is th universe a fictional object in consciousness

[jackles]

If there is eternal life for a localised observer in the universe .the consciousness of that localised observer would render the universe fictional to his consciouse objectivness.general consciousness would be the only real object.this super object would be the cause of tense or time relating to the fictional universe object.

[Skip]

And you would have a minuscule bit-part in an inconsequential subplot of a possibly edited-out chapter. But, hey, what do you care, as long as you know you're the real dreamer of the whole shebang?

[jackles]

Kill joy!

[henry quirk]

There's all the shit that's not 'me'.

There's 'me'.

I apprehend all the shit that's not 'me' by way of my senses.

I process the information I apprehend.

I create a model for what I apprehend.

My model, while accurate enough to allow me to navigate all the shit that's not 'me', is not synonymous with all the shit that's not 'me'.

So: there's 'me' and there's a whole whack of shit that's not 'me' that exists independent of 'me'.

So: I declare the universe as 'real', and I declare the map of the universe in my head as useful (useful insofar as the map adheres to what is real) fiction, and what was the friggin' question again?

[Skip]

^^^
I like that.

[jackles]

Shouldnt that be .i like that shit.

[Impenitent]

maybe there are internal sensory impressions...

to claim that an external world exists because of an internal sensory impression requires a huge leap of faith...

-Imp

[henry quirk]

"...requires a huge leap of faith..."

Not really, no.

I know for a fact sumthin' exists outside of me, apart from me, independent of me, simply 'cause I'm too dumb to make up all the shit I apparently apprehend by way of my senses.

I'm smart enough to model it (with appropriate information) in my head, yes.

Not nearly smart enough to build it from scratch.

Simply put: I'm too friggin' stupid to imagine 'the world'

[Impenitent]

"...requires a huge leap of faith..."

Not really, no.

I know for a fact sumthin' exists outside of me, apart from me, independent of me, simply 'cause I'm too dumb to make up all the shit I apparently apprehend by way of my senses.

I'm smart enough to model it (with appropriate information) in my head, yes.

Not nearly smart enough to build it from scratch.

Simply put: I'm too friggin' stupid to imagine 'the world'

that doesn't prove you aren't a brain in a vat

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

-Imp

[jackles]

What is your identity then relative to the world or as you put it the whole lot of shit thats out there thats not you.is that you or your brain thinking you exists.or does a you exist that thinks its you but aint.

[thedoc]

There is no way to prove anything outside your own mind, and what exists is only in your own mind. Everything you experience is history as it has happened in the past. The only thing you can experience that is now is the current thought in your mind.

[jackles]

I disagree you are not a present thought or a past thought or a future thought.you are the feeling of your self in consciousness.spirit is the feeling of your self in the awareness of consciousness.you is a consciouse feeling.

[James Markham]

As someone else pointed out, there is no way to prove anything exists independently out side of your own mind, but I do see a way to prove that not everything we experience as our subjective reality can properly be called a personal self. I believe it can be known, that there is a part of our subjective reality, that is undeniably something other than the self.

So firstly, if I define what I can know as me, I can see that not every aspect of my experience is me. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am", but he could also have noted that thinking always involves two distinctly separate aspects, that which thinks, and that which is thought of, perceiver and perceived, or thinker and thought of.

There are also principles by which I as a thinker, am conditioned, which can also be seen to be something other than the thinker. I have feelings, but I'm not happiness, sadness or any other emotion that I experience, so I as a subject, I am aware of principles with which my perception is conditioned, but which are something other than perception. I have ideas, but those ideas are not me either, they are that class of things on which my perception can be focused. And I am also subjected to experience the string of events, that be them external or internal, are beyond the classification of perception, and are classified as perceived reality. So whether this be illusion or not, it is certainly something other than me, as I am simply the perceiver of what is perceived.

So although this doesn't prove the existence of an objective reality, it does show the existence of phenomena that are distinguished from consciousness. We are consciousness, and there is that which we are conscious of, which is necessarily something other than the consciousness that is aware of it.

[thedoc]

As someone else pointed out, there is no way to prove anything exists independently out side of your own mind, but I do see a way to prove that not everything we experience as our subjective reality can properly be called a personal self. I believe it can be known, that there is a part of our subjective reality, that is undeniably something other than the self.

So firstly, if I define what I can know as me, I can see that not every aspect of my experience is me. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am", but he could also have noted that thinking always involves two distinctly separate aspects, that which thinks, and that which is thought of, perceiver and perceived, or thinker and thought of.

There are also principles by which I as a thinker, am conditioned, which can also be seen to be something other than the thinker. I have feelings, but I'm not happiness, sadness or any other emotion that I experience, so I as a subject, I am aware of principles with which my perception is conditioned, but which are something other than perception. I have ideas, but those ideas are not me either, they are that class of things on which my perception can be focused. And I am also subjected to experience the string of events, that be them external or internal, are beyond the classification of perception, and are classified as perceived reality. So whether this be illusion or not, it is certainly something other than me, as I am simply the perceiver of what is perceived.

So although this doesn't prove the existence of an objective reality, it does show the existence of phenomena that are distinguished from consciousness. We are consciousness, and there is that which we are conscious of, which is necessarily something other than the consciousness that is aware of it.

If you can demonstrate that you have become aware of something that you could not possibly been aware of before, and could not have invented in your own mind, you may be able to claim that there is something outside of your own mind. There is certainly a lot of science that I could not create, but is it actually real, or just some meaningless scribbles, because I do not understand them?

[James Markham]

Thedoc, I think what I'm getting at is, the brain is the seat of your consciousness, and when we use the terms objective and subjective, we are referring to our consciousness, and something other than consciousness, so who's to say where objective ends, and subjective begins. If my body is objective, and only my awareness is subjective, then what I am made aware of within the brain is necessarily objective.