The Great Illusion

[Iacchus]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

 

[scribble]

The author's first two paragraphs are gripping -- inviting the reader to read on, like a whore seductively calling her john into the brothel. Unfortunately, the experience after that point goes downhill -- much as the john's experience might after finding the initially appealing prostitute looks, up close, like she's lived a life of hard drug use.

Overall, the peice has a nice beat, and the repetitive red markings (lights) clearly suggested a particular connection in the mind of this reviewer.

I give the experience of reading this peice two stars out of four - one for each reasonable paragraph seems... reasonable. It leaves the reader wondering whether the experience was worth the cost.

 

[Iacchus]

The author's first two paragraphs are gripping -- inviting the reader to read on, like a whore seductively calling her john into the brothel. Unfortunately, the experience after that point goes downhill -- much as the john's experience might after finding the initially appealing prostitute looks, up close, like she's lived a life of hard drug use.

Overall, the peice has a nice beat, and the repetitive red markings (lights) clearly suggested a particular connection in the mind of this reviewer.

I give the experience of reading this peice two stars out of four - one for each reasonable paragraph seems... reasonable. It leaves the reader wondering whether the experience was worth the cost.

But cleary you must understand that not even your words have any significance to them.

 

[scribble]

But cleary you must understand that not even your words have any significance to them.

As I said - the idea you start out with is one I find quite interesting. I've contemplated my own stunning insignificance more than once.

I think it's amazing that I can take a group of people - admittedly, a very, very small group - and claim to have some real significance to them.

One thing I think is cool are people who are clearly *not* insignificant. People who accomplish real things that get them remembered after death - or even noticed before death, by a large number of people.

But I wouldn't want to derail your thread by taking the conversation that direction. The rest of your post indicates you've taken an interesting thought to a wild an irrational conclusion, and it's that that we're to discuss. Aside from pointing out that it's a wild and irrational conclusion -- which I really thought I did in a particularly clever manner -- I haven't got much to add to the discussion I think you're looking to have here.

 

[Iacchus]

As I said - the idea you start out with is one I find quite interesting. I've contemplated my own stunning insignificance more than once.

I think it's amazing that I can take a group of people - admittedly, a very, very small group - and claim to have some real significance to them.

One thing I think is cool are people who are clearly *not* insignificant. People who accomplish real things that get them remembered after death - or even noticed before death, by a large number of people.

But I wouldn't want to derail your thread by taking the conversation that direction. The rest of your post indicates you've taken an interesting thought to a wild an irrational conclusion, and it's that that we're to discuss. Aside from pointing out that it's a wild and irrational conclusion -- which I really thought I did in a particularly clever manner -- I haven't got much to add to the discussion I think you're looking to have here.

Dust in the wind dude!

 

[Iacchus]

Of course by wild and irrational you make it sound like the concept of God never existed. By the way, did you know that before you ever came into being, you were merely a concept in the mind of your mother and father?

 

[Blue Monk]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life?

Yes.

Does that make you a fictional character too?

No.

I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

No. I suppose having never met me you would not be able to distinguish from your perspective if I was imaginary or not but in this specific case (me) not knowing me does not make me imaginary.

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps?

Yes.

How do you know that you're not just an illusion?

Well, your logic made me laugh so hard I bit my lip but I suspect that is not the answer you seek.

Even streching the imagination it does not seem possible. An illusion would be something perceived by another consciousness but since it really doesn't exist, an illusion could not have the conscious ability to respond, which I obviously am.

Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

Unknown. No one knows what happens when we die. I suspect you are correct but there is no way I can say with any certainty that after I die I will not be aware of my prior self.

And you have stated that I am an illusion which is only an assumption, not fact, and would appear to be in conflict with the fact that I am aware of my responses.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God?

No. An imaginary being by definition cannot be aware of anything as it does not exist compounded by the fact there is nothing to suggest I am an illusion. And no, not only a supreme being would be capable of perceiving an illusion. A drunk who has fallen and hit his head is quite capable of seeing things that are not there.

In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

In fact, most of you don't which really ticks me off.

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right?

No, even if I accpeted your theory that life is an illusion, only a real consciousness could perceive it. An illusion (which does not exist) can't perceive another illusion.

But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

No, you could be pulling my leg.

If you're serious I feel this far more likely a highly contrived and convoluted attempt to rationalize the existance of God that falls woefully short of the mark.

If you're pulling my leg then good one.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, but let's just say for example that when you're dead you're dead, and that's the end of it. Weren't you in fact just an illusion to this self which no loner exists? What else would you call it? First we have the illusion that we're here, and then we no longer exist. So where did we go? Doesn't that sound the least bit strange to you? And neither have I brought up the notion of God. Hmm ...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lets get the illusion thingy over with for a start. I originally made this for Franko but I generously make it available to any solipsist or quasi-solipsist out there:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

And when he kicks the living crap out of you and you're dead? Then what? What significance would it have to the you which no longer exists?

