Life, The Universe and Everything Else

[Curtiger]

What does it matter if you exist, a tree exists blah blah blah. If we ever prove existance or not, will anything change.

Philosophy has its place, and has contributed to Science, Politics ect. This however, should be under the game for a laugh section.

This post alone nearly qualifies it for it, but I think we'll let the big boys keep up their philosophical debate. Your existence depends on it, apparently.

 

[Dyer'ere]

On the subject of 'things', you can never be wrong.Where you decide "wave" IS,then that's where it is.

"Words mean precisely what I want them to mean." Humpty Dumpty? But if that's so we can never communicate, can we?

Well i maintain there are absolutes."I think, therefore I am" is an absolute.

Other consciousnesses can only tell you are wrong about empirical facts.

So there are absolute truths and the cogito is one of them. And other consciousnesses can only tell me I am wrong about empirical facts.

But the empirical information is of a lower/different order than the absolute truth, is that right? Being inducted not deduced?

And a wave can be defined through words, which don't after all mean precisely what I want them to mean. Rather they mean what we can agree on (as best we can agree) as defined in our word agreement contract tome (Oxford ED).

And because all this is true when I say I thought therefore I was you can show me that I'm wrong and that the only absolute of that kind is I think therefore I am. Through words.

So for me then, is the Cogito empirical or absolute?

Hey, because I might never have thought the Cogito I might not exist but for your merciful intervention. Thanks, Dad. ;D

 

[evo]

I'm obviously not getting my points across very well,I'm still not so good at explaining this stuff.It wasn't about semantics at all.

I probably shouldn't have put wave in quotations marks,it gave you the wrong impression what I was trying to say.My bad.

 

[Dyer'ere]

So there are absolute truths and the cogito is one of them. And other consciousnesses can only tell me I am wrong about empirical facts.

But the empirical information is of a lower/different order than the absolute truth, is that right? Being inducted not deduced?

Have I got you right on this, evo?

 

[evo]

That's basically it,but I'll just qualify it a little.

So there are absolute truths and the cogito is one of them. And other consciousnesses can only tell me I am wrong about empirical facts.

Other consciousnesses can also tell me I'm wrong on a point of logic.I could've made a mistake(no ones perfect and all that)Other consciousnesses can argue from a point of logic,if proven I'll will concede and admit i was incorrect.

I can also be incorrect about empirical facts(like i thought Steamer kicked more goals than Richo last year)

What I can't be wrong about is the fact that "I exist" or "I am" per Descartes.If you make this "I exist" claim i can also ankwoledge that what you said is true,to you.It is absolutely true statement (to that person.)It's something one can be sure of.

But the empirical information is of a lower/different order than the absolute truth, is that right? Being inducted not deduced?

Have I got you right on this, evo?

That's right.Absolute truths are what we can know;Ultimate truths, if you like.Ones that conscious beings all have in common.

Inductions can be wrong,they are more like opinions.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Well then I do think I understand pretty much your views or at least the thumbprints of them, evo.

The semantic issues are just me making obscure jokes.

So back to the original point I was trying to make, albeit badly.

Is not the existence of other consciousnesses inducted truth- empirical? If so every time we argue from the existence of other consciousnesses our conclusions are essentially inductive, even though we may use a priori or absolute knowledge in the process.

And of what use is the absolute truth if all it amounts to is that I exist? (Are there others of use?)

And since almost everything we do is based on the belief that there are other consciousnesses and that we live in an extended universe, why should we not concede that we are as much trapped in a material world as we are in the fact the we are central to our perception of it?

 

[evo]

Ok,now i see where you are going.This is good argument.

Is not the existence of other consciousnesses inducted truth- empirical?

Yes,I can only assume that you are conscious, and furthermore that you exist.I don't "know"

If so every time we argue from the existence of other consciousnesses our conclusions are essentially inductive, even though we may use a priori or absolute knowledge in the process.

It's a fair point.

What this comes down to whether,or not you rate the abilitity of logic to speak unversally(about other consciousnesses).A relativist would say you can't.

Eventually one has to pick-a-side,so to speak.It sounds like you've picked the relativist side,which is fair enough.And you are making good arguments.

And of what use is the absolute truth if all it amounts to is that I exist? (Are there others of use?)

A relativist wont even let you claim that.

1-0 to my team, so far.You can complain to the ref,but as far as I'm concerned,the ball is in the back of the net.

And since almost everything we do is based on the belief that there are other consciousnesses and that we live in an extended universe, why should we not concede that we are as much trapped in a material world as we are in the fact the we are central to our perception of it?

The last part of the Zen koan(that Donovan was singing about) is pointing to just that.The mind can take us out of "the materialist world"to poke around 'from without'; however, ulitmately, perception is where it is at.

Where the wave,or the knot,or whatever, is defined at each moment(by the perceiver),then that is where it IS.

"First there is a mountain(thats the scientific/materialist view-the regular view),then their is no mountain(this is the idealist view,everything is mind,"things" doesn't inherently exist),then there it is(what you are talking about.Everything is ultimately perception.The enlightened view,to get all poetic.)


