What are we?

Consciousness. It’s rather strange that the very thing we claim to “be” is a concept we cannot readily define. I suppose consciousness is the property that makes us conscious. But what does that mean? How do we define “being conscious”? It is interesting to ponder what it is, of course, but always to little logical avail. You claim to know that consciousness exists because you are conscious. In fact, this is really the only thing that we truly know. On another note, I have no way of knowing that you, the reader, are yourself conscious; or anyone else for that matter. For all I know, I’m the only conscious being in the universe, and everyone else is just a neurological robot reacting to stimuli—or else, just an illusion. But I digress; and I will now continue on the basis that this conjecture is false. Let me begin by explaining why consciousness is weird. The human brain is just a complex neurological computer. It should, through physical and chemical processes, be able to function independently; taking in stimuli, looking upon past experience, and making decisions. It should exist by itself just like that, as an intricate chemical chain reaction explained by the laws of physics and operating by itself like a well-made machine. But that’s not all there is, and I can attest to that personally, because I am conscious. The fact that I consciously exist doesn’t make sense, and really shouldn’t be necessary for the brain to function. That means that there is something else—some force or entity that exists in coordination with our mind, and creates the miracle of perceiving consciousness. So that’s all very well and good, but something still troubles me; something that I still feel needs to be answered. I have but one simple question: Why do I consciously exist in this existence and in this mind and at this time? Of all the conscious beings I could have been, why do I find myself in this one?  Why am I spending my whole life, and all of my existence in this person? What in the universe would decide that definitively? That really troubles me to think about. An example of how these problematic questions make me feel is the way I felt when I was pondering the nature of time. I was thinking about how the human mind can perceive the passage of time at different rates for numerous reasons—brain damage, drugs, aging, different situations you may find yourself in, etc. This means that time does not necessarily pass at the rate we may perceive it to pass. And if that’s the case, then at what rate does time pass? There is nothing to decide this, and therefore, time doesn’t necessarily pass at all. Time is eternal and can exist at any point, and the fact that we seem to exist at this present moment in time, as well as the property of the passage of time, are illusions. This used to be only a theory of mine, but was recently announced as scientific fact by a Nova program. Anyway, take this example and try to apply it to consciousness. There is nothing to decide why my consciousness should exist in this distinct context. Therefore, it doesn’t necessarily! This thought really takes my imagination for a ride, possessing some amazing possible implications. In the same sense that we discovered time to not actually exist at any one particular point, my consciousness doesn’t necessarily exist in this particular context—both are simply illusions. The property of presently existing in this mind right now, as well as the property of the passage of time, is an illusion! And the culprit that renders these illusions?—I believe consciousness to be guilty. Consciousness may be another fundamental property or entity in existence. To this entity, time and space may be irrelevant—until it asserts itself into a context, which I believe it must do in order to exist. I believe that my consciousness is an eternal property. Science tells us that nothing can be created or destroyed, but rather, may change form. This statement should hold true to all things that exist. It would not logically make sense for this property of consciousness to be destroyed.  To think that as our life slips away, so too does our “existence”, is illogical. I used to think that, and one of the ways I would justify it is by thinking, “I didn’t exist—and neither did any form of existence—before I was born. So that means it is possible for me not to exist, meaning that when I die, I probably no longer do exist—just like before I was born.” There aren’t a lot of things in this world that genuinely scare me, but this thought kept me up at night for years with instantaneous bouts of insurmountable horror at this realization. But I now have new insight to keep me at ease. You see, I based that argument off of not remembering any form of existence before I was born. But just because I don’t remember anything doesn’t mean there wasn’t something. You see, I believe that consciousness is nothing more than the simple property of a “point-of-view”. I don’t believe it to have memories, values, emotions, or thoughts of its own at all—that is the job of the physical mind; the context. Moving on to another facet of this whole topic, I previously stated that I believe my consciousness to be an eternal entity; so for all intents and purposes, you could say that I believe in reincarnation—a form of reincarnation that would be independent of a timeline (not sequential).  Do I believe that we can be reincarnated into other creatures? That seems logical, I suppose. But at what point of neurological capacity does a creature merit consciousness? I mean, what would be the standards that consciousness has for “linking” itself to a mind? If I have one neuron, will it be conscious? If I have two neurons, will it be conscious? If I have a hundred neurons, will it be conscious then? At what point does it merit consciousness? Or is that not determined by neurological capacity, but rather by the way those neurons are arranged? Maybe some neurological algorithm exists that beckons consciousness to take a hold of a mind. Maybe there is some physical mechanism in the mind which we have not yet discovered that gives us a consciousness. It really is hard to say. Anyway, the next most pertinent question is: are there others? Are there many consciousnesses? (Similar to there being many “souls” in religious beliefs). There could be many consciousnesses undergoing reincarnation all the time here on earth. But I’m not sure I believe that to be true. Unlike the idea of a “soul” my consciousness is a blank slate—again, nothing more than a point-of-view. So then there would be some finite number of these blank-slate points-of-view? Well, what would decide that number? What would even be the purpose of there being multiples, if they are all the exact same fundamental property? This thought leads me to conclude that the most logical truth would be that there aren’t multiples. There is only ONE consciousness. And that is mine. But it’s yours too! That’s the amazing part! Do you see where I’m going with this? We are all the exact same consciousness, just in different contexts. My consciousness doesn’t necessarily exist in my current context, just like time doesn’t necessarily exist at this present moment. My consciousness is the same one that exists eternally in all of us. Why, then, do I presently seem to find myself in this context? Maybe my consciousness sequentially experiences the lives of all existing creatures, and when it’s finished just starts over again; and I was next in the queue. Hard to say, really—I’m just conjecturing. I’m not omniscient, so I will bench that for now. But, that is my take on what consciousness is. You know how they say “all is one”, and “we are all connected”? I think this is what they were getting at.

