A Concise Essay Roughly Explaining My Philosophy

anarchist's picture

This journal contains little personal information, only scholarly stuff that I am interested in. This is the only exception:

A rap song that I actually enjoy listening to. :D


There is no reason to assume that consciousness and perception mean anything. Because the mind itself does not perceive anything the self perceives the self is irrelevant. As a result of this realization, one comes to the conclusion that one’s own mind does not exist. And due to that belief, one must also believe that it is a part of nonexistence. Because nothing outside the mind exists, the mind itself does not exist, and nonexistence is the only rational thing one can believe.

Firstly, consciousness doesn't exist. All my perception is an illusion. It cannot be real because it is cosmically detached from the self. There is no proof of its validity. Everything one sees, feels, hears, smells, and tastes is unrelated to one's own mind, which has no communication with what is outside of it. The closest thing to communication is through speech, which is unreliable because it cannot make the exterior feel what the mind feels. Because of this, the self must be completely detached from what it perceives. So everything outside the self could be nonexistent.

This doesn’t mean that another being outside of the self is nonexistent. The universe possibly has double standards, each organism being its own existence and nothing outside of it being relevant. However, there is no proof that other people actually are; they might just be illusions. From another perspective, two separate people might be fully existent, but cannot communicate with each other’s minds. This is because one cannot communicate with one’s own mind.

The mind is detached from the senses by some cosmic wall; it is an independent thing. One knows nothing about one's own mind because it is unrelated to anything one perceives. The thoughts are unrelated to the mind because they are entirely based on perception of the external world which does not exist. One can't access my mind and therefore knows absolutely nothing about it. So what does this mean? What is a person? If one's mind is what defines one and it is something one is not attached to, then the self is not part of the self, but just an imaginary extension of this abstract idea that is the self. It is just the perception of a nonexistent material universe. But if that's all that one is, then one does not exist.

Furthermore, the mind does not produce thoughts and it is just something that is in its own isolated cosmos. It is attached to nonexistence because it is the only thing that really does exist and that it is completely unaware of this perception, not only because it is isolated, but also because it cannot be aware of anything due to the fact that nothing else exists, so it can't have knowledge or opinions of any kind. But if this is all that exists and it perceives nothing, not itself or any illusions like matter, and it is directly attached to nonexistence, then not even the mind exists. It is nonexistence itself and it is everything and nothing, it is endless.

Consciousness is merely an illusion, cosmic nothingness. Being independent from the mind, the self does not subsist. The mind, because it unattached to consciousness, is inexistent. Because of the fact that nothing outside the self exists, the self does not exist, and the mind of the self does not exist, nothingness is the only thing one can safely believe in.

I'm suddenly interested in neurology, so I decided to do some research. I'll use Chad's method of explaining what I learn in journal entries to better understand them, but I'll mostly just use it for notes:
The telencephalon is the exterior dorsal (upper) section of the brain. It contains the cortex, the outermost section, which makes up the surface of the brain.
The diencephalon is the central part of the brain. It contains organs such as the thalamus, through which all information that goes to the rest of the brain passes, and the hypothalamus. (A fun fact about this is that a part of the hypothalamus is larger in heterosexual men and homosexual women than in homosexual men and heterosexual women.)
The mesencephalon is ventral to (below) the diencephalon and contains the superior colliculi, which controls reflexes to certain visual things, like squinting at bright light and being attracted to movement.
The metencephalon is caudal to (behind) the mesencephelon and contains the cerebellum, which coordinates motor functions, and the pons, which links the cerebellum with the area in the telencephalon that carries out these functions.
Finally, the myelencephalon, or medulla oblongata, connects the brain with the spinal chord, allowing the brain to control motor functions and allowing the signals in the spinal chord received from the peripheral nervous system to reach the brain.
The forebrain refers to the telencephalon and the diencephalon and the hindbrain refers to the mesencephalon, the metencephalon, and the myelencephalon. The brain stem is the structure at the bottom of the brain.


elph's picture

Very interesting...

All very well-constructed sentences.

In summary: Nothing is real. Do I have that right?

I'm looking forward to reading your further thoughts on philosophy (neurology can wait). Of particular interest would be how your insights may be exploited for your personal benefit, and hopefully for the benefit of all mankind.

anarchist's picture

That is correct.

I didn't think about how this could be beneficial. It doesn't matter anyway because people don't exist. Now that I think about it, it would make people a lot less materialistic. Or would it make them more materialistic, knowing that nothing exists so they might as well indulge in simple things and be happy? I have no idea, but it certainly would make more people anarchists.

elph's picture


Anarchy is a goal towards which mankind is being drawn inexorably?

