ALL beliefs from EVERY religion are completely applicable to this thread, because this is a thread on "personal" beliefs. Note that I expect any religion bashing will result in fast closure of this thread which is really depressing because I find the topic rather interesting, and that I will personally be pming mods if anyone say's hateful/ignorant comments that go against someones belief structure.
Furthermore, any debate related to the "likely hood" of a persons "belief" is also accepted as long as it is purely scientific and does not relate to "faith or personal belief related to scripture that is not factual science"... By this I hope we stay away from "my religions better than yours mentality".
In the end, be respectful and this should be fine....
This video is Alan Watts discussing his perspective on how everything is "nothingness" and discusses a few topics related to Buddhism philosophy. I found it particularly interesting because it directly relates to our beginning and our end, as a species and even the larger picture as the universe.
I am looking for this thread to discuss three topics, which are opinions based on your own personal beliefs.
A) After watching the video, what do you take away from it? Do you agree, or disagree? Does it affect your own belief structure? (if it doesn't, that is totally fine!)
B) What do you think will happen when you die? When family members die? (Please, you can just say what you think, but try and back this up with something (religion/science/void etc... literally anything, but I kind of want this to be deeper than just "well I hope this is what happens", this isn't about what you hope, but what you think)
C) Do you believe that Alan Watts has a valid point? Does our universe come from nothingness, and that all of our petty fears don't truly matter because in the end it's all nothingness? (off topic slightly, but based on how all our achievements are nothing but dust, "monopoly from zeitgeist"+ Show Spoiler +
I use to have a very morbid approach, personally related to my father's death and having no religious beliefs, that it just ended (turned into dust and memory faded) but recently took CWR (comparative world religions) and though I generally am agnostic, and prefer to attempt not to comprehend things I truly can't understand, my outlook (especially after finding this video which put words to all of my feelings) improved greatly.
Do I think I matter? Yes, at this moment, at this time... I want to change the world, go into politics and actually give a damn about people, raise money for charity... But do I think in the "big" picture any of us matter? In our own minds, yes, but generally no... Everything is just a tiny spec on the galactic timeline, almost as useless as keeping 1.00EE-100 places on each separate number while calculating equations.
TL;DR: Ok, so to conclude, follow A, B & C topics (answer all or just one/two) and BE RESPECTFUL PLEASE! (MUST WATCH VIDEO TO POST AND READ GUIDELINES!)
Community Edits! Here I will add any relevant youtube videos (ones that are related to the beginning/end and I deem are immensely interesting) that anyone adds and/or comments that boast an extremely interesting perspective/idea about any of the three topics (or all)
On May 26 2012 10:21 HawaiianPig wrote: If nothing we do matters... then all that matters is what we do.
RodrigoX (Very interesting idea, relating to philosophy) + Show Spoiler +
On May 26 2012 08:40 RodrigoX wrote: This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong.
Jockmcplop(Alan watts on point of view, past present and how event's are just observed and they don't really exist) + Show Spoiler +
On May 26 2012 22:49 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think its best to refer back to Alan Watts on this point maybe....
There is some VERY conrtaversial thinking in this piece
On May 29 2012 12:32 Veldril wrote: Wow, I didn't know that there are people who study about Bhuddism in TL.
As a Theravada Buddhist, 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.
Aelfric shows "ThereminTrees" video about death, it is very emotional but compelling nonetheless + Show Spoiler +
On May 29 2012 03:37 Aelfric wrote: I think it would be useful to share ThereminTrees' videos about death:
Tofucake going extremely indepth about nothingness and taking the meaning to its core + Show Spoiler +
On May 30 2012 05:43 tofucake wrote:
Any Book or Novel entries are edited in here, with the users name/book! Post away!
MAJOR THREAD EDIT ON PMING ME ABOUT DETAILS REGARDING THIS THREAD, PLEASE READ. + Show Spoiler +
Fuck you, next time be more respectful and take the bickering to pms instead of derailing your own thread moron.
sent by sovern
Posts such as this are not to be sent please, it really has no taste, I mean first this poster who's named Sovern decides to argue in a thread about others beliefs when it's completely against the threads policy and implies he know the answers(or at least insinuates by exclaiming others are so ridiculous)... So he has trouble reading in general obviously, continuing, than he posts about respect while starting his PM "fuck you" which is entirely hypocritical and then implies me (the guy who started, and has been constantly updating and watching the threads progress) as derailing this thread...
So again, as a disclaimer, all posters who post here please if you want me to add content PM ME! if you want to voice your opinion about how I am moderating my own thread, please PM ME! if you want to act like an idiot and throw shit at the walls, this isn't your cage curious george, thank you, Nemesis3.
B) The greatest thing I found I can relate to with "nothingness", is that we were all nothing for billions of years before we were born. We've spent a million+ times longer being "nothing" than we have being...us. I'm not scared of the "nothingness" in death, in practicality It's a much more natural state to us than life, my fear just comes from missing the people I love. I know this doesn't actually make sense though, because what can you miss when you're nothing? Not sure how I can justify it
A) I work on ambulances, and I've seen death and suffering in many forms. I've seen a lot of ways the humans can cope with death, with the feeling of impending doom that one day will definitively come and I've come to the conclusion that no one can judge how someone perceives death. Being it religious values or whatever.
But I cannot buy phylosophical/religious answers, nor this reflection you posted: it feels like a mathematical demonstration and while we can consider the universe in its whole it doesn't change the fact that at the end of everything we are all alone and focused on ourselves. I cannot consider myself as a part of everything (even if I am), or better: my vision it's too subjective and these words consider too much the whole picture...
B) I'll become food for worms and the same will be for everyone. If that's good, bad, sad or whatever it's up to everyone to judge: imo death gives our life a meaning and surely I wouldn't like to live forever.
C) I think that reasoning like this can be... dunno, 'useful' as long as they don't make the individual fall into the trap of stasys ("since nothing has meaning it's pointless for me to do anything").
Talking about personal views about life it's tricky, since everyone tend to think of his own view as the 'correct' one and is generally more concentrated on finding the flaws on the others' view... if people will manage to discuss politely we could learn something.
My personal wish is just to live a happy life and make the others' life happier: what happens or doesn't happen after it's not my concern. Don't know if my answer sounds deep or immature... truth is that after you see people of any age die for stupid reasons or hearing dying people's thoughts you start not to care anymore.
On May 26 2012 05:17 MavivaM wrote: A) I work on ambulances, and I've seen death and suffering in many forms. I've seen a lot of ways the humans can cope with death, with the feeling of impending doom that one day will definitively come and I've come to the conclusion that no one can judge how someone perceives death. Being it religious values or whatever.
But I cannot buy phylosophical/religious answers, nor this reflection you posted: it feels like a mathematical demonstration and while we can consider the universe in its whole it doesn't change the fact that at the end of everything we are all alone and focused on ourselves. I cannot consider myself as a part of everything (even if I am), or better: my vision it's too subjective and these words consider too much the whole picture...
B) I'll become food for worms and the same will be for everyone. If that's good, bad, sad or whatever it's up to everyone to judge: imo death gives our life a meaning and surely I wouldn't like to live forever.
C) I think that reasoning like this can be... dunno, 'useful' as long as they don't make the individual fall into the trap of stasys ("since nothing has meaning it's pointless for me to do anything").
Talking about personal views about life it's tricky, since everyone tend to think of his own view as the 'correct' one and is generally more concentrated on finding the flaws on the others' view... if people will manage to discuss politely we could learn something.
My personal wish is just to live a happy life and make the others' life happier: what happens or doesn't happen after it's not my concern. Don't know if my answer sounds deep or immature... truth is that after you see people of any age die for stupid reasons or hearing dying people's thoughts you start not to care anymore.
The "deepness" of a conversation is up to the persons subjective mind, I believe your comment is completely true and yet I also believe it is subject to change... I have an odd perspective, very similar to Quantum Theory where everything is everything, and nothing at the same time. I very much enjoy your answer, though slightly cynical, you posses the will to live a happy life and help others (make others happy) and care not for what we can't grasp. What's better than that? People being for other people.
I would like to make a stance on your A) point,
I cannot consider myself as a part of everything (even if I am), or better: my vision it's too subjective and these words consider too much the whole picture...
You see, in a literal sense (after the big bang) we're all matter (which came from the Higgs field) but I believe that it is very difficult to understand that, to understand that I am equal to you because we have such different levels of thought, such different personality's... But like a snowflake, which there are never two equal ones, that at the end of the tunnel is simply water (H2O), I also believe we are all pure on the deepest of levels, no matter the persona and that in the end we are all simply nothing, but everything at the same time.
Whether or not everything is nothingness doesn't change the fact that I have to be really practical in daily life so I can eat and have a roof over my head. Although I do agree that most people's worries are extremely petty.
I've read a fair amount from Buddhists. Their message sounds nice but of course its all easy for them to say this when they don't have to make a living for themselves and they don't have the pressures of daily life that most people have. Its just hard for me to believe they'd be preaching what they do if they didn't have a living space and daily food and health care all provided for free.
On May 26 2012 05:40 Mossen wrote: Whether or not everything is nothingness doesn't change the fact that I have to be really practical in daily life so I can eat and have a roof over my head. Although I do agree that most people's worries are extremely petty.
I've read a fair amount from Buddhists. Their message sounds nice but of course its all easy for them to say this when they don't have to make a living for themselves and they don't have the pressures of daily life that most people have. Its just hard for me to believe they'd be preaching what they do if they didn't have a living space and daily food and health care all provided for free.
Having to deal with everyday life doesn't necessarly mean not to question yourself about life or universe. Also sometimes you have to consider the message rather than who is speaking, because generalisations are always dangerous: hearing a preaching about happiness and poverty from a wwealthy bishop or a missionary who works his ass everyday and sacrificed his life for the poors makes the same message gain a completely different meaning.
On May 26 2012 05:54 MavivaM wrote: Having to deal with everyday life doesn't necessarly mean not to question yourself about life or universe. Also sometimes you have to consider the message rather than who is speaking, because generalisations are always dangerous: hearing a preaching about happiness and poverty from a wwealthy bishop or a missionary who works his ass everyday and sacrificed his life for the poors makes the same message gain a completely different meaning.
I see your point. Although in that case, what useful thing are we meant to take away from the message that "everything is nothingness"? What is his point in delivering this speech? If it is meant for a general audience I think it would be lost on most people. Is it to just not worry about stuff? Is it a speech asking people to rethink mainstream society? What do you get out of it?
On May 26 2012 06:06 AgentChaos wrote: i think we are just living in the matrix, lying there trapping in a coma pretending everything is existing and when you die you just simply die
Curious, if that is the case (similar to the matrix) then why is there so much distress? The one thing I remember from the matrix was absolute order inside the matrix, with a few "renegade's" fighting against the machines. Don't you think all of this "freedom" would be smacked down?
Furthering that, I believe you didn't elaborate much on why you think this, so could you go into why you think this is the case? What makes you believe that we are in the "matrix"?
I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
I'm glad that there is nothing after we die. I'd much rather live my life on my own terms and cease to exist, than subscribe to the beliefs and rituals of others in hopes that some magical world beyond this own.
Accepting that we only get one life makes its much more meaningful, at least to me.
A) i strongly disagree with the idea that nothingness is somehow "pure" or "clean" or has any attribute whatsoever, including the attribute of not having an attribute. it is such a thing that it cannot be described or even talked about or even thought about because it is not a thing or an "it" at all, but is simply not. even saying that: that it is nothing, or that it is "not" that right there gives it an attribute which makes it something, not nothing.
his entire philosophy is that nothingness is somehow desirable, or is the natural state of man and the universe. nothingness cannot have definition, and thus cannot be "real" or even be conceived so that one could begin desiring it. nothingness is not depressing as depression is a fact of life and existence, not of nothingness. there can be no feeling in nothing, nor can there be any desire for it or against it. nothingness has no nature, and nothingness cannot impose itself upon nature. also, dreams are not "nothings".
B) i believe that we will die this death, and that we will be judged according to our individual worth and actions. will we be seen as worthy of our life and our choices? i don't believe so. i believe that we are in a state of utter rebellion, and as long as we remain in such a state that we are absolutely unworthy of anything. even after we have ended our rebellion, the stain of it still remains, and nothing we do can wash it clean, for one cannot use unclean water to wash an unclean dish. one must have pure and clean water. i believe we will see that pure and clean water and that we will be washed clean, that our wrongs and rebellions will be made as not, and that we will enter the true life that we were meant for.
there is no scientific reason for my belief, how could there be? such an idea is not scientific, in fact, such an idea rejects science at the end, and casts science aside. to a scientific mind, such a belief would seem illogical and contradictory on certain levels, but in my opinion that is because one cannot use a tool to make itself. science is not the explanation for all things, but is merely one tool with which we can understand facets of the whole. being a part of the whole, one cannot examine the whole with science. my only reason for believing what i do is that i believe it is true. i cannot say why it is true, or how i know that it is true, because truth is inherent and not subject to the reasoning of man.
C) i don't believe the Universe came from nothing, but that it came from a desire, a whim. however, let us assume that it did come from nothing and that it will return to nothing. wouldn't then our fears and worries be all that does matter, as they are all that exist? one could say that they are equally nothing as the nothingness that they come from, but that doesn't eliminate the reality of our experiencing them. such a statement is simply a twisting of the names of the things, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. it would seem to me that the idea of nothing would make me cling to what i do possess more, not less.
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche didn't know that much about Buddhism, he knew about one type of Buddhism that he ended up not agreeing with. Buddhism isn't about being ascetic, thats not what the Buddha was (he was for a while until he realized himself that denying the self is also a form of self worship). Maybe you should learn more about it yourself...
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche didn't know that much about Buddhism, he knew about one type of Buddhism that he ended up not agreeing with. Buddhism isn't about being ascetic, thats not what the Buddha was (he was for a while until he realized himself that denying the self is also a form of self worship). Maybe you should learn more about it yourself...
If you have particular knowledge, make a positive statement.
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
I would counter act your statement;
ultimately not a fulfilling way to live
by saying that I believe it is the most fulfilling way to live possible, to believe that you are everything and everything is you... It isn't that your life shouldn't be lived, or that you shouldn't fulfill that life with all the joy you can, but simply that there is no black and white answer on how to live.... The period between conception and death is such a miniscule part of life, that in a whole, it is so much more beautiful than each of our separated specs, but because of the ultimate connection that we are all equal and everything around us, is in fact, us, that we can achieve what people try to find there entire lives, acceptance.
What is more fulfilling than acceptance? A promotion at work, or a new car? In the end, happiness is acceptance imo.
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche didn't know that much about Buddhism, he knew about one type of Buddhism that he ended up not agreeing with. Buddhism isn't about being ascetic, thats not what the Buddha was (he was for a while until he realized himself that denying the self is also a form of self worship). Maybe you should learn more about it yourself...
If you have particular knowledge, make a positive statement.
Read Siddhartha? I don't know. I cannot give you wisdom, I can only ask you to be open minded. I am not personally Buddhist but I agree with many things that Buddhism tries to "teach". Personally I have always had the opinion that Religion seperates people and Spirituality brings people together. I can learn from all types of religions and spiritual ideals, but as soon as I call myself "this" or "that" I close myself off from all the others.
Only I can find my own path to wisdom, and the same goes for everyone else. No one can give you the "truth" but yourself. Siddhartha is about someone who figures that out and even though he agrees with everything the Buddha teaches he realizes that by following the Buddha he is not actually following the Buddha. The only way to do that is to find his own path to wisdom.
Mmp and wrongspeedy, please do not begin to type condescending to each other... You will eventually be trapped in an argument trying to prove each other wrong more than actually attempting to join your opinions through educated debates to improve upon your opinions you already hold. Both of you are wrong, but both right. It is perspective.
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
Nietzsche didn't know that much about Buddhism, he knew about one type of Buddhism that he ended up not agreeing with. Buddhism isn't about being ascetic, thats not what the Buddha was (he was for a while until he realized himself that denying the self is also a form of self worship). Maybe you should learn more about it yourself...
If you have particular knowledge, make a positive statement.
Read Siddhartha? I don't know. I cannot give you wisdom, I can only ask you to be open minded. I am not personally Buddhist but I agree with many things that Buddhism tries to "teach". Personally I have always had the opinion that Religion seperates people and Spirituality brings people together. I can learn from all types of religions and spiritual ideals, but as soon as I call myself "this" or "that" I close myself off from all the others.
Only I can find my own path to wisdom, and the same goes for everyone else. No one can give you the "truth" but yourself. Siddhartha is about someone who figures that out and even though he agrees with everything the Buddha teaches he realizes that by following the Buddha he is not actually following the Buddha. The only way to do that is to find his own path to wisdom.
Edit:"By 1882, Nietzsche was taking huge doses of opium, but was still having trouble sleeping.[57] In 1883, while staying in Nice, he was writing out his own prescriptions for the sedative chloral hydrate, signing them 'Dr Nietzsche'.[58]
After severing his philosophical ties with Schopenhauer and his social ties with Wagner, Nietzsche had few remaining friends. Now, with the new style of Zarathustra, his work became even more alienating and the market received it only to the degree required by politeness. Nietzsche recognized this and maintained his solitude, though he often complained about it. His books remained largely unsold. In 1885 he printed only 40 copies of the fourth part of Zarathustra, and distributed only a fraction of these among close friends, including Helene von Druskowitz."
