Atheists and metaphysics

[bernee51]

The question of atheist metaphysics arose inanother thread . Rather than drag that one of topic I have continued the conversation here...

The word metaphysics, going by its etymology, means "beyond the physical". It can also mean "after the Physics", referring to its location in the corpus of Aristotelian writings, but even so, the first definition seems more apt.

No disagreement there.

Are there any atheists or agnostics who believe that 1) the universe exists independently of their own minds (i.e. there is actually a physical world to which the mind conforms when it knows),

This ‘begs the question’ – where does the mind exist. It is clearly not ‘in’ the physical but, I suggest, is dependent on it. I think the mind does not conform to the physical but rather conforms what it observes of the physical into a ‘perception’.

At the risk if repeating myself....I have a particular view of the ‘whole’…

In Ghost in the Machine Koestler coined the term ‘holon’ – a whole part. For example, the letter ‘a’ is a whole in and of itself. It is also part of another ‘whole’, known as a word – ‘am’. It is also part of a phrase “I am…� or a sentence, a paragraph, a book and so on. If you were to destroy the letter ‘a’ it would severely compromise those other ‘wholes’ which depend on the existence of ‘a’.

We tend to see ‘existence’ as a whole when it is really a holon, made up of other holons. As physical entities, we, our physical ‘selves’, are made up of atoms and molecules. These nuts and bolts of existence ‘inhabit’ what has been called the physiosphere. From the perspective of the physiosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are ‘one with the universe’. According to one view of modern cosmology, the physiosphere started out as simple sub-atomic particles which over a long period of time underwent a ‘complexification’ – it evolved into more complex structures.

At some point this complexification led to the emergence of ‘life’. Life brought about the emergence of the next holon – the biosphere. All living matter – or those aspects that make it ‘living’ are inhabitants of the biosphere. From the perspective of the biosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ with a biomechanical system supporting it. Again we are ‘one with the universe’.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

and 2) there is a reality beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind, and to which the mind conforms when it knows?

I am not aware of a ‘reality’ beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind.

I would qualify this somewhat by commenting that the sense of an individual human mind is a construct in consciousness. That consciousness, however, is dependent on the physical/biological for its ability to emerge.

An analogy I have used before is consciousness is like a movie screen on which the story that is the individual human mind is projected.

[jmac2112]

bernee51,

I am having trouble understanding your views, and I have some questions:

This ‘begs the question’ – where does the mind exist. It is clearly not ‘in’ the physical but, I suggest, is dependent on it. I think the mind does not conform to the physical but rather conforms what it observes of the physical into a ‘perception’.

I am not aware of a ‘reality’ beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind.

Are you saying that there IS a reality that exists independently of the mind, and that we do not have a direct apprehension of it but rather a subjective and "once-removed" perception?

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

Do you think that the mind is not material, although arising from matter and dependent on it?

I would qualify this somewhat by commenting that the sense of an individual human mind is a construct in consciousness.

It seems to me that "the sense of an individual human mind" is a definition of consciousness rather than being a construct of consciousness.

I'm sure I will have many more questions about this!

[bernee51]

bernee51,

I am having trouble understanding your views, and I have some questions:

This ‘begs the question’ – where does the mind exist. It is clearly not ‘in’ the physical but, I suggest, is dependent on it. I think the mind does not conform to the physical but rather conforms what it observes of the physical into a ‘perception’.

I am not aware of a ‘reality’ beyond the physical that is also independent of the human mind.

Are you saying that there IS a reality that exists independently of the mind, and that we do not have a direct apprehension of it but rather a subjective and "once-removed" perception?

That would be a pretty good approximation. Atoms and molecules exist. Biomechanical systems exist. As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective. Red, for example, can be defined as light of a particular wavelength however how you see red and I see red may be markedly different.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

Do you think that the mind is not material, although arising from matter and dependent on it?

Yes.

I would qualify this somewhat by commenting that the sense of an individual human mind is a construct in consciousness.

It seems to me that "the sense of an individual human mind" is a definition of consciousness rather than being a construct of consciousness.

How 'real' is the sense of the individual known as jmac2112? The individual mind is made up of all the thoughts, ideas, memories hopes etc that themselves are constructs. Is jmac2112 the same as he/she was 10 years ago? How real is that jmac2112? 5 years ago? Last year? Where is the cut-off point. All those 'things' that give us the sense of individuality are and can only be mental constructs. Consciousness is the same in me as it is in you or nay other sentient being - the sense of individuality however is unique.

I'm sure I will have many more questions about this!

Thank you for asking

[jmac2112]

Atoms and molecules exist. Biomechanical systems exist. As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective. Red, for example, can be defined as light of a particular wavelength however how you see red and I see red may be markedly different.

