|
Wow, I didn't know that there are people who study about Bhuddism in TL.
As a Theravada Bhuddhist, I think there's some misconception I need to clarify first. I will try not going too deep.
1. The concept of "Nothingness" comes from the "Three Nature of Things (Tri-Lakkhana)" in Bhuddism. We believe that everything is "Uncertainty (anicca)", "Spontaneosly Change (Dhukka, which can be interpreted as Suffering too but there's more meaning than that)", and "Uncontrollable (Anatta, which also means non-self)". As things are constantly changing without "ourselves" being able to control, the concept of "Sunyatta" or "Nothingness" is used to described this state of "emptiness" of the world.
It also means the state of mind when a person reaches a realization of "the world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self".
2. Meditation is not a way of escaping the reality. Rather, it is about facing the reality while being fully concious. To explain more, there is two types of meditation, Samatha meditation, and Vipassana meditation. The former is about sharpening the mind to the finest point, which is not really applicable in the real life. Vipassana, on the other hand, is about staying "concious" and realize what is happening in the present in the finest detail. For example, when doing Vipassana meditaion, one would realize how the air we breath come in and out, which part of the body expand when we inhale, which part we ache, etc. The key is that we realize those things and then look at how it happen, staying there and then fade away.
How this tie to the concept of "nothingness"? Well, there's a saying for Bhuddhist that "to live in the present", which means being concious of the present in the finest detail. And meditation is used to realize step by step how things are "nothingness". It's something you have to tried an experience by yourself but you will realize when trying that you can't stop the part we ache even you scream so lound within yourselve, but it will fade away in time without being controlled at all.
3. Bhuddism at its core is about trying to get rid of concept of "self" or "belonging to self".
Now to OP's questions:
A.) Nothingness is a part of Nibbana and so it's the key part of Bhuddism. I experince a part of it once during my meditation practice camp so I would say I have to believe in it 
B.) I don't think about "death" as much because as I said above, it is more important to try to live in the present. I believe there's no point thinking about it and trying to practice our mind to stay concious all of the time is more important.
C.) It's really hard to describe but I see "nothingness" in term of "lack of self of everything" because we cannot really control things, both ourselves and surrounding. Things have value because we assign those values to it, and that's all.
|
On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
Does a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"?
Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well.
As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start.
|
On May 29 2012 03:07 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 18:53 xM(Z wrote:On May 28 2012 09:29 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On May 27 2012 23:39 xM(Z wrote:
nope, i will not die. i will become the anti-me. then, the "nothingness" will have meaning. what do you mean by this? since antimatter (presumably) exists why an anti-me wouldn't?. it'll be just a different state of matter and/or energy and since this state, 'the living' state, is characterized by 'somethingness' why couldn't that other state be characterized/defined by 'nothingness'?. also, i believe (kinda) that our mind already knows the secrets of the universe, it's rules, it's purpose and so on. the irony is that we don't know those, our consciousness does't. that knowledge is impaired by our physical and/or psychical limitations. There are plenty of non-living things that exist, I don't quite get this. And how does our mind 'know' these things?
we are beyond 'things' right now. everything is matter and energy. i used that wording (anti-me) because the context required it (imo). i wasn't making the 'anti-xx' exclusive (humans only) but instead of saying anti-rock  i assumed antimatter would be enough of a description for everything else.
as far as the other thing goes, it's based on the idea that intelligence/intellect is roughly a photon-like symbiotic virus and matter one of it's hosts.
|
On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start.
I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe).
My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent.
I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind.
|
On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind.
It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain?
There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?).
Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe.
"We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not.
|
On May 29 2012 22:41 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind. It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain? There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?). Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe. "We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not.
The big bang theory is just a theory and I'm sure that it will be proven wrong in the future just like how the world being flat was proven to be wrong. We know so little about the cosmos to the point where the big bang theory is really just a guess based on very small evidence that scientists do have. I read The God Delusion and I know most of the arguments about observation and chance, the blind watchmaker argument, and the argument that you brought up about us not being here if it did things differently. I do not agree with the big bang theory as like I said, we know very., very. very little about the cosmos and in my opinion the big bang theory is not a viable explanation of how the universe came into being.
