An invisible asterix in the universe, saying ”you are here”

[Soundgarden]

Imagine you are lying in your bed and you somehow leave your body and float above yourself.

Now zoom out.
Zoom out past your house, your neighbourhood, your city.

And zoom out even more.
Look at your country from above, then make out the contours of your continent and go further still, untill you see the entire planet.

Imagine now that you are above the Earth's atmosphere and you float in space.
Zoom out past Mars, Jupiter, all the other planets, and go beyong the Oort cloud.

And go even further outside our solar system, till you see the arms of the Milky Way, and finally the entire galaxy.

Look at all those stars, and all the other galaxies around you!

And now ask yourself: can you still find our sun? Can you still see yourself laying in bed? Does your suffering still exist?

 

[Bagger]

Wrong question. Mine would be "How many other sufferers are out there beside those on Earth?"

 

[Stan]

If a depressive cries in the forest, does anyone hear them?

 

[Yoffi]

can you still find our sun? Can you still see yourself laying in bed?

Yes I just need to zoom back in

Does your suffering still exist?

yes, because my suffering is not a concept that just fades away if I go far away enough, my suffering physically exists in the shape of self-inflicted scars and unpleasant memories which will be with me as long as I physically exist

I'm sorry, but your post resembles something that a pro-lifer/ignorant person would say; "your suffering means nothing on the scale of the universe!"

 

[Roger]

Wrong question. Mine would be "How many other sufferers are out there beside those on Earth?"

Mine would be, "Why did I eat cheese before bedtime ?"

Asterix.




*
Asterisk

 

[Bagger]

Mine would be, "Why did I eat cheese before bedtime ?"

Sorry for offtopic but this reminds me a comic from my childhood with Uncle Scrooge and his lucid dream trip after eating an old cheese.

 

[k75]

"your suffering means nothing on the scale of the universe!"

This is basically what I got out of the entire first post. Maybe OP meant something different, but this is all I can see. And it's not a good takeaway.

 

[Soul]

Hm. Once on LSD I realized the sign Museum of Natural History designated not just the building it was in front of, but the entire universe. That was cool, but you probably have to have been there, and anyway I was still suicidal.

 

[SinisterKid]

Methinks someone has been drinking from the CBT fountain again

 

[omoidarui]

I'm insignificant! My suffering is erased.

 

[eve2004]

I have no imagination. I cannot imagine anything other than being dead.

 

[woxihuanni]

It'd still exist, except that now I'm also suffering because I'm not in my nice bed with a cool glass of water at hand, but a fucking long way from home.

I have no imagination. I cannot imagine anything other than being dead.

It sounds like something Rincewind would say. So perfectly expressed.

 

[restingspot]

Does your suffering still exist?

Dumb question. Just because I'm a speck in the universe doesn't mean my suffering automatically goes away. This is just the new age version of the "starving kids in Africa" shit.

 

[ThriveOrDie]

Well I guess I don't have to worry about giving you a thumbs down because you can magically erase any negative feelings about it.

 

[your pathologist]

This is what i think about when i try to imagine a God "who loves me".
Basically live in a tiny ant farm in an abandoned farm house on an empty lot 100 mi out of town and anyone who cared left long long ago

 

[Suicidal4Ever]

Lol never understood why that line was so famous. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it made a sound

 

[ManWithNoName]

Dumb question. Just because I'm a speck in the universe doesn't mean my suffering automatically goes away. This is just the new age version of the "starving kids in Africa" shit.

Exactly.

To take my mind off things I would go to an astronomical observatory to view the stars and yes, it did help some during each time I visited. But the harsh reality of my situation immediately returns once my visit is over.

 

[Soundgarden]

I completely understand all your reactions, but please bear in mind that but this was posted in the Recovery section, not in the suicide forum.

As such, it was a mere exercise that I like to practice in order not to take myself too seriously, when life becomes unbearable. It gives me sometimes a momentary breathing pause. Almost as if "I" disappear for a fraction of a second.