Would you carry this so far as to say that what appears black to one person might appear white to another? Or what appears yellow to one person might appear deep purple to another? It seems to me that if you asked a bunch of people to grade different colors from lightest to darkest, we would all at least agree about the lightest and the darkest.

You say "As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective." Does that mean that one person might perceive a dog as running, while another sees the dog as standing still? Or that one person sees the dog as ten feet tall and another sees it as ten inches tall? I'm not trying to be a smartass (much, though it is in my nature). I'm just trying to understand in what way two people's descriptions of the same thing or event might differ subjectively. Where do you draw the line between objective and subjective, and why?

Do you think that the mind is not material, although arising from matter and dependent on it?

Yes.

This raises interesting questions about the possibility of truth and free will. Do you think that all of the operations of the mind are determined by the physical structures and electrical activity of the brain? I don't mean simply limited by them, but caused by them. I'm not sure what "truth" could possibly mean if that is the case, or how free will could exist. Or does the mind truly rise above the level of matter so as to be able to control it, so that the brain becomes a sort of nexus between the spiritual and the physical? If so, I have a hard time seeing how matter can produce something that is non-material and greater than itself.

How 'real' is the sense of the individual known as jmac2112? The individual mind is made up of all the thoughts, ideas, memories hopes etc that themselves are constructs.

What is it that is doing the constructing?

Is jmac2112 the same as he/she was 10 years ago?

Part of my perduring consciousness involves being a "he", by the way.

[bernee51]

Would you carry this so far as to say that what appears black to one person might appear white to another?

That sounds like my wife….

Or what appears yellow to one person might appear deep purple to another? It seems to me that if you asked a bunch of people to grade different colors from lightest to darkest, we would all at least agree about the lightest and the darkest.

Perhaps if I grew up being told that the light with a wavelength of about 650 nm was called ‘yellow’ I’d be ‘perceiving’ yellow – even though I’d be ‘seeing red’. A wonderful little book on this very subject is indeed called Seeing Red by Nicholas Humphrey

You say "As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective." Does that mean that one person might perceive a dog as running, while another sees the dog as standing still? Or that one person sees the dog as ten feet tall and another sees it as ten inches tall? I'm not trying to be a smartass (much, though it is in my nature). I'm just trying to understand in what way two people's descriptions of the same thing or event might differ subjectively. Where do you draw the line between objective and subjective, and why?

To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

Do you think that the mind is not material, although arising from matter and dependent on it?

Yes.

This raises interesting questions about the possibility of truth and free will. Do you think that all of the operations of the mind are determined by the physical structures and electrical activity of the brain? I don't mean simply limited by them, but caused by them. I'm not sure what "truth" could possibly mean if that is the case, or how free will could exist.

Does free will exist? Do we act out of will or out of reactions to perceptions? We have a sense of self that is a construct built on our relationships with the ‘universe’ and our thoughts, ideas, beliefs et al. All of these are old – in and of the ‘past’. It is these that guide our actions – motivate out ‘choices’. We have the illusion of free will but how free is it is it is controlled by the past?

Or does the mind truly rise above the level of matter so as to be able to control it, so that the brain becomes a sort of nexus between the spiritual and the physical? If so, I have a hard time seeing how matter can produce something that is non-material and greater than itself.

The mind and body are not separate entities in that they are intimately connected. The mind can have an effect on the body, and the body on the mind.

What do you mean by ‘spiritual’?

How 'real' is the sense of the individual known as jmac2112? The individual mind is made up of all the thoughts, ideas, memories hopes etc that themselves are constructs.

What is it that is doing the constructing?

It is a ‘self’ construct. We have consciousness which identifies itself with the body: 'I am this body.' It then creates the illusion that there is a mind or an individual self which inhabits the body and which controls all its thoughts and actions. The 'I'-thought accomplishes this by identifying itself with all the thoughts and perceptions that go on in the body. For example, 'I' (that is the 'I'-thought) am doing this, 'I' am thinking this, 'I' am feeling happy, etc. Thus, the idea that one is an individual person is generated and sustained by the 'I'-thought and by its habit of constantly attaching itself to all the thoughts that arise.

[jmac2112]

Perhaps if I grew up being told that the light with a wavelength of about 650 nm was called ‘yellow’ I’d be ‘perceiving’ yellow – even though I’d be ‘seeing red’. A wonderful little book on this very subject is indeed called Seeing Red by Nicholas Humphrey

I'd say that you were perceiving red, but that you had been tricked into calling it yellow. What's in a name? If I get a chance, I will check out Seeing Red.

jmac2112 wrote:

You say "As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective." Does that mean that one person might perceive a dog as running, while another sees the dog as standing still? Or that one person sees the dog as ten feet tall and another sees it as ten inches tall? I'm not trying to be a smartass (much, though it is in my nature). I'm just trying to understand in what way two people's descriptions of the same thing or event might differ subjectively. Where do you draw the line between objective and subjective, and why?

