We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to

We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.

limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.

So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.

This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.

so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.

Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.

I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.

but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.

nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?

The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.

The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?

IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.

The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM

Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.