claptrap Dafremen "Prove to me that you exist." Are these the words of a rational mind? The thoughts of a brain with one foot firmly planted in reality? "I think, therefore I am" appears to be the ill-conceived basis for the "it's all in my mind" philosophy. Indeed, examination of the evidence seem to indicate that there is no rational basis for EITHER of these two bits of existentialist, philosophical claptrap. Instead, what seems to be indicated is that both statements are little more than the self indulgent wishful thinking of a mind which has become entirely too impressed with itself. A mind that has focused its existential pondering on proving it's own divinity or divine origins. You might as well believe one of the following, while you're at it: "Existence was created by the brain therefore the brain is god." "I am aware, therefore I proclaim my own existence, so has the brain spoken, so shall it be." "If I can't perceive of it or control it, it's not real." (Even MORE self centered) "If I go...I take it all with me."(The power to destroy something is absolute power over that thing?) If we ask someone to "prove it", we're usually satisfied to have it proven to our senses. We have established that something is likely to be true based on repeatable observations made via our senses. We process the external perception, then our internal perceptions (the non-observable portions of the final perception) play with the information in order to make sense of what we have perceived and update our experiences based on the available information. If the notion that we THINK therefore we ARE hinges on our AWARENESS being the only irrefutable fact of our existence, then it hinges on an irrefutable assumption. For if the mind cannot trust it's external perceptions or the senses which provide that information, where did the ENORMOUS leap of faith occur that placed the mind's INTERNAL perceptions ABOVE scrutiny? You think? No you MAY think...orrr you MAY be a single part of a greater whole which is REALLY doing the thinking. Or perhaps, that same entity is really imagining you? You may not exist at all despite the fact that you believe that you are conscious. Let's revise the opening statements a bit: "I cannot prove the reality of my own existence, how about you?" "There appears to be thought, therefore I MAY be." Understand, this is one of the first SELECTIVE applications of logic made by the human mind in it's frantic search for an escape from it's own finite existence. It's suspicions apply to EVERYTHING which comes to it, everything which it perceives, EXCEPT for it's own internal perception. The assumption being made that, the brain will not hurt or fool itself..."brain good, trust brain" "world hurt, no trust world." Of course we know that this isn't so. Our brain may not hurt itself, but certainly in order to avoid discomfort, it IS willing to fool itself. Invariably it lies to avoid discomfort. In fact, although consequences and societal pressures may remove external temptation to cave into the brain's desire to lie to others, there are no such restraints, pressures or consequences when the brain lies to itself. It is free to fib as it sees fit in order to avoid discomfort. Let's assume, for a second, that our ability to think DOES establish the reality of our existence; how likely is it that the human mind created everything around it? In order to answer that question, let's take a look at some of the most basic (and demonstrable) characteristics of human thought. Pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of pain. These are our primary motivator and deterrent. If an activity results in reward, it is repeated. If it results in pain, it is avoided. In each case, probability and extent of the final consequences is weighed with every decision, every conviction, every impression that forms in our minds. Note however, that past experience provides the crucial foundation upon which such decisions are based. Without any experience in a matter, with no rational basis upon which to decide, we have a 50/50 shot at being more right than we are wrong. The more experiences we have to draw data on, the more probably it is that we will be capable of making the decision that our brains finds to be most correct...the one with the most positive consequences or the choice with the least negative consequences. Always, we choose that which provides maximum reward in terms of what the mind considers rewarding. Given the choice, the brain pursues its OWN pleasure, seeks its OWN protections from discomfort. Another basic characteristic of our thought process is our tendency to categorize, consolidate and define. These are manners in which we take enormous amounts of information and compress them into smaller, more understandable chunks. In return, we give up some of our ability to distinguish details with complete accuracy.(Not that we ever had such a thing.) The processes of categorizing, and define amount to what is known in computer sciences as a "lossy compression", because of the manner in which the limitations of the compression affect the final reproduced data. In this case, the data is memory of experience and the final data is how we PERCEIVE the thing which was experienced, the manner in which this "lossy" perception affects our internal perceptions and our ability to make rational decisions. There are two basic standards for storage and retrieval of information: lossless and lossy. As the name implies, lossless storage and retrieval retains ALL of the original data in storage. Upon retrieval, lossless strategies reproduce the original data unaltered and with nothing missing. Lossy storage (or lossy compression) gives up some of the original information in exchange for a desired improvement. Usually lossy compression is used to make REALLY big chunks of data into really small stored data so that you can fit more information in the same amount of space. Categorization and definition provide smaller storage, faster retrieval and processing for the human mind, they also allow it to store HUGE amounts of information gleaned from experience into finite amount of memory available to it. Information stored? For every experience: The most important information deals with recognition. We must store the minimum information required in order to recognize this "perception" again. Second priority, good or bad? What is good about this, what is bad...overall is it generally more desirable, or more undesirable? To what extent and with what degree of certainty? (If this is our first experience and we have had no other exposure to a given "perception/experience", our decision must be made without the benefit of these pieces. They will get filled in afterward, when the