"Siddhartha (Buddha) and a group of five companions led by Kaundinya are then said to have set out to take their austerities even further. They tried to find enlightenment through deprivation of worldly goods, including food, practising self-mortification. After nearly starving himself to death by restricting his food intake to around a leaf or nut per day, he collapsed in a river while bathing and almost drowned. Siddhartha began to reconsider his path. Then, he remembered a moment in childhood in which he had been watching his father start the season's plowing. He attained a concentrated and focused state that was blissful and refreshing, the jhāna."
Self-indulgence and self-mortification were both considered vain to Buddha.
Have a look into something called "OBE experience" then if you're lucky and practice enough you might just have one like I did not long ago. First time it feels incredible and unbelievable yet is real and others have been doing it for centuries. Now that it finally happened to me ,even if it's only once , I can surely distinguish it from a lucid dream and never argue it's bull and fantasy with anyone,anymore. And better, try to experience things and project your own constructive opinion instead of relating to others and be in constant doubt, that's if you've opened this thread with a serious reason. I could further tell you my own personal OBE experience ,what happened what I know and what's my opinion on this, after alot of reading/thinking of my own,but this is not an apropiate place for such discussions,it gets very long, just look into OBE and/or pm me if you want to know what I know about it.
I want to bite, but seeing your willingness for this:
Curious, if that is the case (similar to the matrix) then why is there so much distress? The one thing I remember from the matrix was absolute order inside the matrix, with a few "renegade's" fighting against the machines. Don't you think all of this "freedom" would be smacked down?
You're just in it to critically analyze each other's views on the meaning of life and life after death. I mean, let's not argue which religion is right, which one has the real story ... let's talk whose is more likely. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking on this forum to prove 10+ religions illogical and unbelieable. I mean, so sure, I'll pop you a Jesus youtube video, tell you that the universe was created with purpose, and He came to give everyone a second shot at paradise.
Public opinion poll registering responses to the (philosopher?) Alan Watts? You have mine. I believe the thought that everything is nothingness to be absurd. Great images in the movie though, always like those.
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one.
Curious, if that is the case (similar to the matrix) then why is there so much distress? The one thing I remember from the matrix was absolute order inside the matrix, with a few "renegade's" fighting against the machines. Don't you think all of this "freedom" would be smacked down?
You're just in it to critically analyze each other's views on the meaning of life and life after death. I mean, let's not argue which religion is right, which one has the real story ... let's talk whose is more likely. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking on this forum to prove 10+ religions illogical and unbelieable. I mean, so sure, I'll pop you a Jesus youtube video, tell you that the universe was created with purpose, and He came to give everyone a second shot at paradise.
Public opinion poll registering responses to the (philosopher?) Alan Watts? You have mine. I believe the thought that everything is nothingness to be absurd. Great images in the movie though, always like those.
I'm "just in it to critically analyze other's views"...
Interesting, it seemed like this was a discussion on that exact point, to critically analyze peoples opinions... He said he believes it's the matrix, I asked "how could that be" presenting things I believe would cause disorder in a matrix type system, he simply left it without clear explanation... Am I suppose to not discuss what reality is "during/after/before" in a thread based on that very subject?
Please, before you generalize me, realize that I never said anything was the most likely, I never once chastised any religion (in fact my disclaimer was specifically protecting peoples right to believe in faith, but arguing faith (which is faith, so requires no proof) is very hard so I said please state your point but don't discuss how mine's better than your's....) so again, perhaps you are being;
1. Very defensive and passive aggressive for no reason (perhaps you hold beliefs that this video contradicts, so it offends you? Which is why I said you never had to agree with it, it was just the topic starter) 2. Having trouble understanding the topic so you are misreading it, perhaps try and read through a bit deeper before, again, you generalize my reasoning for creating this thread.
On May 26 2012 05:40 Mossen wrote: Its just hard for me to believe they'd be preaching what they do if they didn't have a living space and daily food and health care all provided for free.
Yes, so our goal should be to provide this for everybody!
edit: before the inevitable - yeah, it's hard, but humans are kinda badasses so I bet we can figure it out.
On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote: Why are there so many Nietzscheans on TL?
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one.
To be fair to Nietzche the type of Buddhism in the West at his time was all about asceticism.
Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote: Why are there so many Nietzscheans on TL?
"rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
edit:
"superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle"
Not at all. The relief is real, and it is the idea of "lifestyle" which is vain. When you release yourself from desires, the world ceases to have power over you. Giving up your attachment to outcomes is in an important sense an empowering process, not a self-denying one.
To be fair to Nietzche the type of Buddhism in the West at his time was all about asceticism.
That is, as you say, fair.
For Nietzsche. Nietzscheans, on the other hand, have no excuse
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote: Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
On May 26 2012 06:59 sam!zdat wrote: "rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine" is nothing but a straw man.
enlightenment is not a rejection of purpose, it is a way to empty yourself in order to find dharma (correct purpose)
"Enlightenment" and "dharma" are affective descriptors based on the hypnotic experience (self-induced, in the case of meditation). Confidence arrived at in moments of meditative thought does guarantee epistemic value (the fact that it is conceived in meditation does not assure it is a "correct purpose"), only ascetic fulfillment.
When "enlightened" ideas conflict with logic, the only response for the ascetic is to go further inward into him/herself --- to seek greater enlightenment. Deny pleasure, deny romance, deny emotion, because they must be clouding your inner wisdom.
Contrast this with a "Call of the Wild" sort of primality. It is not ascetic because the animal doesn't seek to deny what is in its nature. If a crane appears serene because it is still, that's great for the crane --- humans are not cranes: their wants and needs are different, which is why the conflict of primality with modern angst is such an interesting discussion: in short, our brains are too big. But the meditative life rejects willfull action as well as the projects of modern humanity: love, progress, virtue.
Why should humans emulate the serenity of cranes if something else is in our nature? Perhaps willful action, perhaps angst?
In my opinion, the enlightened human should not seek to deny what makes him/her human. Embracing asceticism is a rejection of your genetic design (for good or for angst), and a rejection of the value of a fulfilling life (love, progress, virtue). If the thought of living an unfulfilling life worries you, meditate more until it no longer worries you.
"You are nothing. So the nature, the inmost nature of the self, when you have gone through all the layers of the self, the essence is nothing. You are nothing. Right? On that nothingness thought has imposed the super structure of consciousness. Consciousness being the content, without the content there is no consciousness - the content being you are a Hindu, Buddhist, your religion, your particular god, your puja, your anxiety, your sorrow, your pain, your hate, your love, all that is the content of your consciousness. Obviously. And the idea that you are super atman, or super, super consciousness is part of that content. You understand what thought has done. We are absolutely nothing. All this super structure has been built by thought. And thought is the response of registration. Of course. You understand registration, like a tape. See what thought has done."
When you are born you are nothing, a blank slate, when you die you become nothing. Everything else is a superficial comparison. I think its important to try and live every moment of life without comparison (trying to be as open-minded as you possibly can). Trying to not judge, trying to be compassionate towards others, trying to understand without letting your own content interrupt what "is". It is hard, but so is life.
In the words of my brother (when he was 12 and had just had his appendix removed). "Life is hard" bahahahah makes me smile to this day.
In answer to (b) my opinion is similar to that found in the movie 'Waking Life'. It is unthinkable to me how as a human being, built to 'percieve' the world around me, that i could similarly percieve it when i am dead. That makes no sense. Surely this means that perception is eternal. Where is the cut-off point where your brain stops working and switches off, what is our perception in that moment? My favourite idea is that the brain's perception of time is stretched off into infinity at this moment. There is no possible way of experiencing the switching off itself, so we instead experience a kind of infinite dream. Obviously this is all just theory, and pretty simple theory at that, but it's one that i like, and i think it's one that will stick with me.
The problem with logic is that it allows room for assumptions, and those assumptions are different from person to person. Therefore one man's logical assesment of a situation and can be very different from the next man's.
On May 26 2012 07:32 Jockmcplop wrote: In answer to (b) my opinion is similar to that found in the movie 'Waking Life'. It is unthinkable to me how as a human being, built to 'percieve' the world around me, that i could similarly percieve it when i am dead. That makes no sense. Surely this means that perception is eternal. Where is the cut-off point where your brain stops working and switches off, what is our perception in that moment? My favourite idea is that the brain's perception of time is stretched off into infinity at this moment. There is no possible way of experiencing the switching off itself, so we instead experience a kind of infinite dream. Obviously this is all just theory, and pretty simple theory at that, but it's one that i like, and i think it's one that will stick with me.
Oooo I enjoy this, reminds me of... the movie is on the tip of my tongue... SOURCE CODE! Where at the end, he dies but his reality continues on with what he was doing at that exact moment.
That is a very interesting way to look at things, and would be (if I hoped for a specific) my hope... But what if, on that night you "pass on" to this new reality, it is a nightmare? Perhaps then that is "hell" and "heaven"? A divide between dreams of good and evil, nightmares and general dreams?
A) The video aligns relatively closely what how I feel on the subject.
B) Death seems most likely to me to be an identical state before I was conceived. That is the most likely explanation. To claim something different would require a wealth of evidence, much of which would likely contradict our current understandings of the brain and the universe. To me personally, I have almost no fear of an instant and painless death. Naturally I don't prefer it over life, but that is because I can foresee the current path of my life producing far more pleasure than displeasure. If it were the case that I was locked in a room to be tortured for the rest of my days then immediately taking my own life is by far the most reasonable course of action. Non-existence is just null pleasure and null displeasure, which is to say that it is far more agreeable than an existence of displeasure. If life is more pleasurable than non-existence, then to continue living is a reasonable choice. At any time I could find myself whisked into the torture chamber, in which case it would have been better to die just prior to that moment.
So yea, its a pretty indifferent stance on the whole subject.
Well i would prefer to think of the final perception as dynamic rather than a fixed 'dream or nightmare' situation. For me, my hope is that it would be a sort of 'letting go' of my body. Similar, i guess, to the buddhist idea of a wave rejoining the ocean.
Also dude, please edit your post and put that movie spoiler in a spoiler tag :D
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote: Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
This is difficult xD, I hadn't thought so deeply about this.
But I'll try to answer you to the best of my ability.
The value change of love in regards to time is inconsequential to the argument, or rather, according to my definition of nothingness. If we notice a value change, we can regard that as a reaction between things that are not nothing. If we look at it from that standpoint, the effect and affection are of no importance in clarifying the nothingness state but are only important of deciding value. But that doesn't answer your question, probably only makes this rather annoying because it seems like I'm dodging. To tell you the truth, the only way I can imagine your question to be resolved according to the idea of something, because the idea of nothing won't answer your question I think, is if you think of the world in terms of vectors.
And not just some Cartesian plane vectors that follows Euclidean geometry or the vectors involved in Einstein's theory of relativity that exists 3 dimensionally under the affection of time. We have to think in the identity the world is filled with many, many dimensions; that is to say, vectors be drawn from almost anywhere to anywhere with the displacement of the vector being considered the "change." I can't quite say it perfectly, but just understand what I'm talking about is an incredibly complex matrix which I don't exactly know how to formulate into words.
In such a matrix, to plot it on a field, the points can be anywhere; vectors can point anywhere as well. However, due the fact there are so many dimensions, these points can cross each other or not at all be related; also, they can have differing amounts of magnitude. In such a field, we can denote 1 dimension as "love", and then know that things that exist/cross into that specific dimension, regardless of magnitude in terms of time, are and can be called "love."
Not quite sure if that answered your first question well enough, I'm hardly the man with all the answers, I'm just trying to give a good idea of what I think >_>.
As for the question about mass and its creation, it is relatively unsolvable to me. I wouldn't know much about the Higgs field as I'm not really much of a scientist in any regard lol. But I guess the only real response that I have is that we have to realize that the existence of mass can not come from nothing; that is the only thing we can really be sure of. For it to come from nothing would be to say that mass is nothing, and cannot thus be exchanged in any reaction, but I think we can say that's not true just from general observations.
Which is to say that you either (1) "bravely" confront the problems and angsts of modernity, (2) hide your head in the enlightened sand and deny there is a problem, or (3) mix the two, the way Western cosmopolitanism prefers balance in all consumer tastes (a little spirituality & a little philanthropy to counteract the obesity of nihilism).
(1) gives those with fighting or romantic spirit some pride (e.g. Nietzsche types), but leaves them horribly overconcerned and stressful. They stress over issues they have no power over, nor should they have power over, to the point of inaction.
(2) tries to transcend problems, as though they were never problems. That's great if your life is comfortable enough for vain idleness, but where your life is imperiled you must respond to your problems with willful spirit. In the case of denying problems of pride, class, and conflict -- e.g. the poor masses, I would prefer to think that people take greater concern for their selves. If you disagree, move to North Korea and take part in the massive dancing spectacles. I don't doubt the spectacles are a transcendent experience of collective conscience, but a popular revolution would do the NK people good, not ascetic virtue (blaming the self). Maybe you disagree, but I think this question should be the focus of the discussion.
(3) Is possibly the the only pragmatic way to look at the world, but it is insincere to (1), and secretly wishes for a world where (2) was possible. Camp (1) derides camp (3) for being insincere to "the Truth" (whatever that means for (1): God, progress, objective knowledge). People in camp (3) strive for a world where (2) is possible: that they can completely escape from the world (but of course utterly fail, the way US liberals organize political protest via iPhones & Twitter, then stop by Starbucks afterwards).
I personally belong to camp (1): the thoroughly miserable, but "self-honest". Meditation is a form of self-hypnosis, where you get your mind to shut up. It is calming, a nice time until you get hungry or need to take a piss, but fetishizing "nothingness" as spirituality is harmful.
On May 26 2012 07:46 Jockmcplop wrote: The problem with logic is that it allows room for assumptions, and those assumptions are different from person to person. Therefore one man's logical assesment of a situation and can be very different from the next man's.
But logic is all about validity of the assumption by proof of the way between the assumption and conclusion. Therefore, one can be misled by the incorrect assumptions of the situation or can be wrong by the use of incorrect methods to arrive at the conclusion. Logic has no problems in my eyes; to deny the use of logic is to deny of philosophy, science, and mathematics which so heavily rely on logic and deny our discussion progression.
I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
On May 26 2012 08:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
Not exactly. What you do is clearly define your assumptions.
edit: and the validity of the most fundamental assumptions cannot be proved (because they are prior to proof), instead they make themselves manifest
to put it another way, think about why logic IS logic.
A) After watching the video, what do you take away from it? Do you agree, or disagree? Does it affect your own belief structure? (if it doesn't, that is totally fine!)
It was a nice video. I enjoyed the serene imagery typical of these "deep" philosophical videos heh. Also, I had never heard of Alan Watts before but he seems like a very enlightened gentleman and I'm glad he spread the word about Eastern religions and philosophy. I have looked into Buddhism in the past and while there are some things I disagree with (reincarnation being one), I have always embraced this idea of nothingness/emptiness arising. A good primer site is "the big view" : http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/
However, I found Mr. Watt's explanation more accessible as it spoke to me more in colloquial language. I agree whole-heartedly with his points.
B) What do you think will happen when you die? When family members die? (Please, you can just say what you think, but try and back this up with something (religion/science/void etc... literally anything, but I kind of want this to be deeper than just "well I hope this is what happens", this isn't about what you hope, but what you think)
I believe our consciousness will cease to exist and our bodies will disintegrate into its basic elements. Ditto for my family heh. I base this on the complete lack of evidence for an afterlife under any rigorous scientific testing (no, TV ghost shows and other gibberish don't count for me). Also, I find it laughable that there would exist a God who cares about our individual activity and who has made a lovely heaven/hell for us. Maybe someone set things up in the beginning - like Einstein's God - but that's irrelevant for our day to day lives anyways.
At one point, this belief scared me but now I am more accepting of it. We come from nothing and we go to nothing. In between, we choose the road we take. It's kind of refreshing.
C) Do you believe that Alan Watts has a valid point? Does our universe come from nothingness, and that all of our petty fears don't truly matter because in the end it's all nothingness? (off topic slightly, but based on how all our achievements are nothing but dust, "monopoly from zeitgeist"+ Show Spoiler + so it may be interesting to listen to.
Well, the big bang theory essentially posits our universe coming from nothing. The big crunch vs. infinite expansion demise model changes all the time but both suggest that nothing we do matters.
But it's all relative. Yes, nothing matters as far as the universe is concerned but so what? It still matters to ME that I get my dream job and treat my family well. It probably matters a fuckton to the ant carrying the breadcrumb that he make it back to the nest.
I spent much of my youth looking at this stuff and wondering about death, life, meaning etc. As I've gotten a bit older, I've realized that other smarter individuals have asked the same questions for thousands of years and haven't come up with great answers. I've realized that there aren't great answers to these questions and that if you spend too long on them, you'll miss the good experiences that life has to offer. Just my personal views
On May 26 2012 08:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
Not exactly. What you do is clearly define your assumptions.
edit: and the validity of the most fundamental assumptions cannot be proved (because they are prior to proof), instead they make themselves manifest
to put it another way, think about why logic IS logic.
I agree. Hence the reason two completely viewpoints can be supported by logic.
On May 26 2012 08:09 Jockmcplop wrote: I am not denying logic at all. I am just saying that you have to be very careful when drawing conclusions from a logical arguement, that the logic has not been 'contaminated' by an assumption at any point.
