The distortion in the brain must grasp something if it wants to exist. Science is exactly what can be grasped, and it provides the underlying information that the mind twists and wants to weigh.

"I don't know", this is not a distortion in the mind, nor can it be caught by a distortion. Perhaps, that's why the twist in the brain is particularly disgusting with "I don't know" and defines "I don't know" as shame.

I wrote and directed a scene of fear, and if I want to survive in this scene, then I must choose and weigh the trade-offs and let myself be in control. How to control it? Can I control it with "I don't know"?

Obviously, something has to be in the head. In this way, countless affirmative sentences lingered to form a distortion in the mind. I would doubt that these affirmations are true, but only if I have to have other affirmations.

Once the crisis reaches the survival of the distortion in the mind, then it is the emotional touch that is forcibly pulled to keep the distortion in the brain.

The question is not "why should I believe in the distortion in my head", because there is no reason to believe in the distortion in the brain at all, it is originally an emotional pull, where does it come from and why.

I would say that there are too many more important things to consider, career, family, life, life, and connections...... But these are emotional tugs in themselves, and any honest person can see the absurdity in them.

Of course, this set of rhetoric is also nonsense. Strictly speaking, these so-called summaries are just memories of the moment that are perceived. How the distortion works, how fear is triggered, it's all based on my memories.

Once the authenticity of the memories is taken into account, then these summaries can only be reduced to speculation.

I see something called the past, what is its content, and then what patterns those contents have. That's all, it doesn't mean that there is a past, let alone those summary rules and the like.

The past and the future are distortions in my mind, and I can only remember "the past I remember" and "the future I can make up".

On the other hand, there are only so many elements of the picture, and what I perceive is all of them. There is no such thing as "elements of the picture that I am not aware of", just like a painting only paints these things, and it is just wishful thinking to say that there are things outside the picture.

In other words, it is the association of elements of the picture.

For example, if I am aware of "I was on the left side of the road before" and "I am sitting at home at the moment", then I will normally relate to the fact that "the road is still there even though I am sitting at home".

This is the first thing, and the second is that "the road still exists" is just the presentation of the picture elements at this moment.

But I don't remember which cars were on the road before, and they weren't on top of the visual elements that I perceived at the moment. The key point is that there is no such thing as "I am not aware of these vehicles", but the elements of the picture are not presented.

There is not a single objective thing and I feel as if the whole world is here, and then I walk in it. Some of the things I didn't see, but they were still there.

That's not true.

The whole thing is just a representation of the elements of the picture.

Then, perceived. Or rather, be aware.

In this way, I am omniscient. The elements of the picture are presented as the whole thing. It's just that this omniscience doesn't have any effect, because there is no linear passage of time, it's all just a pictorial element that is perceived at the moment.

There is no such thing as "deduction".

Mario runs on screen, does the off-screen turtle really exist?

Yuan Changwen found that this passage can be summed up as, "I didn't see it, so it doesn't exist." Of course, the word "see" is not accurate, and that's probably what it means.

And then go deeper, "I see and I don't exist."

The meaning of these two "beings" is not the same, the "existence" in "I don't see so I don't exist" means "present", and the "existence" in "I see and don't exist" refers to reality.

I didn't see it, the elements of the picture were not presented, this thing was not presented.

I saw it, but it was just a presentation of the elements of the picture, and this thing was not real.

Yuan Changwen felt that there was no need to discuss these things at all, they were not real. Whatever I think, this belief itself is not real, and the existence of the character is false.

The level of argument is not at all about the content of "I think", for example, I think my mother is a dog, which is fake. I think my mom is a woman, that's true.

It's that this "I think" itself is not true.

Truth is everything, infinite existence and limitation non-existent. Whatever "I think" is, it's just a presentation of the elements of the picture. In other words, the presentation of all the elements of the picture is itself "I think".

The subtle misleading thing is that the table is not an objective thing, and it is only something that "I think".

The pictorial elements do not present a table, and then a me, as if my analysis of the table is something on another level.

That's not true.

It's all the presentation of the picture elements, and they are all the picture elements that are perceived.

In other words, the description of "the presentation of the elements of the picture" itself means all that is perceived at the moment, including thoughts, scenes, and so on. Moreover, the distinction between thinking, memory, and scene does not make sense, but will be subtly misleading.

It's as if the table, the memory, the thinking at the moment are all different things, as if there is a table for me to think, as if there is a memory for me to recall. But in fact, these are presented as a whole.

The presentation of the table is already the result of my thinking about the table.

The whole content is the content of awareness, the element of the picture that is perceived.

Just like in a comic, a character is in a certain scene, there is no certain scene, and there is no certain character thinking about a certain scene.

Yuan Changwen wanted to laugh very much, because this seemed to return to the theater watching mode again.

There is no such thing as a me, there is no table, and the presentation of the whole picture element is itself the content of awareness.

It seems a bit difficult to explain, and it can't be explained clearly around and around. And Yuan Changwen was just vague and a little felt, but it seemed that something was missing, and he even thought that he could finish the killing if he figured it out.

This thought has come up many times, is it credible?

But what's missing?

There wasn't a single me, and there wasn't a single table. This sentence kept lingering in Yuan Changwen's mind, as if something was about to come out, but it just didn't come out.

It's all stage play, it's all picture elements, it's all conscious content.

That feeling disappeared, Yuan Changwen was a little regretful, but a little indifferent.

The characters are all fake after all, and it doesn't matter what you put in your head. In other words, it doesn't matter what the elements of the picture present, because the real thing doesn't care at all. (https:)

Please remember that the first domain name of this book is:. Mobile version reading URL: