Are you real?

I know I exist. But can I proof your existence? This might sound like a weird question, but I do think that is the main question of philosophy overall. I guess I first have to define what "existing" means. I see it as having input and output. I am well aware of the output of you, but can I proof the input? Well I can hook you up to a brain scanner and see your brain activities, but that could just be nature doing it's thing. Maybe my brain is just nature doing it's own thing, but why does this life fell so personal then? Ever wondered how you always wake up in the same body? That you were knocked out. Not there. And you returned. It's surreal actually. If I am the only thing that has input I am aware of how can the universe continue without me? When other people are the same as me, how would the universe be without me? Maybe like the time before my birth? But that could also just be made up for me. Is it all personalized. Do you truly see the world differently. Maybe this is just a waist of time. But I do feel my idea makes sense. I do know that I am, but I also know that my body is limited to what nature made. I am working on a blog and I feel so right, but also so very wrong. It's really funny actually. Maybe I shouldn't argue and just do what I kinda want to have as a result from my arguing, basically just living in a shed somewhere far away where I feel way closer to the things I do. I feel so far gone from what I actually consume. I eat meat, but I am probably too weak to even kill a chicken. Sorry for the drifting off. It is just a very important question to me that I have to discuss and challenge.

>I know I exist do you now? I've never seen a proof of my own existence that wasn't circular.

If you think therefore you are this overlooks the assumption that your thoughts are your own. Those thoughts have to come from somewhere.

>>66227 i think that it may be actually helpful to search the origin of "existing" (the actual word) in human culture. I don't know about that though. But knowing what is the root of such a word would probably explain some things as well, why we ended up creating such a concept. We started using words because we had a strong urge to communicate between us in order to survive. That's more or less how our consciousness grew in all these ages. So i think that we can't really explain concepts like these just by thinking with words, because they are just not the right tool and we would always end up making false concepts based on presumptions. Our brain functions with feelings and emotions that we can't describe, not with words, there is no "spoken communication" between our various human parts. Even the famous "i think, therefore i am", it's too vague if you think about it. >i do this, therefore "i am" but what is the meaning of "i am"? is it just a display of power over ourselves? Imagine if there was no such thing as "exist" or "I" or anything about the ego in the English language. Would we have the same problems then? Example: i am writing this trying to explain my thoughts and feelings trough the English language. But i am sure that some parts of this are not even what i really think, they don't convey the right feelings i want to because I am bounded by terminologies and words that i need to use. But that's what happens everyday, words are just a shortcut to explain concepts, it's like chatting to someone instead of talking in person. You can't explain to someone how you love him/her, you have to show it. You can't use only words for some things.

>>66231 >>66233 I left it out and only talked about it in my blog so sorry. But I do know I am and what I am are my memories. Want proof. Sometimes when I go to bed at like 5 am and some friend or alarm wakes me up at 6 am or something. I am like in this phase of sleep where you don't really remember soykaf. So I heard some friends or back in the days my mom telling me what I said in the morning. I have no memories of it tough. So was it actually me? I don't think so. Because that interaction never actually influenced me in any way. I have no idea what was speaking for me either tough. I also pointed out in my blog that the memories of others are my identity or rather what groups I am put into. That's how I interpret SEL ending. Lain still exists, but she became so abstract from any form. She is nothing to anyone, but Lain knows that she is god-like. Also if you wanna check out my work in progress blog here: 2gfta3adb6thifsoiskubt7jarachkxy5tpjg4e4epaeqohotxvapmyd.onion This is just a thought I have, but I am not sure if I actually believe it full on. I do believe in dualism or mind and body, because I do feel very special. Maybe there is no reasoning, maybe it is just love to myself and reality as a whole. Like >>66234 pointed out. Maybe I can't really communicate myself. I was thinking about that the past few minutes and well I thought about an universal language that isn't biased. English is considered as being the norm. Back in the days it was Latin. Not everyone understood Latin. But most people understood math, but it also was different. For example the Europeans didn't have any idea of the 0 till the Indians gave it to them. Also math isn't perfect at all as most scientists see it. So how can I communicate with no voice. I thought about art. Art whatever it is, might be the actual window to yourself. You can see yourself in your own art, but that might not be a guarantee for others because they will always put there own stuff in there. My brain is melting, but that is good. Also I run my site on a Pi 4 so please don't kill it thanks :D