The universe starting from a size of the tip of a pen point and then exploding on its own to create all of these amazing things including us is not blind chance in my opinion.There's too much order in ourselves for it to be by blind chance. What decided that we needed a throat, organs, and then designed them, and why, why would the universe create life? Is it for a self fulfilling prophecy? Blind chance? I think not.
Creating intelligent life does require intelligence, how else did it figure out that we needed a throat, organs, individual fingers, and where to place all of these things, and then create a way for us to reproduce, and create he liquids needed for reproduction, and the chemical balances in our brain. It does require intelligence. Maybe nature itself is God.
|
On May 30 2012 00:38 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 22:41 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind. It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain? There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?). Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe. "We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not. The big bang theory is just a theory and I'm sure that it will be proven wrong in the future just like how the world being flat was proven to be wrong. We know so little about the cosmos to the point where the big bang theory is really just a guess based on very small evidence that scientists do have. I read The God Delusion and I know most of the arguments about observation and chance, the blind watchmaker argument, and the argument that you brought up about us not being here if it did things differently. I do not agree with the big bang theory as like I said, we know very., very. very little about the cosmos and in my opinion the big bang theory is not a viable explanation of how the universe came into being. The universe starting from a size of the tip of a pen point and then exploding on its own to create all of these amazing things including us is not blind chance in my opinion.There's too much order in ourselves for it to be by blind chance. What decided that we needed a throat, organs, and then designed them, and why, why would the universe create life? Is it for a self fulfilling prophecy? Blind chance? I think not. Creating intelligent life does require intelligence, how else did it figure out that we needed a throat, organs, individual fingers, and where to place all of these things, and then create a way for us to reproduce, and create he liquids needed for reproduction, and the chemical balances in our brain. It does require intelligence. Maybe nature itself is God.
The big bang theory is not one of creation. But what makes you say we know very very little? We know an amazing amount about the universe. We have quantum teleportation!
Once again, why does something with no evidence = something with tons of evidence? Saying the earth is spherical is much better than saying it is flat, though they are both wrong.
You are seeing something that is not there. "There's too much order"? According to who? If it was disorganized, how would that work? Nothing decides that we need a throat, organs etc. They come about through evolution. Larger bodies won't live unless they can get air, so one that mutates a simple circulatory system will kick selective ass. His best progeny kicks more selective ass, mix in some great extinctions, pow!
Why does there have to be a why? And why does it make more sense that there is, rather than isn't? (a why)
Nature is God in the sense that the 'Gods' of myth are poor descriptions and explanations for things that happen. Nature just does.
|
On May 30 2012 01:29 seppolevne wrote:
Nature just does.
Yes but why?
Why does there have to be a why?
Why wouldn't there be?
It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance.
Why is there chance?
Also, probability is probably very problematic. Have you ever heard of the sleeping beauty problem?
|
On May 30 2012 01:29 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 00:38 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 22:41 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind. It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain? There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?). Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe. "We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not. The big bang theory is just a theory and I'm sure that it will be proven wrong in the future just like how the world being flat was proven to be wrong. We know so little about the cosmos to the point where the big bang theory is really just a guess based on very small evidence that scientists do have. I read The God Delusion and I know most of the arguments about observation and chance, the blind watchmaker argument, and the argument that you brought up about us not being here if it did things differently. I do not agree with the big bang theory as like I said, we know very., very. very little about the cosmos and in my opinion the big bang theory is not a viable explanation of how the universe came into being. The universe starting from a size of the tip of a pen point and then exploding on its own to create all of these amazing things including us is not blind chance in my opinion.There's too much order in ourselves for it to be by blind chance. What decided that we needed a throat, organs, and then designed them, and why, why would the universe create life? Is it for a self fulfilling prophecy? Blind chance? I think not. Creating intelligent life does require intelligence, how else did it figure out that we needed a throat, organs, individual fingers, and where to place all of these things, and then create a way for us to reproduce, and create he liquids needed for reproduction, and the chemical balances in our brain. It does require intelligence. Maybe nature itself is God. The big bang theory is not one of creation. But what makes you say we know very very little? We know an amazing amount about the universe. We have quantum teleportation! Once again, why does something with no evidence = something with tons of evidence? Saying the earth is spherical is much better than saying it is flat, though they are both wrong. You are seeing something that is not there. "There's too much order"? According to who? If it was disorganized, how would that work? Nothing decides that we need a throat, organs etc. They come about through evolution. Larger bodies won't live unless they can get air, so one that mutates a simple circulatory system will kick selective ass. His best progeny kicks more selective ass, mix in some great extinctions, pow! Why does there have to be a why? And why does it make more sense that there is, rather than isn't? (a why) Nature is God in the sense that the 'Gods' of myth are poor descriptions and explanations for things that happen. Nature just does.
