Originally posted by Conrau KThere is more than one type of solipsism: there is metaphysical solipsism; there is epistemological solipsism; and there are other types. Wikipedia gives a decent introduction to the concept.
Originally, you were a solipsist with quotes like these:
I rather imagine a mind -- powerful beyond that ordinarily conceived of, and without certain other limitations as well -- a mind existing in isolation and yet without the need for external support to exist
and
I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a ...[text shortened]... lanning, is not functioning properly
I hope this is not an example of your sentience.
What I originally wrote is that: (a) I believe that my universe is in some sense a figment of my imagination; and (b) I believe that I am the only sentient being in my universe. I have been entirely consistent in this, and definitionally this makes me a solipsist of one variety or another.
I then gave, for illustrative purposes, several possible instantiations of the concept of solipsism, while saying almost nothing as to my opinion of their relative or individual viability, much less whether I had settled on one, and if so, which one: the idea that my universe is the product of a comatose fugue (including a number of pathological elements which might or might not be the result of brain damage); the idea that my universe is the product of a computer simulation (which has malfunctioned or else involves consequences not intended by the sentient designer, which is effectively a malfunction); the idea that my universe is the product of a metaphysical creative process which had been set-up and initiated by myself (but which to some extent went terribly wrong); and the idea that my universe is the product of a metaphysical process arising organically out of my own development as a mind (with unwanted elements representing either a state of pathology or a state of (as yet) incomplete development on my part, in the same way that a toddler might not have proper control over his own bodily movements, only here the inadequate control would involve mental processes and their manifestation in so-called physical modes).
So far as I can see, each of these is consistent with one or another standard definition of solipsism. Each is consistent with the idea that I am the only sentient being in my universe; and each is consistent with the idea that my universe is in some sense a figment of my imagination. For example, if my universe were a set of phantom sensory data fed directly into my brain by a computer simulation, the so-called "external phenomena" I perceived as a result would definitely be figments of my imagination in some sense, since the sensory data would not indicate actual, external physical objects or their behavior, and my perceptions of an external universe would merely be the result of my brain's interpretation of phantom sensory data. (Also to be considered, of course, in the context of perception, would be my instinctual and conditioned responses to the appearances and actions of such seeming forms.)
Conrau K, I am afraid that, within the neuronal model you postulate, I still do not understand what you might mean by "the unconscious".
You say that thoughts, sounds, imagery, and so forth, are the result of neuronal activity, whether asleep or awake. And the sleeping dreamer IS conscious: it is merely the case that he exists in an altered, impaired state of consciousness relative to his waking state of consciousness. In either case, waking or in a sleeping dream, the neurons are, according to you, the source of his ideas. What is an "unconscious", neurologically speaking, and why does it enter into the matter during sleeping dreams but not during waking states of consciousness?
You describe sleeping dreams as an "association of random ideas and memories". (You also said "past experiences" but I think that is subsumed in the general category of "memories".) But dreams are not a RANDOM association, for if they were they would not be intelligible, and they manifestly are (with certain exceptions). And what is a waking creative process if not an association of ideas and memories? So, in each case, waking or in a sleeping dream, you claim that creativity is the result of neuronal activity involving an association of ideas and memories.
Why, then, if I hear (in a sleeping dream) music that does not correspond to any heard in waking experience; or see incredible, science-fictional cities unlike any seen in waking experience (including in cinema); or see fantastic creatures or monsters likewise not a product of any life experience (considerably more fantastic than a mere unicorn, I might add); or find myself able to fly via levitation, or move objects via telekinesis, or dream of being a mutant who can see electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum, or sense invisible beings; or otherwise do, feel, sense, or experience things that have no precedence in my experiences in waking life; what objective reason is there to say that these things are not creative, and not new?
For that matter, I think you are being terribly simplistic in evaluations of even ordinary dreams. You seem to be claiming that even dreams of ordinary people are simply memories of persons one has actually seen before, though with some of their features mixed about or camouflaged, as if they were a set of repertory players reduced to the use of false beards, eyepatches, and a limited wardrobe change. Speaking from personal experience, I know this isn't the case; and thought there might conceivably be some extremely hidebound persons limited to such dreams, I suspect that even Dr. Watson would have more creative dream experiences than this.
