Isn't existence amazing?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Isn't existence amazing? » Isn't existence amazing?

Isn't existence amazing?

Page: 1 2 3

Isn't existence amazing?

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/24/08 - 05:39 PM:	#26
You're simply wrong about consciousness. All higher mammals are self-aware. Again, unless you are talking about some magic incoporeal aspect of the self, this isn't up for argument. It is a known scientific fact that all the higher mammals can distinguish themselves from other things. Recognize themselves in a mirror. Whether they can reflect on themselves or not is something that can't be determined, however just asserting that they can't is an artical of faith, not something that is in anyway supported by the evidence. I also clearly don't define suffering as you do. Whether we can conceptualize or comprehend the end of our existence does not make anxiety or fear any more intense or uncomfortable. Clearly they are causes of anxiety and fear, but they aren't the sole causes, and they aren't nearly as powerful as the fear and anxiety caused by a predator barroling down on you. Anxiety and fear are lower brain functions, and are thus part of our "reptilian brains". Having evolved a couple hundred million years or more. We may have different causes of anxiety and fear, conceptual ones that other animals can't to the same degree (though this is highly debatable, if anyone has ever seen a dog or a cat have a nightmare.) though clearly not only are those no where near the only causes of anxiety and fear, but the intensity of the emotions caused in that way are in no way comparable to experiencing something trying to kill you. I am afraid that you have given me no reason to not think that your statement that humans suffer the most is not completely and utterly absurd. It is completely about thinking that it sucks. It is not a fact that life sucks, that is a value judgement, not a categorical fact of life. You can reflect on why you think it sucks all you like.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

funky
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 11

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:25 PM:	#27
J.D. wrote: This is the reason that we like to think we have a purpose in life. We are restricted to playing our own role in life, and since we can't choose to be someone who is already great, we either strive to become great, or we give ourselves a purpose. That aside, after analyzing the very essence of my existence, I must marvel at its complexity. I also begin to think differently about how to act and such, being that I am the only person impossible for me to observe in third person. So basically, I am me. It seems a simple concept but with the right mindset it seems like one less freedom. So, discuss, I guess. ^^ Get someone to record you when you are unaware of it, preferably in the company of others, and then watch it alone. It's most bizarre. As much as I dislike being part of existence at the moment, I know there can be a better one if I work hard at it and stop trying to answer unaswerable questions. By all means, theorise and think about it. But don't let it control me. The world is a most fantastic place if you take humans out of the equation, the balance that nature has with itself, the beauty of a butterfly, the complexity of life itself is amazing. Some things working so perfectly: the wind and tides, regulating seasons, and well, you can all name plenty. What really interests me is why things are, how they adapt to thier environments and interect with each other, supoosedly being a lower form of life than us. How does a rose know to grow thorns? Why is a black widow poisonous? But on the flip side, if we are supposed to be the superior species, why are we not immune to all diseases? Why does my wife have a brain tumour? You understand? I do believe in design rather than circumstance, due to all the complexities, even in ourselves -- but not in a religious way. It's all very confusing, to say the least, and that's why we turn to philosophy. Perhaps one day we will become enlightened and find out the "TRUTH". I am a Contradiction! And I love it. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 04/25/08 - 07:10 PM. Reason: punctuation

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/24/08 - 06:50 PM:	#28
Who supposes that we are superior, and other animals are lower? I can tell you that they are unequivocally wrong. There is no standard of greatness that things can be judged against. I might have mislead you when I said the "higher mammals". I was using that merely as a euphamism for animals in possession of the higher brain facualties. Our brains are built onto in layers, starting with the lower brain functions is the brain stem, where the most basic emotions and body fuctions are regulated. Then a middle section where premitive mammals developed some basic cognitive skills and more emotions are held. Then animals with higher brains, the stuff at the top, where advanced cognition, mathematics, communication skills, and abstract thought occures. I meant "higher mammals" only in the sense that they possess higher brain functions. There is no scale of evolution, or greatness. Such things are either value judgements, or based on context. For instance a human might be better at math, but another animal would kick his ass in a race. Neither talent makes one categorically better than the other. Or over all better at everything. It all depends on what you value more. Humans tend to value intelligence above all else. People generally do think what they are good at is the best thing to be good at. It is merely human narsissism and conceit. Human beings are not the "most evolved" (which is a meaningless term) or the end result of evolution. We are good at what we do, just as every other species is good at what they do. Generally a successful species lasts roughly 8 million years, we've only been around for roughly 200 thousand years and we are approaching some problems. We may not even last long enough to be in a league with successful species of the past. So it is not yet justified to say we are a successful species, let alone the best. It is no surpize that we all root for the team we're on. Edited by Wosret on 04/24/08 - 06:55 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 114

