"Why" not "how" we are here.

Diest TKO wrote:

So, Being that we have strayed from my original question greatly, I'll just go ahaed and go with the flow but purpose a new question more congruent with the current disscussion to keep us on track.

"Philosophically speaking, what is the most valuable information is the universe to you"

This question redirects us to talk about our opinions and grants us permission to just listen to other's opinions without feeling the need to retort.

My desire here is to hear about what people believe, there are plenty of threads to demand proof/evidence in.

Deist:

Still sticking with "Why"! :wink:

0 Replies

Reallife, I agree. Why can but does not have to denote intention. I do think, however, that in common usage "why" more often refers to purpose, plan, goal, intention, etc. But we have no more than a semantic issue.

I do think that nature is without "causes" in the sense that there are no "causes" to be SEEN anywhere, no perceptible bits of reality that give birth to bits called "effects." They are not discrete things, one of which transfers its energy to the other. When I see a phenomenon and wish to understand what antecedent conditions led to its emergence (what you--and I--normally mean by causes), I wish to know no more than its history. It's more like two ends of a stick or, better, the beginning and end of a novel. Each cannot exist without the other in the sense that they are each part of the other. My birth did not cause my death in the sense of one discrete thing giving rise to another. They are more like different ends of a defined phenomenon.
Also notice that while the idea of causation/determinism implies "causes" that are antecedent to "effects", we actually encounter the phenomena (that we call effects) FIRST and seek to determine their antecedent conditions (what we call their causes) AFTERWARDS. But we necessarily THINK of "cause" as something that precedes an "effect", but in their concrete historicity the "cause" follows from what we call the "effect" (something to be explained later). It's only in the conceptual model of determinism that we THINK that causes occur first and effect second.
Expanding on this principle, your argument implies a model of the universe driven by a deterministic metaphysic--a product of thought but not of experience.

0 Replies

JLN,

I've just been discussing "cause" with a creationist.

I brought up the scenario of a child of different ages asking why/how a light came on....answer level 1 "because of this switch".....2. "electricity flows round a circuit".....3 "the sun's energy captured in fossil fuels has been released and converted into a flow of electrons through a resistance".......etc,etc.

There is no "ultimate cause" - only social agreement on the level which constitutes a satisfactory explanation. The issue which you and I see (that of the artificial separability of "us-ness" , "light-ness", "electron-ness" etc) is our form of rounded closure whereas dualists/naive realists go for linear closure in the form of a prime mover.

0 Replies

Yes, Fresco. When we seek "truth", we seek, I think, answers to questions that satisfy whatever criteria we have agreed to. These criteria differ in different domains of "knowledge", whether they be scientific, philosophical, theological or mystical (or even the "common sense" culture of everyday life). I suppose this is one reason that A2Kers with different perspectives find it so hard to understand, or agree with, one another.
A child asking how light comes into a room may be satisfied by a description of how the switch initiates a process (a flow) of physical events that end with the light turned on. No principles or "covering laws" may be required: just a satisfactory (or subjectively satisfying) anwer to a simple query.

0 Replies

Reading with interest.

I've come to think of causes and effects as attributes of the thinking and reasoning entity rather than properties of the real world.

0 Replies

Exactly, Cryacuz. I would even extend that principle to evaluations we make of things, actions, and events. Knowing and evaluating are functions of the knower and evaluator. I can't see how it could be otherwise? The alternative is an immature objectivism-absolutism.

0 Replies

JL

I see it like that too. An implication of this is that we are all ultimately responsible for our own fortune and misfortune, since such things are determined by knowledge and evaluation. It is only indirectly related to the actual turn of events, and perhaps more related to where we put ourselves in the total picture we paint for ourselves. Seems to me that this percieved location in the midst of things determines where we draw the lines between one event and the next, between cause and effect.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

....however also consider that the "self" may not be an independent entity. What we consider it to be may be a function of circumstance such that "cause" or "purpose" is a rationalization which balances the cognitive books of the current status quo.

0 Replies

I see self as a sort of ad hoc, makeshift solution.

A thing that has come to be as a response towards what it balances itself against, with no consciousness about it's own making. Self makes more sense to me when I see it as a process rather than an entity, merely the dualistic counterpart of the experience it mirrors.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, I see "self" as a species' solution to the requirements of society (humans could not exist without societies, and societies could not exist without the notion and feeling of the ego-self that takes responsibility for its social actions). You describe this as "ad hoc" and "makeshift"; I see it as an evolutionary product of the human career. But I also see the mystical transcendence of this necessary but fictitous ego-self as an esoteric sphere within that career.
I agree that the ego-self is a process rather than a thing (one sees that in meditation), but it is "normally" considered a thing, an entity among entities (whereas there are only processes--becomings rather than beings--in nature).
And, you are right, of course, in that we have no consciousness of our ontogenetic individuation. I have no recollection of the emergence of my sense of self as something split off from other selves. This amnesia conntribtes to the illusion that the self is an "independent entity."
More relevant to this thread, the notion of an independent self contains the implication that it a (responsible) agent of action, an agent that acts in terms of intentions, purposes, goals, etc. (rather than being a function of on-going circumstances).
And because we see the self as acting with regard to goals (i.e., as being pulled by future anticipation) rather than caused (or pushed by antecedent conditions, we ask of its actions WHY they occurred; what purpose they serve with regard to the intentions of the ego-self, rather than the physiology of the actor.

