Life, The Universe and Everything Else

[evo]

"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.

Ok,well I'm sorry to say this mate.But I don't believe you.

Not only wouldn't the word red exist,red the thing-itself wouldn't either.

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

Who can say.My guess would be there are other conscious life forms in the universe.It's pretty big.



[/quote]

 

[evo]

not really, I just think something greater than us exists.

Yes something greater than us does exist."Utterly everything",call that God if you like,you will get no objection from me.

But if you call anything other than that 'God' then i will need either logical or empirical proof,preferably both that such a 'thing' exists.

We know that the "utterly everything"exists because 'it' gave rise to us.

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?

Again,you can say that and I'll have no objection as long as you don't call it a "being".It's a bit risky to call the universe 'utterly everything' though.There could be others.

If it is as you've described,then 'it' can't "do" things,or have a purpose 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.

Well my opinion is nothing created you(ultimately) you just arose.You arose,because the conditions where right for you to do so(you mum met your dad,there was water on this planet that made it habitable etc.)

 

[Tiger74]

Yes something greater than us does exist."Utterly everything",call that God if you like,you will get no objection from me.

But if you call anything other than that 'God' then i will need either logical or empirical proof,preferably both that such a 'thing' exists.

We know that the "utterly everything"exists because 'it' gave rise to us.

Again,you can say that and I'll have no objection as long as you don't call it a "being"

If it is as you've described,then 'it' can't "do" things,or have a purpose etc.

Well my opinion is nothing created you(ultimately) you just arose.You arose,because the conditions where right for you to do so(you mum met your dad,there was water on this planet that made it habitable etc.)

I just refuse to refute that I may be a part of a larger living sentient organism because I cannot prove it. We have a multitude of living organisms inhabiting our body, how do we not know we are doing the same?

 

[evo]

I just refuse to refute that I may be a part of a larger living sentient organism because I cannot prove it.

<shrug> It seems like stubborness to me(no offense intended) 'God gave you' the ability to reason,why not use it to your best of your abilities?

We have a multitude of living organisms inhabiting our body, how do we not know we are doing the same?

We can know by reasoning through the problem.

I can't do it for you though.You'll have to do it for yourself(if you want to).If you don't thats cool with me too.I'm just engaging in dialectic here, to borrow from Jack.

In a sort of way you are right,we are a small part of "utterly everything" it just isn't an "organism" or a "being"

 

[Dyer'ere]

I just refuse to refute that I may be a part of a larger living sentient organism because I cannot prove it. We have a multitude of living organisms inhabiting our body, how do we not know we are doing the same?

Sure, T74, believe whatever you want but that doesn't make it logical. That means able to be proven albeit through logic.

Evo's philosophical standpoint might just enable him to prove that there's a god. Descartes failed from similar premises but evo may succeed.

Descartes was the Greg Beck of philosophers and evo's already established that he's better than Beck in that man's field. Give him a chance.

 

[evo]

Spinoza was actually closer to whats actually going on than Descartes,in my view.He almost got their single handedly.Fair play to him.

As for Beck,well what can we say that hasn't already be said.....

 

[Tiger74]

<shrug> It seems like stubborness to me(no offense intended) 'God gave you' the ability to reason,why not use it to your best of your abilities?
We can know by reasoning through the problem.

I can't do it for you though.You'll have to do it for yourself(if you want to).If you don't thats cool with me too.I'm just engaging in dialectic here, to borrow from Jack.

In a sort of way you are right,we are a small part of "utterly everything" it just isn't an "organism" or a "being"

Actually I am not arguing against questioning a theory, just against ruling them out. I sadly acknowledge that while in my lifetime we will discover and learn much, I am humble enough to admit we will not learn all. As such, while "I" exist I will endorse and rule out many options on why we are here, but I know that despite our best efforts its highly unlikely we will achieve a definitive answer in this time.

That being said, while the task may be doomed to failure for me, the steps in my lifetime may be vital in a final answer being achieved in later generations, so the task of questioning is far from pointless.

 

[evo]

Actually I am not arguing against questioning a theory, just against ruling them out. I sadly acknowledge that while in my lifetime we will discover and learn much, I am humble enough to admit we will not learn all. As such, while "I" exist I will endorse and rule out many options on why we are here, but I know that despite our best efforts its highly unlikely we will achieve a definitive answer in this time.

It's a fair enough position to take.

The funny thing is,most of the things I've been proposing in this thread,and in particular in regard to 'God' where already said by that Siddartha fella nearly 3000 years ago.He worked it all out by merely sitting under a tree for an extended period.