However we aren't trapped, we are liberated.To stick with The Matrix movie analogy we can then travel between the two "worlds" ,the same way Keanu and his mates could.

The problem is,you can't jump straight from stages 1 to 3 that the Zen Koan is pointing to(btw,thats just an example,albeit a rather well known one of what they're trying to convey).You have to first embrace that the 2nd part is true,to understand the 3rd bit.And most importantly the 3rd step is the hardest.Thats why people meditate,go and live in caves etc.To escape the "monkey mind chatter" to borrow one of their phrases.


That's probably about as clear as mud.

Man, I'm going to cop it from dukeos for this last bit. :-[

 

[Dyer'ere]

I haven't picked a side, evo san.

I'm engaging in a dialectic with you. Partly for the enjoyment of it but mainly because my starting position is similar to yours and I'd like to see you flesh it out. I haven't had the talent or inclination to do so.

But the argument I presented holds water IMO. I'm thinking that the conclusions you've attributed to me are not in line with what I said partly because Iv'e expressed rhem awkwardly and partly because you've assumed that my position is relativist. It is simply a challenge to yours ATM. A challenge for the reasons I mention above.

I'll get back to you with some more points on the complex and fascinating views you've expressed in this thread. Should be on the Game for a navel-gaze board though. :hihi

 

[evo]

I haven't picked a side, evo san.

I'm engaging in a dialectic with you. Partly for the enjoyment of it but mainly because my starting position is similar to yours and I'd like to see you flesh it out. I haven't had the talent or inclination to do so.

Ok.Sorry about that then.

But the argument I presented holds water IMO. I'm thinking that the conclusions you've attributed to me are not in line with what I said partly because Iv'e expressed rhem awkwardly and partly because you've assumed that my position is relativist. It is simply a challenge to yours ATM. A challenge for the reasons I mention above.

I'll get back to you with some more points on the complex and fascinating views you've expressed in this thread. Should be on the Game for a navel-gaze board though. :hihi

Cool.dialetic is under rated.Loving your work.

 

[1eyedtiger]

And since almost everything we do is based on the belief that there are other consciousnesses and that we live in an extended universe, why should we not concede that we are as much trapped in a material world as we are in the fact the we are central to our perception of it?

Yes, we are central to our perception of the world we live in but how could it possibly be any other way?

An individual's perception of the world is a limited one. No one individual knows everything there is to know about the world we live in. Therefore, we all approach the world according to what we know about it, our point of view. It's a bit like overhearing a conversation halfway through and interpreting what we've heard even though there is much we don't know and coming to an entirely different conclusion. Our point of view, whilst completely real in our own minds may be far from the truth.

 

[Dyer'ere]

Yes, we are central to our perception of the world we live in but how could it possibly be any other way?

That's a great question, 1 0'd.

It's possible that we could think someone else's thought isn't it? Maybe it's not. But it seems possible to me that we might (that is possibly, that is conceivably) experience someone else's thought through some kind of telepathy.

So in the philosophical sense maybe it is possible.

But maybe that's not what you meant.

An individual's perception of the world is a limited one. No one individual knows everything there is to know about the world we live in. Therefore, we all approach the world according to what we know about it, our point of view.

Well we usually do. Maybe almost always. But there times in your life when you might think that you can see things from someone else's POV.

Evo's view, as I read it, is that our POV is essential in everything that exists. Perhaps I'm overstating but that seems to be the gist.

It's a bit like overhearing a conversation halfway through and interpreting what we've heard even though there is much we don't know and coming to an entirely different conclusion. Our point of view, whilst completely real in our own minds may be far from the truth.

Sure thing. Nobody argues that we can't be blindsided. But some philosophies require very complex explanations for relatively simple ideas like being wrong or blindsided.

Here's one that ruins everybody's life: how do you explain self-deception?

A scenario that's a bit like your one about "real in our own minds but far from the truth" -

Imagine that you were able to experience somebody else's preception, firsthand. It's entirely possible that their experience of RED is the same as your experience of say BLUE. That all colours are different.

In fact I don't believe that there is any reason to assume that we experience colours the same way.

Even if we do, we can never know.

It brings to bear the idea that aspects of another's experience are essentially unknowable to us.

And it highlights the difference between experience (eg RED) and the physical things that bring it about (eg a cricket ball).

Experience and physical events are different things. Even if they're intrinsically linked.

 

[1eyedtiger]

That's a great question, 1 0'd.

It's possible that we could think someone else's thought isn't it? Maybe it's not. But it seems possible to me that we might (that is possibly, that is conceivably) experience someone else's thought through some kind of telepathy.

So in the philosophical sense maybe it is possible.

But maybe that's not what you meant.

An individual's POV is reliant on many factors. To be able to see something for another's POV, you would have to know everything about that individual, all their thoughts, their past experiences, everything. You would have to become that individual. I do believe in telepathy because I believe I have experienced it on a couple of occasions. But telepathy, I think, conveys information only about specific things. you see only a tiny part of the other individual.

