Questions vol. 1
An ode to logic.
Difference between knowing and believing?
Knowing is based on experience, examination and effort in general. Contrary to this, believing is based on, well, belief. Belief is blind, it is indoctrination, it is cheap.
Interestingly belief is connected to emotions. So when it is attacked, it is defended emotionally. Knowledge doesn’t need to be defended. It’s validity doesn’t rely on wishful thinking.
What is reality?
What does “real” mean? That which does certainly exist. So reality is that which certainly is true, that exists. A further definition from etymology.com:
Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don’t matter at all, because once you are Real you can’t be ugly, except to people who don’t understand. [Margery Williams, “The Velveteen Rabbit”]
Is perception real?
It is a fact that we perceive. Is what we perceive the real?
Well first, for something to be Truth, it must be always true. It cannot change, because it would be “not true” and therefore false. So there is no change regarding the Truth. And if reality that which is true and therefore Truth, perceived reality is not the Truth.
Some languages even have different words for that which is the changing perceived reality (german “Wirklichkeit” and slovak “skutočnosť”) and that which is the ultimate reality, the Truth (german “Realität”, slovak “realita”).
Also see “svet” (the perceived world) and “svetlo” (the unchanging light) in slovak.
If the perceived is not real, why does it matter?
Just the idea that what we perceive is not the Truth gives us fear. It shakes the world as we know it. Or at least its definition.
The personality is part of the perceived world. Negation of the world means also negation of the personality. If what I think I’m is not true, who am I? What’s real? The belief is shattered and this has some huge existential emotional consequences.
But to the Real the presence of belief or not doesn’t matter in the slightest.
Who am I?
I’m the other. Whatever I can perceive I’m not. Obviously I’m not the person across the street. But I’m not the body I think I’m. I’m not the mind (feelings, ideas). Why? Because I can perceive them. I’m the one who perceives them and therefore different! So whatever I can think of or perceive I’m not. Even the subconsciousness, because at least when its contents manifests I know about it. Just like I’m not any other yet unknown object.
I’m always the same. I know I’m the same now and 5 years ago. But the person has a different body now and 5 years ago. Different ideas. Different everything. I’m the same. I never change. I’m not that person.
But wait! I cannot be the same because it would mean that birth and death have no effect on me. No? Well, the person has a birth and a death. And it is the person, its’ mouth and voice that can say “I’m this and that”. If the person says or thinks it or not has no effect on my Existence.
Accidentally we’ve seen that whatever is there without change, is the Truth. Jesus was right when he said I’m the Truth, the Path and Life.
Transfer the mind to the computer. Make identical copies. Which one is the real one?
None is real. All are equally fine minds in the perceived reality. They will just need some ID to distinguish them.
The Real (Truth) is untouched by the minds.
Clone the body. Will the mind be cloned too?
Who knows? What’s the mind? Is body determined by the mind or the mind by the body? I don’t know but I know that whatever the answer, it will have no effect on the Real.
Supposed the mind is cloned and put into a new body. How do I know that I’m that new body?
The mind will know based on the information stored in it. If everything matches, the egoistic part of it will claim to be the “I”. If there is discrepancies between the information about the past body and perception of the new one, it will result in doubting the identity and asking the forbidden question of “who am I”.