Thread: All Things are Imaginary

So ideas are real, essentially, if we conceptualise them, in one sense?

Like I said in another thread, lucid dreams are as real as the god of any religion.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

So ideas are real, essentially, if we conceptualise them, in one sense?

Heh, if you don't conceptualize it, I don't think it's an idea. But yes, I'm saying that to dismiss the "imaginary" obscures the nature of things just as much as clinging to a list of cherished beliefs. Those things we typically consider real or concrete are just as imaginary. It's easier to see in the case of human artifacts--machines, buildings and art are, after all, the products of ideas, and clearly both support and depend upon the ideas that go into them. Mountains, rivers, our selves and each other are, however, equally imaginary, equally dependent upon thought for their existence. Independent of senses, observation and conceptualization, there are no things, no particulars.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Heh, if you don't conceptualize it, I don't think it's an idea. But yes, I'm saying that to dismiss the "imaginary" obscures the nature of things just as much as clinging to a list of cherished beliefs. Those things we typically consider real or concrete are just as imaginary. It's easier to see in the case of human artifacts--machines, buildings and art are, after all, the products of ideas, and clearly both support and depend upon the ideas that go into them. Mountains, rivers, our selves and each other are, however, equally imaginary, equally dependent upon thought for their existence. Independent of senses, observation and conceptualization, there are no things, no particulars.

I understand what you're saying.


Although when we experience things through our senses we are fed a basically unalterable idea. Which will have certain effects on us physically regardless of how we want it to be or believe it to be. Whereas in our imaginations we can create things and change them and it will have no direct physical effect on us no matter what we want or believe.


So some things are in one sense more imaginary than others.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Like I said in another thread, lucid dreams are as real as the god of any religion.

The two are analogous insofar as both are affirmed by the experience of their reality as something distinct from ordinary experience, but I would say any given deity also has or represents a body of phenomena or a range of influence overlapping or interpenetrating several magisteria--certain physical or natural phenomena, psychological states, stages of life, and historical forces or events, for instance. Even if one looks at gods as inventions and/or collections of ideas, they have far stronger identity and influence than most human beings, and taking a reductionist approach doesn't strike me as either honest or fun.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Expressed compactly, gods exist as much as you or me: somewhat, but not particularly. The same could be said of atoms, comic book heroes and the Sears Tower. All rely on human observation and conceptualization to maintain their existence as gods, self, atoms, characters or buildings. All have some kind of existence, but none inherently possess the identity we ascribe to them, not our gods, not ourselves, not our categories of matter, not our fictions and not our physical artifacts.

Privileging the material, the mechanical, and the measurable as real and confining all else to the ghetto of make-believe is not the most logical or intelligent position. It is an exaggerated view. MRI machines are as imaginary as dragons, and as real. Both, in the absence of all observation and conceptualization, effectively cease to exist.

Existence is dependent on conceptualization of it? If so, then nothing existed before there was consciousness in the universe, which means that the universe did not exist before there was consciousness in it. By that reasoning, as soon as anything existed, there was consciousness that was aware of it. How did the consciousness get here in the first place?

Also, you argue that a thing must have something conceptualizing it for it to be real, and you take that point and conclude that therefore anything that is conceptualized exists. Does that include the nonexistence of God?

Also, do you finally admit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, do you finally admit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

As the number of posts in any thread increases, the probability of the FSM appearing approaches 1.


Edit; in the event that thread contains UM; the rate of increase is sevenfold.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

As the number of posts in any thread increases, the probability of the FSM appearing approaches 1.

Especially if I am here. I have officially adopted him as my trump card analogy to throw out in any religious debate. He is my mascot and partner.

I've actually reached similar conclusions myself - the key to the concept is the word 'things'.

"All things are imaginary." This statement is clearly true, by definition, as a 'thing' is an abstraction, a piece of matter or a trait or a quality which is reduced to a 'thing' for easier processing through the human mind. We differentiate between the tree, the ground its roots disappear into, and the air around it. However, at the most basic levels of matter, there is no essential difference between any of them, no real reason to group the tree and the sky and the ground into those particular 'things', other than the practicality when it comes to humans trying to understand how the world works.

