"There are no answers. There are only Choices

[Terminus]

It all comes down to a definition matters...
After I die, I cannot tell if the world stopped existing.
We can quarell forever... One of us says, that a world doesn't exist when you don't see it, other one says the world exists  anyway... there is no solid argument for neither side...

it's a waste of time.

[wetal]

I don`t think that philosophy operates arguments , serious what is more. The Universe won`t be without people. The example is a computer in front of you , it won`t be a computer without user but a heap of plastics,metals and glass.We are the possessers of the ideas of things , not a single thing can be itself without us even the Universe.

[cckeiser]

I don`t think that philosophy operates arguments , serious what is more. The Universe won`t be without people. The example is a computer in front of you , it won`t be a computer without user but a heap of plastics,metals and glass.We are the possessers of the ideas of things , not a single thing can be itself without us even the Universe.

http://panentheism.blogharbor.com/

[wetal]

Conclusion: All is possible what is possible.Aii is truth what is truth.All is real what is real.All is right what is right. And all is wrong what is wrong.
Who can add something?

[cckeiser]

Conclusion: All is possible what is possible.Aii is truth what is truth.All is real what is real.All is right what is right. And all is wrong what is wrong.
Who can add something?

That is what we do. We "add something".

The Problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.


Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can ‘see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the ‘degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the ‘dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an ‘is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime ‘degrees of freedom' when we call it ‘a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
The Singularity is Consciousness, and what each mind envisions; what each mind can imagine; what each mind can create; what each mind believes, adds potential to our degrees of freedom.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not ‘part' of The Singularity, and we are no ‘in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.



C.C.Keiser
11/30/04

[Terminus]

This quasigeometric construction (with ,,degrees of freedom'' used as renamed dimensions) is somewhat poor and hollow. You seem to forget that in such multidimensional space a subspaces exist, a subsets that can be freely joined and may as well remain disjoint. This would imply that there exists at least one non empty sub-universe (or as you may prefer to call it "sub-singularity" - the funny names you use are not as necessary as it seems) which is disjoint with every other ones (it may be a projections of a singularity onto one or more of ,,degrees of freedom''). This, in math, is called a subspace. In contrary to what you claim, the number of degrees of freedom  (dimensions) is not infinite, as the number of people (conciousnesses) is definitly finite. How large it is, doesn't matter. A subspace is closed, yet it is, in a way, equivalent to the entire "singularity", because it has its structure mapped onto it.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion, that there exists more that just a one singularity (which is a whole universe) but also its subsingularities, that are a simplified copies of the whole, but the copies hold whole information about the whole. It implies that there is no need to talk about the whole singularity, on of the subspaces is enough. Following this way of deducing, we get to the conclusion that there is no  objective truth.  

One more thing: real, four-dimensional universe behaves in a way, in which when a change occurs, it affects all the dimensions of the objet (three dimensions, and change takes place in fourth). This four dimensions are not independent. Whereas your 'degrees of freedom' are purely independent of each other, because what one consious being claims to be his/hers imagination, doesn't nevessarily have to mean anything for another being.
This, in my opinion, proves even harder, that the construct You're proposing lacks more than it seems.

And finally, a question: isn't it better to shake hands with reality and start using your brain to describe it in simple terms? What good is claiming, that nothing really exists and everything is a matter of your choice? (Beside the fact, that one becomes an extreme megallomaniac).

?

[wetal]

It happens sometimes that we take the position of a spectactor,we see everything and agree with averything.Machines/automatos/ behave themselves the same way.If you can`t object the things are bad.

[peskanov]

Hello there, and greetings from Valencia, Spain. This is my first post; I hope I will stay long time in this forum

I would like to state that this "poly-solipsism" is very close to many versions of idealism, especially the celebrated Berkeley version of it.
Yes, Lem has a good knowledge of solipsism, idealism, materialism, physicalism, etc... This is not a guess, he has speaked often about philosophy.
In his books, he has joked often about solipsism, especially in the ciberiad. He thinks solipsism is much more emotional than rational.
He has also played with idealism; but unlike Philip K. Dick, Lem always seems to have a strong root in objectivism: the belief of an unique reality that involve everything and everybody.
Not only that, I am quite confident that Lem see the mind as a phenomena purely emerged from the brain, limited to it's existence. Imaginary magnitude, Star Diaries and several other books makes fun of  transcendency very often.
In nearly all his books, Lems thinking appears as physicalism/materialism.

In terms of emotions, Lem seems to accept the existence death without fear, but also without any hope of transcendence. Read "His master voice", especially the end of the book.

[Terminus]

Your very welcome, Pescanov.

In contrary to what You may expect, I will not speak about Lem's philosophical views, which You have correctly put down above (there's no point correcting You   ).

I will get down to Your avatar and program.
I mean this.



The one above was created with a different random generator than Your looped
((j = (j ^ ((j << 13) | ( j >> (32-13))))), but yet it doesn't seem any more random.

But allright - You ask (in the sentence underneath Your avatar) ,,Is there any randomness at all". I assume You expect everyone to crack their jaws open after seeing that
this randomly selected symbols form a visible pattern.

BUT, have mercy - what a heck do you expect them to look like? It they really were randomly (not pseudo-randomly) selected - they would look exactly the same. A square here, straight line there. It's just the consequence of the fact that you use only two symbols. Use six, then we'll see what is the randomness.


Ok, back to Lem.
It is true he describes soliptysm; I have many times above stated that soliptysm is a fun of bored, so I won't do it again.

Cheers and Welcome again

[wetal]

Solipsism? Do you remember Platon with his world of ideas? Our brain works out the reality so that we can see only our own version of it. The story is old as the WORLD is.

[peskanov]

BUT, have mercy - what a heck do you expect them to look like? It they really were randomly (not pseudo-randomly) selected - they would look exactly the same. A square here, straight line there. It's just the consequence of the fact that you use only two symbols. Use six, then we'll see what is the randomness.  

Mmmm...No, the main point of my little puzzle is about Pareidolia, the human tendency of seeing "faces in the clouds".
Most thinkers find purpose on nature, see the patterns, the mechanism, and deduce that a creator have designed it, or that a deep mistery about nature exist.
However, as humans we are condemned to find patterns anywhere, to match every information with our existing prejudices. I think that small labyrinth, which in reality amounts to a bag of stochastically (not random) distributed bars, show that lesson quite nicely.

The question about randomness is a secondary point. Most idealists try to scape the consequences of determinism and modern neuroscience through quantum mechanics. Most physics thinks that indeterminism exist at microscopic level, and others think indeterminism is NEEDED for QM and General Relativity to be correct.
However, as you pointed out: How can one find a diference between true randomness and stochastically generated noise? And, even if you can, does it matter? Would our universe, and our own nature as humans, be different if indeterminacy exist at any level? I don't think so.

[Terminus]

Ok I understand Your point now.  (Nevertheless, I found generating that slashes and backslashes very amusing  )

[cckeiser]

Hi All!


I have been receiving e-mails from my readers exclaiming my philosophy of Poly-Solipsism has "Gone Hollywood!"
I had to check it out, so I bought the "What the Bleep do We Know" dvd. They were pretty much correct. The movie is very close to Poly-Solipsism, but not completely. I take the concepts they have introduced to its definitive conclusion.
We are The Singularity.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

They have a web site at www.whatthebleep.com

Enjoy!!

PS
Sorry, but I have been very busy answering e-mails the past few weeks, and find I have very little time anymore to visit all my discussion boards.

You can always e-mail me if you have any questions on Poly-Solipsism.
This forum really should be for discussing Lem, and not Poly-Solipsism.

Thank you for your interest though.

Chuck

[cckeiser]

Greetings Peskanov

I really should be replying to a heated discussion on The Singularity I am having by e-mail with a mathematician, but since you have been interested enough to visit my web site several times over the past few days, I feel obliged to reply to your posts here.
I was going to abandon this forum and restrict my future discussions to e-mail only, but there are still a few here that are  interested in continuing, so I will attempt to continue to reply here as time allows.


Yes, I have been compared to Berkeley before, and also to Idealism and Conceptualism before, among many other "isms." Though there are many similarities,  none of them quite fit perfectly. The only philosophy I have found so far to fit Poly-Solipsism to a tee, is Poly-Solipsism itself.  Even the philosophy introduced in the "What the Bleep do we Know" movie is not quite exactly Poly-Solipsism. Everything that is in that movie is contained in Poly-Solipsism, but no all of Poly-Solipsism is in the movie. The movie leaves many questions unanswered.
The movie is not done very well by the way, but the Philosophy is great!

I do appreciate your views on what you believe Lem thinks, but I still maintain only Lem can speak for Lem. Thank you anyway.

Most of the rest of your posts discuss the pov's of other "isms" and your own pov about varius subjects. They are all choices. Everyone you mentioned, and everyone here, including yourself, and including myself, have made a choice as to how we wish to view Reality. We each have chosen how we wish our Reality to work. We, the human species, have been doing this very same thing for millenniums. We continue to this day to argue over our different perceptions and over who is right. We will never agree until we recognize we really do not exist in the very same universe.
Reread all that you have written. Are these not your choices as to what you wish to believe, and how you wish your universe to work?
You know you are right. You know this is how it really is, and it just could not work any other way.
Everyone else believes the vary same thing about their choices.
I know I am right. I know that Poly-Solipsism is the absolute Truth, and this is how reality really works. It just couldn't work any other way.
So what happens now? We each call each other delusional, crazy, whacked, nuts, Insane!
No, Poly-Solipsism tells us no one is delusional, we all are just illusional.
We each select and create the Reality we wish to exist in.

Several times you state " I think( this)" or "I don't Think (this)." That is exactly what Poly-Solipsism tells us we do; We Think.

There is only The Singularity. All else is Philosophy.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

Warmest Regards

Chuck

[cckeiser]

I just received this from one of my e-mail discussions. Considering my last post, I thought everyone here would find it as amusing as I did!

Q: There's another remarkable statement he makes. It is in a discussion of the reality of the episode. He says, that is all there is in reality, what you felt.

CC: Uh-huh. Yea, he, don Juan's a very sophisticated thinker, really, it's not easy to come to grips with him. You see, I had tried various times to wrestle with him intellectually and he always comes the victor, you know. He's very artful. He posed once the idea to me that the whole, the totality of the universe is just perception. It's how we perceive things. And there are no facts, only interpretations. And those are nearly, I'm merely paraphrasing him as close as I can. And perhaps he's right, the facts are nothing else but interpretations that our brain makes of stimuli. So that such whatever I felt was, of course, the important thing.

From an INTERVIEW WITH CARLOS CASTANEDA, author of THE TEACHINGS OF DON JUAN: A YAQUI WAY OF KNOWLEDGE, by Theodore Ros

Now there was a smart guy!!