You don't exist, so don't worry about it

[Cruise4]

Makes sense to me. May not be right but I do think I understand the idea.

We see with our brain... not our eyes. We smell with our brain, not our nose.

Our brain decodes or codes what we call information that is gathered via our so called senses.

If I look at a bird, its my brain that makes it a bird. The information my eyes gathered is actually unknown to my concious thinking. So the original 'information or data' could be anything... an energy matrix for example.

We are all in one big energy matrix that becomes apparent matter to us via our senses and because of our brain.

[She-ra]

My illusion: I see a very large, tall glass; hmmm; ice, lovely...pouring in rum add a dab of coke and voila! My illusion is in my BELLY! Jody

[SoCrazes]

I beleive this article brought Plato's "Allegorical Cave" up to date.

[IronGhost]

My illusion: I see a very large, tall glass; hmmm; ice, lovely...pouring in rum add a dab of coke and voila! My illusion is in my BELLY! Jody

Make one for me!

[Dan Piponi]

> Kurt Godel produced a rigorous mathematical demonstration which showed that all logic was ultimately self contradictory.

Gödel proved no such thing. Most modern mathematics is built on the assumption that a contradiction allows you to prove anything you like true or false. If your description were correct then almost all mathematics would collapse. You may notice that mathematicians didn't go out of business as a result of Gödel's work. Gödel proved a technical result about the properties of formal proofs. It doesn't have any bearing on the kind of issues you're talking about. I suggest you reread the sentence you quoted:

> It is impossible to to establish the logical consistency of any complex deductive system except by assuming principles of reasoning whose own internal consistency is an open question as that of the system itself.

Nowhere in that sentence does it say that all logic is self-contradictory. It simply says that we can't proof that certain systems are consistent. Jumping to the statement that this implies contradictoriness is like assuming someone is guilty because we have no proof they are innocent. It's just wrong.

[Arpee]

What is with all this malice about imagining someone punching the author of this article? Also, it is absolutely possible to prove that everything is an illusion by using an illusion. Anyone here ever heard of stepping stones? You can use the same process.

The illusion is based on your beliefs and expectations.

People who believe in law of attraction knows how to use this knowledge to their advantage. They create an illusion of a law which grants them everything they want and it works since everything is well... an illusion. You can see many success stories from them.

There are some that will agree with me or the article and know that it's with 100% facts and then there are those that will see some type of flaw with what I or the article is saying. This is proof that there is an illusion.

I think Buddhism, Nihilism, Law of attraction, or probably even Nihilism + Law of Attraction is the way to go.