So, granted. But!

Originally Posted by Taosaur

MRI machines are as imaginary as dragons, and as real. Both, in the absence of all observation and conceptualization, effectively cease to exist.

I don't really agree with this. The MRI is "imaginary" because we are abstracting the matter which makes it up, grouping it as one 'thing' and using that when we think about it. However, dragons are an abstraction of a bunch of matter which never existed. They are imaginary in a completely different way. Not only is the concept of a 'dragon-thing' an 'imaginary' abstraction, the piece of the universe being abstracted never existed.

In this way, every 'thing' is imaginary, but some of them are imaginary on a completely different level. If humans ceased to exist, the matter of the MRI machines, and the way in which it interacts with the rest of the matter in the universe, would still be there. Dragons, however, would completely disappear - the only traces of them are in human minds.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I understand what you're saying.


Although when we experience things through our senses we are fed a basically unalterable idea.

This fallacy is part of what I'm trying to point out. We aren't "fed" anything through our senses. Perception is a very active process subject to conditioning and bias, and memory moreso. There's only a certain range of stimuli available in any given setting, yes, but even in a bland environment, that range is orders of magnitude greater than what we actually apprehend. We are actively reimagining our surroundings and refocusing our senses on a constant basis. Except by accident or devoted practice, it's rare for an adult with a lifetime of conditioning--not only coarse effects like conscious beliefs, but more subtle habits of how they see and hear--to directly experience anything.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Which will have certain effects on us physically regardless of how we want it to be or believe it to be. Whereas in our imaginations we can create things and change them and it will have no direct physical effect on us no matter what we want or believe.


So some things are in one sense more imaginary than others.

Some phenomena, physical or mental, shared or concealed, have broader effects, physical or mental, shared or concealed, than others. We don't have total control over the physical or the imaginary. And how, as a physical being in a physical world, would you do or experience anything, even in your mind, that has "no direct physical effect?" The effects may be great and far reaching or minor and contained, but they're not solely a function of physicality.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This fallacy is part of what I'm trying to point out. We aren't "fed" anything through our senses. Perception is a very active process subject to conditioning and bias, and memory moreso. There's only a certain range of stimuli available in any given setting, yes, but even in a bland environment, that range is orders of magnitude greater than what we actually apprehend. We are actively reimagining our surroundings and refocusing our senses on a constant basis. Except by accident or devoted practice, it's rare for an adult with a lifetime of conditioning--not only coarse effects like conscious beliefs, but more subtle habits of how they see and hear--to directly experience anything.



Some phenomena, physical or mental, shared or concealed, have broader effects, physical or mental, shared or concealed, than others. We don't have total control over the physical or the imaginary. And how, as a physical being in a physical world, would you do or experience anything, even in your mind, that has "no direct physical effect?" The effects may be great and far reaching or minor and contained, but they're not solely a function of physicality.

But there is a deeper level of reality to all things. Plato's primary qualities. These exist independant of our consciousness.


Whereas ur sole creations of our mind do not.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I've actually reached similar conclusions myself - the key to the concept is the word 'things'.

Your analysis this far is largely in keeping with what I'm saying. It also suggests a change in your standing on whether "All is one," if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

In this way, every 'thing' is imaginary, but some of them are imaginary on a completely different level. If humans ceased to exist, the matter of the MRI machines, and the way in which it interacts with the rest of the matter in the universe, would still be there. Dragons, however, would completely disappear - the only traces of them are in human minds.

Dragon has produced many, many more physical artifacts than Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and will likely continue to do so long after MRI has gone the way of leeching. Dragons are a thing we invented from elements we found in the world, as are MRIs. Again, the question is not, "Does it exist?" but "What is it?"

Taosaur...

