45 replies to this topic

[The Past Recedes]

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but there isn't a thread for this kind of thing. I am interested in the thoughts and ideas of fellow fans of John so here we can discuss anything you find worthy of philisophical comment and/or discussion.

To kick off, maybe some ideas on the title question?

It's quite a head-scratcher

[freyr]

The Past Recedes, on Jan 17 2010, 03:08 AM, said:

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but there isn't a thread for this kind of thing. I am interested in the thoughts and ideas of fellow fans of John so here we can discuss anything you find worthy of philisophical comment and/or discussion.

To kick off, maybe some ideas on the title question?

It's quite a head-scratcher

It depends on how you define sound. If sound is that which is "heard" then no, the tree does not make a sound by definition.

Sound is a creation generated by the brain. No brain, then no sound. The brain interprets and translates physical stimuli into a sound.

You could argue that the physical vibrations and the actual sound are identical, but I would say they are definitely not identical. If they were identical, then a deaf person could appreciate an album vibrating out of speakers. But it's quite clear that if your ears aren't working at all, then vibrations aren't going to become sounds. Vibrations are quite a bit different then what the brain does with those vibrations.

You could push this inquiry even deeper by asking:

"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist?"

what do you think?

[The Past Recedes]

Freyr, on Jan 17 2010, 05:43 AM, said:

The Past Recedes, on Jan 17 2010, 03:08 AM, said:

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong but there isn't a thread for this kind of thing. I am interested in the thoughts and ideas of fellow fans of John so here we can discuss anything you find worthy of philisophical comment and/or discussion.

To kick off, maybe some ideas on the title question?

It's quite a head-scratcher

It depends on how you define sound. If sound is that which is "heard" then no, the tree does not make a sound by definition.

Sound is a creation generated by the brain. No brain, then no sound. The brain interprets and translates physical stimuli into a sound.

You could argue that the physical vibrations and the actual sound are identical, but I would say they are definitely not identical. If they were identical, then a deaf person could appreciate an album vibrating out of speakers. But it's quite clear that if your ears aren't working at all, then vibrations aren't going to become sounds. Vibrations are quite a bit different then what the brain does with those vibrations.

You could push this inquiry even deeper by asking:

"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist?"

what do you think?

Great answer.

So, what do I think?

I think that the answer to this is subjective. Meaning your point of view will answer the question for you. It's like Schrödinger's cat (here), just becuase it is not witnessed by the mind, does it not exist?

But above all, I think that the importance of the question itself outweighs the importance of an answer, because I think the purpose of the question is to challenge the mind, not to get a definitive answer.

Do we have any more views?

[Bobster]

I'd say that in that case tings would exist between themselves but not for anyone else. Things don't really have minds, but in relation to themselves something else exists, too. I have no idea if this makes any sense, but what the hell


And I've had a theory for a long time and I think that this is the time and the place to reveal it.

My theory is that there is no PRESENT, or FUTURE, only the PAST... since, if you look at it from the mathematical point of view, every piece can be divided into smaller pieces, and each one of them can be divided into even smaller pieces, and that goes into infinity. That said, there isn't anything to hold on to RIGHT NOW as nothing lasts, and you can't expect something that isn't even here (can't expect the FUTURE, if there's no PRESENT). The most logical thing would be that if there is no present and no future, then surely the PAST can't exist either, but it does actually. How? I have no idea.

[The Past Recedes]

Libero Marconi, on Jan 17 2010, 07:38 PM, said:

I'd say that in that case tings would exist between themselves but not for anyone else. Things don't really have minds, but in relation to themselves something else exists, too. I have no idea if this makes any sense, but what the hell


And I've had a theory for a long time and I think that this is the time and the place to reveal it.

My theory is that there is no PRESENT, or FUTURE, only the PAST... since, if you look at it from the mathematical point of view, every piece can be divided into smaller pieces, and each one of them can be divided into even smaller pieces, and that goes into infinity. That said, there isn't anything to hold on to RIGHT NOW as nothing lasts, and you can't expect something that isn't even here (can't expect the FUTURE, if there's no PRESENT). The most logical thing would be that if there is no present and no future, then surely the PAST can't exist either, but it does actually. How? I have no idea.