To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

So, one's emotional or aesthetic response is subjective. Is that all? Would you say that cause and effect are subjective illusions?

We have the illusion of free will but how free is it is it is controlled by the past?

We have consciousness which identifies itself with the body: 'I am this body.' It then creates the illusion that there is a mind or an individual self which inhabits the body and which controls all its thoughts and actions.

How do you know free will and the individual self are illusions if you have nothing real to compare them to? Is this not simply an assumption, and one that flies in the face of experience?

What do you mean by ‘spiritual’?

Non-material.

[bernee51]

You say "As soon as we describe them however we venture into the subjective." Does that mean that one person might perceive a dog as running, while another sees the dog as standing still? Or that one person sees the dog as ten feet tall and another sees it as ten inches tall? I'm not trying to be a smartass (much, though it is in my nature). I'm just trying to understand in what way two people's descriptions of the same thing or event might differ subjectively. Where do you draw the line between objective and subjective, and why?

To her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

So, one's emotional or aesthetic response is subjective. Is that all? Would you say that cause and effect are subjective illusions?[/quote]

I can see no option for a personal emotional or aesthetic response to be anything other than subjective. We may both agree that the Mona Lisa is ‘beautiful’ but what ‘beautiful’ actually means to each of us individually can only be subjective.

Are cause and effect subjective illusions? This is something I wrestle with. Cause and effect are based in time – without time there can be no cause and effect. This brings the question – does time exist? Time itself is a concept – without humans to describe it would time exist? We use the concept of time to measure the distance between ‘nows’ - either remembered or anticipated. But how long is a ‘now’? When does one ‘now’ stop and the next begin? ‘Now’ is ‘outside of time’. If there is only ‘now’ then time, and therefore cause and effect, is an illusion.

We have the illusion of free will but how free is it is it is controlled by the past?

We have consciousness which identifies itself with the body: 'I am this body.' It then creates the illusion that there is a mind or an individual self which inhabits the body and which controls all its thoughts and actions.

How do you know free will and the individual self are illusions if you have nothing real to compare them to? Is this not simply an assumption, and one that flies in the face of experience?

Does it fly in the face of experience if the experience is an illusion? There is something to compare it to – consciousness. The comparison is made by seeking out the source of the ‘I-thought’. Look at what at what are objects in awareness. The seat on which I sit is an object in your awareness. The feeling between the body and the seat is an object in awareness. The thought “I am sitting� is an object in awareness. Anything that is an object in awareness is not “Self�.

I can only go back to the screen analogy. The “Self� – ‘pure’ consciousness – is the screen on which or illusions of individual selfhood is projected.

What do you mean by ‘spiritual’?

Non-material.

So ‘spiritual’ too is a concept? An entity of the noosphere.

[jmac2112]

I can see no option for a personal emotional or aesthetic response to be anything other than subjective. We may both agree that the Mona Lisa is ‘beautiful’ but what ‘beautiful’ actually means to each of us individually can only be subjective.

Are cause and effect subjective illusions? This is something I wrestle with. Cause and effect are based in time – without time there can be no cause and effect. This brings the question – does time exist? Time itself is a concept – without humans to describe it would time exist? We use the concept of time to measure the distance between ‘nows’ - either remembered or anticipated. But how long is a ‘now’? When does one ‘now’ stop and the next begin? ‘Now’ is ‘outside of time’. If there is only ‘now’ then time, and therefore cause and effect, is an illusion.

I would make a distinction between "subjectivity" and "illusion". Aesthetic responses and appetites are subjective insofar as one person likes one sort of thing and another likes something different, but I don't think that the response or appetite itself is an illusion. You and I both know what these subjective feelings are inasmuch as we both experience them. If there were nothing objective about them, I don't think we would be able to discuss them.

As to time, I think that Zeno's paradox shows that it is either a continuum or else it does not exist at all. To say that it is a continuum is to leave it shrouded in mystery, since it is just another way of saying that all we know is that it is not composed of discrete units. "Cause" and "effect" are inferences, and not concrete objects. But I think that if you are unsure whether cause, effect, change, and time are real or not, then you cannot be sure of the existence of things themselves, since there is nothing in our sensory experience that does not suffer change over time as part of a cause and effect relationship. If there is any unchanging object that underlies a particular thing that we sense, then we could never know it if the ways in which it manifest itself are illusions.

