We are all insane

Hello,

I am back after a long break form ILP. Changed towns and lives.
I cannot remember my old ILP user name (sorry).

And so it all goes on once more.

God exists and does not exist is the eternal opinion that we hold to.

What we humans tend to do is to observe an object of perception and then based on previous experiences we develop a sense of attraction, repulsion, or neutral feelings towards that object. Based on these feelings we give those objects attributes that do not exist.

The last part is the most important part of all (that do not exist).

Conclusion: we humans live in the world of our imagination.
He is a nice person… she is a bad person… I like chicken but I do not like fish… the tree is green… that guitar is tuned properly… I know the truth… He is an ignorant fool… God exists … God does not exist…

We are making this up and we believe it all, and then we argue over whose imagination is the truth.

Every thought and feeling a human thinks is pure imagination - it does not exist outside of the human mind. Thoughts and feelings are imagined – they do not exist at all.
Where is love, anger, pain, green, soft, hard, blue, good, bad, salty, sour, yellow, logic, mathematics, science, religion, art, pink, and music outside of the human experience.

The tree is green! Look, I can point to it. It is the truth!
No the tree is not green. It absorbs and reflects different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
This light strikes our eye and stimulates certain cells in our eye.
The mind then produces the experience of green from this.
There is no green tree other than in the human mind - it is not real and it is imagined (the product of a human mind).

But does that stop us from observing the beauty of a green tree - even if it is imagined and a product of the human mind (non-truth).

If we are to dismiss one person’s imagination then we must be prepared to dismiss all of our own imaginings. But we cannot do this as we KNOW the truth and others are ignorant - and that is a fact Jack!

A child enjoys believing in Santa Claus and an Adult enjoys a loving relationship, nice sunsets, fine wine and fine food.
I fail to see the difference between the Child and the Adult - they are both the imaginings of the insane.

The thought God exists or god does not exist is pure imagination (which ever side you take).
Or do you proponents of truth claim that thought exists outside of the human mind.

(and I do not even know what proponet means)

Wishing you all the best and a big Cheers
:gay-imgay:

Odd ending to a great post… :-k

Sometimes I think that insanity is the only proper response to an insane world, which also makes me think that that means that a sane response would actually be insane. HTH 8-[

Hello, good friend. Nice to read from you.
Which particular ending was odd?

Hello from my good friend Jonquil too (nice to read from you too).
I have visited psychiatric wards on several occasions.
There are plenty of people there who think they are perfectly non-deluded but just because they think they are non-deluded does not make it so.
There are plenty of people there who know that they are deluded but just because they know they are deluded does not make them non-deluded.

An insane world can only be viewed by an insane person - proper or improper it does not really matter - it is the natural consequence.
Just like an angry person sees a world full of difficult people (enemies) - there is no other possible outcome of an angry mind other than to see an angry world.

Conclusion 1: If we see an insane world then that is reflecting our own minds.
Conclusion 2: If we see a world of beauty, harmony, and order then that is reflecting our own minds.
Conclusion 3: If we see a bit of both then that is also reflecting our own minds.

If something can be decreased then it has causes for that decrease.
If something can be increased then it has causes for that increase.
If something moves from increase to decrease and from decrease to increase then it too has causes for this.

When we do not know the causes we conclude things are random by nature - but this is not so.
The correct conclusion to draw when we do not know the causes is “I do not know the causes”.
This may, on the slight chance, lead to the question “What are the causes?” – or it may not.

Nice to read your poetic style of writing Jonquil – very refreshing in an insane world.
Do you like poetry :smiley:

The “I’m gay” part struck me as odd.

Yes, the “I’m Gay” struck me as odd too.

When you hit View More Smilies on the right it comes up with a bunch of smilies.

It struck me as odd and so I clicked on it while thinking of the traditional rather than the modern meaning.
Not that there is anything wrong with being Gay in the modern sense.
I have several gay and lesbian friends and they have exceptionally good qualities as do my heterosexual friends.

Maybe a dancing phallus playing the guitar would be considered a little less odd
:banana-guitar:

On further thinking, I’ve decided that I am insane but think I’m sane and everyone who doesn’t think like I do is insane. HTH again. :confused:

Hello Roberto,

— The last part is the most important part of all (that do not exist).
O- Let’s begin with this as the central flaw that unravels the entire post.

— What we humans tend to do is to observe an object of perception and then based on previous experiences we develop a sense of attraction, repulsion, or neutral feelings towards that object. Based on these feelings we give those objects attributes that do not exist.
O- Can humans “observe”? Isn’t that an attribute? And therefore does not exist at all. So from an imagined attribute you create an imagined duality.

— Conclusion: we humans live in the world of our imagination.
O- And this too is your imagination, so why should you believe in that?

— He is a nice person… she is a bad person… I like chicken but I do not like fish… the tree is green… that guitar is tuned properly… I know the truth… He is an ignorant fool… God exists … God does not exist…
O- “Nice”, to use an example, is not a direct object of perception, but a judgment from concrete perceptions. He is a nice person is not a wholly imaginary construct. It refers to a series of concrete encounters, observations that impelled the idea of a nice person.

— We are making this up and we believe it all, and then we argue over whose imagination is the truth.
O- Not the imagination, but whose judgment, or interpretation of what has been observed.

— Every thought and feeling a human thinks is pure imagination - it does not exist outside of the human mind.
O- I think a better word would be “idea”, but I agree. Now an idea can either be right or wrong. If right, then it is originated by an impression from reality. If wrong, then it is not. Then it makes sense to speak of “imagination”. This is the duality of “perception” versus “imagination” in language.

— Thoughts and feelings are imagined – they do not exist at all.
Where is love, anger, pain, green, soft, hard, blue, good, bad, salty, sour, yellow, logic, mathematics, science, religion, art, pink, and music outside of the human experience.
O- When I say I feel anger, I am refering to a very real condition of my body. Is that not real simply because I happen to report about it? Now, I may not know someone’s specific feeling of anger, but I can perceive that they are angry; I may imagine their pain, but I do not imagine what led me to that interpretation, their cries, tears and wails.

— The tree is green! Look, I can point to it. It is the truth!
O- if I define “the truth” as that which I can point to, then what is the problem?

— No the tree is not green. It absorbs and reflects different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
O- And this is any less a creature of your imagination? But in any case, this is just and explanation as to HOW it is green, how anything is green at all. In that case (ordinary case) the tree IS green. Change the circumstances and it might be some other color, but language evolved through ordinary cases and refer to ordinary cases. It is not your imagination; under ordinary light, the foilage of a tree is materially determine to be absorbed by your eyes and determined to create the impression, which gives rise to the liguistic conotation of the word “green”.

— There is no green tree other than in the human mind - it is not real and it is imagined (the product of a human mind).
O- Green is shorthand for the process you described. Isn’t that process real?

I am pleased that that is your decision Jonquil.

The thought of others thinking like or unlike me is of little concern to me.
Thoughts are like a rainbow - a simple play of light, an illusion with no end to be found.
What is there to be grasped?
Where is the pot of gold to be found?
On our death beds, do we receive a prize for having the best thoughts?

What is there to be grasped?
The same moment that thoughts are imagined is the same moment they vanish before our very minds.
What is there to be grasped?
It is like grasping at a single note when listening to Vivaldi’s Four Seasons or the Spice Girls wannabe.
A simple play of light that produces a colourful display but no pot of gold and no rewards and no end.

Are we our thoughts such that we feel attacked, insecure or invalidated when someone does not agree with or acknowledge our words?
Are we our feelings such that we feel the same way when another does not respect our feelings?
Are we our rotting flesh such that we feel attacked when someone calls us ugly, old or fat?
Are we our actions that we feel offended when someone does not approve of what we have done?

Our thoughts will continue to produce a colourful play of light independent of another’s acknowledgement.
What is the benefit of being surrounded by people who agree with me, pamper to my every need, who flatter me, and praise the words that I utter?
Growth comes from change.
Change comes from a wish to be more than what one is.
And more is less.
:animals-chickencatch:

I am an old man and am not familiar with the ways of the youth of today.
What is the meaning of HTH?

Hello Omar,

An experiment.