Taking out the Trash

Mom: Tayler, you need to take out the trash.

Me: Why?

Mom: Because, it’s almost spilling out onto the floor.

Me: No, no, I mean why? What is the purpose of doing that? Why do we do anything at all?

Mom: What are you talking about? We need to empty the trash cans so we can throw more things away tomorrow. Makes sense to me.

Me: But I’m going to die someday. Whether or not I take out the trash does not change this fact. And when I do die, everything I did in life becomes meaningless.

Mom: Not so! Life is rich, beautiful, and full of meaning. Plus, imagine the difference you can make for the world after you’re gone. Sort of immortalizes you in a sense. Isn’t that amazing to think about?

Me: Oh mom, I already have thought about it. What’s more, I thought about it in deeper and deeper ways until I had considered every possibility. Ultimately, I recently reached the conclusion that “meaning” and “purpose” aren’t even real! They are just illusions of a man’s mind. So are ideas like good vs. evil, and all other concepts rooted in social constructs.

Mom: Well, that’s certainly an unsettling conclusion. I don’t think I can agree with you, though. You seem to have a really skewed view on reality.

Me: But Mom, when you stand back, and look at the world in an objective sense, you realize just how cold and meaningless everything is.

Mom: Wow! You’ve become a Nihilist on me? My goodness, I had hoped that you would have thought about your ideas in a grander sense. Your scope of reason is very narrow and all too analytical.

Me: But I…um, how do you mean?

Mom: Well…yes, a deep understanding of objective existence does in fact affirm your nihilistic suspicions. But what you have not considered is that objective reality is not where we are right now. We are in our own subjective reality. And within this reality, there very well can exist valid concepts of meaning and purpose and good vs. evil. These are all ideas that you create in your world, but just because you made them doesn’t mean they aren’t “real”. They are real to us all. They are the inspirations that derive meaning and purpose from life.

Me: Well…ok, yeah. I see your point, but it sounds to me like you are professing the need for accepting delusions in order to be ignorantly happy for the duration of our lives. We can tell ourselves what you just told me, but when we die, our subjective reality is annihilated, and it all falls down to what is real at the lowest level of existence—objective reality. So, again I argue that when we die, there is no more meaning, purpose, or continuity of existence for me.

Mom: How do you know that last bit to be true? What makes you so sure that there is an end to “being” in the face of death? Maybe we live on in some way. Maybe there is some essential entity of our being that lives beyond our physical husk.

