EPTPhilosophy - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:24 Yurebis wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem What is this directed towards? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
| ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On July 15 2010 09:48 kzn wrote: No, thats the way it has to be, period. I already answered your question. There is no reason "why" organisms care about survival, but there is a reason that only such organisms will continue to survive. Thanks. On July 15 2010 09:55 Duelist wrote: I see. Well that's coherent with the nick. About the "why does it care about surviving" i already replied, about the "why is it the way it is" It is the way it is, because it happened to be this way or because it was made this way by someone or something, if you believe in a greater power. If the universe had another set of rules, if an hydrogen proton would weight more, or the electric charge of an electron would be higher, or if the initial conditions of the earth that allowed the first living beings were different, the genes would be different. Scientists speculate those universes actullay exist, and belong to dimensions above the 4th, up to the 11th. Sometimes luck or lack of is a factor. Some animals could not exist today, because some predators happened to found to their last hatch of eggs. It seems we've arrived at a very basic question. Thanks for your time. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On July 15 2010 09:56 Epsilon8 wrote: You have to give me more specific examples about what this 'proper desire' actually entails. Generally, I would say yes, that they would tell you that your beliefs are errant. If you give me a specific example I can evaluate it and tell yes or no, and if possible evaluate on why. Those are specific, my beliefs - in this instance - are the reverse of Buddhist teachings (suffering is the result of emptiness (sunyata), happiness is the result of desire). If in this light a Buddhist monk will tell me that my beliefs are errant, then does this not mean that Buddhist teaching accurately describes reality, and that these things have "inherent existence" as functions of the universe? (i.e. they are discovered, unable to be empty themselves) That is to say that "desire causes suffering" was always true, independent of anyone being able to desire, or suffer, etc.? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:24 Epsilon8 wrote: Oh really? Not even the fact that science itself, just like all other belief systems, has made underlying assumptions about reality. Science is not an 'objective' understanding of the world. It is more like a scientific philosophy. And in todays society we have something more like 'scientific materialism'. The only important assumption made by science is that perception matches reality, and even that can be done away with if you really want to. Everything is based off of a first belief. For science it is that the world can actually be truly objective and that material things is all there is. If it is not material, then it must somehow be based off of material properties. That is not an assumption that is readily contestable. It is mathematically true that I exist - the question is what, precisely, that means, what my perceptions are and what they reflect, and so on and so forth. Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective way things work, and arguably on the assumption that our perceptions match "objective" reality (but the second assumption isn't necessary at all). You cannot deny this assumption without, essentially, asserting that everything happens at random. One major flaw of science is that it has not ever been able to solve the so called 'hard problem of consciousness'. You say that as if the very existence of that problem isn't itself debated by philosophers. Dennett (and I) would deny that there is any problem in explaining a state of conscious experience with reference to neurological events. Moreover, only a small part of the hard problem of consciousness is a question that science is actually concerned with - that of how it is that some organisms have experiences. This is a failing mostly because the definitions of half of the words in that question are themselves debatable and contested. Given time, there is nothing to suggest science will not in fact be able to answer that question. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:49 Yurebis wrote: Science hasn't overcome the is-ought gap, and I don't think it ever will. The is-ought gap cannot be objectively overcome as a matter of pure logic. That does not mean it is actually a problem, however. Nothing changes if science goes from taking as a given "causality is true" to taking as an assumption "causality is true". The opposite assumption is laughably unworkable and isn't held by anyone at all seriously. An assumption that one has to make is, for all intents and purposes, no longer an assumption. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:51 kzn wrote: The is-ought gap cannot be objectively overcome as a matter of pure logic. That does not mean it is actually a problem, however. Nothing changes if science goes from taking as a given "causality is true" to taking as an assumption "causality is true". The opposite assumption is laughably unworkable and isn't held by anyone at all seriously. An assumption that one has to make is, for all intents and purposes, no longer an assumption. I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote: I think it's a pretty big problem for those trying to achieve a scientific ought. "causality is true" is a description so I dunno what you're saying. Who needs to achieve a scientific ought? | ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:40 Gnosis wrote: Those are specific, my beliefs - in this instance - are the reverse of Buddhist teachings (suffering is the result of emptiness (sunyata), happiness is the result of desire). If in this light a Buddhist monk will tell me that my beliefs are errant, then does this not mean that Buddhist teaching accurately describes reality, and that these things have "inherent existence" as functions of the universe? (i.e. they are discovered, unable to be empty themselves) That is to say that "desire causes suffering" was always true, independent of anyone being able to desire, or suffer, etc.? No. All things are empty of inherent existence. Just as the idea of emptiness is also empty because it is based on the fact that things are empty so to is the reason for suffering being desire empty. This is because you suffer because you desire because things are empty. When you desire you suffer because what you are desiring isn't really there, that is, existing inherently. Desire being the cause of suffering is empty because it is based on the emptiness of things. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
No one in particular, I'm just reminding the people here using evolutionary theories that such gap exists, before they go jumping over it. I think someone here already did but I'm not going to review and quote atm. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:59 Epsilon8 wrote: No. All things are empty of inherent existence. Just as the idea of emptiness is also empty because it is based on the fact that things are empty so to is the reason for suffering being desire empty. This is because you suffer because you desire because things are empty. When you desire you suffer because what you are desiring isn't really there, that is, existing inherently. Desire being the cause of suffering is empty because it is based on the emptiness of things. If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists. | ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
On July 15 2010 10:46 kzn wrote: The only important assumption made by science is that perception matches reality, and even that can be done away with if you really want to. That is not an assumption that is readily contestable. It is mathematically true that I exist - the question is what, precisely, that means, what my perceptions are and what they reflect, and so on and so forth. Science operates on the assumption that there is an objective way things work, and arguably on the assumption that our perceptions match "objective" reality (but the second assumption isn't necessary at all). You cannot deny this assumption without, essentially, asserting that everything happens at random. Arguing that you exist because it is 'mathematically' true is overlooking the fact that mathematics are not real. Mathematics is something that has been created with the mind. The only thing that math can do is describe the way something works, that is, its procedural nature in existence - cause and effect. Whether or not it actually co-relates to anything inherent to existence is another matter. I'm not saying that things happen at random rather I'm denying that any kind of inherent law based on objectivity could exist. Postulating these inherent laws upon which an objective reality exists is making a leap of faith from subjectivity to objectivity. On July 15 2010 10:46 kzn wrote: You say that as if the very existence of that problem isn't itself debated by philosophers. Dennett (and I) would deny that there is any problem in explaining a state of conscious experience with reference to neurological events. Moreover, only a small part of the hard problem of consciousness is a question that science is actually concerned with - that of how it is that some organisms have experiences. This is a failing mostly because the definitions of half of the words in that question are themselves debatable and contested. Given time, there is nothing to suggest science will not in fact be able to answer that question. Neurological events will never be able to explain awareness and consciousness because science is based on objectivity and consciousness is based on subjectivity. There is no subjectivity in the cells of your brain. Nor is there subjectivity in the cold hard atoms that science postulates to exist. Nor is there soft or hard, hot or cold, blue or yellow. I'm not saying that there are correlations between conscious experience and neurological events, this is true. I would instead suggest that these correlations could be a complementary effect to some other kind of force, that is not objective. There is no reason to infer that some organisms have experience and others do, only that some have experiences and can communicate it in a way intelligible to the human species and some cannot communicate this. Objective science can never explain subjective matters precisely because it is based in a paradigm of objectivity. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