Posted 04/25/08 - 01:29 PM:	#29
"J.D" wrote: So I've thought about this most of my life, and it's always incredibly difficult to put into words. The basis is that we can percieve with our eyes, feel with our hands, e.t.c.. Along with that, we are capable of thought, and all this makes up our existence. The fact that I have never percieved using someone else's eyes is almost a slap in the face to help me return to reality. You imply that we understand the world through our senses, some do but others depend more on their reason, realizing that the senses can deceive. These two terms are referred to as ‘Rationalism and Empiricism.’ Plato was a rationalist and explained his theories in a book; “The Republic.” He used a myth about people in a cave to show how our interpretation of the world changes with philosophical knowledge. The world, as each of us know it, is our own representation of it, we can never ever really know what the world is. Our intellect stands between us and the world in the same way that it stands between us and everyone else. The world or what you understand the world to be is a construction of your mind. Philosophy teaches you to understand the world in a different way, by standing back from it, not being apart of it. The state of nature or the metaphysical “Garden of Eden” has long since gone and there is no likelihood of us ever returning to it. Who would want to? Although I should say that I was at a beach recently, Mt.Maunganui, with the sun shining on the sea, and the waves rolling in. It was an enjoyable sight, sort of peaceful. Some people prefer ‘living’ in this sort of world, while others prefer to ‘live’ more in their mind. Your point about seeing the world through others is not correct. In essence you see the world via your education. The huge difference in intellectual ability, from one person to another, requires us to make sense of things with the help of others. They can enable us, through philosophical concepts, to see things differently. The world really, is a sort of illusion but until you understand this you believe it to be real.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/27/08 - 04:11 AM:	#30
I agree with all of that completely. We don't see the world, we see a 3D representation of the world constructed by our minds from the sensory data being constantly received from our sense organs. It is merely an illusion that we see the world. I would say that we gather information about the world through our senses, but we understand the world (as you say) through our rational cognitive facualties. Also, our understanding is only ever as good as the information that we aquire is accurate.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 172

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:36 PM:	#31
J.D. wrote: Hmm, I tend to agree with Wosret though. We are a brute race with the potential to be boundlessly evil, but most people, of whom the media does not cover, choose not to be. Right now there's a decent balance between good and bad, but in another reality, we might have embraced our sinful tendencies, thus making this world worse. Imagine a world where gangs ruled the governments. THEY DO. Open your eyes. Do you really think people run governments? Do you think intelligent people elect monkeys and dictators? Do you think intelligent people go to kill each other in wars, each side claiming to be fighting for GOOD? The fact that the world is so blind is seriously amazing and disgusting at the same time.

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/28/08 - 12:17 PM:	#32
Lex wrote: Do you really think people run governments? Do you think intelligent people elect monkeys and dictators? Do you think intelligent people go to kill each other in wars, each side claiming to be fighting for GOOD? The fact that the world is so blind is seriously amazing and disgusting at the same time. I wonder how blind it really is? Many people say they want a strong leader, they seem to want their leader to advantage their country against other countries, by war if necessary, and they like to think they are doing this in a good cause. And intelligent people probably do elect monkeys and dictators, yes, intelligent people who stand to benefit from the monkey's behaviour, like the people who backed the monkey Bush and the dictator Saddam.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 172

Posted 04/28/08 - 01:25 PM:	#33
Humans like that are either stupid or they are trash. Those who willingly back evil for the purpose of self-gain are called trash. So that does nothing to my argument, since it is about the condition of the world. However, if you say that EVERYONE is intelligent, I will beg to differ.

philthink10
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:44 PM:	#34
I am not particularly sure I "love" existence, however it is rather awe inspiring. To be alive in a Western country in the 21st century is also rather handy...The amount of suffering in the Universe is rather hard to take at times though.

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/29/08 - 10:34 AM:	#35
Wosret wrote: I agree with all of that completely. We don't see the world, we see a 3D representation of the world constructed by our minds from the sensory data being constantly received from our sense organs. It is merely an illusion that we see the world. I disagree with all of that completely. We do see the world. Seeing is what we call it when we have the experience you describe as an illusion.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/29/08 - 10:41 AM:	#36
Lex wrote: Humans like that are either stupid or they are trash. Those who willingly back evil for the purpose of self-gain are called trash. So that does nothing to my argument, since it is about the condition of the world. However, if you say that EVERYONE is intelligent, I will beg to differ. It's no good getting cross about it and calling them "trash" Lex, that just makes you look stupid yourself. Know your enemy. The people who back the leaders are often intelligent, you don't usually get into that sort of position without some intelligence.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 172

Posted 04/29/08 - 11:12 AM:	#37
The Escapist wrote: It's no good getting cross about it and calling them "trash" Lex, that just makes you look stupid yourself. Know your enemy. The people who back the leaders are often intelligent, you don't usually get into that sort of position without some intelligence. If you are so concerned with not looking stupid, do bother to understand what is being said. I said that those who are intelligent yet back the leaders are mostly trash, and the rest are not so smart.