You see no advantage in trying to avoid this outcome? Or... is it your view that any attempt to avoid anarchy would be futile?

anarchist's picture

Anarchy isn't inevitable,

but it would happen if everybody thought as much about consciousness as I do. Anarchy is the most natural form of society. Government is too corruptable and organisms are capable of settling their own problems. That's what reflexes and instincts are for. Animals aren't governed, anyway. Why should we be?

elph's picture

Maybe there's a physics analog?

Your suggesting that societies tend toward anarchy looks eerily similar to the situation of entropy in physics: in any well-defined closed physical system (i.e., no outside energy/influences allowed to intrude) entropy can only increae, it cannot decrease (i.e., disorder increases). Many cosmologists think of our universe as being such a system... maybe... maybe not... :(

I should add at this juncture... I'm not at all "completely in tune" with your musings on philosophy (and... I suspect you really aren't either!). It's best, however, that I not pursue it... as you've already attracted an eminently-qualified adversary/debater (below)!

swimmerguy's picture


But I think there is possible proof as to prove that at least, other minds exist...
This man, Rupert Sheldrake, has done a variety of experiments regarding parapsychology. One of his I thought was incredibly interesting is that, through a variety of tests, it can be shown that that sense of "being stared at by someone", is actually true! He's done experiments of blindfolding people, giving them a walkie talkie, putting them in a chair, and having them sit there while he sits behind. Then, randomly, he does a series of tests, some where he's looking at the person and thinking of them, some where he looks away and doesn't think of them, and then asks them to say whether of not they're being stared at, and it can be shown that there indeed is a sense in people that people are being watched!

Which is odd, given that, from looking at the world, vision and thought should should have nothing to do with other people, or with the world, as for vision, light comes into the eyes, that's all, and thought occurs entirely in the head, not, as it seems, on the outside.

That, and other experiments done showing that observation of the world causes it to change, such as photons demonstrating particle behavior when we look at them, and wave behavior when we don't, same with electrons, do seem to suggest that the world is indeed connected to the mind, or indeed is part of the mind.
It would however, seem to show, with the staring experiments coupled with the observation ones, that if the universe doesn't exist at all, perhaps other consciousnesses do. Which would mean we're sharing all in the same delusion of reality, which would seem to imply the universe does exist.

There's another guy who had another theory for the universe, I don't know his name. I forgot it.

He said that perhaps the whole universe is a video game, created by, theoretically, either aliens, or, more likely, ourselves in the far future.
He said that we've been creating simulated worlds ourselves for some time now, and they keep getting better, and better.
Eventually, might they get so good, they'd be indistinguishable in any way from the universe? Who's then to say they aren't a real universe?

He thinks that our descendants in the far future have created a computer world simulation so lifelike, with a computer so powerful, that it creates our "minds" and calculates everything that would happen here. In other words, that we're just a simulation, that this world doesn't really exist, but outside of this one is a world in which the computer that has our world, exists.
He puts forth some evidence for this. If you look at simulations and video, you notice certain of their properties.

1 is that simulations are quantized. A picture is made out of tiny, tiny little pixels, creating the illusion of a smooth image, and video is made out of pictures rapidly flashed consecutively, creating the illusion of smooth motion. He points out that matter is quantized, that it's made of atoms. And there are people out there who think time is quantized too, making out universe nearly indistinguishable from a video, just with smaller pixels and more frames, in other words, a much better video (theoretically create able by our descendants) :P

Also, video game simulations don't exist, except by observation. When you're in a video game, there isn't an entire universe in there that you just move around in as a character, but instead, whenever you look in a direction, the computer builds up what you "should" see in that direction.
The experiments showing matter behaves differently when we're not directly observing it seems eerily similar to that.

So then, in that sense, the universe does exist, in a sense, but it's not really real and neither are we, just virtual simulations.

Does the universe exist? It's an interesting question, and I think about it a lot, but really, for our everyday lives, it doesn't matter, because I base my thoughts based on what I see out there, and if none of it's real, then none of it makes a difference anyway...


anarchist's picture

These are interesting theories,

but they don't really contradict my point. The first one doesn't really mean anything because these people might not have existed.
The second is kind of strange, but very similar to my idea in that only one person exists in an illusional universe and that that person is separate from its own mind and therefor doesn't exist.

swimmerguy's picture

I wasn't

really trying to contradict anything, more just general philosophizing and attempting to inspire thought, as is always my goal.
Except, kinda, with the first one, if those people hadn't existed, then how would we feel their presence in our own mind, disconnected from our other senses?


anarchist's picture

Good point.

I'll think about that.

javier's picture


The only thing I read from this journal was this comment.