The Horror, The Horror!

[Duxwing]

Dear Forum,

Man's dark heart is trivial to the horror I've experienced tonight. I dub it, ontological angst: the fear induced by the knowledge that the existence of reality is unprovable. It's like falling into an dark abyss wherein the world becomes suddenly fake, as if all your surrounding humans were suddenly replaced by philosophical zombies and your surroundings themselves become strange and dreamlike.

Extended deep immersion in a virtual environment appears conducive to such thoughts and emotions, perhaps due to the 'virtual' reality temporarily being the dominant one in the player's mind: when removed, the player is temporarily left without a reality and realizes that the 'new' ('real' reality) reality cannot be proven to exist. The experience is undoubtedly both horrifying and terrifying beyond words both poetic and prosaic.

If anyone can help me in surviving this fresh onslaught from the philosophical abyss, then please tell me how I can consider the possibility of unreality without actually experiencing derealization and ontological angst.

-Duxwing

 

[TriflinThomas]

You're just going to have to deal with it (at least, that's how I go about it). Would you live your life any differently if you knew the world was fake? Because you would still be subject to physical sensations; most importantly, pain (which can be used as a consequence for not following the rules of the virtual world).

 

[DeadonDreaming]

You took the brown acid, didn't you?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

If you actually feel like that, I strongly recommenced taking the blue pill as soon as possible.

 

[Duxwing]

If I knew that the world were fake and external to me, then I'd try to get out. If I knew that the world were fake and within me, then I'd feel a great sense of love for every being therein because they'd all be a little piece of me. Just dealing with it has proven ineffective: I need something more concrete.

P.S. No, I don't use LSD.

-Duxwing

 

[Proletar]

I recommend http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Floor for your current problem. Watch it.

 

[PhoenixRising]

Well, actually reality is provable. Just look around you, electromagnetic waves are entering your light sensing organs we call the eyes, different wavelengths hit the cones and rods in your retina, and your brain interprets the signals as images. There is a staggering amount of scientific documentation on this process, so I think it's safe to say that it is part of reality. There is, of course, some degree of subjectivity to anything the brain interprets, so what appears blue to you may in fact be yellow to another. We can use our natural sense of sight to navigate pretty well within the reality that surrounds us, though, which indicates that what we see reflects something about what's real.

What reality is, however, is unprovable. We do not know at this time what this universe is, why the laws of physics exist as they do, or even if we are in some projection like the matrix. Still, what we observe as reality is cohesive, physical forms are consistent, natural systems function on certain guidelines and algorithms, gravity continues to make you stick to the earth, and the strong force ensures that the sun keeps shining. Whatever it means to exist, we shouldn't assume that all of this is an illusion just because we don't understand it.

I like this quote from deGrasse Tyson: "Along some paths of cosmic discovery, there are times when, at least for now, one must be content to love the questions themselves."

 

[IdeasNotTheProblem]

I've had similar reactions to these moments of realization. Others may go the megalomaniac direction. I found some of the principles found in Buddhism to be helpful in feeling less overwhelmed.


"One of the most discussed themes in Buddhism is that of the emptiness (sunyata) of form (matter), an important corollary of the transient and conditioned nature of phenomena. Reality is seen, ultimately, in Buddhism as a form of 'projection', resulting from the fruition (vipaka) of karmic seeds (sankharas). The precise nature of this 'illusion' that is the phenomenal universe is debated among different schools. For example;

• Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma[citation needed].

• Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations, and operations on received mental objects"- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

 

[snafupants]

We can use our natural sense of sight to navigate pretty well within the reality that surrounds us, though, which indicates that what we see reflects something about what's real.

I wonder, though, whether people are made for reality or reality is made for people.

The how and when questions constitute marginally safer existential terrain than the who or why questions.

 

[nexion]

No, there is no way to prove reality. Our phenomenal reality is the only thing we can prove to exist: those things we can directly or indirectly sense, and even then, the proof is dubious.

When I arrived at this board I found myself in a bit of mental turmoil that turned out to be a few years of alternating existential angst, depression, and void, though the causes of my existential crisis were admittedly far more superficial than the ontological nature of reality (namely, the upheaval of many closely-held religious beliefs... I guess it's not too different). At any rate, after I came through that... it seems that I have gained somewhat of an immunity to the emotions that come with the vast change of paradigm, or, in my case, the removal of them, and as a result of that, my paradigm of reality is constantly evolving with little interference from my mind.