Asterisk, got it :-) I was wondering how it was spelled.

 

[JoeFailure]

Mine would be, "Why did I eat cheese before bedtime ?"

Asterix.




*
Asterisk

Is that actually bad for you? I eat cheese late at night all the time.

 

[Roger]

Is that actually bad for you? I eat cheese late at night all the time.

It's supposed to stimulate bad dreams

 

[TheGoodGuy]

Imagine you are lying in your bed and you somehow leave your body and float above yourself.

Now zoom out.
Zoom out past your house, your neighbourhood, your city.

And zoom out even more.
Look at your country from above, then make out the contours of your continent and go further still, untill you see the entire planet.

Imagine now that you are above the Earth's atmosphere and you float in space.
Zoom out past Mars, Jupiter, all the other planets, and go beyong the Oort cloud.

And go even further outside our solar system, till you see the arms of the Milky Way, and finally the entire galaxy.

Look at all those stars, and all the other galaxies around you!

And now ask yourself: can you still find our sun? Can you still see yourself laying in bed? Does your suffering still exist?

I love thinking about stuff like that realizing how insignigicant life truly is when viewed from a existential nihilistic view point and seeing our world from a perspective. I have also downloaded several videos illustrating this like this one.

 

[gingerplum]

If a depressive cries in the forest, does anyone hear them?

 

[jesse]

Imagine you are lying in your bed and you somehow leave your body and float above yourself.

Don't have to imagine. My brain does this on it's own. It's unpleasant.

 

[woxihuanni]

I completely understand all your reactions, but please bear in mind that but this was posted in the Recovery section, not in the suicide forum.

As such, it was a mere exercise that I like to practice in order not to take myself too seriously, when life becomes unbearable. It gives me sometimes a momentary breathing pause. Almost as if "I" disappear for a fraction of a second.

Asterisk, got it :-) I was wondering how it was spelled.

You're lovely handling the outpouring. :) It's just that we here are Sardaukar-trained in reacting to this sort of thing.

 

[k75]

I completely understand all your reactions, but please bear in mind that but this was posted in the Recovery section, not in the suicide forum.

As such, it was a mere exercise that I like to practice in order not to take myself too seriously, when life becomes unbearable. It gives me sometimes a momentary breathing pause. Almost as if "I" disappear for a fraction of a second.

Asterisk, got it :-) I was wondering how it was spelled.

I think if you'd prefaced with this, your message would have been received differently. With no context, it was difficult. It felt invalidating.

 

[irrelevant_string]

Lol never understood why that line was so famous. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it made a sound

I'm not exactly well versed in philosophy but here's my take on it.

At first we should distinguish between sense data corresponding to an object and the object itself existing in reality outside of conscious perception.
Suppose we're talking about sound as the sensation triggered by a vibration stimulating a hearing organ. Can you make a distinction between that experience and sound as described in a physics book? They're two different 'objects' if we can call them that.
One is a wave or a vibration and the other one is... I don't know, an experience that's hard to describe.
Once we've made the distinction, we can ask whether the object actually exists independent of its perception by a perceiving mind.

Alright, suppose it doesn't. The distinction is now purely for the purpose of theoretical categorization and doesn't really correspond to reality because the only thing that's real is that which is being percieved and it's only real as an object of perception, not independent of it. Okay, problem solved, there's no sound.

Now suppose it does. Well prove it.


What am I even doing in here, and at this ungodly hour? The title attracted my attention, it's so mystical.

 

[IsadoraBeauxdraps]

I'm not exactly well versed in philosophy but here's my take on it.

At first we should distinguish between sense data corresponding to an object and the object itself existing in reality outside of conscious perception.
Suppose we're talking about sound as the sensation triggered by a vibration stimulating a hearing organ. Can you make a distinction between that experience and sound as described in a physics book? They're two different 'objects' if we can call them that.
One is a wave or a vibration and the other one is... I don't know, an experience that's hard to describe.
Once we've made the distinction, we can ask whether the object actually exists independent of its perception by a perceiving mind.

