 |
|
child of Thor
|
|
I find it very interesting that the more we delve into the mystery of life, the more we find it comes down to 1's + 0's so to speak. Which leads me back to thinking we are probably some kind of super-beings Sim-Life game or something like that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
How long are you going to believe your life really is meaningless and void of all value?
Careful - you may philosophise yourself out of existence altogether - LOL
|
You seem to be getting me confused... to ask the question "if life meaningless/valueless" is like, to bastardise Ayer, asking "what colour is Saturday?". In less cryptic terms, value is always subject-dependent (one might say, a function of supply and demand) and so meaning and value are dependent upon the existence of other people. IOW, the meaning of ones life depends upon the interplay of perceptions between the individual and society.
quote:
Existence certainly implies desire - care to follow that one down its dusty little trail?
|
The only place I can see you going with that is the Ontological argument for the existence of God, and we all know how much use that one is! Existence implies desire... contingent existence or necessary existence?
quote:
How bout I argue that you are the first cause of existense? That way when you die you take it all with you.
|
An ego trip and the destruction of the universe all in an afternoon. We may be on to a winner here! 
quote:
Could you tell me how you manage to think about how you exist? Could you tell me exactly what your consciousness is?
We could say its energy - in that case it would be eternal, what a head rush.
|
A pretty heavy question that I can only really give a vague answer to. The best we can really do is say what it isn't, but that's fairly self-explanatory. I would probably side with Husserl and say that consciousness is a question of the perception of time, but that's a subject far more complex here. In terms of the universe, we can either talk of the consciousness as subjectivity in essense, transcendental theism, or solipsism, but none of those will do much to answer the question at hand.
quote:
The resident Poly philosopher, good to see ya Whaleboy.
|
What about Agathon? He gets paid to sleep with beautiful women and talk bullshit. I, on the other hand, have just been dismissed for someone else's c0ck-up  .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
I, on the other hand, have just been dismissed for someone else's c0ck-up |
No wonder why you seem so serious in your post.
Sorry to hear that dude. Just to let you know I think, regardless our differing views, you are exceptional in your keen intellect.
After all you grasp my thoughts 
quote:
You seem to be getting me confused... to ask the question "if life meaningless/valueless" is like, to bastardise Ayer, asking "what colour is Saturday?". In less cryptic terms, value is always subject-dependent (one might say, a function of supply and demand) and so meaning and value are dependent upon the existence of other people. the meaning of ones life depends upon the interplay of perceptions between the individual and society. |
I don`t think I am getting you confused - I am just offering conundrums.
Postulate being on a deserted island alone.
Then ask the question.
Oh and BTW - Ayer, right before he died, had a near death experience in 1989 that changed his perspective dramatically.
quote:
The only place I can see you going with that is the Ontological argument for the existence of God, and we all know how much use that one is! Existence implies desire... contingent existence or necessary existence? |
Actually that is not where I was headed with that line of thinking but I can see why you would think so.
Contigent or necessary existence is priori postulation.
At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all.
quote:
An ego trip and the destruction of the universe all in an afternoon. We may be on to a winner here! |
LOL - LOL
A subtle form of solipsism that has quite a kick when you introduce value.
quote:
I would probably side with Husserl and say that consciousness is a question of the perception of time, but that's a subject far more complex here. |
Ah - then stop measuring time and realize it has a momentum all on its own, the eternal moment you might say that never seems to end or begin.
Or is it always beginning and ending - hmm
quote:
In terms of the universe, we can either talk of the consciousness as subjectivity in essense, transcendental theism, or solipsism, but none of those will do much to answer the question at hand. |
Unless it is embraced or should I say surrendered to as all that is - it would then be the first and final cause.
The Alpha and the Omega so to speak. It would then defy all subjectivity.
If there is only one consciousness you can be or will ever be aware of, where is the comparisons in such an understanding eh?
No room for an ego trip there - after all an ego needs comparisons to survive.
You take care
namaste
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Sorry to hear that dude. Just to let you know I think, regardless our differing views, you are exceptional in your keen intellect.
|
Ahh thankies! Tis a good opportunity for me to find a job in a bar  .
quote:
Postulate being on a deserted island alone.
Then ask the question.
|
Ahh tis a good one... in my mind that would depend upon whether this person has lived as you or I, in a society with other wretched humans, or whether all he has known is this desert island (in a similar way to the allegory of the cave). In the latter case (which is perhaps more useful though I'm curious to see if you'd agree on that) I would say that the idea "meaning of life" contains the notion of "life" which is largely irrelevant if he known nothing else and given no preconception of what is "alive".