My point is... no there is not now and likely will never be ontological proof that reality exists. There is also no proof that any inherent meaning of life exists, any inherent moral system exists, and no proof that any god exists. For now, you will just have to accept it, and perhaps later, you can embrace it. Embrace the negation of reality. Embrace the negation of existence. Embrace nothing.

You won't find anything of absolute truth, nor anything of solid value, save for the value you put into it. Axioms exist everywhere.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I wonder, though, whether people are made for reality or reality is made for people.

The how and when questions constitute marginally safer existential terrain than the who or why questions.

If we look at people for what they really are, part of the universe, then it becomes clear that nothing was created for anything else. Life is a phenomenon of the cosmos, just as galaxies or neutron stars, etc. The difference is we are just more complex systems, and we have observable consciousness. We evolved according to the laws of nature that already existed in this universe. So in that way, we have adapted to this reality, but we are also part of reality.

I read a book once called Uncertainty. It was about how people are afraid of the unknown due to the primitive functions of the reptilian brain. It also talked about some of the most successful businessmen in recent history, including some interesting interviews. Turns out, the most common reason for success is letting go of that kind of fear and tackling the unknown.. and therefore finding new possibilities.

I think it's silly to be afraid of any question. The worst that can happen is that it is unanswerable at the time you ask it. Personally, those are my favorite kind of questions, they open up the possibility that I'll be the one to find the answer to some of them someday. Even if they can only be treated strictly philosophically, it's fun to contemplate.

 

[PhoenixRising]

No, there is no way to prove reality. Our phenomenal reality is the only thing we can prove to exist: those things we can directly or indirectly sense, and even then, the proof is dubious.

When I arrived at this board I found myself in a bit of mental turmoil that turned out to be a few years of alternating existential angst, depression, and void, though the causes of my existential crisis were admittedly far more superficial than the ontological nature of reality (namely, the upheaval of many closely-held religious beliefs... I guess it's not too different). At any rate, after I came through that... it seems that I have gained somewhat of an immunity to the emotions that come with the vast change of paradigm, or, in my case, the removal of them, and as a result of that, my paradigm of reality is constantly evolving with little interference from my mind.

My point is... no there is not now and likely will never be ontological proof that reality exists. There is also no proof that any inherent meaning of life exists, any inherent moral system exists, and no proof that any god exists. For now, you will just have to accept it, and perhaps later, you can embrace it. Embrace the negation of reality. Embrace the negation of existence. Embrace nothing.

You won't find anything of absolute truth, nor anything of solid value, save for the value you put into it. Axioms exist everywhere.

My question is, how do you define existence? Or reality for that matter? What is it that you expect as objective proof of reality? Something known without being filtered though the bias of the human mind?

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reality


The unfortunate fact is that creatures like us are confined to this state of being. The only perception of reality for us is what we can sense with the mechanisms which have evolved along with the rest of this universe. We are finite, sad little things, for now anyway. I do believe we have the capacity to evolve past our present, limited state of mind. That is something we will have to be very ambitious about in order to achieve, however. The first step is realizing that even the thought that reality isn't provable is a completely subjective idea. Proof and disproof, the definition of reality, these are very biased concepts that don't come close to describing existence.. whatever existence really means.

 

[nexion]

My question is, how do you define existence? Or reality for that matter? What is it that you expect as objective proof of reality? Something known without being filtered though the bias of the human mind?

Existence speaks not. It neither needs a definition nor can it have one. It is not known, nor is it unknown. These are human terms created by the bias of the human mind. Definition is a bound state, whereas existence is unbound. Reality, then, is merely a set of all things that exist.

But neither existence nor reality care for man or his attempts to quantify them, for they know that they cannot be quantified, defined, perceived, or changed. To have something greater one must give up something lesser, and some particles have given up their pure existence with no understanding for half-existence with flawed understanding. This is what man is, one who has an infinite capacity to learn and explore but who will never glean an answer to the questions he wants most answered, the questions that would plague him not were he content merely to exist rather than developing an insatiable appetite to understand. All the inanimate particles of the universe understand fully what existence is, for existence is the only state which they know, but man, who craved consciousness and a "greater" understanding, has forgotten what existence is. So we are removed from it until consciousness escapes. You want to know what existence is? Just wait a few years. Men are not immortal yet.

