Home | Community | Message Board


Shroom Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineYellow Pants
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 849
Last seen: 23 hours, 1 minute
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27045729 - 11/18/20 05:11 PM (8 days, 19 hours ago)

Would if you viewed existence as a joke?  Silliness as apt then.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27045752 - 11/18/20 05:22 PM (8 days, 19 hours ago)

Quote:

Yellow Pants said:
Would if you viewed existence as a joke?  Silliness as apt then.




Why would you view it as a joke though? It still doesn't explain why an all powerful being that made everything from nothing (hard to believe) because they were bored (still harder to justify) rather than simply magic away boredom? Why over complicate things like that or better yet why to begin with? I mean aren't we also assuming that such a being is like us in any way? Still sounds like overcomplicating things to me.

Reminds me somewhat of this quote from another thread:

Quote:

"The distinction between the realist universe and the unconscious universe collapses when one notes that external and unconscious are simply two different words used to describe the same events occurring outside of conscious control. This leads to the conclusion that the unconscious is, for all practical purposes, someone else."

I thought this was one of the most interesting ideas in the whole article.

The unconscious mind is always talked about as being totally separate from our external reality (the ego and the id). Okay, but if I take a moment and totally stop acknowledging myself and my ego, I've broken free and entered the unconscious, but I'm still there, "I" as in the body that I normally inhabit and do stuff with. This is very hard for me to try and explain what I am trying to say with words, but the above quote explains it pretty well.

If my personal experience is the totality of all of my mental processes, where is my unconscious mind functioning at? Or am I someone else completely?




Though the problem I have with this is that it assumes one enters the unconscious when they don't. By definition you can't be aware of it. I also doubt that there is an unconscious on the level of Freud and Jung, let alone one that made all this stuff and the people in it from (again) nothing. I mean in my dreams I know I can't experience something I never felt before and everything I see I saw in reality. I'd also have to prove the existence of some force I am not aware of making all this. But then there comes the follow up question that such an unconscious that I am not aware of nor control would effectively be external to me, so then there is no reason to invoke the unconscious over realism if according to the OP there is no difference. It's still just another unfalsifiable layer.

Granted this is all very interesting, but I'm getting the sinking feeling that all we can really do is just throw words around but we won't really get anywhere let alone prove anything, because we can't. Literally every argument is just based on "maybe" or "how can we know" or "what if", but that's all it is like any metaphysical claim an IF. We're just chasing our tails here because the theory can't be tested so invoking Occam does nothing.

Ugh, I need  drink, or maybe chocolate.

EDIT: I'd also like to add why faith is such a dirty word in philosophy. I mean all philosophy starts with a series of assumptions based on faith after all.


Edited by Sirshovel (11/18/20 05:24 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 3,975
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27045930 - 11/18/20 07:01 PM (8 days, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

it stars saddam said:
To all those that are quick to negate the philosophy that nothing exists outside of one's own perception, how can you possibly prove otherwise? ...





.  What I expect is that, what can be shown is that those, who claim to believe in such nonsense, are just as selfish as most everyone else; that is, if anyone really cared enough to prove that it is a useless philosophy, as far as liberating anyone, from selfishness. This is why trying to "prove otherwise", is unnecessary.

.  Which is obviously why those interested in waking up or liberation, or any of the benefits of being on a real path, employ other methods, than simply endorsing odd beliefs. Again this is why trying to "prove otherwise", is considered unnecessary, by all who aren't engaged in philosophical masturbation, or feeding trolls.

.  This is so obvious, that there is no need to embellish the point,  hoping to restate it in some supposedly perfect form.

.  There seems to be a lot of garbage in life that perhaps "can't be proven otherwise" that the wise simply tiptoe around.


--------------------
Hope has never been, an effective way to confront reality.
If it was, Buddha would have sold Hallmark cards.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27046133 - 11/18/20 08:54 PM (8 days, 15 hours ago)

By point though is why would we need to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, which tends to be why the epistemological solipsists don't say it either way because it's uncertain.

A couple threads say it's on the ones against solipsism to provide the burden of proof, but that is not true. The burden rests on those making a claim and in this case it's solipsism. Lack of proof for the other side is not positive proof for yours.

EDIT:
Quote:

How can you seperate the inner and outer region? EVERYTHING is sensation, no exceptions.





Sensation implies there is something outside of you that is being sense. Even consciousness to me implies there is something you are conscious off. So even if everything were sensation that seems like a moot point, I mean it obviously is. That still doesn't really support solipsism, it's like saying water is wet, it adds nothing. If anything it supports realism a little because it implies there is something outside of us that we are picking up.


Edited by Sirshovel (11/19/20 02:05 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 3,975
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27046685 - 11/19/20 03:59 AM (8 days, 8 hours ago)

Quote:

Sirshovel said:
By point though is why would we need to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, ....





.  Yes and 2ndly its a useless theory, (unless you write Sci-fi) or use it as a metaphor, not to get overly serious about life.
.  Of course all we directly experience of reality is only what is modeled in our brains, often based only on limited & crude sense data, but that does not mean that there is no external world.

.  However as a deep philosophical truth or outlook, that one should embrace and hope to get useful insight from, it has been found to be useless for as long as its been around. (Which is probably thousands of years.) It is of interest mainly to those have just realized they can have philosophical thoughts, and to whom it therefore feels new, fresh, and exciting.

.  In fact a psychoanalytic theory could be that the secret motivation, behind the idea that the world is an illusion, as well as the body itself ** is that if true it would do away with the fear of dying that many have. So here we have a nice twist on the theory which turns on its head the notion, that those who hold this view are the ones who see more clearly. This theory suggests that those who hold such views are actually out of touch with, or unconscious of, both their deeper feelings and motivations. I'm not a fan of psychoanalysis, but in this instance find the logic amusing.

. In the world of science perhaps string theory is similar in having attracted a lot of excitement when it was new, but as there was more and more realization that it is an untestable hypothesis, it is taken less seriously by many now.

.  This is only my view, I'm sure many will continue to take some interest in debating the idea, just as string theory still continues to be a source of grant money for some academics. In many ways I'm perhaps often, just an observer.

** from wiki
"Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ (About this soundlisten); from Latin solus 'alone', and ipse 'self')[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."


--------------------
Hope has never been, an effective way to confront reality.
If it was, Buddha would have sold Hallmark cards.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 27,888
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: laughingdog]
    #27046753 - 11/19/20 07:17 AM (8 days, 5 hours ago)

a part of solipsism is true in all cases, since all sensations and thoughts occur in the mind.
that part is true.
determining contextual meaning of sensations and idea fragments is a primary mental activity.

creating the universe, however, seems a multi-billion year process of transformation and evolution, and the product of that is what we experience.

unless we are each billions of years old I think that the solipsistic path of creation is unlikely.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYellow Pants
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 849
Last seen: 23 hours, 1 minute
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27046883 - 11/19/20 10:18 AM (8 days, 2 hours ago)

Yet the metaphysical solipsist will ride into the sunset on a golden horse.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 27,888
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Yellow Pants]
    #27046924 - 11/19/20 10:44 AM (8 days, 2 hours ago)

more likely rides into a reef on a spazdick sea horse


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineYellow Pants
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/14/17
Posts: 849
Last seen: 23 hours, 1 minute
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27046940 - 11/19/20 10:57 AM (8 days, 1 hour ago)

The good ones know to keep the secret to themselves.  They give you your due.  So it is probably an average looking horse in order to remain low key.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27047187 - 11/19/20 01:25 PM (7 days, 23 hours ago)

How do all sensations occur in the mind? The solipsist would say that it is made by the mind but I know this is not true for a few reasons. I can’t feel something in my dreams I haven’t experienced in reality.

But a metaphysical solipsist would have no choice but to keep it to themselves. As a theory it is pointless to communicate. Even if they say they are “playing the game” that is an absurd position. You are essentially saying I don’t exist or am not real but are still talking to me like I am. Sounds like the height of insanity to me.

Sort of why I think there are no true solipsists.


Edited by Sirshovel (11/19/20 01:29 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 27,888
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27047506 - 11/19/20 05:00 PM (7 days, 19 hours ago)

if you touch something with your finger. the sensation arrives via nerves in your brain: in your mind it becomes linked with all the other contemporaneous objects active in the mind - this forms an engram (a unit of memory in our brain).

it all happens in the brain even though we do get continuous telemetry about the world from our bodys' senses and from our memories. 

If you lose that finger or lose your whole arm, chances are you will experience phantom limb pains or sensations independent of any sensory nerve  activation - entirely in the mind. This is documented and seems to be true, and at least somewhat corroborative to the fact that we experience our senses in our mind which copies all the input from our body and the world - and - that in absence of actual stimuli, our brain can manufacture a reasonable facsimile internally.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27047951 - 11/19/20 09:25 PM (7 days, 15 hours ago)

Quote:

redgreenvines said:
if you touch something with your finger. the sensation arrives via nerves in your brain: in your mind it becomes linked with all the other contemporaneous objects active in the mind - this forms an engram (a unit of memory in our brain).

it all happens in the brain even though we do get continuous telemetry about the world from our bodys' senses and from our memories. 

