I recently opened a thread on great debates that was seen as being a little low brow.
Even though my punctuation may not be perfect, I’m hoping the active members in this forum are more forgiving than previous.
I excel in thought experiments, most often revolving around quantum theory, perspective shift, observer bias, multidimensional probability (causality), Existentialism.
For instance, what would the most dreadful existence be?
While there are many possible existences worse than that of a human being, we are burdened with full physical understanding of our universe.
A goldfish out of water, is somewhat of a paradox, having only four seconds of memory recall, the subject would have to have an instinctive reaction to flail and wiggle back toward water, if not for that response those four seconds would be spent with a few thoughts, What am I? Where am I? Why Can’t I Breathe? Rinse, Repeat.
Why does Deja-vu, Dream-time and Absolute Clarity have the same euphoric response within the brain? Is This Pineal gland hyperactivity?
Is it possible that at all times we’re in an altered state of consciousness that wades through time, choice, probability and fate. Maybe we can just reach out and create whatever we want, all it takes is to learn control over these altered states of consciousness to achieve real world otherwise unobtainable goals.
I could go on about this stuff for days, this is just one aspect of consensual reality I find most interesting as of late.
The most dreadful existence has to be one with human level awareness and the ability to dread. Humans can dread indepedent of any external stimulus, someone who does that has the worst possible existence because they dread something which doesn’t exist.
Assuming facts not in evidence. Who says they are at all related?
No. I would have already figured it out if there was an easier way to create what I want because I have super laziness powers.
We live inside a computational convenience. The world we experience as day-to-day reality is a construct manufactured by our brains. It is structured to allow us to quickly solve certain problems relevant to survival in small bands of hunter-gatherers living on the African plains. So we’ve evolved to see the world as a big 3-D space populated with objects. This illusion is so seamless that it feels like that’s what the universe must actually be. But really, a big 3-D space populated with objects is just a handy way to solve problems of collision and interception, a way to coordinate muscle twitches to make sure the rock intersects the skull of the gazelle. It doesn’t mean that such a world is reality.
However, we have nothing to think with other than the brains evolution has given us. We cannot learn to think our way outside of this umwelt, any more than we can learn to attend to the edge of our visual field.
(Our visual field clearly has an edge – I can’t see what’s behind my head – but if I try to attend to it, I discover that it feels like there’s no edge at all … .)
shadowofneo - all we have so far is your word that all this is true. Why should we believe it? Put another way, how can we test to see if it’s true or false?
I know, right. Finally! Good job, shadowofneo for at least making it easier for us to read your post.
I know you’re probably wondering, “Why do posters here care so much about punctuation?” It’s because correct use of the English language is prized here. It’s almost like a tradition here (and I know it’s a lot to say for someone who only joined about six months ago). One of the things that are really valued here is that people write well and the reason it is valued so much is because this is one of the only discussion areas on the Internet where posts do not contain writing errors that detract from the fluidity of reading them. So in other words, this is one of the only places where writing errors don’t interfere with the easiness of reading posts. It’s not like Yahoo! Answers where horrible writing skills cause you to take three times as much time to read the post than it should due to poor writing skills.
Also, it’s not only punctuation that’s valued here, but it’s coherency. People also expect other posters here to write in a coherent manner so that it is not difficult to understand what the poster is saying. Coherency and correctness in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization go hand in hand.
Dude. Mostly, it’s the same people in all the forums here.
That being the case, many of the same folks who saw your earlier post will see this one too. So will be watching and comparing the progress of your efforts at literacy.
AND SomE CapitaL LetterS.
There’s yet some hope for the guy. I think the next thing on the list to watch for will be some, . . . what shall we say? . . . coherence. Yeah, that’s your next challenge. You’re getting there, dude.
Fun fact! Goldfish can remember things for at least three months. Paradox resolved, all is well. The little fellow should be able to easily remember how to get back into the water, where he can continue his existential contemplations in comfort.
Though I must say, if you’re repeatedly rinsing your goldfish, you might as well have left it in the water in the first place.
I agree. A goldfish is only suffering what it’s experiencing at that moment. No matter how badly a human being is suffering at the moment, they can always imagine something worse.
A problem I’d foresee is that people would prefer to think that what they’re experiencing is real and not just a self-delusion. And if you were able to consciously have control over what you experienced, it would be difficult to convince yourself it had a reality outside of your own mind. So a lack of conscious control can itself be a desirable goal.
Which raises the question: if you had conscious control of what you experience, wouldn’t you make yourself unaware that you had that control in order to better enjoy the experiences you’ve created?
I think the only who the OP has found being of a “consensual reality” is the OP. Is that recursive? Redundant? Duplicative? Or some kind of mystical plurality of existence?
Good gods, but I hate it that “quantum mechanics” has become trendy.
But no, I do not believe that you really do excel at QM thought experiments. If you did, you’d have published in a peer reviewed journal, because in QM thought experiments have yielded and continue to yield tremendously valuable data. What you’re talking about seems to be more like you can engage in a college-dorm-room-style bull session about QM. Big difference.
Because the first two, while real, don’t have any such response.
The third is probably not anything real as it seems to be a random phrase you’ve capitalized for some reason. I’d also note that if you understand QM, you’d know that there are no absolutes and there’s no such thing as “clarity” since uncertainty is a fundamental and unavoidable part of reality.
Nope that is not at all possible.
Next question?
Nope, that also is not at all possible.
Next question?