The failure of I-M

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Why would we do that? It's your analogy, and you make the rules. There are many variations of your analogy that I can think of where life COULD be an RPG, but IM would work within it, but since you're making your own rules you can do what you want in your analogy.

My only question to you is What if you're wrong? What if you could have had everything you ever wanted, but instead of using IM to get it you just sat around and waited for the game to play itself out. It sounds to me more like your feeling unworthy of the power of using something like IM. This is actually a very common fear. Most of us fear our own power.

I have constructed a (working) "life" analogy where there is no place for I-M.
Until somebody can prove that there are logical errors in my reasoning, this analogy stands.

Why don't you develop your own life analogy which includes I-M?

I'm prepared to review my opinion about I-M if I'm wrong.
Are you prepared to review your opinion if I can prove that your analogy contains logical errors?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

I have constructed a (working) "life" analogy where there is no place for I-M.
Until somebody can prove that there are logical errors in my reasoning, this analogy stands.

If you're totally happy with your life, great!

Why don't you develop your own life analogy which includes I-M?

I'm prepared to review my opinion about I-M if I'm wrong.
Are you prepared to review your opinion if I can prove that your analogy contains logical errors?

A life analogy is like a Map of a terrain. It is NOT the terrain, it is simply a map of the terrain. At best it is a somewhat accurate picture of the terrain at the time the map was created. My life itself changes so often, a map of it would always be obsolete so I don't really see the need to have an analogy of life that I prove once and then stick to for the rest of my life.

Every day I learn something new that changes all kinds of things in different areas of my life. I could never give you a complete analogy of my life because it would take way too long to write it out, and even then you would not understand it the same way as I do. So then we would argue about parts of it that logically don't make sense to you, but could make sense to me. I would not be "turned" by your logic because my life experiences tell me otherwise. So the whole exercise would be kind of pointless.

Since you feel like this analogy thing works for you, if you want I could try pointing out "flaws" in it to see if it sticks, but I"m not sure if that's what you want.

Just a few that pop into my mind right away would be "Who wrote the RPG in your analogy?" and "What is your relationship to the creator of the RPG?" and "What is the purpose of playing the RPG outside of getting to the end of it?" and "What happens at the end of it, does it reset and start all over, if so why?" and "Why would the creator program this forum and me into the game talking to you?" and "Are you saying I'm not real? I'm not really writing this to you? That I'm just a program as part of the RPG that you're experiencing?" and "What makes you so special that you get to be the avatar while I'm just a program? And how do you know you're not just a program, and I'm the real avatar?"



I can think of a lot more if it helps, but it probably doesn't.

What you've done is you've kind of taken a canvas and some paints and painted a picture and said "This is beautiful. Prove to me logically that it is not." and the reality is that it might be beautiful to you, and maybe many others, but to me maybe it's not but I can't prove it logically.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Just a few that pop into my mind right away would be "Who wrote the RPG in your analogy?" and "What is your relationship to the creator of the RPG?" and "What is the purpose of playing the RPG outside of getting to the end of it?" and "What happens at the end of it, does it reset and start all over, if so why?" and "Why would the creator program this forum and me into the game talking to you?" and "Are you saying I'm not real? I'm not really writing this to you? That I'm just a program as part of the RPG that you're experiencing?" and "What makes you so special that you get to be the avatar while I'm just a program? And how do you know you're not just a program, and I'm the real avatar?"



I can think of a lot more if it helps, but it probably doesn't.

Who wrote the RPG in your analogy?
What is your relationship to the creator of the RPG?

The game developer is the game player. The avatar I use is my physical body ("Frans").

What is the purpose of playing the RPG outside of getting to the end of it?

Enjoy the game of course! I'm playing a game for the fun of it.

What happens at the end of it, does it reset and start all over, if so why?

If you are totally focused on the game you're playing, you don't ask yourself: what will I do after this game.
Maybe I'll play a totally different game? I don't care for now.

Why would the creator program this forum and me into the game talking to you?

