FAQ
It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:40 am


Author Message
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:49 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Assuming the 3 basal assumptions,
how does one begin calculating the probability of the formation of a boltzmann brain,
in comparison to the probability of the formation and evolution of self aware life?

Is there even any possible way to do it? Or even just an estimate?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:45 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Extra detail: by self aware, I mean as self aware as an average human brain.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sun May 07, 2017 11:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4799
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
wtf is a Boltzmann brain ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:16 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
how does one begin calculating the probability of the formation of a boltzmann brain, in comparison to the probability of the formation and evolution of self aware life?

Is there even any possible way to do it? Or even just an estimate?

Trying digesting this paper by Professor Carroll from Caltech. He will walk you through it - providing you put in some effort to digest the content.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00850
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00850.pdf


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 4:31 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Thx for the insightful read!

I've another question.
Let (A) be "the legitimacy of senses and memories"
Let (B) be "the legitimacy of any one of the many unfalsifiable theories of reality"

The question is: Is there any logical reason to put more trust in (A) than in (B)? If yes, what's the reason?

Examples of unfalsifiable theories of reality:
    boltzmann brain (if a universe exists that allows it)
    decieved brain, floating in a vat in the year 3500, and scientists sending electrical signals to the brain using a computer and some wires
    self-aware AI
    virtual reality
    dream world
    tricked by a powerful evil demon
    full reality schizophrenia
    full memory confabulation
    china brain
    last thursdayism
    etc.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 8:39 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Let (A) be "the legitimacy of senses and memories"
Let (B) be "the legitimacy of any one of the many unfalsifiable theories of reality"

The question is: Is there any logical reason to put more trust in (A) than in (B)?

Without knowing the context of how you want this question to be interpreted, an merely understood as a general question with a highlights of a false dichotomy, my answer is No. You will have to format your question to satisfy the criterion of a logical form if you want to derive "any logical reason" to begin with.

May I ask how your question relates to your thread topic and/or how it relates to the social sciences?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 8:00 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
What are some logical reasons to believe, in any context, in the reliability of your senses and memories, more than believing in an unfalsifiable theory of reality?

scoobydoo1 wrote:
May I ask how your question relates to your thread topic and/or how it relates to the social sciences?

Should have posted in the philosophy folder.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 9:14 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
What are some logical reasons to believe, in any context, in the reliability of your senses and memories, more than believing in an unfalsifiable theory of reality?

You may not realise it, but your question is overly board, and I may not be able to offer any satisfactory input to your query. However, one of the defining criteria for logic (depending on how you are defining it by your usage of the word) is Consistency. You may wish to begin there. Also, you may consider looking into the properties of qualia.

As an exercise, how would you describe the difference between the shades of grey and white to someone who is born blind?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 9:51 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Hmm I think I get where you are coming from.

Are the logical reasons to believe that the overall information given by my senses and/or memories is an accurate description of reality better than logical reasons to believe in any unfalsifiable theory of reality, which I assume is none?


Last edited by Roamer on Wed May 10, 2017 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 9:58 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
... to believe ...

I am having trouble reconciling the above quoted. If you are willing to rephrase these two words with "to provisionally accept as true", I may be able to offer further input.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 7:30 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Are the logical reasons to provisionally accept that the information given by my senses and/or memories is generally an accurate representation of reality better than logical reasons to provisionally accept any of the other falsifiable theories of reality as true?

The illusion of consistency?


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 8:04 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Are the logical reasons to provisionally accept that the information given by my senses and/or memories as true is generally an accurate representation of reality better than logical reasons to provisionally accept any of the other falsifiable theories of reality as true?

Generally speaking, and within what little the conditions and context you specified, Yes. But of course, all that may change depending on what other considerations you may have failed to mention.

Roamer wrote:
The illusion of consistency?

No. What I meant from my earlier reply was to highlight that in any application of logic and in yielding a logical form, deriving in your words "logical reasons", consistency is a necessary and important component. Since I am not certain to what degree your exposure to logic have been, I will leave you with the following link should you require additional reference.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:16 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
I've re-done the question, hoping to exclude some ambiguity.