Not exactly. What you do is clearly define your assumptions.
edit: and the validity of the most fundamental assumptions cannot be proved (because they are prior to proof), instead they make themselves manifest
to put it another way, think about why logic IS logic.
I agree. Hence the reason two completely viewpoints can be supported by logic.
Well, what you use logic to do is to discover on what fundamental premises the proponents of opposing positions differ.
edit: or to show that somebody's position is incoherent
edit again: and it's important to note that the hardest part of philosophy is not logical inference, but the definition of terms.
I would also recommend Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton on the subject of Christian optimism & paradox/mysticism:
Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.
I recommend the read. He's a good writer and it moves quickly. (This isn't a religion plug. As an atheist I found it a sincerely-critical essay... far preferential to, say, Kierkegaard).
In a nutshell, he argues for optimism (by the circle metaphor, ever growing), that optimism is enabled by the mystical (unknowable), while arguing that other beliefs that attempt to explicate everything about the world ultimately reduce the world (to a very small circle). Where asceticism is concerned, he argues that the willful shrinking of the circle into nothingness should be resisted.
This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong.
death is the same way as before you were born. now, there is a chance we can be born again just as we did now, but we might be totally different organisms but still made up of particles of this universe or perhaps another. in order to prolong our current self, we have to rely on life extension through technology and medical advancements. I believe our best bet is to seek immortality that way. when we figure out how things work, we can gain control over them and bend them to our will.
Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.
I recommend the read. He's a good writer and it moves quickly. (This isn't a religion plug. As an atheist I found it a sincerely-critical essay... far preferential to, say, Kierkegaard).
In a nutshell, he argues for optimism (by the circle metaphor, ever growing), that optimism is enabled by the mystical (unknowable), while arguing that other beliefs that attempt to explicate everything about the world ultimately reduce the world (to a very small circle). Where asceticism is concerned, he argues that the willful shrinking of the circle into nothingness should be resisted.
tl;dr -- optimism is for winners
Since when is Buddhism less optimistic than Atheism? Atheism doesn't claim to "not know". They claim that they do know that god does NOT exist. Maybe your confusing Atheists with Agnostic Atheists? Asceticism does not = Nothingness. I didn't see or hear anything in the OP supporting complete asceticism.
On May 26 2012 08:52 xeo1 wrote: death is the same way as before you were born. now, there is a chance we can be born again just as we did now, but we might be totally different organisms but still made up of particles of this universe or perhaps another. in order to prolong our current self, we have to rely on life extension through technology and medical advancements. I believe our best bet is to seek immortality that way. when we figure out how things work, we can gain control over them and bend them to our will.
Lol can't tell if trolling or not, but it's funny no matter.
On May 26 2012 08:33 mmp wrote: I would also recommend Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton on the subject of Christian optimism & paradox/mysticism:
Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.
I recommend the read. He's a good writer and it moves quickly. (This isn't a religion plug. As an atheist I found it a sincerely-critical essay... far preferential to, say, Kierkegaard).
In a nutshell, he argues for optimism (by the circle metaphor, ever growing), that optimism is enabled by the mystical (unknowable), while arguing that other beliefs that attempt to explicate everything about the world ultimately reduce the world (to a very small circle). Where asceticism is concerned, he argues that the willful shrinking of the circle into nothingness should be resisted.
tl;dr -- optimism is for winners
Since when is Buddhism less optimistic than Atheism?
I didn't compare Buddhism to atheism. I was offering what Christian optimism has to say about the "will to nothingness," which is that by reveling in nothingness you are denying yourself the broadest potential of life for the sake of tranquility in a very confined space.
every religion has different beliefs about what happens after death. every person regardless of religious affiliation or faith has his/her own views on this subject. and we can think about life and try to philosophize everything and rationalize our lives, but........in the end there are 7 billion something people on this planet, everyone's life is just as valuable as anyone else's. everyone's views and thoughts are just as important as anyone's else's. each of us has feelings, thoughts, dreams, desires. but among the people alive now, we must remember the however many countless thousands and millions and billions(?) of people who have lived and died before us, and the countless many also who will live and die after we leave this planet. every day countless many people around the world die, and countless many are also born on the same day.
in our life we place value on ourself, on our inner thoughts, but anyone has similar thoughts. i always think how useless my own life is, when i think of the billions of people who have lived before i was born, 99% of those people have been born, lived, and died, and no one remembers their name, what they looked like, what their dreams were, what their thoughts were. the people we remember now are the famous ones who invented things, made things, discovered things, were scientists or scholars or contributed something to their society, and ultimately to the world. when you look at this way, that 99% of the people who have lived in the past have been forgotten (or never remembered in the first place) your own life seems insignificant. of course your own life is important to you, and your family and friends. but even everyday you see articles on cnn or yahoo "family killed in accident", "plane crash kills 100", "criminal kills child", and you see these stories and you "what bad people can kill like this", and you feel bad those people have died. but it has no real meaning on your life. people die everyday, even people who are young and have never had an opportunity to realize their potential.......and your own life seems so small by comparison.
so i think that thinking will get you nowhere. sun sets, gets dark, sun rises, morning. every day will go on the same as before. for 60 or 70 years we live in our own heads, our own minds, and we see the world through our own eyes, 1 out of 7 billion, not counting those who have lived in the past, and those who will be born in the future. and we try to make sense of everything we see and feel and touch and experience, with our unique brain and unique eyes and unique feelings. and we reach out to others and share our discoveries and experiences and thoughts and feelings. because we are all stuck together on this tiny rock floating in space, and our life is precious to us, because it is all we personally know, but to others our lives are not nearly as important as we may think
On May 26 2012 08:52 xeo1 wrote: death is the same way as before you were born. now, there is a chance we can be born again just as we did now, but we might be totally different organisms but still made up of particles of this universe or perhaps another. in order to prolong our current self, we have to rely on life extension through technology and medical advancements. I believe our best bet is to seek immortality that way. when we figure out how things work, we can gain control over them and bend them to our will.
Lol can't tell if trolling or not, but it's funny no matter.
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote: Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
This is difficult xD, I hadn't thought so deeply about this.
But I'll try to answer you to the best of my ability.
The value change of love in regards to time is inconsequential to the argument, or rather, according to my definition of nothingness. If we notice a value change, we can regard that as a reaction between things that are not nothing. If we look at it from that standpoint, the effect and affection are of no importance in clarifying the nothingness state but are only important of deciding value. But that doesn't answer your question, probably only makes this rather annoying because it seems like I'm dodging. To tell you the truth, the only way I can imagine your question to be resolved according to the idea of something, because the idea of nothing won't answer your question I think, is if you think of the world in terms of vectors.
And not just some Cartesian plane vectors that follows Euclidean geometry or the vectors involved in Einstein's theory of relativity that exists 3 dimensionally under the affection of time. We have to think in the identity the world is filled with many, many dimensions; that is to say, vectors be drawn from almost anywhere to anywhere with the displacement of the vector being considered the "change." I can't quite say it perfectly, but just understand what I'm talking about is an incredibly complex matrix which I don't exactly know how to formulate into words.
In such a matrix, to plot it on a field, the points can be anywhere; vectors can point anywhere as well. However, due the fact there are so many dimensions, these points can cross each other or not at all be related; also, they can have differing amounts of magnitude. In such a field, we can denote 1 dimension as "love", and then know that things that exist/cross into that specific dimension, regardless of magnitude in terms of time, are and can be called "love."
Not quite sure if that answered your first question well enough, I'm hardly the man with all the answers, I'm just trying to give a good idea of what I think >_>.
As for the question about mass and its creation, it is relatively unsolvable to me. I wouldn't know much about the Higgs field as I'm not really much of a scientist in any regard lol. But I guess the only real response that I have is that we have to realize that the existence of mass can not come from nothing; that is the only thing we can really be sure of. For it to come from nothing would be to say that mass is nothing, and cannot thus be exchanged in any reaction, but I think we can say that's not true just from general observations.
I'll rebut one point, the rest seemed rather thought out and I don't want to stray too offtopic
""only response that I have is that we have to "realize"(poor choice in language, since all science isn't proofs but actually theories that are supported by evidence) that the existence of mass can not come from nothing"
Well, where does it come from? Matter is "something" and that is the "something" and if matter is "something", than the opposite, or non-matter, must be it's opposite nothing, should it not? If that's not the case, since we believe matter builds everything, than matter really isn't what we believed at all... So I conclude that matter is something, and comes from nothing. Similar in my mind, as when cutting a hologram, it produces two perfectly identical images.
On May 26 2012 08:33 mmp wrote: I would also recommend Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton on the subject of Christian optimism & paradox/mysticism:
Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery you have health; when you destroy mystery you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of to-day) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also. Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth. He admired youth because it was young and age because it was not. It is exactly this balance of apparent contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man. The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness. He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness; but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health. As we have taken the circle as the symbol of reason and madness, we may very well take the cross as the symbol at once of mystery and of health. Buddhism is centripetal, but Christianity is centrifugal: it breaks out. For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed for ever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms for ever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox in its centre it can grow without changing. The circle returns upon itself and is bound. The cross opens its arms to the four winds; it is a signpost for free travellers.
I recommend the read. He's a good writer and it moves quickly. (This isn't a religion plug. As an atheist I found it a sincerely-critical essay... far preferential to, say, Kierkegaard).
In a nutshell, he argues for optimism (by the circle metaphor, ever growing), that optimism is enabled by the mystical (unknowable), while arguing that other beliefs that attempt to explicate everything about the world ultimately reduce the world (to a very small circle). Where asceticism is concerned, he argues that the willful shrinking of the circle into nothingness should be resisted.
tl;dr -- optimism is for winners
Since when is Buddhism less optimistic than Atheism?
I didn't compare Buddhism to atheism. I was offering what Christian optimism has to say about the "will to nothingness," which is that by reveling in nothingness you are denying yourself the broadest potential of life for the sake of tranquility in a very confined space.
Please keep comments regarding Buddhism vs Christian beliefs aside... Read disclaimer please.
EDIT: This isn't mean't that you two aren't having a very polite discussion regarding it, but you are to PM each other with religion vs religion, I am not one to question ones faith for it isn't my right, and since this threads guidelines were set by me I thought I'd just elaborate on that.
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote: Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
This is difficult xD, I hadn't thought so deeply about this.
But I'll try to answer you to the best of my ability.
The value change of love in regards to time is inconsequential to the argument, or rather, according to my definition of nothingness. If we notice a value change, we can regard that as a reaction between things that are not nothing. If we look at it from that standpoint, the effect and affection are of no importance in clarifying the nothingness state but are only important of deciding value. But that doesn't answer your question, probably only makes this rather annoying because it seems like I'm dodging. To tell you the truth, the only way I can imagine your question to be resolved according to the idea of something, because the idea of nothing won't answer your question I think, is if you think of the world in terms of vectors.
And not just some Cartesian plane vectors that follows Euclidean geometry or the vectors involved in Einstein's theory of relativity that exists 3 dimensionally under the affection of time. We have to think in the identity the world is filled with many, many dimensions; that is to say, vectors be drawn from almost anywhere to anywhere with the displacement of the vector being considered the "change." I can't quite say it perfectly, but just understand what I'm talking about is an incredibly complex matrix which I don't exactly know how to formulate into words.
In such a matrix, to plot it on a field, the points can be anywhere; vectors can point anywhere as well. However, due the fact there are so many dimensions, these points can cross each other or not at all be related; also, they can have differing amounts of magnitude. In such a field, we can denote 1 dimension as "love", and then know that things that exist/cross into that specific dimension, regardless of magnitude in terms of time, are and can be called "love."
Not quite sure if that answered your first question well enough, I'm hardly the man with all the answers, I'm just trying to give a good idea of what I think >_>.
As for the question about mass and its creation, it is relatively unsolvable to me. I wouldn't know much about the Higgs field as I'm not really much of a scientist in any regard lol. But I guess the only real response that I have is that we have to realize that the existence of mass can not come from nothing; that is the only thing we can really be sure of. For it to come from nothing would be to say that mass is nothing, and cannot thus be exchanged in any reaction, but I think we can say that's not true just from general observations.
I'll rebut one point, the rest seemed rather thought out and I don't want to stray too offtopic
""only response that I have is that we have to "realize"(poor choice in language, since all science isn't proofs but actually theories that are supported by evidence) that the existence of mass can not come from nothing"
Well, where does it come from? Matter is "something" and that is the "something" and if matter is "something", than the opposite, or non-matter, must be it's opposite nothing, should it not? If that's not the case, since we believe matter builds everything, than matter really isn't what we believed at all... So I conclude that matter is something, and comes from nothing. Similar in my mind, as when cutting a hologram, it produces two perfectly identical images.
Well, energy exists in places even if no matter exists. The whole idea of a changing state, like with a nuclear reaction where energy comes from the dissipation of matter, could be reversed in such a situation.
Uhm, your assumption is wrong however of negative matter; that would be the equivalent of negative time (time before time), which doesn't follow in a logical progression because nothing can exist before itself. The opposite of matter isn't nonexistence however; you cannot say the opposite of 100 is 0. The enthymeme of our argument is that the sector of the field where the points can be moved is the positive zone of all the dimensions, meaning you cannot go underneath the 0 point of any specific dimension.
I kind of will deny the existence of negative matter, but I think you do as well since it's ridiculous and has not been observable, but again it is impossible for that which has matter's opposite to be nothing, because it would have to be the equivalent mass of nothing of the object in question, which really doesn't make sense, you can't have a certain amount of nothing.
On May 26 2012 08:52 xeo1 wrote: death is the same way as before you were born. now, there is a chance we can be born again just as we did now, but we might be totally different organisms but still made up of particles of this universe or perhaps another. in order to prolong our current self, we have to rely on life extension through technology and medical advancements. I believe our best bet is to seek immortality that way. when we figure out how things work, we can gain control over them and bend them to our will.
Lol can't tell if trolling or not, but it's funny no matter.
On May 26 2012 08:40 RodrigoX wrote: This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong.
Out of everyone here this is the comment I felt made the most sense for me. I don't really have an opinion on these kind e things I've always felt that in our current stage of the human experience we just don't have the proper tools to form an answer to many certain questions. It is the human experience to keep trying to find out though. As long as it takes people will always look for an answer. I felt this comment, however, made the most sense to me. I agree with everything you said. Well put.
On May 26 2012 07:12 furerkip wrote: Uhm, my own belief, and take it for what you will, is that everything around us has value.
Now, the assumption of the videos (that we start from nothing) doesn't quite fit what the world around us; in order to gain a reaction to something, you'd have to realize that the something is not nothing. If nothing is added to gain a reaction, then nothing follows; it's a simple identity problem you can find in math. Additions of nothing are meaningless.
Now, from that observation, I think that the world doesn't follow such a silly notion. For, if we are nothing, then we cannot produce anything besides the thing itself. Thus, things cannot lose mass nor gain it nor anything in terms of physical attributes nor can there be any change in any of their physical attributes either. To continue with this, I cannot actually move things around; that would change their spatial placement and thus a physical property of the object in question. To move these things would require an effort that could not be produced if I was in a state of nothingness.
Now, you may come to the conclusion that we are nothing because we are a minuscule part of the universe; however, that is actually incorrect given the assumption that we are part of the universe. To point this further, would you consider the building blocks of the universe to be unimportant? If we are identifying the universe as something rather than a non existent place, then no, these building blocks are important because without them the universe ceases to exist. If size mattered in the grand scheme of things, would bacteria not affect you in any way because they are smaller than you exponentially and almost do not exist in our relative terms of size? The size of you is unimportant; the universe has a requirement that you exist just so it be the universe it is.
I suppose, you could argue that we are in state of nothing so nothing is actually being produced in such an environment regardless, because nothing actually exists, so it fits the logical syllogism. However, an addition of nothing to nothing can only produce nothing, with no change from the original nothings being done since nothing doesn't exist in multiple properties, but only one. However, in our case, there are changes existing in our "world of nothing"; thus, the original state is not kept the same but rather different from the state it was in originally. And if you are in a different state that original, that is change, and so, regardless of whether the change is not of a significant value, we still denote that as not nothing or just simply put as something.
That's just me though.
I believe perhaps you misunderstood "nothingness"... It isn't about importance, I am as important as you are, as important as everything is, but in the end, as the video attempts to explain with the poetry contest, you aren't polishing a mirror at all, everything you attempt to "value" and "perfect" is polishing your mirror, whereas the mirror doesn't exist, so you simply don't have to polish it because no dust can come of it.
I find your perspective compelling though, but the question I ask is... What makes you decide what has "value"? What does have value? Perhaps the values you have, are what everyone believes are values, but aren't values at all?
My example is love, love is an irrational human function that forsakes logic and generally is just a connection on a chemical level that is near impossible to explain, and yet it happens... But love can be as brief as the snow melting from season to season to as infinite as the universe... Why does this value change?
Another thing, you discuss mass (losing and gaining) but what is mass? Where does it come from? Scientists believe the "big bang" (which is being highly debated) but generally the "higgs field" creates matter... What is the higgs field? If it is not "matter" (mass) than what, might that be?
All we can ask are questions, it is a very curious topic.
This is difficult xD, I hadn't thought so deeply about this.
But I'll try to answer you to the best of my ability.
