6
   

Why do we exist?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 06:10 pm
@manored,
Is it equally necessary (logically that is) for all that exists to eventually end? Or is that an empirical problem while the other is one that is purely logical and, as such, reveals the tautological nature of logical understanding? By the way, two plus two equals four tautologically; it is just another way of saying four.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 06:59 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Is it equally necessary (logically that is) for all that exists to eventually end? Or is that an empirical problem while the other is one that is purely logical and, as such, reveals the tautological nature of logical understanding? By the way, two plus two equals four tautologically; it is just another way of saying four.
Yes, I would say anything whose origin can be pointed out will also end. Then I say "whose origin can be pointed out" im refering to the fact that, like I mentioned earlier, the universe itself defies logic by existing without an origin. If it breaks logic by existing, I think its not far-fetched to say it will also break logic by not ending. After all, as long as the source exists we can espect more of the substance. If the source of the universe is... (nothing?) Then there will always be the universe.

And as I see it this can also be applied to the consciousness. What is the source of the consciousness? Even if we say that it is something that has been created, and can end, it would still be re-created by the never-ending universe, eventually, if it did. It was created once, after all.
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2011 10:56 pm
@manored,
Your thinking is interesting, even though I need more time to understand it comfortably. I tend not to place much confidence in logic as appllied to
"metaphysical" matters. We tend to think of our axioms as God's thinking, whereas I see them "merely" as ours (as reflections of our limited nature). Beginnings and endings carry little wieght for me when applied to ultimate concerns. I really don't even know how to conceptualize the universe as a cosmic matter. The observable astronomical universe is but an infinitesmal portion of what we talk about in our philosophical conjectures. Despite this fundamental scepticism, I enjoy "mystical" efforts regarding the ultimate point of our life experience. It's just that I feel stupid when I attempt to catch it in metaphorical traps.
0 Replies
 
great thinker
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2011 11:43 am
@Mahmoudgh,
the reasons
1.mahmoud wich means praised
pray the god is the reason
2.Because we are compatible with earth and thats the reason dinosors are eleminated and some one like human that is getting along so much better with enviroment exist. I belive on this second one more
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 03:46 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities:

Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.


Na, I can see a few more possibilities than these two. But I'll stick with these two for now because next you'll miss something pretty important anyways.

manored wrote:

If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being?


No not necessarily. How can you even determine this? For all we know the universe in it's current form is just a byproduct, that we are existing within a mire moment of what the universe will eventually be as a result of what ever happened. Since time is irrelevant the scope of what is happening gets turned towards us instead, which in my opinion is a really bad way to look at the universe because the two time scales are incredibly lopsided. We assume that the universe is meant to be in it's current state, but who is to say that it is? This is a very poor assumption to make and if you are basing premises off of it then by that very fact alone, it is flawed.

Not to mention that personally, I see the universe as nothing other than chaos. Sure we have understood a little bit about physics and can make some pretty good predictions that seem to support our observations but by no means does this mean that the universe is ordered or NOT chaotic. It just means there is some pattern within the chaos.

manored wrote:

That would be essentially the same as the universe not existing in the first place.

Do you agree with that?


Nope, because we have no way of determining what the state of the universe actually is or is going to be. We know that the universe expansion rate is increasing and can deduce that if this expansion rate were to continue than there will come a point in the far future that the space will be expanding at such a right rate of speed that the space between the molecules of atoms will begin to separate. This wouldn't be good as a result but on the other hand we don't even know what would happen if all the molecules were ripped apart in this process. Perhaps this is the way it all works. When the molecules get ripped apart something might collapse and the whole process begins again. We don't know.


Krumple wrote:

You know? Don't you mean, you have convinced yourself? I doubt that you "know". If you know then you can substantiate it with something but so far you have not so your claim is baseless.

manored wrote:

No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)


I still see no basis for your claim.

manored wrote:

I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.

You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.