Am I more likely to be correct if I assume the 3 basal assumptions of science, compared to assuming any of the (other?) infinitely many unfalsifiable theories of reality? If yes, why?


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 12:31 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Am I more likely to be correct...

Correct about what?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:21 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Are your beliefs of the nature of reality more likely to be correct about being the absolute truth than any of the (other?) infinitely many unfalsifiable theories of reality being the absolute truth? If yes, why?


I assume me and you, and most other readers have the same belief of the nature of reality.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Thu May 11, 2017 1:38 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
I assume me and you have the same belief of the nature of reality.

Without you stating what your "beliefs" are, any such assumption can be misplaced. Also, clarify what is/are the "nature of reality". Is it/they malleable?

You may or may not realise this, but you are introducing more undefined variables into your question. Have you read the link about logical form that I have provided in my earlier post? If you have not done so, I highly suggest that you do, and formulate your thoughts and questions with more precision.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 4:28 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
scoobydoo1 wrote:
Have you read the link about logical form that I have provided in my earlier post? If you have not done so, I highly suggest that you do, and formulate your thoughts and questions with more precision.
Noted. I've read the link on logical form, but am having trouble understanding most of it. But I'll try to be more precise now.

Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality/ Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.


My instinct compels me to use the sensory information I have to construct a world in my mind and believe that that is a true image of reality.
But when I think carefully, I don't see why I should trust this instinct.

Does your instinct compel you to use the sensory information you have to construct a world in your mind and believe that that is a true image of reality?

Why should anyone trust that this instinct will lead to a true belief that the constructed world in the mind is a true image of reality?


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 5:09 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
My instinct compels me to use the sensory information I have to construct a world in my mind and believe that that is a true image of reality.
But when I think carefully, I don't see why I should trust this instinct.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that your instinct ("to use the sensory information you have") to make sense of the world you are interacting is wrong? If that is in fact what you are saying, may I ask by what other means do you have at your disposal do you receive sensory information about the environment you are currently residing in?

With nothing other than a cursory visual inspection alone, I can make a determination on whether a bar of soap can fit into a SD card slot on my laptop. With nothing other than a cursory tactile inspection alone, I can make a determination which sharpening tools at my disposal is more suitable for sharpening and stropping my blades.

Do you require further examples?

Roamer wrote:
Does your instinct compel you to use the sensory information you have to construct a world in your mind and believe that that is a true image of reality?

As a precursor to other means of inquiry to refine my understanding of the environment I reside, Yes. Do revisit my mentioning of your earlier post regarding hints of false dichotomy.

Roamer wrote:
Why should anyone trust that this instinct will lead to a true belief that the constructed world in the mind is a true image of reality?

If that is all they rely on, their trust is misplaced.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 6:27 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
I was careful to say
Quote:
My instinct compels me to use the sensory information I have to construct a world in my mind and believe that that is a true image of reality.

, instead of
Quote:
My instinct compels me to use the sensory information I have received from reality to construct a world in my mind and believe that that is a true image of reality.

, just to be sure that I wasn't making any assumptions about reality.

Quote:
But when I think carefully, I don't see why I should trust this instinct.

I want to point out that the part of my instinct that I distrust is the innate urge to believe that the world in my mind is a true image of reality.

To explain why that belief is the part of my instinct that I distrust, here is an example.

Assume we are living in an advanced VR game. The game can simulate a big soap's inability to fit into an SD card slot, and is also able to simulate sharpness and the use of sharp objects relative to their sharpness. The belief that the world created in our minds is a true image of reality is a false belief.

Is (the act? of) believing that the constructed world in my mind is a true image of reality is just as likely to be true as (the act? of) believing that I'm in virtual reality?

Is believing an act?


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 6:56 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Is believing that the constructed world in my mind is a true image of reality is just as likely to be true as believing that I'm in virtual reality?

A (constructed world in my mind)
B (I'm in virtual reality)

Q1.01: Is believing that A is a true image of reality just as likely to be true as believing in B?

Q1.02: Is the belief that A is true more likely than the belief in B?

To keep it short and simple. Assuming that the "constructed world in your mind" isn't a fantasy, sure.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:06 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Is believing an act?