The value change of love in regards to time is inconsequential to the argument, or rather, according to my definition of nothingness. If we notice a value change, we can regard that as a reaction between things that are not nothing. If we look at it from that standpoint, the effect and affection are of no importance in clarifying the nothingness state but are only important of deciding value. But that doesn't answer your question, probably only makes this rather annoying because it seems like I'm dodging. To tell you the truth, the only way I can imagine your question to be resolved according to the idea of something, because the idea of nothing won't answer your question I think, is if you think of the world in terms of vectors.
And not just some Cartesian plane vectors that follows Euclidean geometry or the vectors involved in Einstein's theory of relativity that exists 3 dimensionally under the affection of time. We have to think in the identity the world is filled with many, many dimensions; that is to say, vectors be drawn from almost anywhere to anywhere with the displacement of the vector being considered the "change." I can't quite say it perfectly, but just understand what I'm talking about is an incredibly complex matrix which I don't exactly know how to formulate into words.
In such a matrix, to plot it on a field, the points can be anywhere; vectors can point anywhere as well. However, due the fact there are so many dimensions, these points can cross each other or not at all be related; also, they can have differing amounts of magnitude. In such a field, we can denote 1 dimension as "love", and then know that things that exist/cross into that specific dimension, regardless of magnitude in terms of time, are and can be called "love."
Not quite sure if that answered your first question well enough, I'm hardly the man with all the answers, I'm just trying to give a good idea of what I think >_>.
As for the question about mass and its creation, it is relatively unsolvable to me. I wouldn't know much about the Higgs field as I'm not really much of a scientist in any regard lol. But I guess the only real response that I have is that we have to realize that the existence of mass can not come from nothing; that is the only thing we can really be sure of. For it to come from nothing would be to say that mass is nothing, and cannot thus be exchanged in any reaction, but I think we can say that's not true just from general observations.
I'll rebut one point, the rest seemed rather thought out and I don't want to stray too offtopic
""only response that I have is that we have to "realize"(poor choice in language, since all science isn't proofs but actually theories that are supported by evidence) that the existence of mass can not come from nothing"
Well, where does it come from? Matter is "something" and that is the "something" and if matter is "something", than the opposite, or non-matter, must be it's opposite nothing, should it not? If that's not the case, since we believe matter builds everything, than matter really isn't what we believed at all... So I conclude that matter is something, and comes from nothing. Similar in my mind, as when cutting a hologram, it produces two perfectly identical images.
Well, energy exists in places even if no matter exists. The whole idea of a changing state, like with a nuclear reaction where energy comes from the dissipation of matter, could be reversed in such a situation.
Uhm, your assumption is wrong however of negative matter; that would be the equivalent of negative time (time before time), which doesn't follow in a logical progression because nothing can exist before itself. The opposite of matter isn't nonexistence however; you cannot say the opposite of 100 is 0. The enthymeme of our argument is that the sector of the field where the points can be moved is the positive zone of all the dimensions, meaning you cannot go underneath the 0 point of any specific dimension.
I kind of will deny the existence of negative matter, but I think you do as well since it's ridiculous and has not been observable, but again it is impossible for that which has matter's opposite to be nothing, because it would have to be the equivalent mass of nothing of the object in question, which really doesn't make sense, you can't have a certain amount of nothing.
This is only if you speak of nothing as if you mean nothing... Nothing isn't simply nothing, it is similar to consciousness, you can't "grab" your consciousness and it isn't physically there... Yet it is there, we know it is. I find you have to open your mind to the idea to "infinity", and it's different ideas surrounding it.
On May 26 2012 08:40 RodrigoX wrote: This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong.
Out of everyone here this is the comment I felt made the most sense for me. I don't really have an opinion on these kind e things I've always felt that in our current stage of the human experience we just don't have the proper tools to form an answer to many certain questions. It is the human experience to keep trying to find out though. As long as it takes people will always look for an answer. I felt this comment, however, made the most sense to me. I agree with everything you said. Well put.
I have to agree as well.
there had been a time when I decided to think about all these "deep" stuff until I realize that at the very end, you just have to pick one and believe, despite others might sound more believable to some others or even to yourself.
If anyone really care about how they would be like after they were dead, then you can know that at the minimal is our friends, enemies, family will all be affected. Which is why rather than thinking what will happen to us, it is better to think what kind of message we will pass onto them when we die.
(in buddism, nothingness doesn't mean you have nothing, but rather, because you have no desire, no differences, no wants, no thoughts, therefore you also have everything that you could ever "need, want, have, etc" which is why they say by having nothing, you have everything)
On May 26 2012 08:40 RodrigoX wrote: This video is a very secular perspective. It is essentially making sense of the secular perspective concerning death. However, I think this is not where the argument should be. If you read further, I think an actual argument that will go somewhere will happen.
I'm going to try and be incredibly deep here.
Now, speaking in terms of philosophy, as a human being. You have lots of questions to answer. You have lots of unknowns to define. You have areas of anthropology, cosmology, ontology, epistemology, ethical questions, political questions, economic questions. You have things to figure out. Death is one of them.
Now, the question is, how do we define things like death, life, what is right and wrong, all the above areas. Well, how do we define anything? We define things based on comparisons. Right light, and dark, good and evil, everyone has heard this before. But it does go farther than opposites. How do I know what a BMW is? I compare it to a prius. I really know what a BMW is if I compare it to a horse, a baseball glove. I know if I take gasoline, and compare it to all the things that a car has, I would figure out that gasoline would make the car run. Right, the more things there are, the better I can define something.
So, therefore we argue, that if I was to know about something, It would be best to know one hundred percent of that something. And if everything, helps me define everything, I will only know 100 percent about one individual thing, if I know every single individual thing and use each one to compare them to each other.
So thus comes into question, is that where do "things" end. Now we come into realms where people should know something. Right, do we end things at the ends of human perception (the 5 senses (6 if you count body language) or do we go beyond the senses, and go into outside of human perception, the supernatural, where God, Nirvana among other religions would exist and end "things" there.
This is now where Im getting back to the first paragraph. People get very very confused when arguing or debating. You know, people debate whether gays should marry or not. Essentially that is going to get you nowhere, if a Christian is taking the identity and characteristics of God, and comparing them to the concept of homosexuality, and an atheist isn't. You have completely different definitions of the concept of homosexuality, and it is impossible to get anywhere if you are defining things differently.
So now, the question really is, where do "things" end. Essentially we just need to know about everything that exists. Right, if there are infinite things, we are never going to get a 100 percent definition of something. An "end" can happen anywhere. Lets say that there is just a proton and an atom in the universe, and that is all that exists. Right I would know 100 percent of the universe. I know a proton makes up an atom and an atom is made up of protons. That is all I could possibly know in the universe. And thats the goal really.
So to skip a few steps, we can say, that I can have 100 percent of a definition in a closed system. Right, so essentially, that I could just use my 5 senses, the limit of my human perception and succeed in knowing everything. I would know the right answer to all ethical questions because i compared each to everything in the universe, and what works and what doesn't. So we don't need more than our senses to have 100 percent of a definition. So saying that, why would we go outside of our senses, giving faith (which is not an optimal thing to do) that there is a supernatural plain of existence (a very complicated subject speaking of) that I can use to define things, when I could not do the action of faith, which is suboptimal to have a definitive answer to the question of death, life, and right and wrong.
Out of everyone here this is the comment I felt made the most sense for me. I don't really have an opinion on these kind e things I've always felt that in our current stage of the human experience we just don't have the proper tools to form an answer to many certain questions. It is the human experience to keep trying to find out though. As long as it takes people will always look for an answer. I felt this comment, however, made the most sense to me. I agree with everything you said. Well put.
I have to agree as well.
there had been a time when I decided to think about all these "deep" stuff until I realize that at the very end, you just have to pick one and believe, despite others might sound more believable to some others or even to yourself.
If anyone really care about how they would be like after they were dead, then you can know that at the minimal is our friends, enemies, family will all be affected. Which is why rather than thinking what will happen to us, it is better to think what kind of message we will pass onto them when we die.
(in buddism, nothingness doesn't mean you have nothing, but rather, because you have no desire, no differences, no wants, no thoughts, therefore you also have everything that you could ever "need, want, have, etc" which is why they say by having nothing, you have everything)
a)To a human being, he basically states that life is what you make it. All the nuances in life don't matter. A side point: I think that most people actually don't have true beliefs. When you view religion intelligently, you understand that it's just a substandard of a belief. A belief is supposed to be a proper reason to doing something; by a proper, intellectual understanding, you initiate actions based on a belief. Whereas with religion, initiatiation of an action goes by an assumption, and you create will by a generic belief. b) I think, "What do you believe happens when you die," is more appropriate to your post; the op orbits around beliefs, rather than thoughts. What I think happens when we die, we become a part of the cosmos again: reverted to our basic state, apart from our intelligence, back to the big soup, that is the universe. c)I think allan watts has a point, but I don't truly believe in it. If you truly believe in what he was saying, you wouldn't be able to experience life very well. If you consciously question whether or not that your actions hold no weight, then everything you do will appear meaningless, and you'll fall into nihilism.
On May 26 2012 12:30 Revolt wrote: c)I think allan watts has a point, but I don't truly believe in it. If you truly believe in what he was saying, you wouldn't be able to experience life very well. If you consciously question whether or not that your actions hold no weight, then everything you do will appear meaningless, and you'll fall into nihilism.
The whole point of meditation is to escape thoughts of meaninglessness. Just because you close your eyes, doesn't mean the world stops existing as it is. Which is why Buddhism is inherently a nihilistic belief system -- rather, "rejectionist" is fairer since the questions (morality, existences, truth) that we imply when we throw around the catch-all "nihilism" are not so much refuted as they are avoided. "Enlightenment" is a hypnotic mental state where you don't care about these questions: which philosophically is as strong a panacea as nihilism.
there had been a time when I decided to think about all these "deep" stuff until I realize that at the very end, you just have to pick one and believe, despite others might sound more believable to some others or even to yourself.
If anyone really care about how they would be like after they were dead, then you can know that at the minimal is our friends, enemies, family will all be affected. Which is why rather than thinking what will happen to us, it is better to think what kind of message we will pass onto them when we die.
(in buddism, nothingness doesn't mean you have nothing, but rather, because you have no desire, no differences, no wants, no thoughts, therefore you also have everything that you could ever "need, want, have, etc" which is why they say by having nothing, you have everything)
I hear that bolded statement a surprising amount, which I really do not think is the case. This concept of picking one and believing is just so off in my opinion. The only reason this statement exists, is because of this concept of the supernatural or the opposite of human perceptions.
Right, the reason people would say "Just pick one" is because of this: Alright, say someone sold you on the idea, that we have to go outside of our own human senses, to adequately describe everything (imo not the case). Right, so lets say there is something that exists outside of our ability to perceive it that would describe the universe. Right there we have a logical impossibility. We are saying something exists, that as a human cannot say exists. Somehow, people get past this, and we apply this concept of faith. That there is something in the supernatural, despite the obvious contrary. So now, that we established that there is a supernatural, well.... what do we do? What do we put our faith in to describe everything? Unfortunately, as per definition, the only reason the supernatural exists, is because we put our faith in it, hence if something to exist IN the supernatural we need only put our faith in it. Essentially, we can make up whatever we want, because the dependent factor of something existing in the supernatural, is our own faith. So welcome to Scientology!
And lets say we avoid this faith concept entirely, you know, we wouldnt just say pick one and put faith in something. We can use our own experiences as our definitions for things (whilst defining our experiences by other people's experiences) and have the least amount of faith possible, that other people have the same senses we do (which really isnt faith, because we could look at a grip of people and discover that in comparing us to them, we have the same sensory tools)
(Of course its not as simple as this, because Christians and other faiths would argue that things happened in our perception (such as the cross) therefore we can specifically point to things existing in the supernatural, and it is not just a willy nilly thing)
I mean basically, the human effort or experience is an effort to make a perception of ALL our sensations no matter the cost. So in terms of death, a human will go for any explanation possible that he on a psychological level likes, just because of the severity and pertinence of the question.
finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +
(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right.
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
I've always believed that if there is no God, then once you die you will instantly wake up as another creature. I don't actually mean incarnation either in terms of religion, I mean I will wake up instantly in a scientific way. Once you die, you lose concept of time, once you have lost that concept, there will be an infinite amount of years to recreate your mind whether or not your mind be in the form of a frog, or some weird creature in another galaxy.
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote: finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +
(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right.
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Comitting violence against a fellow member of your society is dangeous. Humans can't thrive in a solitary existence. The 'inherent' practicality is the greatest argument for 'inherent' good.
/edit
Also, ITT: Nothingness being discussed by (living) things. Bravo TL, bravo.
From my perspective the only thing you can be sure about is an existence and if you are not aware of that existence anymore then you can't assume that that existence is dead. If you believe in that you are a human being then the only way you think you know death is by the fact others tell you a person has died. So to believe in death you must believe in the existence of other beings and then that they are telling the truth. In a philosophical sense both concepts, truth and the existence of other beings, is both up for discussion which makes death an ever more difficult concept to grasp. As a result of my proposition I don't think that we can be so sure about death and what may or may not happen if either you or someone else is classified as dead.
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote: finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +
(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right.
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Pseudo intellectual dribble, it took you so long to explain something simple. You use adjectives which aren't neccesarily suitable for the noun you are trying to describe.
Your argument is wrong, the definition of right and wrong comes from our evolutionary traits. It is counter productive in terms of evolution if we are beating on our peers. Thus our mind set defines what is right or wrong. Obviously there are grey areas, but there is a foundation in which you can legitimately say is right or wrong.
If we really did know what would happen after death, imagine the consequences. Religions legitimized, mass suicides, apathy towards this life, nihilism justified, mankinds ambition dampened. No need to strive in this world, we can just wait for the next.
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote: finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +
(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right.
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Comitting violence against a fellow member of your society is dangeous. Humans can't thrive in a solitary existence. The 'inherent' practicality is the greatest argument for 'inherent' good.
/edit
Also, ITT: Nothingness being discussed by (living) things. Bravo TL, bravo.
I'm sorry, were you expecting the trees to converse over the topic? Please, like a user earlier who didn't understand the point of this thread, refrain from posting here. You'll see below your post someone who decided to respond in a constructive way about "inherent" good/bad already has. Also, since you deem living things talking about "nothingness" as a joke, you have no purpose here but to spam, please again, do not post in my thread.
If you decide to add something constructive, then by all means please post.
On May 26 2012 04:52 NeMeSiS3 wrote: A) After watching the video, what do you take away from it? Do you agree, or disagree? Does it affect your own belief structure? (if it doesn't, that is totally fine!)
B) What do you think will happen when you die? When family members die? (Please, you can just say what you think, but try and back this up with something (religion/science/void etc... literally anything, but I kind of want this to be deeper than just "well I hope this is what happens", this isn't about what you hope, but what you think)
C) Do you believe that Alan Watts has a valid point? Does our universe come from nothingness, and that all of our petty fears don't truly matter because in the end it's all nothingness? (off topic slightly, but based on how all our achievements are nothing but dust, "monopoly from zeitgeist"+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzEc6fEpyI
so it may be interesting to listen to.
Interesting video. Anyway, A) Of course it affects my, but only because of the music and the way he speaks. If he was talking in the same way about anal sex without lubricant being wonderful while quoting some porn star, I'd probably feel the same way. B) Define "to die" or "death". That's already pretty hard. The world is complex. We human beings are incredibly limited in our cognitive abilities. Because of that, we use simple terms which noone can define and which include a lot of information. Religion, spirit, intelligence, politics, state, economy, capitalism, socialism, life, death, and so forth. Everyone has an idea of what they are supposed to mean, but there will never be a precise definition. These terms are used to name sets of similar yet distinct phenomena which we hopefully can (someday) define each for itself. So using these terms and asking "what do you think of xyz" is rather stupid. If you cannot PRECISELY state what you are talking about, every discussion is pointless. C)"Define nothingness".
I will start by saying : I do not believe in religion, god or any "higher being". I wil try and keep everything in neat simple sentences.
I believe religion give living purpose by preaching moral values and creating a "system" where good is rewarded and bad is punished. It empowers humans to make the right choice either by coercion or reward. The punishment that comes with disobeying a religion's values are often enforced by the people who believe in the particular religion ( see Christianity through the ages, fairness of Islamic law towards woman. ) Throughout the years, I was never shown heaven or people going to hell, just punishment (or reward) dealt by humans to humans in the name of their religion.
Why do we believe in religious teachings passed down from hundreds of years ago when there is really no "proof" that backs these claims ( not the miracle water kind, the "God made a PSA stating we need to get our shit together kind"). Why are we so desperate to believe that a higher power created us, that there is a "second stage" after our lives that necessitates us to comply with whatever religious laws.
I believe that in the end there is indeed "nothingness". I believe humans live their lives seeking solace in religion whilst the most likely answer left undiscussed ( there is no purpose/when you die, its game over). I believe humans are not special, our actions have no effect on ourselves after death and we do not have an obligation to do "good things" in life.
My opinion of "the Truth after death" is that I can go buy a gun, go out and shoot as many people I want and the ultimate price I pay is my life. There is no "going to hell" after that, which is scary. ( Hypothetical scenario, dont call the FBI please) I actually think Christianity/Judaism was created to give the people something to believe in, a coping mechanism for the finality of death/release of obligations.
People I know that converted to religions are often disillusioned. They question the purpose of life (often after suffering or went through living hell) and they accepted religion without regard for the legimitacy of the claims.
