Why would you create? What would you do? What reality would you set up? Would you get bored? — Benj96

Exactly the same as it has been, is and will be.

If I was all that is then self-consciousness does not make sense since there is no self as opposed to other-self.
In that case the only thing to do is create a "game" where an entity has the ability to become self-conscious thus I become conscious of myself from the entities that I myself have created.

In that case the only thing to do is create a "game" where an entity has the ability to become self-conscious thus I become conscious of myself from the entities that I myself have created. — TheMadMan

Very interesting notion. I agree.

I would also likely create a "game" where I "forget" myself. Not only forget myself but fraction myself into multiple forms of self which could interact with one another.

If I was the only existant, I would break myself in into a billion pieces, none of which understand nor can perceive what its like to be the only existant and thus create a mystery for which to give my billion selves individual meaning and curiosity - Not knowing what they truly are nor what beliefs to ascribe to existence.

At best they could discuss and argue their individual perspectives.

I believe this is the an ancient Hindu story of creation (more or less).

I believe this is the an ancient Hindu story of creation (more or less). — TheMadMan

I'm not super well versed on hindu creation stories but as far as I know yes it seems to parallel them in many aspects. I'm interested to hear what some of the veteran/regular philosophers here make of the discussion, so we might find how yours and my perspective fall in respect to theirs.

I'd meditate in Meinong's jungle.

If you were the only thing that ever existed, and you were existence itself, capable of all existant forms possible, and you were neither born nor subject to death, what would you do with your endless time as an existant? — Benj96

I would call myself god and create a bunch of twits to pray to me. But I guess that after a long time being existent I might get bored and wipe everything away and maybe start again with something new.

I am so glad that I am not that existent thing.

I would call myself god and create a bunch of twits to pray to me. But I guess that after a long time being existent I might get bored and wipe everything away and maybe start again with something new. — Sir2u

I think as that existant I would also get immeasurably bored and go out of my mind after a time. Even narcissism/god complex would get super old/unexciting

If I couldn't destroy myself, I'd have no other choice but to give myself intermittent amnesia or the illusion of destruction/finality, so I can at least trick myself into thinking my existence was limited/finite and my thus time precious.

Everything would at least feel new and fresh with amnesia, even if I had already done those things a thousand times before. Constant novelty and constant need to be entertained.

Create a film, book, song, watch, read, listen to it. Get tired of it. Create a new one. Repeat.

Like pandeity, I would become an existant – dissipating – not-I. :fire:

yeah, "becoming" is always tied a simultaneous "unbecoming" I guess.

Like when you "destroy" a house you "create" a pile of rubble from the same stuff.

Or the sea creates a wave, it rolls, and then the wave disappears into the sea again. But the sea and the wave are essentially the same existant. They're only defined or made distinct "existants" by the different behaviour and size of the wave compared to the sea. With enough energy (from an asteroid say) perhaps the entire sea might become a wave in which case the distinction or differential definition is abolished.

So definitions form and dissolve when we change how we define things or relate to them. Does the "self" change when you decide to redefine it?

Definition is the act of constructing separations, the act of making ourselves aware of differences. And the opposite of defining things is union, or making ourself aware of the connection, links or similarities.

I find this interesting. Destruction and creation occurring mutually and simultaneously. In that sense there is only "change" from one existant to another. And definition is made using change.

I sometimes wonder if birth and death are another one of these becoming and unbecomings.

Where does the "I" link in to all of this?

Does your sense of self (your self awareness or identity) disappear when you die? Or does the self that you sense disappear when it dies, and the "I" - the conscious component continues in some other form?

This has been the big question of so many spiritual practises, philosophies and religions, and the hard problem of consciousness in neuroscience.

I'd meditate in Meinong's jungle. — Ying

I hadn't come across this term before I had to look it up.

So as far as I gather the jungle is the holder or place where "non-existant objects" are contained? Am I getting that correctly?

Is this in a sense than like imagination? Like a dimension in which impossible objects can be conceived that wouldn't otherwise be feasible in physical reality?

I hadn't come across this term before I had to look it up.

