Animus, Change and Affect

animus, change and affect:

let us begin with an aside, as to the schizophrenic patient who "hears voices", when he has calmed down, been released from mental hospital, it would seem that medical science, in the form of a patient psychiatrist, who it seems, always loves to ask the question, "do you still hear voices?" at every meeting, explains that the "wiring" in your brain has misfired or such, and that these are, in fact, hallucinations, not that you actually hear anyone else really talking to you. well, in retrospect, this just smacks of a form of solipsism, it is put that you couldn't possibly be talking to anyone else, it's all in your own mind, well, by induction, how could i possibly be talking to him, or her? what if the psychiatrist is just a "hallucination"?

i have posited, repetitively, i'm afraid, about the fundamental fixed, motionless solidity of reality, least bits of matter, which i will refer to as a "bit" henceforth, and so on. the sense of time is derived from the changes of state that bits "experience". change is fundamental, time could be described as an "experience". again, as i have repetitively stated before, "time" can thus flow in many directions at the bit level, "forwards", "backwards", "left", "right", etc., a bit can "re-experience" a previous state, e.g. a visual bit has been red before, it isn't now, but it will be again, just blink.

but to call it "matter", i have realized, is to convey as sense of "non-person". what if, so to speak, everything is "alive", has an "animus" or personality? do we all like each other? do we not copy those whom we do and refuse to mimic those we do not? when my neighbour was likeable, i copied him, when he wasn't, i didn't. so thus, sometimes, when a neighbouring bit of the same type is agreeable, its "affect" on the bit's change of state is powerful, when it is alien, or hostile even, its affect is not and the bit doesn't follow its neighbour's change of state. that is to say, bits possess a type of personal reaction to their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

How to Interpret the World as Simulation

how to interpret the world as simulation:

a priori, we know that physical motion is not real. we do not really move. what we see is our surroundings move relative to us. we do not actually move relative to our surroundings. we each are a fixed point of consciousness inside each our own vision orb, so to speak.

the universe is not real.

it is naïve to think that what it seems is actuality. how would moving vision orbs not collide with each other and not suffer the injury of entangling vision? how could they occupy the same space, for that matter?

as for the problem of other minds...

a priori, what is far away is not me, as far as my point of consciousness is concerned. whether each person's consciousness is made of same matter is another question. are there different forms of consciousness?

a priori, propagation of states of matter exists. a priori, computation exists. a priori, magnification exists.

we are billions of points of consciousness, forever fixed in real space. this natural computer of reality sorts out all the images of what we see in the world and sends them to us through the viaducts of real space in miniature form and through the workings of our own minds, these are expanded and rendered in our own vision orbs.

"i'm not really standing 3 feet away from you. i'm 3 trillion light years away! what you see is a hologram 3 feet in front of you."

CLEARCHARGE