Some artists can visualize non-existent persons and scenes while awake, whether of a conventional nature or not; sleeping dreams seem to be everyman's chance to experience something of the sort. Sleeping dreams can be remarkably vivid and detailed in certain respects, especially visually, emotionally, and in terms of broad conception; as much (or even more than) in waking life, in fact.
Even in the case of dreams of familiar persons, it is clear that you are in error in saying that nothing new occurs. For example, one type of nightmare involves the appearance of familiar persons, from waking life, but behaving in extremely hostile, bizarre ways that, first, are completely out of character for them, and second, which might better be described as demonic rather than human, and which the dreamer (especially if young) may never before have observed as behavior by anyone in his waking experience.
Conrau K wrote: You might maintain that the dream also produces similarly new things. The point is irrelevant. If my unconscious invents new things, demonstrates creative abilities, then I will accept that I have another ego, to some extent.
Can it be, Conrau, that you actually claim that the appearance of independent, sentient beings in one's dreams implies the existence of "another ego", provided those dream figures are not merely memories of previous life experiences? I don't see any basis for this, nor do I understand what this "other ego" could be, who it could belong to, or what relationship it has to the sleeper. I seldom regard Occam's Razor as compelling, but in this instance you really do seem to be trying to sell me a pig-in-a-poke.
Conrau K wrote: Do you think a congenitally blind man (with no synesthetic experience, either, of colour) can dream of red?
The scientific literature is divided on this. And honestly, since I am a solipsist I do not believe that there is any such man. This is precisely why I do not like accepting this class of conditional truth or the "evidence" it relies on: it places me at the mercy of figments of my imagination, fictional histories and events and sciences, and can change at any time provided that "new information" (such as a newly imagined "study" ) manifests to revise and/or reinterpret the old model.
(I am posting this tonight without a final read-through or edit since I don't have time.)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsThere is more than one type of solipsism: there is metaphysical solipsism; there is epistemological solipsism; and there are other types. Wikipedia gives a decent introduction to the concept.
There is more than one type of solipsism: there is metaphysical solipsism; there is epistemological solipsism; and there are other types. Wikipedia gives a decent introduction to the concept.
What I originally wrote is that: (a) I believe that my universe is in some sense a figment of my imagination; and (b) I believe that I am the only sentient bein ...[text shortened]... instinctual and conditioned responses to the appearances and actions of such seeming forms.)
Pick one, and don't contradict yourself again. It does not help if you say "the world is a figment of my imagination" and "I could be attached to a machine".
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsIn either case, waking or in a sleeping dream, the neurons are, according to you, the source of his ideas. What is an "unconscious", neurologically speaking, and why does it enter into the matter during sleeping dreams but not during waking states of consciousness?
Conrau K, I am afraid that, within the neuronal model you postulate, I still do not understand what you might mean by "the unconscious".
You say that thoughts, sounds, imagery, and so forth, are the result of neuronal activity, whether asleep or awake. And the sleeping dreamer IS conscious: it is merely the case that he exists in an altered, impair ...[text shortened]... tonight without a final read-through or edit since I don't have time.)
Why do you care? You do not even believe neurons exist. All that matters is that, according to you, reality comes from your imagination; but you do not exert conscious control over your imagination (by your own admission, you cannot make me believe you are right.) The only way to reconcile these two statements is to postulate the existence of an unconscious which is both part of you and can make the figments of your imagination.
I have no idea what that unconscious is. You ought to know more than I do.
Can it be, Conrau, that you actually claim that the appearance of independent, sentient beings in one's dreams implies the existence of "another ego", provided those dream figures are not merely memories of previous life experiences?
Yes. For my dreams to be totally new, beyond my here-to experiences, my unconscious must be engaged in a creative and deliberative task of constructing these dreams. Such creativity and deliberation would distinguish my unconscious as an ego.
I don't see any basis for this, nor do I understand what this "other ego" could be, who it could belong to, or what relationship it has to the sleeper. I seldom regard Occam's Razor as compelling, but in this instance you really do seem to be trying to sell me a pig-in-a-poke.
I have no idea either what this ego is. Poor you because you must have one.
Originally posted by Conrau KNo contradiction there, as I have already pointed out.
[b]There is more than one type of solipsism: there is metaphysical solipsism; there is epistemological solipsism; and there are other types. Wikipedia gives a decent introduction to the concept.