Well how about we switch gears a little here. If something about a person could continue to exist, how does that thing obtain energy to continue? Because everything in this universe requires energy to function. You can't have something that functions without some kind of energy intake. So how exactly does your consciousness or what ever you want to call it, gain energy to continue? If you don't know then what do you know about it? The only thing you seem to "know" if anything is that it does, but that says absolutely nothing. "It just does..."
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 03:59 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple said:
Not to mention that personally, I see the universe as nothing other than chaos. Sure we have understood a little bit about physics and can make some pretty good predictions that seem to support our observations but by no means does this mean that the universe is ordered or NOT chaotic. It just means there is some pattern within the chaos.

I see this as a false problem. Order and chaos are just words to me. If the cosmos is essentially orderly I am of that order and therefore at rest with it.
If the cosmos is essentially chaotic, I am of that chaos and therefore equally at rest with it.
No problem--other than what we make of it.

0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2011 04:06 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:

Mean A2K wont let me edit my earlier posts for some reason =)

"all that exists must be created"

Isnt that one of the fundaments of logic? That is, in order for something to exist it must have an origin? To me saying that things dont need to have an origin to exist is like saying that two plus two equals five.


Yes but doesn't this contradict your claim? But before I get into that, once again we have absolutely no idea if the universe has an origin or not. For all we know right now is that it could be an on going thing. It supports the laws of thermodynamics.

But if you want to say something has an origin, then how can you determine it? For example, a cup, when does a cup become a cup? Only when it has a certain shape? But if it does not have that shape, it is not a cup? So it does not matter what it is made from, only if it has a certain shape? The the origin of a cup occurs only when the material makes that shape. If that shape were to change it ceases being a cup?

Here is another aspect. Which is the forerunner? The brain, or the consciousness? If the consciousness can exist without a brain then shouldn't it by default be unaffected by the brain? Yet when there is brain damage why is it the consciousness is effected? Seems a little silly that the consciousness would be so restricted by the brain while someone is alive but as soon as they die the consciousness is some how released and restored?

So for example a person born blind at birth, has never experienced colors yet when they die, their consciousness will all of a sudden regain the ability of sight? Why is the consciousness so restricted then? It would seem that the body is a huge hindrance then for the consciousness if that is the case. However; I am not pointing this out because your claim has some validity to it, but instead it points out that consciousness is dependent upon the brain and is at the mercy of the brain. When the brain dies, so will the consciousness. If I am wrong, then existence will be a hell by definition.

To live on and on with endless lives is probably the worse case that could possibly be. My simple dislike of that is not why I reject it. I reject it because it has no basis in reality. Nothing supports the claim that the consciousness continues or that some part of you will continue on into another life after this one ends. Show me something and perhaps I will have to reevaluate my position.
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2011 10:23 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:
Well, there are two possibilities:

Either things need to be created to exist
Or things dont need to be created to exist.


Na, I can see a few more possibilities than these two. But I'll stick with these two for now because next you'll miss something pretty important anyways.
Which ones?

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:

If we consider that things dont need to be created to exist... wouldnt the universe be taken by ultimate chaos, by an infinite number and variety of things coming into being?


No not necessarily. How can you even determine this? For all we know the universe in it's current form is just a byproduct, that we are existing within a mire moment of what the universe will eventually be as a result of what ever happened. Since time is irrelevant the scope of what is happening gets turned towards us instead, which in my opinion is a really bad way to look at the universe because the two time scales are incredibly lopsided. We assume that the universe is meant to be in it's current state, but who is to say that it is? This is a very poor assumption to make and if you are basing premises off of it then by that very fact alone, it is flawed.
I dont get where you went. I didnt say anything about the universe being meant to be where it is.

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:

No. I mean that I know. Its you who thinks that I have convinced myself =)


I still see no basis for your claim.

People can be certain of things even then others look at the same evidence and think something else.

Krumple wrote:

manored wrote:

I have a lot of other "paths" that lead me to the conclusion of that never-ending life is not only real, but inevitable and inescapable, but they are all difficult and confusing to put into words.

You seem to be tied down to the idea of that I fear death, and thus fool myself into believing in afterlife. However, there is also the other side of the coin. Non-existance isnt a bad thing and in fact I believe many people kill themselves to reach non-existance, to end all suffering. But they cant, unless their suffering lies only in their humanity and not in their minds. Because no matter how many times and in how many lifes they kill themselves they will always live. I think that eternal existance is just as terrifying as eternal non-existance.