Me: You mean the soul? Please, mom. I thought you were intelligent enough to see beyond the falsities of religion. I will never believe that the son of “God” walked the earth a couple thousand years ago, and I will especially never believe in some sort of Deity chillin’ up in the clouds watching over us. So I definitely don’t believe that when we die, we have a “soul” that leaves our body and goes to heaven or hell, or whatever.

Mom: Well, geez. I hit upon a touchy topic.

Me: Yeah, sorry…I just get fed up with people believing things without evidence or any means of verification and only because their parents or culture try to make them.

Mom: Well, you have a point there. I definitely understand why that frustrates you. But unfortunately, you seem to have been too biased against organized religion to consider some very interesting facets of its premise.

Me: Like what?

Mom: Well for starters, you need to consider that anything really is possible. There is so much about the world we don’t know, so much about existence and consciousness we’ve yet to understand. I do not doubt the possibility of supernatural occurrences or seemingly “religious” ideas. These are entirely possible, despite our current inability to verify them. If they are true, then I simply don’t believe them to be “religious”.

Me: Well then what are they?

Mom: Science. If there is a religion out there that is true, then it can all be explained by science. Just because we haven’t discovered something amazing doesn’t mean that it is “super-natural”. We humans have a nasty tendency to refute claims of discoveries about the world. We called some of the most pioneering scientists in history insane, before we came to realize their correctness. We know so little about the world, but think we know everything. Just keep your mind open.

Me: Wow, you really have a point there. I guess there is a lot we just don’t know. The possibilities truly are endless, aren’t they?

Mom: Yes, they are. And as you continue to develop your worldly knowledge and experience, your insight and intuition will follow, revealing to you an even greater understanding of your place in the universe. And if we ever do discover the nature of our existence, I think the answers we find will be something more amazing and beautiful than you could ever imagine. So go forth and live your life to the fullest, and always leave your mind open to the possibilities!

And with that I began my journey.

Notes:

I began writing this work in a word document at 12 pm, on my lunch break from work. I was thinking about that scene in family guy where Peter refers to an ancestor of his who was a “great Philosopher”, and then it went off to depict the man in a cut-scene. He was sitting in a small wooden chair in the middle of a ratty-looking, unfurnished living room, gazing pensively off at nothing, seemingly contemplating his existence with a look of minor frustration on his face. His wife walks in carrying an infant in her arms and says, “Thomas, would you please go look for a job?” He replies with a drawn out, unamused, and contemplative “Why?” while putting a hand out in the air, and without straying from his fixed gaze. I found this scene to be a very amusing spoof on philosophy, and wanted to make my own spoof on it. Unfortunately, once I got to the fourth line in this document I could already see what I was going to do, and it wasn’t a humor piece. It was what you just read. This is one of those documents I would never share with anyone, but because I have a blog, and no one reads it anyway (and I do mean no one, as of 11/17/11; I check the view counts), I figured I might as well put it up here.

