# artifical paradise



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

here is some random thoughts i had this morning, not relly serious or owt so take these ideas with a pinch of salt, or maybe a whole pile of salt :lol:

But I was thinking how people wish for this afterlife, this heaven this pefect realm were everything is perfect and gloruois and well a paradise basically and I thought right bear with me, what if you got everyone on the planet and hooked them up to a constnat lsd supply like in vats, so eberyone goes int o asleeping dream world of haqllgnic possibilty. what would reality be then if we all slip into an artiifical dream world??? would reality be the place where our physical bodys our, sleeping in vats, being pumped full of lsd, or would our reality be the dream world where out counciousness explores itself???

I dunno what im basically saying is if everyone was on the same constant drug tip, would we have actually created an atrfical paradise, created heaven for ourselves???? (virtua; reality and AI etc could work in creating aarticial worlds as well), would we have effefctivily crossed the barrier between the world of the imagination and the world of concrete ratnional reality??? gooing through the doors of perception and all that super space jazz?

as I say take with a pile of salt, im not being really serious or trying to make any kind of serious point, im just rambling a bit aimlessley.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

From my point of view it's an easy question to answer. This paradise you have created is not reality. To cut a long story short - if, while you were in this vat of LSD someone came along and cut of your head, your paradise would be no more. Or is someone came along and unplugged the LSD and replaced it with something that gave you a constant nightmare, you'd be in hell.

Reality is something that is the same for everyone, whether they recognise it or not. While we cannot say 100% that this reality is the only reality but you cannot help to do anything but agree that it is, at the very least, a consensual reality. Your heat beats the same as the rest of us. The earth turns, the sun rises....


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> From my point of view it's an easy question to answer. This paradise you have created is not reality. To cut a long story short - if, while you were in this vat of LSD someone came along and cut of your head, your paradise would be no more. Or is someone came along and unplugged the LSD and replaced it with something that gave you a constant nightmare, you'd be in hell.
> 
> Reality is something that is the same for everyone, whether they recognise it or not. While we cannot say 100% that this reality is the only reality but you cannot help to do anything but agree that it is, at the very least, a consensual reality. Your heat beats the same as the rest of us. The earth turns, the sun rises....


yeh I preety much agree with you on the point of creating an artifical paradise is not reality as such, that there is alwasy the elemetns of having athe possibilty of someone altering your lsd intake or pulling the plug kind of, and that consesunal objective relaity will always exsist in some form, because otherwise there would just be chaos.

But I spose what im talkign about is the nature of inner space, i may sound like im rambling again more and I recongize there is a distinction between the world of outer external sapce and the inner space of mind and imagination, but I guess im wondering, since the brain that is my counciousness is counciousness is because of electrical signals, then if for example if I take LSD / go into a virtual AI envormoment that is as real as the objective real world , are these states at all valid or just as 'real' (on a subjective indivudal basis) as what is accepted as objective reality??? could we ever exsist in the world of objective reality while still enjoying the escapism and creativity of a 'illusionery' state of coucniousness where the mind is free to interperate and shape the expereince thorugh will?

I have acatually been influenced a lot by a book I read recently called, matric warrior which was basically based on the premise of the matrix being real and talking about the philsophies explored in the matrix, so this has made me more interested in these concepts of what actaully is real, and how real can be deifned. blah blah, again probably ramblign aimlessly
:lol:
http://www.sfsite.com/singularity/criti ... p?critID=9
http://www.curledup.com/matrixwa.htm


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

oh yeh and the matrix warrior book is not reccomened for dpers, deals with a lot of the ideas that underline derpsomisation symtons like the nature of reality and what if it is all a dream etc. probably made my dp worse 8)


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Good question. But again I'd say no. I wouldn't label my dreams a subjective reality, nor would I label an acid trip as subjective reality.

It does pose some interesting questions though. When does what is 'real' for a person become their reality? If the person in the vat was on a constant trip for the rest of their lives, without any interference, would be what they experience be a subjective a reality for them? Probably, yes. But still, my gut tells me that this consensual reality is the only reality, and everything else is just detail.


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

> Good question. But again I'd say no. I wouldn't label my dreams a subjective reality, nor would I label an acid trip as subjective reality.


Well yeh I spose dreams are never a reality because after all the naure of dreams is that they are like storylines you play out in your mind, fufillign whatever purpose, maybe more like someway to shape and process objective reality. I view dreams somewhat like learys views of tunnel realitys, that is you have dreams you create tunnels in your brain to theses realities, kind of increase the energy and will to make dreams manifiest.

Acid trip though trips though is kind of a harder nut to define, because I think on some level there is a kind of collective acid/hallgenic coucniousness/reality, I mean im speaking complety in terms of symbols, archetypes etc etc and I could be talking out of my ass, but not necceresilly a higher reality, but a reality outside of the normal sphere of expereince, kind of like a space outside of space and time. platos abstract forms.



