"Why" not "how" we are here.

Sorry JL, I meant that for Gelisgeti.

0 Replies

JL

I think I understand what you're saying. But in that case, isn't it also true that all things are of the self. That the self cannot see the world until it has enveloped it in itself, because that is the only thing it can see.

If experience doesn't happen to me, if I am the experience, then I am the refridgerator when I open it, as well as the hand that opens.

Maybe this is the base of the illusion. There is no refridgerator. There's only a lot of components that preform a function, or to take it even further, a configuration of electromagnetism which my self is applied to in order to make it coherent to me.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

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?

If I thought it was a 'super natural force' I would call it that. I called it a rythm that would require at least enough intelligence to realize the passage of time. Why can't there be something that is perfectly normal but beyond our comprehension.
Is there more to you than what you see in the mirror?

0 Replies

I think I understand now Gelisgeti. Yes, indeed there can be, and must be, things we don't yet understand. Your use of "intelligent" is extremely broad. When it comes to circadian rythms, I think it is understood quite well.

I think what you are trying to do is bring spiritual thought and scientific thought closer together. As tempting as that sounds, I see that idea as a corruption of genuine honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. It's bringing aspects of "what you want to be true" into the room, biasing your results.

I know that sounds terribly isolationist and "spiritually backward", but I think the secret to not following increasing narrow alleyways of diminishing returns (within science) is to imagine everything and anything, and then look for it in a scientific way. (I think it was Einstein who said imagination is more important than intelligence.)

I can't see any other way of determing fact from fiction.

(I can see JLNobody sadly shaking his head at me)

0 Replies

Cryacuz, I don't think (in the context of this kind of discussion or when being "mystical") that "I" am THE regrigerator, even though the Hindu phrase, which I cite often, Tat tvam asi (That art thou) seems to say exactly that. It should not be interpreted in terms of a relationship between two distinct things. You ARE that. There is only a unity with internal variabilities. Only language separates you.
Frankly, I don't know what is the nature of the refrigerator. But I feel that my true nature amounts to the EXPERIENCE of (in this case what I have learned to call) a "refrigerator." But that is misleading. There is only experience, no "objects" of experience and no "subject" of experience--only .... look!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I think I understand now Gelisgeti. Yes, indeed there can be, and must be, things we don't yet understand. Your use of "intelligent" is extremely broad. When it comes to circadian rythms, I think it is understood quite well.

I think what you are trying to do is bring spiritual thought and scientific thought closer together. As tempting as that sounds, I see that idea as a corruption of genuine honest inquiry into the nature of the universe. It's bringing aspects of "what you want to be true" into the room, biasing your results.

I know that sounds terribly isolationist and "spiritually backward", but I think the secret to not following increasing narrow alleyways of diminishing returns (within science) is to imagine everything and anything, and then look for it in a scientific way. (I think it was Einstein who said imagination is more important than intelligence.)

I can't see any other way of determing fact from fiction.

(I can see JLNobody sadly shaking his head at me)

The 'why' box is not complicated but is extremely so ... We exist to exist. I know you are thinking 'what the hell does that mean'. As long as our life is dependent on changing and adapting we ascend ....from Lucy forward. Where ascension fails so does the species. As for the 'what' or 'who' (this is where you will get your shorts in a knot ) we have become unknowing 'masters of our own fate'
I'll leave that there for the time being and ask you to ponder these questions ... what are thoughts and are thoughts real. Can a person change from being a bad person to being a good person just by thinking? I'm not asking about religion.

0 Replies

Actually I'm surprisingly OK with all of that Gelisgetti. Very Happy

I'll think on it further, but my initial response is yes, you can be better just by thinking. Indeed, thinking is an action like any other, it does not happen outside the natural universe, but is part of it.

It may be said that a person may be defined by their actions, but thoughts are actions too.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Actually I'm surprisingly OK with all of that Gelisgetti.

I'll think on it further, but my initial response is yes, you can be better just by thinking. Indeed, thinking is an action like any other, it does not happen outside the natural universe, but is part of it.

It may be said that a person may be defined by their actions, but thoughts are actions too.

Tired .... been up since 7am for iv line ... do more tomorrow ...nite

0 Replies

...nite!

It's 4pm tomorrow afternoon here.

I can tell you, it was a good day...so I hope you enjoy it!

(iv line?...intravenous?)

0 Replies

I have to say that this topic has developed quite nicely. cheers everyone.

0 Replies

Diest,

Questions about why/how of existence are the basis of all philososophy and religion. After epistemological enquiry (what can we know) the focus shifts ontological enquiry i.e. to "existence" itself (who are "we"). The development of this thread reflects that interplay between epistemology and ontology.

0 Replies

fresco - I'm curious, what is your background in?

0 Replies

(See pm)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

...nite!

It's 4pm tomorrow afternoon here.

I can tell you, it was a good day...so I hope you enjoy it!

(iv line?...intravenous?)

pic line ....have to have 21 daily doses of drugs ....... one big stick instead of 21 little ones '''' 20 more to go Smile

0 Replies

JL

Maybe 'I' am not the refridgerator, but the refridgerator is an idea that the I supplies and then applies to a specific object.

I am proposing that this is true of all things percieved by the self.

On a dualistic level of approach, of course.
I understand your objections that there really is no subject or object.

But maybe this it no longer related to the thread...

0 Replies

Gelisgeti, that doesn't sound like fun. I can assume this isn't the new self-tanning technique?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

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

Whether there is a supreme being who controls my life or expects something of me. However, that question seems to be unanswerable at present. Sad

I would like to know what existed before the big bang and exactly how life evolved, but that sort of information is not really valuable to most people. Knowing how to cure whatever serious diseases I will contract in my life would be extremely valuable. So would knowing the winning Powerball numbers before the next big jackpot.

IMO, the information that would be most valuable to mankind would be how to construct a society that would give every person the opportunity to live a "good" life.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

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.

"How" the light comes on is a science and engineering question, and the laws of physics do not require a social agreement to function. "Why" it comes on would address the needs of people to see at times and places where there is insufficient natural light, and society's agreement that the desire for unnecessary illumination by earth's current inhabitants justifies burning irreplaceable fossil fuels even though future generations may be left in the dark. Or perhaps they can just come to a social agreement that the light is "on" even if there are no actual electrons flowing through the filament.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Gelisgeti, that doesn't sound like fun. I can assume this isn't the new self-tanning technique?

Yep, turns my skin into suede Laughing

I think I'll srart another thread that will be more germane to the who or what. I feel that I hijacked Diest's thread .... that's not nice. i'll start it tomorrow

t.

0 Replies

Diest wrote:

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

Tough question. I'd say the lack of a coherent theory of human cognition is a pressing matter. The connections between soul, body, mind, brain and all the things percieved. That's what's most important to me these days anyway.

And I don't believe that this is a matter of psychology. I've always seen psychology as something that is prepared to say that cognition can be dysfunctional without knowing how it works when it is functional...

0 Replies

"Why" not "how" we are here.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know