Well how about we switch gears a little here. If something about a person could continue to exist, how does that thing obtain energy to continue? Because everything in this universe requires energy to function. You can't have something that functions without some kind of energy intake. So how exactly does your consciousness or what ever you want to call it, gain energy to continue? If you don't know then what do you know about it? The only thing you seem to "know" if anything is that it does, but that says absolutely nothing. "It just does..."
How would I know? and, does it matter? We dont know everything about physics either. We dont know what is the fountain of energy of the most fundamental particles/waves of energy we know.

Krumple wrote:

Here is another aspect. Which is the forerunner? The brain, or the consciousness? If the consciousness can exist without a brain then shouldn't it by default be unaffected by the brain? Yet when there is brain damage why is it the consciousness is effected? Seems a little silly that the consciousness would be so restricted by the brain while someone is alive but as soon as they die the consciousness is some how released and restored?
Well, I have never suffered brain damage, and my consciousness is the only one I know (I can see there are other people alive, but they are essentially ultra-complex biological machines from the point of view of the self). So I dont know what it would be like if I suffered brain damage. There is no reason to believe the consciousness is "released and restored" upon death, I have no idea of what comes next, of what its next restraint will be like.

Krumple wrote:

So for example a person born blind at birth, has never experienced colors yet when they die, their consciousness will all of a sudden regain the ability of sight? Why is the consciousness so restricted then? It would seem that the body is a huge hindrance then for the consciousness if that is the case. However; I am not pointing this out because your claim has some validity to it, but instead it points out that consciousness is dependent upon the brain and is at the mercy of the brain. When the brain dies, so will the consciousness. If I am wrong, then existence will be a hell by definition.
Like I said above, I have no idea of what the next phase in existance is like, meaning there is no point in speculating about what senses it will have. And the fact that the consciousness follows the dance of the brain is, alone, no reason to believe it will be extinguished with it.

Krumple wrote:

To live on and on with endless lives is probably the worse case that could possibly be. My simple dislike of that is not why I reject it. I reject it because it has no basis in reality. Nothing supports the claim that the consciousness continues or that some part of you will continue on into another life after this one ends. Show me something and perhaps I will have to reevaluate my position.
Indeed, there is no proof of that observable in the physical reality. If you want physical evidence, then im afraid I cannot give you that. And yes, existance is hell, but nothing can be done about that.
0 Replies
 
Melancholy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2011 01:40 pm
@Mahmoudgh,
We exist because around four thousand million years ago, while the earth was young, conditions formed that proved a suitable environment for organisms to live, and with that evolve.

Is there a more meaningful answer perspective to this question? Existentialists like Martin Heidigger saw life as a flash of light from darkness to darkness. However, I for one approach the question with an open hand, rather than a clenched fist of defiance. I believe being is better than non-being, life better than non-life, presence better than absence. People often describe human existence as a gift. And what do we do with a gift? Appreciate it, enjoy it, pass it on - as a gift.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2011 03:29 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Is it equally necessary (logically that is) for all that exists to eventually end? Or is that an empirical problem while the other is one that is purely logical and, as such, reveals the tautological nature of logical understanding? By the way, two plus two equals four tautologically; it is just another way of saying four.


Well if God exists, and is, by definition, eternal, and if God's existence is necessary in all possible worlds, then we can say that not all things that exist come to an end (or eventually to an end). But this is getting into modal logic.

*Hell, now that I think about it, numbers are in a sense eternal. So if it can be proven that 1) numbers are eternal and 2) that they are necessary in all possible worlds, then we can safely conclude that there are objects which exist but will never "eventually end".
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 01:13 am
@Ding an Sich,
Arguments about "existence of things", including self are rendered vacuous when a relational definition of "existence" is adopted. On this view, god-ness, two-ness, order, and chaos only have meaning with respect to their functionality with respect human aspirations to predict and control (aka "rationality"). Heideggarians are unlikely to accept such a relational position because for them Dasein (self) is a transcendent a priori reference point.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 08:55 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Arguments about "existence of things", including self are rendered vacuous when a relational definition of "existence" is adopted. On this view, god-ness, two-ness, order, and chaos only have meaning with respect to their functionality with respect human aspirations to predict and control (aka "rationality"). Heideggarians are unlikely to accept such a relational position because for them Dasein (self) is a transcendent a priori reference point.