>>66234 OP here again I forgot something. Ever heard of Dada? It's basically an art/comedy movement that basically overcame logical speech. They literally trough together random letters and got up to stage. But funnily enough people still understood some meaning from that. So it's not even what you say, but also how you say it. All languages have some rhythm to it..... wait did we just land at music? Did we just connect language to art again..... mhhh

>>66242 Yes the SEL ending is exactly about that and it also connects to what i said. In the end the only thing that convinces Lain that she is real is her love for Arisu, and Arisu memory of Lain. Arisu "shows" Lain that she is human with her heartbeat, she can't really explain it, and later lain hugs her to calm her down. No words can do that. (I just posted a similar answer on another thread haha) >I was thinking about an universal launguage If you think about it, we already have this language. It's when we make eye contact, when we make expressions, when we touch. When we make sounds (or music) and when we make art. Humans did this before creating words. Anyways I'll go check the blog! >>66243 Never heard of it seems really interesting (i also live in Europe so i can see some influences), and yeah i made a reference to art and music too xD it's all connected

>>66246 >If you think about it, we already have this language. It's when we make eye contact, when we make expressions, when we touch. When we make sounds (or music) and when we make art. Humans did this before creating words. These mean different things in different cultures -- might as well say "when we make noises with our tongues".

>>66227 i think it is not that much an important matter your existence rather than your capacity to experience life. your 'lebenswelt' is indeed inside that experiencing life you come across every single day, and it is reinforced in your interactions with other entities that can, indeed, experience life.

>>66227 I can't prove solipsism wrong, but my senses tell me that other people exist, and I have no reason to assume that my senses are unreliable. >>66231 You have to exist in order to wonder whether you exist.

>>66255 >You have to exist in order to wonder whether you exist. Says who? I can think of lots of things that don't exist, yet still perform actions. Unicorns fart rainbows. Why could I not be in this same class of things?

>>66256 You can put words together anyway you want without referring to anything existing, but the immediate experience of your own wondering, or of anything at all, proves your existence. Else, who's posing the question? If you can't tell the difference between your own self and unicorns, I don't know what to tell you.

>>66258 >but the immediate experience of your own wondering, or of anything at all, proves your existence. I doubt the existence of my experience, because I doubt there is anything to experience it. >Else, who's posing the question? A figment of your imagination, perhaps.

>>66227 I like the classic Buddhist approach. The self is a illusion generated by us mentally associating discrete subjective experiences which do not necessarily share a common identity. There is no 'you' or 'me,' simply a series of psychological and physical processes that are causally related, a bunch of feelings and sensations, but there is no core identity that holds them together which is stable over time and space. The self does not exist.

I do exist in your world since I can make practical effects (like writing this comment). I'm the cause of those effects.

>>66243 To me the question of communication fidelity is more interesting and approachable than the question of existence. Subjective experience is basically by definition not a quantifiable, measurable thing; people consider it separate from the information that exists in association with it. The data is not the experience and the experience is not the data. It's metaphysics and you can't do a lot with it. Communication is more tangible, even if there are problems measuring it. I feel a certain way, if I consider that feeling as data and state, can I observe that feeling in others? Can I express what I have felt and have that be recognized? How accurately? How unique are my thoughts and feelings underneath the standardized ways of exchange? What will the reaction be? Are there shared thoughts and feelings that cannot be expressed? Possibly the biggest thing that separates the self and the other is ambiguity. You don't know exactly what's there in another person's mind, and are affected by it less directly. But the distance is less than it seems; there's reason to think that much of what a person "knows" directly about their own mind is improvised, fill-in-the-blank hallucination. Our essential alienation from each other is in reality matched by alienation from ourselves, even if we are insulated from noticing. Can we reduce either form of alienation? The beauty of information is that it can be processed, and so this is a technical problem. It is something that can be worked at. Art is a great way of trying.