I'm not being particularly 'risky' here, just engaging in a dot joining exercise between western and eastern philosophy from my research thus far.As yet I haven't been able to join all the dots.Hopefully I will before my inevitable demise.

To borrow a quote from the current Dalai Lama in his reply to a number of scientists over the years "If it's wrong,I'll change it"

That being said, while the task may be doomed to failure for me, the steps in my lifetime may be vital in a final answer being achieved in later generations, so the task of questioning is far from pointless.

good attitude.

 

[Dyer'ere]

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?

I don't think this follows 10'd. Let's test it.

An individual can't know everything.

Therefore Objects exist when they are not perceived.

I see what you're getting at , I think, but I don't see that you've established the logical link.

Maybe you meant something like:

There are things that we don't know (things that exist outside our consciousness).

Therefore objects exist outside our consciousness.

But if you do the argument is circular, that is relies on the conclusion as a premise. Not logical.

The fact is that there is absolutely no proof that anything is absolutely true. ;D (An oxymoron and a joke.)

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.

This is an assertion, 1et. A bit like T74's. And one almost everybody agrees with. And as I said to T74, you're free to believe it. Unlike T74 mad not to. ;D

But troubling as it is nobody can prove it ATM.

So evo's position is appealing. Because maybe he can demonstrate it. Logically.

 

[evo]

The fact is that there is absolutely no proof that anything is absolutely true. ;D (An oxymoron and a joke.)

Absolutely true statements are actually a dime a dozen.Try this one out for size, see if you can logically fault it.

"There appears to me to be a coffee mug sitting on my desk"

 

[1eyedtiger]

Yes something greater than us does exist."Utterly everything",call that God if you like,you will get no objection from me.

But if you call anything other than that 'God' then i will need either logical or empirical proof,preferably both that such a 'thing' exists.

We know that the "utterly everything"exists because 'it' gave rise to us.

Again,you can say that and I'll have no objection as long as you don't call it a "being".It's a bit risky to call the universe 'utterly everything' though.There could be others.

If it is as you've described,then 'it' can't "do" things,or have a purpose etc.

Well my opinion is nothing created you(ultimately) you just arose.You arose,because the conditions where right for you to do so(you mum met your dad,there was water on this planet that made it habitable etc.)

I had a look at the link you posted earlier. There was a fair amount to take in considering I haven't read much about this topic, I just call it as I see it. Not sure if I have this right, but the general gist of it seems to be that you believe that you exist but that others only might exist (I know, very simplified but I'll read it again later). Let me know if I'm wrong here because even though we obviously differ in opinion in major areas, I'm willing to keep an open mind and learn a thing or two.

If you only believe that you exist and others might exist but can't be proven, then this "utterly everything" you speak about can't be proven either?

 

[evo]

I had a look at the link you posted earlier. There was a fair amount to take in considering I haven't read much about this topic, I just call it as I see it. Not sure if I have this right, but the general gist of it seems to be that you believe that you exist but that others only might exist (I know, very simplified but I'll read it again later). Let me know if I'm wrong here because even though we obviously differ in opinion in major areas, I'm willing to keep an open mind and learn a thing or two.

The link to the wiki article on Solipsism was just to aid in undertsanding what Wittgenstein was saying.It's a useful avenue to begin philosophically.Assume nothing is known(for sure),and work from there..It also can't be logiclly refuted so it's a handy stepping stone towards the various forms of idealism (to which I subscribe , broadly speaking)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

If you only believe that you exist and others might exist but can't be proven, then this "utterly everything" you speak about can't be proven either?

'utterly everything' must exist,even if 'utterly everything' amounted to just you,and your thoughts( solipsism).If 'it' doesn't exist,then nothing does.'It' gives rise to well,er,everything

The description below doesn't quite always encompass it because some traditions aren't using it to describe 'utterly everything' but anyway this might be helpful...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_All

 

[Curtiger]

...then i will need either logical or empirical proof,preferably both that such a 'thing' exists.

Could you take such proof from somebody else? Empirical proof, I mean.

While your arguments ring true to me, evo, I have to say that they appear greater to me in watertightness than in credibility.

Not sure if I have this right, but the general gist of it seems to be that you believe that you exist but that others only might exist (I know, very simplified but I'll read it again later).

A good little thing to study for this area of discussion is the Turing Test (which I'm sure I've linked to a few times before). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

 

[evo]

Could you take such proof from somebody else? Empirical proof, I mean.

Empirical proof of a Abrahamic type God existing would be pretty impressive I have to admit.I can't really imagine what form that would take.My standards aren't even that high though.I'd accept a logical proof alone.

Nearly 3000 years of the some of the finest minds dedicated to the task of writing a water tight syllogism that proves God exists logically,and still non forthcoming.One can't help wondering if it is possible to do.Ever.