> It does pose some interesting questions though. When does what is 'real' for a person become their reality? If the person in the vat was on a constant trip for the rest of their lives, without any interference, would be what they experience be a subjective a reality for them? Probably, yes. But still, my gut tells me that this consensual reality is the only reality, and everything else is just detail.


I guess in a way you would exsist in two planes simlatenly, well you have the physical 'real' plane, which is verifiiblly real, where your body would rest be plugged in whatever, and then a counciousness expanding other world, where you can explore different sattes of being etc, so kind of like being able to live in a lucid dream enviroment, which depending on how you view relaity would kind of be like a double life in another world, and though not real in any deifinite sense, would still have a sense of realness and authenteity (since you are still a counciosness experiining and being, except in a virtual envirmoent). I mean its really preety amazing to consider that one day we could invent worlds, while still living in the objective.


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

Im actualyl very interested in the ideas of transhumism which is realted to this topic, in that being depersonlized anyway my mind is kind of robot like and not automated, but too anyaltical.

my avater is actually a still from the anime, ghost in the shell, which is about cyborgs, and is a great manga.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

None of this is very convincing for me. I see what you're saying, of course. If everyone were pumped up on acid it might _seem_ as though w'd created some paradise, or another world. It may _seem_, for a person in such a state, that they were in objective reality.

But this isn't the case, nor will it ever be. There is a world "out there". It's possible to hallucinate on drugs or dream up some other world, but this is simply created in your mind and represents nothing significant or "real" at all.

It's as simple as that.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Good lord, this really is outside the capacity of my limited intellect. I agree with Monkeydust though, or rather my gut instinct does.


----------



## Scattered (Mar 8, 2005)

http://www.hedweb.com/

There is no "objective reality" experience. There is an objective reality, but there is no way for a human being, who is greatly influenced by his/her own subjective experience, to have any kind of substantive link to objective reality. I mean if you are somehow able to cut off all of you're emotions, ideas, notions, dreams, etc and look at reality as it is, then that would be objective reality. However, I believe we are wired to experience the world according to our own thought processes, beliefs, and emotions. All of which greatly distort what is simply there and makes it into something else. There is inert matter that gets twisted into a storyline that conveys meaning to a world that would otherwise be dead without this process.

The only lasting paradise will come through an engineering of the inner space, that then makes the outer space seem beautiful. Will this be real? It depends on what you consider to be real. Reality is free of emotions, values, or anything else. Reality is a puppet without the puppet-master. It just lays there dead. We need someone's subjective reality manipulating the strings for it to be anything else.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

> There is an objective reality, but there is no way for a human being, who is greatly influenced by his/her own subjective experience, to have any kind of substantive link to objective reality.


I don't really see how this argument follows either. You're essentially saying:

Human beings are greatly influenced by their own subjective experiences > No human being can have any kind of substantive link with objective reality.

I don't dispute the first premise. But the conclusion simply doesn't follow from it.

There's probably a myriad of reasons why, but from an amateur like myself only two readily come to mind:

1. Our subjective emotions, dreams, hopes, ontological preferences and so on only apply to aspects of reality to which meaning can actually be attached. For instance, here, after the London bombings in July, people had vastly different ideas about what the event _meant_, but all were agreed that the event actually *did* happen. Our emotions and personalities clearly do not impinge on our perception of aspects of reality that are "value neutral".

2. There is a great capacity for inter-subjective agreement. Your argument doesn't seem to represent the way things are actually done in real life. In many cases you'll find that people, when they discuss how they perceived something, actually come to the same or similar conclusions. This seems to make your whole claim that we have "no substantive connection to reality" since our emotions and personalities are so different seem like a pile of dog turd.

...I really don't like relatavism ad absurdum.


----------



## Scattered (Mar 8, 2005)

> I don't really see how this argument follows either. You're essentially saying:
> 
> Human beings are greatly influenced by their own subjective experiences > No human being can have any kind of substantive link with objective reality.
> 
> ...


That's because I'm implying that that there are no events to which meaning is not attached. There are no events in which we simply say "oh that happened" without adding in our own interpretation. In fact studies on memory have shown that a person recalling an objective event, such as a crash, often recall an event that is significantly different from what objectively occured. This is an aspect of memory itself, it isn't even necessarily psychological in origin, although a persons individual psychology will most likely influence the changes in an event that did not occur, but were recalled. In this way, a normal everyday fender-bender between two cars will turn into a significant accident with broken glass, crushed frames, etc.

