"There are no answers. There are only Choices

[cckeiser]

"There are no answers. There are only Choices."  

That one line in Solaris convinced me I was not watching a Sci-Fi, but a deep philosophical work of art.  
I need to know if that statement is part of Mr. Lem's philosophy, or just a line used in the movie?  
Those words are the summation of my own philosophy; Poly-Solipsism.  

To Mr. Lem  

For your consideration: www.poly-solipsism.com  

Regards  
C.C.Keiser  

[Clapaucius]

Which movie do you talk about? Sodenbergh' or Tarkovsky'?

The short summation o Lem's philosophy is:
"There is no reasons, there are only a sum of Chances". One common feature of our mind is that  a human allocates to much significance to every event, that  matters a lot for his destiny. And he never thinks, that every event, and it doesn't matter is it significant or insignificant for us, is only an outcome of probability game.

[cckeiser]

Which movie do you talk about? Sodenbergh' or Tarkovsky'?

Sodenbergh's
I did enjoy the philosophy. Lem's mind did come through all the Hollywood clutter.


[qoute
The short summation o Lem's philosophy is:
"There is no reasons, there are only a sum of Chances". One common feature of our mind is that  a human allocates to much significance to every event, that  matters a lot for his destiny. And he never thinks, that every event, and it doesn't matter is it significant or insignificant for us, is only an outcome of probability game.
[/quote]

Thank you. there is a bit of Poly-Solipsism in there. There is also a lot of quantum probability there also.

Please give Mr. Lem my regards

C.C.Keiser

[snorri]

Hej cckeiser,

I personally think

• that you misunderstood said quotation from the movie to fit your context. The sentence, the way see it, simply means "Don't expect things to make sense in a grand scheme, because they don't; they are merely a result of a series of choices you made."
  
• that your "multi-solipsism" isn't really all that new, yes almost banal, and also not a very interesting base to build a philosophy on, sorry ...
  

-- snorri

[Terminus]

Hard to disagree.

Nevertheless, if philosophy was a sport, which it sort of even is (except that noone looses or wins), You would made a decent player, poli-soliptic friend :]

[cckeiser]

Hej cckeiser,

I personally think

• that you misunderstood said quotation from the movie to fit your context. The sentence, the way see it, simply means "Don't expect things to make sense in a grand scheme, because they don't; they are merely a result of a series of choices you made."
• that your "multi-solipsism" isn't really all that new, yes almost banal, and also not a very interesting base to build a philosophy on, sorry ...

-- snorri

Greetings Snorri

Yes, we all translate the symbols we see through our own belief. The words themselves have no meaning, they are only symbols. The meaning of all symbols are in the mind of the perceiver. You translate what the symbols mean by what you have already experienced, and the meanings you have attached to all the other symbols you have used to build your own personal universe.

How you ‘see' what Lem or I have written; what meaning you assign to our words, may or may not be the meaning either of us intended. You see the symbols and you assign your own meanings.

I am as guilty of this as anyone else, but I know that I am, and that is why I am trying to contact Mr. Lem so I can find out what meaning he intended with his words.
I perceive his words and I give them a meaning that is based upon my own collection of previous experiences. Since no two minds experience Reality exactly the same, no two minds will give the same meaning to all things, or all words.
You have read my words and called them banal. I am not offended. Others have read them and called them brilliant. The difference is the meaning you each have assigned to my words.
We each perceive the Universe through the lens of our own making. We each believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.

To find out exactly what Mr. Lem meant by "There are no answers. There are only Choices." I must ask him. By communicating we exchange meanings, and come to a common consensus as to the meaning of the symbols we use.

Regards

Chuck

[cckeiser]

Hard to disagree.

Nevertheless, if philosophy was a sport, which it sort of even is (except that noone looses or wins), You would made a decent player, poli-soliptic friend :]

Greetings Terminus!

"except that noone looses or wins"
I guess that depends on who is keeping score!

Chuck

[snorri]

Hej Chuck!

Well, I was just stating my opinion. If other people see some deeper insight behind what I feel is banal -- good for them! I certainly am not the measure of everything

By the way: Contacting Stanislaw Lem through this forum is probably futile, as he doesn't use the internet at all. Also, you might want to read the Book "Solaris" first -- the movie is only very loosely based on the novel.

-- snorri

[edculus]

Yes, that quote shook my loins to the core the first time I've heard it about a year ago.  Maybe it was just a rhetorical statement?

Based on some of the responses in this forum, who really thinks we even have choices.  If how we perceive and personally understand this statement is based upon our past experiences, do we really have a choice in our understanding or the choices that we will make?  Maybe there are no answers or and no choices, maybe we're just a ball of energy experiencing the different elements that make up what some call the universe.

[Terminus]

Y maybe we're just a ball of energy experiencing the different elements that make up what some call the universe.

Well, even for an energy ball it is a significant difference to be experiencing a train running over it, or not. That's the choice.