That usually depends on the subject matter pertaining to the belief, and the incentive for belief.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 9:58 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)
Is A just as likely as B?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 10:04 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
A (constructed world in my mind)
B (I'm in virtual reality)

scoobydoo1 wrote:
Q1.01: Is believing that A is a true image of reality just as likely to be true as believing in B?

I don't know.

scoobydoo1 wrote:
Q1.02: Is the belief that A is true more likely than the belief in B?

I don't think this is the question I am asking.
It feels like something is wrong with the logic of this question.

It is true that one can believe in reality.

It is another thing whether that belief is reality.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 11:02 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)
Is A just as likely as B?

Do you mean to ask "Is A just as likely as B to be provisionally accepted as true?" or...

Is vanilla just as likely as chocolate... ? to win a nobel prize in chemistry? to bring about peace in the middle east? to grow a beard?

Roamer wrote:
A (constructed world in my mind)
B (I'm in virtual reality)

scoobydoo1 wrote:
Q1.01: Is believing that A is a true image of reality just as likely to be true as believing in B?

I don't know.

scoobydoo1 wrote:
Q1.02: Is the belief that A is true more likely than the belief in B?

I don't think this is the question I am asking.
It feels like something is wrong with the logic of this question.

It is true that one can believe in reality.

It is another thing whether that belief is reality.

Those weren't questions that I am asking you. Those were attempts on my part to reformulate your question in a manner that I may understand it better, and subsequently gave an answer based on those attempts. If you find the structure to be unacceptable, I invite you to rework them till you find them satisfactory.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:34 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Thank you for helping me rewrite my erred question into an acceptable question.

A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)

Is A just as likely as B to be provisionally accepted as true?

This was what I wanted to ask.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:28 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)

Is A just as likely as B to be provisionally accepted as true?

No.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:28 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5604
Location: Iowa

Offline
please elaborate on why

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:59 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
After a day, when I've cleared my mind, when I read this question again:
"Is A just as likely as B to be provisionally accepted as true?"
, it sounds like asking for the comparison between the likelihood that one would provisionally accept A as true, to the likelihood that one would provisionally accept B as true. However one has not been specified in the question.

That is not what I wanted to ask, but instead:
A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)
"Is A just as likely as B to have happened, and/or is still happening? Why or why not?"


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sat May 13, 2017 3:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
A (I constructed a true image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from reality)
B (I constructed a false image of reality in my mind based on sensory information from VR)
"Is A just as likely as B to have happened, and/or is still happening? Why or why not?"

Are you sure your question is properly formatted in a way you want it answered? That it isn’t…

Is B just as likely as A to have happened, and/or is still happening? Why or why not?

Look it over, and let me know if you want to revise it further. Also, are you sure you want to use the descriptors "true image of reality" & "false image of reality", and not asking from a third person POV?


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:26 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
I've revised it yet again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality wrote:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/actual wrote:
Actual: Existing in act or reality, not just potentially; really acted or acting; occurring in fact.


VR (Virtual Reality)
A (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of reality)
B (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of advanced VR)
Question: "Is A equally as likely to be actual as B? Why or why not?"

But what's the difference between the question above, and the one below?
"Is B equally as likely to be actual as A? Why or why not?"

Side question: Is there evidence to support the belief that A is actual?


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:37 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
A (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of reality)
B (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of advanced VR)

"Is A equally as likely to be actual as B? Why or why not?"

But what's the difference between the question above, and the one below?

"Is B equally as likely to be actual as A? Why or why not?"

The difference is which one (A or B) is taken to serve as a baseline for comparison. In my opinion, the latter position is what serves as the baseline.

Example a: Are Apis mellifera equally as likely to be producers of honey as Vespula vulgaris?
Example b: Are Vespula vulgaris equally as likely to be producers of honey as Apis mellifera?

One of the above species produce honey, while the other does not. Example a is an invalid query because the Vesputa vulgaris do not produce honey, whereas the Apis mellifera do. Example b is a valid query because the latter position where Apis mellifera is placed serves the function for a baseline comparison.

After a couple of drafts at a reply that yielded a post that is longer than I would have liked, I have decided to keep this short but to the point.