So as far as I gather the jungle is the holder or place where "non-existant objects" are contained? Am I getting that correctly? — Benj96

Yes - sort of. Meinong had a very peculiar ontology Wikpedia explains it thusly:

"Certain objects can exist (mountains, birds, etc.); others cannot in principle ever exist, such as the objects of mathematics (numbers, theorems, etc.): such objects simply subsist. Finally, a third class of objects cannot even subsist, such as impossible objects (e.g. square circle, wooden iron, etc.). Being-given is not a minimal mode of being, because it is not a mode of being at all. Rather, to be "given" is just to be an object. Being-given, termed "absistence" by J. N. Findlay, is better thought of as a mode of non-being than as a mode of being.[24] Absistence, unlike existence and subsistence, does not have a negation; everything absists. (Note that all objects absist, while some subset of these subsist, of which a yet-smaller subset exist.) The result that everything absists allows Meinong to deal with our ability to affirm the non-being (Nichtsein) of an object. Its absistence is evidenced by our act of intending it, which is logically prior to our denying that it has being."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexius_Meinong

According to the definitions given, Meinongs jungle is a collection of non-existent objects, using the peculiar definition of "exist", Meinong used. So, in Meinongs jungle, you have unicorns (unicorns don't exist but have one horn), but also hornless unicorns (hornless unicorns absist there). As you an see, Meinongs ontology has many peculiarities. I don't advocate his philosophy or anything but I find the jungle fun to think about.

Is this in a sense than like imagination? Like a dimension in which impossible objects can be conceived that wouldn't otherwise be feasible in physical reality?

Not really. Here, a short story I wrote with the help of Bing Chat which illustrates the strangeness of the jungle:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/793322

interesting it seems like a dimension where anything goes including contradictions that couldn't exist in the physical realm. Paradox heaven. Insensible sensibility. Illogical logics.

I enjoyed the story where the married bachelor was in a marriage with his simultaneous mother, sister and daughter all of which are non existant.

But for me, this space/dimension can be satisfied by imagination - a non local, non physical dimension where concepts, even conflicting ones, can exist as non physical existants - thoughts.

The jungle seems truly chaotic. No rules. No consistency. The "mad hatters teaparty"

As far as "existence" as a whole goes, it must include the jungle, because it can be conceived of, can be communicated, and thus experienced internally as an idea or imagined universe with the specific dynamics of such a place.

Are thoughts non physical existants? Are thoughts non objective objects? Does the thoughtscape exist? Is there existant content in that space?

I think so.

Here's a fun observation. The hypothetical "god" of Meinongs jungle is the omnipotent paradox. Go figure.

Does your sense of self (your self awareness or identity) disappear when you die? Or does the self that you sense disappear when it dies, and the "I" - the conscious component continues in some other form? — Benj96

The way I see it: the you is the music, the brain is the orchestra; when the orchestra stops playing and disbands, the music is over, that is, you cease being you – the capacity of self-referring "I" (i.e. melody) is lost – at brain death. I'm not aware of any compelling public evidence to the contrary. :death: :flower:

Would you get bored of yourself? — Benj96

Almost immediately; within an eon or two. But I don't know where i would get the idea of creating or fragmenting or anything else - I would have nobody to learn from and nothing to learn. Just me and a whole bunch of nothing. I'd probably flip out.

. Just me and a whole bunch of nothing. I'd probably flip out — Vera Mont

Haha well true if its just you where do you even begin creating something "else". Really you could only create "elseness" from yourself. Reform or reshape what you are into distinguishable "things" that are quantitatively and qualitatively different - ie fractions.

I wonder about this hypothetical state of being sometimes also hence the OP, but I think if one is "aware" , even in the most primitive/primordial sense, and lonely, or wanting, or just get bored, I imagine you'd have an "imagination" of some form, and a way to qualify what's missing (what loneliness is and how to reduce it relativistically).

Make 2 objects and now they are "together". Advance/evolve that complexity of "couples" and eventually you have "couples" and reproduction, sex, community, all the stuff that might make one at least "feel" less lonely or at least distracted from it/preoccupied.

Objects? There aren't any in the thought experiment. We can imagine something like that, because we have some basis for imagining and material to imagine from. Look at all the mythical creatures. What do they have in common? They're made up by recombining or extrapolating creatures that exist. We can imagine out of reality as we witness and experience it. A reality we didn't make, that was here - present, vital, vivid and varied - before 'we' arrived on the scene. I can't imagine anything entirely original, out of nothing. Can you?
(ps read the god thing)