I can't rule it out a being impossible, just highly unlikely.

Well we usually do. Maybe almost always. But there times in your life when you might think that you can see things from someone else's POV.

Evo's view, as I read it, is that our POV is essential in everything that exists. Perhaps I'm overstating but that seems to be the gist.

If you accept that an individual couldn't know everything (I'm sure there's a lot for me to learn), then you must accept that our POV cannot be essential for existance. In the individual's own mind maybe, but then that wouldn't be the truth?

Let me put it this way, if there was no life in the universe (let's assume for the moment that the universe exists as we know it.), it would still exist. It would just be that there was no one around to appreciate it.

 

[evo]

Evo's view, as I read it, is that our POV is essential in everything that exists. Perhaps I'm overstating but that seems to be the gist.

You've got the correct jist of my position.

Briefly stated my philosophical position is that we(as individuals) all exist in a seperate 'world'.We can all share experiences at times, and 'facts' and scientific truths etc; but ultimately we are on our own.The only 'world' we can ever know, is our own.

Wittgenstein elucidates this important point quite well near the end of his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

You probably know what solipsism is Jack,but for the benefit of others who might be reading this, it will be helpful to understand the Wittgenstein passage,if anyone is interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.

We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not.For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also.

What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.

5.62This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth.

In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself.

That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.


5.63 I am the world.

 

[evo]

If you accept that an individual couldn't know everything (I'm sure there's a lot for me to learn), then you must accept that our POV cannot be essential for existance.

Why? How does that follow?

What does the word existance even mean without the observer-Without the experiencer?

(Along the lines of what Jack is saying)What is "red"?If there where no humans, does red exist in you opinion?

 

[Tiger74]

Why? How does that follow?

What does the word existance even mean without the observer-Without the experiencer?

(Along the lines of what Jack is saying)What is "red"?Does "red" exist?

Who is the observer though?? If God, the Universe, whatever, is the "observer" your question is irrelevant.

Anyway, existance is like a book, just because it is not read does not mean it is not written.

 

[evo]

Who is the observer though??

You are.You are 'God',so to speak.How can it be any other way?

If God, the Universe, whatever, is the "observer" your question is irrelevant.

That's if though.You have started with a proposition you don't know to be true.It's a "begging the question" fallacy.

Furthermore you haven't even told me what 'God' is.And furthermore still, that teleology is true.

Anyway, existance is like a book, just because it is not read does not mean it is not written.

In your opinion.But it's an opinion built on a speculation.

For your specultion to be true "mind" has no relevance to existance.If thats so,then how did your fingers move to type your post?What was the first cause of yuor fingers moving.

 

[Tiger74]

You are.You are 'God',so to speak.How can it be any other way?
That's if though.You have started with a proposition you don't know to be true.It's a "begging the question" fallacy.

Furthermore you haven't even told me what 'God' is.And furthermore still, that teleology is true.
In your opinion.But it's an opinion built on a speculation.

For your specultion to be true "mind" has no relevance to existance.If thats so,then how did your fingers move to type your post?What was the first cause of yuor fingers moving.

My "mind" has no relevance, as long as other carry on after it. I recall and interact with a part of the tale, but its for others to cover the rest. I am assuming I am not the be all and end all of the universe, because while I am absolute for me, I am not for the rest of ..... it.

 

[evo]

My "mind" has no relevance, as long as other carry on after it.

So "mind"(this is the 'royal' mind,not just yours) has no relevance to existence?You still haven't explained how could that be.

I recall and interact with a part of the tale, but its for others to cover the rest.

Right.But you haven't shown that the 'book' exists,ex-consciousness.You assume it does and are asserting that it does.Meh.

I am assuming I am not the be all and end all of the universe, because while I am absolute for me, I am not for the rest of ..... it.

Yes,and i'm asking you why you are assuming that.I'm interested ultimately in what you mean by the word "it"

So far you've had to postulate a God existing to refute my position.Doesn't that concern you at all? ;D

 

[1eyedtiger]

Why? How does that follow?

What does the word existance even mean without the observer-Without the experiencer?

(Along the lines of what Jack is saying)What is "red"?If there where no humans, does red exist in you opinion?

"Red" is the name man has given the a certain colour. What is colour anyway? If there were no humans, nothing that was created by man, including names given to natural phenomena would exist.

But that which is not man made, including natural phenomena for which man has given names, would still exist.

So yes, the natural phenomena of light reflecting off an object in the manner that man has given a name for would exist, but the name "red" would not.

A couple of times you have referred to "humans". Are "humans" the only observers?

 

[Tiger74]

not really, I just think something greater than us exists. For instance, how do we not know that the universe is a being like ourselves, and while we are made up of cells it is made upon us beings, stars, planets, etc?

I just assume I am not the be all and end all, because I am only me, I didn't create me, so there must be others than me.