Not really structured coherently or in a logical manner, but the main points are there. If I offended you, then I am offended that you are offended. It is an opinion, not an "apologize now" card.
On May 26 2012 20:17 BlindKill wrote: My opinion of "the Truth after death" is that I can go buy a gun, go out and shoot as many people I want and the ultimate price I pay is my life. There is no "going to hell" after that, which is scary. ( Hypothetical scenario, dont call the FBI please) I actually think the author of the Bible a.k.a Jesus ( not the Divine Jesus, just a scrawny man with a beard) created Christianity/Judaism to give the people something to believe in, a coping mechanism for the finality of death/release of obligations.
I just want to address this misconception. Jesus did not write any of the Bible and had very little to do with the writing of it or, to be honest, the ideas expressed in it. The Old Testament obviously predates him and the New Testament including our modern concept of Christianity owes more to Paul (Greek school of thought, never met/heard Jesus) and Constantine (power hungry Roman Emperor 300 years later) than anything else. That's not to say that the ideas in the Bible are necessarily bad, this isn't a criticism of Christianity, just that there's pretty much no reason to consider anything but a few small parts of Acts/4 Gospels as having any relevance to Jesus himself.
I used to salivate over this discussions in the classroom and with friends over mugs and mugs of beer until sunrise, especially during my freshman year. But the more I "grow" into philosophy and the practical rigors of the discipline, I tend to veer away from these abstractions, which to my belief is the worst disservice that could be done to such a noble and useful profession. I believe in Philosophy as an act of enlightenment, as a device to make clear the problems we have on the many levels of our social involvement. The worst kind of philosophy for me is ones that deliberately or indeliberately obscure a problematique only because there are ambiguous philosophical borders to be exploited.
In this regard, I subscribe to Rorty, I paraphrase from memory: "language is a tool for social action, if it does not do this, it is mere wordplay".
On May 26 2012 20:40 shizna wrote: i don't understand the fascination with death.... it's totally irrelevant.
every second you 'think' about death, is a second of your life wasted. unless it brings you joy, which would be weird.
Personally, since you are dead for a longer period of time than alive, I deem thinking about death rather relevant and not a waste, especially when it compares theories. It can become a very interesting debate/discussion. I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.
Death is fascinating because you can only know the answer once you're dead, so in a technical sense, right now... No one can possibly know the answer, it is just assumed (unless religious faith dictates your beliefs, then you do know the answer in your own mind whether shared by others or not)
So the "ultimate question" seems rather interesting to think about.
But if you feel it is a waste of time, please do not continue posting here, anything relevant you wish to bring to the table or discuss then be my guest.
It's easy. When you die, you no longer are alive. The only way you could imagine that for yourself is to try remembering your experiences from the time before your birth/conception. There aren't any. Sucks then if you like your experiences. That's why i'm not going to die. It seems like a bad idea with incredibly boring consequences.
Since the concept of a consciousness doesn't contain any discovered neuronal correlates yet (meaning that you can observe neuronal activity when someone feels something, but you can't tell where the quality of that feeling comes from, it's not written in the neurons),
I have adopted the belief that there is a general consciousness behind everything, and that our bodies and minds are a little part of it, like a rented one. When we die, our part of consciousness becomes a part of the greater whole again, and if the sum of consciousness suffered, we will suffer too. That would be hell by traditional definition.My concept is pretty related to the karma concept, except that i don't know if you can escape that aggregate of consciousness like described by the concept of nirwana.
After reading the OP, I watched some additional Alan Watts speeches in order to further educate myself on his philosophy and things that somehow have to do with "nothingness". I think nothingness is the state of perfection. Nothingness is absolute joy and harmony. Where there is nothing, it is perfect in every possible level, and everything is in harmony, because there isn't anything to be in disharmony, simply. Or on a personal scale, nothingness is when you have nothing to worry about, whether you self-induced it or not, and not only are you happy, but you are at peace with yourself. Nothingness in my opinion is, after watching some Alan Watts, understanding that there is nothing to find, nothing to chase nor to reach in the Universe. Merely wanting to accept that fact is already the wrong way to go. "How do I reach Nirvana?" is the wrong question to ask, because you already have it inside you but you chose to ignore it, because of different stimuli from your surrounding medium. Nothingness on the other hand is the way to go. Nothingness, in a non-religious sense, will free you from the stimuli of the world. That for me is nothingness.
The universe IS "nothingness" or void, that was filled with matter. Everything is made of atoms, which themselves are made of a nucleus who has an electron cloud orbiting around it. The way it works leaves more space occupied by void between the nucleus and the electrons than space occupied by them both.
I like to see your human life as more or less the same principle, it's empty, and up to you to fill it with whatever meaning or sense you want to fill it with. It's up to you to live your life as you want to.
There is no reason for you to be here, no destiny, no bigger scheme or plan. You are just a tiny spec of matter who is born, lives, and dies in a flash, you don't have any importance or mission on earth. There is no end goal and nothing important happens to the rest of the universe or yourself when you are not here anymore.
For me seeing life this way allows you to live your life without fear or burdens, and you don't have a superior being to answer for your personal beliefs or life choices. THIS is true freedom.
Edit : More on point, as for life after death I believe what people call "soul" is our conscioussness, which is built around many areas of our brain and allows us to interact with the world. When your physical body dies, your conscioussness dies with it since it is stored in your brain.
See it like your brain is your computer (or to be more exact the whole hardware infrastructure supporting the internet), and your conscioussness is the internet, a flow of information originating from various sources. Bring down the interface and the information system disappears.
On May 26 2012 20:33 AUFKLARUNG wrote: I used to salivate over this discussions in the classroom and with friends over mugs and mugs of beer until sunrise, especially during my freshman year. But the more I "grow" into philosophy and the practical rigors of the discipline, I tend to veer away from these abstractions, which to my belief is the worst disservice that could be done to such a noble and useful profession. I believe in Philosophy as an act of enlightenment, as a device to make clear the problems we have on the many levels of our social involvement. The worst kind of philosophy for me is ones that deliberately or indeliberately obscure a problematique only because there are ambiguous philosophical borders to be exploited.
In this regard, I subscribe to Rorty, I paraphrase from memory: "language is a tool for social action, if it does not do this, it is mere wordplay".
Language is a tool for many things, most prominently (to me) representation. When language is not representing, it is usually doing something else.
Sadly though, I have little confidence that the language in the current debate succeeds either as a "tool for social action" or in representing anything in particular.
On May 26 2012 15:19 XeliN wrote: finally a thread that at least from the OP seems to try to conceive and deal with the problem of Nihilism honestly.
my perspective, or perhaps "intellectual" or "reasoned" perspective, because i didnt actually think this, yet could not honestly argue against it or dismiss it.
Is that life, morality, experience every single thing we might ascribe meaning or value to is completely and utterly meaningless.
There is no inherent "wrong" in say the brutal rape, abuse, and murder of an innocent child, because on what basis do you claim it to be wrong?
the only defence ive seen with any form of legitimacy is on the idea that it is innate to think the harming of children is wrong + Show Spoiler +
(or if my analogy were " there is no inherent wrong in the intentioned infliction of pain, humiliation, depression and anguish of another human being ", to detach it from an idea of a young innocent, but the point still stands)
but this is weak at best. and even if only 1 single person were to disagree with it and say "i dont think its innate" on what basis do you say they are wrong and you are right.
the only vague tenuous foundation ive managed to justify on which to found an idea of right and wrong, and an obligation to act is on the overt objective reality of our, and other peoples as well as the world around us' physicality. but even this often seems weak, even though i feel it has some merit to it.
Pseudo intellectual dribble, it took you so long to explain something simple. You use adjectives which aren't neccesarily suitable for the noun you are trying to describe.
Your argument is wrong, the definition of right and wrong comes from our evolutionary traits. It is counter productive in terms of evolution if we are beating on our peers. Thus our mind set defines what is right or wrong. Obviously there are grey areas, but there is a foundation in which you can legitimately say is right or wrong.
You got the thing. Precisely how people think things lke theses "philosophical" and "deep" are disturbing. This is a waste of time for waste of time sake. Nothingness is nothing. There is REAL LIFE to attend to kids, wake up!
On May 26 2012 22:21 KingAce wrote: We're all one in the same. Their is no you or I, this or that, everything is one. So I am nothing.
I'm curious, what makes you say that? I enjoy the perspective, though morbid so in the end I believe it is all nothingness, but we are not "nothing" in the sense of useless, but pure.
Please could you elaborate on why you think that we are all the same/there is no you or I? This is a thread of discussion, along with personal beliefs but I would enjoy it if you would put a little more effort into your post please.
On May 26 2012 22:21 KingAce wrote: We're all one in the same. Their is no you or I, this or that, everything is one. So I am nothing.
I'm curious, what makes you say that? I enjoy the perspective, though morbid so in the end I believe it is all nothingness, but we are not "nothing" in the sense of useless, but pure.
Please could you elaborate on why you think that we are all the same/there is no you or I? This is a thread of discussion, along with personal beliefs but I would enjoy it if you would put a little more effort into your post please.
Thank you.
I think its best to refer back to Alan Watts on this point maybe....
On May 26 2012 21:22 NeonFox wrote: The universe IS "nothingness" or void, that was filled with matter. Everything is made of atoms, which themselves are made of a nucleus who has an electron cloud orbiting around it. The way it works leaves more space occupied by void between the nucleus and the electrons than space occupied by them both.
I like to see your human life as more or less the same principle, it's empty, and up to you to fill it with whatever meaning or sense you want to fill it with. It's up to you to live your life as you want to.
There is no reason for you to be here, no destiny, no bigger scheme or plan. You are just a tiny spec of matter who is born, lives, and dies in a flash, you don't have any importance or mission on earth. There is no end goal and nothing important happens to the rest of the universe or yourself when you are not here anymore.
For me seeing life this way allows you to live your life without fear or burdens, and you don't have a superior being to answer for your personal beliefs or life choices. THIS is true freedom.
Edit : More on point, as for life after death I believe what people call "soul" is our conscioussness, which is built around many areas of our brain and allows us to interact with the world. When your physical body dies, your conscioussness dies with it since it is stored in your brain.
See it like your brain is your computer (or to be more exact the whole hardware infrastructure supporting the internet), and your conscioussness is the internet, a flow of information originating from various sources. Bring down the interface and the information system disappears.
Isn't it completely insane to believe that here, whatever here may may mean, there would even be the consideration that a small portion of whatever is void ? Whatever you may want to believe, talking about infinity and nothingness is pointless, the human mind can't fathom "it". We are defined by boundries, at least in this culture, if you are a "scientific" mind, you are extremely bound to a specific ideological platform.
Is there life after death ? We don't even know what either of the above are in fact.....why ask the question ? We have definitions, definitions created by a language who cannot express a huge part of human experiences.
I'm a simple guy who thinks about life, death, infinity, nothingness everyday in fact, even tho I know I can't understand these things....Most of the times I feel a bit dumb for not knowing some stuff other people know ( at my college for example ), but then again, they learned another language...Dunno, It's all weird to me. But still after the information that makes me a feel a bit inferior, there comes the trivial pointless talk who apparently is their main point of focus at the end of the day....Weird life.
By the way, don't decide what it is....because if you do, then you have already lost the "knowledge" game. The universe as I see it, as an uneducated mind is an ongoing evolving moving and transforming "thing", because if it were to stop...We would have been lost in "nothingness" an eternity ago.
Whatever, I only replied/wrote in this thread because these posts really make me wonder of how some people think...And why would you ever believe ( this is a commanding word, whatever you may "know", it's ultimately a belief since science already uses the word "models" for a few decades now since everything we thought was "right" is ultimately proven "wrong" sooner or later )
Anywyas, now talking about nothingness is very weird since we don't have a counter-particule to light.
On May 26 2012 21:22 NeonFox wrote: The universe IS "nothingness" or void, that was filled with matter. Everything is made of atoms, which themselves are made of a nucleus who has an electron cloud orbiting around it. The way it works leaves more space occupied by void between the nucleus and the electrons than space occupied by them both.
I like to see your human life as more or less the same principle, it's empty, and up to you to fill it with whatever meaning or sense you want to fill it with. It's up to you to live your life as you want to.
There is no reason for you to be here, no destiny, no bigger scheme or plan. You are just a tiny spec of matter who is born, lives, and dies in a flash, you don't have any importance or mission on earth. There is no end goal and nothing important happens to the rest of the universe or yourself when you are not here anymore.
For me seeing life this way allows you to live your life without fear or burdens, and you don't have a superior being to answer for your personal beliefs or life choices. THIS is true freedom.
Edit : More on point, as for life after death I believe what people call "soul" is our conscioussness, which is built around many areas of our brain and allows us to interact with the world. When your physical body dies, your conscioussness dies with it since it is stored in your brain.
See it like your brain is your computer (or to be more exact the whole hardware infrastructure supporting the internet), and your conscioussness is the internet, a flow of information originating from various sources. Bring down the interface and the information system disappears.
Isn't it completely insane to believe that here, whatever here may may mean, there would even be the consideration that a small portion of whatever is void ? Whatever you may want to believe, talking about infinity and nothingness is pointless, the human mind can't fathom "it". We are defined by boundries, at least in this culture, if you are a "scientific" mind, you are extremely bound to a specific ideological platform.
Is there life after death ? We don't even know what either of the above are in fact.....why ask the question ? We have definitions, definitions created by a language who cannot express a huge part of human experiences.
I'm a simple guy who thinks about life, death, infinity, nothingness everyday in fact, even tho I know I can't understand these things....Most of the times I feel a bit dumb for not knowing some stuff other people know ( at my college for example ), but then again, they learned another language...Dunno, It's all weird to me. But still after the information that makes me a feel a bit inferior, there comes the trivial pointless talk who apparently is their main point of focus at the end of the day....Weird life.
By the way, don't decide what it is....because if you do, then you have already lost the "knowledge" game. The universe as I see it, as an uneducated mind is an ongoing evolving moving and transforming "thing", because if it were to stop...We would have been lost in "nothingness" an eternity ago.
Whatever, I only replied/wrote in this thread because these posts really make me wonder of how some people think...And why would you ever believe ( this is a commanding word, whatever you may "know", it's ultimately a belief since science already uses the word "models" for a few decades now since everything we thought was "right" is ultimately proven "wrong" sooner or later )
Anywyas, now talking about nothingness is very weird since we don't have a counter-particule to light.
Oh this is only my opinion, not what I believe to be the absolute truth
Except the part where there is more emptiness than matter in an atom which is a scientific proved fact. And the latest research about consciousness points to the idea that it's a mesh in our brain and not located in a specific part.
As for the rest as I stated it's only opinion, I believe in facts, for the rest it's up to everybody to "fill in your life like you want" as I said. There's no way for us to know what's after death but to think you end up forever in a magical place in the sky is a bit ridiculous imo.
On May 26 2012 21:22 NeonFox wrote: The universe IS "nothingness" or void, that was filled with matter. Everything is made of atoms, which themselves are made of a nucleus who has an electron cloud orbiting around it. The way it works leaves more space occupied by void between the nucleus and the electrons than space occupied by them both.
I like to see your human life as more or less the same principle, it's empty, and up to you to fill it with whatever meaning or sense you want to fill it with. It's up to you to live your life as you want to.
There is no reason for you to be here, no destiny, no bigger scheme or plan. You are just a tiny spec of matter who is born, lives, and dies in a flash, you don't have any importance or mission on earth. There is no end goal and nothing important happens to the rest of the universe or yourself when you are not here anymore.
For me seeing life this way allows you to live your life without fear or burdens, and you don't have a superior being to answer for your personal beliefs or life choices. THIS is true freedom.
Edit : More on point, as for life after death I believe what people call "soul" is our conscioussness, which is built around many areas of our brain and allows us to interact with the world. When your physical body dies, your conscioussness dies with it since it is stored in your brain.
See it like your brain is your computer (or to be more exact the whole hardware infrastructure supporting the internet), and your conscioussness is the internet, a flow of information originating from various sources. Bring down the interface and the information system disappears.
Isn't it completely insane to believe that here, whatever here may may mean, there would even be the consideration that a small portion of whatever is void ? Whatever you may want to believe, talking about infinity and nothingness is pointless, the human mind can't fathom "it". We are defined by boundries, at least in this culture, if you are a "scientific" mind, you are extremely bound to a specific ideological platform.
Is there life after death ? We don't even know what either of the above are in fact.....why ask the question ? We have definitions, definitions created by a language who cannot express a huge part of human experiences.
I'm a simple guy who thinks about life, death, infinity, nothingness everyday in fact, even tho I know I can't understand these things....Most of the times I feel a bit dumb for not knowing some stuff other people know ( at my college for example ), but then again, they learned another language...Dunno, It's all weird to me. But still after the information that makes me a feel a bit inferior, there comes the trivial pointless talk who apparently is their main point of focus at the end of the day....Weird life.
By the way, don't decide what it is....because if you do, then you have already lost the "knowledge" game. The universe as I see it, as an uneducated mind is an ongoing evolving moving and transforming "thing", because if it were to stop...We would have been lost in "nothingness" an eternity ago.
Whatever, I only replied/wrote in this thread because these posts really make me wonder of how some people think...And why would you ever believe ( this is a commanding word, whatever you may "know", it's ultimately a belief since science already uses the word "models" for a few decades now since everything we thought was "right" is ultimately proven "wrong" sooner or later )
Anywyas, now talking about nothingness is very weird since we don't have a counter-particule to light.