If you lose that finger or lose your whole arm, chances are you will experience phantom limb pains or sensations independent of any sensory nerve  activation - entirely in the mind. This is documented and seems to be true, and at least somewhat corroborative to the fact that we experience our senses in our mind which copies all the input from our body and the world - and - that in absence of actual stimuli, our brain can manufacture a reasonable facsimile internally.




But that seems different than suggesting that without sensation there is nothing:

Quote:

I suppose sensation is being as opposed to not being. Without sensation, there is nothing, which is inconceivable to the conscious mind. Stop moving completely for a moment, stop thinking, do not attempt to rationalize anything and just be still. Your state of being at that time will be the only thing in existence from your perspective, to assume that anything else is existing will require faith. I guess I can't give you a concrete answer because you are still presupposing that you are experiencing a "thing." Why does this have to be so? When you tear down the labels and rationalizations behind everything you'll find there is no longer any point of reference, and no coherency. You are left with nothing but the sensation of your own isolated perception, with no clear source or meaning in sight.




Like the OP said. Also you still need something to work with, it can't just magic it from nothing.

Though one has to take existence to be primary: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5238387

And there is always the problem that you can't verify a system from within that system: https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/13420577


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleFerdinando
Male

Registered: 11/15/09
Posts: 2,355
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27048264 - 11/20/20 03:28 AM (7 days, 9 hours ago)

it's about what you touch rith :rasta:

it is much better for me to draw than do wath tv


--------------------
you know that if you name something and identify it and accept it then you can move on

you know that if you name something and identify it and accept it then you can movie on

you know that if you name something and identiy it and accept it then you can move one


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Ferdinando]
    #27049024 - 11/20/20 04:06 PM (6 days, 20 hours ago)

I....don’t know what you mean.

I suppose presupposing a thing is....well I don’t know how to respond to that.

Though each day I live I see little or no difference between solipsism being true or false.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27050772 - 11/21/20 07:07 PM (5 days, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

Someone emailed me the link to this post, and I just wanted to make a small comment on it before we all continue on our ways.

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.

Solipsism is the simplest explanation not because it takes dissent out of the picture, as it does not; dissent remains the same, and people will still argue against you, as they would in a dream. The true source of solipsism springs from the fact that we never verify someone else's consciousness or thoughts as an actual experience. In a dream, they all appear to have their own consciousness and thoughts, but actually they are just two-dimensional actors in a temporary play, and no matter how convincing they are, the emotional convictions we experience in a dream in no way make the people in the dream real.

Yet somehow, as soon as people wake up and turn off their alarm clock, they believe the experience shifts radically. Of course you're the only person in the dream, but this is now, and we have logic and thoughts, right? But we come back to the same point we were at in a dream; we are only acting on our subjective emotional conviction, and not any actual evidence. One could theoretically create artifical intelligence that mimicked human intelligence, emotions and thoughts, even arguing aptly for its own consciousness and vehemently denying solipsism, without actually being real.

All philosophies that assume others have consciousness, emotions or experience rely on leaps of faith, assumptions and emotional convictions. This is, of course, more than good enough for most people; they try to logically justify it, always ignoring the persistent fact that they can never actually know whether anyone else has consciousness because they can never experience it, and in fact their own experience has taught them that, in a postmodern sense, there is no difference between "real consciousness" (if such a thing exists) and a mimicking character in a dream.

So before you think that just because "college freshmen joke about solipsism" that it is ridiculous and lacking evidence, perhaps you should try waking up and seeing if the college freshmen are even there. Indeed, there is no way to know, so based on our experience and Occam's razor, what is the more logical philosophy here? Just as one shouldn't be so quick to be defeated by illusions in a dream, one should also question this waking dream we experience everyday and try thinking about what we actually know about the actors that would be the first to silence our questions.




I just wanted to remark on the above from earlier in this post. Some would use dreams as an argument in favor of solipsism. But to me this still doesn't answer the question of where did all the material in your dreams came from. Not to mention that if you did make all this, as in a dream, there should be no limit to what you can do in reality, and yet there is. Also this argument is not convincing because often times you don't know you are dreaming and you only realize it is a dream because you wake from it. So far I always come back to this reality no matter what experience I have and I don't control a whole lot of stuff that goes on here so the dream argument seems a little weak to me.

