State of the Union!

solid linear thinking.. what fun is that? :sad:

Arguing is so much fun. :razz:

Yes, it makes perfect sense. Essentially you've stated the compatibilist solution to the problem of free will. :dorky:

Arguing is so much fun. :razz:

To argue, you first need to have an argument :biggrin:

Gollum said:
Yes, I think you are gullible. Or possibly just simple.

Funnily enough, the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one.

What do you mean by, "the probability that what we perceive is real"? And how, even if your counterfactual is comprehensible, could anyone possibly arrive at a probability estimate for its instantiation?

You're handling fathomless infinities with all the gleeful fecklessness of a quack. The TV program wasn't on channel 5, perchance? Regardless,whoever scripted it pulled that statistic out of his arse.

Think for yourself. Don't rely on your TV - your brain is better.

Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?

What th hell are you talking about? You don't know me, you know s**t all about me. You start knocking me because someone asked my opinion about an interesting area of Sicence. And don't go throwing stuff back in my face, I am not gullable, ok. And I don't watch much TV, eness it is either a good film or a Science or Doumentary show. I read alot of books and consider alot of other people opinions, not just my own. I'm not trying to have a go at you, but having people make iritating posts at you really isn't why I joined snarkpit.

GROUPHUG

Matt- I admit that we have been fairly harsh in this instance, but look at it from this perspective: what we are trying to get you to do is more throughly evaluate the import of, and logic behind what you say.

Take the example which has been most derided:

"the probability of our reality that we percieve around actally being real is about 39 billion to one"

Ask yourself: How would I go about calculating that statistic? I'm not asking you to repeat how they calculated it. Think about what information you would require in order to do so, and what sort of mathamatical model would be required.

All that said however, I am not an expert in cosmology, nore am I trained in philosophy as Gollum is. I am curious about your assertion, however much I doubt it, and would like an explaination if you can provide one.

Do I know how they calculated it? No. Its just some "interesting" information that came to mind when I was writin the post. Not something we should get hung up about arguing amount. And as to my 'assertation' well, I'm a student so I have no experteces in any particular area, but I am interested in Maths/Science, as I'm sure alot of people from this ite are. I'm not trying to start any argurments, I just got asked my opinion, so I gave it, incorrect (or/and) flawed as it may seem to you.

Remember: Its easy to start correcting people if you know what your talking about, but its all just some "light hearted" discussion.

Group Hug guys!

Tracer Bullet said:
I'm not asking you to repeat how they calculated it.

sigh

I will not allow yet another thread go down the drain - it seems that every time we get to this point where we are actually about to make a conclusion that most can agree with, we take the easy way out ('it's impossible to find the answer for everyone,' 'that's just my opinion,' 'Gollum don't challenge my unfounded statements'). That's ridiculous. All those of you who have the balls to continue in a discussion where you will offend people, you can stay. Those of you who do not wish to argue, but merely to state a case, or maybe just whine, get out of here.

Monqui - These fellows are debating concepts of abstract thought - that's concrete reality. I agree, that is how everybody should (and maybe already has to) lead their lives: just doing as they do, without thinking about it, because thinking about it is in the end unimportant.

As Swami Krishnananda put it, "God sees with one eye, while man sees with two." As human beings, we have the ability to observe and contemplate our own actions and pasts, and nothing else can do this (that's why it's not horrifying to me when PETA shows their videos of cows dying - the cows act out of an instinctual fear, not real emotion). However, the ability to comprehend yourself, and thus begin to comprehend the universe, works out to be fundamentally negative. Once you know who you are, you no longer are who you are.

Human perception does not recognize any more than it has to. I used the metaphor 'when a man looks in the distance, he has to squint', I believe, and that's why I scoff when people preach of their open-minded, all-empathetic enlightenment, or talk about total defiance of a 'violent' and 'evil' human nature. Once we treat elements of reality that we do not fundamentally understand as abstract concepts - seeing something with 'two eyes' - then it no longer has a practical application.

There should be a distinguishing from arguments about the meaning of life and the nature of life; in my original post, and in Monqui's, we speak of the meaning of a human life - that is, through what angle someone should see reality. Bewbs, Matt, and others, are talking about the nature of reality, and the mechanics of how it works. That's arguing apples against oranges.

It is not necessary, and is sometimes indeed harmful, to try and find an Absolute Truth of abstract reality. As I say, if you believe that human perception could be totally wrong and what we see is fake, etc., fine. That's beautiful. Go write The Matrix 4. But if I believed that, how would that change my life? Would I somehow change for the better?

So it comes back to my original theory. Everything and everyone has an ideal set of conditions in which it can thrive, physically and mentally - and to attain that state, there is a certain amount of what we need. That suggests not only that we cannot survive with less than what we need, but we cannot survive with more than what we need.

When C.S. Lewis was first converted to Christianity, he made a theory than I think is quite ingenius: when a human being needs something, he will always eventually create it in some form or another. We need food, and there is food. We need shelter, and there is shelter. We need sex, and there is sex. We need meaning, and there is meaning. Those who cannot accomplish these will just die off.