 

[MRC_Hans]

And when he kicks the living crap out of you and you're dead? Then what? What significance would it have to the you which no longer exists?

Ahh, I see that even the putative experience has enlightened you! Good! So, you now agree that such an experience might kill you? The logical consequence of this insigt is, of course, that your illusion speculations are moot, right?

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

Ahh, I see that even the putative experience has enlightened you! Good! So, you now agree that such an experience might kill you? The logical consequence of this insigt is, of course, that your illusion speculations are moot, right?

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Hans

No, what I'm saying is how can life be anything but an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? Hey I'm not denying a physical reality exists, however, when we die, where does our awareness of this reality go? For if we were to just dissipate, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying we were deluding ourselves about being here? ... For there ain't nothin' there!

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, what I'm saying is how can life be anything but an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? Hey I'm not denying a physical reality exists, however, when we die, where does our awareness of this reality go? For if we were to just dissipate, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying we were deluding ourselves about being here? ... For there ain't nothin' there!

What you just wrote can only be interpreted in two ways (unless your definition of "illusion" is fundamentaly different from the usual):

1) You claim that things do not exist unless observed.

2) You claim that what you do not observe is of no importance.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

Ah, to obsever or not to observe. That is the question. But you see, in order observe, you have to "be." And what will life have meant, to an observer which does relent? Was it just an illusion?

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

After reading what you wrote, I was profoundly changed. I know now my mission in life is for that 15 minutes of fame Andy Warhol has spoken of.

I'm thinking of either streaking during the Superbowl or injuring a figure skater during the Olympics.

Once 99.999% of the U.S. population knows my name, I will become self-actualized just like Tonya Harding or Ted Bundy.

Thank you for awakening me to the profound idea that God only realizes really really famous people or complete and utter losers.

I hope one day to be remembered as a really, really big loser.

Thank you and good day.

 

[Iacchus]

So the question is, Is this all there is to life? If not, then what else is there? For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion.

 

[Mercutio]

So the question is, Is this all there is to life?

Is what all there is to life? I am having a great life so far, full of love, full of learning, with plenty of happiness, and some sadness, frustration, even anger, thrown in which add spice. I have family, I have friends, I have wonderful food....I could go on for days and not scratch the surface. Is this all there is to life? If you are as fortunate as I am, I suppose so. How wonderful!

If not, then what else is there?

I'd say "good question", but it's not.

For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion.

The sandwich I had yesterday is gone. Would you call it an illusion? I think if I only ate illusory food, I would not be nearly so happy. Nor would I weigh this much. I think perhaps the word you are searching for is not "illusory", but "temporary". Maybe "finite." Our lives are temporary, not illusory. At least not unless you are redefining "illusory" to the point where your new definition and that used by the rest of the population no longer have any features in common.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So the question is, Is this all there is to life? If not, then what else is there? For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion.

So, considering your reply, I must conclude that your definition of illusion differs from the dictionary definition of "illusion". To get anywhere in this discusion it is now necessary that you state your definition of illusion .

To answer the question above: Yes, it is entirely possible that all there is to life is the physical existence you are experiencing now.

To invert Pascal's wager: You'd better be sure to get something out of the physical life you have now, because that might be all you ever get. Should there be something more, you can regard that as an extra bonus.


Hans

 

[tdn]

I get where Iaccus is going with this. And it's pretty much nowhere.

Yesterday I wrote a novel on my computer, and saved it to the hard drive. Today I threw the computer off of a tall building. Where is my novel? Was it just an illusion? No, it was real. It was a function of my hard drive. Now that my hard drive is gone, my novel no longer exists. I still remember it fondly, but it went bye-bye. The fact that it is now gone is hardly proof of a great magic sky novelist, or an ultimate illusory novel.

One could draw an analogy to a television instead, proving the existence of a broadcast station, but here we get into philosophical exercises, not proof of fact. We have no way of proving either way whether our brains are generators or receivers. Myself, I'll go down Occam's path and predict that there is no Great Broadcast.

 

[Iacchus]

So, considering your reply, I must conclude that your definition of illusion differs from the dictionary definition of "illusion". To get anywhere in this discusion it is now necessary that you state your definition of illusion .

If you're asking me how an illusion can have an illusion about itself, then that doesn't make sense now does it? However, this is exactly what we seem to have -- hmm ... another illusion? -- before us.

And yet if such a thing is not possible -- or is it? -- then it must not be an illusion then, right? Of course that would be contingent upon it continuing on, even after death. Or how else could you assert it wasn't an illusion?

To answer the question above: Yes, it is entirely possible that all there is to life is the physical existence you are experiencing now.

Is consciousness physical?

To invert Pascal's wager: You'd better be sure to get something out of the physical life you have now, because that might be all you ever get.

But then again what difference would it make?

Should there be something more, you can regard that as an extra bonus.

But this would be contingent upon how you live your life, don't you think?