The unfortunate fact is that creatures like us are confined to this state of being. The only perception of reality for us is what we can sense with the mechanisms which have evolved along with the rest of this universe. We are finite, sad little things, for now anyway. I do believe we have the capacity to evolve past our present, limited state of mind. That is something we will have to be very ambitious about in order to achieve, however. The first step is realizing that even the thought that reality isn't provable is a completely subjective idea. Proof and disproof, the definition of reality, these are very biased concepts that don't come close to describing existence.. whatever existence really means.

I have little doubts that man will evolve beyond what he is now, but I do have extreme doubts that he will ever understand existence in any way he wants to understand it no matter how much he evolves. It is the nature of man to bring ideas into the "greater" spheres: formal logic, mathematics, philosophy. Definition, classification, organization. If man has no way of delineating some aspect from every other aspect then he has no hopes of understanding it. Existence, however, transcends all of these spheres, because existence pervades everything, it is the one quality of everything. In other words, nonexistence does not exist.

 

[Duxwing]

Thanks for the help! I think some Heidegger would help right about now; we need a solid definition of existence before we can continue. However, regardless of ontology, how would one embrace the negation of reality?

-Duxwing

P.S. @nil I'm in the same boat with regard to religion; not having a God makes reasoning much more difficult (though it was emotional suppression in the search for Truth that brought me here). However, we must not let Golding's proverbial curtain fall before our eyes, for otherwise this entire quest for knowledge shall have been for nothing!

-Duxwing

 

[Sorlaize]

the existence of reality is unprovable. It's like falling into an dark abyss wherein the world becomes suddenly fake, as if all your surrounding humans were suddenly replaced by philosophical zombies and your surroundings themselves become strange and dreamlike.

The nature of existence/experience itself is the same as it always has been. You now have a new label for it, but what does that really change? You seem to be talking about a new insight like absurdism.

Extended deep immersion in a virtual environment appears conducive to such thoughts and emotions, perhaps due to the 'virtual' reality temporarily being the dominant one in the player's mind: when removed, the player is temporarily left without a reality and realizes that the 'new' ('real' reality) reality cannot be proven to exist. The experience is undoubtedly both horrifying and terrifying beyond words both poetic and prosaic.

How are you reasoning that a more deeply rooted reality "can't" exist? In playing video games we've still been immersed in the "higher reality"; it's just that it's never been where we focus our conscious attention. Indeed, for all I know logically, I could be a giant with a small part of its brain hooked up to my "controls".


--

as for advice on dealing with this, I can immerse myself in absurdist type insights and the only "human escape" from that is distraction. Other thinking; conflict; watching some good TV comedy; creative stuff.. you know, these typically human things like global politics. Maybe it's an "escape" from being human itself-- such that there is no escape from that new place of thinking / consciousness.

 

[Sorlaize]

But neither existence nor reality care for man or his attempts to quantify them, for they know that they cannot be quantified, defined, perceived, or changed. To have something greater one must give up something lesser, and some particles have given up their pure existence with no understanding for half-existence with flawed understanding. This is what man is, one who has an infinite capacity to learn and explore but who will never glean an answer to the questions he wants most answered, the questions that would plague him not were he content merely to exist rather than developing an insatiable appetite to understand. All the inanimate particles of the universe understand fully what existence is, for existence is the only state which they know, but man, who craved consciousness and a "greater" understanding, has forgotten what existence is. So we are removed from it until consciousness escapes. You want to know what existence is? Just wait a few years. Men are not immortal yet.

That is some beautiful writing..!!

I have little doubts that man will evolve beyond what he is now, but I do have extreme doubts that he will ever understand existence in any way he wants to understand it no matter how much he evolves.

Depends what you mean by "evolve"

If we don't substantially move from a need for a narrative that is rich in historical/cultural meaning and certain trends which "give arise to meaning or feeling" then maybe you don't consider that an evolution; and yet it may be practical as a foundation for sharing experience, forever. I've imagined our predecessors might like to watch entire streams of experiences like TV. What else is more interesting?

Experience will diversify in the far-future. It will in part be highly subjective. Today, when the individual breaks away from society, he is disabled. It's very impractical because we have virtually zero of a base of knowledge we are comfortable to share with every conscious being with confidence-- knowledge about society; the universe; skills.


--

If the nature of existence / experience is that it gives rise to something that makes system-interactions have "meaning" which is in all reality IMPRACTICAL AND USELESS, then that means that while this is in widely adopted use, the only beings finding existence "worthy" will be beings under this exact same "problem": that of dependence; that of being borne of system-interactions.

Thus, you can't really expect any more of mankind than to exist and to be "victim" to that; to its nature. Although, of course, "that nature" will be diversified in its details and how they affect each individual "being".