While your arguments ring true to me, evo, I have to say that they appear greater to me in watertightness than in credibility.

Fair enough.I haven't completed the picture as i see it yet,in this thread.Just going through a couple of the steps so far.

A good little thing to study for this area of discussion is the Turing Test (which I'm sure I've linked to a few times before). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

Good call.It's a very handy thought experiment to understand.

This one is quite handy too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-zombie

Curtis Bear,if you don't mind me prying,are you studying psychology currently?

 

[Curtiger]

That p-zombie concept was pretty interesting, evo. Was one used during all that talk about souls?

Curtis Bear,if you don't mind me prying,are you studying psychology currently?

Nah. Did VCE psychology the last 2 years and now I'm studying the effects of intoxicants on the nervous system in my gap-year(s).
What I contribute to this discussion usually comes from the areas and texts I studied in year 9 and 12 philosophy or my browsing through the philosophical pages of wikipedia.

 

[Six Pack]

lmao @Curty! ;D

 

[evo]

That p-zombie concept was pretty interesting, evo. Was one used during all that talk about souls?

Yeah,sorta.It's as old as descartes really.Thats why i said to you he's sort of making a comeback.The stuff he argued about is the same stuff the're effectively arguing about now.The've just given it flash names like 'qualia' and 'p-zombies'

.now I'm studying the effects of intoxicants on the nervous system in my gap-year(s).

I didn't notice you were joking here until 6'er pointed it out in the next post..


I gotta lighten up. :-[

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I gotta lighten up. :-[

:hihi :beer

 

[Dyer'ere]

Absolutely true statements are actually a dime a dozen.Try this one out for size, see if you can logically fault it.

"There appears to me to be a coffee mug sitting on my desk"

I am troubled evo san.

This morning when I awoke I was glad that I'd bought shampoo yesterday as I was hungry. I often find myself in states near or in sleep that are fuddled. The truth is that i bought shampoo and cornflakes yesterday so it was a simple confusion.

Could I not, in such a state, believe the proposition "there appears to be a coffee mug on the desk in front of me" in the same way that I believed that shampoo was just the thing for my hunger?

First evo san, could not the very nature of "appearance to me" be an illusion?



The nub of upcoming questions after exploration of this one -

Is my behaviour the best test of "what appears to me" or the proposition that I utter?

Are there orders of absoloute truth, say those that rely on language and those that do not, or those that must be empirically acquired?

What is the value of absolute truth if almost all of the examples are trivial?

 

[evo]

I am troubled evo san.

This morning when I awoke I was glad that I'd bought shampoo yesterday as I was hungry. I often find myself in states near or in sleep that are fuddled. The truth is that i bought shampoo and cornflakes yesterday so it was a simple confusion.

Could I not, in such a state, believe the proposition "there appears to be a coffee mug on the desk in front of me" in the same way that I believed that shampoo was just the thing for my hunger?

First evo san, could not the very nature of "appearance to me" be an illusion?

Yes, absolutely.But what else does one have ultimately?

I had to add the 'appears' to make it a watertight statement. If I had've instead said there 'exists' or there 'is' a coffee mug then that is open to the doubts that you are raising.It wouldn't be an absolutely true statement any more.I may have still been asleep,tripping,drunk,forgotten to put my specs on. etc.(all these are likely scenarios in my case on a regular basis apart from the glasses) ;D

tough questions....

Is my behaviour the best test of "what appears to me" or the proposition that I utter?

You might need to clarify this question for me.

Are there orders of absoloute truth, say those that rely on language and those that do not

Yes.The coffee mug statement,is a trivial truth.As you've observed.

Statements like that are a dime a dozens.But actual absolute truth,well thats something much rarer.Since the existentialists came along many people don't even believe there is such a thing.

or those that must be empirically acquired?

Kierkegaard regards empirical(he calls them 'historical' truths), trivial.I tend to agree, although I wouldn't put it as coursely.I'm not sure what to call them to be honest.Second order, or something like that.'Facts'

Anyone can tell you facts, Robbo or Mike Sheahan for example. ;D They have utility,but they don't mean an aweful lot,ultimately.

What is the value of absolute truth if almost all of the examples are trivial?

The coffee mug example clearly is trivial.It's just an example that it is possible to make a true statement.

But the "I am" statement isn't trivial.It grounds ones very existence itself.(assuming you accept it is true)

- "Everything has a cause" would be another thing i consider absolutely true.

- A=A ; or A is A

-"Things don't have inherent existence"

These are things that can be true in "all possible worlds"

Thats just about it.The're as rare as bloody hens teeth.But you can do quite alot with those 3