would also argue that the current perspective which most hold concerning the objective world has created its fair share of consequences as people have become reducible to their biology and observed behavior, thus rendering consciousness merely an effect of what others perceive as reality.

Whether or not something may seem absurd at first glance doesn't entail anything about its validity. Evolution once seemed an absurd construct; however, now it is all but scientific law.


I did not say it seemed absurd. I saif it was absurd. What would it mean for there to be as many worlds as there are observers, and for world to die when an observer died, and for a new world to exist when an observer was born? What would lead anyone to believe such a thing? Do phenomenologists really believe such a thing? Why?
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@kennethamy,
The current decline of social morality and the lack of classical meaningful experience is what the phenomenological movement is arising out of. It is not a choice that leads to the belief of such an existence; however, it becomes phenomenologically given once a traditional perspective of understanding human experience is uncovered.

They don't claim to be creating a new way to look at the world, but feel they are in line with the traditional philosophy concerning human experience, and it is through the curse of modern science that the majority of people have come to perceive an objective reality where none exists.

If you claim we are all perceiving the same reality, then through who's perspective are we perceiving it? We can't pretend we can experience the world from a God on the mountaintop perspective, because no one person experiences such a reality. The only realities that exist are those individual experiences, and we tend to try to objectively merge them all into one thing.

Reality isn't a thing at all, it is only what it is, and that is experience.

Absurdity in one experience can be reality in another's.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 03:42 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;125514 wrote:
The current decline of social morality and the lack of classical meaningful experience is what the phenomenological movement is arising out of. It is not a choice that leads to the belief of such an existence; however, it becomes phenomenologically given once a traditional perspective of understanding human experience is uncovered.

They don't claim to be creating a new way to look at the world, but feel they are in line with the traditional philosophy concerning human experience, and it is through the curse of modern science that the majority of people have come to perceive an objective reality where none exists.

If you claim we are all perceiving the same reality, then through who's perspective are we perceiving it? We can't pretend we can experience the world from a God on the mountaintop perspective, because no one person experiences such a reality. The only realities that exist are those individual experiences, and we tend to try to objectively merge them all into one thing.

Reality isn't a thing at all, it is only what it is, and that is experience.


Experience of what? How could I have (say) computer experience unless there are computers? And what about those planets and stars which we know existed, (and exist now) of which we had (and have) no experience?
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 03:57 pm
@kennethamy,
Have you ever personally experienced another planet? What you have experienced is others interpretations of their own cognitions concerning planets.

An age old problem facing the philosopher is how to discern that what we experience is real. You say you experience a computer or stars, but all you really experience is a representation of those things.

Immanuel Kant recognized this dilemma, thus made a split between phenomena and noumena. What we experience when we experience is merely the phenomena of the representation of the object. We can never truly understand its true noumenal existence, as the human senses can only perceive so much.

Imagine if humans had eyes on each side of their head, and somehow were endowed with infrared vision. These differences in perception would create a very different phenomenal experience of the same noumenal object that we can experience through our current senses.

Senses are not very good indicators to test objectivity, they tend to be quite faulty. Phenomenology realizes this problem, thus makes the simple claim that reality is what we experience. Reality must be the phenomena since we can never reach the true noumena. Science, as it exists now, attempts to study the noumena using human senses; hoever, this creates an immediate dilemma due to the circumstance I've already described.

You are assuming the existence of computers based on what you know of them, but your experience is not the same as others experience.

Therefore, for the phenomenologist, reality is what we experience.
 
Thucydides
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 04:08 pm
@Thucydides,
Phenomenology sounds very similar to what I have developed independently. Namely, that there is no way to know anything besides what you yourself perceive. Therefore, you cannot have a distinction between perception and reality, meaning perception effectively IS reality. As an extension of that, everyone has different perceptions of things, from the very basic things, like a color blind man next to a woman who is not, down to very subtle things like how I experience a familiar piece of music like Vivaldi whereas you may not be at all familiar with Vivaldi and experience it very differently.

Thus there are many realities, none of which can be said to be THE reality. We may collude and attempt to construct a common objective reality but even this is in the context of our own perception.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 04:11 pm
@Thucydides,
Thucydides;125524 wrote:
Phenomenology sounds very similar to what I have developed independently. Namely, that there is no way to know anything besides what you yourself perceive. Therefore, you cannot have a distinction between perception and reality, meaning perception effectively IS reality. As an extension of that, everyone has different perceptions of things, from the very basic things, like a color blind man next to a woman who is not, down to very subtle things like how I experience a familiar piece of music like Vivaldi whereas you may not be at all familiar with Vivaldi and experience it very differently.

