Step 1: Realization in the truth

[lolomfgisuck]

The false illusion of "self" is created by the continuous, simultaneous interpretations of multiple senses in a single moment.

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/3/08 02:24 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: The false illusion of "self" is created by the continuous, simultaneous interpretations of multiple senses in a single moment.

Perhaps the illusion is that there's such thing as an illusion. Perhaps what is indeed happening is whatever we want it to be and whatever we interpret it to be within the laws of actual possibility. Perhaps there is a self because the majority believes there is both in and out of the self, and perhaps thats enough. Perhaps the self is just an abstraction for the whole. And perhaps there are different levels of selfdom.

[AapoJoki]

At 9/3/08 02:24 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: The false illusion of "self" is created by the continuous, simultaneous interpretations of multiple senses in a single moment.

Damn, right. I agree 100%. It shouldn't even be that hard to figure out.

[DasUberCow]

At 9/3/08 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Perhaps the illusion is that there's such thing as an illusion.

I need to go rethink my life now.

[Mishypie]

MAYBE WE ARE ALL LIKE FROM MARS OR SOMETHING

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/3/08 02:50 PM, Mishypie wrote: MAYBE WE ARE ALL LIKE FROM MARS OR SOMETHING

Its possible, now that I think about it. One question, that I've never had an answer on is whether or not the sun has been getting hotter or colder. I've assumed colder. And if that's the case, then it might be possible that Mars was hospitable to life at one point and that there was at some point an exchange of particles between earth and mars. If that were the case and it happened at the right time, perhaps the right amount of exchange happened between the two. We already know that biological substances have been spread by meteors, so its not that much of a stretch for two "relatively" close planets to somehow exchange material.

That said, there's no proof it could happen, but its still cool to think about.

Also, I'd like to pose to the topic starter a question. If the self is an illusion of multiple interactions, how have those multiple interactions become aware of themselves? (please ignore self, in themselves as its flawed meaning is ingrained into our language)

[Institutionalized]

At 9/3/08 02:50 PM, Mishypie wrote: MAYBE WE ARE ALL LIKE FROM MARS OR SOMETHING

Shut the fuck up.

And to the OP, I believe that nothing is "real" at all. EVERYTHING is how the your mind interprets it.

[fohn-jarmery]

Umm...
Ahhh...
A WIZARD DID IT!!!

Close one...

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 03:01 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Also, I'd like to pose to the topic starter a question. If the self is an illusion of multiple interactions, how have those multiple interactions become aware of themselves? (please ignore self, in themselves as its flawed meaning is ingrained into our language)

I'm not the OP, but I had my fair share of philosophy and since I love this stuff...
The self may be an illusion, but the dynamics of multiple interactions between multiple selves created the self-awareness, only through the dynamics of group interactions. The self didn't discover itself, it discover itself through the other selves. Mirroring, sort of speak, it became aware of itself through the other.

My question to you is: is the self really itself or is the self just an illusion of itself? Or is the self an illusion of the illusion which we consider to be real or is it the shadows of the actions of the selves that we take for real, while being nothing else but an illusion?

[Alfie]

At 9/3/08 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Perhaps the illusion is that there's such thing as an illusion.

Or is that an illusion?

[jerm7]

THIS IS THE TRUTH PEOPLE

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 03:10 PM, Alfie wrote:

At 9/3/08 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Perhaps the illusion is that there's such thing as an illusion.

Or is that an illusion?

No, an illusion of an illusion is a mere state, not defined as real or wrong. It's our definition of real or wrong what determines it to be an illusion or a fact. Not knowing the full essences of the state we're in, it could be defined in either of them. But in essence, the state itself has nothing to do with the definition/value we give it. The state itself is what it is.

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/3/08 03:08 PM, Ehwaz003 wrote: My question to you is: is the self really itself or is the self just an illusion of itself? Or is the self an illusion of the illusion which we consider to be real or is it the shadows of the actions of the selves that we take for real, while being nothing else but an illusion?

Can something that thinks it exists not exist? Even if it is just the result of actions, the fact that it has been given a name, meaning, and even purpose seems to argue that it in fact does exist. Since everything is arbitrarily defined by what is observable, from the human condition, what is observable is all that matters. We observe that individuals make decisons of their own accord and we observe that we do the same as an autonomous unit. So, for me, it doesn't matter that all thats really happening is that a bunch of moleculs are sticking togeather. Even if the only rule availible is that chemical bonds require these things to be connected, they have connected and they have produced soemthing which believes it can think and modify what is around it.