[SoGo]

Well, you could understand it like this:

You can't define why, so at least you can define what.
The biggest question: "Why is all this?"
You can never get answered, then for this there must be a thing which stand over it.
And in what is in existing then?

You can't see the last reason why we are.
Perhaps it's in us, perhaps out.
No matter, the only thing you have is your own will.
And you have him.
In the area you have got you can act like it is your mood.
But for acting you must choice.
Shall I eat or shall I prefer lying in the sun?
Even if you choose not to choose, you have voted an action, in this case the action of passivity (and dying for hunger, if you are very consequent)
What I will say is:
There aren't last answers.
But there are choices and that they have to be is an forcement.
So there aren't any answers, there are only choices.

[cckeiser]

Given my Poly-Solipsism philosophy I believe I saw a different movie than most. If you miss the statement: "There are no answers, there are only choices;" which is uttered very softly, you miss the key to understanding what the movie Solaris was all about.
You must understand I had already formulated Poly-Solipsism based on the reduction of everything that exists back to The Singularity. From that concept I had also arrived at exactly the same conclusion: There are no Answers. There are only Choices, several months before I saw the movie.
When I head my words echoed back at me from none other than Stanislaw Lem, I nearly spewed my drink through my nose! It was a very eerie metaphysical sensation to see my own philosophy being dramatized before my astonished eyes.

From my perspective the object called Solaris is a poetic/artistic representation of The Singularity. The manifestation created from the minds of those in the story represent how we all create our reality with our own minds and beliefs.
Once we have entered into our own illusion of reality we cannot tell that it is an illusion. We are trapped in our own illusions and to our minds it becomes real.
If we cannot tell the difference between what is ‘real,' and what is an illusion, then to our minds there is no difference.
Our minds ride the wavefront until it collapses and becomes our reality!

[Terminus]

Well it's obvious You can redefine whole philosophy by telling that the only thing we're doing is instant choosing.
I have no problem understanding it.

But it doesn't mean there are no answers at all. In mathematics, one can easily answer a question like ,,does there exist a greatest prime number?'' and his/her free will has nothing to do with it.

There are other obvious questions. I can answer if it was snowing yesterday without having to choose what to say.
I regret to say we have no snow in Poland yet... but...

[Socrates]

From my perspective the object called Solaris is a poetic/artistic representation of The Singularity. The manifestation created from the minds of those in the story represent how we all create our reality with our own minds and beliefs.
[/quote]

As Kelvin would say:  "...and do you know what he have done?  We've just created another theory about Solaris, and that is no small accomplishment given what was written about it to date..." (Kelvin to Snaut, near the end of the book (paraphrased)).

Cheers, Socrates

[cckeiser]

In mathematics, one can easily answer a question like ,,does there exist a greatest prime number?'' and his/her free will has nothing to do with it.

I regret to say we have no snow in Poland yet... but...

But where do prime numbers come from, or any number for that matter?
Mathematics is wholly a human construct. Numbers only exist in the mind.
Mathematicians construct maps of the territory, but the maps are not the territory.
The are simply images in the mind.

You say you regret you have no snow as yet. I take it you are a skier? Skiers are the only people I know who regret not having snow!
It would not bother me if it never snowed around here. I am currently living in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the US, and we only get a few feet a year at the most. Sometimes not even that much. I gave up skiing 35 years ago; not that I ever did much of it anyway.
You like snow. I do not. Choices.
Our choices make us who we are. The main character in Solaris was forced to reflect on the choices he made that changed him into the person he had become. He was given the opportunity to change those choices, change himself, and change his reality.
Through Solaris, Lem is telling us if we do not like the person we have become we have the choice to change that person, and change our reality.
Poly-Solipsism tells us the same thing. Our reality is created by our choices. If we do not like our present reality we can change it by making new choices.
We do not have to settle for only what others have to offer. The characters in Solaris argued over what was the right thing to do. They each made different choices. They each chose a different reality.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am Stanislaw Lem was telling the story of  Poly-Solipsism and The Singularity. Not that I think for one moment he ever read or even heard of Poly-Solipsism or of myself. I just believe we both independently became aware of the same concept.

What I do not know is whether the story of Solaris is actually his philosophy, or just a story, but from what I have been reading about Lem, his works of fiction are always based around his reality. I would dearly love to compare notes with Lem over our mutual understanding of this illusion of reality. Especially the similarities between Solaris and The Singularity. The movie does not really say much about Solaris itself, everything is implied. Which is pretty much all we can imply about The Singularity. We cannot actually know anything about it because The Singularity is all Potential.

Yes, I have read else where, and have been told on this forum Lem does not own a computer. Guess what, I don't believe that for a minute. He is too intelligent not to take advantage of all the Internet has to offer. If he does not actually own one himself, I am sure he has a computer at his disposal.
There is at least a little vanity in all of us. And what creative artist can resist listening in on what his fans and detractors are saying about him!
I have no doubt Lem is here!