Close your eyes and think of a time when someone hurt you really bad and did something really harmful to you.
Keep your eyes closed, and just imagine this for as long as comfortable.
Do any feelings arise?

Now open your eyes and point to the real object.

Now close your eyes and think of someone you love.
Do feelings arise?

Now open your eyes and point to the real object.

A person utters a word that upsets us and that word is gone in an instant.
We can repeat that word in our minds endlessly - even in the absence of that word.
Is that not imagination?
If we think about a word that upset us for long enough then it will make us angry.
Do audio waves transmit anger? Has science proved that anger is in audio waves?
If the anger is not transmitted into our minds then where does this anger come from?
If the anger is real then we take away the mind and the anger will remain.

What is the difference between thinking about a word that upset us over and over and over again and imagining something completely fabricated and then thinking about that over and over again? The original word does not exist and the fabricated thing does not exist.

EDIT: And what constitutes a nice person. A nice person is characterised by someone I like. It is not the attribute of the person. If it was an attribute of the person then there would be a person that everyone finds nice. Does such a person exist? Does a nice person exist other than in the imagination of a mind?
When a person utters a single word that I disapprove of- is that person transformed by that word from nice to bad? Can a word transform a person or can the mind transform what appears to the mind? If the quality is not an attribute of the object observed - then is it real?

Hello Roberto,

— Now open your eyes and point to the real object.
O- (Me touching my gut)

— Now close your eyes and think of someone you love.
Do feelings arise?
Now open your eyes and point to the real object.
O- (Me touching my heart).

— A person utters a word that upsets us and that word is gone in an instant.
O- The word is just a symptom that points somewhere else…that to which it points is what actually upsets us.

— We can repeat that word in our minds endlessly - even in the absence of that word.
Is that not imagination?
O- I would call that “rememberance”, or “recalling”, rather than just “imagination” You are asking me to thing of someone I love, not to imagine love.

— If we think about a word that upset us for long enough then it will make us angry.
O- Again your experiment asked me to think of someone who had made me angry and not just a word that I don’t like. I don’t like the word “Crunk”, but thinking about questionable words does not possess the force to make me angry. But a fresh memory? Ahhh

— Do audio waves transmit anger? Has science proved that anger is in audio waves?
If the anger is not transmitted into our minds then where does this anger come from?
If the anger is real then we take away the mind and the anger will remain.
O- Is the mind real? If it is then take away the brain and the mind will remain. See the problem. Mind, anger, these are very real states of the body. Chemicals can enhance my capacity for anger or take it away because behind the word anger there is something real.

this thread had so much potential

Hello Omar,

Indeed memories do have the power to make you angry Omar.

Just like Santa Claus has the power to make a child jump with joy.
Does the child’s imagination play a part in its real experience?
Maybe if we gave the child drugs and chemicals then the child would no longer believe in Santa Claus and then the real experience would cease.

The experience of people with psychosis appears real to them and it produces effects that appear real.
But the second they stop believing in their delusions is the same second that the symptoms stop.

Believe in them and they will create your experience.
Follow them and you will create your world.

If you believe in anger then it will create your experience.
If you believe that anger is only imagined you can then choose to imagine something else.
A flexible mind that can choose the type of world it wants to live in.

We do have a choice in what we believe in and we have a choice in how we react to situations.
A victim sees the world devoid of choice - a world of reaction and not action.

If it is all real, then what part of a sub-atomic particle possesses anger.
In a photon of energy is there anger and when we are angry we get more angry photons than happy photons.
Or maybe an electron moving around in the brain is angry.
Is oxygen angry or maybe the water is angry?
Is the heart or the gut is anger.

Is anger an experience?
Are experiences real or do they appear to be real?

The real experience of a child can be changed in an instant by telling them that Santa Claus does not exist.
The mind plays no part in the events of the child’s experience.
It is not imagined, you are correct, and the child’s experience is independent of its imagination.

But we are not children are we? We are fully grown adults who know the truth.

The truth is real too and it exists independently of our mind. There are photons of truth in the universe that impart truth upon human beings. The more photons of truth we have the more truth we accumulate. Who on ILP has more of these photons?