Oh this is only my opinion, not what I believe to be the absolute truth
Except the part where there is more emptiness than matter in an atom which is a scientific proved fact. And the latest research about consciousness points to the idea that it's a mesh in our brain and not located in a specific part.
As for the rest as I stated it's only opinion, I believe in facts, for the rest it's up to everybody to "fill in your life like you want" as I said. There's no way for us to know what's after death but to think you end up forever in a magical place in the sky is a bit ridiculous imo.
facts change tho...even tho I don't believe in God, it would seem as well as unexpected for "us" to be stop existing altogether as well as going to meet a magical guy in the sky. Everything is possible when you talk about such topics. The most interesting thing to me is the DMT experience, and the fact that your judgement is completely not affected in that state even tho everything turns in everything you couldn't have imagined up until that point.
Also our ego is weird as well.....ego seeks closure, but it is afraid of death so it might build ideologies which would make you immortal, however in the same time, the ego searches closure, which means also a finalization of experience.....Weirdy weirdy....
On May 27 2012 02:35 Wampaibist wrote: I will always exist during the time I existed. What we do in live echoes in eternity.
Sounds like a quote from Troy : P Can you elaborate perhaps a bit deeper on your first line? "I will always exist during the time I exist"
Do you mean that before, you are nothing and after you are nothing? Do you mean void, or something greater?
haha the last part is a quote from the movie gladiator, which I like a lot.
As long as the universe exists time will exist. As long as time exists there was a period of time in which I was alive. To me, I will always be alive during that time, because I existed during that period. I won't (most likely) be conscious after I die, but the time I was alive will always be a period in time. So my existence after I die is based that as long as time exists I was apart of it . I hope what I said made a bit of sense, I'm by no means a philosopher or a great thinker so it may sound dumb to many. Ultimately it comes down to me as soothing that only the universe ending can take away my existence, even as short and insignificant as my life may be.
For me it all doesn't make sense. I was raised Catholic but have been doing a bunch of research in to the whole Universe/Existential/Death topic and to be honest both the religious argument and scientific argument have equal pull in my mind.
(Before I continue, I must say that I've given up on the Bible-God being the real god, because there are simply too many bullcrap parts in the bible for me to believe that such a being would create humans with the possibility of being gay and then banish them from Heaven for it. So when I say the ''religious'' argument, I mean a Higher Power, a Creator, not someone that was created by humans.)
Essentially, science says that the Big Bang created everything out of basically nothing (I know this is a very simplistic version of the definition but I'm trying to keep things simple) and so for me to believe that nothing became everything is just about as crazy as believing that someone created all this for some greater purpose. This is why I don't look down on theists or atheists, both beliefs are credible in my opinion.
So I leave it at that. Whatever happens happens. We're NEVER going to be able to figure it out so we might as well live this life to the fullest and see what happens. I'll tell you one thing though; I'll be equally scared and excited if I know I'm told I have X amount of time left to live. Not because I'm suicidal or anything, but because death will be the greatest adventure ever.
edit: not really a fan of sharing my views because they can be a little "out there" + Show Spoiler +
I enjoy reading through this thread very much. I don't think I grasped the concept of "nothingness" like the way most of you have, but I would love to share the kind of views I'm attracted to. I'm very eclectic and my philosophy is forever molding and never complete. I have also been dabbling in New Thought a lot lately.
New Thought, is the basis of all religious beliefs which is "believing". (i.e: We find what we seek, we receive what we ask for, we get what we expect, we are what we think we are, etc etc etc etc.) What we experience is a mirror reflection of all the information we have gathered, decisions we have made, logic we have been nurtured into, and things we focus on. Prayer, mantra, affirmations.. all of that are basically the same thing. Some call it luck, some call it chance, some point fingers at god, some point fingers at science. Basically, everything we experience is our interpretations because everything is energy. Maybe, nothingness == everything.
Concept seems pretty simple, but to me, all of this is very psychological. I brought this up because I wanted to explain that everything is biased and debating for the "truth" is irrelevant because we speak from our own reality (all the information we attracted based upon our beliefs). I do, however, believe we are constantly learning from each other's different POVs but never from each other's condescension.
Not really relevant to the idea I have presented, I would also like to share my views on god and the unknown. I do believe in the omnipresence of a superior "thing". So incredibly vast and present, it's hard to be conceptualized by man. Like, maybe science is the language of god and phenomenons are the rest of him yet to be discovered. I feel that the purpose of life, the concept of the afterlife, and the existence of god is none of our business. We started off quite agnostic about those three when we were born. Maybe we exist because we don't know why we exist and thus, we have no other choice but to make choices for ourselves. In conclusion, I don't know and you probably don't care. Let's party.
This thread is very full of opinions, but no reasoning for these opinions. Where are you getting this information that you believe in? What are you appealing to , to get all this information? What makes this appeal justifiable?
This is a rather dumbed down speech by Watts. It has always struck me that Buddhism stresses No-thing-ness rather than Nothingness. The idea is that idea of "things" as substances in and of themselves, as per Aristotle, is misguided, and that reality is a complex Worlding, as Heidegger would put it, of inderdepentent phenomena. Is in this sense that Buddhism speaks about No-thing-ness, specially in regards to the Self, rather than Nothingness.
This has been a rather obnoxious problem in the encounter of Eastern and Western traditions. People with a Western background inevitably find Buddhism nihilist because in their horizon nothingness is the negation of Being, whilst for the Eastern tradition No-thing-ness is a refination in respect to the perception and understanding of Being and beings.
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
Alright, I'm not to big into this whole philosophy stuff so I will give it my best shot at answering the OP's questions. I've skimmed through most of the posts in this thread and only saw the video that Candadar posted that really got to me.
A) I didn't really take anything away from the video he just sounded like he kept saying the same thing over and over but in different ways "your mind is void if it is pure" ect ect. I think that I disagree with his thought. Didn't alter my thoughts on the afterlife/death.
B) I find that people like to put more into death than what it really is, romanticize it if you will. The brain is nothing more than a electro-chemical computer, when shut off it stops functioning just like the computer that you are on now would. I often ponder the idea of not being, not existing, not thinking while going to sleep. It is a very odd thing to wrap your head around, very hard I think, I usually come to the conclusion that it is just like when you sleep and have no dreams. There is nothing going on, that you are aware of, when you are sleeping you just wake up the next morning. I'd imagine death to be like this, just without the waking up of course. That's about as deep I can get on that question
C) I've enjoy reading physics/science based books in my free time, which has enlightened me and changed my view of the universe so saying that our universe comes from nothing isn't what I believe in. I'm not afraid of dying, I don't think, but like everyone else I do have fear of things. + Show Spoiler +
like fucking spiders
I really don't want to get into the school of thought of "our achievements are nothing but dust" I really, really don't like this idea. The thought of limiting yourself because you think that your achievements will turn to dust is something that I will never believe in. Never limit, and never stop trying, the day that we do is the day that progress is halted and dreams are extinguished.
Note: I'm 100% atheist with background in science and mathematics. I know there are a lot of long posts in this thread so thanks for reading if you did.
Edit: I'd like to add this quote on the subject of the brain:
I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when it's components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken -down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark. -Stephen Hawking
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.
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?
On May 27 2012 11:27 Shivvy wrote: For me it all doesn't make sense. I was raised Catholic but have been doing a bunch of research in to the whole Universe/Existential/Death topic and to be honest both the religious argument and scientific argument have equal pull in my mind.
(Before I continue, I must say that I've given up on the Bible-God being the real god, because there are simply too many bullcrap parts in the bible for me to believe that such a being would create humans with the possibility of being gay and then banish them from Heaven for it. So when I say the ''religious'' argument, I mean a Higher Power, a Creator, not someone that was created by humans.)
Essentially, science says that the Big Bang created everything out of basically nothing (I know this is a very simplistic version of the definition but I'm trying to keep things simple) and so for me to believe that nothing became everything is just about as crazy as believing that someone created all this for some greater purpose. This is why I don't look down on theists or atheists, both beliefs are credible in my opinion.
So I leave it at that. Whatever happens happens. We're NEVER going to be able to figure it out so we might as well live this life to the fullest and see what happens. I'll tell you one thing though; I'll be equally scared and excited if I know I'm told I have X amount of time left to live. Not because I'm suicidal or anything, but because death will be the greatest adventure ever.
This is not at all what the big bang says.
According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.
Nothing did not magically become everything. The space between everything expanded. What you think is a crazy belief is simply your poor understanding of it. And why can't we figure it out? And death is no adventure, I'm afraid. Adventure is impossible if you do not exist.
On May 28 2012 15:14 peekn wrote: Alright, I'm not to big into this whole philosophy stuff so I will give it my best shot at answering the OP's questions. I've skimmed through most of the posts in this thread and only saw the video that Candadar posted that really got to me.
A) I didn't really take anything away from the video he just sounded like he kept saying the same thing over and over but in different ways "your mind is void if it is pure" ect ect. I think that I disagree with his thought. Didn't alter my thoughts on the afterlife/death.
B) I find that people like to put more into death than what it really is, romanticize it if you will. The brain is nothing more than a electro-chemical computer, when shut off it stops functioning just like the computer that you are on now would. I often ponder the idea of not being, not existing, not thinking while going to sleep. It is a very odd thing to wrap your head around, very hard I think, I usually come to the conclusion that it is just like when you sleep and have no dreams. There is nothing going on, that you are aware of, when you are sleeping you just wake up the next morning. I'd imagine death to be like this, just without the waking up of course. That's about as deep I can get on that question
C) I've enjoy reading physics/science based books in my free time, which has enlightened me and changed my view of the universe so saying that our universe comes from nothing isn't what I believe in. I'm not afraid of dying, I don't think, but like everyone else I do have fear of things. + Show Spoiler +
like fucking spiders
I really don't want to get into the school of thought of "our achievements are nothing but dust" I really, really don't like this idea. The thought of limiting yourself because you think that your achievements will turn to dust is something that I will never believe in. Never limit, and never stop trying, the day that we do is the day that progress is halted and dreams are extinguished.
Note: I'm 100% atheist with background in science and mathematics. I know there are a lot of long posts in this thread so thanks for reading if you did.
There is brain activity while you are asleep. There is none when you are dead. Your 'achievements' are your own and subjective, they will die when you do, or people who forget them do. Your impact on the universe is eternal.
On May 28 2012 15:14 peekn wrote: Alright, I'm not to big into this whole philosophy stuff so I will give it my best shot at answering the OP's questions. I've skimmed through most of the posts in this thread and only saw the video that Candadar posted that really got to me.
A) I didn't really take anything away from the video he just sounded like he kept saying the same thing over and over but in different ways "your mind is void if it is pure" ect ect. I think that I disagree with his thought. Didn't alter my thoughts on the afterlife/death.
B) I find that people like to put more into death than what it really is, romanticize it if you will. The brain is nothing more than a electro-chemical computer, when shut off it stops functioning just like the computer that you are on now would. I often ponder the idea of not being, not existing, not thinking while going to sleep. It is a very odd thing to wrap your head around, very hard I think, I usually come to the conclusion that it is just like when you sleep and have no dreams. There is nothing going on, that you are aware of, when you are sleeping you just wake up the next morning. I'd imagine death to be like this, just without the waking up of course. That's about as deep I can get on that question
C) I've enjoy reading physics/science based books in my free time, which has enlightened me and changed my view of the universe so saying that our universe comes from nothing isn't what I believe in. I'm not afraid of dying, I don't think, but like everyone else I do have fear of things. + Show Spoiler +
like fucking spiders
I really don't want to get into the school of thought of "our achievements are nothing but dust" I really, really don't like this idea. The thought of limiting yourself because you think that your achievements will turn to dust is something that I will never believe in. Never limit, and never stop trying, the day that we do is the day that progress is halted and dreams are extinguished.
Note: I'm 100% atheist with background in science and mathematics. I know there are a lot of long posts in this thread so thanks for reading if you did.
There is brain activity while you are asleep. There is none when you are dead. Your 'achievements' are your own and subjective, they will die when you do, or people who forget them do. Your impact on the universe is eternal.
That's why I said there are things going on just not that you are aware of, I know that your brain is active when you are sleeping... what do you think allows your heart to beat when you aren't awake. The only thing that matters in this discussion is consciousnesses.
It is very one dimensional to think that your achievements are what you make them, things that people do change the world, even the smallest of things. One should never think that they are insignificant, pointless or void everyone's contribution makes the world a better place and allows us to see the bigger picture.
On May 28 2012 15:14 peekn wrote: Alright, I'm not to big into this whole philosophy stuff so I will give it my best shot at answering the OP's questions. I've skimmed through most of the posts in this thread and only saw the video that Candadar posted that really got to me.
A) I didn't really take anything away from the video he just sounded like he kept saying the same thing over and over but in different ways "your mind is void if it is pure" ect ect. I think that I disagree with his thought. Didn't alter my thoughts on the afterlife/death.
B) I find that people like to put more into death than what it really is, romanticize it if you will. The brain is nothing more than a electro-chemical computer, when shut off it stops functioning just like the computer that you are on now would. I often ponder the idea of not being, not existing, not thinking while going to sleep. It is a very odd thing to wrap your head around, very hard I think, I usually come to the conclusion that it is just like when you sleep and have no dreams. There is nothing going on, that you are aware of, when you are sleeping you just wake up the next morning. I'd imagine death to be like this, just without the waking up of course. That's about as deep I can get on that question
C) I've enjoy reading physics/science based books in my free time, which has enlightened me and changed my view of the universe so saying that our universe comes from nothing isn't what I believe in. I'm not afraid of dying, I don't think, but like everyone else I do have fear of things. + Show Spoiler +
like fucking spiders
I really don't want to get into the school of thought of "our achievements are nothing but dust" I really, really don't like this idea. The thought of limiting yourself because you think that your achievements will turn to dust is something that I will never believe in. Never limit, and never stop trying, the day that we do is the day that progress is halted and dreams are extinguished.
Note: I'm 100% atheist with background in science and mathematics. I know there are a lot of long posts in this thread so thanks for reading if you did.
There is brain activity while you are asleep. There is none when you are dead. Your 'achievements' are your own and subjective, they will die when you do, or people who forget them do. Your impact on the universe is eternal.
That's why I said there are things going on just not that you are aware of, I know that your brain is active when you are sleeping... what do you think allows your heart to beat when you aren't awake. The only thing that matters in this discussion is consciousnesses.
It is very one dimensional to think that your achievements are what you make them, things that people do change the world, even the smallest of things. One should never think that they are insignificant, pointless or void everyone's contribution makes the world a better place and allows us to see the bigger picture.
I just think even a basic system monitoring is the same basic neuron-neuron signalling as during wake, and closer to it than it is to nothing. And your second point I very much agree with, I said "your impact... is eternal" in the post. I just think that "accomplishing" something of value is a subjective exercise. Whether something you did accomplished something exist only as long as there are those wanting to accomplish, or seeing value in something. The vast universe has no goals. There is no purpose but what you make it.
On May 29 2012 08:00 seppolevne wrote: There is no purpose but what you make it.
Purpose requires a world of others with which to share it. It is not what YOU make it, but what WE make it.
"Compared with the reality which comes from being seen and heard, even the greatest forces of intimate life - the passions of the heart, the thoughts of the mind, the delights of the senses - lead an uncertain, shadowy kind of existence unless and until they are transformed, deprivatizeed and deindividualized, as it were, into a shape to fit them for public appearance." - Hannah Arendt
(c.f. Freud but I don't want to hunt down the reference - he expresses this as a problematic rather than an imperative but it amounts to the same thing)
This is a very interesting philosophy. I like the Neil deGrasse Tyson's video posted on the first page where he discusses the origin of matter and the implications in terms of human composition. I can still remember the day when I looked up at the stars and realized that - despite the vast distances separating us - we are both just chemical reactions hurtling through space. This was both incredibly sobering and enlightening.
What we know of human consciousness has mostly been gleaned from personal experience. We know that it is a product of a closed system of reactions (physical self) and - since we can see signs of similar consciousness in similar systems - it is therefore my opinion that all systems have some form of meta-physical being. Since the universe itself is a system - I see death not as an end - but rather as a continuation of the being of the universe. All of these extra-dimensional consciousnesses are part of one another - just as our bodies both contain and are contained by the physical universe.
RAHAHAHAHHAHAA! I didnt watch the video! AND I'm POSTING! but foreals: I quite honestly believe that nothing happens when you die. We are humans, we have the ability to think and create complex ideas, so we want to believe that there is something besides nothingness when we die. It is a comforting idea.
I like to fish. I like to eat fish. When I catch a fish that I want to eat, I kill it, gut it while its still twitching, and throw it on ice until I cook it. Do I think that just because the fish is alive, its death will permit a release of spirit? Do I believe that human consciousness continues on another plane of reality or unreality after they die? No. It is depressing, but realistic. I am in no way trying to debunk the thread or be a downer, these are only my thoughts.