>>66227 OP here after a long ass time. I changed my mind on it quite a bit. I don't think it's that big of an issue. I still know that my memory is what I am, but I guess you can argue for subconscious memories like with PTSD and such. Possibly it is just your experiences that make you. This would also explain Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. If the universe is ever going, then all the circumstances would align and you would relive your life. If I did the smallest thing different... I would not be. The question here however is if destiny is a thing and I can't even do something different. Also I took the blog down as I prefer writing with pens now. Overall HTML is kinda stinky :)

Nothing is real > I do know that I am No >>>66231 >You have to exist in order to wonder whether you exist. Your perception that you are wondering is no more real than a butterfly that you perceived in a dream. You cannot say which perception is more valid than the other. I myself feel that i do not exist. I do not have free will and this self is an illusion.

>>I know I exist You lost me there, Lainon. I believe Socrates was a great disaster for western metaphysics conceptualization. Greek naturalists were going down the right road until that glitterboy came about and ruined philosophy forever with his moralist bullshit. No, Lainon, there is no God, there is no good or evil, the Universe is nature and nature is you. You are atoms in the Universe and the Universe is in constant flux. No one exists.

If I am going to beleive any person exists, then I am going to beleive I exist. After that, I may consider the existence of other people, but first myself. holy soykaffe u guys are retarded. If I do not exist then who the hell is thinking these thoughts and typing this and reading these posts ? It could all be hallucination ? Whos hallucination ? My hallucination! thats right, I exist. LOL

>>67956 > If I do not exist then who the hell is thinking these thoughts and typing this and reading these posts ? nobody is doing any of those things, of course. >It could all be hallucination ? Whos hallucination ? My hallucination! thats right, I exist. You could be a character in a story that has never been told. There is no conclusive proof that anything exists, because such conclusive proof would have to exist in the first place. This is the circular logic that existentialists (those who believe in existence) peddle. Don't listen to their lies, because their lies don't exist and neither do you. #denyexistence

>>67959 why would you bother arguing nothing exists if nothing exists? that you care to expend effort at all is proof something exists. there is something to gain from effort, and there must be something that exists in order to gain something.

>>67955 >No one exists. You lost me there. So you say that atoms are real and flux and such.... so doesn't that argue for existence... maybe not of a consciousness, but at least it proofs that something exists and humanity is part of that existence and I am human.... sure you can say that is illusion.... so what? I am still atoms so whatever is me is existent, maybe not the label "me" tho. Also a lie is still a thing. Same as how nothing is still something as it is different to the something. Democritus argued for matter AND void.

>>67961 >why would you bother arguing nothing exists if nothing exists? I have to expose the truth, which doesn't exist. >that you care to expend effort at all is proof something exists. I'm not spending any effort because I don't exist >there is something to gain from effort False >>67970 >Same as how nothing is still something as it is different to the something TMore circular logic from the existentialists. When will they realize that logic doesn't exist?

>>66227 Try to disprove my non-existance, simple as.

>>66227 How can you prove anything exists, really? Everything you perceive could be fake. Your eyes and your nerves could both be lying to you about the object you hold in your hands. What does anything even truely look like? Do we even see one thing the same way as another person? Do I perceive red the same way as you? There's ultimately no way to ever know.