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/29/08 - 12:57 PM:	#38
J.D. said: So I've thought about this most of my life, and it's always incredibly difficult to put into words. The basis is that we can percieve with our eyes, feel with our hands, e.t.c.. Along with that, we are capable of thought, and all this makes up our existence. The fact that I have never percieved using someone else's eyes is almost a slap in the face to help me return to reality. I am me, and no one else can be me, just like I can be no one else. You said that you can perceive and you impute that you are a perceiver that is separate and removed from other perceivers like you but not you. Is this a fact or just an illusion?

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/29/08 - 02:51 PM:	#39
Lex wrote: If you are so concerned with not looking stupid, do bother to understand what is being said. I said that those who are intelligent yet back the leaders are mostly trash, and the rest are not so smart. I understood what you said, I just don't think it is a very useful way to deal with things. Labeling the enemy as "trash" or "evil" doesn't get you very far.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:29 PM:	#40
The Escapist wrote: I disagree with all of that completely. We do see the world. Seeing is what we call it when we have the experience you describe as an illusion. Speak for yourself, clearly that's not what I call it. What I described as the illusion is what I was saying was an illusion. The idea that we see the objective world directly, and not merely a presentation of it. That is what I was calling an illusion, and describing our subjectivity as something quite different. So no, that is not what I mean when I am talking about seeing the world. Edited by Wosret on 04/29/08 - 05:34 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 114

Posted 04/30/08 - 02:08 AM:	#41
The idea of seeing the world goes back a long time. I think George Berkeley was the first to announce something called subject idealism. Basically we see or understand the world via light waves (electromagnetic radiation) and our minds do the rest. I mean add things like colour and sound (qualia), not to mention all sorts of negative subjective feelings. I.Kant then wrote a book called the Critique of Pure Reason which somehow denied the reality of external objects. However you want to look at it, the World transcends Man/Woman because we cannot really understand it, can never know it because of the limitations of our mind. I mean How, When, Where and Why? It forever retains it's mystery. Although on the other hand we do at least know that we exist whereas the world does not know this, I'm referring to consciousness. Consciousness is a strange phenomenon in that it is beyond the boundaries of the laws of physics. The World is governed by Newtonian physics but consciousness is not.

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:46 AM:	#42
Wosret wrote: Speak for yourself, clearly that's not what I call it. What I described as the illusion is what I was saying was an illusion. The idea that we see the objective world directly, and not merely a presentation of it. That is what I was calling an illusion, and describing our subjectivity as something quite different. So no, that is not what I mean when I am talking about seeing the world. There's something odd in the expression "seeing the objective world directly", in that I'm not sure if it means anything. So, it's not obvious to me what idea you are attacking exactly. Do you mean to say that you don't think we see chairs? When I see a chair I'm pretty sure that I'm looking at a "chair" and not "a presentation of a chair".
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/30/08 - 02:13 PM:	#43
Cafe Rob wrote: However you want to look at it, the World transcends Man/Woman because we cannot really understand it, can never know it because of the limitations of our mind. I mean How, When, Where and Why? It forever retains it's mystery. Although on the other hand we do at least know that we exist whereas the world does not know this, I'm referring to consciousness. Consciousness is a strange phenomenon in that it is beyond the boundaries of the laws of physics. The World is governed by Newtonian physics but consciousness is not. Consciousness is in the world. If we know that we exist, the world is conscious of its existence. Taking a certain class of phenomena and calling that "physics" is artificial. The universe is the way it is, and that is "the laws of physics". Consciousness exists in compliance with the laws. The how, when, where questions are answerable, maybe not in an ultimate sense but we know masses more about the answers than we did a century ago, a century is such a tiny stretch of time, there is so much time in the universe. The "why" question doesn't make much sense to me. Why the universe? It's just what happens, there isn't an external reason.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

The Escapist
Supreme Being (retired)

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 26, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 91