The Destiny of Humanity

It is interesting to ponder the destiny of the human race. People don’t often think about where we will ultimately end up. They extrapolate trends to predict changes in technology or international relations, or what have you. But that is practical thought, and has a lot of applications, i.e. predicting trends in the stock market, or foretelling the demand for tablets in the following year. That leaves me to rise to the occasion, sit down in my cushioned office-chair, and contemplate the impractical, untimely, and personally enthralling. The most pertinent of these subjects is our destiny. How will we end up? For starters, the sun will eventually go “red giant” on us, so if we’re still just chillin’ on our rock over here, we’ll perish. That means that ultimately we will need to leave our planet, and I’m not talking about colonizing mars, because the red planet is next in line for supernova obliteration. We will need to leave our solar system and find a new one. The closest terraformable planet is twenty light-years away. So that will be a bit of a hike, and for all we know, that planet (Gliese 581 g) was obliterated by Space Pirates nineteen years ago, and the nature of light’s finite velocity is fooling us into thinking otherwise. But even if this is not the case, we can’t all just simultaneously evacuate the earth a few months prior to doomsday, and head out into the final frontier in search of a new and distant world to call our home. It should begin with probes, which we should get started on soon because it will be a long journey to the planet; I will assume about fifty years or so. Then the probe will have to return to earth (another fifty years) before we can even develop a rough understanding of the planet’s terraformability and other factors of habitability. Then, we should initiate a test colony. However, we firstly need to address the problem of terraforming. We cannot ascertain the composition of Gliese 581 g’s atmosphere due to light pollution of its parent star. According to scientists, in order for the planet to be comfortably habitable, it would need to have an atmosphere of earth-like pressure, composed of 20% CO₂. If this is not the case, then let the terraforming begin. Remaking the atmosphere of an entire planet is an endeavor that is almost entirely impractical—unless we develop some new technology to do so. It is important that we use the matter on Gliese 581 g to create the atmosphere, rather than shuttling over giant canisters of liquefied gas over the course of hundreds, if not thousands of years. My idea is that we engineer some sort of microorganism, which consumes resources found on the planet’s surface, whether it be matter or star-light, and uses the acquired energy to convert plentiful substances on the planet into the required gases. Then we have to consider how we would go about getting rid of the bacteria once they have done their job. Maybe we could engineer the bacteria to die when atmospheric levels of CO₂ reach 20%, or maybe when we release some sort of electromagnetic signal designed to initiate a suicide sequence we coded into their DNA. Or, to dismiss the bacteria idea entirely, we could use nano-bots. But as of right now that technology is not very promising, although I’m sure it will become more developed in the next fifty years or so. Anyway, once that is taken care of, we would send over a large space craft with one hundred men and women at around the age of twenty-five. We would encourage them to procreate aboard the ship during their twenty year journey; or else cryogenically freeze them for the duration. Ultimately we want to ensure that a large group of people, who are still young and fit, yet well-educated, safely arrive to Gliese 581 g. Also aboard the ship will be everything needed to make the colony. We need to create systems that can sustain themselves. For electricity we should use something renewable, such as solar power, or else whatever energy technology we will have discovered by then that may be better suited for the environment and resources available. We will bring the necessary provisions to begin farming, which will be the main source of sustenance in the colony. Honestly, I think the most vital milestone is to successfully keep a plant alive and healthy in the open atmosphere of the planet. Once you plant the “seed” of life, it has a tendency to spread and grow like wildfire. Terraforming is not just an unnatural perturbation of a planet we want to change. To start, we must tweak the variables, yes. But once we set the initial conditions and introduce life from earth, the relentless will of nature will do all the rest. Biological life will find equilibrium with the environment, and will keep the planet stable. Then, if it all still seems promising, we can begin to send over more colonists and resources. And voila; human beings will have successfully colonized another world. That is a HUGE milestone for the human race, and will really open doors for us. Now, I mentioned previously that we should not colonize Mars, because that obviously is not a solution for the supernova problem. However, I would like to revoke that statement in light of an opportunity that Mars could offer us. Should the first attempt at terraforming really be on a planet that is twenty light-years away, and that we know very little about to begin with? I’m hesitant to follow that path. I think we should begin terraforming with Mars. Mars can be an experimental testing ground for the first human terraforming project. We can use it to test our microorganisms and nano-bots, and then attempt to successfully introduce and integrate life on the planet. We should start with plants—and the animals that may be requisite to their continuity (i.e. bees to pollinate plants, worms to fertilize soil, etc). Then we can witness first-hand, and without a twenty-year delay, the nature and aggression of life as it populates the perimeter of the planet. It will be a test of our future hope for survival, whether or not we can make the red planet green.

Dear reader,

This is where I would like to conclude my writing about this specific train of thought. There are a lot of other factors from different theories and ideas of mine which I did not take into account in my predictions. However, do allow this article to be food for thought. Even if you disagree with my predictions or my plan of action for space colonization, I hope I have gotten the ball rolling in your mind. Maybe this is all seemingly irrelevant to you, and has no implications for your lifetime, but I think it is important that the human race start thinking more as one giant entity, rather than as selfish and ignorant individuals. Thank you.