Alright, suppose it doesn't. The distinction is now purely for the purpose of theoretical categorization and doesn't really correspond to reality because the only thing that's real is that which is being percieved and it's only real as an object of perception, not independent of it. Okay, problem solved, there's no sound.

Now suppose it does. Well prove it.


What am I even doing in here, and at this ungodly hour? The title attracted my attention, it's so mystical.

This sounds like the quantum theory of consciousness, reality would be determined by consciousness.
Or the thought :
« If nobody was here to see it, the universe wouldn't exist » which firstly seems stupid.
But on second thought......

 

[irrelevant_string]

This sounds like the quantum theory of consciousness, reality would be determined by consciousness.

Interesting... I haven't really thought about it that way. I don't think the ideas are the same or related in a straightforward way though.
Well, what I've described might imply that reality is determined by consciousness in the sense that they're one and the same(ugh it's kind of wacky, how does consciousness determine itself), but not the other way around. The idea that consciousness is what brings about a determinate state doesn't seem to me to necessarily negate the existence of objective reality. The claim could be simply that causality between consciousness and the physical world goes both ways.

I don't think either of those are taken seriously nowadays. Well, not by me at least. What I was doing in the previous post was merely a way of saying that the question is probably deeper than it seems at first glance and that the "well of course it does" response might need some further explanation.

I think I'd rather accept the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics or the possibility that we simply don't know.
As for the role of consciousness, if we accept epiphenomenalism it remains to be explained how it evolved in the first place if it is truly the case that it has no impact on the physical world.

Sorry if I'm being incoherent, the sun is about to rise and I'm still awake.

 

[IsadoraBeauxdraps]

Interesting... I haven't really thought about it that way. I don't think the ideas are the same or related in a straightforward way though.
Well, what I've described might imply that reality is determined by consciousness in the sense that they're one and the same(ugh it's kind of wacky, how does consciousness determine itself), but not the other way around. The idea that consciousness is what brings about a determinate state doesn't seem to me to necessarily negate the existence of objective reality. The claim could be simply that causality between consciousness and the physical world goes both ways.

I don't think either of those are taken seriously nowadays. Well, not by me at least. What I was doing in the previous post was merely a way of saying that the question is probably deeper than it seems at first glance and that the "well of course it does" response might need some further explanation.

I think I'd rather accept the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics or the possibility that we simply don't know.
As for the role of consciousness, if we accept epiphenomenalism it remains to be explained how it evolved in the first place if it is truly the case that it has no impact on the physical world.

Sorry if I'm being incoherent, the sun is about to rise and I'm still awake.

Hi irrelevant_string,

Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not good enough in english to understand the sophistication of what you meant
Your post really reminded me in the first place the words of Einstein when he said « I like to think that the moon is still there when I don't look at it »
But since we know that his theory of local hidden variables was wrong, that the observer has « a role to play » whatever it is, and that it became almost impossible to determine the nature of reality, right ?

By multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanic, you mean Everett theory, which try to solve the paradox of the cat of Schrödinger ?
But you know this sounds like as much weird as consciousness theory for me, but I like when it's weird

When I think about all this things, I'm going nuts

 

[gingerplum]

Hi irrelevant_string,

Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not good enough in english to understand the sophistication of what you meant
Your post really reminded me in the first place the words of Einstein when he said « I like to think that the moon is still there when I don't look at it »
But since we know that his theory of local hidden variables was wrong, that the observer has « a role to play » whatever it is, and that it became almost impossible to determine the nature of reality, right ?

By multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanic, you mean Everett theory, which try to solve the paradox of the cat of Schrödinger ?
But you know this sounds like as much weird as consciousness theory for me, but I like when it's weird

When I think about all this things, I'm going nuts

Your English is actually great. For some reason, I'm completely charmed by the phrasing of "the paradox of the cat of Schrödinger."

I'm actually loving this entire thread.