Since thats we we define the self to be, the self exists. How it actually works or its actual meaning or the importance of that is the real illusion. Meaning is an illusion, existance is fact, and hence any attempt to interpret and define things by some whole law of everything will fail.

I can right a program, a computer program which will simulate the movement of particles. And I can say, to a particle, "you, move forwards. Change your direction when you find others like you." And if I give every particle those same instructions and move them through a donut (torus), then they will group togeather and while moving independenly, but influenced by each other's forces, pulls, and gravitations, appear to be one. On a cosmic scale, though little things can have a huge impact, it is the whole that we must interpret.

I assure you that if a mass of children collides and tramples, the force of the whole will matter more to you than the singular shoes of each individual trudging over your face.

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 03:11 PM, Jezuz wrote: I'll be honest, I have no idea what any of you are talking about. It seems like senseless rambling, really.

Philosophical debate, nothing more, nothing less. ;-)

[Earfetish]

I am. Of that I am sure.

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 03:18 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 9/3/08 03:08 PM, Ehwaz003 wrote: My question to you is: is the self really itself or is the self just an illusion of itself? Or is the self an illusion of the illusion which we consider to be real or is it the shadows of the actions of the selves that we take for real, while being nothing else but an illusion?

Can something that thinks it exists not exist? Even if it is just the result of actions, the fact that it has been given a name, meaning, and even purpose seems to argue that it in fact does exist. Since everything is arbitrarily defined by what is observable, from the human condition, what is observable is all that matters. We observe that individuals make decisons of their own accord and we observe that we do the same as an autonomous unit. So, for me, it doesn't matter that all thats really happening is that a bunch of moleculs are sticking togeather. Even if the only rule availible is that chemical bonds require these things to be connected, they have connected and they have produced soemthing which believes it can think and modify what is around it.

Does something that thinks it exist not exist? In sociological laws defined, yes, that can exist. But it's not sociology here, hence the terms used. We as a whole have written laws to define things, events, etc. We give it a meaning, just for the purpose to be able to recognise it and place it as a part into the whole, as a little spring in a big machinery. As far as the interpretation goes, it's totally seperated from the inherent laws that function without any interference by our laws. Our state of being doesn't change the fact that molecules bond, it doesn't make a difference if we define the atoms as "atoms", giving the name "molecules" to molecules and say that they stick together. Regardless of our definition of it, our laws, our alphabet, our meanings, it works on itself. It's always been there, it always had a place and a function, no matter what it's been called. It's been there long before we had a microscope and it will be still there long after we are gone.
The state it's in remains the same, we just gave it a definition, a word, a "signifié".
That's not the same as the "signifiant" of the state: it's inherent meaning, different according to laws we created, different in locations around the worls because of a different interfering law we call language.
But does it change the state? No, it's always been there, regarless of what meaning we give it, what purpose or definition we place onto it.

Since thats we we define the self to be, the self exists. How it actually works or its actual meaning or the importance of that is the real illusion. Meaning is an illusion, existance is fact, and hence any attempt to interpret and define things by some whole law of everything will fail.

I can't disagree with this one. It's our inherent definition that makes us how we are, but that in itself could be totally wrong. It doesn't really matter, since our definition has a purpose on itself: it creates the illusion we need to grasp everything around us. Granted, it's not the way to reach the self, but it's the product that comes from the self in order to be able to grasp what we have right here, right now. The meanings we give to these things all around us are indeed nothing more then simple illusions, but that doesn't make it invaluable. Without it, we would only destroy the self, the state we have immediately, simply because we can't grasp it without putting a layer on top of it immediately: a defintion, a word...
Every time we try to understand it or describe it, we indeed fail... we are just putting up that layer again, instead of wiping it away and looking at the core, at the self, strained from illusion and false definition, we see the self. But because we can't grasp it, the illusion is VITAL to our survival. Without it, we surely wouldn't exist.

I can write a program, a computer program which will simulate the movement of particles. And I can say, to a particle, "you, move forwards. Change your direction when you find others like you." And if I give every particle those same instructions and move them through a donut (torus), then they will group togeather and while moving independenly, but influenced by each other's forces, pulls, and gravitations, appear to be one. On a cosmic scale, though little things can have a huge impact, it is the whole that we must interpret.