My theory of Circular Eternalism

Firstly, let me begin by addressing the topic of theory vs. belief. This is a theory, not a belief. However, I regard it as a distinct possibility; one of infinite possibilities in a field where theories cannot be tested or challenged. Now, let me begin. First let us review the Theory of Eternalism, as my own theory is merely a minor adaptation to the original. Eternalism is the belief that time, being a dimension, may exist at any “location” (in time, if you will), and the information for what “is” at any point in time exists as well. In fact, it has always existed (although the term “always” is rooted in the idea of time, so technically that statement was not correct). Time just IS. All past events are “still there” and all future events are “already there”. The nature of how we seem to find ourselves existing at this point in time right now is simply an illusion. In fact, the very property of the “passage of time” is an illusion created by our brain. It is subjective reality, which is an insignificant illusion. Objective reality, or reality existing independent of an observer or a subject, is a strange place. In fact, you can only think about it on a superficial level because it is so obscure, having no parallel with our known reality, that our minds are barely equipped to contemplate it.

Before I continue any further, I would like to address another one of my theories. If the “big bang” theory is true, and the bang did create everything in the universe via a massive explosion evenly distributing all matter radially outward throughout space, then consider the following. All matter in the universe is attracted to each other through the force of gravity. This means that all matter that spread outward from the explosion may eventually slow down and reverse direction, being pulled towards the epicenter of all gravity in the universe—the origin of the bang. If this happens, then all matter will pull together at the epicenter recreating The Singularity once again. At this point, I believe The Singularity will incite another big bang through an implosion, and start the process all over again. What this theory of mine implicates is that the universe “pulses” outward and inward, repeatedly and indefinitely.

If the above theory is true, then I will go further still, and will argue that time is circular just like the pulsing of the universe. The three spatial dimensions are said to be bi-directional, open-ended, and infinite. But what if time isn’t? What if time loops back on itself just like a circle. Like Eternalism implied above, all past events still exist and all future events already exist. However, I now argue: what if this is still true, but that these events are finite? Furthermore, this would mean that past events are future events and vice versa, per the nature of circle. I am arguing that there is a finite amount of time, and that it loops back on itself seamlessly. This is possible because if the debris of the bang reunites into The Singularity, then the universe is oriented exactly the way it was when it started, and therefore the loop can be seamless. That is my theory of Circular Eternalism, or Circular “Block-Universe” Theory as a matter of preference.


Note: One way in which my theory of Circular Eternalism could be wrong is if any of the matter dispelled by the bang reaches escape velocity from the gravitational epicenter, a phenomenon in which it will slow down infinitely, never quite reaching a standstill, for as it travels ever-further from the pull of gravity, the force gets weaker and weaker.

Seizing the Reigns of Evolution- let's play God...

In this modern era, we find the process of human evolution to no longer have any real significance and presence in our development. Evolution is a process governed by natural selection, a system that is now irrelevant to the human race. It is no longer necessary to fight for survival, food, and power in order to procreate. As it always has, biology will continue to introduce random mutations to each new generation of humans. But now those mutations will play no role in determining an individual’s likelihood of procreation. This means that all our mutations are random and nonsensical. If you haven’t already realized, that does not bode well for our future. As we continue to progress in Healthcare, we are mucking up the gene pool ever-further. Maybe Joe Shmoe was supposed to die from that serious case of high-blood-pressure, but instead he was given a medication to control it, and went on to find a mate and procreate. Now Joe Shmoe has two children with a genetic propensity for high-blood-pressure. Then those kids are given drugs that keep their blood pressure in check, find mates, and procreate. Do you see where I am going with this? This is just one example, but the point I am trying to make is that by saving your loved ones, you are dooming the human race to certain destruction. I mean it. The human race will come to an end (not soon, but eventually) if we continue the way we are going. We will die of disease, disorders, and other ailments as a result of uncontrolled mutations.

The way I see it, we have two options. Option number one is that we all die out as stated above. Option number two, and probably my preferred choice, is that we take control of our own evolution. With new technology and possibilities in the fields of biology and computer science, we are about to open the door to a whole new field that I would personally love to pioneer: Genetic Programming. When you look at the human genome, you see a mess of nonsensical “data” that seems to be nearly endless and unrevealing. However, we have barely even begun to scratch the surface on understanding the logic in the A’s, C’s, T’s, and G’s that embody the grand composition of human life. I believe that once we start to play around with it more, we will discover patterns in the madness, and eventually decrypt it into a syntax that can be understood—and exploited. Thus emerges the field of Genetic Programming, and let me be the first to tell you that it will be HUGE. Once we master the art, we will be capable of redesigning ourselves in the ideal image of human perfection. The early implications of this field will be increased lifespan, better health, and higher intelligence. What also interests me is what kinds of things they will come up with after that. Let your imagination loose, because if ever there were a time to do so, it is now. We could make “super-humans” capable of super-strength, winged flight, heat-vision, invisibility, etc. The possibilities are endless. Unfortunately, it is very likely that such a “dangerous” field will be heavily monitored by the government, so progress may be slow, but it will be progress all the same. So that’s the future anyway, but I will return to the “now” for a moment in order to discuss one issue that history tells me will become a serious shunting force against getting this field off the ground.