Everything happens for a reason, so, this is meant to be.
I can think of several reasons, but I'm sure you will agree that it seems you are the perfect sounding-board for my analogy.

Are you saying I'm not real? I'm not really writing this to you? That I'm just a program as part of the RPG that you're experiencing?
What makes you so special that you get to be the avatar while I'm just a program?

As you have noticed, this "life is an RPG" analogy is based on subjective reality.
There is only one player, and this player can choose only one avatar.
Apparently, the game player has chosen "Frans" as his avatar to play this game. This avatar is "only" an avatar like there are millions of available avatars in this life game.
However, the choice of picking one avatar "devalues" all other avatars to variables in that program, because those avatars are not steered by anyone, only by the "software" of this life game.

As this is MY life game, it's obvious that my avatar plays the title role.
However, this does not exclude that you are now playing YOUR life game, with your avatar in the title role, and "Frans" as only a variable.
(that's the beauty of subjective reality: everybody can play the title role in his own life game )

And how do you know you're not just a program, and I'm the real avatar?

Because I'm only conscious of the experiences of my avatar.
"Cogito, ergo sum".

I can think of a lot more if it helps, but it probably doesn't.

Paul, it certainly helps me. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
If you have other questions, please let them come.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

Who wrote the RPG in your analogy?
What is your relationship to the creator of the RPG?

The game developer is the game player. The avatar I use is my physical body ("Frans").

Using different terms then, by game developer you would be referring to something like your SPIRITUAL self or SOUL or REAL SELF or perhaps SUBCONCIOUS mind? Different words, same thing. THen when you speak of the Avatar, you're speaking of your Ego, or the character your Soul/spirit/real self is playing right?

In other words, there is a part of you that creates the game that your avatar plays, but really the part that creates the game, and your avatar are the same thing, they come from the same source, just that the avatar is somewhat limited.

What is the purpose of playing the RPG outside of getting to the end of it?

Enjoy the game of course! I'm playing a game for the fun of it.

So the purpose of your life as the avatar is simply to have as much fun as possible. So lets say you were in a situation where you could have a lot of fun, but it would be at the expense of someone else, like they suffer and you have fun, you would do it? Meaning, since the "others" are just programs, variables in a video game, and they are unreal, it means that they don't matter, so total selfishness is what you'd strive for, correct? Meaning, you might GIVE to a charity, but only if it makes you feel good, but if it doesn't make you feel good and it's not fun and you get no credit for it, you just ignore anyone else suffering in the world since the world is fake.

What happens at the end of it, does it reset and start all over, if so why?

If you are totally focused on the game you're playing, you don't ask yourself: what will I do after this game.
Maybe I'll play a totally different game? I don't care for now.

Fair enough.

Why would the creator program this forum and me into the game talking to you?

Everything happens for a reason, so, this is meant to be.
I can think of several reasons, but I'm sure you will agree that it seems you are the perfect sounding-board for my analogy.

Are you saying I'm not real? I'm not really writing this to you? That I'm just a program as part of the RPG that you're experiencing?
What makes you so special that you get to be the avatar while I'm just a program?

As you have noticed, this "life is an RPG" analogy is based on subjective reality.
There is only one player, and this player can choose only one avatar.
Apparently, the game player has chosen "Frans" as his avatar to play this game. This avatar is "only" an avatar like there are millions of available avatars in this life game.
However, the choice of picking one avatar "devalues" all other avatars to variables in that program, because those avatars are not steered by anyone, only by the "software" of this life game.

As this is MY life game, it's obvious that my avatar plays the title role.
However, this does not exclude that you are now playing YOUR life game, with your avatar in the title role, and "Frans" as only a variable.
(that's the beauty of subjective reality: everybody can play the title role in his own life game )

And how do you know you're not just a program, and I'm the real avatar?

Because I'm only conscious of the experiences of my avatar.
"Cogito, ergo sum".

Ok, so since I *know* I'm real, and you *know* you're real in your game, are you open to the possibility that we are somehow interacting between our two games? Meaning, such as in the case of a Massive Multiplayer Online Game?