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?
hey i was looking for that video, saw it ages ago and loved the quote from it about not being afraid to die since everything came from nothing in the first place
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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 03:17 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 03:17 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I meant "actually" like 'observed' or proved instead of true. Like you can't tell that they are possible until you see them happen, even though that has no actual affect on the outcome. I think we are on the same page because I agree with what you wrote at least. I totally fucked up metaphysics. "Above physics" and all that - sorry I meant supernatural. And I very much agree that simple systems can create complex meta-systems (pretend I'm using that correctly). The blue-brain project seems to imply this. And I agree that it is 'teleological' in the sense that it is defined, or its possibilities are. But not designed. Possibly related: Its like a leaf falling from a tree. There are so many places for it to fall that predicting its landing spot is almost 0% (huge tree). But its gonna hit the ground, no matter what. Sorry for language errors I am not classically trained.
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.
They are emergent from chemistry doesn't answer any of my questions though.
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."
I assume that life must be "inherently teleological" or in laymen s terms have purpose and an original design because why else would organic matter or any matter for that purpose come together to form life? What does the matter gain?
I know that its a bad comparison but you don't see comets forming together with other planets to create advanced forms of planets that evolve over time into something more complex. Everything in the universe has reasoning behind it regarding why and how it does things but in evolution I cant figure out why matter would form together and evolve in the first place and then follow it up with a process of evolution. It serves no purpose to any physical laws and no purpose to the universe itself which is why I believe that it had to of been programmed to be that way.
Basically, matter is matter. Why would matter want to form together to create life and then evolve over a process known as natural selection? Stars explode and organic matter forms with a programmed order of evolution in place only to one day go back to being dust and resonating with all of the other matter in the universe. So, why would matter want to form to create life in the first place, what usefulness does it have to "organic" matter itself for it to even start that process?
Why wouldn't organic matter just resonate with the rest of the universe like the rest of matter or does the universe have a mind of its own and think that its a good idea to have a process programmed into it to create one day intelligent life that can have the discussion that we're having right now and observe its beauty firsthand.
To re clarify anyone that questions my religious beliefs, I am an agnostic. I do not know if any God's exist and I don't follow any religions.
Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter.
Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there.
These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine.
This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening.
So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process.
edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"?
It almost sounds like you are applying bourgeois conceptions of utility and profit-motive to matter itself, which is a new one even on me. In literature we would call this the "pathetic fallacy" (from pathos; I'm not calling you "pathetic" for committing it).
edit again: and the fact that it seems like the development of these replicators would be highly unlikely is irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1) the universe is a big place and 2) the weak anthropic principle.
edit edit edit:
They are emergent from chemistry doesn't answer any of my questions though.
Well, it answers your question precisely; perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Did you read the article?
On May 30 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter.
Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there.
These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine.
This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening.
So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process.
edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"?
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter? An explosion (The Big Bang)? Why would it keep happening though, I cant wrap my had around why the proto-replicators would even want to form together to create life in the first place, why wouldnt they just sit idle. They had to be programmed or emergence like you said.
As for what I mean by "what does matter gain", to re clarify my point, what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust if the universe continues to expand or winds up super hot and condensed possibly in a liquid state as the big crunch theory proposes.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about, its not as simple as things that need no explanation such as a star dying or a planets rotation around the sun. Why would matter create such a complicated process to form life if eventually it will all be dust anyways? Something so complicated makes no sense to do unless (this is my opinion) it has purpose which I do believe that we do. To look in the night sky knowing that we were created from star dust is something truly amazing and that is enough purpose on its own in my opinion (if the universe truly had a conscious mind).
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
On May 30 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: Well, in a sense, emergence does mean that it is "programmed" into matter.
Once you have accidentally created a self-replicating structure, evolution takes things from there.
These proto-replicators most likely arose in tidal pools of long organic molecules, subjected to repeated processes of desiccation and hydration. They probably arose a huge number of times and dead ended for various reasons which I'm sure you can imagine.
This is why it is a "Very Good Idea." Once it has happened, because of what it is, it keeps happening.
So yes, the properties of matter are the precondition and "program" (emergently) the life process.
edit: what do you mean by "what does the matter gain"?
It almost sounds like you are applying bourgeois conceptions of utility and profit-motive to matter itself, which is a new one even on me. In literature we would call this the "pathetic fallacy" (from pathos; I'm not calling you "pathetic" for committing it).
edit again: and the fact that it seems like the development of these replicators would be highly unlikely is irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1) the universe is a big place and 2) the weak anthropic principle.
They are emergent from chemistry doesn't answer any of my questions though.
Well, it answers your question precisely; perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Did you read the article?
I know all about the evolutionary anthropological principle and the cosmos anthropological principle but matter still had to have been programmed to form together and create life in the first place. My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance?
I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
Hey guys, I really like the discussions happening, just remember to respect each others opinions because we all have no idea but theories.
Updated the Community Edits page, if you feel that there should be other additions or you want something there, pm me and I will decide if it should be put on.
On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote: I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is weird (to me at least).
EDIT: Just read about the pathethic fallacy and I'd have to say that my questions dont line up with it. I don't personify or give human quality's to matter, I'm just wondering how and why organic matter was pre programmed or "emergence" to form life?
On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote: I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy").
I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals.
Thank you
EDIT:
This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now.
On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote: I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy").
I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals.
Thank you
EDIT:
This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now.
Thanks again
Nice stealth edit, I'd never call anyone pathetic. Stay classy my friend. You can just pm people instead of derailing a debate.
Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
On May 30 2012 08:44 sam!zdat wrote: I feel like you are not listening to me. You are still having trouble with the pathetic fallacy. A couple of notes, and then after that we will just be talking past each other.
Evolution is a complicated thing that scientists are still learning about
This is certainly true, but probably not in the way that you think.
what I meant is why would matter do all of these complicated things to form something known as life and then follow a long process of evolution only if it is eventually going to wind up like the rest of matter and be pretty much dust
Pathetic fallacy. Matter doesn't have plans or reasons. What is "usefulness" to matter?
Thinking that it was all by pure randomness ruins a lot of that and seems not probable at all.
It is not "pure randomness"; please read the article on emergence.
So what caused for matter to have the initial emergence programmed into matter?
dao
I guess we're done debating then, you can call it whatever fallacy that you want in the book but I still see organic matter as being pre programmed to want to form together and evolve. To think that everything was by mere chance and luck is what I'd like to call pathetic though (although not a "fallacy").
I just said how I wanted you all to stay respectful, it's bolded in the main thread, if you post again in this thread and insinuate or flat out imply that they have a pathetic idea based on a topic no one understands, I will report you for derailing my topic and abusing others ideals.
Thank you
EDIT:
This also includes the person who is in the argument on the vice verse, both of you need to take this to PM's or leave it here now.
Thanks again
Nice stealth edit, I'd never call anyone pathetic. Stay classy my friend. You can just pm people instead of derailing a debate.
-.- You do see that your edit is after mine right, meaning you changed it when I took notice, and you do realize mods have all edits of the posts and can see what you originally typed... Meaning that when I report you, which I will if you keep posting spam in my thread, that they will see that not only were you derailing, you also lied about it publicly.
On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote: Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
As for the OP, why the rudeness? As someone that respects the Buddhist philosophy and is eager to learn more about it you could show a little more respect.
On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote: Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
As for the OP, why the rudeness? As someone that respects the Buddhist philosophy and is eager to learn more about it you could show a little more respect.
You in no way have to be a "slave to your genetics". You are a conscious creature who is in self-apparent control of one's actions. Find out what you want, what you truly want, and make that your purpose. Why borrow one? It could never be as personal as your own. Choosing to live a lie confuses and depresses me. Each their own I suppose.
On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote: Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
Our life has as close to no impact on the universe as humanly imaginable. In the grand scheme of things, we are just matter, and we dont serve a "purpose" in the sense of impact on the universe. We are however evolved, highly intelligent beings, that can have a sense of purpose within our community (namely here on earth with other human beings). To think life lacks purpose because the universe isnt greatly impacted by us is a common anthropomorphic error human beings make. There is enough purpose in life just impacting those closest to you positively. You could spread your influence to more by helping those not as close to you.
Every interaction you have with people will resonate with them, and effect them. If you live a good, happy, healthy, loving life, and positively effect those around you, that effect will be remembered and passed on. Our purpose is to live, and to love, and to spread that to those around us. I dont care if I impact the universe or not, I dont care if I die and turn to dirt and thats the end (which is what I believe happens), there is enough purpose to the ~80-85 years people spend here on average where that doesnt even matter.
On May 30 2012 09:13 Rassy wrote: Its emergent from chemistry, like sam!zdat tried to explain extensivly Chemistry i guess is emergent from the laws of physics.
"My question is what programmed it to do that? Was it the big bang and by blind chance? Last edit: 2012-05-30 08:38:29"
Your question is basicly:Why are the laws of physics the way they are, Did someone program/make thoose laws (maybe before a big bang, ) in such a way that live would be emergent Or:Are thoose laws completely random and are we "lucky" It is a verry interesting question to discuss but in the end it comes down to personal believe as science can say verry little about it (for now), The antropological principle does realy not give an answer either. So;the answer to this i dont know, as far as i know its outside the field of physics to answer this. Maybe in the end the laws of physics might proove to be emergent from mathematics, then where math comes from i would not know Its a quesion (where does it come from) without end.
You claim you are an agnost but you come across as someone who believes in a God (nothing wrong btw with believing in a god!, dont mean this as an attack) The whole concept of "purpose" or "goal" is completely meaningless in science, it comes from religion. In Physics/chemistry no single event has a purpose, things just happen and all events wich happen follow the laws of physics, knowing these laws allows you to predict future events based on events wich are taken place now. Purpose is just a concept of our brain, to label the end state of a series of events. All these events then had the "purpose" to reach the final state but this "purpose" is just an illusion of our brain Matter does not have a "purpose".
You understand what I meant, thank you. I agree that it does come down to personal preference. I guess I choose to believe that it does have purpose (life) or else why would people live? You could say that you're a slave to your own genetics and believe that everything "just does" but to me that's depressing and a sad life to live. I'd rather live a lie than live a life of pure science thats based around the whats and not the whys (I'm not down grading science either, science plays an important role in our lives but so do personal beliefs and spirituality).
Our life has as close to no impact on the universe as humanly imaginable. In the grand scheme of things, we are just matter, and we dont serve a "purpose" in the sense of impact on the universe. We are however evolved, highly intelligent beings, that can have a sense of purpose within our community (namely here on earth with other human beings). To think life lacks purpose because the universe isnt greatly impacted by us is a common anthropomorphic error human beings make. There is enough purpose in life just impacting those closest to you positively. You could spread your influence to more by helping those not as close to you.
Every interaction you have with people will resonate with them, and effect them. If you live a good, happy, healthy, loving life, and positively effect those around you, that effect will be remembered and passed on. Our purpose is to live, and to love, and to spread that to those around us. I dont care if I impact the universe or not, I dont care if I die and turn to dirt and thats the end (which is what I believe happens), there is enough purpose to the ~80-85 years people spend here on average where that doesnt even matter.
If you believe what you said in your first paragraph than I feel bad for you. That is a very depressing and demeaning mindset. I believe that without a mind to see its beauty the universe does not exist. Our mind creates the universe, so without us the universe is meaningless and the roles reverse as we make the universe significant.
I also believe that we weren't by mere chance and aren't just "matter". We can simplify everything and call it just matter but that does nothing but make everything seem depressing and its downgrading in my opinion.
The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
I believe there is a higer power just because you can't see the end of the universe and you can't see the start of existance. Its something our minds can not understand , only a higher being can know that.
On May 30 2012 12:49 Knap4life wrote: I believe there is a higer power just because you can't see the end of the universe and you can't see the start of existance. Its something our minds can not understand , only a higher being can know that.
Why does believing in it make more sense than not believing in it?
Hi, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I tried to explain but it was in an earlier part of the thread.
By "pathetic fallacy" I was not calling him "pathetic." There is a thing called the "pathetic fallacy" (which I explained above) which is the mistake of imbuing natural phenomena with pathos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy
So when he talks about matter "wanting" things, he is making the mistake whose technical name is the "pathetic fallacy"
edit: I have of course the highest respect for our friend Sovern and do not wish to suggest that he is worthy of our pity.
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
well said, I agree completely. In terms of science there is nothing more than laws of physics/nature, and over time we came about. I see no purpose or reason for our creation, it just turned out this way which makes it that much more beautiful(could have just as easily been a universe of jello, although that wouldn't be as fun :p).
On May 26 2012 06:19 mmp wrote: I think Buddhism / Will to Nothing / Eastern Asceticism is a rejection of life, an anesthetizing doctrine for the masses, and ultimately not a fulfilling way to live. Its seduction is the superficial relief it provides to vain lifestyle (nihilists believe all lifestyles are vain), but that doesn't mean a purposeful lifestyle is not worth pursuing.
If you enjoy asceticism too much, you'll starve to death.
For a deep analysis, read Will to Power by Nietzsche.
Just the fact that you posted an Alpha Centauri video makes you extra-cool.
Edit: To be honest, I was hoping the OP would be literally nothingness, and be a blank post.
lol, completely agree
edit__
This thread, like all discussions I have thus far witnessed on TL regarding such subject matter, does not give the problem of language nearly its due. I say language because it is the most immediately sensible thing when you want to get people on track, but more properly I mean the inherent vagueness in signs that are not purely mathematical. Anyway, this video posted earlier is a satisfactory catch-all net for the arguments up and down the thread, which at their most insightful are really just so many ways of dividing up and commenting on arbitrary divisions of misconceptions. Though I believe we can all enjoy the efficient cataloguing exhibited by the apparently superb-knowledgeable mmp among others. ^^
You can do science, and you can do math; they shall never meet in the middle; if you cannot yourself define something in an airtight fashion, no one else will be able to do it for you. This is the nature of existence. Meanwhile, mathematical abstractions are a point of true commonality between consciousnesses (which is a false plural), but they don't actually get you anywhere you want to go except by accident. (Godel.)
What you really want to be contemplating is consciousness, not life or death; those are useful but vague terms. How is the consciousness of an animal different than your own? Is it conscious in the same way at all? A tree? A rock? A galaxy? Does it matter that constituents of your environment -- the separation of self and environment is already fuzzy and therefore silly -- (other people for example) seem to exhibit consciousness, or might they as well be so much stuff? What is it about the behavior of stuff that compels our intellect to attribute special, bounded traits to it? If you insist on viewing yourself as a distinct agent operating in a universal evolutionary crucible, ever ongoing, what can we possibly say about consciousness and how it works?
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
We view things differently, I believe that everything is programmed to do the things that they do and that nature itself is God. There is no God in a sense that like Albert Einstein I believe that things are the way that they are because nature is God and has a mind of its own and that's why nature does the things that it does.
We individuals experience existence through the lens of time and space. Events happen in a sequence, and things occupy separate space.
We experience cause and effect. One thing's existence is preceded by the existence of the thing that created it.
These concepts necessarily break down because 1) either the chain of creators has no origin and extends on to infinity or 2) there is one ultimate creator which exists outside of time/space. Either way, time and space do not account for all of existence.
So existence is infinite, but our experience is finite. We are experiencing one little possible slice out of an infinite number of variations of existence.
In the worldly sense, death simply means your are recycled into nature. As far as the "soul" surviving beyond death, with all of the same characteristics of that person--same sense of humor, knowledge, hair style, hobbies--it's merely a comforting notion to help cope with loss.
Think in terms of Darwinism. You have two species. One is apathetic about their purpose. The other sees meaning in everything. The first species probably killed itself off a long time ago. We're still here. So guess which group we derived from. This explains our strong desire to believe. I personally support belief. Anything that can help make your time more meaningful is a plus in my book.
The discovery or remembrance that existence is Nothingness might be a "relief" to someone for a brief time if they're going through something stressful, but it doesn't help us get through the day and work towards our goals. It's ultimately defeating. Why strive if it leads to nothing? Of course, our species is hard wired to strive for power, money, worldly desires and self gratification. So there is always that very powerful context of meaning in our lives. People very seldom kill themselves because life is meaningless. Rather they choose to die because life's meaning overwhelms them and their failures are intolerable. The most pessimistic philosopher of all time, E.M. Cioran, said could not be bothered to commit suicide. He simply lounged around Paris, wrote a book here and there, did a translation here and thre, until he died of natural causes.
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
We view things differently, I believe that everything is programmed to do the things that they do and that nature itself is God. There is no God in a sense that like Albert Einstein I believe that things are the way that they are because nature is God and has a mind of its own and that's why nature does the things that it does.
Well I agree with this, more or less.
"The dao is not subsumed in what is the greatest, nor is it ever absent from what is least. Therefore it is to be found complete and embodied in all things. In its vastness, it enfolds all things" (Zhuangzi)
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
We view things differently, I believe that everything is programmed to do the things that they do and that nature itself is God. There is no God in a sense that like Albert Einstein I believe that things are the way that they are because nature is God and has a mind of its own and that's why nature does the things that it does.
Actually we agree more than you think ^^" I guess I just don't see the "mind" part. Or that if there is a "mind" it has no control over anything, so why call it a mind at all? Rocks keep rocking whether they "want to" or not. As it seems everything does.
Just to add to the discussion, almost everything is controlled by stochastic (random) principles. Even bacterial chemotaxis, something which appears to be controlled by a "brain", can be perfectly modeled with mathematical equations.
At it's core that is all that matters. It doesnt matter if you are surrounded by tall buildings in a middle of a metropolis or floating completely alone in air with nothing to stimulate you whatsoever.
On May 31 2012 03:13 Heh_ wrote: Just to add to the discussion, almost everything is controlled by stochastic (random) principles. Even bacterial chemotaxis, something which appears to be controlled by a "brain", can be perfectly modeled with mathematical equations.