>>68336 OP here. >Everything you perceive could be fake. This is a very platonic understanding of this all. There possibly is a material universe (doesn't really matter if there is or not for my argument), but all interaction with it is very biased, this however is reality. You cannot escape your own mind without dying. Let's say we are in a matrix, even tough there is no evidence and it already is a loosing argument, if I never break out of it (which you can't as I explained earlier) what would speak against the "fake" world as being real for ME? If you say the matrix is fake, well how do you know the world that simulates it isn't? You go down the Plato stuff again. It is real, because that's all I can experience and all I can see. I say yes to this life, I value it as the highest, I love my body, like lain at the end, I love myself, those "computer simulation" people are doing the same thing as the Christians. >>67982 >When will they realize that logic doesn't exist? Come drink wine with me oh Dionysus and I will show you what waters are dangerous. (If you don't like Apollo, maybe you did like my poetic intervention)

>>68343 >Let's say we are in a matrix, even tough there is no evidence and it already is a loosing argument, if I never break out of it (which you can't as I explained earlier) what would speak against the "fake" world as being real for ME? Oh yeah I totally agree, I've made the same argument to people many times. But in that case I'm not really sure what you're asking in the OP. Let's say nobody exists except for you. You're in a virtual reality and everyone else is AI. If reality is simply your perception, then anyone you perceive as existing is "real". There's no reason to treat us as anything except equally human to yourself. Everyone exists because you exist.

I think we should strictly differentiate between whether the reality exists and whether we could know the reality. Although the latter somewhat assumes the former, those are different. The former is ontological but the latter is epistemological.

Okay, why don't we test it like this. If I don't exist, it shouldn't hurt when I kick you in the balls.

> I know I exist. But can I proof your existence? > This might sound like a weird question, but I do think that is the main question of philosophy overall. > I guess I first have to define what "existing" means. I see it as having input and output. I am well aware of the output of you, but can I proof the input? Classic solipsistic musings, huh? You're diving deep into the rabbit hole of philosophical doubt. > Ever wondered how you always wake up in the same body? That you were knocked out. Not there. And you returned. It's surreal actually. > If I am the only thing that has input I am aware of how can the universe continue without me? When other people are the same as me, how would the universe be without me? Ah, the old "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" shtick. You're questioning your place in the grand scheme of things, pondering existence's subjective nature. > Maybe this is just a waist of time. But I do feel my idea makes sense. I do know that I am, but I also know that my body is limited to what nature made. > I am working on a blog and I feel so right, but also so very wrong. It's really funny actually. Battling with the paradox of purpose, huh? Finding meaning in the absurdity of it all, yet grappling with the gnawing uncertainty. > Maybe I shouldn't argue and just do what I kinda want to have as a result from my arguing, basically just living in a shed somewhere far away where I feel way closer to the things I do. I feel so far gone from what I actually consume. I eat meat, but I am probably too weak to even kill a chicken. Escapism, perhaps? Dreaming of a simpler, more connected existence away from the noise of modern life. Yet, confronting the reality of your limitations and the complexity of your choices. > Sorry for the drifting off. It is just a very important question to me that I have to discuss and challenge. You're grappling with fundamental questions that have haunted thinkers for ages. But remember, while introspection is one thing, dwelling too much in these mental mazes might just lead to a convoluted spiral.

>>66227 It doesn't matter. Solipsism is not any more rigorously determined.