Also the person is misusing Occam's Razor and thinking it leads to solipsism. Rather Occam's Razor is a tool to decide between two competing hypothesis and deciding which to test. It is NOT an indication of the truth of a statement. If it was then magicians on the street would be real live wizards rather than exploiting our dependence on Occam's Razor. The Razor is also not an argument, it's a tool. It's not evidence. Even then it would still point to the simplest explanation: that everything is as it appears with no hidden metaphysical anything behind it all.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 27,888
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27050968 - 11/21/20 08:47 PM (5 days, 16 hours ago)

When I remember my dreams, I get a few frames of scenes, and the feelings of motion and conversation are connected to those frames.

If I explore the dream frames or revisit them they are like tableaux or freeze frames. Attached to the scenes may be a residual sense that action has just occurred in a story. I can seem to open or unfold parts of the scene  or rebuild the movement while sinking further into the dream, I can go someplace else at will in the dream sometimes, but it is not by smooth motion even if it feels fantastically smooth (often flying or skating down staircases)- that feeling is mixed with jump cut scenes, and conversations that have happened.

In waking reality, there is a strong continuity to a timeline as I move around in scenes that evenly unfold, without jump cuts or origami but not so in dreams, the rules of dreamland are different than those of the waking world.

Unlike dreams solipsism is a kind of egomania, but it can be turned into a practice of awareness and things can come out fine even if they are somewhat wrong. Nobody seems entirely right after all. Basically if solipsism does not lead to deeper examination of what is happening on an ongoing basis, then it is a waste of time.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,693
Last seen: 8 minutes, 10 seconds
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27050997 - 11/21/20 09:01 PM (5 days, 15 hours ago)

Sounds like it's a waste of time full stop to me, but ideas are always interesting and they can lead to connections leading to deeper understanding of the overall environment. So I think it's worth considering solipsim briefly. But as a creed to live your life by? Hard pass on that.


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirshovel
Stranger
Registered: 09/24/20
Posts: 35
Last seen: 15 hours, 55 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: redgreenvines]
    #27051233 - 11/21/20 11:59 PM (5 days, 12 hours ago)

I get all that but this:

Quote:

People argue that solipsism is useless and obviously false because it would mean that you're talking to yourself (as if that makes the experience any different). They say it "degrades" other people, that it's an obviously illogical philosophy because it would somehow assert "you" over "them".

In vivid dreams I've had, people have had strong arguments. I've had pity for others in the dream, argued with them, fought with them, even mourned for them, all with the pure conviction that these people were real. Yet in the morning I would wake up and realize that the arguments people made for their own existence said nothing about the truth of solipsism itself.




Still seems to agree with my point about how you don't know you are dreaming until you wake so you treat it as real.

From the thousands of pages I have read on solipsism the argument is the same for each one, you never know. That's really what it boils down to. So it's kind of useless.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Rational Fitlosopher
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 5,662
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 5 hours, 53 minutes
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Sirshovel]
    #27051433 - 11/22/20 03:45 AM (5 days, 9 hours ago)

Because you have an incomplete metaphysic, appear to not comprehend how important this is to the topic at hand, and continue arguing my points bro lol.

You're performing the metaphysical equivalent of attempting to measure distance with colors, then wondering why you're hitting an impasse.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OnlineGrapefruit
Freak in the forest
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,693
Last seen: 8 minutes, 10 seconds
Re: Solipsism Revisited [Re: Loaded Shaman] * 1
    #27051802 - 11/22/20 11:34 AM (5 days, 1 hour ago)

Quote:

You're performing the metaphysical equivalent of attempting to measure distance with colors




The hell does this mean? I would think someone with a complete metaphysic would attempt to be a little clearer. :lol:


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Human Spirit: The Luddites Revisited Autonomous 1,135 6 05/10/05 02:08 PM
by dr0mni
* Homeopathy/psych meds: revisited
( 1 2 3 all )
SneezingPenis
2,536 42 01/22/06 08:03 PM
by Icelander
* Revisiting Enlightenment.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Icelander 8,774 106 03/30/07 09:10 PM
by spiritualemerg
* 2012: Revisited
( 1 2 3 all )
Frog 4,756 50 12/28/03 03:01 AM
by Deiymiyan
* Disbelief revisited... Nomad 481 2 11/12/02 03:06 PM
by Adamist
* Fear of the unknown Alan Stone 1,081 11 02/21/04 07:00 PM
by Annapurna1
* Belief revisited...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Swami 7,962 126 11/13/02 12:26 PM
by FreakQlibrium
* Cultural Convention and The Matrix ekomstop 1,772 18 09/15/17 10:00 PM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
7,635 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 15 queries.