An interesting consequence of strong atheism is that "life" becomes something dependent upon intent, in other words the intent of a creator. That we call an object a "living" form is indicative of the geocentric designer in us; that we expect a designer to the universe. Without a "God", there is no fundamental difference between life and non-living objects. That I can speak of "life" in everyday conversation and consider myself alive is due to the emotive moral/religious conundrum that we all use as models in our daily life... (for example, modern seafarers might still use an Aristotlean model to navigate by, even though in reality it has been superceded by Copernicus, Kepler and the like).
Why do we use these models? To cope in society. Therefore the desert island problem is perhaps unfair in the first instance I provided, and absurd in the second instance where it is all the subject has known.
quote:
Oh and BTW - Ayer, right before he died, had a near death experience in 1989 that changed his perspective dramatically.
|
Protecting a 17 year old Naomi Campbell from Mike Tyson? (Tis true... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayer) 
quote:
At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all.
|
Do you mean that in terms of egoism? In other words, would you consider self-interest/want/desire to be a necessary consequence of existence? I should say in that case that while egoism is a fundamental consequence of existence, it leads to want in a society whereby want is a function of what other people have, and need is predicated by a want (i.e. I need to breathe because I want to live). However, could "existence" be a meaningless question out of the context of society? It's an interesting question.
quote:
Ah - then stop measuring time and realize it has a momentum all on its own, the eternal moment you might say that never seems to end or begin.
Or is it always beginning and ending - hmm
|
Or if time in the "tick tock" sense is something we can use as a baseline, our perception, our feeling or experience of the gap between tick and tock is how our consciousness works, and emotions could simply be different "packages" of perception of time. Logic is fairly obvious of course, since time -> causality -> logic.
quote:
Unless it is embraced or should I say surrendered to as all that is - it would then be the first and final cause.
The Alpha and the Omega so to speak. It would then defy all subjectivity.
|
Indeed, in that case it wouldn't make much sense for the beholder to speak of objectivity since the subjective is absolute to the beholder... but then, what of communication and society?
quote:
If there is only one consciousness you can be or will ever be aware of, where is the comparisons in such an understanding eh?
No room for an ego trip there - after all an ego needs comparisons to survive.
|
Indeed! Could it be that we interact with other people as objects, and only give them meaning as "alive", "human", or "loved" internally?
child of Thor: Did you enjoy seeing CJ get jiggy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Tis a good opportunity for me to find a job in a bar |
Philosophy doesn`t have many good pick up lines - LOL
quote:
(which is perhaps more useful though I'm curious to see if you'd agree on that) |
By all means the best model.
quote:
I would say that the idea "meaning of life" contains the notion of "life" which is largely irrelevant if he known nothing else and given no preconception of what is "alive". |
If the guy that has not known society is alone, he must value his life and attribute meaning to it as he is alive yes? He may not engage in the question that Brian (Techumseh) posed but he does engage his thoughts in remaining alive.
It is inherent in all life to live.
quote:
An interesting consequence of strong atheism is that "life" becomes something dependent upon intent, in other words the intent of a creator. That we call an object a "living" form is indicative of the geocentric designer in us; that we expect a designer to the universe. |
That thought is not exclusive to strong atheism
quote:
Without a "God", there is no fundamental difference between life and non-living objects. |
I would say that is a concept used as a mode of comparisons in the abstract. The only true comparisons are the subjective i.e you and this. There are no other comparisons that could be made.
quote:
That I can speak of "life" in everyday conversation and consider myself alive is due to the emotive moral/religious conundrum that we all use as models in our daily life... |
Unless you were all alone in the woods and a grizzly bear shows up. The comparison of being alive and not would be self evident then.
The grizz would probably be thinking "I wonder what he tastes like?".
I said
quote:
At best tautology, after all I am sure that your life and existence is burning the fuel of desire, else you would not be posting or alive at all. |
Whaleboy
quote:
Do you mean that in terms of egoism? In other words, would you consider self-interest/want/desire to be a necessary consequence of existence? |
Good question, Yes I mean that desire is inherent in existence in and of itself. The universe is, because of a desire to be.
quote:
I should say in that case that while egoism is a fundamental consequence of existence, it leads to want in a society whereby want is a function of what other people have, and need is predicated by a want (i.e. I need to breathe because I want to live) |
You have done some serious soul searching eh?
Another way to look at egoism is a fundamental reaction to the belief in limited resources or the belief in a isolated existence in a threatening environment.
There is plenty of air to go around.
quote:
However, could "existence" be a meaningless question out of the context of society? It's an interesting question. |
You are made of the same cosmic soup so to speak as the universe yes?
Think in terms of the universe as you being the working model of the whole.