Are you open to the possibility that perhaps the REAL YOU didn't split into 1 avatar (Frans), but split into 2 avatars (Frans and Paul) so that it could experience what it feels like to be on both sides. Like for example, if you were to come here and have an air-hockey match with me, the REAL part of us would get to experience what it feels like to score a goal by you and what it feels like to get scored on by me at the same time. Is that a possibility?

Why would the REAL YOU limit itself to playing one avatar at a time? Why not play 2 or 100? or 6 Billion?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So the purpose of your life as the avatar is simply to have as much fun as possible. So lets say you were in a situation where you could have a lot of fun, but it would be at the expense of someone else, like they suffer and you have fun, you would do it? Meaning, since the "others" are just programs, variables in a video game, and they are unreal, it means that they don't matter, so total selfishness is what you'd strive for, correct? Meaning, you might GIVE to a charity, but only if it makes you feel good, but if it doesn't make you feel good and it's not fun and you get no credit for it, you just ignore anyone else suffering in the world since the world is fake.

When I said that enjoying the game is the purpose of the game, I didn't mean by that "having as much fun as possible".
What I meant is this: like everybody I want to have fun, but I want to play the game by its rules.

I know that I have to perform all kind of "tasks" in this game environment (this material world), so I carefully do what is wanted from me.
If I don't do that, I get punished.
I give you an example:
If I'm not respectfully in my relations with other people in this life game, they treat me the same way (though they might be only "variables" in the program, they can certainly hurt me )
So, I cannot imagine one single reason why I would do "bad" things to others, on the contrary.

Originally Posted by impaul99

Ok, so since I *know* I'm real, and you *know* you're real in your game, are you open to the possibility that we are somehow interacting between our two games? Meaning, such as in the case of a Massive Multiplayer Online Game?

Are you open to the possibility that perhaps the REAL YOU didn't split into 1 avatar (Frans), but split into 2 avatars (Frans and Paul) so that it could experience what it feels like to be on both sides. Like for example, if you were to come here and have an air-hockey match with me, the REAL part of us would get to experience what it feels like to score a goal by you and what it feels like to get scored on by me at the same time. Is that a possibility?

Why would the REAL YOU limit itself to playing one avatar at a time? Why not play 2 or 100? or 6 Billion?

I know that I exist, but I cannot know whether other people exists on the same level as I. So, I can only search for an explanation for MY existence.
That's why I have chosen the single player RPG analogy.

If we talk about "I" or "myself", it is always in the first-person singular, because we can only identify ourself with 1 person (unless you're suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder).

One I - one person - one consciousness.

There's no logic, no evidence that it can be otherwise.

PS. Time doesn't matter: what is a human lifetime of 75-80 years in relation to infinity?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Are you open to the possibility that perhaps the REAL YOU didn't split into 1 avatar (Frans), but split into 2 avatars (Frans and Paul) so that it could experience what it feels like to be on both sides. Like for example, if you were to come here and have an air-hockey match with me, the REAL part of us would get to experience what it feels like to score a goal by you and what it feels like to get scored on by me at the same time. Is that a possibility?

I'm open for all possibilities, but only when they are compatible with common sense.

The most important reason to compare life with a single player RGP instead of a MMORPG is this:

If we talk about "I" or "myself", it is always in the first-person singular, because we can identify ourselves only with 1 person.
One I = one consciousness = one person.
This is common sense.

If you can point me to the rationale behind "one I = one consciousness = many persons" or "one I = many consciousnesses = many persons", I will gladly review my opinion.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Frans

If you can point me to the rationale behind "one I = one consciousness = many persons" or "one I = many consciousnesses = many persons", I will gladly review my opinion.

The one consciousness is not also our ego consciousness, I'd say. My one ego consciousness is not going to be equal to the "all is one". Maybe ego is a part of the all but even that is not how I like to think since ego is so different than the one consciousness that lives through everything. The ego is seperating and making duality to experience and the one consciousness is a pervasive wave like, ever persent, underlying field. The one consciousness doesn't live in egoic thoughts.