It's an interesting concept, that only the past exists. But then you might question what the past is. I mean, what exactly is it? Surely the past is made up of thoughts, like my past would be different to your past. The effects of the past can be seen in a physical sense; such as the growth of a child into an adult or the blossoming of a flower.

I think that the past exists, as does the future and the present; but the present is what is tangible, the only thing we can change is the here and now, the present is the only moment we can act. The future is perhaps the strangest phenomina, becuase it is the only one of the three which is out of reach (unintentional reference to John) and which is uncertain.

But maybe a different state of mind, rather than sheer logic alone, is required in order to unravel these mysteries.


It would be nice to hear some more views

[crohno]

i don't know if this this is worth posting it but i have this weird theory that we can't really exist, since we can look at ourselves from an outsider point of view we can't really be sure that we exist, can we? i mean you can't study or prove the existence of something if you are inside that something, anyone who had study physics or maths will understand this(sorry i don't mean to insult people who hadn't study but i'm really awfull at explaining things). Also if you start to think about mathematically we can't exist, i mean, what are the chances of a big bang happening? what's the chances of a planet to be created at the necessary distance of a star in order not to melt or cool down, the even if that hapens what are the chances of that planet to create an atmosphere, and then again if that happens what are the chances that living being are created, and then what are the chances of this beings to evolve into complex macroscopic animals and then what are the chances that this animals develop conciousness...? you see from a phyiscal point of view we cant demostrate that we exist, and from a mathematical point of view the chances of us actually existing are so small, and when i mean small i mean reaaaly small, that we can't exist... it's quite scary and sad if you think about it

[The Past Recedes]

crohno, on Jan 18 2010, 11:54 PM, said:

i don't know if this this is worth posting it but i have this weird theory that we can't really exist, since we can look at ourselves from an outsider point of view we can't really be sure that we exist, can we? i mean you can't study or prove the existence of something if you are inside that something, anyone who had study physics or maths will understand this(sorry i don't mean to insult people who hadn't study but i'm really awfull at explaining things). Also if you start to think about mathematically we can't exist, i mean, what are the chances of a big bang happening? what's the chances of a planet to be created at the necessary distance of a star in order not to melt or cool down, the even if that hapens what are the chances of that planet to create an atmosphere, and then again if that happens what are the chances that living being are created, and then what are the chances of this beings to evolve into complex macroscopic animals and then what are the chances that this animals develop conciousness...? you see from a phyiscal point of view we cant demostrate that we exist, and from a mathematical point of view the chances of us actually existing are so small, and when i mean small i mean reaaaly small, that we can't exist... it's quite scary and sad if you think about it

You're right that we look out into the world and perceive things as we see them, but simply by doing this act, isn't that proof of our existance? Isn't the fact that we are thinking, communicating, isn't that proof?

The point about the chances of our world being here is a good one, but it is looked at in a mathmatical sense; maybe to understand it we need to look at it differently. Of course, an alternative to the big bang theory is that there is a higher power, or a god. I think it would be foolish to overlook the possibility of a god, the same as it would be foolish to overlook the big bang theory.

If the big bang theory is correct, as you suggest, I fail to see how it would be sad, or even scary; but wouldn't that just make life seem so much more precious?

I'm really happy with the responses so far...and all you lurkers, come on and contribute!! You have something to say, even if you don't think you do.

[Licou]

I thought that physics and maths had shown that there was a very high chance of other life on other planets, almost certain because the universe is so huge so its not that mad that we exist because someones got to exist if anything exists. I see what you mean though.
In a way you could also say that everythings so complicated that we must exist because it would be impossible to make up the earth and how the universe works.
It could be like the last part on the empyrean, for something not to exist something has to exist in the first place i think or some idea of existence has to be. For something to be not real something has to be real. I cant remember exactly what john says.

[freyr]

crohno, on Jan 19 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

i don't know if this this is worth posting it but i have this weird theory that we can't really exist, since we can look at ourselves from an outsider point of view we can't really be sure that we exist, can we?

Before you ask this question, you have to clearly define what you mean by exist.

For me, I equate existence with appearance. Things certainly appear, therefore they exist.

Quote

I mean you can't study or prove the existence of something if you are inside that something,

By looking in a mirror, I can see my body from the outside. I can see that I exist by looking at myself. By writing down My thoughts, I can stand outside of my thoughts and study them. By expressing my emotions with music, I can stand outside of my emotions.