Thus there are many realities, none of which can be said to be THE reality. We may collude and attempt to construct a common objective reality but even this is in the context of our own perception.


That is it exactly! Phenomenology doesn't attempt to disprove anything about the objective world we perceive to be living, but merely put it in perspective. In that sense, different religions could simply be the different representations of the same noumenal reality, and as individual perceivers, we in turn use our own individual words to describe it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 05:10 pm
@MMP2506,
MMP2506;125518 wrote:
Have you ever personally experienced another planet? What you have experienced is others interpretations of their own cognitions concerning planets.

An age old problem facing the philosopher is how to discern that what we experience is real. You say you experience a computer or stars, but all you really experience is a representation of those things.

Immanuel Kant recognized this dilemma, thus made a split between phenomena and noumena. What we experience when we experience is merely the phenomena of the representation of the object. We can never truly understand its true noumenal existence, as the human senses can only perceive so much.

Imagine if humans had eyes on each side of their head, and somehow were endowed with infrared vision. These differences in perception would create a very different phenomenal experience of the same noumenal object that we can experience through our current senses.

Senses are not very good indicators to test objectivity, they tend to be quite faulty. Phenomenology realizes this problem, thus makes the simple claim that reality is what we experience. Reality must be the phenomena since we can never reach the true noumena. Science, as it exists now, attempts to study the noumena using human senses; hoever, this creates an immediate dilemma due to the circumstance I've already described.

You are assuming the existence of computers based on what you know of them, but your experience is not the same as others experience.

Therefore, for the phenomenologist, reality is what we experience.


What would it be to "experience another planet"? I don't know what it is you are asking me. No, I have never been to another planet, if that is what you mean. Neither have I been to Tokyo, but I am fairly sure there is such a place as Tokyo. Aren't you? We experience very few things directly, and if our only knowledge came from direct experience we would know very little. Luckily, however we know a great deal. Therefore it is not true that our only knowledge comes from direct experience.

What makes you think that my experience of computers is not the same as that of others?

---------- Post added 02-06-2010 at 06:17 PM ----------

Thucydides;125524 wrote:
Phenomenology sounds very similar to what I have developed independently. Namely, that there is no way to know anything besides what you yourself perceive. Therefore, you cannot have a distinction between perception and reality, meaning perception effectively IS reality. As an extension of that, everyone has different perceptions of things, from the very basic things, like a color blind man next to a woman who is not, down to very subtle things like how I experience a familiar piece of music like Vivaldi whereas you may not be at all familiar with Vivaldi and experience it very differently.

Thus there are many realities, none of which can be said to be THE reality. We may collude and attempt to construct a common objective reality but even this is in the context of our own perception.


Have you ever perceived a place called Tokyo? I guess not. How then do you know that it exists if, as you say, you know nothing besides what you yourself perceived? Or, don't you know that there is a place called Tokyo. If not, please look it up.
 
MMP2506
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 06:50 pm
@kennethamy,
If I looked up whether or not Tokyo existed, what I would find is some persons description of their understanding of Tokyo. He/she would give me information which was previously unknown to me, thus expanding my understanding of Tokyo.

If it were the case that previous to that action both mine and the other persons experience of Tokyo was the same, then I would not have gained any greater understanding from hearing his/her perspective.

I know that your experience of the computer differs from others because if everyone's experience was the same, then there would be no need for arguments. Everyone would posses the same level of understanding about everything. We would in fact be all the same person, we would all be God. People are not all the same person, and we in fact argue about quite a lot, outlining our differing experiences and our lack of divinity. The mere existence of countering opinions proves that our understandings of certain realities are quite inherently different, and due to our unique situations, we can never truly experience anything the same as another person.

You can be quite certain that Tokyo exists, but you can't be certain of what doesn't exist. The only caveat a phenomenologist would have, is to discredit the existence of something based on pure empiricism, which is prone to uncertainty due to the faultiness of human senses.

What I am claiming is, Tokyo exists to me and you, however different for each of us and from how it may exist for someone else. To try to claim that Tokyo exists one way, may also be true, but due to our unique perceptual inabilities, we can only get a restricted representation of the noumenal existence.

For those who have no understanding of Tokyo, the city itself doesn't exist in that realm of reality.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Evangelism
  3. » I think I have found the truth
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 11:00:10