It seems to me that anyone who thinks about metaphysics has to make a decision right at the beginning. All thought has to start with unproveable axioms, and this case is no different. You can't prove that we actually have direct experience of things the way they are; but then again, you can't prove that we don't. How to decide? Well, it certainly seems that we experience reality as it is; that seems to be a pretty good reason for accepting that it is true, and for most people that is enough. The alternative is solipsism, or else an attempt to maintain the reality of some things while denying the reality of others. I'm not sure that that is really possible once you start down the solipsist path. I sense that this is what you are trying to do.

How do you know free will and the individual self are illusions if you have nothing real to compare them to? Is this not simply an assumption, and one that flies in the face of experience?

Does it fly in the face of experience if the experience is an illusion? There is something to compare it to – consciousness. The comparison is made by seeking out the source of the ‘I-thought’. Look at what at what are objects in awareness. The seat on which I sit is an object in your awareness. The feeling between the body and the seat is an object in awareness. The thought “I am sitting� is an object in awareness. Anything that is an object in awareness is not “Self�.

This sounds very Cartesian. You seem to be saying that your own consciousness is the only thing you are sure of, and that anything that is an object of your consciousness is something other than your consciousness, and that being other than your consciousness makes it an illusion. In other words, everything that we know is ipso facto an illusion. Are you not thereby committed to absolute solipsism? And since you seem to have self-awareness, does that mean that the consciousness that you recognize in yourself is something other than your own consciousness, and that the self that you seem to be aware of is therefore an illusion? In that case, it seems that you can't even be sure of your own consciousness. Am I following you correctly?

[bernee51]

Thanks for the conversation…

I would make a distinction between "subjectivity" and "illusion". Aesthetic responses and appetites are subjective insofar as one person likes one sort of thing and another likes something different, but I don't think that the response or appetite itself is an illusion. You and I both know what these subjective feelings are inasmuch as we both experience them. If there were nothing objective about them, I don't think we would be able to discuss them.

Is this not the problem of “hard problem of consciousness�? Why do qualia exist? There is an objectivity regarding ‘things’ but what those things mean to each of us is a product of our thoughts, ideas, pre-conceptions i.e. mental constructs.

As to time, I think that Zeno's paradox shows that it is either a continuum or else it does not exist at all. To say that it is a continuum is to leave it shrouded in mystery, since it is just another way of saying that all we know is that it is not composed of discrete units. "Cause" and "effect" are inferences, and not concrete objects.

I’m pretty firm on the idea that time is a human concept – a way we measure between ‘nows’. Does the universe keep time? Or is it eternally emergent? If ther is only an emergent now, past and future too are concepts – constructs. One based in memory the other based in anticipations which are, in turn, themselves based on memories.

But I think that if you are unsure whether cause, effect, change, and time are real or not, then you cannot be sure of the existence of things themselves, since there is nothing in our sensory experience that does not suffer change over time as part of a cause and effect relationship. If there is any unchanging object that underlies a particular thing that we sense, then we could never know it if the ways in which it manifest itself are illusions.

The great advaita vedantist Shankara is credited with saying something along the lines of “Only that is real which cannot be destroyed or changed�. The only thing that I can imagine which would fit this description is an emergent ‘now’

It seems to me that anyone who thinks about metaphysics has to make a decision right at the beginning. All thought has to start with unproveable axioms, and this case is no different. You can't prove that we actually have direct experience of things the way they are; but then again, you can't prove that we don't. How to decide? Well, it certainly seems that we experience reality as it is; that seems to be a pretty good reason for accepting that it is true, and for most people that is enough. The alternative is solipsism, or else an attempt to maintain the reality of some things while denying the reality of others. I'm not sure that that is really possible once you start down the solipsist path. I sense that this is what you are trying to do.

As indicated I don’t feel as if I am venturing down the path of solipsism assuming my understanding of the term is accurate. What I believe to be the case is indicated below. We perceive a ‘reality’ and act ‘as if’ this was indeed real. Just as those who believe in a god act ‘as if’ their god is real. The ‘acting ‘as if’ endows the concept with reality. We act ‘as if’ we have an individual self and thus endow that ‘self’ with reality. However, on close inspection, through self –inquiry, this self can be seen to be a construct.

How do you know free will and the individual self are illusions if you have nothing real to compare them to? Is this not simply an assumption, and one that flies in the face of experience?