We put our own spin on all of the conscious stimuli that enter into our awareness. This is just an aspect of being human, with our own individual ways of seeing the world. This DOES influence the way we perceive objective reality and even concrete, specific events. I can't make the claim that both people watching the same news channel on the same day will vary in opinion as to whether or not an event took place. So perhaps I should back down on the statement that there is "no" link. I simply meant to say that this link is not substantial.

There is a capacity for agreement between people. But this is a matter of semantics. How do we define substantial? Well I would define it as when I say something to you, you not only understand the basic idea of what I'm getting across, but you also understand the subtle emotions, feelings, and ideas I associate with the concept I'm trying to communicate. People will say this is ridiculous. Of course we can't read each other's minds and we shouldn't be expected to. Well what I'm doing is focusing in on the gap and saying that this seemingly negligible disconnection when it comes to communicating is important. Its important because whats lost is a great amount of information that an individual uses to perceive his/her world. This is information we use to make decisions, judgements, and that influences our behavior in daily life.

People will come to an agreement after discussion, but what this means in terms of basic understandings of a situation, is overshadowed by the data that is lost. This lost data that can never be completely, accurately, and reliably communicated leads me to believe that we will always live lives that are subjective and of our own making.


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

> That's because I'm implying that that there are no events to which meaning is not attached. There are no events in which we simply say "oh that happened" without adding in our own interpretation. In fact studies on memory have shown that a person recalling an objective event, such as a crash, often recall an event that is significantly different from what objectively occured. This is an aspect of memory itself, it isn't even necessarily psychological in origin, although a persons individual psychology will most likely influence the changes in an event that did not occur, but were recalled. In this way, a normal everyday fender-bender between two cars will turn into a significant accident with broken glass, crushed frames, etc.


No one's disputing the fact that a car crash might be remembered slightly differently by different witnesses. The point however is that all those people will remember that it _was_ a car crash, and, irrespective of how they later remember it, their senses at the time will have conveyed to them all the same event.

This is the crux of the issue, really. You can cite the odd example, or aspects of a fairly standard example(such as the _details_ of a crash remembered _after_ the event), to justify your absurd belief that reality is *vastly* different for every individual. But the reality is standing in front of you and will slap you in the face in the end. If you saw such a crash first hand then perhaps you'd grasp what I'm getting at.

If you want more of a succinct clarification of what I mean, then I suppose I'm saying that, whilst the _meanings_ of interpreted events or actions can differ for people, the actual sense-data of the event - the more _physical_ way the event is experienced - rarely does. The same is probably true for much of life in general.



> People will come to an agreement after discussion, but what this means in terms of basic understandings of a situation, is overshadowed by the data that is lost. This lost data that can never be completely, accurately, and reliably communicated leads me to believe that we will always live lives that are subjective and of our own making.


I agree more on this point, but this wasn't really the essence of the original dispute. I was arguing that we can have a substantive link to objective reality, and that evidence of this is how different people often come to the same or similar conclusions about "what happened" or "what was there". The issue of how far we can have a substantive link between _eachother_ is a different one entirely, although on that point as well I don't really think that the "link" people can have is so limited as you seem to think.


----------



## Scattered (Mar 8, 2005)

I agree that the link to objective reality may be stronger. But I do still maintain that the way we feel about an event, even as it occurs and everyone sees it, constitutes a different core experience of that event. This is because I personally place more emphasis and importance on the emotions that are experienced during an event than the perception of the event itself. Sure, everyone will see the accident, but different people may feel radically different emotions about that same event they experience.

But yes, this would mean that there is still a "link" to that objective event. We obviously don't literally influence the creation of physical reality itself with our minds.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

(disclaimer (i should put one of these in front of all of my posts) ~ this is just my mere cents and is no way meant to dumb down this topic....

ok.... maybe a little.) :wink:

ok if you think we are living in a matrix type reality and are being fed acid and liquid corpses introveniously, and all of this is simply one big dream/nightmare that we cannot wake up from, then i dare you to take a dump on a plate and eat it.


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

sleepingbeauty said:


> (disclaimer (i should put one of these in front of all of my posts) ~ this is just my mere cents and is no way meant to dumb down this topic....
> 
> ok.... maybe a little.) :wink:
> 
> ok if you think we are living in a matrix type reality and are being fed acid and liquid corpses introveniously, and all of this is simply one big dream/nightmare that we cannot wake up from, then i dare you to take a dump on a plate and eat it.


Well, I don't beleive par se that reality is a matrix , although I definilty belive reality is illusion, definaily at some level an illusion.

If reality were a matrix though , taking a dump would still carry the same responeses as you would normally in the normal objective reality (which could be a matrix within a matrix and so on anyway), because you wouldnt be aware of being in a matrix.

fuck, I am confusing myself.....


----------



## falling_free (Nov 3, 2004)

What if everyliving thing in the universe was tripping on acid, wouldnt that make the drug induced trip a reality? 8)


----------

