Does anti-realism mean there is no external world?

General Discussion
81

I don’t like seeing living things as just patterns, I already feel like I’m losing my grip on reality and having a hard time seeing people and living things as…people and things.

I keep wondering if it’s all just matter, that consciousness and the self is just an illusion, that none of this matters and we’re just playing a colossal social game of pretend trying to avoid the brute fact of reality that we are just lumps of matter trying desperately to convince “ourselves” we are more…

I’ve never been so scared or drained before…

82

You should get off of the computer. You’re looking for a logical answer to an emotional problem. It’s not here.

83

But all living things are “living” patterns. That is what brings order. Without regular patterns there is only chaos.

But we are more than just patterns. We are patterns with individual computers that are the most sophisticated expression that any pattern can become.
Being a self-aware pattern allows you to fashion yourself into a special pattern that is recognized by other self-aware patterns.

The arts and sciences can be the most beautiful expressions of the human mind, if you allow these expressions to “communicate” among themselves.

From what? That is why I suggested to select something that “interests you”, not “scare you”, but makes you feel better.

You are locking yourself up in a dark room that does not allow a light to shine. Try to open a window and look at incredible patterns nature is capable creating and feel
blessed to be one of the fortunate ones to be a self-aware pattern, able to contemplate nature and the universe itself.

How about a human symphony?

check Youtube for more Jacob Collier

84

It’s kinda late for that, like with that Teleonomic matter stuff and subjectivity without identity. I can’t really let that go because I can’t stop wondering what it means and if it means I don’t have a self or not and if the dude I got it from is right or not. There really isn’t much on it and the links I looked at made it sound more like his theory he’s studying for defining life and individuals instead of fact.

I can’t let it get go or let anything go because I’m constantly afraid I’m doing something wrong or living a lie.

85

But according to that stuff there is no self, at least that’s what that dude seems to think David Krakauer is saying.

None of that works anymore after reading all this stuff

86

That’s how everyone feels because no one knows the true meaning of life or what we really are. If you are thinking you will work this out then you would be the first to do it. So maybe it’s your thinking that’s wrong. You’re not “living a lie”, everyone is wrong about something, people do stupid stuff like drinking excessively every day. You’re doing pretty well compared to a lot of people. Life is complicated and scary. If you are having trouble accepting that, then that’s what you need to work on, not figuring out life or trying to make life less scary. You need help with that and you can’t get it from me or any of these other places you are talking about.

87

Then stop reading and beating yourself up!

Go for a walk ( note that CC goes on walks everyday to enjoy his communion with nature.
When you do remove yourself from social pressures, you make room for the feeling and emotion of the miracle of life. To look at a tree and stand in awe of an organism that live as much as a thousand years and be mother to acres of flora, a biome that has an underground communication network. This “stuff” is wonderful and majestic in scope and complexity.
Instead of fretting and rejecting, allow yourself examining and rejoicing to be part of it.

I know that this does not address your particular problem but it is the only way that can be sustained without the result of stress and harm to your biome.

As to the question of “being”, consider yourself a god of your personal biome.
Take care of it.

88

Doesn’t work that well anymore because then questions of individuals and selfhood come up that I don’t have answers too and it feels like I’m forced to accept their conclusion.

Well from the posts I linked some seem to think Buddhism knows and figured it out a while ago and you just have to experience it. The dude cited some bad science and one guy who’s at least credible (Anil Seth) but his discovery when I looked it up showed it was more a domain to explore than definitive. I also found it odd the sources he gave are from 10 years ago apart from Krakauer, but as for Krakauer I couldn’t find much outside the Sante Fe Institute and his interview with Sean Carroll wasn’t exactly convincing as I thought he kinda evaded stuff.

The guy accused me of the homuculus argument when it came to a self or identity: Homunculus argument - Wikipedia

But part of me wonders if I’m just being exposed to a lot of stuff on one end and since I don’t have answers for it I assume they’re right.

The dude from stack exchange goes on about how Buddhism challenges the intuitions of the self and me personally I feel like maybe the results of Buddhism need more study in light of what we know today. The sources he cited me seemed unreliable and felt more like cherry picking than full pictures.

But I’m also not the best at arguing a point so I can’t really say if he’s right or not, just that when I looked into some a few we’re just wrong. Like split brain patients having divided consciousness or how left/right brain thinking affected our view of science (it didn’t and is considered a myth now). To the flow state being proof of how when you let go of the self you can amass more mental resources when if you read up on flow state you know that’s not exactly true.

89

Their conclusion? What about your conclusion? Let them take care of their own problems.
I have my perspective. One can either accept it or reject it, but that does not affect my conclusion.

1 Like
90

That is terrible reasoning but you probably know that. The response to not knowing is learning, not randomly deciding someone is right.

And, you also know the limits of whatever the field you are learning. You can’t learn what happened before the Big Bang, for example.