We know very little about our universe because there isn't even a definite answer of how the universe was created. There are multiple theory's of how the universe was created besides the big bang and there is still a large portion of the universe that is still largely unseen. We haven't even ventured out of our own galaxy yet, not to mention that we don't know much about our own galaxy yet.
Something did decide that we need a throat & organs. You can call it natural selection but something had to start the design process in the first place and design the design around the selected evolutional changes. To think that it was all random or that evolution isn't a programmed asset of life is just crazy in my opinion. I cant accept that nature "just does", that seems to be dumbing down nature and life itself. What programmed or caused nature to "just does" and why?
|
On May 30 2012 02:26 sam!zdat wrote:Yes but why? Why wouldn't there be? Why is there chance? Also, probability is probably very problematic. Have you ever heard of the sleeping beauty problem?
I am assuming that nothing metaphysical is going on. If it is being suggested that there is, I would think that would require explanations.
Ditto.
'There is chance' because we can determine other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I just read over the sleeping beauty thing and don't quite get it, how does it relate?
|
I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean).
The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits.
edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken.
|
On May 30 2012 03:11 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 01:29 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 00:38 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 22:41 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind. It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain? There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?). Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe. "We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not. The big bang theory is just a theory and I'm sure that it will be proven wrong in the future just like how the world being flat was proven to be wrong. We know so little about the cosmos to the point where the big bang theory is really just a guess based on very small evidence that scientists do have. I read The God Delusion and I know most of the arguments about observation and chance, the blind watchmaker argument, and the argument that you brought up about us not being here if it did things differently. I do not agree with the big bang theory as like I said, we know very., very. very little about the cosmos and in my opinion the big bang theory is not a viable explanation of how the universe came into being. The universe starting from a size of the tip of a pen point and then exploding on its own to create all of these amazing things including us is not blind chance in my opinion.There's too much order in ourselves for it to be by blind chance. What decided that we needed a throat, organs, and then designed them, and why, why would the universe create life? Is it for a self fulfilling prophecy? Blind chance? I think not. Creating intelligent life does require intelligence, how else did it figure out that we needed a throat, organs, individual fingers, and where to place all of these things, and then create a way for us to reproduce, and create he liquids needed for reproduction, and the chemical balances in our brain. It does require intelligence. Maybe nature itself is God. The big bang theory is not one of creation. But what makes you say we know very very little? We know an amazing amount about the universe. We have quantum teleportation! Once again, why does something with no evidence = something with tons of evidence? Saying the earth is spherical is much better than saying it is flat, though they are both wrong. You are seeing something that is not there. "There's too much order"? According to who? If it was disorganized, how would that work? Nothing decides that we need a throat, organs etc. They come about through evolution. Larger bodies won't live unless they can get air, so one that mutates a simple circulatory system will kick selective ass. His best progeny kicks more selective ass, mix in some great extinctions, pow! Why does there have to be a why? And why does it make more sense that there is, rather than isn't? (a why) Nature is God in the sense that the 'Gods' of myth are poor descriptions and explanations for things that happen. Nature just does. We know very little about our universe because there isn't even a definite answer of how the universe was created. There are multiple theory's of how the universe was created besides the big bang and there is still a large portion of the universe that is still largely unseen. We haven't even ventured out of our own galaxy yet, not to mention that we don't know much about our own galaxy yet. Something did decide that we need a throat & organs. You can call it natural selection but something had to start the design process in the first place and design the design around the selected evolutional changes. To think that it was all random or that evolution isn't a programmed asset of life is just crazy in my opinion. I cant accept that nature "just does", that seems to be dumbing down nature and life itself. What programmed or caused nature to "just does" and why?