Many things appear random which are, in fact, not. This is one of the basic implications of complexity theory.
Keep in mind that the applicability of a mathematical model does not *necessarily* tell you anything about the ontology of the object.
edit: it's an open question whether randomness exists. Quantum mechanics doesn't necessarily mean that stochasticity is a metaphysically primitive operation (and I find this hard to believe).
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
We view things differently, I believe that everything is programmed to do the things that they do and that nature itself is God. There is no God in a sense that like Albert Einstein I believe that things are the way that they are because nature is God and has a mind of its own and that's why nature does the things that it does.
Actually we agree more than you think ^^" I guess I just don't see the "mind" part. Or that if there is a "mind" it has no control over anything, so why call it a mind at all? Rocks keep rocking whether they "want to" or not. As it seems everything does.
I see now, you're right we do agree. I can stop calling it a mind as a mind is a feature mostly attributed to animals. I see the world and nature as amazing and beautiful, and to me that is God.
Anyways, does anyone on here have any experience with meditation, I just started to get into it and today was my first time trying it and I've got to say that it is amazing for dealing with anxiety & stress and being able to look at your thoughts from a third perspective. I'm getting more and more interested in the Buddhist philosophy as a lot of it makes sense and seems very helpful to making a strong mind.
Well, I don't like meditation very much, but I do recommend that you take mushrooms in nature and think about how reality is a enormous fractal which is also the mind of god.
edit:
mind is a feature mostly attributed to animals
Yup, forgetting this is the "pathetic fallacy" :D
edit again: I would highly recommend that you read the daodejing and the zhuangzi, I think you will find these to be very enlightening texts.
On May 30 2012 11:47 Focuspants wrote: The mind doesnt create the universe. If you, Sovern, didnt exist, it wouldnt mean that the universe also didnt exist. I think the universe is beautiful. It is the most beautiful and amazing thing imaginable. That doesnt mean we effect it very much. Its not depressing at all. We are amazing, but it is far more amazing than we are. I am humbled by it.
To believe that we cant just be "mere chance" and we were made with purpose (which is a human concept, not a scientific one) means you believe in a creator. You argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove we are made by chance due to complexity, and the only method at resolving this with your beliefs, is to add a far mroe complex being, with absolutely 0 proof of its existence, that put us in order. This begs the question, what put that more complex being in its order, ad infinitum.
If you read what I said, it isnt depressing at all. I dont understand why just accepting our place in the universe, and making the most out of our lives is so depressing to some people. There doesnt need to be an afterlife, for there to be meaning in this life. We dont have to be kings of the universe, or in control of what happens after we die. All we need to do is embrace the people around us, and live happy positive lives, ones that leave a lasting impact on our loved ones, our friends, our community, however far out we want to reach. Its entirely postive, just humble.
Way to come to blind conclusions, I never said that I believe in a creator. The whole creator and infintium argument is an old one that I already knew, like I said I actually don't believe in a physical creator I just asked a why things work the way that they do question.
I just asked why matter does the things that it does. Doesn't it make sense that things in life act on whatever knowledge or brain that they have. What gave organic matter the "brain" to form together into complex cells and then evolve into life forms. Also, I do believe that the mind does create the universe. If I die the universe ceases to exist as I cease to exist.
For the last time, there is no "brain". Get that idea out of your head. You are a step ahead of yourself. What makes you think matter has a brain, or a purpose? You are assuming this. Show that before you try to find out what that purpose is.
All the complexities of math are based around some very simple axioms. Why can't all complexities of the universe be based on (relatively) simple fundamentals?
And sorry, the universe will go on long after you are gone. How was 430 BC?
430BC only existed because the mind made it exist. I will not get the idea out of my mind that cells have a brain or were programmed to do the things that they as that's the only thing that makes sense to me. We're going to continue to disagree on that so there's no point in cluttering this thread with rebuttals from both sides.
EDIT: Evidence for matter having a purpose or "brain" is all around us, evidence for that includes you and me. There's no way that matter just creates complicated living things "just because".
What about all the time your parents were alive before you? A product of the mind? And you are going to need a better rebuttal than "no way". I mean I can see the urge to look at math and go "man that must be designed" when you come up with cool shit like Euler's Identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity). Or when simple ants make magnificently designed caverns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VhvoMFn34). Or when simple neurons can be connected and end up mimicking the brain of a mouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project) Or when anything huge is looked at from too far away. Everything works because if it didn't, it wouldn't. There doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
We view things differently, I believe that everything is programmed to do the things that they do and that nature itself is God. There is no God in a sense that like Albert Einstein I believe that things are the way that they are because nature is God and has a mind of its own and that's why nature does the things that it does.
Actually we agree more than you think ^^" I guess I just don't see the "mind" part. Or that if there is a "mind" it has no control over anything, so why call it a mind at all? Rocks keep rocking whether they "want to" or not. As it seems everything does.
I see now, you're right we do agree. I can stop calling it a mind as a mind is a feature mostly attributed to animals. I see the world and nature as amazing and beautiful, and to me that is God.
Anyways, does anyone on here have any experience with meditation, I just started to get into it and today was my first time trying it and I've got to say that it is amazing for dealing with anxiety & stress and being able to look at your thoughts from a third perspective. I'm getting more and more interested in the Buddhist philosophy as a lot of it makes sense and seems very helpful to making a strong mind.
I really like meditating, though not as an activity in and of itself. I use it when I feel stressed in any way. Frustrated, angry, etc. I close my eyes and 'sink' into the 'blackness'. I watch the swirling patterns, looking for anything there. For some reason the closer I am to sleep the more distinct things appear, but most of the time it is nonsense. I breathe slowly and more actively then usual. I "concentrate" on what I am seeing, and nothing else. Of calming, sinking, slowing etc. I get these all-over body tingles (like good pins+needles) and once those are done (variable time) I open my eyes and go about my task. I have since used this to put myself to sleep at night, or at least calm myself down to the point where my body takes over. I remember once telling a friend "My God is the true objective state of the universe". I don't know if that is relevant or not but yeah...
I see the world and nature as amazing and beautiful
Meditation doesnt work for me. I am under extreme pressure in my daily life, and struggle with stress, anxiety and even depression. However, I am wired to think through everything I do analytically and extensively, and I am incapable of bringing myself to a point of mental calmness. The closest thing to meditation that works for me is listening to music. It is one of the only things I can somewhat lose myself in. I wish I could make it work, it would certainly be helpful.
As for ascribing a creator to your beliefs, you originally described matter very anthropomorphically, and ascribed human traits to it. When you said atoms have minds, and "purposefully" brought us into existence, it really wreaks of a creator. After you amended your statement above, it makes a little more sense. I dont personally agree that there is any "purpose" behind matter forming itself and evolving into modern day human beings, as that would mean that it has an end which we are the means to. There are too many things that are without "purpose" in existence. For us as 1 small unlikely but existent group of complex beings to be proof of a "plan" would be to ignore everywhere else that is uninhabitable, and without complex life as counter evidence for your claim.
I think we agree on everything except the concept of matter with "purpose".
A) After watching the video, what do you take away from it? Do you agree, or disagree? Does it affect your own belief structure? (if it doesn't, that is totally fine!)
B) What do you think will happen when you die? When family members die? (Please, you can just say what you think, but try and back this up with something (religion/science/void etc... literally anything, but I kind of want this to be deeper than just "well I hope this is what happens", this isn't about what you hope, but what you think)
C) Do you believe that Alan Watts has a valid point? Does our universe come from nothingness, and that all of our petty fears don't truly matter because in the end it's all nothingness? (off topic slightly, but based on how all our achievements are nothing but dust, "monopoly from zeitgeist"+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzEc6fEpyI
so it may be interesting to listen to.
A) I take nothing from the video. I don't agree with the proposed concept, but I can respect the perspective in some zen sort of way. People destroy themselves every day from irrelevant outside sources.
B) I believe that sentience is a unique and profound gift. Our choices, which boil down to the deepest acceptance of a given observation, shape the universe at a quantum level. Some theories suggest that there are an infinite number of parallel universes stacked on one another, each differing from a divergence in probabilistic scenarios. I believe that our consciousnesses are navigating through this with each of our observations and in turn our actions. My belief lends itself to the idea that our minds are essentially disconnected from one specific universe, and therefore are a form of energy not entirely understood as of yet. That said; when people die I don't think that energy just goes away.
C) No. Our universe does not come from nothing. The rules and causes of it's formation are under scientific question, but the contents and physical properties of our universe point to something before the big bang. I guess semantics could be argued as anything defined outside our space-time continuum can be seen as nothing if it does not fit into our dimensional understanding and comprehension. Fears, hopes or any other emotion are not nothing. They are a driving force to actions, and actions that affect living beings can never be disregarded as nothing.
Hey sorry this is a little off topic, but earlier someone linked a site called thebigview.com
does anyone know other sites like this? Sites that discuss different philosophies, perspectives on life, consciousness, etc
And I guess to add in, from my personal perspective, nothingness can't really be defined, by reasonable standards. It's purely conceptual, but it is interesting that we can try to conceptualize and make use of our limited definition of it.
have you guys ever tried to think of nothing? lol, it's impossible. I tried once and i sat there for a while just thinking of the word nothing, or just blank empty space, but then in the end you're still thinking of something. Even if it's just about the concepts "nothing" or "blank empty space" bahaha
No thing is nothing. Everything is something by virtue of being a thing.
I find that I cannot bring myself to believe anything other than death is the end, without an afterlife or metaphysical 'energy'. I hold this view because it seems to me the most elegant and likely scenario. I don't ascribe special significance to sentience, except as a fascinating phenomena. I am fine with the concept of the arisal of such complexity as human intellect, from a huge multitude of relatively simple systems. We see huge amounts of complexity in everyday life, all arising from relatively simple physics. I find it takes a relatively small leap to extend that to the human mind.
Weather or not something matters is a very personal thing. It is easy to say that, ultimately at the heat death of the universe, nothing matters (and indeed, everything is therefore nothing), but in the meantime people live and die, oceans rise and fall etc, and it is up to oneself to decide what is important, and what it nothing.
On May 31 2012 10:37 Focuspants wrote: Meditation doesnt work for me. I am under extreme pressure in my daily life, and struggle with stress, anxiety and even depression. However, I am wired to think through everything I do analytically and extensively, and I am incapable of bringing myself to a point of mental calmness. The closest thing to meditation that works for me is listening to music. It is one of the only things I can somewhat lose myself in. I wish I could make it work, it would certainly be helpful.
As for ascribing a creator to your beliefs, you originally described matter very anthropomorphically, and ascribed human traits to it. When you said atoms have minds, and "purposefully" brought us into existence, it really wreaks of a creator. After you amended your statement above, it makes a little more sense. I dont personally agree that there is any "purpose" behind matter forming itself and evolving into modern day human beings, as that would mean that it has an end which we are the means to. There are too many things that are without "purpose" in existence. For us as 1 small unlikely but existent group of complex beings to be proof of a "plan" would be to ignore everywhere else that is uninhabitable, and without complex life as counter evidence for your claim.
I think we agree on everything except the concept of matter with "purpose".
Even if you can try to meditate it will go a long ways to improving the strength of your mind (being able to deal with stress, anxiety, and depression). I'm sure that after doing it long enough you can have enough control of your mind to not allow stress, anxiety, or depression get to you. Also, thanks to the person that recommended the two Buddhist scriptures for me to read (I think they're scriptures). I checked them out on wiki and they seem very, very insightful and I will be reading them eventually. .
I am a soul trapped in a pessimistic tide pulling me deep, into a sea of nothing. All I want to do, is hold my head under water, drift away into these blank thoughts. I question my own insecurities, challenge my consciousness. These two equally cursed variables dictate my free will. It's like together they become a second level of mind, using one thought to track another. Making decisions of pure instinct that one cannot see. It's comforting to know that there is no significance in these actions I make. It makes me feel free, if just for a moment. People are not used to thinking that we have no obligations. But if my actions have no significance then there can be no obligations. That is a liberating thought. Why should anyone want more than the simple ability to pick up a piece of paper?
Your consciousness was a concept that confounded people. They didn't understand how you could be you, and not somebody else. They didn't understand what makes you exist inside your being. They called it a "soul".
We know better now. You are your brain. It is a powerful and profound thing of organic chemistry, a consciousness, but that's all it is.
I've lost family and friends. It's silly, and in my opinion, insulting to say they're somehow "still alive" in some soft of afterlife. No, they're dead, and their brains are no longer functioning. They are gone. That is all.
Sometimes I am tempted to act as if everything is nothing.
But considering all the things I have been through as a Christian I am no longer able to believe that there are not some things which truly means something regardless of the shiftings of time.
When I met Jesus I feel as I was given value. Not something that is valuable just to me, but rather objectively. In my experience, God is the absolute that gives everything else an intrinsic value. I believe this value goes outside the realm of time, it makes everything else worth it because it is something eternal in a finite world.
On June 03 2012 13:30 Leporello wrote: Your consciousness was a concept that confounded people. They didn't understand how you could be you, and not somebody else. They didn't understand what makes you exist inside your being. They called it a "soul".
We know better now. You are your brain. It is a powerful and profound thing of organic chemistry, a consciousness, but that's all it is.
I've lost family and friends. It's silly, and in my opinion, insulting to say they're somehow "still alive" in some soft of afterlife. No, they're dead, and their brains are no longer functioning. They are gone. That is all.
The consciousness isn't even understood yet, do you have evidence that our consciousness is just organic chemistry? My belief is (this is a common Buddhist belief too) is in reincarnation. If the universe is truly eternal than we will live infinite lives and already have in our consciousness. If you came to live the life you're living now by pure chance why cant it happen again? I believe that life is eternal and that death doesn't exist just like how color doesn't exist to a dog or 3D vision doesn't exist to a bat. We're blind to what really happens by our own ignorance in the senses and how undeveloped they are.
Hell the majority of society still thinks that the only thing that matters is altering matter to make it somehow better creating a false sense of accomplishment by turning matter that has already and will always exist into another piece of matter, which in the mean time only creates suffering. Suffering will always exist until you train your mind to learn that altering matter and living a materialistic lifestyle is actually detrimental to your mental well being.
On June 03 2012 13:30 Leporello wrote: Your consciousness was a concept that confounded people. They didn't understand how you could be you, and not somebody else. They didn't understand what makes you exist inside your being. They called it a "soul".
We know better now. You are your brain. It is a powerful and profound thing of organic chemistry, a consciousness, but that's all it is.
I've lost family and friends. It's silly, and in my opinion, insulting to say they're somehow "still alive" in some soft of afterlife. No, they're dead, and their brains are no longer functioning. They are gone. That is all.
The consciousness isn't even understood yet, do you have evidence that our consciousness is just organic chemistry? My belief is (this is a common Buddhist belief too) is in reincarnation. If the universe is truly eternal than we will live infinite lives and already have in our consciousness. If you came to live the life you're living now by pure chance why cant it happen again? I believe that life is eternal and that death doesn't exist just like how color doesn't exist to a dog or 3D vision doesn't exist to a bat. We're blind to what really happens by our own ignorance in the senses and how undeveloped they are.
Hell the majority of society still thinks that the only thing that matters is altering matter to make it somehow better creating a false sense of accomplishment by turning matter that has already and will always exist into another piece of matter, which in the mean time only creates suffering. Suffering will always exist until you train your mind to learn that altering matter and living a materialistic lifestyle is actually detrimental to your mental well being.
Remember, "beliefs" shouldn't be referred to as silly (especially in this thread)
Regarding your opinion, what is conscience? "complex" chemistry doesn't come close to describe it... Scientists are starting to believe the workings inside your head are similar to holograms, which includes the recent memory tests on mice (where they teach a group of mice a track, they learn the track 100%, and they begin removing bits of the brain of the mice until finally the entire brain (additive among pieces cut from different section of each mouse) is cut out and the mouse still remembers the course.
So, maybe you shouldn't jump to "insane chemistry" all at once, at least right now since we know so little about intelligence.
Also, regarding the second quotation, I believe it's faulty to compare materialism and purpose. Obviously, following buddha, life is suffering but he aids that suffering via moderation (one of his main principles that he learned from the four truths, following becoming a monk and then finding moderation) in which everything should be done in moderation. So materialistic gains should follow this principle
Well.. we really don't KNOW for sure what stuff is like outide of our universe's "bubble" (our universe's properties could be completely different than others"), thus nothing could be completely different in different bubble's.
.. but if you read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss you can easily understand how completely complex "Nothingness" is. I recommend that to anyone and everyone.
I guess the answer would be, nothing doesn't exist. Even in the emptiest void of space, there will still be potential energy (dark energy) that comes from particles popping in and out of existence.
On June 22 2012 08:14 -Exalt- wrote: Well.. we really don't KNOW for sure what stuff is like outide of our universe's "bubble" (our universe's properties could be completely different than others"), thus nothing could be completely different in different bubble's.
.. but if you read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss you can easily understand how completely complex "Nothingness" is. I recommend that to anyone and everyone.
I guess the answer would be, nothing doesn't exist. Even in the emptiest void of space, there will still be potential energy (dark energy) that comes from particles popping in and out of existence.
Interesting, if you have any other compelling books/videos etc you can post here or msg me and I will update the main thread with a list or video with your quotation (note front page)
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jU0AR.jpg?1)