Posted 04/30/08 - 02:34 PM:	#44
Wosret wrote: The idea that we see the objective world directly, and not merely a presentation of it. That is what I was calling an illusion. Do you think we touch the objective world directly Wosret, or is that also a presentation, an illusion? You are saying that we see a presentation of what we see. But if you take the presentation away, there isn't any seeing any more. So your idea that we see a presentation is an illusion. We are the objective world directly.
_____________________ Putting someone else's smart arsed quote into your signature does not make you any smarter. - D.K

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/30/08 - 06:12 PM:	#45
sensabile wrote: There's something odd in the expression "seeing the objective world directly", in that I'm not sure if it means anything. So, it's not obvious to me what idea you are attacking exactly. Do you mean to say that you don't think we see chairs? When I see a chair I'm pretty sure that I'm looking at a "chair" and not "a presentation of a chair". You may be pretty sure, but you'd be wrong. We occupy a subjective world created with data received from our sense organs by our brains. This is not a philosophical idea, or a controversial claim, it is a long since demonstrated, and well support scientific fact. It can be easily looked into. I think that it is quite obvious myself though.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/30/08 - 06:24 PM:	#46
The Escapist wrote: Do you think we touch the objective world directly Wosret, or is that also a presentation, an illusion? You are saying that we see a presentation of what we see. But if you take the presentation away, there isn't any seeing any more. So your idea that we see a presentation is an illusion. We are the objective world directly. Ha! Well I guess we were talking about the same thing. I thought you were just saying it was obvious and no one thinks we see the objective world directly, and not merely a representation created by our brains with data collected from our sense organs. So then, you are simply wrong. Do we "touch" the objective world directly? Sure, our sense organs directly interact with the world, our brains translate the data received in this way into a subjective environment that is quite directly influenced but the objective world, but what we see in our world is merely what has been received through our sense organs, and translated into a representation. We have our five senses to collect data, and we see what data was collected in the way of a subjective world. Which can be easily fooled and tricked by false data, or polluted and distorted by chemical embalances, or brain abnormalities. All the things that we recognize as our senses are merely subjective representations of the data received. The sensation of touch, the oders of gases, and the tastes of food., the colours of light, and the sound of vibrations. Which reminds me of a funny answer to the question of the "when a tree falls in the woods" idiom, when reading about this, though I forgot who said it: "The answer is no! It does not make a sound, becaue sound is what is produced when vibrations interact with ear-drums, so when no one is around to hear it, it indeed does not make a sound."
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

yiming
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 61

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:45 PM:	#47
Hey Worset, I agree with your conclusion about no sound when no one is around to hear it. However, I would like to question you about perception. If, senses collect data and the brain translates data, then the world we see is not something objectively outside the brain but subjective translations inside it. Would you then agree that computer screen you are looking at right now is inside your head? In other words, there is no "outside"?

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:55 PM:	#48
Wosret wrote: You may be pretty sure, but you'd be wrong. We occupy a subjective world created with data received from our sense organs by our brains. So what am I looking at if I'm not looking at a chair? Nothing much you've said so far seems to make such sense; for instance the phrase "occupying a subjective world" seems useless to me, i.e. meaningless. This is not a philosophical idea, or a controversial claim, it is a long since demonstrated, and well support scientific fact. I don't see how anything so vague could have been demonstrated, unless of course you actually mean something quite straight forward. It can be easily looked into. I think that it is quite obvious myself though. Something is usually obvious only when either it's too hard to investigate or when it's so uninteresting that we'd rather be wrong than bother with the subject.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

sensabile
Raisy Daisy...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Location: Southern England
Total Topics: 130
Total Posts: 4186

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:00 PM:	#49
yiming wrote: If, senses collect data and the brain translates data, then the world we see is not something objectively outside the brain but subjective translations inside it. Would you then agree that computer screen you are looking at right now is inside your head? In other words, there is no "outside"? Obviously the world is not inside our heads, but the "world" is only a word within a language. I believe the world will continue to exist when I die but the "world" doesn't exist independently of language.
_____________________ For the winner there was a big three-legged cauldron to stand over a fire - it was worth a dozen oxen by the Greek's reckoning - and for the loser he brought forward a woman thoroughly trained in domestic work whom they valued at four oxen. -Homer's The Illiad Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? -Mark 9:50

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 172

Posted 04/30/08 - 08:34 PM:	#50
The Escapist wrote: I understood what you said, I just don't think it is a very useful way to deal with things. Labeling the enemy as "trash" or "evil" doesn't get you very far. No that is actually the only thing that gets you far. If you don't believe the enemy is evil, why the ()$ do you even call it an enemy?

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.