o55boe

	What really defines existence. Does something have to have physical matter in order to exist. Can an idea be said to exist in such a case. Or can an idea be said to have a physical component. Perhaps if I had a machine of sufficient complexity, I could remove the portion of the mind that produces the idea, analyze the chemical composition and firing neurons to determine the exact nature of the idea. But I suppose even then I wouldn’t get an answer in words. Though we may come up with an idea through the medium of words and language the manner in which our brains stores this information would have to be very simple. So I can’t imagine the complexity our bodies go through to analyze the information that’s within our brain. They manage to look at some subsection of matter and because of maybe some different chemical composition they’re able to extract meaning the likes of which we then turn into language for the means of conveyance. So I suppose you could say that an idea certainly has a root in the physical realm, but can our conception of it be thought of as anything but existing in an alternate plane. Through some immaculate means we’re blessed with the ability of creativity and it seems to exist less as an alternate plane but more as a mirror to reality, because our thoughts have a necessary basis in reality. The imaginative, creative world is only a mirror of reality distorted by our own additions and reimaginings. In some cases these additions are only made in remembrance, or in a conscience effort at a creative practice, but they exist also in our most fundamental observations of the material world. One doesn’t look at an object and observe that object in a strictly objective fashion. We look at an object and interpret it in reference to our past experiences. If someone was once locked in a blue room and forced to incur unpleasant experiences then a look at a blue wall will conjure a vastly different reaction than someone else who lacks such an experience. For this reason it can be accurately stated that the world is an illusion. It is an illusion not because it doesn’t exist in reality but because our interpretation of it isn’t purely objective. It’s a matter of previous experience. An entirely objective view of an object is impossible for the human mind. The human mind is a relational database. New objects are conceived of only in relation to past views and experiences. Indeed an entirely objective interpretation for every new piece of information would be far too memory intensive to be feasible. Such is the difficulty in understanding the complexity of the human mind. In what specific manner are memories stored; would a machine conceivably be able to read the memories of a brain, or does the abstract manner in which these memories and thoughts are stored render them useless unless taken in conjunction with some complex relational hierarchy, and if so would one be able to determine such a hierarchy? Any conversation about such an unknown and abstract subject can’t reach any significant conclusion, except perhaps amazement at the incredible functions of the human body. The only purpose one would find in such a discussion is an exercise of thought into the basic components of memory and idea. For instance, I certainly don’t remember an event as though it were a video. If pushed to think about an event I might be able to construct a general picture of the situation, but it is less a memory of that moment than a conglomeration of basic patterns and shapes that I seem to remember fit that situation. So it might be said that memory are all reconstructions of a basic template into different fashions. If this is so then memory reconstruction has less to do with the actual memory than the template with which one approaches the reconstruction of the memory. This would indicate that objectivity in any situation is impossible, which seems entirely plausible. Following this train of thought, one with a higher intelligence might have the ability, less to remember an event more accurately than to simply have a template that has a higher degree of complexity, such that events wouldn’t be more true to the original, but simply more complex. Thus a person of higher intelligence couldn’t be said to be more objective, but more subjective, just with a higher degree of complexity to his thoughts with which to explain that his subjectivity is in actuality a more intelligent objectivity. But all this is following a train of thought that probably wouldn’t stand up to any scrutiny, so I may as well leave it off here rather than following it any further.