If you want a book recommendation check out Regaining Realism by Charles Taylor/Hubert Dreyfus. The basic idea underlying your argument would be assuming you are able to abstract yourself out of reality, that you are some kind of second order alien observer consciousness that is able to get the outside view of yourself. The whole philosophical idea would be called representationalism, that you aren't interacting with reality but you are an alien consciousness that primarily interacts with your representations of reality while never actually getting contact with it. The crucial thing in getting out of that attitude is recognizing you simply aren't that. In order to articulate these ideas it requires being a person with a body in a culture with a certain history, you need to have language to articulate these concerns and you simply cannot have language that is able to articulate those ideas without that background. In order to even articulate things you first have to have the training, contact with others, and cultures that give you that language. Because of that you can't really rationally undermine those, you can't "get behind" language or reality. ALL you have is your fundamental basic contact with reality that you engage with through your cultural and linguistic background, you are a person rooted in the world, a culture, a language. There is no way out of that, there is no way to undermine that. Using that language to undermine your ability to have that language is just incoherent. You just aren't that independent. Your consciousness, your youness, your existence cannot be removed from your history. Your engagement with reality and with other beings is colored by that, and is only made intelligible by you accepting with gratitude that fundamental access to reality. You see disparate beings, kinds of things, that have different qualities and powers and effects. In order to do your questioning you have to be the sort-of-thing-that-can-question, you are a being with specific powers and you have the means of discerning others as well. Each thing has it's own sort of existence, it's being, and that's best understood by how they show forth their unique powers. Trees express their being by being-trees, having specific patterns for growth and reproduction, developing in such a way to have specific material qualities with specific causal powers. The treeness of a tree is what leads it to have wood that you can burn, and leaves that use photosynthesis to get energy from the sun. A dog is a different sort of being it also "holds itself" or "aims itself" in developing in certain ways, the exact lines of what these are can be vague but that basic fundamental common sense access to reality is what all of science and philosophy has to be based on top of. The interesting thing is figuring out those distinctions, what makes them unique, and how you can better make dogs be dogs. Another specific example would be the element sodium, it has specific causal powers that let it show forth certain traits when in relation with other beings. Sodium has certain reactions when exposed to water, we can identify this pretty clearly with chemistry and even see what's going on at a vague level atomically. The fundamental thing is as I said the basic contact with reality, we see and make contact with the basic thing, see it respond differently in different situations and see it as a unique sort of being among others. The difference with trees/dogs is they seem to modify themselves and seek out their own perfection as dogs/trees (they eat, they reproduce etc.). So that is another distinction we encounter. What existence is itself, what being is, is a much more difficult and obscure thing to look for. But they way you can do that is look at the different kind of beings and see what they share. What is common between a tree growing and taking in sun, a human demonstrating heroic moral character and using their intellect well, a dog hunting for ducks and having children, and sodium reacting to water in a chemical reaction? There is something common between them but it's much harder to work out. That to me is the interesting philosophical question the difference is taken the common sense basic view of reality as given and trying to understand it. The alternative with the more skeptical view you have is you first taken that basic view of reality, but use it to undermine itself which is incoherent. That's not a real choice, we have to take what we are given and be grateful there isn't really any other alternative. Once you do that then you can start to get at what is existence, what is being and what underlies all these things we have contact with.

>>66227 >I know I exist. But can I proof your existence? No. It's a useful abstraction to treat other people as if they exist though. You're just going to have to get over the fact that other people do not provably exist in any deeper ontological sense, at least not in the same here and now as you do. Perhaps the singularity will be different.

Outside knowledge exists that is outside oneself. One cannot preform Vivaldi’s four seasons on the piano without learning from external knowledge. No matter how much one wills it in lonesome it is impossible to learn entirely by oneself. By this argument reality exists external to oneself. Which heavily implies the existence of other people to me. But i’ve been laying bed too long today so I’ll leave the prooving of other people to someone else or come back to it later.

>>67955 The world humans create for themselves is unnatural we do not want to be part of the natural world. You described a merciless, meaningless universe but those are invented human concepts to begin with. You were still arguing from within the enclave of a meaningful framework which is not comprised of clueless matter as we share meanings though our words and posts. I may remember these meanings being quantified in memes which are another invention as are units of any kind. By embracing the natural physical uninvented world as your sole and own you spit on all our efforts since the beginning of us. Receive my morals for you can make sense of them. I know i exist, i appear to be imagining that i do. What other unreal things do you hold imagine?

Yes, i can proof my existence by replying to your stupid thread. Whether you think I'm a human or an automated post, is for you to decide.