Roamer wrote:
"Is B equally as likely to be actual as A? Why or why not?"

To avoid giving the impression that I am intentionally evading your question, my answer is No. As for "Why or why not?", please refer to the reason I am going to give below.

Roamer wrote:
Side question: Is there evidence to support the belief that A is actual?

Well, you can inebriated in one but not the other. This is assuming you have not limited the context of your question, and have not changed the conditions of what we understand about virtual reality.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:41 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
scoobydoo1 wrote:
A (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of reality)
B (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of advanced VR)
Roamer wrote:
"Is B equally as likely to be actual as A? Why or why not?"

To avoid giving the impression that I am intentionally evading your question, my answer is No. As for "Why or why not?", please refer to the reason I am going to give below.
Roamer wrote:
Side question: Is there evidence to support the belief that A is actual?

Well, you can inebriated in one but not the other. This is assuming you have not limited the context of your question, and have not changed the conditions of what we understand about virtual reality.


That is very interesting way to falsify B. Thanks!

I could add in details to B, for example, from a third person POV, I am a mind in a human brain, which is in a human body, which is living inside a VR machine from the future, which is in a universe that obeys all the laws of physics as experienced in VR. This machine would administer a controlled dose of the active substance of any psychoactive substance you decide to take in the virtual reality, which is meant cause a psychological effect to the mind, for example, alcohol when drinking [simulated] liquor, Melatonin when taking [simulated] sleeping pills, sugar when eating [simulated] sweets, etc.

After realizing that I had to make many assumptions to unfalsify B, I've realized that Occalm's razor pretty much destroys this theory.
For this reason, I have decided that the advanced VR theory, as described above, is not worthy of further discussion, and have put it away.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor wrote:
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


=================================

But I noticed a theory of reality that makes less assumptions than A.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism wrote:
Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which asserts that nothing exists externally to this one mind, and since this mind is the whole of reality then the "external world" was never anything more than an idea.


CMIIW - Correct me if I'm wrong
For the purpose of this discussion, I am not making an assertion that Metaphysical solipsism is actual.
Metaphysical solipsism makes 0 assumptions about reality. CMIIW.
0 is smaller than 3, which is the number of basal assumptions A has to make. CMIIW.
Since Metaphysical solipsism makes less assumptions than A, Occalm's razor destroys A. CMIIW.

https://www.quora.com/What-fundamental-assumptions-do-all-philosophers-believe-in wrote:
1) That the universe exists
2) That you can learn something about reality
3) Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities.


A (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of reality)
B (Nothing exists externally to this one mind, and since this mind is the whole of reality then the "external world" was never anything more than an idea)
"Is A equally as likely to be actual as B? Why or why not?"


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Rough probability estimate of boltzmann brain formation?  |  Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:07 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 200
Location: Singapore

Offline
Roamer wrote:
A (The world that's constructed in my mind is an image of reality)
B (Nothing exists externally to this one mind, and since this mind is the whole of reality then the "external world" was never anything more than an idea)
"Is A equally as likely to be actual as B? Why or why not?"

If nothing exists external to ones mind, and the “external world” was never anything more than an “idea”, does one ever get surprised? If one does ever get surprised, what would the purpose of that surprising event be, if every new and original qualia is generated within ones mind, wouldn't one already know what to expect?

Should an event that is distressing to the mind that generates this reality takes place, and perhaps even repeatedly, what motivates the mind to generate such possible events?

Have you ever been raped? Would you like to be raped? No? If it happens, what does that say the mind that generates those events in a reality that is similarly generated by that very mind? Once you have been raped, would you like it to happen again? No? Too bad, it happens again. What can one conclude about that? Does the mind that generates the physical body enjoy it, but at the same time find it distressing?

Perhaps something less graphic and controversial.

Have you ever been beaten up? Would you like to be beaten up? No? Too bad, it happened. Do you find the experience pleasing? Would you like it to happen again? No? Too bad, it happens again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and so on and so forth. If the mind generates these events in a reality that is generated by that very mind, is that mind you, or are you a character generated by that mind?

I am not directly answering your question just yet, but I hope you can see where I’m going with this.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy