Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 'I' am an illusion!
BrainMeta.com Forum > Philosophy, Truth, History, & Politics > Philosophy
Unknown
'I' am an illusion! Happy Thanksgiving!
Unknown
what I mean is, my sense of personal identity is an illusion. This 'I' is not tied to this 'body' but is the 'I' of the Universe. There is only one 'I', deluding itself through the constructs of space and time into believing it is multiple 'I's. The 'I' is a mental construct, utterly impersonal, a universal expression; 'I' am 'It'; 'I' am the Universe. Or rather, 'I' am a transient expression of a universal Being.

Happy Thanksgiving!
Unknown
You exist nowhere except within your body.
You are part of the universe, not the universe.
Multiple I's do exist.

I's only exist within human beings.
When all humans are dead, the universe will continue well without us.

You are entitled to believe otherwise and be at peace with your choice.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 08:31 AM)
You exist nowhere except within your body.

nonsense. What is a 'body' afterall?

"You are part of the universe, not the universe."

What is the part/whole relation? If everything is interconnected, how can you disentangle a part from the whole?


"Multiple I's do exist."

What is 'I' afterall?

"I's only exist within human beings. "

What is a human being? What is an 'I'?

"When all humans are dead, the universe will continue well without us."

This is a statement born of illusion.

"You are entitled to believe otherwise and be at peace with your choice.
Happy Thanksgiving!"

Thanks! I will.
Unknown
“Ex nihilo nihil fit”

nothing comes from nothing

'I' is an illusion when it conveys a sense of transience. Death is an illusion. 'I' exist in everyone who has ever lived and who will ever live. 'I' is eternal and is quite independent of my human body, or any humans for that matter. 'I' am an eternal expression of the Universe.

Unknown
from Wikipedia:
"Nothing comes from nothing is a philosophical expression often stated in its Latin form: ex nihilo nihil fit. This principle maintains that anything that exists in physical reality has its origins in and is the manifestation of something else. The idea was first expressed as such by Empedocles. Today, the idea is loosely associated with the laws of conservation of mass and energy."

I maintain that since 'I' exist now, 'I' could not have ever not existed. The belief that we do not exist prior to our birth is an illusion born of our memories.

Ex nihilo nihil fit.

Death is an illusion. Transience is an illusion. 'I' cannot be born from nothing. The 'I' is eternal; it is the timeless expression of a universal Being.


Unknown
Quotes:-

"What is a 'body' afterall?

What is 'I' afterall?

What is a human being? What is an 'I'?"

If you don't know the answer to these questions, there is no point talking about the 'I' as being illusory!

The problem with the arguments quoted from wikipedia is that whilst they apply to a human body, they do not necessarily apply to mental constructs which are formed in a new body (which is created from regenerated material).
Individuals are born. They have no 'I', but make one.
Individuals die. Their 'I' is gone forever. If they are cremated their body is gone forever, else becomes available for recycling.
Unknown
The point of the questions is to provoke thought. The wikipedia quote about 'nothing coming from nothing' may have general validity and is not necessarily restricted to human bodies. "I" is impersonal, clothed in personability by our memories which gives rise to our illusion of separateness and individuality. All is interconnected; To the extent that our mental eye recognizes ourselves as a timeless expression of a universal Being, thus are we immortal.
Unknown
Provocation does not always work, but I concede that too many people don't spend enough time thinking philosophically. But then, each to his own I suppose - I spend no time with sport, theatre, and a myriad other things.

I cannot think of any point in continuing our chat since you don't believe what you are saying.

I am certainly an individual, separate from everything I don't touch physically or mentally. I would feel this sorely if i were to be cast upon some unknown-to-anybody, faraway island as the single occupant!
No-one would know or miss me when I died. I am, however a part of the universe!
Hey Hey
if there was an "I" and you could know it, what difference would it make? (Sincere question)
Unknown
Hello Hey Hey,

It would make a difference to my knowledge.

It does make a difference to my knowledge.

I know that I am separate from all others except that my physical components come from previous physical components and my thoughts are peculiar to myself. We also know that some information which becomes part of our knowledge is from the past too.

I really do wish that I had the knowledge of the intentions of anyone within a distance of me which would allow them to severely or adversely affect my being. Then I would believe in a universal consciousness (albeit limited to few hundred yards - any more would probably require too much parallel computation to be of any use anyway).
Unknown
QUOTE (Hey Hey @ Nov 25, 12:56 PM)
if there was an "I" and you could know it, what difference would it make? (Sincere question)

to know that you are everyone who has ever lived or will ever live, to know that individuality is an illusion that belies the interconnectedness of everything, to know that your 'I' is beyond death; I would say that could make a significant difference in people's lives. It has in mine.
Unknown
It makes a significant difference to the believer (for it cannot be known) whether it is the truth or not.

I am interested in and seek the probable truth.
You probably do the same.
As I said earlier, it is for each to choose and cope with whatever they believe.
Neither do I have any desire to 'convert' others to my believe - each must choose for themselves (same as with religion).
Unknown
I prefer experiencing truth. My goal here is to share with others, and point them in the direction of truth.
Unknown
Admirablo!!
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 01:59 PM)
it is for each to choose and cope with whatever they believe.
Neither do I have any desire to 'convert' others to my believe - each must choose for themselves (same as with religion).

It is because of this kind of thought that we are where we are. at the present. I know that it is the most rational and logical; but I'm not content with where we are. At some point in the future we must all agree on a lot of things, for the sake of progress. So this kind of thought in the quote will become passe
Unknown
What's the name of the icon next to 'brainmeta.com' at the top of some of the pages in this website. It looks to me like it is a 2-D interpretation of what a 3-D projection of a 4-D cube's shadow would look like
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 11:49 AM)
To the extent that our mental eye recognizes ourselves as a timeless expression of a universal Being, thus are we immortal.

This is "Admirablo!!"
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 03:13 PM)
What's the name of the icon next to 'brainmeta.com' at the top of some of the pages in this website. It looks to me like it is a 2-D interpretation of what a 3-D projection of a 4-D cube's shadow would look like

You mean a Tesserac's shadow? A Tesserac is a mathematical proposition. Impossible to "shadow"
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 03:13 PM)
What's the name of the icon next to 'brainmeta.com' at the top of some of the pages in this website. It looks to me like it is a 2-D interpretation of what a 3-D projection of a 4-D cube's shadow would look like

it's a hypercube
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 01:59 PM)
it is for each to choose and cope with whatever they believe.
Neither do I have any desire to 'convert' others to my believe - each must choose for themselves (same as with religion).

It is because of this kind of thought that we are where we are. at the present. I know that it is the most rational and logical; but I'm not content with where we are. At some point in the future we must all agree on a lot of things, for the sake of progress. So this kind of thought in the quote will become passe

I suspect that it will never be possible to get all folk to agree, even for the sake of progress, especially considering the inability of those less able to comprehend situations.
Unknown
or a tesserac, which is a cube within a cube, or hypercube, as someone pointed out
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 04:31 PM)
or a tesserac, which is a cube within a cube, or hypercube, as someone pointed out

that is, it's topologically equivalent to a cube within a cube
Unknown
I'm afraid not. There's some points without connections in the graphic given. It's something else. I don't even see one complete cube.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 10:43 AM)
"When all humans are dead, the universe will continue well without us."


On what? On auto-pilot?
Unknown
It'll freeze out and die. So It needs us in order to be inmortal. To pass on Its legacy. Who knows how many billions of times It has already tried and failed! Maybe we are Its last chance. How many billions of coincidence and close calls did it take us, I wonder, to get to where we are at the present point in space and time?
Unknown
You make it sound like we are some kind of a miracle. and miracles don't exist.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 05:43 PM)
It'll freeze out and die. So It needs us in order to be inmortal. To pass on Its legacy. Who knows how many billions of times It has already tried and failed! Maybe we are Its last chance. How many billions of coincidence and close calls did it take us, I wonder, to get to where we are at the present point in space and time?

Bingo!
Unknown
You are implying that Universes reproduce. Paralell Universes is only a quantum physics possibility. A possibility (but only that) . You are bordering on wishful thinking.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 05:21 PM)
I'm afraid not. There's some points without connections in the graphic given. It's something else. I don't even see one complete cube.

YOu're right. It's a type of combinatorial graph; I'm not sure the name of it, but it's constructed as follows: Let the empty set denote a node; then connect it to nodes a, b, c, and d, and then connect these nodes to all possible combinations of {a,b,c,d} choose 2, and then connect to all combos of {a,b,c,d} choose 3, and then finally connect them to {a,b,c,d}, which is abcd. I'll look around for the name of this graph and post it if I find it.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 05:21 PM)
I'm afraid not.  There's some points without connections in the graphic given.  It's something else.  I don't even see one complete cube.

YOu're right. It's a type of combinatorial graph; I'm not sure the name of it, but it's constructed as follows: Let the empty set denote a node; then connect it to nodes a, b, c, and d, and then connect these nodes to all possible combinations of {a,b,c,d} choose 2, and then connect to all combos of {a,b,c,d} choose 3, and then finally connect them to {a,b,c,d}, which is abcd. I'll look around for the name of this graph and post it if I find it.

Got it! It's the set partition lattice; also known as a Hasse diagram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasse_diagram

user posted image


Unknown
Note that the diagram leaves out the empty set, and has the singetons (a, b, c, OR d) represented as a single node, instead of being separate nodes.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 04:31 PM)
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 02:57 PM)
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 25, 01:59 PM)
it is for each to choose and cope with whatever they believe.
Neither do I have any desire to 'convert' others to my believe - each must choose for themselves (same as with religion).

It is because of this kind of thought that we are where we are. at the present. I know that it is the most rational and logical; but I'm not content with where we are. At some point in the future we must all agree on a lot of things, for the sake of progress. So this kind of thought in the quote will become passe

I suspect that it will never be possible to get all folk to agree, even for the sake of progress, especially considering the inability of those less able to comprehend situations.

Never is to harsh a word
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 06:23 PM)
You are implying that Universes reproduce. Paralell Universes is only a quantum physics possibility. A possibility (but only that) . You are bordering on wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking, maybe. But still within the realm of possibility. This could be reality
Unknown
I also see rectangles. I don't think it is any of the objects mentioned so far.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 30, 08:48 AM)
I also see rectangles. I don't think it is any of the objects mentioned so far.

It could be a poorly drawn Hasse Diagram. But I doubt that Shawn would be that careless. It could be something else.
Unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 29, 08:31 PM)
Note that the diagram leaves out the empty set, and has the singetons (a, b, c, OR d) represented as a single node, instead of being separate nodes.

What does that make it, then?
Unknown
It's actually more than one object. When you go to the 'reply' page, a different object appears than if you stay on the 'recent posts' page and just click on 'refresh' at least three times.
unknown
QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 24, 07:46 PM)
what I mean is, my sense of personal identity is an illusion. This 'I' is not tied to this 'body' but is the 'I' of the Universe. There is only one 'I', deluding itself through the constructs of space and time into believing it is multiple 'I's. The 'I' is a mental construct, utterly impersonal, a universal expression; 'I' am 'It'; 'I' am the Universe. Or rather, 'I' am a transient expression of a universal Being.

Happy Thanksgiving!

All you are is a point caught between two eternities
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am