I exist.

However, I am saying I exist only because I have defined what exist means. To exist means to appear. Maybe you have a better definition?

Another way to define existence is that which which has real boundaries. Does the self actually have inherently real boundaries?

I say all boundaries are illusory. So in this context, we don't really exist as separate things, there is only an undivided unity, which is infinite. And the infinite in it's entirety cannot appear, so therefore our true nature cannot actually be perceivable, and therefore the truth of what we are cannot exist in the sense that it can't appear. Also, our true nature doesn't have any real boundaries, so in that sense, we don't exist either. But that doesn't mean we are nothing! Truth is beyond dualistic thinking. What you truly are doesn't exist, but it doesn't "not exist" either. Beyond duality.

Quote

anyone who had study physics or maths will understand this(sorry i don't mean to insult people who hadn't study but i'm really awfull at explaining things). Also if you start to think about mathematically we can't exist, I mean, what are the chances of a big bang happening? What's the chances of a planet to be created at the necessary distance of a star in order not to melt or cool down, the even if that hapens what are the chances of that planet to create an atmosphere, and then again if that happens what are the chances that living being are created, and then what are the chances of this beings to evolve into complex macroscopic animals and then what are the chances that this animals develop conciousness...? you see from a phyiscal point of view we cant demostrate that we exist, and from a mathematical point of view the chances of us actually existing are so small, and when i mean small i mean reaaaly small, that we can't exist... it's quite scary and sad if you think about it

What's the big deal about the improbable? In an infinite universe, the chances of unlikely things happening are quite likely. You're right though about the scary and sad part, because a Godless universe that forms out of cause and effect and chance, is rather stark and hard for some people to swallow.

[crohno]

Licou, on Jan 19 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

for something not to exist something has to exist in the first place

ii have never thought it this way but i can see your point and it's quite logical, i really think you're right here

freyr said:

Before you ask this question, you have to clearly define what you mean by exist.

For me, I equate existence with appearance. Things certainly appear, therefore they exist

I'm really not sure what to exist actually mean, but i have to disagree with you here(sorry) something can appear but not exist, things such as dreams or deilussions(i'm not quite sure how it's spell) because they're not real, but now that i think about it i'm limiting what exist to what it's real, and reality it's subjective, i mean just because only one person see it it doesn't mean it isn't real does it? when i dream it feels real and for(to put an example) a schizophrenic(again sorry about the spell) their deilussions may seem as real as my cup of coffee is for me right now, therefor, are they real? so at the end i can't know what is real and what it's not in a whole but know what is real for ourselves. So why I have to limit existing things to real things? because if something it's not real it can't actually exist, I mean dreams exist but they're not real are they? well actually yes, because dreams happens, therefor are real, therefor exist, what t isn't real it the dream itself but not the actual dreaming(me flying for example) i hope this make some sense

freyr said:

By looking in a mirror, I can see my body from the outside. I can see that I exist by looking at myself. By writing down My thoughts, I can stand outside of my thoughts and study them. By expressing my emotions with music, I can stand outside of my emotions.

I'm sorry but i think you can't, you could never stand outside of your emotions, even though you hear it from your music you're not standing outside of them, the same with your thoughts or your body. They're still a part of you it doesn't matter if they are outside your psyche. You can understand it better writing them down, but you could never stand outside of them

The Past Recedes said:

I think it would be foolish to overlook the possibility of a god, the same as it would be foolish to overlook the big bang theory.

buff this is quite hard to answer but it actually deppends on what you consider God... but for instance there're plenty of evidence of evidence for the big bang and none for God(if you think of god as an iconoclast thing) however lately i start thinking of god as more of a energy kind of thing(sorry if this doesn't make any sense) wich means that your answer it's quite right, so you're right or wrong(from my point of view) based on you definition of God.


PS: sorry if this is a little bit too long, i didn't mean to do it this long.

[freyr]

"chronos" said:

freyr said:

Before you ask this question, you have to clearly define what you mean by exist.

For me, I equate existence with appearance. Things certainly appear, therefore they exist

I'm really not sure what to exist actually mean, but i have to disagree with you here(sorry) something can appear but not exist, things such as dreams or delusions

Then you are disagreeing with the way I have defined exist. I defined exist as that which appears, so if I have a dream about a turtle, then the turtle exists as an appearance.