91

Well the problem I run into is not being able to really have counter arguments for. I know they use terms like ego death: Ego death - Wikipedia

And sometimes that does make me worry that “what if the sense of self is just a perception and nothing more”? Which I’ll admit does scare me a little.

But some things don’t add up to me. Like who is making that judgment that the self is a perception? Who is realizing that? They might say no one but I’m not really convinced by that. I think there is more to the self or sense of it than they are getting at. I think maybe the self is more complex than we think, since I know how much power belief has when it comes to us. Perhaps belief that the self is just a perception is what does it, I don’t know. I just know any questions I ask about this generally get swept away with “you just have to experience it” which wouldn’t really answer anything. Even if I were to experience it I don’t know if that would answer anything.

92

Yeah, that’s not an answer, that’s someone who is trying to convince you that they know something, but can’t describe it. Statements like that are for Jazz music or rock climbing, not what the self is.

93

Yeah on some level I know that’s not right but on another I wonder if I’m just denying the truth because it’s uncomfortable. The former is the common excuse I use for not letting go.

Even though I said what I did about the “self being just a perception” I still can’t help but feel like I’m just denying reality.

94

But that argument applies to everyone. I am not talking about scientific knowledge which is subject to proof, but philosophy that is purely theoretical regardless of the believer’s confidence.

I cite religion as an example. Believers are absolutely convinced there is a god, but that does not make them more believable than an atheist like myself who is conviced that the notion of a humanlike, but unknowable god is ridiculous.

Neither can prove that which is unknowable, but I will never accept a “jealous personal god” as a better argument than the “impersonal mathematical” alternative of MUH.

95

I don’t what these “levels” are. It’s called thinking. You are choosing, reasoning. All this wondering and worrying you do, seems more like trolling of this forum.

96

I don’t know what else to call it besides that. I think it might just be a lack of self confidence that leads to me not believing my own reasoning.

I’ve researched stuff on the self to help myself understand and I end up with two contradictory articles:

The first one sounds way too much like interpretation rather than what is true, especially since that split brain stuff has come under fire for being misleading like suggesting divided consciousness or two selves, which was proven false. The thought experiment at the end I didn’t fill in 1 there but I’m not really sure what he was trying to prove on that one.

He also seems to suggest that if it were you then you could control it, when I don’t really know if that tracks. That’s more a free will argument, not a self argument.

The first link however seems more reliable to be since it acknowledges the roots for the single self being rooted in notions of a soul and seems less prone to the wild interpretation of the second.

But I’m not entirely sure.

97

Nah, I would think it’s gotta start with ourselves in relationship with ourselves, and by extension to this Earth that created and sustains us.

98

Well I found two contradictory articles on it, though the second one seems more reliable.

99

Well that’s about how it goes these days. Isn’t it?

At least it’s nice one seems trust worthy. You’re a smart guy, you have critical thinking skills. Make use of them.

And I’m not telling you to do anything, just passing along a tip,
if you haven’t go ahead and read Prisig’s, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

If for no other reason than it’s simply an interesting, well written story - a cool escape for a while.

I keep coming back to that because there are times here at CFI when your anguished writing, totally brings one character to mind. Written in a good constructive challenging manner, not condescending melodrama.

So I keep thinking you might find the storyline and discussions worth the read.

You do read (or listen/watch) for relaxation too?
I do, so let me share my latest infatuation, one that has turned out to be metaphorical lift preserver* for me, especially since WeThePeople allowed America’s constitutional government under the Rule of Law to be destroyed, is the stories of Arthur Upfield that take place in 1930s, 40s, 50s Australia. Tough place, tough times, and a different breed of people. Yet a way of living I can relate to, I have build miles of barbed wire fence and done irrigation duty, and lived on the primitive camp side, here and there. So it’s stuff I can relate to, in a spiritual, if not actual fashion.

I find it soothing to get lost in Upfield’s detective adventures that are some of the finest such writing to be found, up there with and reminiscent of Tony Hillerman, and his Navajo cops, Leaphorn and Chee.

What make him so good is that beyond all his observational and writing skills, he spent over two decades working in the outback before writing. He knows his adopted country and the people. Upfield writes great subplots and character studies, but unlike most other mystery writers, Upfield never forgets it’s a detective mystery, involved in finding clues and unraveling them, and he involves the reader in all the details of his character’s investigation.

If you ever had dreams of going into wild empty country and travel through new horizons and such adventures - here’s some books to transport one for a moment. Upfield delivers on all eight cylinders.

But I digress, good night.

(* This comes back down to: What Will You Be Present To? and what kind of day do you want to have.)

100

Well I’m not sure, I’m not a neuroscientist. I checked the left brain interpreter and while it does seem that it does try to make sense of what is going on (even if it’s often wild at times) it’s only as good as the information it gets. I don’t think it has the implications towards self or not that he seems to think it does. That feels more like interpretation than what the info shows.