Pick one, and don't contradict yourself again. It does not help if you say "the world is a figment of my imagination" and "I could be attached to a machine".[/b]
I might also add that there is nothing preventing bi-directional feedback in such a process: my mental states might influence the behavior of such a (hypothetical) simulation. That means that my imagination could change the data flow or even the programming, since a self-modifying program which incorporates the mental states of someone experiencing a simulation into its variables, might end up being re-written as a result of my thoughts.
Originally posted by Conrau KConrau K wrote: Why do you care? You do not even believe neurons exist. All that matters is that, according to you, reality comes from your imagination; but you do not exert conscious control over your imagination (by your own admission, you cannot make me believe you are right.) The only way to reconcile these two statements is to postulate the existence of an unconscious which is both part of you and can make the figments of your imagination.
[b]?
I have no idea what that unconscious is. You ought to know more than I do.
Can it be, Conrau, that you actually claim that the appearance of independent, sentient beings in one's dreams implies the existence of "another ego", provided those dream figures are not merely memories of previous life experiences?
Yes. For my dreams to b -poke.[/b]
I have no idea either what this ego is. Poor you because you must have one.[/b]
First of all, you are asking me to accept arguments based on a neuronal theory of thought. Now, I could just say "nerts to neurons" and ignore you, but a discussion requires that participants share some common framework of reference, and since your argument uses this framework, I adopted it for discussion purposes simply to demonstrate how your position is ill-defined and inconsistent, even within the context of your own model.
Someone who is awake and alert is conscious, but someone who is asleep and dreaming is also conscious, though that state is altered and impaired relative to the state of normal waking consciousness. (I say "impaired" but more accurately it is impaired in certain ways while being more powerful in others.) In both cases, waking or in a sleeping dream, the neurons are, according to you, the source of ideas. What is an "unconscious", neurologically speaking, and why does it enter into the matter during sleeping dreams but not during waking states of consciousness, when both are, strictly speaking, states of consciousness? And what about someone who is intoxicated on alcohol or drugs? Are the hallucinations of someone experiencing delirum tremens or some LSD trip the result of some "unconscious" or, in the case of perceptions which have no precedence in ordinary life, some "other ego" (as you bizarrely claim)? Why? What on earth can you be talking about?
I would like to add, also, that the only sensible and consistent definition of "newness" you can use with respect to sleeping dreams, is the same practical definition used in waking life. If the contents of dreams are such that, should they instead have been experienced in waking life, they would be regarded as new, then they must be regarded as new as sleeping dreams.
One would certainly not consider dreams which merely reproduce waking events as "new". I am also, for the sake of argument, willing to exclude dreams which merely juxtapose one's waking experiences in a different spatio-temporal order than that in which they occurred in waking life. The fact remains that many dreams do not fall into either category, and indeed, include elements that have no precedence in waking life; and sometimes these elements are relatively conventional, though still new, whereas sometimes these elements are highly unconventional as well. This fact derives from my own personal experience, but most any adult with their own dream experiences, or even with a secondhand knowledge of such things through the literature of dreams, should know this. So I have to conclude that you are a fraud.
Second, whether or not I believe in neurons, or have made any decision about this, or even have an opinion as to the decidability of such a matter, is irrelevant here. I am certain that my universe is a figment of my imagination and that as such there are no "neurons" within my universe. I also admit that at this point it is difficult not to regard such models as absurd in an absolute sense, but I AM in an altered, impaired state of consciousness, so I would like to be careful in my use of absolute declaratives with respect to logical analysis.
Third, I have never said that I do not exert control (or influence) over my imagination, or its so-called physical manifestations. What I have said is that my control is incomplete and that my universe is defective.
Fourth, I have not said that I cannot influence your behavior. (I will not say "make you believe that I am right" because "you" are non-sentient and do not believe or disbelieve anything.)
Fifth, I think your approach to the issue is primitive, unduly narrow, and dogmatic. Therefore, claims by you as to the logical necessity of an "unconscious" (which you have been unable to define even within the context of the neuronal model you postulate) are not compelling. I would agree, however, that the issue of metaphysical cause and effect is one that requires careful treatment, and frankly my ideas regarding this are poorly developed. (Having rejected mechanical cause and effect, in my universe certainly and probably in general, as unable to withstand logical scrutiny, I am in the position of someone who has overthrown the old order without having a new one to replace it.)