Today absurdism is something you need a lot of suspension from everyday "vanilla human experience" / "society", to be immersed in. This will change.


Evolution of mankind is "just" one lens to view everything with.

 

[Sorlaize]

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

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reality


The unfortunate fact is that creatures like us are confined to this state of being. The only perception of reality for us is what we can sense with the mechanisms which have evolved along with the rest of this universe. We are finite, sad little things, for now anyway. I do believe we have the capacity to evolve past our present, limited state of mind. That is something we will have to be very ambitious about in order to achieve, however. The first step is realizing that even the thought that reality isn't provable is a completely subjective idea. Proof and disproof, the definition of reality, these are very biased concepts that don't come close to describing existence.. whatever existence really means.

I have such a problem with this statement.

"something" is really there. Whether or not that has "absolute factual basis, in absolute of all absolutes" is IRRELEVANT. If reality as we knew it crumbled and fell into a black hole or whatever-- then so what? It changes nothing about the nature of what it *effectively* means to us, as an entire civilization. It changes NOTHING, no matter what labels we apply to things. No matter if we are "an illusory existence inside a computer like in The Matrix". The universe actually might as well be considered a giant computer, sure. It GIVES RISE to ALL OF COMPUTING, for Christ's sake!


So.. it doesn't matter what name we give to something. Doesn't matter whether a space asteroid is going to kill us in 20 years for sure; just as it doesn't matter whether nuclear computer systems might error and wipe us all out tomorrow. We live despite this stuff; because to us and to our systems of meaning it is nonsensical to.

The stats of reality is consistent across all of our experience. That is how we are able to build knowledge. It doesn't matter what is beyond that, for the philosophical purposes of us being able to exist. We do exist. That is proven because there is a now that is rich enough. Rich enough for us to throw such a label as "life" and "reality". That is enough. That's all it needs to be; whether or not our society and a collective psyche will be horrified at what we do or have done, by 100/200 years from now. That doesn't matter; that doesn't change the fact that we do indeed exist;- for all practical purposes of saying it-- yes, we exist.

--

>I do believe we have the capacity to evolve past our present, limited state of mind

With this comes a radical change in, among other things, a worldview and an ethos and a "purpose for living". It is only by our nature of limited consciousness, that we ascribe these things such as beauty and pride and value systems which are chiefly built on interpersonal values & other social, immediate/local stimuli to the traditional social human being. For example, we will look back in the future in disgust, at how us people of today lived rich lives completely devoid of guilt or concern for the people around the Earth living in squalor; in pain; in disease & death. We sing and we celebrate and we dance to good music, while people die and get shot in the midst of a mass global corrupt political system, and obviously much much more.

I find myself particularly troubled by this- on another thread someone mentioned the book Into The Wild, and I was just reminded of the film which I strongly recommend, when I was writing that last sentence there. The huge disconnect, which in modern Western society we hide from and fake away the details of. Just yesterday I pulled the cover off a chair I bought, and I was shocked to see Chinese writing on the padding. It struck me how local businesses and plenty of people are buying this particular chair at the lowest price for its quality-range, not knowing where it came from. It feels like an intentional lie, only-- one that is harmful if we actually come to terms with it as a nation / (western society).


So yeah, consciousness is a pretty foundational thing, on which we center our values and everything-- (interpersonal and cultural) customs; emotions; rationalizations. If someone is closer to "all-knowing" they suddenly aren't ascribing racist or emotionally-based or faith-based rationalizations for the things that they experience, for example. All of these fundamental changes are coming for our predecessors, sure. Which is why a lot of sci-fi I try to watch/read is really bad, and I can't stand it! haha.

Such a change across all people will indeed end the "games we play" in modern society, for the most part- like political power struggles, and like a lot of conflicts in day-to-day society. These things like personal conflict and struggle bringing about beauty. Epic stories like The Lord of the Rings. "We'd" still be able to identify with those stories, but it doesn't fulfill you the same way when you are thinking about all the world's problems. The smaller, more "local" problems and personal struggles is dwarfed by worldly and existential concerns, unless you concentrate well. This is exemplified today in the Internet meme "First world problems" / "White people problems". Such a change, may indeed end the search for a "reason to live": the man(kind) not in the dark anymore about existence, isn't mystified by it anymore. "Ignorance is bliss".

 

[Psychic Child]

Somehow I am stuck in my own mind made matrix.
You all are just some materialized perceptions of my own self.
In other words you all are illusions.