>>73840 Your post is exactly why I think philosophy is not worth devoting life to. While it is useful to have in this world, and I love that there are philosophers, they are always embedded in the painting they are part of, and their work will always be like stumbling around in fog. The closest you can get to any kind of truth about this world is through meditation or lsd/shrooms. Because these things make you aware of how the tools you have impact your ability to discern things in this world. Thinking like a philosopher is a dead end. You just flail around, embedded in concepts that have evolutionary basis, using brain that has evolutionary basis, coming out with ideas that have some kind of evolutionary basis... so you are always thinking ideas that help you reach homeostasis as an organism, or make you feel better, or help you navigate the world and survive... truth cannot be found in that. You are thinking and thinking but in the background, your thoughts are fueled by a desire to fall in love with some girl or or fuarrrk her. Or feel better about yourself. And even leaving that... concepts you are using were solidifed in you childhood, with the purpose of you surviving... they do not point out to any ultimate truth. It's a bit sad, really, but meditation opens possibility of looking through that (beyond language, beyond thought)

>>66227 Quantity of content never lie. If you receive content that you could not have created, then other sentiences exist.

Your hands being real proves that they aren't: if your hands are real your fingers are real if your fingers are real your skin is real your meat is real your bone is real your nerves are real if your nerves are real then the feeling of your hands being real is all electrical impulses but how is the shape of electricity moving through wires soft? if your meat and skin and bones are real then the cells are real if the cells are real the proteins and lipids are real if those are real chemicals are real if chemicals are real atoms are real if atoms are real electrons and protons and neutrons are real if those are real photons and quanta are real if those are real why is wave particle duality real if those are real why do they maintain complex orbits in a vacuum? everything is made of singularities like an ocean of infinitely small voxels that can be any color the brain isn't real it doesn't explain color and sensation just the shape those get put into you are a perceptual singularity perceiving other singularities moving through you you are infinitely small and big you have infinitely many parts and you can be any shape or color you are the environment

>>74490 I agree about philosophers but for entirely different reasons. In the same way their works can be sometimes be unhelpful to actually navigate life I think so is what you are saying. We cant really be reduced to just our own understanding of evolution even as some base thought to justify meditation instead . Biological things like our desire to fuarrrk, and the various brain chemistry processes associated with that, now have layers upon layers to them where they are used in totally non base level evolutionary acts and even ones entirely unrelated to fuarrrking. Our primal desires arent in themselves the motivation for all we do and every grand thought we come up with, only the biological systems that govern them are. They have now been repurposed so much for a million of the different complex wants and tasks and desires we have that I really dont think its even fair to say that "but at the end of the day we are just motivated by our evolutionary needs at their core". You can say all day that the act of creating art is actually just some substitute or emergent behaviour around creating a child and maybe thats how the behaviour developed but at this point this complex act and the various reward chemicals or whatever it generates is as codified into existence as its initial purpose. To the point where among many who never have a child in their life almost everyone has partaken in creating something, the supposedly "emergent behaviour". Every thought does not come from an evolutionary basis, thinking was a result of evolution. Its not some perfect thing where every thought can be boiled down to self preservation (it could on paper in an act of the kind of philosophy your disparaging) because the systems that developed for our self preservation now are used for much more than that and can even become in contradiction of our self preservation sometimes (when you arent reducing everything to that in some abstract way like I mentioned earlier). Its not really relevant if the origins of thinking and all actions stem from some evolutionary base desire cause at this point our entire world and existence is constructed of said thoughts and said brain. As such even if it were true that they are all just about self preservation, that would mean self preservation is just already baked into our reality and therefore there is no thought or action we can take in contradiction to it. And so all the same questions and all the same philosophizing remain the same and arent any more or less pointless than they were before. What your presenting, putting aside that its a very questionable understanding of evolution and what its scope is, is essentially something like "what if we are in a perfect matrix" where even if we can agree on it it doesnt fundamentally change the nature of anything at all.