1. How did consciousness come into existence if it is impossible for there to be anything without it?

2. Is the nonexistence of God real? We can conceptualize it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Existence is dependent on conceptualization of it? If so, then nothing existed before there was consciousness in the universe, which means that the universe did not exist before there was consciousness in it. By that reasoning, as soon as anything existed, there was consciousness that was aware of it. How did the consciousness get here in the first place?

Maybe you'll find gnome's version more penetrable, but to reword: no thing exists without being observed. Something does exist, regardless, but it's something that produces consciousness. As for the order of operations, if you pull back far enough it all happened at once.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, you argue that a thing must have something conceptualizing it for it to be real, and you take that point and conclude that therefore anything that is conceptualized exists. Does that include the nonexistence of God?

That first sentence is troublesome. I'd say there's no such thing as a thing unless it is parsed from the totality of events by an observer. Anyway, yes, reality includes numerous conceptions of what's going on here that don't include a monist deity, and some that provisionally include such a deity, and some that neither include nor preclude it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Also, do you finally admit that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

When did I ever deny His Noodliness?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

But there is a deeper level of reality to all things. Plato's primary qualities. These exist independant of our consciousness.

I see one world, levelless, in which any thing relies on all other things for its qualities.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Whereas ur sole creations of our mind do not.

How does thought occur in this universe without partaking of the qualities of this universe?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by UM

Taosaur...

I didn't forget about you, sheesh

Originally Posted by Taosaur

no thing exists without being observed. Something does exist, regardless, but it's something that produces consciousness.

I could swear that is a contradiction. Sorry, but I am completely lost. Please explain what existed before consciousness organisms first came about in the universe. Was there a process that led to the existence of conscious organisms? How could what was involved in that process have existed if consciousness did not exist yet?

Is the falsehood of everything you have said real? We can conceptualize it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I could swear that is a contradiction. Sorry, but I am completely lost. Please explain what existed before consciousness organisms first came about in the universe. Was there a process that led to the existence of conscious organisms? How could what was involved in that process have existed if consciousness did not exist yet?

Is the falsehood of everything you have said real? We can conceptualize it.

What I'm saying is that everyday phenomena as we ordinarily experience them are products of the mind--the things we encounter and use, the conceptual frameworks we construct for them, and the qualities we ascribe to them all arise from observation and are relevant only to an observing, involved mind. The universe independent of observation has no qualities and contains no things. Under observation, the universe somewhat has qualities and somewhat contains things--the phenomena experienced by an observer, whether thought-forms supported by the senses or wholly contained in the mind, have some reality to them, but do not exist in and of themselves, independent of the total field of events.

EDIT: it's very difficult to think about how to articulate such things without falling into satori, from which standpoint it's wonderfully difficult to articulate these things

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What I'm saying is that everyday phenomena as we ordinarily experience them are products of the mind--the things we encounter and use, the conceptual frameworks we construct for them, and the qualities we ascribe to them all arise from observation and are relevant only to an observing, involved mind. The universe independent of observation has no qualities and contains no things. Under observation, the universe somewhat has qualities and somewhat contains things--the phenomena experienced by an observer, whether thought-forms supported by the senses or wholly contained in the mind, have some reality to them, but do not exist in and of themselves, independent of the total field of events.

EDIT: it's very difficult to think about how to articulate such things without falling into satori, from which standpoint it's wonderfully difficult to articulate these things

Then what existed before consciousness, and how did consciousness get here?

Is the falsehood of everything you have said real?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then what existed before consciousness, and how did consciousness get here?

Duration without observation is a nonsense proposition. "Before" is a product of the mind. Investigating the past or causes of a phenomenon is simply looking at the thing in the present, but in a larger context, seeing that it extends farther than what you first perceived to be its boundaries. Seen through to its conclusion, that object's or happening's 'identity' includes nothing short of the totality of being, including the observer. Localizing existence in that object or happening is not false, but neither does any 'thing' in the world have a discrete, inherent identity. Those distinctions exist only in the presence of an observer, and that observer is present to the same extent as the object: somewhat, but not particularly.