The one major hurdle that occurs to me is dealing with religious opposition. I’m so fed up with religious zealots at this point. I always listen to what they have to say because it’s important to them, and I always hold back my outwardly atheistic urges, out of respect; but mostly just because I know that they are so damn stubborn that anything I say may as well not be said at all. But I’m fed up with it. Sometimes I like to marvel at the brilliance of man, and think about how far we have come from being basic single-celled organisms to what we are today. But the stubborn ignorance of religious zealots and Jesus-freaks sometimes makes me embarrassed to recognize myself as being the same species. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS. We all need to learn the importance of our own logic and intuition, and of forging our own beliefs about life, reality, and our purpose from our own life experiences—rather than have our parents tell us that we have to worship some guy that was put to death 2000 years ago on the cross, lest we burn in hell for eternity. That is complete and utter nonsense—really drives me up the wall sometimes. I think that the real truth about our existence is so much more amazing and beautiful than that, but I will hold my tongue and save my thoughts on that matter for another post. Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that religious folks will accuse me and my fellow pioneers of “playing god”, an accusation rooted in their belief that man was created by god. The thing is, we have already scientifically proven that we are the product of evolution, meaning that god had no say in the composition of our genome, so I don’t think he will really mind if play around with it. Before we can progress, the promising, young free-thinkers of my generation need to “win over” those of the older generations who would oppose genome manipulation. Once we transcend that hurdle, we will be well on our way towards creating the perfect being out of ourselves.

Personality Types- What's yours?

I urge anyone who reads this to google a Myers-Briggs Personality test and take one, then go to personalitypage.com and read all about your personality type. It is AMAZING. I found my personality type without even taking the test. I started reading about one of the types, and was disturbed to find that the owner of the website had been stalking me all my life and then wrote a paper on the kind of person I am. I was also disturbed that he knew things about myself that I didn't yet know. It was literally the most incredible experience reading about myself, my strengths and weaknesses, and what to do to live a happy life and have healthy relationships given my personality type. In case you care about me beyond my writings on this blog, and wish to know literally everything that is "me", look up the INTP personality type; that is what I am. But seriously, figure out yours, research it, and learn how to fortify your strengths and work on your weaknesses. This is a self-improvement exercise that literally will change you for the better.

Reinventing the wheel of Eternalism

I am an Eternalist, and I didn't even realize it until I "reinvented the wheel", or recreated the theory of Eternalism on my own, only to later find that somebody else already came up with the same theory, and even gave it a name. But anyway, I believe that if time is a dimension, similar to the three spacial dimensions we are all familiar with, then there is no reason why it should move forward in objective reality. In fact, with a frame of reference in the objective reality, you might say that time-travel is finally a feasible concept. This is not to say, however, that I wish to imply the possibility of human time-travel. That is still quite impossible given the conventional idea of time-travel, a truth that arises from the very fact that we our bound to our subjective viewpoint. However, I would like to express that all future events are "already there" and that all past events are "still there" (similar to the fact that up and down both "exist", even if you are somewhere between the two at the present moment), although we can never revisit these events (again, a consequence of being bound to our subjective reality). But in objective reality time is just another dimension that can be traveled through and can exist at any point both forward and backward from the "present". If the future events are already there, then they are predetermined back from the beginning of time like a cosmic chain reaction of falling dominoes, through the present and eternally into the future for all time. This belief unfortunately implicates the validity of determinism, and determinism implicates lack of free will--often a disturbing thought.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"
--Albert Einstein

"Nothing exists;
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others."
--Gorgias

Subjective Reality vs. Objective Reality

I present now the thoughts that have been dwelling in my mind for a couple of intellectually productive days. I ask that you open your mind, for as any wise man knows, this is the only way to ponder philosophy productively. I actually suggest you read up on Plato’s Allegory of the Cave; it does a good job explaining that. Consider this:

Subjective reality—reality as is perceived in the human mind—is an interpretation of objective reality, a reality that is far different than we think. Reality exists as we know it because we exist.