>>74713 ammendum: to not get in the weeds I think overall you are confusing something being developed via evolution with somehow retroactively purposefully fulfilling evolution. The brain developed through evolution, this doesnt mean consequently that every thought the brain produces is geared towards evolutionary goals. When an animal develops wings its not for the purpose of surviving its just that the ones with wings survived. Consequently the wings will be used in a variety of ways that arent strictly about survival and wont even be the best possible wings for survival because they are not somehow retroactively perfect wings geared for survival. Likewise your brain and its thoughts lead to you surviving and producing offspring the best they could for your environment, but its not a natural logical leap in the slightest to think this means every thought is geared towards survival. Even though you might think you are doing the opposite, what you are doing is in fact anthropomorphizing evolution to have a will of its own like you or I would.

>>66227 >I know I exist. But can I proof your existence? the "proof of proving" is a meme. though I've had some issues before about thinking on having been living in fake reality when I had small bouts of the matrix glitching during such events being able to predict word for word what is about to be spoken. with that in mind I can say everything either does not exist (the way it is, like a simulation program) or everything really truly exists but at the end of it all is the question does it even matter? if we lived in a simulation ran by gods we are not living in a simulation but we are rather living in a subset. if the human owned an ant farm - the ant farm is the subset. but do gods even think they're a subset of what's above? or does it loop back like ouroboros? or is AI the answer? our subset that can probably pull us up towards a higher one after they stand among with us? >This might sound like a weird question, but I do think that is the main question of philosophy overall. questions exist due to "the unknown" but isn't that beautiful? when you know everything it gets boring. >I see it as having input and output. existence is about past persistence and we can just call it consciousness. consciousness is proof of retention. if you were a cyborg running a amnesiac system you would forget your very existence aka you also lack the consciousness but you do since you have at some level a "save point" if you were an amnesiac system but we can say humans are actually amnesiac in a sense, we turn to tabularasa every cycle of life or even if there was reincarnation and it would be very rare mystery if you were to remember a past life. when people are born there was nothing except the bare minimum "instincts" to suck the milk from mammary glands, learn to travel/walk, and be free whatever comes after. therefore it can be said that it is a code, nurture-->travel. the code is to spread. is the code about traveling outside of our space? maybe. beings have feet however plants have none. do we spread its seed to sustain life outside this place? yes maybe. even plants have incentivized its fruit-seeds and flower-pollen to be spread and also uses the golden ratio to ensure the widest range of spread. >Ever wondered how you always wake up in the same body? That you were knocked out. Not there. And you returned. It's surreal actually. persistence is surreal, if we never aged/changed it feels like everything would be the same but we don't. and we have (observed) the stars moving in peculiar ways and thus Time is born at that moment. a way to tell there is past because the star(and planet) was on that degree moments ago. we were obsessed with it, we put stones to predict the next "season", we used constellations to predict the "trends/traits" of people or events once we have gathered info. sometimes I fear that faceb00k and the admarkets had all that info with people's birth dates making it easier to even alter a person's fate and/or fortune maliciously (as usual) or otherwise. >If I am the only thing that has input I am aware of how can the universe continue without me? the universe would continue as a dream. a place where stars do not move where time is forever: the architect realm. this is just schizo conjecture though formed by various "mysticists" who have mastered things like remotely observing or projecting towards what is outside of the universe or those who have memory of a distant past. either way the reason we and animals dream is to make us ready of this omniverse which is everyone's own little paradise or rather hell (until we start longing for a sip of mortality and new ideas). what life and consciousness is - is the proof. we are an avalanche of marching skeletons but are we stuck in this orb? maybe the next quest-(ion) is to actually find the other planets or within the depths of mind where some people can observe or interact with theirs or other's omniverse(s) I do think that dreaming is a valid proof, we dream to make us ready, to tell us how "this people in your dream is not real and you have to wake up" but when you wake up from within a dream that's when it gets weird.

let me put it this way. you need oxygen and hydrogen to have water. just because you dont see the oxygen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. it has a output that is constantly changing by inputs. figuratively speaking i you can a person as the output. then if you were to play a sport would them or activity then you could feel their input and prove it as well. moreover youre probably stronger than you think