I also add that it is a very poor idea for someone in an altered, impaired, state of consciousness to regard the mere superficial appearance of other beings as evidence for the existence of other egos. Merely watching a movie of 2-D images is enough to offer a powerful (if partial) inducement to "suspension of disbelief", as witnessed by the reaction of individuals (myself included) to fictional cinematic events. Even puppet might be characterized as looking "thoughtful" or "nice" or "malicious". And it is certainly a logical error to regard one's own mental creations (as for example the characters of sleeping dreams) as being other egos or the product of other egos.
Edit: No time to read through or re-edit this tonight.
P.S. I have observed a number of behaviors (and combinations of behavior) by the so-called "other humans" of my universe, which indicate that these "other humans" are not merely non-human but also not sentient. This means, however, not only that they themselves are not sentient, but also that they are not the proxies of other sentient beings.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsCare to offer these observations?
P.S. I have observed a number of behaviors (and combinations of behavior) by the so-called "other humans" of my universe, which indicate that these "other humans" are not merely non-human but also not sentient. This means, however, not only that they themselves are not sentient, but also that they are not the proxies of other sentient beings.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsFirst of all, you are asking me to accept arguments based on a neuronal theory of thought. Now, I could just say "nerts to neurons" and ignore you, but a discussion requires that participants share some common framework of reference, and since your argument uses this framework, I adopted it for discussion purposes simply to demonstrate how your position is ill-defined and inconsistent, even within the context of your own model.
Conrau K wrote: Why do you care? You do not even believe neurons exist. All that matters is that, according to you, reality comes from your imagination; but you do not exert conscious control over your imagination (by your own admission, you cannot make me believe you are right.) The only way to reconcile these two statements is to postulate the existenc ...[text shortened]... egos.
Edit: No time to read through or re-edit this tonight.
If it is a problem, then I will retract any references I made to neurons. It does not matter whether I have a conscious and unconscious component to my psyche. It might be the case that neurological science collapses the distinction between the two, as you argued. What matters is that your solipsism presupposes an unconscious, whatever that means.
And given that creativity and deliberation are unique powers of the ego, then your unconscious must also be an ego. That is my argument – and it requires no reference to neurological science.
Third, I have never said that I do not exert control (or influence) over my imagination, or its so-called physical manifestations. What I have said is that my control is incomplete and that my universe is defective.
Of course you exert control. But clearly not conscious control, as you explained, “even though it might be said that they are (broadly) a product of my sleeping mind, it cannot be said that they are behaving as I wish, or that they are the direct and deliberate product of my mind.” So one must presume an unconscious responsible for this universe.
Fourth, I have not said that I cannot influence your behavior. (I will not say "make you believe that I am right" because "you" are non-sentient and do not believe or disbelieve anything.)
I have no idea why you repeatedly use the term “sentient”. If you are a solipsist, you need only contend that I do not exist. Whether I am sentient or not is immaterial from that.
Your answer here is clearly an evasion. Granted, you cannot make a non-sentient being believe something. But the real question is whether you can consciously manipulate your reality to control my behaviour, to make me explode, to make me seemingly agree with you. You have already said that people do not necessarily behave as you wish, so how can you contradictorily maintain that you influence people’s behavior?
Conrau K wrote: The real question is whether you can consciously manipulate your reality...You have already said that people do not necessarily behave as you wish, so how can you contradictorily maintain that you influence people’s behavior?
Yes, yes, you fool, I can consciously manipulate my reality, including the behavior of the apparent other humans in my universe. I do this all the time, by what might be termed force of will. I have never said otherwise, and indeed, past messages to this thread by me have indicated this. The statement that my reality does not NECESSARILY conform to my wishes is perfectly consistent with this, as is the statement that my control is INCOMPLETE and that my universe is defective: this is because "influence" need not (and usually does not) mean "absolute control"! (And incidentally, the defectiveness I refer to is both extensive and serious.)
Furthermore, my universe, if functioning properly, should respond automatically to my wishes: I should not even need to consciously will changes to it after the fact, but rather, it should unfold in congenial ways, naturally and organically, as an extension of my nature and values; and, your bizarre claim to the contrary notwithstanding, this does not, cannot, and need not involve the co-existence of "another ego".