[Hilary]

First - I really like the way Paul and Frans have opened this discussion out.

Originally Posted by Frans

I know that I have to perform all kind of "tasks" in this game environment (this material world), so I carefully do what is wanted from me.
If I don't do that, I get punished.
I give you an example:
If I'm not respectfully in my relations with other people in this life game, they treat me the same way (though they might be only "variables" in the program, they can certainly hurt me )
So, I cannot imagine one single reason why I would do "bad" things to others, on the contrary.

I wonder if there might be a flaw in your model here, or at least a point where it's harder to make it fit. Why would the game rules say that hurting other 'people' is a bad idea? If they're neither real individuals separate from yourself, nor yet aspects of yourself you're unaware of, I can't see a good reason why the game rules shouldn't let you do whatever you like to them.

Granted that the rules are as you are, so you personally have a practical reason to be respectful to others. But since there's no higher reason for this game rule than expediency, why make it your personal rule? If you can find ways to enjoy the game more without getting penalised, why not embrace them all?

And if the answer to all this is that, in practice, you don't want to hurt other people because you feel compassion for them, then why would the game developer build such a senseless function into you, that you feel compassion for subroutines?

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Hilary

Why would the game rules say that hurting other 'people' is a bad idea? If they're neither real individuals separate from yourself, nor yet aspects of yourself you're unaware of, I can't see a good reason why the game rules shouldn't let you do whatever you like to them.

Granted that the rules are as you are, so you personally have a practical reason to be respectful to others. But since there's no higher reason for this game rule than expediency, why make it your personal rule? If you can find ways to enjoy the game more without getting penalised, why not embrace them all?

And if the answer to all this is that, in practice, you don't want to hurt other people because you feel compassion for them, then why would the game developer build such a senseless function into you, that you feel compassion for subroutines?

Thank you for these questions, Hilary.

It was never my intention to invent this rule, I discovered that rule "accidentally":

My life experience tells me that hurting other people is a bad idea, because it always comes back to me like a boomerang. That's why I think that the ethic of reciprocity is one of the rules of this life game (at least for me).

Basically, it all boils down to this: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
I take that literally because my experiences learned me that this is true for me. If I don't follow this rule, I bring myself only in problems (trust me, I have had a lot of problems, before I learned that )

So, not compassion with other people, but this mild form of selfishness is my motif to do what I do.

Mind you, in my relations with other people, I act as if they are as real as myself of course, otherwise I would only get myself in trouble, but deep inside, I know that this life is just a game that I'm playing.
I'm telling this on this Internet forum, but I don't want to bother my friends/relatives with my vision.

[Hilary]

Originally Posted by Frans

I'm telling this on this Internet forum, but I don't want to bother my friends/relatives with my vision.

Because you don't want to hurt their feelings - right?

Sorry, avatar, but this subroutine is not wholly convinced! (Though the conversation's giving me a warm glow in my nested loops.) I reckon you sometimes get annoyed with people, sometimes wish they could see things like you do, sometimes take delight in their company, sometimes feel compassion, maybe fall in love.

I understand what you're saying about discovering the Golden Rule. What I'm asking is what possible reason the game developer could've had to install such a rule. If there's only one sentient being in the game, it makes no sense at all. And for the sentient being to have emotions about the non-sentient characters doesn't make a lot of sense, either.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Hilary

What I'm asking is what possible reason the game developer could've had to install such a rule. If there's only one sentient being in the game, it makes no sense at all. And for the sentient being to have emotions about the non-sentient characters doesn't make a lot of sense, either.

I can think of only one purpose of this life game: the game developer wants to experience human feelings through this game, through this avatar.
To me, that seems to be the only explanation why he needs this game environment (this material world).

How can he experience love, if his avatar cannot fall in love with someone?...

PS: Every person can use this "life is an RPG" analogy into his/her own life.
It will help you to understand the principle of subjective reality, if you read this text as if YOU had written it.