I’ll not down vote you but I will give you the rhetoric.
You could argue we are just constantly hallucinating but that’s circular logic because we know that we all have a shared perceived reality and that people are capable of hallucinating. That is, we define the word hallucinate by its relation to what we would all colloquially refer to as reality.
If you argue that all you do is hallucinate then the word loses all meaning. For example, I may see things that are not actually there and also see things that do exist, how would one draw a distinction if “all our brain is doing is hallucinating?”
I think it’s a fun thought experiment, you know, akin to the shadows on the wall in Plato’s allegory of the cave, but ultimately you’d be driven to madness if truly there was no way to tell what was real.
You are assuming what most people assume, as you say to not go mad, but that doesn’t prove anything. We cannot even prove there are other concious people.
The main lines from there are roughly:
The world exist as we perceive it
We live in a simulation
We are a Boltzmann brain
Hence the “the brain is just s lump of fat, hallucinating” (I didn’t invent the phrase BTW, hence my reaction to people just being angry about it) it’s hallucinating consciousness. It gets blips from nerves, and that’s about it. How can it not hallucinate it’s imagined world?
As for going mad, you have several schools of philosophy dealing with the meaninglessness of existance; nihilism, existentialism and absurdism.
You can also reject all that and believe there is some god so that you don’t need to figure anything out at all.
It’s early in the morning, I might have answered questions that were not there and missed others.
Anybody can argue anything, doesn’t make it inherently valid.
Lets spell it out: all our brain is doing is hallucinating.
Just a fun fact, whoosh I guess.
Edit: downvotes by angry people without rhetoric?
I’ll not down vote you but I will give you the rhetoric.
You could argue we are just constantly hallucinating but that’s circular logic because we know that we all have a shared perceived reality and that people are capable of hallucinating. That is, we define the word hallucinate by its relation to what we would all colloquially refer to as reality.
If you argue that all you do is hallucinate then the word loses all meaning. For example, I may see things that are not actually there and also see things that do exist, how would one draw a distinction if “all our brain is doing is hallucinating?”
I think it’s a fun thought experiment, you know, akin to the shadows on the wall in Plato’s allegory of the cave, but ultimately you’d be driven to madness if truly there was no way to tell what was real.
Thank you.
You are assuming what most people assume, as you say to not go mad, but that doesn’t prove anything. We cannot even prove there are other concious people.
The main lines from there are roughly:
The world exist as we perceive it
We live in a simulation
We are a Boltzmann brain
Hence the “the brain is just s lump of fat, hallucinating” (I didn’t invent the phrase BTW, hence my reaction to people just being angry about it) it’s hallucinating consciousness. It gets blips from nerves, and that’s about it. How can it not hallucinate it’s imagined world?
As for going mad, you have several schools of philosophy dealing with the meaninglessness of existance; nihilism, existentialism and absurdism.
You can also reject all that and believe there is some god so that you don’t need to figure anything out at all.
It’s early in the morning, I might have answered questions that were not there and missed others.
Have a great day!
There’s big M’lady energy coming from this comment.
"Mlady i am going insane… "