If you want to go on an undying crusade for the Uber-Truth of Everything, that's fine, but if you don't find it, do not come back complaining. If you were born with a facet of your being that allows you to comprehend such things, and you truly need to do so, then you eventually will. However, if you're searching for truth because you're confused about who you are, you won't. Don't expect to, and don't complain about it when you're done.

Find your own gifts, and stick to them, no matter how jealous you are of the talents of others. Finding meaning in words is not everyone's destiny, and is not all-important.

is this where im supposed to kick ya in the nuts?? :heee:

Doc B... :dodgy:

hehe ok ok cass you can stop it now

this hasnt gone down the drain... it was a very productive discussion that we all learned something from. i think EVERYONE will agree with me on this. however, it reached the foundation of our beliefs. just as you can argue with a preacher on content in the bible, but you cant argue the existance of his god. you cant just accept the fact that there is a matter of true opinion, can you? no, instead you have to find any subject that is even remotely related to it, and spout out quotes and trivialization. regardless if you want to admit it or not, you refuse to accept anything that i say. not to say that im not the same, but if you really want to keep this going, ill humor you with 1 yes or no question:

do you believe that existance is created through identification?

im done with this. not because i "have no balls", but because there is nothing to argue =/

[size=13][color=white]You don't know me, you know s**t all about me. You start knocking me because someone asked my opinion about an interesting area of Sicence.

[/color][/size]

I'll admit I've been rather provocative in this thread. That is out of character, as I believe many here will attest. You are quite right, I don't know you. But on a forum I will judge you by what you write. Whilst it would have been better to avoid personal remarks, I stand by the discursive content of my comments.

You may well be a savvy, intelligent person. But that was a gullible, stupid opinion.

I know that by making such strong assertions I come across as highly arrogant. Perhaps I am! Maybe it comes of being in the final year of a degree in maths and philosophy. I'm no genius, but I am extremely good at what I do. One result is that I have a low tolerance for stupid philosophical opinions.

There is a common belief that everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. This promotes a fuzzy feel-good effect in every discussion. It also promotes boring discussions. Different opinions are not equally valid. Suppose one person presents a detailed and cogent argument, perhaps with supporting evidence, and another just says, "Yeah, well I think you're wrong. That's my opinion and it's just as good as yours." I will be inclined to view one of them as having a well-supported opinion, and the other one as a twit.

Please accept my apology for posting personal insults. Note, however, that I still think you expressed a staggeringly stupid opinion.

Returning to the discussion:

do you believe that existance is created through identification?

No. Identification is the process of discriminating between those things that exist, and therefore cannot be a defining property of existence, on pain of circularity. In a metaphorical sense, "self-identification" or "learning who you are" could be considered a (or the) purpose in life. But that is an answer to a different question.

Alternatively, I could take your suggestion to mean "by identifying an object, we create it". At its most extreme, this could amount to a solipsist view. Although it is perfectly consistent with all observation, it's a pretty pathological philosophy for anyone to hold.

Bewbies said:
hehe ok ok cass you can stop it now

this hasnt gone down the drain... it was a very productive discussion that we all learned something from. i think EVERYONE will agree with me on this. however, it reached the foundation of our beliefs. just as you can argue with a preacher on content in the bible, but you cant argue the existance of his god. you cant just accept the fact that there is a matter of true opinion, can you? no, instead you have to find any subject that is even remotely related to it, and spout out quotes and trivialization. regardless if you want to admit it or not, you refuse to accept anything that i say. not to say that im not the same, but if you really want to keep this going, ill humor you with 1 yes or no question:

do you believe that existance is created through identification?

im done with this. not because i "have no balls", but because there is nothing to argue =/

Do what you like, but I believe you came and went without making real support for a point that really could have added something.

"you cant just accept the fact that there is a matter of true opinion, can you? no, instead you have to find any subject that is even remotely related to it, and spout out quotes and trivialization. "

First of all, no, I cannot, not on this subject. Were I to debate you on the existence of God, ONLY THEN would it be a matter of faithful versus unfaithful. However, even in that kind of debate, it is neceesary to discuss the roots of why you believe or do not. You have presented little to no evidence upon how existence is created through identification; rather, you have just maintained the statement that it is. And why? Because 'thats just your opinion'.

I do not in the least wish to be hostile to you, but it becomes tiresome when you're trying to have a debate with someone who absolutely refuses to back up what they say.

However, it is interesting to note - you believe that existence is a product of identity, and that identity is what makes everything unique. But where there is difference, there is always inequality - not necessarily competition, but in our case, that competition does exist.

"do you believe that existance is created through identification?"

No. Identification is a subjective product of perception, and it has nothing to do with what actually and physically exists.

Do not think that I cannot see your point - in life, we only have one mind, and so whatever we see becomes 'truth', in a very basic sense. But that does not mean that what we cannot identify or comprehend does not exist - that would destroy the point of all learning, to find what we do not already know.

Trust me, it is not at all impossible to change someone's mind, no matter how stubborn. There is just more than one way to convince someone.

[EDIT] Should you come back indeed, I would ask - how do you define indentification, in your terms? Do you identify something with words? Basic knowledge? Belief?

How do you define existence? Percieved existence? Physical reality?[/EDIT]