But I also defined exist as that which has actual, objectively real boundaries. So in the context of my second definition, the turtle doesn't actually exist, because it's a creation of my mind. Much like music doesn't really exist, because it's just our brain translating vibrations.

Quote

but now that i think about it i'm limiting what exist to what it's real, and reality it's subjective, i mean just because only one person see it it doesn't mean it isn't real does it? when i dream it feels real

They are real appearances. And they exist insofar as appearances exist.

Quote

and for(to put an example) a schizophrenic(again sorry about the spell) their deilussions may seem as real as my cup of coffee is for me right now, therefor, are they real?

depends on how you define real.

Quote

I mean dreams exist but they're not real are they? well actually yes, because dreams happens, therefor are real, therefor exist, what t isn't real it the dream itself but not the actual dreaming(me flying for example) i hope this make some sense

It's important that you define the key words that you are using. For instance, until you define real, it's not going to be very clear what you mean.

Quote

freyr said:

By looking in a mirror, I can see my body from the outside. I can see that I exist by looking at myself. By writing down My thoughts, I can stand outside of my thoughts and study them. By expressing my emotions with music, I can stand outside of my emotions.

I'm sorry but i think you can't, you could never stand outside of your emotions, even though you hear it from your music you're not standing outside of them, the same with your thoughts or your body. They're still a part of you it doesn't matter if they are outside your psyche. You can understand it better writing them down, but you could never stand outside of them

Ok, I agree with that, I guess. I do think you can stand outside of your thoughts to an extent. We often think in words, so we can definitely put that aspect of ourselves down on paper. We also have non-verbal visual thoughts, and so to an extent we can put these down on paper or on a computer. But there is a limit. I often have some very strange thought-processes that I don't think could ever be expressed outside of my mind. So there is a limit, for sure.

[hope]

I'm going to start with the proposition [or is it contention, I don't know?] that perception is reality.

Based purely from this standpoint, the answer to the question posed by Freyr in post #2 -"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist"? - would be no. If perception comes from the mind and perception is reality, then logically speaking, the answer must be no. Working from this same perspective, the answer to the question posed by this thread, must also be no. It all just depends on your starting point.

In response to crohnos's questioning of dreams/delusions and to what extent they are "real" or actually exist, I would argue that if perception is reality, then dreams are definitely real to the extent that they exist in our subconscious mind. Likewise, delusions are real because they exist in the mind of the person who is having them. What's real to us then is subjective and based on our perception, which differs to at least some extent, from person to person.

We can gain greater understanding, insight or awareness of our thoughts and emotions by writing them down, talking them out with someone or thinking them through, but I don't think it's possible for anyone to be purely objective. Freyr, you speak about being able to "stand outside" your thoughts and emotions, and I guess this is sort of what you mean. We can definitely become more self-aware and more objective, I just don't believe that total objectivity or total separation/detachment from self is really possible. For example, when we are trying to write something in an objective way and are very aware of our own predispositions, biases, preferences and so forth, the best we can hope for is a tempered objectivity. Who we are can't help but intrude on what we think and say to some extent, even when we try and leave ourselves out of it!

Writing things down does help to free up more space in the brain for other things though...and now that I've got all this out, I'm off to work. Have a good day/night everyone! : )

[The Past Recedes]

Licou, on Jan 19 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

For something to be not real something has to be real.

It's a really, for lack of a better word, lovely way of looking at things. This sentence alone makes clearer what seems quite complicated and obscure.

hope, on Jan 20 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

I'm going to start with the proposition [or is it contention, I don't know?] that perception is reality.

Based purely from this standpoint, the answer to the question posed by Freyr in post #2 -"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist"? - would be no. If perception comes from the mind and perception is reality, then logically speaking, the answer must be no. Working from this same perspective, the answer to the question posed by this thread, must also be no. It all just depends on your starting point.

In response to crohnos's questioning of dreams/delusions and to what extent they are "real" or actually exist, I would argue that if perception is reality, then dreams are definitely real to the extent that they exist in our subconscious mind. Likewise, delusions are real because they exist in the mind of the person who is having them. What's real to us then is subjective and based on our perception, which differs to at least some extent, from person to person.