I’m following (and enjoying) the concept that everything is our imagination. And from a chemical or neurological point of view it seems pretty accurate. But there doesn’t seem to be any account for the collective imagination. I’m not imagining that I am breathing, or that others around me are breathing air, I’m observing it. It’s a basic function of existence, something required to sustain this ‘imagination.’

Unless you’re coming from the point of view that everything I observe and experience is purely, 100% imagination, as I am unable to prove anything beyond the confines of my processing mind… then it kind of begs the question, what is the point of this thread? I’m only imagining that I am reading it anyway, so it’s not real or valid or of any value to myself.

I think that the ‘imagination’ in this thread has been given a false value of zero. Just because something isn’t real doesn’t mean it doesn’t have enjoyment, worth, things of that nature. You might as well say nothing exists, not even myself, and be done with it.

Hello No-body,

A poem bu william blake called A Poison Tree
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-poison-tree/

When you read this poem it evokes an experience.
Where does the experience reside?
Does it emanate from the computer screen, does it exist in the words, does it exist in the space between the words, or is it the letters?

The “experience” of the poem only exists in your mind and it is not an attribute of the poem or the words or the letters or the computer.

Two things are happening:

  • there is a poem, and
  • there is the experience of a poem
    These two things are not the same thing but are connected.
    But the experience of poem “only” exists in my mind.

If something only exists in my mind then what would be a suitable word to call it?
I would call something that only exists in my mind - imagination - but you are more than welcome to call it truth.

Even if the experience is imagined it still has an outcome and produces a result - It is not zero.

But when I experience poem I do not think that I had anything to do with the experience.
I conclude good poem or bad poem or neutral poem and not a poem that I “experience” as good/bad/neutral.
In my mind the poem has definite good/bad/neutral qualities that exist and are real and are independent of my mind.
I imagine these qualities and then I believe them to be real.

I then walk around in my life attributing imagined qualities to everything I encounter and I then argue with others who disagree with my imagination and seek others who will validate it.

When I walk around and observe a person – it is the same as looking at a poem.
I experience the person and then I develop good/bad/neutral feelings towards that person.
I then believe those qualities to be a part of the person and not part of my mind (imagination).
A good/bad/neutral person is 100% imagination – if it is not then tell me what particular atomic or sub atomic particle emanates good/bad/neutral person and what particular sense organ detects these emanated good/bad/neutral person waves.

If I am to disagree with another’s imagination then I must be prepared to abandon my own - but I perceive others to be wrong and I believe my imaginings to be true.

Hey Roberto,

— Indeed memories do have the power to make you angry Omar.
O- Especially if it is a related to a past experience. I don’t get angry when I remember a bad dream, something that is patently imagined and nothing more. Instead a memory is based on an unimagined event from my past.

— Just like Santa Claus has the power to make a child jump with joy.
Does the child’s imagination play a part in its real experience?
O- Sure, but his imagination is based on a collage of actual experiences. He imagines getting a bicicle he really likes. He cannot point to a bicycle before him, but he must have some experience about a real bicycle. Perhaps the one he saw at the store that mommy didn’t buy for him. Now he imagines he is going to get THAT bicycle. So, here you see how an experience of something unimagined is used by our imagination.

— Maybe if we gave the child drugs and chemicals then the child would no longer believe in Santa Claus and then the real experience would cease.
O- Of course, drugs will affect the “real” experience of believing in Santa Claus. Drugs could make you “really” experience Santa Claus as well, so long as by “real” we understand brain states.

— The experience of people with psychosis appears real to them and it produces effects that appear real.
But the second they stop believing in their delusions is the same second that the symptoms stop.
O- You take the right drugs then it will not matter if you believe in pink elephants or not, you will still, really, experience the illusion of seeing them. Other drugs will remove the disposition for hallucinations, again, whether you choose to continue to believe in them or not.

— Believe in them and they will create your experience.
Follow them and you will create your world.
O- I just began to believe in pink elephants. I have yet to experience even one. I’ll update you as we keep this up. I just began believing that I drive a Porshe…damn…unfortunately I must report that so far I have yet to experience me driving one.

— If you believe in anger then it will create your experience.
O- You say “if you believe” and then, after that, as if an effect, you create the experience of anger. My question here would be, first of all, “Why do you believe in anger?”

