• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Being Alive Means Being Alive Somewhere

Lovecraft

Lovecraft

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
284
You can't fathom existing nowhere. Doesn't that mean that you are everything around you and not just what's on the "inside" ?
 
I don't think that the fact that you can't fathom not existing is proof of anything other than it not being possible to comprehend not experiencing something, since we have only ever experienced something. However I do believe regardless that we are everything, in that we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively through all lifeforms.
 
Xorkoth said:
I don't think that the fact that you can't fathom not existing is proof of anything other than it not being possible to comprehend not experiencing something, since we have only ever experienced something. However I do believe regardless that we are everything, in that we are the universe experiencing itself subjectively through all lifeforms.
Click to expand...
To be more precise, I wasn't talking about imagining not existing but that specifically, we can't imagine not existing in a place or some kind of surrounding. Being always seems to imply being somewhere. And if that's the case, does that imply some type of unity or interconnection between ourselves and everything else.

BTW, how are you?
 
Right. Such is the limitation of the unknown. I'm not sure about its specific implications of universal oneness. I believe that exists regardless of our perception.

There are vacancies of the mind for transcending this containing view of being in a place or surrounding.
 
Lovecraft said:
To be more precise, I wasn't talking about imagining not existing but that specifically, we can't imagine not existing in a place or some kind of surrounding. Being always seems to imply being somewhere. And if that's the case, does that imply some type of unity or interconnection between ourselves and everything else.

BTW, how are you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose it's because we live in a dimensional existence... the only thing we've ever experienced is being somewhere, with positional parameters and surroundings. It's hard to imagine something radically different from the entire paradigm we have always existed in.

I'm doing okay, having a good weekend. You?

schizopath said:
Fuck Einstein and good luck with the long night
Click to expand...

Why fuck Einstein?
 
Im not sure if its fuck Einstein, but basically, the way I see it, we nowadays base theories on old theories that werent necessarily right... They made theories about space fit it. I migth easily be wrong though.

 
Einstein seemed like a really cool guy. He had some revolutionary ideas, of course he might not be right about everything but he definitely advanced our understanding substantially and was a super compassionate and interesting guy. He seems like one of the coolest and most well rounded brilliant scientists.
 
Lovecraft said:
You can't fathom existing nowhere. Doesn't that mean that you are everything around you and not just what's on the "inside" ?
Click to expand...
No. It means that everything that you perceive to be around you is an incomplete picture created within you. It means you can only perceive the experiential qualia that spontaneously bubble into your conscious awareness.

Actually wait - let me correct myself. There are different ways of looking at the situation. Also - yes, you are everything around you, because the things around you all originate from subconscious processes that are, in actual fact, still "inside" yourself.

You cannot actually directly perceive anything outside yourself. It's quite possible there is nothing outside yourself, for you have no way of truly, objectively verifying that your perceptions are anything other than a part of yourself.

It's up to you what you choose to infer from this. Most people find it easier to navigate this strange internal space if they assume that the representations of things "outside" their minds actually do represent something "real", passed through the filters of our sense organs, followed by the computational decoding that occurs in our cognitive organ (the brain) to result in a fairly neatly packaged simulation of a reality outside our minds that has it's own existence. But there is no way to truly verify this. Our entire biological paradigm of neurological processes, different brain structures, sense organs, the reality we infer to be exist outside ourselves, are based on things that we just have no way to directly perceive, without filtering them through these lenses that might be themselves complete fabrications originating from a place within our minds but outside our conscious awareness.

Equally, most people find it easier to navigate existing within an apparently conscious mind, inside something called a "human", if they assume that the other humans they perceive seem to also have their own internal experiential worlds, even if not exactly the same ones as your own, and not ones that you can ever directly peek into, even if they are complete fabrications created by your own mind and in fact, you are the only truly conscious, sentient entity in all of existence.

But neither of these perspectives are compulsory. Either could be "true".

As far as you can tell, really, you are the only sentient entity in the entire universe. In fact, you are the entire universe, and other people's lives are not actually happening, but just stories that seem real only when they intersect with your own. I - or, probably, most of the representations of other humans that you meet - can tell you that I too have an internal world, it's not just you - in which case, there must be some reality "without", and this points to the existence of a greater reality that the low-resolution simulation your mind constructs for you as some kind of workable, if incomplete, model.

But then, we would all say the same thing if we were nothing but convincing illusions created from a place within your own mind.

There's really no way to tell for sure.
 
I think it means that in order to define something as separate, you also need to define what it is separate from.

If one were to say that one could exist in nowhere, that would be a claim to be everything.

In this sense, i think you got your riddle the wrong way around. I'm pretty sure there are many perspectives, however. From my years of obsessive thinking i'm still not sure what the main takeaway is. I'm of course tempted to say the takeaway is an awareness of the mutuality in opposition and the subjective nature of all division of reality. On the other hand, i'm not sure that such statements bring any real knowledge beyond the vain articulation of general intellect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top