7
   

What is the ultimate form of Existence?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:53 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
The question “Why are things the way they are instead of some other way?” is most intriguing and my guess is that the simply can’t be any other way because for instance they might all be interdependent so a change in any one would entail paradox or contradiction. But the way things are depend in very little measure on us.


As I see it, it depends a great deal on us. The way things are is a matter of how we understand them to be. After all, reality is a conscious experience. Most people tend to think that things would be like they are even if every conscious creature was gone, but thinking like that is driving the train further than the rails go, so to speak. Without the concepts of thing and world and being all would be undefined and not happening, and concepts happen in minds.
It sounds like a paradox, but not if we abandon the crippling premise that physicality is somehow more real than consciousness and mind.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 11:28 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
As I see it, it depends a great deal on us. The way things are is a matter of how we understand them to be. After all, reality is a conscious experience.
Our apparent disagreement Cyr may be largely semantical. I maintain merely that after we’re wiped out in the next nuclear war the Universe will remain pretty much the same except for our absence

If I am wrong about that then I maintain either that your viewpoint makes no sense whatever or simply that I still don’t understand it

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 11:40 am
@dalehileman,
....it is a fallacious argument indeed I perfectly agree with you on this one...the absurdity of such reasoning can be easily confirmed with a simple experiment...if in doubt one just needs to pop a window opened and imagine really hard we are a bird and then jump to see what happens...pretty soon becomes evident what we believe it is the case won't make any difference concerning what actually is the case... Laughing
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 11:42 am
@dalehileman,

Quote:
Our apparent disagreement Cyr may be largely semantical. I maintain merely that after we’re wiped out in the next nuclear war the Universe will remain pretty much the same except for our absence


If this had been written as a hypothetical, "I maintain merely that if there is a next nuclear war and if humanity were completely wiped out during it...the universe would remain pretty much the same except for our absence"...I, for one, could agree with it.

As written, however, it is arrogant and leaves lots to be desired.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 11:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
...well I see arrogance on top of said arrogance once your criticism does not affect the central point being made and that was that whatever is the case to be true is not dependent on what we believe or think...so may I wonder why you are being peaky ?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:55 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
....it is a fallacious argument indeed I perfectly agree with you on this one…
Fil you have this morning warmed my heart and conferred further reason to survive this convoluted but quotidian conflation of hermeneutic redoubt

Quote:
the absurdity of such reasoning can be easily confirmed
…except that we can easily entertain the idea of being a product of God’s mind
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:56 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
As written, however, it is arrogant and leaves lots to be desired.
Frank my most profuse apologies
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 01:34 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...well I see arrogance on top of said arrogance once your criticism does not affect the central point being made and that was that whatever is the case to be true is not dependent on what we believe or think...so may I wonder why you are being peaky ?


Could I get the English translation of this for consideration?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:04 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You better take a new brain instead....you totally want to avoid dealing your mediocre observation I get it...typical and expected...sad really !

But here you go dummy: (hope you get it now)

...well I instead see your arrogance on top of the so said pretence arrogance you affect to others once your criticism does not touch the central point being made, which was concerning the value of truth not being dependent on what we believe or think...so may I wonder why you are being peaky ?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You better take a new brain instead....you totally want to avoid dealing your mediocre observation I get it...typical and expected...sad really !


If you want to make the comment I asked about understandable, I would appreciate it--and I would respond to it.

If it is too much trouble, I will understand.

Sorry you consider my observation to be mediocre, but my observation is my observation. I do not consider my comments or observations to be mediocre.

Please do not be sad on my account...I certainly will not be.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 06:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
...see above is edited and clarified and please stop being cynical regarding honest criticism that I am sure you are well aware was well deserved...
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 03:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...well I instead see your arrogance on top of the so said pretence arrogance you affect to others once your criticism does not touch the central point being made, which was concerning the value of truth not being dependent on what we believe or think...so may I wonder why you are being peaky ?


I have no idea of what you are trying to say here.

If you think I am playing a game, you are wrong.

The sentence is a muddled mess.

TO ANYONE ELSE READING THIS: If you can explain what you think Fil was trying to say in this sentence, paragraph, fragment (whatever it is), I would appreciate your help in making sense of it.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 06:53 am
@dalehileman,
Perhaps you don't fully understand it, because it does make sense. Don't let Fil fool you into thinking it's absurd.

I am saying that reality, or existence, is in the mind. Many equate "physical" and "real", thinking that things that do not have physical presence in the world are somehow less real than things that do. That is ironic, because the impression that something is physical is an entirely conscious experience. You reach out and touch the wall. Real, solid. On a sub atomic scale it is not solid. It is just information, and that information is perceived by us, and it translates to hand meets wall.

There are no "things". There is just information. "Things" happen when relationships of information exchange are established, and some things become solid and physical, but only relative to other things. Were we humans to vanish, this human relationship with nature which we call reality, would be an irrelevant and incomprehensible "what if".

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 06:58 am
@Cyracuz,
What does "physicality" has anything to do on something being real or not ?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 06:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
sorry, google translate doesn't translate english words to actual english..
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 07:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
That is one of the definitions of "real"; it is of matter or energy. It is physical. It is for failing those criteria a unicorn is said to be not real.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 07:08 am
@Cyracuz,
No mate...how does physical affect real being dependent on observation ??? eh ?
I never said that what is real is not subject to interpretation, namely the specific experience of physicality we have given our interface with the world through our senses...now from there to reality being dependent on the subject who observes goes another big step...I suppose if you jump in front of a car and imagine the car isn't there any longer the car does not disappear, does it ? How do you reply to that ? You see the troubles is that you mess stuff up, lack of clarity...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 07:20 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...what controls what in the first place is the central issue here...it doesn't much matter we assert our senses and brain do to some extent alter our experience on reality if it is the case that our brains are the product of reality rather then the opposite.....it is quite simple indeed we don't produce reality if what we are perceptually altering is itself the product of reality...and how can such thing be established once we are confined to our body's and minds some might wonder ? Well as I said earlier try jump from a 5 floor window and imagine you are a bird...of course those who profess such nonsense don't really believe it, and their bluff its easy to call as none of them would ever take such idiotic beliefs into practice...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 08:58 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
now from there to reality being dependent on the subject who observes goes another big step


Not really. However that observer wants to describe reality, that description depends very much on how the observer is. Anything we claim to be true about reality might not be true to an observer that has different conditions than humans.

I have little doubt that the universe would continue even if every human being vanished, but I am completely certain that we have no logic approach that can tell us what that universe would be like. It would not be as it is now, because that requires humans.

Quote:
You see the troubles is that you mess stuff up, lack of clarity


You always had a knack for accusing others for your own shortcomings. Forget naive realistic musings about disappearing cars. The only place a car is different from a bump in the road is in the mind of humans and other living creatures. That distinction, and all other distinctions, lies in the minds of us who perceive and experience. If you remove everyone who has any use of a certain concept, that concept no longer describes anything about reality. If humans had no eyes, there would be no such thing as light...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2012 11:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
What does "physicality" has anything to do on something being real or not ?
That’s a good question that deserves its own thread sometime. The problem seems partly semantic and partly philosophical though of course there’s no distinct parting of the two. In the latter sense we pantheists could ask, “As there’s no distinct line between the concrete and the abstract might we not assert that if CostCo or the Catholic Church exist for instance, then surely God does too"

…… the first two essentially constituting only a large number of animals uttering intermittent sounds whilst in the process of moving objects from one location to another, God is just as real, Her body the Universe and all its activity Her thinking
 

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 01:11:33