How did consciousness get here? It didn't. It is here--somewhat. I'm talking largely about the notion of emptiness in Buddhism--not that objects don't exist, but that their reality is closer to non-existence than to the identity we confer upon them. Ultimately, no amount of talking (or writing) will get it across. You can only work at abandoning desire and aversion until you see for yourself. Or not, whatever you like.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is the falsehood of everything you have said real?

Yes, as much as any concept: somewhat, but not particularly.

Great string!

Taosaur, keep it up.

You have expressed very elloquently a very abstract and amorphous perspective. One I happen to share, btw.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Duration without observation is a nonsense proposition. "Before" is a product of the mind. Investigating the past or causes of a phenomenon is simply looking at the thing in the present, but in a larger context, seeing that it extends farther than what you first perceived to be its boundaries. Seen through to its conclusion, that object's or happening's 'identity' includes nothing short of the totality of being, including the observer. Localizing existence in that object or happening is not false, but neither does any 'thing' in the world have a discrete, inherent identity. Those distinctions exist only in the presence of an observer, and that observer is present to the same extent as the object: somewhat, but not particularly.

How did consciousness get here? It didn't. It is here--somewhat. I'm talking largely about the notion of emptiness in Buddhism--not that objects don't exist, but that their reality is closer to non-existence than to the identity we confer upon them. Ultimately, no amount of talking (or writing) will get it across. You can only work at abandoning desire and aversion until you see for yourself. Or not, whatever you like.



Yes, as much as any concept: somewhat, but not particularly.

Hmmmm....

That is interesting stuff. I should probably tell you now that I used to be way into Buddhism and general Eastern philosophy, and I was pretty into the sort of idea you are talking about. I have just been having fun asking questions about the idea and trying to understand it even better. You seem to have a really good understanding of it, and my guess is that you have probably experienced expanded consciousness. What you are talking about reminds me of a reported saying of the Hindu god Siva. "I do not exist or not exist." I heard that in a documentary about fifteen years ago, and it has stuck with me ever since.

I recently came across the one supposed law of logic that I think is not universal, and I talked about it in two threads here recently. The law of the excluded middle basically says that either something is the case or it is not the case. The Siva principle would be an exception to it if the principle is true, and I think so is the statement, "This statement is false." That statement is neither false nor not false. It's truth does not exist, yet it does not not exist.

Summary: the imaginary and real exist in the same way to all non-observers and exist separately to observers, who themselves are indistinguishable from the imaginary to those who are not observing them.

Pardon me if that's an incorrect interpretation, but it seems like the best summary of your ideas, Tausaur. As I've interpreted it, it makes sense from a purely perceptual perspective. The big question is whether perception can be trusted to provide a description of objects whose real existence is continuous or whether perception creates the illusion of continuous, real existence in a universe constructed entirely from concepts.

To me, the answer is clearly the former, as the latter would pose some difficult questions, such as: Why does everyone share the same reality? Why are there universal concepts and concepts that are never observed? How many observers are out there and how are they different from everything else in the universe?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Especially if I am here. I have officially adopted him as my trump card analogy to throw out in any religious debate. He is my mascot and partner.

I generally use the same type of argument except I leave out FSM, invisible pink unicorn, and teapot. Mostly because people not on the internets could have not heard of them and because they are overused. You can get the same point across without them.

I think that this is philosophy.

Originally Posted by Stephent91

I generally use the same type of argument except I leave out FSM, invisible pink unicorn, and teapot. Mostly because people not on the internets could have not heard of them and because they are overused. You can get the same point across without them.

I think that this is philosophy.

My old trump card was the Great Pumpkin, but he is on strike. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a great substitute because it has a whole bank of satire in its conceptual background. Also, the name involves the word "flying", which suggest something over the top and possibly out of the boundaries of physics. "Monster" is a term that has connotations of both the imaginary and something mean. The "Spaghetti" part ties in very well with all of that and makes it sound especially absurd, partly because spaghetti is a human invention made from wheat. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be my parnter in satire until I think of a better character.

It's also made from tomatoes.

Don't forget.