Writing a program is nothing more then using a new set of definitions and rules. The program is an environment with it's own set of rules, definitions, words, syntax, etc. You're doing nothing more at this point then adding another layer. It looks like you are going deeper into the core, towards the self, but the only thing you really accomplish is add another layer, add another definition, thus enhancing the illusion.

I assure you that if a mass of children collides and tramples, the force of the whole will matter more to you than the singular shoes of each individual trudging over your face.

I can't bare thinking that would happen for real, I hate children. LOL
I see what you mean, the force of the mass is far greater then it's singularities, given the fact that we give a meaning to another thing: our body, our constitution and most of all: pain. What is pain? Is it again a mere illusion of an undesired state of a physical entity? Is it something we only created from our own laws? How would pain have been interpreted 100 years ago apart from now? 100 years ago, we gave ourself the illusion that pain was the punishment of God for something we did wrong. Our wrongdoing caused pain, pain was the messenger. Again an illusion, but since pain comes a bit closer to the self and our reason of existence, it's a more persistent entity. That entity is harder to deny, comes closer to the self because of the danger it implies: pain means damage, damage means possible risk to death. What is death? A mere return to the self or just another illusion?
I tend to thing that it's much closer to the self that we can bear. If we are scared of pain and death now, how are we ever going to get our self? We won't because we are so affraid of it that we turn to our layers again, our definitions and our meanings, to avoid the essence. We can't look it in the eyes, we don't have words for it, because all of it is so far from the self that it would inherently fail.
We can't grasp it, and thus it makes us affraid, it makes us turn to our definitions. As part of protection? Maybe so...

[ragingfred]

maybe the illusion of self is not an illusion and that you are really a self, not just an undefined sould interpreting multiple senses as such. maybe its the illusion of the illusion of self.

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 04:25 PM, ragingfred wrote: maybe the illusion of self is not an illusion and that you are really a self, not just an undefined sould interpreting multiple senses as such. maybe its the illusion of the illusion of self.

An illusion of an illusion does nullify itself. But that doesn't mean it makes the illusion dissapear and uncover the self. The self can't be defined, because any definition thereof shows the lack of possibility for interpretation of the self. We need meanings, definitions, words, laws to comprehend it. The only thing we do then it know the definition, the words, etc. but not the self. The self in it's entity can't be really described, because any definition we give to it is merely a projection of our own, not the self in itself. Thus, it's merely an illusion.

[Haynesyb0y]

For all I know everywhere I havent been doesnt exist.

Does this relate to the thread?

[Dry-Ice]

I studied critical thinking, so philosophers are kinda my natural enemy.

In this instance, can you please define 'self' in all uses in your theory?

Ty <3

[4Doctodragon]

At 9/3/08 02:27 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Perhaps the illusion is that there's such thing as an illusion. Perhaps what is indeed happening is whatever we want it to be and whatever we interpret it to be within the laws of actual possibility-

Coincidentally enough, I was thinking the same thing.

[Ehwaz003]

At 9/3/08 05:00 PM, Dry-Ice wrote: I studied critical thinking, so philosophers are kinda my natural enemy.

In this instance, can you please define 'self' in all uses in your theory?

Ty <3

No can do... I'm afraid 8000 characters won't do for this. And for another thing, it's 11:46PM here, I'm off to bed. Maybe tomorrow or IRL with my philosopher-girlfriend. :P

[Alfie]

At 9/3/08 03:12 PM, Ehwaz003 wrote: No, an illusion of an illusion is a mere state, not defined as real or wrong. It's our definition of real or wrong what blahde blah blah.

You are a serious killjoy, you know that?

[iateamexican]

Tempted to make a Matrix joke here, but if you ask me theres not much point in trying to figure out if reality really is reality, since we will probably never know.

[Xaxrox]

I'm shocked by this revelation.

[ReciprocalAnalogy]

At 9/3/08 02:24 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote: The false illusion of "self" is created by the continuous, simultaneous interpretations of multiple senses in a single moment.

Are you saying that the concept of 'self' itself is a false illusion or that there is a false illusion within the concept of self?

Also, are you distinguishing between false illusions and legitimate illusions? Or just being redundant?