consequences are known.) These pieces of information, both recognitive and statistical are revised and averaged, shot through the internal perceptions/belief systems to look for and resolve possible conflicts, then it is re-stored. (Explaining how, after meeting only one person of a given race who treated them badly, some people categorize ALL people who fit the recognitive profile if that race. They hate them, because to their irrational mind, that type of person means discomfort. The information is now processed for related entries in the experience. A relational database is built (not exactly, but more or less) like this: Liquid - Flows. No distinct shape. Changeable. Matter. Water - SEE:Liquid. Colorless. Odorless. Flavorless. Quenches thirst. Tap Water - SEE:Water. May smell funny. May be discolored. May have an odd taste. Comes from faucet. (REVISE:Water - SEE:Liquid. Usually colorless. Usually odorless. Usually flavorless. Necessary for life.) Grandma's Tap Water - SEE:Tap Water. Smells good. Slightly discolored. Comes from Grandma's faucet. Notice that "Water" no longer need to contain a reference to the fact that it flows, that it has no distinct shape, that it is changeable or that it is matter. All of that information was replaced with a reference to "Liquid". That reference, in turn, was the basis for replacing the "Liquid" characteristics in anything that refers to "Water". Now instead of: "Grandma's Tap Water - Flows. No distinct shape. Changeable. Matter. Usually colorless,may be discolored and is. Usually odorless, may smell funny, but smells good. Usually flavorless, may have an odd taste and does. Quenches thirst. Comes from faucet at Grandma's. " We end up with: "Grandma's Tap Water - SEE:Tap Water. Smells good. Slightly discolored. Odd tasting. Comes from Grandma's faucet." At first this doesn't APPEAR to be a "lossy" method at all, until we look at what can happen if we update our statistical information on "Liquid" or "Water" or "Tap Water", then we start to see what we gave up for the ability to store more and process it faster. Let's say that "Grandma's Tap Water" has statistically NEVER hurt us, or been harmful to us in any way. Furthermore, let's hypothesize and say that it won't EVER be harmful to us in any way. Now let's say that we have some bad experiences with tap water in other places. Almost without question, we will ignore the objective statistical data we have gathered on the consequences of drinking Grandma's Tap water. Instead, suddenly in our minds, there is a question, a decision to be made on whether or not to drink Grandma's Tap Water and "take the risk"(remember Grandma's Tap Water has never harmed us...nor will it ever..what risk?) of drinking some of that "Tap Water." The more often that "Tap Water" is accompanied by unpleasantness, the more likely that our minds will perceive "Grandma's Tap Water" as an unpleasant thing...along with all other "Tap Water". EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF STATISTICAL DATA OF ANY SORT, our mind will alter it's stored memories of external perceptions to match it's internal perception of their relationships to each other. For the most part, this loss of resolution is acceptable. In many cases it's even beneficial, (let's say all Tap Water WAS affected, being wary of Tap Water, even Grandma's Tap Water, might be a good idea.) In addition it has the following added benefits which are particular interest to this discussion: It allows for a seemingly endless stream of information to be both stored and processed efficiently by a mind with limited processing capabilities and/or storage space. This is almost ALWAYS the "why" behind introduction of lossy information storage strategies. Limited space for storage, limited time for processing. It is here that begin to see the primary difficulty with the "everything is a product of my mind" philosophy. It is the finite nature of the human mind, which tends to dispose of the ludicrous notion that the individual brain has "dreamt up" everything which it perceives. How the greatest human minds could have fallen into such a trap is no great mystery; when you comprehend immediately anything which presents itself to you, the idea that everything could have originated in your own mind certainly seems feasible, as though it has merit. (It doesn't.) What of the dull and uninspired, the intellectually barren? However do they resolve the conflict between their immediate inability to comprehend something, and the belief that it was THEIR mind which conceived of that thing? How do they manage to ignore every piece of statistical information that they have ever stored concerning the level of their own intellectual prowess? Imagine the scene: Dr. Einstein enters the room to deliver a speech to the assembled student body of a small high school. The audience is filled with "little gods" each creating this own existence and the existence of everything around him. Let's listen in on "our creator"'s thoughts for a second...shall we? "Man this sucks. Who's the old do0d with the cool hair? Damn look at her, she's hot!" Perhaps some OTHER would-be-god is the "creator" of Dr. Einstein's existence..let's check it out: "If I cut a fart in a room and then leave, does it still stink?" Dr. Einstein begins his address to the students: "How strange is the lot of us mortals! Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it. But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy. A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. I am strongly drawn to a frugal life and am often oppressively aware that I am engrossing an undue amount of the labor of my fellow-men. I regard class distinctions as unjustified and, in the last resort, based on force. I also believe that a simple and unassuming life is good for everybody, physically and mentally. I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants," has been a very real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life's hardships, my own and others', and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance. This realization mercifully mitigates the easily paralyzing sense of responsibility and prevents us from taking ourselves and other people all too seriously; it is conducive to a view of life which, in particular, gives humor its due. To inquire after the meaning or object of one's own existence or that of all creatures has always seemed to me absurd from an objective point of view. And yet everybody has certain ideals which determine the direction of his endeavors and his judgments. In this sense I have never looked upon ease and happiness as ends in themselves this ethical basis I call the ideal of a pigsty. The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new