Time is one of my favorite topics to ponder over. It is interesting to note that most people don’t really understand time for what it is. Firstly, I will note that time does not move forward in “objective reality”. Time moves forward in our subjective reality simply by virtue of the fact that our brain processes at a finite speed, as defined by the laws of physics and chemistry.

Here is an example: An ant lives, lets say, for only a week. But—and here is where I’m taken aback—the ant’s brain is so small that the time it takes for an electrical signal to fire from one brain faculty to another is reduced by a factor of hundreds of times in comparison to us. This means that the ant’s brain operates at a faster speed than our own by the same factor—it thinks and processes information many times faster and thus perceives reality at a proportionally slowed down rate. Now I don’t know the exact size of an ant’s brain in comparison to our own, but let’s assume that it is smaller than ours by a factor of a thousand. This means that the ant may live for only a week from our perspective, but in its own subjective reality it lived for a thousand weeks. That is seven thousand days, or more than nineteen years. So don’t feel bad for the ant for living such a short life, because in terms of our own subjective realities it lived a lot longer than you think.

Remember: Reality is an illusion. It exists only because you exist. It is our individual interpretation of perception. Perception is subjective, and can be anything. It may sound odd, but if you consume a psychedelic drug that alters your perception, you are actually altering reality itself—subjective reality, that is. Everything you see, or hallucinate, is reality because it is what you perceive at the time, and reality is again just our interpretation of perception. Reality is an illusion. It is not a concrete, eternal, and straightforward concept. The idea of the passage of time is also an illusion of our perception, because in objective reality time is not moving in any direction and does not exist at any location in the universe's timeline. Time just IS. The universe doesn't operate without context. You might even go so far as to say that it doesn't exist without context. This means that there really is no objective reality at all. Existence and “reality” as we know them to be only exist because we exist. That is true of all of us. Furthermore, we do not all exist in the same reality. We are each within our own reality; our own existence.

This is my theory that I conceived with little prior knowledge of philosophy. I later found how similar my beliefs are to two pre-existing schools of philosophy called Transcendental Idealism and Eternalism, but whatever.

Nihilism (with a disclaimer)

Hopefully, this will help underdeveloped nihilists appreciate life a little bit more...

There is no meaning or purpose for life and existence. Why do we bother getting out of bed in the morning? None of it matters if we are all going to die, and cease to exist for an eternity of nothingness.

That is a logical line of thought on the topic of meaninglessness. However, this is an unproductive place to conclude your thoughts on the matter, and will only lead to depression or lack of ambition.

Please consider this: In the end, we are only human. You can think about our significance, purpose, and meaning, or lack thereof, all you want. But in the end, all we want is to live a happy life. So, as difficult as it may seem, the only way to find meaning in life is to create your own—and for you, that will be enough. It’s faith, and it is original to us all. Create your own and follow it always, and you will live a happy life. Yes, some day you will die. When that day comes, everything you ever said or did or thought may become meaningless again, for as you cease to exist, reality may do the same (depending on your beliefs). That is why we need to live in the moment. Life is a never-ending quest for meaning. And for those unfortunate souls who are intellectually adept enough to question their place and meaning in the world, yet not wise enough to understand this bittersweet philosophy on their own, the result is often tragic.

Interesting thoughts from a lazy afternoon...

I think, therefore I am.

I am, therefore reality is.

Reality is our interpretation of perception.

Perception is an illusion.

Reality is an illusion.

Reality is subjective.

Reality exists only because I exist.

Time is an interpretation of perception.

Time is an illusion.

Existence is all and always.

Meaning and purpose are illusory constructs of evolutionary development—appeasement

There is no meaning. There is no purpose. There only IS.

I am an illusion. Yet somehow something more. God is with us. God is purpose?

Purpose is an illusion.

God is an illusion.

God exists because I exist.

I am God.