Transcendent in what sense? I am very skeptical of transcendence. But of course I am sure Heidegger does not mean it in the way other individuals mean it.

How do we know of Dasein a priori? Is this something like Kant's Transcedental Unity of Apperception? I am doubtful though, as Heidegger would not align himself with intuitionism of the Kantian kind (or modern intuitionism for that matter).

So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"? Or is this rationality not really the rationality we are seeking (refer to Husserl's Vienna Lecture)?

I do not think that the 'self', 'order', or 'chaos' were ever mentioned. The arguments presented were possible counterexamples to the notion that things which exist must eventually end, which JLnobody brought up. Hell I didnt even 'prove' them.

Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.



fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 09:40 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 09:43 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Quote:
Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.


The view is that relations are necessarily two-way. "Me" and "things" co-exist. Neither has ontological independence.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 09:54 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Quote:
Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.


The view is that relations are necessarily two-way. "Me" and "things" co-exist. Neither has ontological independence.


Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?

I wonder: is existence a relation? Perhaps in the sense that I could not exist without my parents copulating, or that the existence of oxygen is required for combustion. But, I think, you are getting into sufficient and necessary conditions. Necessarily, I would not be me if I came from different parents. So my parents, "things", are necessarily existent if "I" were to arrive on the scene.

But then again I could be wrong.
MJA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 10:23 am
@Mahmoudgh,
For life.

=
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 10:44 am
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:

fresco wrote:

Quote:
So are we against predicting and controlling, aka "rationality"?

Some argue we are limited by it. (Fritjof Capra)

Quote:
Perhaps I view existence as non-relational and as well not a property, what then? Things do not exist in relation to me. That seems very solipsistic, or something else that reeks of absurdity.


The view is that relations are necessarily two-way. "Me" and "things" co-exist. Neither has ontological independence.


Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?

I wonder: is existence a relation? Perhaps in the sense that I could not exist without my parents copulating, or that the existence of oxygen is required for combustion. But, I think, you are getting into sufficient and necessary conditions. Necessarily, I would not be me if I came from different parents. So my parents, "things", are necessarily existent if "I" were to arrive on the scene.

But then again I could be wrong.
One could argue that the mind could not exist if it didnt have something to observe and think about.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 12:25 pm
@manored,
Quote:
Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?


The problem is that what we call our "physiology" (hard wiring) coupled with our social programming (software) selectively interact with what we call "the universe". Kant pointed out our inability to perceive "the world" directly and even suggested that our concept of "causality" was a perceptual a priori ...or "hard wired" in modern parlance.Now none of this might have mattered had there not been "scientific evidence" that "things" are never quite what they seem in lay terms. Concepts like "matter", "time" and "place", which we might assume to firmly underpin "things", turn out (roughly) to be results of the mode of observation. And as the last reply suggested "mind" (and "self" perhaps) are aspects of the observation/interaction process rather than ontologically definable entities.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2011 04:18 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Is there a problem with ontological independence? If so, what pecisely is it?


The problem is that what we call our "physiology" (hard wiring) coupled with our social programming (software) selectively interact with what we call "the universe". Kant pointed out our inability to perceive "the world" directly and even suggested that our concept of "causality" was a perceptual a priori ...or "hard wired" in modern parlance.Now none of this might have mattered had there not been "scientific evidence" that "things" are never quite what they seem in lay terms. Concepts like "matter", "time" and "place", which we might assume to firmly underpin "things", turn out (roughly) to be results of the mode of observation. And as the last reply suggested "mind" (and "self" perhaps) are aspects of the observation/interaction process rather than ontologically definable entities.
Was this a response to my last post, or did you accidentally set the reply to me even though its Ding an Sich that you are quoting?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2011 01:01 am
@manored,
Take it as a reply to both.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do we exist?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 12:18:36