Does Harry Potter has a lightning star on his head?

This is an excerpt from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7v2kESrqDQ

So one way to solve the puzzle about the existence of Harry Potter, and truth, of imaginary objects is to say that- in case of Harry Potter- J.K. Rolling created a universe of discourse that is Harry’s world. And that world shares something common with our world, but it has differences too. In the real world it is false that Harry Potter has a lightning scar on his head, because there is no Harry Potter. But in the universe of discourse that is the world of Harry Potter, it’s true, because both Harry and lightning scar exist.

Seems rational? Doesn’t it? Every time we are telling a story, we are actually creating a new universe (of discourse). Every time we conceptualize a new idea, we are again creating a new world. So what all these worlds are made of? WORDS. They are all made of words. So that we may naturally assume that our world, I mean the physical world, is also made of words, because there is only one way to create a world, and that is thru telling a new story.

‹WORLDS› ARE ‹WORDS›.

Advertisements

Sweet illusion

They say that consciousness is an illusion. Sure it is. But by saying that, they want to disrespect the thing. And I’m not quite sure that they are still right. I mean it seems that when things are not ‹real› they are automatically somehow downgraded. We all like ‹real› things and avoid fakes. And when we finally accept that this ‹thing›, we call it ‹self› is indeed an illusion, we feel somehow relaxed because it won’t seem so necessary to solve problems arising from an ‹unreal› thing. But, as always, things are not so nice and neat as we like. The thing, consciousness, is a made-up made by our brain, that’s correct. But there are so many other things that are invented by our brains for example mathematics is another invention (is it?), yet we strive for a meaning for that. I mean mental ‹unreal› things are not second-hand topic; they are by any means more important and complicated. And by that I rather like to emphasize that, being ‹unreal› in this manner, may not lessen our ambitions to understand consciousness. They say that my ‹self› does not exists because it is made-up by my brain. And I say that, to me, it exists more than any other thing especially because it is made by my brain. I mean what can be more real to ‹me› than the things that are built by ‹me›.

And yes it is a hallucination that makes my perception of the world, including my own self in this world. And me together with all other things live in this hallucinated world, I accept that. But wait, in a hallucinated delusive world being an illusion should not be considered as a negative point.

The thing is there, it is understandably only a sophisticated program code that’s being run on the physical stuff, my brain, but who’s there to say that the software running on my laptop now is by any means inferior to the hardware thing. It’s software, a configuration of so many bits and bytes on my brain. I’m okay with that. But I believe that configuration matters. My laptop thing is far more different with any other same model because of all those bits and bytes that I’ve made to it. I care for that ‹configuration› even if nobody else cares. I won’t let anybody to format it because I do believe that ‹my laptop› exists. It’s not a laptop, it’s my laptop. My laptop, my configuration of so many bits and bytes is important, even if the totality of the whole universe see it only as a collection of elementary particles. The specific arrangement of these particles is important. So important; that it defies any reduction.

I really intended to say that any reductionist explanation of how our brains construct our consciousness cannot reduce our existentialistic soreness:

«Why the universe is so blind to ignore all about this glamorous configuration of atoms, and let this priceless thing to go blank on the silliest things like a car accident!»