all that exists is a product of our imagination
what we touch, smell, taste, feel, is all the result of mere electric signals that move forth and back in our nervous system.
there's no such a thing as taste, as love, as red or blue, it's all in the mind.
this "objective world", of singular truths and realities that some speak of, is merely a result of the trust one has in his imagination. which i understand as being very, very naive.
trap thread?
>>669206
having your first epistemological crisis or what
>>669206
But feelings are a psychical thing, Chemicals are a huge player in every feeling, Love for example is triggered by dopamine, So no not just electric signals.
Is your nervous system in your mind as well?
Is existence itself naive if it is an imaginary product we merely have trust in?
>>669206
Y-you can't kno nuffin!
Look either you're some kind of hallucinsting god-mind floating in the void or maybe you're just one mind out of many that constructs its world from a common, objective base of stimuli like the rest of us. God I hate these fucking retarded undergrad threads
>>669259
No. Intuitvely I think consciousness/mind is not the same as nervous system.
They're very close together, like finger and nail, but are different.
You unplug one from the other, and both die. That's death.
Existance itself, as we know, is kind of naive. Specially if you don't realize what I'm saying.
The world as it exists is not the same as we perceive. We not only misinterpret the little we can see with our empirical abilities, but also there's much we don't even know about. Just in case you forgot, there are a lot of waves fluctuating just in front of your eyes, from radio to a little bit of gama, but out of all the waves you can only seee something like 1/80000 of them.
>>669312
>the world that exists is not the same as we perceive
Wow!
MIND = BLOWN
>>669327
you make fun of me, but you're the one who believes you can rely on your empirical senses to come to complex conclusions.
i'm not a hippie and strongly advocate against that kind of lifestyle, i believe in hard work and family values, but we keep forgetting that we live in a world created by our own minds, it doesn't really exist.
>all that exists is a product of our imagination
>electric signals
>nervous system
kek
>>669334
>i'm not a hippie
>>669334
Two people look at a sunset, both are getting the same stimuli, but their mental overlays of the scene are different because of physiology, past experience, mental disposition etc. The world is objective and exists, we just perceive it according to our unique perceptual niche, as real as the world of a fish or bird.
You're not as smart as you think you are. You can't kno nuffin!! is the most infuriating, autistic shit on this board. If you can't know nuffin and can never trust your thoughts then you can't trust the thought process that led you to this conclusion so shut the fuck up already
>>669383
>the world is objective
>being so sure that there are other people outside of your own mind
>>669411
>I have no proof of other people's consciousness, ergo I'm a sleeping omnipotent god dreaming reality into being whoa cool
Like in a very evolved spiritual sense that's true but yeah, no, you've been touched by the 'tism
>>669383
I think what OP is trying to get at is that we can't know anything beyond what our limited senses have told us. Think the blind men and the elephant example. Not only are we limited in senses, but we have constructed an image that fits our sensory narrative. Whether or not an Elephant is like a log, snake, wall, etc matters when we are trying to paint an accurate picture. Thankfully we have our math and physics to help us deal with that. What we lack in senses, our math and physics helps us unravel the mysteries of the universe and reality. In physics, we have a good idea of what exists our there, aka tiny particles that make up everything. A combination of those particles make up the shapes, the taste, the feelings, the sight, and the sound of our senses.
There are fundamental substances that we know of like quarks, leptons, etc. Other than that, everything else could be considered a combination of these.
>>669424
>>669411
Solipsism is unlikely, and yet, if the ego doesn't exist, if bodies aren't inhabited by souls, by things that are strangers to these bodies, it means living beings are just a very chemically active representation of the matter that surrouds them. We set boundaries between living beings, to say my face isn't your face, but if we both die under the same tree, couldn't we become part of the same leaf once spring comes? Where is the boundary then?
>>669424
>what is the simulation theory
so those were the droids they were looking for?
dude!
>>669441
what
>>669441
Who is that "we" that becomes part of the leaf?
The boundaries are artificial. Just as you have deduced that living beings are chemical processes, this should be applied to death of the body as well. There is no "soul" or "you" trapped in the body that flees to the leaf. There is no "you" trapped in the body to begin with. Yes we refer ourselves as "I am" or "We are" but thats common speech, not representative of the reality of chemical process.
>>669206
There is such a thing as taste, love, red, and blue. If a subject can verb it, it exists.
>>669206
You're a meme
Since all matter is composed of the interactions of massless particles, and massless particles experience no time and travel no distance, the entire universe is a single massless, timeless point which occupies no space yet has an "internal" structure composed of a causal web of all interactions that have happened or will happen in the universe's lifetime.
>>669206
>being a solipsist in 2016
>>669206
>which i understand as being very, very naive
the belief it is naive is an illusion, I guess it is 2deep4u to realize that we are not in the matrix, too shocking and edgy for you to accept we are weak vulnerable fleshbags exposed to the elements of a hostile soulless external world
Why are you so weak minded?
>>669206
That isn't the first claim in Wittgenstein's Tractatus
>>669206
You trust the chemicals to tell you that they are only chemicals
1 The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case.
>>669312
>Specially if you don't realize what I'm saying.
What a pretentious little fuck you are.
>>669206
So? Don't take existance too seriously.
>>670241
my man, underrated point
>>669783
Sounds legit.
>>669754
You should go on back and do some re-reading if that's your interpretation.
i love high schoolers who haven't read a single paragraph of philosophy
>>669206
No anon the world is real, but your brain is necessary for you to have perception of it. What you call consiousness is just nothing more a more advanced form of reality perception.
>>671372
A nervous system, along with the rest of the body, is a physical object in space, and it endures across the organism's biological lifetime; but space and time are merely ways in which human minds organize sense data, so space and time - and everything represented within them - are dependent on human minds, and wouldn't exist in-themselves apart from human minds.
How else is there to read it?
- K.
>>671498
*Knowledge* of the nervous system, and of any other empirical 'phenomenon', is not possible without some rational being, such as a human, available to cognize it. Through the intuition the manifold is necessarily ordered into the pure forms of space and time, but this merely tells us the forms in which our *representations* must take, and tells is nothing of the ground the transcendental object itself. The 'mind' is just that which cognize, and the objects of our experience, of which the mind is one, are objects *for* us by virtue of our *representation* of them a priori determined through space, time, and the categories of understanding, but they are not objects created by our minds nor are they 'contained within' them.
You are conflating representation with the thing in-itself, which is a dialectical error.
>>671612
The mind is divided into transcendental faculties; two of these are sensibility and understanding, which cooperate to produce knowledge; the mind can know itself as it appears in outer sense (the physical body) or in inner sense (introspective empirical apperception, which can easily be mistaken to be one's innermost mind). It is in this way that a nervous system appearing externally in space - whether it's the nervous system of another body I'm perceiving, or my own nervous system - is "in" my mind, since my cognition of that nervous system is conditioned by, dependent on, the transcendental faculties that constitute my mind. The mind is not itself an object of knowledge, since it is a precondition of knowledge; it is the cooperation of forms by which knowledge is structured. Only representations of inner sense and of outer sense are objects of knowledge, but these representations are "in," dependent on, the mind.
- K.
Fuck off Descartes...