Conrau K wrote: What matters is that your solipsism presupposes an unconscious, whatever that means.
Clearly not. I have just spent a large amount of time and effort typing messages indicating why, and attempting to elicit lucid explanations of this repeated (but so far unjustified) assertion of yours, without success.
Conrau K wrote: And given that creativity and deliberation are unique powers of the ego, then your unconscious must also be an ego.
What do you mean by "creativity"? If by this you mean that new things experienced by an ego require the co-existence of another ego to provide them, obviously not. And who is deliberating? This putative "unconscious"? How can an "unconscious" deliberate? That is a contradiction in terms.
We have been all through this. My sleeping dreams do not require another ego in order for fictitious "other beings" to populate them.
And again, how does the "other ego" get these new ideas if each ego requires another, coexisting ego to provide them? Such a scheme leads to an infinite regress of co-existent "other egos" in which nothing new even gets produced: the suggestion is therefore inherently contradictory and therefore false.
Furthermore, without any reference to neurons, if I can produce ideas while in a waking state of consciousness without invoking another ego or an "unconscious", then why should I not be able to do so in the state of consciousness involved in sleeping dreams?
Conrau K wrote: I have no idea why you repeatedly use the term “sentient”. If you are a solipsist, you need only contend that I do not exist. Whether I am sentient or not is immaterial from that.
You have no idea about anything. And the more we converse, the clearer it becomes that you do not even ostensibly have an idea about anything. You are most tedious.
Again: no time to read through and re-edit this tonight.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYes, yes, you fool, I can consciously manipulate my reality, including the behavior of the apparent other humans in my universe. I do this all the time, by what might be termed force of will.
Conrau K wrote: The real question is whether you can consciously manipulate your reality...You have already said that people do not necessarily behave as you wish, so how can you contradictorily maintain that you influence people’s behavior?
Yes, yes, you fool, I can consciously manipulate my reality, including the behavior of the apparent other human re most tedious.
Again: no time to read through and re-edit this tonight.
Then do so. This statement is empirically proveable. I call for demonstrations of this ability, even if defective. Make me explode.
Furthermore, my universe, if functioning properly, should respond automatically to my wishes: I should not even need to consciously will changes to it after the fact, but rather, it should unfold in congenial ways, naturally and organically, as an extension of my nature and values; and, your bizarre claim to the contrary notwithstanding, this does not, cannot, and need not involve the co-existence of "another ego".
May I ask: did you, before imagining this world, consciously construct all the experiences of this world? Did you make up the colour blue? Did you invent the five senses?
And then, what exactly interprets your "nature" into this imagined world? How does your nature translate into the world?
(It is almost impossible to argue with you in this way. I doubt you have a fully formed view of what your solipsism means and entails. You just make it up as you go along. After some two thousand words of exposition, you only now begin to explain the link between your consciousness and your dreams. I suggest in your next post you codify every tenet of your solipsism. Then argument might be more feasible.)
Clearly not. I have just spent a large amount of time and effort typing messages indicating why, and attempting to elicit lucid explanations of this repeated (but so far unjustified) assertion of yours, without success.
You could have avoided that time and effort if you had responded to my argument directly. As laid out:
1. You are the source of your reality.
2. Your reality is either consciously or unconsciously created.
3. Your reality is not consciously created.
Therefore, your reality is unconsciously created.
If you had simply denied the third premise, you would not have wasted time. I specifically asked you in regards to premise 3 whether you consciously make up your reality. You equivocated. Your fault if you wasted time.
What do you mean by "creativity"? If by this you mean that new things experienced by an ego require the co-existence of another ego to provide them, obviously not. And who is deliberating? This putative "unconscious"? How can an "unconscious" deliberate? That is a contradiction in terms.
Creativity is a very simple term - it means the ability to create. As I understood your arguments, you did not create the sensory experience of "blue"; you only experienced it. Thus, the unconscious must have been responsible for it. And as your unconscious has no precedent for blue, it must have creatively invented it.
As I defined it, the unconscious is simply that part of your psyche which you are not conscious of. Very simple.
We have been all through this. My sleeping dreams do not require another ego in order for fictitious "other beings" to populate them.