Fractals dude - fractals.
quote:
Or if time in the "tick tock" sense is something we can use as a baseline, our perception, our feeling or experience of the gap between tick and tock is how our consciousness works, and emotions could simply be different "packages" of perception of time. Logic is fairly obvious of course, since time -> causality -> logic. |
I understand and agree. This is due almost entirely of our tremendous ability to recall experience with minute accuracy. It then gives us the illusion, because we are the smartest species, of history.
Time is a method of recounting our past, giving us the perception as if it were reality. Not to bad for Earth walkers.
quote:
but then, what of communication and society? |
Still a function of your own awareness - just with a paradigm shift
quote:
Indeed! Could it be that we interact with other people as objects, and only give them meaning as "alive", "human", or "loved" internally? |
After you Sherlock Holmes it down - that is all there is.
I do find however great satisfaction in caring about others. Not for their sake do I practice the wisdom of "love thy neighbor as thyself" it has nothing to do with the other person - it makes me OK with me if ya know what I mean.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
If the guy that has not known society is alone, he must value his life and attribute meaning to it as he is alive yes? He may not engage in the question that Brian (Techumseh) posed but he does engage his thoughts in remaining alive.
It is inherent in all life to live.
|
Ah but what I'm suggesting is that he wouldn't ask the question of being alive, and the consequent questions of the meaning of life etc, firstly because of the lack of language, secondly because the lack of a sociological context that thirdly leads to a notion of "life" and "alive". His perceptions would, like a feral child, be animalistic, like a very young child who knows no language.
quote:
That thought is not exclusive to strong atheism
|
 True. It is used as an indictment of atheism by the theists, however I don't think that stands up. I think that it is an interesting conclusion of atheism that follows if you accept the premises of atheism in a scientific fashion as opposed to a political fashion.
quote:
Unless you were all alone in the woods and a grizzly bear shows up. The comparison of being alive and not would be self evident then.
The grizz would probably be thinking "I wonder what he tastes like?".
|
True, but in the situation of our man on the island, his responses would be autonomic and animalistic, the fight-or-flight response that is necessary to the survival of his genome. I doubt very much that one expends much conscious energy in such a situation thinking of the philosophical implications of the predator, and the distinction between ones life and non-life, let alone the distinction between life and non-life of any others. In any case, the reaction between you or I, and our hypothetical man when faced with the same situation would probably not be very different.
quote:
Good question, Yes I mean that desire is inherent in existence in and of itself. The universe is, because of a desire to be.
|
I would take issue with that, I assumed you meant in terms of our consciousnesses. In a metaphysical sense then, the universe is because of a desire of a presumed creator? I'm afraid I can't see how that would boil down to anything more than the First Cause argument, and fall to its standard refutations. You might find more use here by looking into causality, in other words asking the question "does the whole require a cause?" The whole in this case would be necessary, composed of entirely contingent objects. Reminds me of the debate between Russell and Copleston, and with our understanding of chaos theory and determinism, I think Russell's position here is far stronger. That is to say of course, that the question itself "does the whole require a cause" is absurd, and the consequences are infinitely too demanding of the human experience.
quote:
Another way to look at egoism is a fundamental reaction to the belief in limited resources or the belief in a isolated existence in a threatening environment.
There is plenty of air to go around.
|
But what of altruism to egoistic ends, where altruism may be better for the individual in given situations?
quote:
Think in terms of the universe as you being the working model of the whole.
Fractals dude - fractals.
|
Intriguing idea... that we are all individual macrocosms? Would you say then that we are necessary in the "cogito ergo sum" sense, or that the universe is contingent as a result?
quote:
Still a function of your own awareness - just with a paradigm shift
|
Touché!
quote:
I do find however great satisfaction in caring about others. Not for their sake do I practice the wisdom of "love thy neighbor as thyself" it has nothing to do with the other person - it makes me OK with me if ya know what I mean.
|
Tis true. It's like the idea of the artificial model of God that we all carry suggests... to quote from the Simpsons,
"Some of us prefer illusion to despair".
And who can argue with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
But we do have lots of evidence for such an existence.
1. Religion(and the uniformity behind the belief in a 'creator') which to use programming speak, could be like a left over 'comment' in the code, or an 'easter egg'.
2. Science, as our knowledge of science grows - cosomologicaly and biologicaly speaking, we see a development of pattern in the basics - patterns that look very simular to computer programs.
3. In an infinate universe(as far as we can tell), we are very unlikely to be the only intelligence, and its very possible to imagine the odds on thier being a 'hyper intelligence'. Still if we ae in the confines of our virtual petri-dish, then this wouldn't explain what this hyper intellignce is or that it inhabits the same relativity as our own.
In the articles i linked to, there is one in particular that deals with these, in particular the subjects under 'are we real'.
of course this all falls back to the question - why exist in the first place?
why do i play computer games is a good place to start maybe?