Writing things down does help to free up more space in the brain for other things though...and now that I've got all this out, I'm off to work. Have a good day/night everyone! : )

Why does perception = existance though? Just becuase a person does not witness the existance of something, it doesn't exist?

The issue of perception is one of debate as we ALL know how our perceptions are sometimes wrong (brilliantly summed up by John: "I don't know the real from what I thought I saw"), so if you think you saw something, that wasn't real, does this now exist, even though what you saw wasn't real?

And I agree with you on the writing of things, it really is very therapeutic. Have a nice day to you too!

[Iva]

I don't know if this would, according to classic classifications, make me a nichilist, pessimist, dadaist or something else...

...but when a tree falls in a forest, it's either a homicide or a suicide. And someone or some other tree weeps for it. If you loved the tree that died, you'll hear the cry.

[freyr]

The Past Recedes, on Jan 20 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

The issue of perception is one of debate as we ALL know how our perceptions are sometimes wrong

Hmmm, but.... is it really our perceptions that are wrong? I don't think it's our perceptions that our wrong, but rather it's the conclusions we make about (and the meaning we attribute to) those perceptions. For instance, I can actually pick up a cookie and taste it - however, if I were to use an electron microscope on the cookie, the cookie in fact is not a cookie! According to the electron microscope, the cookie is in fact actually a network of electrons bound by charges of protons and neutrons, driven by other quantum particles, etc.

However, if you pull your eyes away from the electron microscope and look at it normally again, it becomes a cookie again.

So which perception is the right perception? The truth is that all perceptions are neither right or wrong.

Another example, I might meet a girl who I fall in love with. She appears so kind and loving. However, after assuming many things about my pleasant future with her, the next month she leaves town with my credit cards. Why did I assume my future with her was going to be so great? Did I actually experience the future? No, I only experienced the moment, and thus was not warranted to make any conclusions about the future.

That's the problem with us humans, we build up our hopes, expectations and futures around things which are transient in nature, rather than permanent.

Quote

(brilliantly summed up by John: "I don't know the real from what I thought I saw"), so if you think you saw something, that wasn't real, does this now exist, even though what you saw wasn't real?

What do you mean by real? Like I said to Crhono, you have to be clear on what you mean by the word real before we start talking about it.

I say that the word real means: having distinct objective boundaries OR that which appears. Either definition works, depending on the context.

I don't believe boundaries actually exist, because those boundaries would need their own boundaries, and those boundaries would need their own boundaries and so you would have an infinite regression.

[The Past Recedes]

Freyr, on Jan 20 2010, 10:16 PM, said:

The Past Recedes, on Jan 20 2010, 11:33 PM, said:

The issue of perception is one of debate as we ALL know how our perceptions are sometimes wrong

Hmmm, but.... is it really our perceptions that are wrong? I don't think it's our perceptions that our wrong, but rather it's the conclusions we make about (and the meaning we attribute to) those perceptions. For instance, I can actually pick up a cookie and taste it - however, if I were to use an electron microscope on the cookie, the cookie in fact is not a cookie! According to the electron microscope, the cookie is in fact actually a network of electrons bound by charges of protons and neutrons, driven by other quantum particles, etc.

However, if you pull your eyes away from the electron microscope and look at it normally again, it becomes a cookie again.

So which perception is the right perception? The truth is that all perceptions are neither right or wrong.

Another example, I might meet a girl who I fall in love with. She appears so kind and loving. However, after assuming many things about my pleasant future with her, the next month she leaves town with my credit cards. Why did I assume my future with her was going to be so great? Did I actually experience the future? No, I only experienced the moment, and thus was not warranted to make any conclusions about the future.

That's the problem with us humans, we build up our hopes, expectations and futures around things which are transient in nature, rather than permanent.

Quote

(brilliantly summed up by John: "I don't know the real from what I thought I saw"), so if you think you saw something, that wasn't real, does this now exist, even though what you saw wasn't real?

What do you mean by real? Like I said to Crhono, you have to be clear on what you mean by the word real before we start talking about it.

I say that the word real means: having distinct objective boundaries.

I don't believe boundaries actually exist, because those boundaries would need their own boundaries, and those boundaries would need their own boundaries and so you would have an infinite regression.

Why do we have to have a definition of 'real'? My definition might be different to yours, John's, someone elses; so, as previously said, it's all subjective.

But then you go on to say you don't belive boundries exist; so you mean to say, by your own admission, that nothing is 'real'?