You are once again a question too far ahead of yourself, or making the same mistake. Nothing caused nature to 'just do' and nothing programmed it to not have a program. Or at least if you posit there is I would expect solid evidence.
I would suggest that there is an infinite amount of universe left unseen. There will always be.
How well do you understand evolution? There is no plan from the outset that things 'evolve towards'. There is no such thing as 'devolution'. You don't always get more complex, or more simple. There is no pre laid-out path, only hindsight. Things just fuck up and mix up. Sometimes it works and most of the time it doesn't. Look at Down's syndrome for 'evolution at work'.
And finally, what part of nature am I dumbing down? How is it 'smart'? How can it get dumber?
|
Sometimes in evolutionary systems, however, there are forced moves. These systems have internal dynamical structure that is emergent to the fundamental rules of the system.
edit: the mistake is generally thinking about evolution as always maximizing the fitness of an individual organism.
|
@Sovern: this might help clear up some of your questions about how evolutionary systems produce complex results from simple generative rules "all by themselves"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
disclaimer: I studied under one of the guys cited in this article, so I am a bit of an "emergence partisan"
|
On May 30 2012 03:22 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:11 Sovern wrote:On May 30 2012 01:29 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 00:38 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 22:41 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 22:20 Sovern wrote:On May 29 2012 19:31 seppolevne wrote:On May 29 2012 10:52 Sovern wrote:
A. I do agree with that he says in the video that everything in the end truely is nothingness and that our existance is merely a dream.
B. I believe that after we die that we can be reborn (reincarnation) and my theory for this is that if you were born once (your conscious that is) why cant you be born again just with a different personality. I do believe in a soul and that is also your consciousness. I also dont believe in any religious God's but I do not believe that we were by mere chance.
I think that it is ignorant to believe that the process of evolution and how life was "programmed" to form from organic matter, evolve, and have all of the physical organs and other advanced bodily functions that we all have were all done by mere chance. I used to be an atheist agnostic (still am I suppose) but after thinking about how everything in the universe just seems so well structured and to believe that everything including the laws of physics and the process of evolution, molecules, and everything else including the conscious mind coming from blind chance just seems so depressing, dull, and ignorant as it just doesnt make any sense or add up at all.
C. I completely agree that in the end ours fears and everything else do not matter as in the end we will all die and will have no memorys to live off of, you only have the present and even in the present everything is an illusion in my opinon as your mind is the gateway to the universe, without the mind to transpose to the consciousness (soul) nothing exists at all and you're back to a state of complete nothingness. I do believe that this life does have some purpose though or else why would we exist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyDoes a conciousness exist in between reincarnated bodies? In what form? If not does it form by chance, and is it the same physical brain structure? The same as what point (in life) to be the same "consciousness"? Life and everything in it is not blind chance. It had a 100% chance of happening. If you think that something that was gonna happen and did is "depressing" is your fault alone, not one of the universe. The universe just does, and as far as we can tell it adds up quite well. As for your last question, that seems to be a fallicious conclusion. There is only the "why" we want to see, it actually doesn't exist (in the grand cosmic scheme). It is a by-product of observation. If anything assuming there isn't assumes less, which is always a good start. I dont know if a consciousness exists in between reincarneted bodies. I also dont believe that it is by chance just like how we werent just by chance in my opinion. Believeing that the universe just does without being programmed to do the things that they did is weird in my opinion and too strange to believe in (on equal strangeness with believing in a God with human like characteristics that created the universe). My question is why does the universe just does? It had to of had some form of cause that made it have the laws that it had and also be intelligent enough to create intelligent life that can one day look upon the process at which it created that intelligent life. I find it hard to believe that the big bang on its own made things work the way that they do, it seems too far fetched that it would be able to program itself to have all of the physical laws and evolution all tied into it from an explosion. If that is the case maybe the universe itself is God. The universe is intelligent. I disagree that my last question is a fallacy (that term seems to get thrown around a lot) and I believe that your life has the purpose that you give it. The cosmos can be as big as infinity but it still wouldn't "exist" without a mind to realize it and transpose its size to the mind. It is by chance, as are we. Just a 100% chance. The universe does the things it does because it is the universe. If it did