I am purpose. I am meaning. I am all. (so are you)


P.S.- I am not saying that my ego is so inflated that I believe I am the Deity or something. Well, I sort of am...but you are too (it all ties into another one of my theories).

On "Knowledge", or lack thereof

I now realize that I am an Epistemological Solipsist. We cannot know anything about our reality as it really is, because we "know" what we think we know through fickle, alterable sensory perceptions. The only way something could be known is if you could directly perceive the absolute reality (or objective reality) as it really is, which is impossible. Objective knowledge is a literal impossibility. Ergo, we know nothing. So, take that Epistemology! I beat you. The answer is that we cannot know anything. If that's the case, then we should probably excommunicate the notion of knowledge and knowing from all of our languages, as well as our collective unconscious. I mean, yeah, I've heard what they say about subjective knowledge being possible. They even say it is the only knowledge we truly can have. They say that nothing can be known outside of our own mind. I refute that notion and suggest that, as our brains are made of lumps of physical matter and chemical interactions that are all alterable and inconsistent, we really cannot "know" anything at all, ever.

My revised thoughts on Language

Having had a few more years to develop my mind, I now realize that many stubborn conclusions I came to in the past are not any longer valid. For example, I always abhorred English class because I thought, “What’s the point of reading all these fictional stories and analyzing them?” Even worse was how I often thought, “What is the point of practicing these language skills anyways? My priorities lay in discovering the eternal truths of existence, and language is just a system that arose out of chance on our tiny little planet, and could have been anything!” In the grand scheme of things, I found language to be insignificant to me.

Only after coming to Dynamy and developing my knowledge and intuition am I now able to see how bitterly wrong I was. Let me begin by refuting my previous line of logic for deeming language insignificant. I believed it so because “it could have been anything”. Even now I cannot deny the validity of that statement, but I am afraid that I had been missing the point! The point is that, yes, it could have been anything. But, it had to be something! It’s not English that is important to study and analyze. It’s language itself. I speak not of any particular language, but of the idea of language. Language is absolutely essential to the thought process. It is a system for organizing our incoherent thoughts into a larger, coherent picture. What we don’t often realize is that we do in fact “think” using language. I believe our brain uses words as an indexing system for known objects, things, and ideas. Without this system, information would be incoherently jumbled around in our minds, with no easy way of calling upon useful thoughts in a timely fashion for the situation at hand. Also dependent upon language is our ability to tie together concepts in our mind that would otherwise be separate or unrelated, in order to conceive intelligible new thoughts and ideas. The limits of human ingenuity lie directly in the complexity of language. Quite frankly, I believe that if we made the English language staggeringly more complex, with tens of thousands of new words all with unique and distinctly complicated meanings capable of conveying the most subtle of notions, that we could ultimately increase human ingenuity and the average intelligence of the population.

Now that I am becoming more and more involved with philosophy and the fantastic world of theory and ideas, language skills are more relevant to me than ever before. Many of the ideas that I have been coming up with, such as my theory of circular eternalism (I will get into that in another writing), are very complex and abstract. From experience, I can tell you that trying to help someone understand what I understand on the matter is a very daunting task. People cannot easily wrap their head around the concepts. If only some form of telepathic inception were possible between humans, proper communication would be so much less arduous. If I could “plant” the same understanding that I have, the same intricate network of neurons that represents my understanding on a matter, in the mind of another, then my task would be a piece of cake. However, it really is disturbing to think about just how difficult it is for a human mind to interface with another. We had to invent this whole strange, intricate, external system for making internal connections to each other. Even after thousands of years of developing this tool for making connections to our peers, I still feel as though language is in a stage of infancy. But the point I wanted to make is that I feel as though language is one of my highest priorities, because it is absolutely necessary to me conveying my ideas. I feel as though there exists the perfect combination of words that could exactly convey an understanding of nearly equivalent intricacy in the mind of another, even if all the words to do so do not yet exist. But I will still spend the rest of my life refining my language skills and diction, because being able to make others understand what you’re talking about is the most important part of studying philosophy; otherwise, it’s really rather pointless. You don’t want to take all your incredible ideas and theories to the grave; otherwise, it will have been for nothing. It is my duty to refine my skills to the point where I can neatly add my thoughts to the collective unconscious, so that we may progress off of each other’s discoveries.