[freyr]

The Past Recedes, on Jan 21 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

Why do we have to have a definition of 'real'? .

If you want to ask if something is real or not, then you need to first define what real means, otherwise your question is meaningless.

It's kind of like looking at a house you want to buy and wondering if it has good trusses. You're never going to figure this out unless you know what trusses actually are. Find out what trusses actually are before you ask whether or not they are good, otherwise you'll never figure it out. Likewise, find out what real means before you ask whether or not something is real.

Quote

But then you go on to say you don't belive boundries exist; so you mean to say, by your own admission, that nothing is 'real'?

It depends on the context of the discussion. If by real we mean "having objective boundaries that exist independent of the mind" then it's true that all things are illusory.

However, I would also say that the only things real in life are the illusions.

If I look at the tip of a sharp needle, that is a real perception. And when I look at the tip of that needle through a microscope, it becomes a round, dull surface, with craters, like the surface of the moon.

Which perception is real? Both of the perceptions are real. Existence, in a certain context, is dealing with appearances as they arise.

[hope]

The Past Recedes, on Jan 21 2010, 08:03 AM, said:

Licou, on Jan 19 2010, 10:33 PM, said:

For something to be not real something has to be real.

It's a really, for lack of a better word, lovely way of looking at things. This sentence alone makes clearer what seems quite complicated and obscure.

hope, on Jan 20 2010, 08:16 PM, said:

I'm going to start with the proposition [or is it contention, I don't know?] that perception is reality.

Based purely from this standpoint, the answer to the question posed by Freyr in post #2 -"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist"? - would be no. If perception comes from the mind and perception is reality, then logically speaking, the answer must be no. Working from this same perspective, the answer to the question posed by this thread, must also be no. It all just depends on your starting point.

In response to crohnos's questioning of dreams/delusions and to what extent they are "real" or actually exist, I would argue that if perception is reality, then dreams are definitely real to the extent that they exist in our subconscious mind. Likewise, delusions are real because they exist in the mind of the person who is having them. What's real to us then is subjective and based on our perception, which differs to at least some extent, from person to person.


Writing things down does help to free up more space in the brain for other things though...and now that I've got all this out, I'm off to work. Have a good day/night everyone! : )

Why does perception = existance though? Just becuase a person does not witness the existance of something, it doesn't exist?

The issue of perception is one of debate as we ALL know how our perceptions are sometimes wrong (brilliantly summed up by John: "I don't know the real from what I thought I saw"), so if you think you saw something, that wasn't real, does this now exist, even though what you saw wasn't real?

And I agree with you on the writing of things, it really is very therapeutic. Have a nice day to you too!

Yeah, I can see that's a little problematic. I'll stick with perception = reality rather than existence then : / Keep the brain teasers coming though, I enjoy the mental challenge and hearing other people's points of view as well.

[The Past Recedes]

EDIT: I kinda messed up the quoting *shakes fist at lack of ability* so I'll paste what I originally posted:

Surely if I was looking at a house and didn't know what trusses were, I would not be wondering if this house had good one's. So I think that my giving a definition would be redundant, but I shall if you wish

My definition of 'real' is: something that is. I can't put it any other way, it just is, so thoughts, feelings, material things, people etc, are all real; because they just are. Then you could question whether it is because perception that I've concluded these things are real, so I suppose you would say that I believe that perception = real; which doesn't mean to say that what you don't perceive no longer exists, like the topic question asks.

I hope some of that makes sense, I'm quite tired this evening.

"only things real in life are the illusions." this seems like an oxymoron to me.

I don't think that looking at things from two perspectives form two perceptions, rather, I would say they just fuse together to make one brand new perception. So you perceive the needle to be both blunt, and sharp, depending on how you look at it.

Thanks for your contributions by the way, I'm really pleased.

[lindsey_rt]

Freyr, on Jan 17 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

"if there is no mind to perceive things, do things exist?"

Nope.

If one is never born, this is all really nothing. What we are is what makes everything exist. We are born into life, and we create this existence. We may as well die and just be nonexistent again, who knows? It's hard for me to have a concrete religion.

Life...it kills me, but it's so good. I will never understand it.

By the way, people, you all make interesting points. Thanks for being so thoughtful on this subject. John fans know what it's all about