things differently we wouldn't be here to see it, so it's a null point. And I don't see how not believing in something without proof is just as crazy as believing in it, care to explain? There is no why, that is your mistake. The universe does not have reasons, you do. Creating intellegent life does not require intelligence (or if it does, why? and what is intelligence?). Big Bang = hot plasma goop -> space between it expands -> it cools into atoms and such -> burn -> explosions -> new galaxies etc. This happened everywhere at the same time, across the infinite universe. "We exist so there must be a reason for it" is a fallicious statement. The universe exists whether you are here to experience it or not. The big bang theory is just a theory and I'm sure that it will be proven wrong in the future just like how the world being flat was proven to be wrong. We know so little about the cosmos to the point where the big bang theory is really just a guess based on very small evidence that scientists do have. I read The God Delusion and I know most of the arguments about observation and chance, the blind watchmaker argument, and the argument that you brought up about us not being here if it did things differently. I do not agree with the big bang theory as like I said, we know very., very. very little about the cosmos and in my opinion the big bang theory is not a viable explanation of how the universe came into being. The universe starting from a size of the tip of a pen point and then exploding on its own to create all of these amazing things including us is not blind chance in my opinion.There's too much order in ourselves for it to be by blind chance. What decided that we needed a throat, organs, and then designed them, and why, why would the universe create life? Is it for a self fulfilling prophecy? Blind chance? I think not. Creating intelligent life does require intelligence, how else did it figure out that we needed a throat, organs, individual fingers, and where to place all of these things, and then create a way for us to reproduce, and create he liquids needed for reproduction, and the chemical balances in our brain. It does require intelligence. Maybe nature itself is God. The big bang theory is not one of creation. But what makes you say we know very very little? We know an amazing amount about the universe. We have quantum teleportation! Once again, why does something with no evidence = something with tons of evidence? Saying the earth is spherical is much better than saying it is flat, though they are both wrong. You are seeing something that is not there. "There's too much order"? According to who? If it was disorganized, how would that work? Nothing decides that we need a throat, organs etc. They come about through evolution. Larger bodies won't live unless they can get air, so one that mutates a simple circulatory system will kick selective ass. His best progeny kicks more selective ass, mix in some great extinctions, pow! Why does there have to be a why? And why does it make more sense that there is, rather than isn't? (a why) Nature is God in the sense that the 'Gods' of myth are poor descriptions and explanations for things that happen. Nature just does. We know very little about our universe because there isn't even a definite answer of how the universe was created. There are multiple theory's of how the universe was created besides the big bang and there is still a large portion of the universe that is still largely unseen. We haven't even ventured out of our own galaxy yet, not to mention that we don't know much about our own galaxy yet. Something did decide that we need a throat & organs. You can call it natural selection but something had to start the design process in the first place and design the design around the selected evolutional changes. To think that it was all random or that evolution isn't a programmed asset of life is just crazy in my opinion. I cant accept that nature "just does", that seems to be dumbing down nature and life itself. What programmed or caused nature to "just does" and why? You are once again a question too far ahead of yourself, or making the same mistake. Nothing caused nature to 'just do' and nothing programmed it to not have a program. Or at least if you posit there is I would expect solid evidence. I would suggest that there is an infinite amount of universe left unseen. There will always be. How well do you understand evolution? There is no plan from the outset that things 'evolve towards'. There is no such thing as 'devolution'. You don't always get more complex, or more simple. There is no pre laid-out path, only hindsight. Things just fuck up and mix up. Sometimes it works and most of the time it doesn't. Look at Down's syndrome for 'evolution at work'. And finally, what part of nature am I dumbing down? How is it 'smart'? How can it get dumber?
I'm not a question ahead of myself or making any mistakes so I don't know where you're getting that idea from. I have a pretty good understanding of evolution but I want to know what caused life to initially be created and why? What purpose does life have for the universe to create it and why is organic matter capable of coming together to form life and be able to evolve and create life with all kinds of features and differences in structure. Why why and why?
Like I said in my last post, to think that everything started with an explosion and the matter itself was intelligent enough on its own to form together, evolve, and create what we have now is just insane in my opinion. I used to accept that but it always bothered me because it seems as though it was all programmed to do the things it does.