— If you believe that anger is only imagined you can then choose to imagine something else.
O- But I don’t believe that. It is easily refuted by experience. If I believe in war it is because war exist. If I believe in peace it is because peace exist. I can imagine perpetual war, or perpetual peace, as different degrees of reality.

— A flexible mind that can choose the type of world it wants to live in.
O- What you mean by “flexible mind” means to me “an insane mind”. If so, then yes. Crazy people live in their own little world, unchecked by brute reality. I would hardly call them the norm. Certainly it only goes to prove that We are NOT All insane, as you first suggested.

— We do have a choice in what we believe in and we have a choice in how we react to situations.
O- This isn’t the Matrix Neo. If you fall of a 20 story building, if doesn’t matter WHAT you choose to believe; your terminal acceleration is not a matter of choice. You can’t fly.

— If it is all real, then what part of a sub-atomic particle possesses anger.
O- Anger is not at the subatomic level, just as “you” is not in an atom of carbon. It is an emergent quality arising from a complex structure, a system, a collection of incredible amounts of sub atomic particles. The interaction of atomic particles (electrons being moved, creating an electric charge that is transmitted through and processed by a network of neurons. It is there that you can begin to look at a electro-chemical state of anger or correspondent to the subjective experience of the emotion “anger”.

— Is the heart or the gut is anger.
O- Let me ask you: Don’t you know when you are angry? Or is it just you “choosing” to be angry or not? Me? I know when I am angry because there are somatic effects associated from which I may infer that I am fucking pissed the fuck off. How can you tell that another person IS angry, instead of happy? Empathy is not up to a choice.

— Is anger an experience?
O- Yes.

— Are experiences real or do they appear to be real?
O- Well, as Morpheus would say: “What is ‘real’?”. How do you tell what IS real from what APPEARS to be real?

— The real experience of a child can be changed in an instant by telling them that Santa Claus does not exist.
O- It depends. The child has no reason to believe what you say. You could tell a child that monsters do not exist. that won’t make them more affectionate to the dark. You can tell some UFO abductee that aliens do not exists and that we are alone in the Universe. If that person has really been abducted then that experience won’t be changed.

— The mind plays no part in the events of the child’s experience.
O- Not always, no.

— It is not imagined, you are correct, and the child’s experience is independent of its imagination.
O- “independent”? No. The same organ is used when experiencing reality as when experiencing hallucinations, but that does not make reality=hallucination. The difference is that reality “checks” our imagination, limits it in such a way that you can, if you’re normal, tell when you are awake and when you are asleep.

— The truth is real too and it exists independently of our mind.
O- Reality? Yes. When I close my eyes the world is still there. I can’t prove it, but it is less of a miracle that the physical universe continues when I close my eyes, that the idea that the physical universe bliks in and out of reality as I open and shut my eyes. Remember that I am reality itself, so if I exist during the time my eyes are closed then so too the universe in which this brain or mine, this “I”, moves about.

— There are photons of truth in the universe that impart truth upon human beings. The more photons of truth we have the more truth we accumulate. Who on ILP has more of these photons?
O- Maybe you should go to NASA. The Hibble telescope does exactly what you just parodied.

I don’t want to short-circuit this discussion, but some would suggest that there is no “mind”. There is only brain. The machinations of the brain may suggest the illusion of mind, but it is illusion nonetheless. The complexity of chemical prompters our body produces and how the brain reacts to those prompts are far beyond our current understanding, but it is clear that we give the concept “mind” far more credit than it deserves. It is quite possible that what your “mind” is doing has more to do with what you had for lunch than your imagination…

Some might say there is neither mind nor brain.

I must admit, I got short-changed somewhere along the line… :laughing:

To go from this

to this

seems to contradict though.

The result that is being produced resides within the mind. The experience, everything about it. So I’m not seeing the line that you are drawing, where a result is not zero, yet everything is imagined.

It seems to me that if the experience exists within the mind, then so does the result, since that is the end of the experience. And since the experience is deemed good/neutral/bad by way of imagination, so then is the result. The source is the imagination, from beginning to end. So outcome is irrelevant and has no value, it’s all of the imagination.