What can bring you lasting happiness? I really think lasting happiness comes from love. In my short life I have experienced success in friendship, financial success, and academic success, but the best feelings that I have felt have come from feeling the extreme acceptance from someone that is love. If love truly does fade as I'm told, than acceptance as a whole would be the next best thing. What are your most important values? I value the ability to be judgmental and deductive, all while maintaining composure and manners. People who accept anyone no matter who they are. are weak in my eyes, and their total acceptance of anyone takes away from the differences of "acceptance" and "coexistance." This said, I think that everyone deserves a chance to be judged equally, and thus I believe that racism has no place in a society of intellectually mature people. What is good and what is evil? My ideals of "good and evil" have changed so many times throughout my childhood and as I entered adulthood. I used to think that people who were good would fight for the greater good of the common people and for their ideals, however now I think it's the complete opposite. I think anyone who disrupts the peace of a society and causes deaths, all for their (respectively personal) ideals, is evil. What right do these terrorists have to challenge the day to day functioning of civilizations? If you want change, appeal through the government and get support, don't kill fathers and brothers for your selfish justifications. That said, anyone who supports peace (North America, European Union, Israel, South Korea, South Africa[I know I'm leaving a lot of peaceful countries and regions out, these are the 5 big ones that came to mind] ) in my opinion is "good." Some will say that I'm "brainwashed" by western civilization, but I support these countries in their functions. The idea that these countries and organizations aren't led by religion but by reason is the prime factor of my support. What is Wisdom? I think wisdom is the ability to detach yourself emotionally from a situation, and judge it from an unbiased stand point. And, if your standing on the wrong side of the line, having the courage and pride to say that you were wrong, and cross to the right side. If more people had the ability to do this, I think there would be a lot less head butting on a global scale. | ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:28 Gnosis wrote: If you insist, then you are implying the inherent existence of this teaching (i.e., this teaching is true regardless of it being known, because it is an inherent property of the universe. You are saying it is true for me, even though I disagree with it), and that will contradict your idea that "all things are empty of inherent existence," because at least this teaching inherently exists. Hmm.. you've taken me to a point that I have never thought about before. I would say that desire causes suffering because emptiness exists (not inherently existent) and because of this what you will desire you will never be able to attain. So in fact the reason that desire causes suffering is not because it is some kind of inherent law but because of the cause of emptiness rendering everything that you perceive to be truly attainable. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On July 15 2010 11:32 Epsilon8 wrote: Arguing that you exist because it is 'mathematically' true is overlooking the fact that mathematics are not real. Mathematics is something that has been created with the mind. The only thing that math can do is describe the way something works, that is, its procedural nature in existence - cause and effect. Whether or not it actually co-relates to anything inherent to existence is another matter. Perhaps mathematically true was a bad choice of words. Descartes conclusively, and deductively, proved that an "I" exists. Nothing more, nothing less. Moreover, mathematics is real, at least in part. 1+1=2 is true, objectively, regardless of anything else. It is true by definition, because of the definitions involved. Certainly, there could be a universe where nobody ever thought about numbers, or quantities, or anything else, but the statement 1+1=2 would still be true there. I'm not saying that things happen at random rather I'm denying that any kind of inherent law based on objectivity could exist. Postulating these inherent laws upon which an objective reality exists is making a leap of faith from subjectivity to objectivity. Its making an assumption which must be made. As I said before, such an assumption is, for all intents and purposes, not an assumption. Neurological events will never be able to explain awareness and consciousness because science is based on objectivity and consciousness is based on subjectivity. There is no subjectivity in the cells of your brain. Nor is there subjectivity in the cold hard atoms that science postulates to exist. Nor is there soft or hard, hot or cold, blue or yellow. I deny that consciousness is based on subjectivity, as does Dennett. | ||
|
Gentlebite
United States132 Posts
Happiness, self enlightenment, objectives, challenge Without these things living wouldn't be as satisfying nor would have a point What can bring you lasting happiness ? Doing what you love What are your most important values ? Honesty,Mercy, Patience What is good and what is evil ? They are non-existant, there is always more than one truth Both of us are right, and both of us are wrong? What is Wisdom ? I liked what the first poster said of "Ability to simplify the complicated." and I'll throw in questioning and yearning for more | ||
| ||