I cant accept that the human conscious staring through the eyes getting relayed information that is transmitted to the brain and everything else amazing about being human was by mere probability.
|
On May 30 2012 03:32 Sovern wrote:
What purpose does life have for the universe to create it and why is organic matter capable of coming together to form life and be able to evolve and create life with all kinds of features and differences in structure. Why why and why?
Well this is certainly the wrong question to be asking. Why do you assume that life must be inherently teleological? What is the meaning of "purpose" as you use it here?
Again, I'll refer you to the article on emergence, which is a more sophisticated idea than "mere probability."
|
On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry. AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken.
It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true.
Discussing metaphysics does not imply that they exist outside of the mind. He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
|
On May 30 2012 03:47 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken. It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" true. They are theoretical entities which are currently adequate to describe observed phenomena without anomalous results. I think a lot of people are unclear on the relationship between theory and proof - people tend to go around demanding that people "prove" things, which is, strictly speaking, not something one does in science.
Discussing metaphysics does not imply that they exist outside of the mind.
I don't understand what you mean here. What is "they"? Metaphysics? Metaphysics is different from epistemology...
He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood what you were discussing. Evolution is certainly not teleological in the vulgar sense in which I think he intends it. It seems to me, however, likely that evolutionary systems often produce consciousness, and it is my feeling that there are not any paradigms of consciousness which are radically different from our own. In this sense, evolution, whenever it produces consciousness, always produces roughly the same kind of consciousness, and is thus in some highly qualified sense teleological.
|
On May 30 2012 03:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:47 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken. It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" true. They are theoretical entities which are currently adequate to describe observed phenomena without anomalous results. I think a lot of people are unclear on the relationship between theory and proof - people tend to go around demanding that people "prove" things, which is, strictly speaking, not something one does in science. I don't understand what you mean here. What is "they"? Metaphysics? Metaphysics is different from epistemology... Show nested quote +
He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood what you were discussing. Evolution is certainly not teleological in the vulgar sense in which I think he intends it. It seems to me, however, likely that evolutionary systems often produce consciousness, and it is my feeling that there are not any paradigms of consciousness which are radically different from our own. In this sense, evolution, whenever it produces consciousness, always produces roughly the same kind of consciousness, and is thus in some highly qualified sense teleological.
What created evolutionary systems and evolution in the first place and why?
|
On May 30 2012 04:24 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 03:54 sam!zdat wrote:On May 30 2012 03:47 seppolevne wrote:On May 30 2012 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:I don't understand why you would assume that "nothing metaphysical" is going on. Aren't you having a metaphysical discussion? (some people misuse the term "metaphysical" to mean "supernatural," I'm not sure if that's what you mean). The point of the sleeping beauty problem is that probability does not have a clear ontological status. On my view, probability is epistemological and indexical, not ontological or metaphysical. In other words, there is no such thing as probability - it only represents uncertainty about which possible world one actually inhabits. edit: I might be confused about the point of contention which you were discussing, if so, sorry.
other possible configurations of the fundamental forces
AFAIK, it's an open question whether there are other possible configurations of the fundamental forces. I'm not a physicist so I may be mistaken. It's an open question because we have no way of knowing sans proof that they are actually true. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" true. They are theoretical entities which are currently adequate to describe observed phenomena without anomalous results. I think a lot of people are unclear on the relationship between theory and proof - people tend to go around demanding that people "prove" things, which is, strictly speaking, not something one does in science.
Discussing metaphysics does not imply that they exist outside of the mind.
I don't understand what you mean here. What is "they"? Metaphysics? Metaphysics is different from epistemology...
He was implying that there was a purpose for life existing. I was suggesting that there didn't need to be one, and that if there was one sughgesting so would need more support than currently being given to be considered equally valid. Which could just be my love of Ockham's razor, but I think its pretty legit.
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood what you were discussing. Evolution is certainly not teleological in the vulgar sense in which I think he intends it. It seems to me, however, likely that evolutionary systems often produce consciousness, and it is my feeling that there are not any paradigms of consciousness which are radically different from our own. In this sense, evolution, whenever it produces consciousness, always produces roughly the same kind of consciousness, and is thus in some highly qualified sense teleological. What created evolutionary systems and evolution in the first place and why?
They are emergent from chemistry.
edit: I like to think about it as being a Very Good Idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