0 Replies

Fresco, I see your three levels of response to the child's question of how a room's light comes on as: level one=DEMONSTRATION (showing how you made the light appear); level two=DESCRIPTION of the process by which electiricity becomes light, and level three=a theoretical EXPLANATION of how the physical process began and ended in a lighted room.
Of course, the three levels can be integrated, the level one demonstration may inspire a request for a level two description, and that may result in a request for a level three explanation. The problem comes in when a super-explanation is requested, i.e., a metaphysical/philosophical Why does the whole thing exist? or a theological What is its purpose? (notice the ironic switch of the use of an impersonal "why" and a personal "what" in this phraseology).

0 Replies

Re: "Why" not "how" we are here.

Diest TKO wrote:

"If you were presented to boxes, The first box has the answer to "how we are here," the second box has the answer to "why we are here..."

"Which box would you pick?"
"Which box would hold the greatest benifit to mankind?"

The second box is empty. Pick the first.

0 Replies

Gelisgeti, I don't get. There's nothing mystical about Circadian rythms. It's basic biology.

0 Replies

JLN wrote:

You describe this as "ad hoc" and "makeshift"; I see it as an evolutionary product of the human career.

I don't disagree with you. But the self is always 'for the occasion', and it is not compiled of the same components all the time. What is defined as self at any given time depends on what we need to distance ourselves from to get perspective.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, yes I can see that too. It's a bit more subtle than my point. But I agree that general principles are always different in their concrete applications. I see your use of something like self-as-identity, the who-I am or the who-I-present-myself-to-be (in the sense of self-presentation or image management); I used self as that but mainly as that center of my world: the illusory "me" surrounded by, and separate from, everything else, from the world of "not-me's.

0 Replies

Aren't the two the same road travelled in different directions?

The self, the illusory me as you put it, is shifting, and sometimes aspects that are regarded of part of the center of my world become objects of attention.

If a tree is the object of attention, the self includes everything. Mind, emotions, body.. the works.

But if the object of attention is a nagging emotion, we tend to think that the bad emotion is an experience happening to us. Then emotion is not thought of as part of the self.

Also, the self is sometimes a term referring to the mental existence only, while it can also be used in a wider sense, including my arms and legs. It is even common in our western societies to include our belongings and deeds in our concepts of self.

This is, as you say JL, in terms of self as identity. But I don't think there is much more to it.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Gelisgeti, I don't get. There's nothing mystical about Circadian rythms. It's basic biology.

wickipedia

Quote:

Chronobiology is a field of science that examines periodic (cyclic) phenomena in living organisms. These cycles are known as biological rhythms. "Chrono" pertains to time and "biology" pertains to the study, or science, of life. The related terms chronomics and chronome have been used in some cases to describe either the molecular mechanisms involved in chronobiological phenomena or the more quantitative aspects of chronobiology, particularly where comparison of cycles between organisms is required.

Not just 'basic' science. You called it magical and mystical not me ........

Eorl wrote:

Gelisgeti,

No, I am saying there is no intelligence behind, no rythmic driving force. Nothing in the least magical about life. It's simply natural. Expected. Inevitable in the right conditions. I'm quite certain it's occured elsewhere than earth, though we may never find it without being extremely lucky.

The idea that there is an objective "why" seems utterly ridiculous to me. It would change everything, and would therefore require some extraordinary evidence to support the notion.

(Indeed, many use the assumption of a "why" to pretend to prove the existence of a "why"-er. )

real life, I think we were all quite comfortable with our definitions of "why" and "how" in this discussion so far.

0 Replies

Cryacuz, you give me new ideas to deal with.
As I see it, experience does not happen TO (a) me. Nor is there a "me" who HAS experiences. I AM my experiences. No subject for objects, only a non-dualistic flow of sensations. I think that's why zen says: "All things enlighten me", i.e., they ("all things") reveal to me my real self (what a shame that our grammar--the layman's metaphysics--forces me to express this essentially non-dualistic thought dualistically).

0 Replies

Yeah, I still don't see where you are going with this. Are you suggesting that circadian rythms are the product of some supernatural force, or not? Are suggesting a "soul" can be infered from the presence of the rythm?

0 Replies

Eori, who are you talking to?

0 Replies

"Why" not "how" we are here.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know