.
To ask this, or any other, question, or to contemplate an answer, in any context, necessarily implies a distinct being, or person, capable of asking questions and considering various answers to them. I am therefore surprised when I encounter words that are strung together that deny that any agency of self-identity, of self-awareness, of personal responsibility, was required to produce those words, presumably to convince me, a distinct conscious person, that those words contain some profound understanding that I am only an illusion of myself.
I know that I am a distinct, even unique, conscious, person. I have no doubt about that whatsoever, and I am constantly reminded of my own consciousness through my interactions, MY experiences, with my environment which I did not create, but which I consistently try to understand, manipulate, and improve. I believe, though I might not be able to convince everyone, that there are others like me, like Descarte's, that understand this. I believe that everyone who reads these words, and understands their meaning, are distinct conscious persons. I believe it on faith. I have faith in my own consciousness and ability to think, and I am humble enough to believe that as special as I am, I am not so special that all that has been created so far was created for my benefit alone. I appreciate those who try to develop a better mutual understanding that can add meaning to life, and I pity those who see meaninglessness in their own consciousness and/or that of others.
If I did not write this post, who did?
If you did not read this post, who did?
If there was no one who wanted to write, or read, this post, why is it posted here?
How did it get here?
Why did you read it?
Posted to alt.philosophy 05/23/05
Group: alt.philosophy
Date: Mon, May 23, 2005
From: mmcneill@fuzzysys.com (Sir Frederick)
The physical structure that bares the name 'Tony, philosopher' is the poster. That physical structure also functions so as to construct an internal representation of that physical structure and the functional context. This is the 'virtual reality' I have discussed. This virtual reality includes add in attributes (or stories) such as qualia, personification, consciousness, etc. Those virtual attributes are defined as credible and credited with 'reality' and your personal functions as you question.
Just because we self deceive does no mean we should or even can stop self deceiving. That includes the self and other deception called 'consciousness'.
It is a fales implication. Agency does not exist so using the word begs the question, or assumes facts not in evidence. Same with self awareness and personal responsibility ...
You are not an illusion of yourself. You do not exist and neither does your self.
At least that's how I would argue in the Court of the Queen of Hearts, in Alice in Wonderland, which is where this stuff belongs... Maybe self is a matter of faith or intuition... but there is an ego that happens about in preschool kids that is unnecessary and stressulf and continues unto death for most people, perhaps...
There isn't anybody who is conscious.
You are not an illusion of yourself. You do not exist and neither does your self.
IMO 'self' is similar to 'red', both representations credited with reality. And they are real inasmuch as we automatically hold them to be so.
Group: alt.philosophy
Date: Wed, May 25, 2005, 9:54am
From: rdh11@bellsouth.net (tooly)
What proof do you have of this? If the perfect conditions were created, then Truman himself [refer: 'The Truman Show'] would never be the wiser. But we can understand our significanse when we realize that none of this exists without our perception. But does this apply to us as a collective, or just some individual, like a Truman among us?
Is your FAITH in such thought that the rest of us exist any less than those who profess FAITH in higher existence? Did any of this exist before your own conscious existence awakened to percieve it? And once that conscious awareness is snuffed out, CAN it exist without your perception of it? It's not a new question of course, but described as a more far reaching attitude about self-centric creation, I think it adds profundity. Why else would all this be created...if not for you? If not you, then perhaps for me. If not me, perhaps then for no one. Except, as either of us vanish, so does it all vanish like some matrix contrived. How many worlds may have existed, or even exist now in some far off galaxy, but 'voided' to existence because we cannot percieve them NOW.
Of course, from my perspective, as I die, it all vanishes. Anything else is just an assumption. I think this kind of thinking has more merit than meets the superficial eye. I think it has to do with BEing and things we cannot be allowed to know for sake of experience that leads creation to NOW. Could you be GOD and not even know it...subliminally creating all this for yourself through time, but understanding the past failures, obstacles, pitfalls...such that infinite immorality might cross. And the rest of us, tools of that creation. Perhaps from the depths of hell you rise, forever seeking paradise, only to find BEings that must ultimately be destroyed, left behind, for reasons of some unforeseen flaw...in an ongong evolution of your own BEing.
Nuts; perhaps. But there is no way to disprove this.
Nuts; perhaps. But there is no way to disprove this.
Occam's Razor says the situation is meaningless as that is the simplest case.
The Copernican Principle says the situation is not special (that's close to meaningless).
In the meanwhile we need our stories, so nuts is OK. We all practice self deception, at our deepest meat ware level, up. Again, that used to be OK, the situation is changing, and threatens us.
The physical structure that bares the name 'Tony, philosopher' is the poster. That physical structure also functions so as to construct an internal representation of that physical structure and the functional context. This is the 'virtual reality' I have discussed. This virtual reality includes add in attributes (or stories) such as qualia, personification, consciousness, etc. Those virtual attributes are defined as credible and credited with 'reality' and your personal functions as you question.
Just because we self deceive does no mean we should or even can stop self deceiving. That includes the self and other deception called 'consciousness'.
Is the 'virtual reality' (of the physical structure that bears the name 'Tony, philosopher' which also functions so as to construct an internal representation of that physical structure and the functional context) physical or non-physical?
How does the internal representation of that structure differ from the structure it represents?
Does the add in attributes (or stories) such as qualia, personification, consciousness, etc. that are included in this virtual reality have any physical attributes by which they can be observed, measured, or tested to determine their presence or absence in any given physical structure?
Who defines those virtual attributes as credible and who credits them with 'reality' personal functions?
Just because some people self deceive does not mean that everyone does. If we should not or even can not stop self deceiving then what means could be used to correct deceptions? What criteria would there be to even recognize them as deceptions. What difference would it make whether we are deceived or not? Could you be deceiving yourself about this?
Don't delete this because it looks weird. Believe it or not you can read it.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.