Last edited by child of Thor on 09-08-2005 at 17:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Could just be an artifact of ancient man trying to rationalise the universe around him that has somehow persisted due to a 'loophole' in the human psyche... |
Yes thats where i get my religious belief from - still what if that is just a part of the program?
why is DNA like it is? why can we potentialy change it when our knowledge/technology is high enough?
In the hindu religion one of its fundimental tenants is 'That all life is an illusion' - and many others have this aspect in empersizing the meta-physical over the physical. If you want to look at it like this then you can find many clues i guess.
For me its the science stuff like DNA and things like the universe being too highly tuned etc.
Last edited by child of Thor on 09-08-2005 at 17:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
But we do have lots of evidence for such an existence.
1. Religion(and the uniformity behind the belief in a 'creator') which to use programming speak, could be like a left over 'comment' in the code, or an 'easter egg'.
|
I think I dealt with the "creator" myth in my first post in this thread. Put simply, it is a product of our own "designer" mentality... early man designed and built tools, in order to do that he had to have had a preconception of the tool and an intent for function and design. He looks around and see's a world that seems very wonderfully suited to him and asks "who created this?", and the associated questions we're asking here today.
That the creator myth is so widespread is not positive evidence for a creator, but is instead demonstrative of the geocentric mentality of us humans.
quote:
2. Science, as our knowledge of science grows - cosomologicaly and biologicaly speaking, we see a development of pattern in the basics - patterns that look very simular to computer programs.
|
I should put it the other way around, that is to say that patterns in computer programmes look very similar to that which we see in cosmology and biology. Looking at it like that seems far more consistent don't you think?
quote:
3. In an infinate universe(as far as we can tell), we are very unlikely to be the only intelligence, and its very possible to imagine the odds on thier being a 'hyper intelligence'. Still if we ae in the confines of our virtual petri-dish, then this wouldn't explain what this hyper intellignce is or that it inhabits the same relativity as our own.
|
While I am open to the idea of some kind of finite uber-life being what we perceive as God (after all, advanced forms of technology will appear to the unaware as magic), such a being would have to exist contingently in the universe and not be responsible for the creation of the universe, and as such would not be useful here. If such a lifeform designed the human race (highly implausible of course but, unlike the Intelligent Design by God hypothesis, physically possible), then we might ask of it "why?", but the woeful inconsistencies of the human condition would seem to deny some kind of wilful linear intent.
Perhaps, like in the Hitchhikers Guide, Earth is itself the computer . But then, it's a shite hypothesis to begin with.
As for such beings occupying the same "relativity" as our own, it’s a little more complex than that. If you imagine this universe (internally contingent, essentially necessary) as operating on "real time" (the premise for causality and logic, thus limiting those two to this universe), and anything above that operating on another dimension perpendicular to "real time" that Hawking called "imaginary time" in that you could have normal numbers on an X axis and imaginary numbers on a Y axis… any communication or information is lost upon the event horizon between RT and IT. In other words, the hand of God could not have extended from IT to RT in order to create the universe.
quote:
of course this all falls back to the question - why exist in the first place?
|
Not at all, rather it renders the question meaningless, absurd and irrelevant; like asking what the sky tastes like.
quote:
why do i play computer games is a good place to start maybe?
|
Methinks not. If there is a God, it would be highly unlikely, and frankly worrying, if it was made in your graven image .
quote:
why is DNA like it is? why can we potentialy change it when our knowledge/technology is high enough?
|
The anthropic principle dictates that if it were any different, you wouldn't be here to ask the question. The probability therefore, of DNA being the way it is, is 1. At the beginning of the universe, the probability was fantastically small of course, but a weak deterministic solution can easily be found for that, and will also destroy the intelligent design nonsense too! 
quote:
For me its the science stuff like DNA and things like the universe being too highly tuned etc.
|
Well you see again to being a simple measure of complexity in support of design or intent is simplistic. Remember that wonderfully simple causes can lead to fantastically complex outcomes, and given a set of causes, a given consequence will arise. You can reduce any complex system down like that, and see that while life was unlikely at the beginning, at each step it becomes less surprising.
quote:
what is the cause of the purpose behind dna?
|
Methinks you're going to fall foul of the holes in the first cause argument. A cause for the purpose is not needed because it is us that define "purpose". Remember that we're just a set of objects... would you argue that some anonymous asteroid has some purpose? Are we any different from a cosmological viewpoint?
quote:
How does a Bumblebee fly? - we all know it does, but it shouldn't be able to using our methods of measuring things.
|
The spherical motion of its wings creates a region of low pressure above its thorax which generates lift, and is able to adjust this vortex, as well as the gyroscopic influence of the counterweights on its wings. On the scale of the bumblebee, air is like water to us anyway.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2005 19:55
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|