Does it fly in the face of experience if the experience is an illusion? There is something to compare it to – consciousness. The comparison is made by seeking out the source of the ‘I-thought’. Look at what at what are objects in awareness. The seat on which I sit is an object in your awareness. The feeling between the body and the seat is an object in awareness. The thought “I am sitting� is an object in awareness. Anything that is an object in awareness is not “Self�.

This sounds very Cartesian. You seem to be saying that your own consciousness is the only thing you are sure of, and that anything that is an object of your consciousness is something other than your consciousness, and that being other than your consciousness makes it an illusion. In other words, everything that we know is ipso facto an illusion. [/quote]
Not quite. I am aware of, part of and relate to the physical, biological and noological worlds. What I am saying is that my perceptions of these, in so far as they are memories, ideas, thoughts etc, are mental constructs.

Are you not thereby committed to absolute solipsism?

My understanding of solipsism is: "My mind is the only thing that I know exists."

Clearly this is not the case.

And since you seem to have self-awareness, does that mean that the consciousness that you recognize in yourself is something other than your own consciousness, and that the self that you seem to be aware of is therefore an illusion? In that case, it seems that you can't even be sure of your own consciousness. Am I following you correctly?

I don’t se consciousness per se as being limited to our species – consciousness is a continuum to which all creatures with a neural network, no matter how rudimentary, have access.

My base position is that we are biological creatures which, as an aspect of that biology, have evolved a neural network which, in turn, lead to the emergence of self aware consciousness. We have a consciousness that not only ‘knows’ but ‘knows that it knows’. I have mentioned previously, I think, the ‘screen’ analogy - consciousness being the screen on which the movie of what we believe is ‘reality’ is played out.

As I asked before – think of jmac2112 from 10 years ago. Are you the same? From 5 years ago? Where is the cut of point for when jmac2112 becomes ‘real’? It can only be ‘now’ – in this moment.

[jmac2112]

Thanks for the conversation…

You're welcome. Its nice to have a conversation that doesn't descend into hysteria, as is all too common around here.

jmac2112 wrote:

I would make a distinction between "subjectivity" and "illusion". Aesthetic responses and appetites are subjective insofar as one person likes one sort of thing and another likes something different, but I don't think that the response or appetite itself is an illusion. You and I both know what these subjective feelings are inasmuch as we both experience them. If there were nothing objective about them, I don't think we would be able to discuss them.

Is this not the problem of “hard problem of consciousness�? Why do qualia exist? There is an objectivity regarding ‘things’ but what those things mean to each of us is a product of our thoughts, ideas, pre-conceptions i.e. mental constructs.

When you say "qualia", do you also include things like the color of an object, its size, its weight, its shape, its taste, its texture, and any other thing that could factor into an empirical description of what a thing is like physically? Or are you restricting yourself to the emotions that a person feels about an object or person?

I’m pretty firm on the idea that time is a human concept – a way we measure between ‘nows’. Does the universe keep time? Or is it eternally emergent? If ther is only an emergent now, past and future too are concepts – constructs. One based in memory the other based in anticipations which are, in turn, themselves based on memories.

When you say "time", do you distinguish between time as perceived and measured by the mind, and time as an objective "stream" in which changes happen? I mean, if you set an egg timer for five minutes, are you saying that the change that you perceive as the dial moves toward "0" exists purely in your mind, and that there is no objective change happening?

The great advaita vedantist Shankara is credited with saying something along the lines of “Only that is real which cannot be destroyed or changed�. The only thing that I can imagine which would fit this description is an emergent ‘now’

Does this mean that we who experience change and time do not exist at all, or do we have some sort of quasi-existence?

As indicated I don’t feel as if I am venturing down the path of solipsism assuming my understanding of the term is accurate. What I believe to be the case is indicated below. We perceive a ‘reality’ and act ‘as if’ this was indeed real. Just as those who believe in a god act ‘as if’ their god is real. The ‘acting ‘as if’ endows the concept with reality. We act ‘as if’ we have an individual self and thus endow that ‘self’ with reality. However, on close inspection, through self –inquiry, this self can be seen to be a construct.

I guess my question remains, what basis do you have for believing in the existence of anything outside the mind? You seem to be saying that what you know are not "things in themselves", but rather your perceptions of them. You may infer that there is something outside the mind that serves as a basis for these perceptions, but is not simply an assumption? If I grasp your position correctly, you are positing a cause which you cannot perceive in order to explain an effect that you do perceive.

As I asked before – think of jmac2112 from 10 years ago. Are you the same? From 5 years ago? Where is the cut of point for when jmac2112 becomes ‘real’? It can only be ‘now’ – in this moment.

Are you saying that there is no "I" distinct from my perception of myself?

I exist now and at no other time. But I would not be who I am if not for the changes that have occurred as I have sailed down the stream.