Correct. But this point is tangential.
And again, how does the "other ego" get these new ideas if each ego requires another, coexisting ego to provide them?
This was not my argument at all. In fact, I doubt you read my posts because you generally do not respond to them directly.
I argued that your unconscious must supply the materials of your dreamed reality (like the concept of blue.) As it has no where to get them from, then it must create them itself. Creation is the exclusive ability of an ego. Therefore your unconscious must be an ego.
To ask, where does it get them from? was actually a question I was about ask you. I was about to argue that your other-ego was completely incoherent because to create new ideas like "blue", without reference to previous experience, was impossible. Thus your solipsism collapses into absurdity.
I am, however, glad you have anticipated this argument and dutifully acknowledge how stupid your argument is.
if I can produce ideas while in a waking state of consciousness without invoking another ego or an "unconscious", then why should I not be able to do so in the state of consciousness involved in sleeping dreams?
Ummm....duh! You are the ego which produces the new things. You are the creative agent. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
You have no idea about anything. And the more we converse, the clearer it becomes that you do not even ostensibly have an idea about anything. You are most tedious.
Imagine, though, if I argued like you. You have argued X and Y without clearly establishing a relationship between X and Y, and thus your argument is absurd. I won't tell you what X and Y are because you are non-sentient. You could have at least explained why you emphasise sentience.
What is so annoying is that is how you argue. Don't blame me if I fail to have any idea about your arguments. They are so obscurantist.
I saw Ben Stien's movie Expelled.
I liked it and thought it made its points well. I would have recommended that he present some of the fears of things like Spanish Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials to equal it out a little more for the Evolutionists.
There's enough blame to go around.
He did show a progression from Darwin to Nazism. To be be fair he could have presented equally alarming perservions of religion.
Aside from that one fair shake for my less prefered side of the debate, I enjoyed his documentary. It exposed some things which should be exposed - the blackballing of very talented scientists and journalists.
And not all IDers are Creationists. He even got Dawkins to admit that Intelligent Design was possible, as long as we are not talking about a God.
Conrau K wrote: " It might be the case that neurological science collapses the distinction between the two [the conscious and the unconscious], as you argued. What matters is that your solipsism presupposes an unconscious, whatever that means. And given that creativity and deliberation are unique powers of the ego, then your unconscious must also be an ego. That is my argument – and it requires no reference to neurological science."
And yet, by your own admission above, a reference to neurological science may invalidate your arguments about the need for an "unconscious" and for an "other ego". (That is also why you now flee from neurological references despite originally insisting on them.)
This demonstrates that the logical entailments which you presume, do not in fact exist: if creativity and newness in sleeping dreams logically entail the existence of an "unconscious" and an "other ego" (as you erroneously claim), then such a PURELY LOGICAL proposition must hold true regardless of the introduction of auxilliary empirical propositions about neurons.
If I am the creative agent who creates new things while in a state of waking consciousness, why can't I also be the ego who creates new things in the state of consciousness which corresponds to sleeping dreams? You keep overlooking the fact that in both states I exist as an ego and possess consciousness. If an idea or a song or the answer to a clever and imaginative crossword puzzle clue can occur to me in waking life, or in waking life I can close my eyes and creatively visualize some new scene, then surely this can occur in sleeping dreams as well (as indeed, it does), without the ludicrous presumption of an "other ego" creating my dreams (perhaps the traditional Sandman, sprinkling fairy dust over my sleeping form).
As for discussions of metaphysical concepts necessary to replace the principles of mechanistic materialism conventionally used to describe the origins and operations of so-called natural events, you clearly lack both the imagination and intellectual integrity to make such a conversation appealing.
I will be adding you to my ignore list so that I need not be irritated by your inanities and by your seemingly malicious misrepresentations and distortions of my arguments.
Originally posted by vistesdIf your universe is figment of your imagination, reality must from time
[b]I DO think that my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination. I'm the only sentient being in it.
Of course, since my universe is (in one sense or another) a figment of my imagination, you are not a sentient being in it. And since my consciousness is neither altered nor impaired (how could that possibly be, since my consciou ...[text shortened]... no argument, except as I myself generate for my own amusement. My universe is quite coherent.[/b]
to time shake your universe, that is when the clouds part and you get
a glimps of it. 🙂
Kelly